Global Man-made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2020: BP data

Reposted from edthdotme


Every summer BP publish their statistical review of world energy.

One element of their comprehensive set of spreadsheets is a table of CO2 emissions country by country since 1965.  For the purposes of this post, the CO2 emissions data provided by BP here is assumed to be valid.

The 2020 dataset takes begins to account for the effect of the COVID epidemic, its impact on Global economic activity and the outcome for Man-made CO2 emissions in that year.

Screenshot 2021-07-14 at 09.49.31.png

The progress of the proportions of CO2 emissions since 1965 is shown above, with the  Developed world now being responsible for about 35% of Man-made CO2 emissions as opposed to as much as 86% back in 1965.

The BP country by country data is aggregated here into seven Nation groups according to their nominal state of development and attitudes towards controlling CO2 emissions, as follows:

  • Developed
    • USA
    • JP CIS CA AU
    • EU (28) inc UK
  • Nominally Developing
    • China HK
    • India
    • Rest of World (~160 Nations)

The aggregate data of CO2 emissions growth and change is summarised from 1965 onwards are shown above.  The marked differential between the Developed and nominally Developing worlds is shown below.

The 2020 version of the CO2 emissions data shows:

  • the recent radical effect of the COVID restrictions in 2020, particularly as they affect Western nations
  • the Covid effect slowed CO2 emissions from the “Developing” world, except for relatively marginal growth of Man-made CO2 emissions from China in 2020.
  • the virtual stabilisation of world emissions between 2012 – 2018.
  • the continuing diminution of CO2 emissions from the Developed world from 2005 onwards.
  • the growth of CO2 emissions throughout China, India and the Developing world is likely to resume from 2021 and onwards.

For the earlier post reporting the status of Man-made CO2 emissions as of 2019, see:

Representation by Region

Screenshot 2021-07-15 at 16.15.58.png

The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2020.  These 2020 data are set out in tabular form below.

Screenshot 2021-07-15 at 07.00.32.png

This analysis divides the world’s nations into seven logical groups with distinct attitudes to CO2 emissions control:

Developed nations:  population ~1.2 billion – ~34.7% CO2 emissions – 15.4% population.

United States of America, now President Biden is negating many of Trump’s climate initiatives, including USA support for the Paris Climate accord:  population 356m, 13.8% of global CO2 emissions.  The USA, simply by exploiting shale gas for electricity generation, has already reduced its annual CO2 emissions by some by ~1,000,000,000 tonnes since 2005.  That alone has already had a greater CO2 emission reduction effect than the entire Kyoto protocol and the Paris Climate Accord.

Japan, the former Soviet Union, (CIS), Canada and Australia, (JP CIS CA AU), are developed nations with some ambivalent towards controls on CO2 emissions and not necessarily adhering to the Paris Climate Accord:  population 356m, 12.4% of global CO2 emissions.

The European Union(28), (including the United Kingdom):  population 513m, 8.6% of global CO2 emissions, currently believing in action to combat Global Warming, and their governments are generally enthusiastic supporters of the Paris Climate Accord as the European Union.

However, it should be noted that the populace of the EU(28) is losing enthusiasm for Green agendas as the peoples understand the substantial changes to their lifestyles and personal economies and freedoms that are implied by their governments actions to pursue the Green agenda, for example:

  • the Yellow Vests reaction in France to increase of fuel taxes on grounds of combatting climate change.
  • subsidy support for Renewables is being curtailed, particularly in Germany, where it is likely that the pioneering commitments to Renewable Energy of the past 25 years will not retain subsidy support and will be abandoned as being financially non-viable in the near future.

Nominally Developing nations:  population ~6.6 billion – 65.3% CO2 emissions – 84.6% population.

South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW):  the more advanced developing nations, are still growing rapidly, with minimal commitments under the Paris Climate accord:  population 910m, 12.0% of Global CO2 emissions.

China and Hong Kong: developing very rapidly, with no effective commitments under the Paris Climate Accord:  population 1,439m, 30.9% of Global CO2 emissions.  China is responsible for the continuing development of its own Coal-Fired installations, multiple Coal-fired installations in the Third World and for the development Fracking for its own Gas fields, nonetheless its actions are not restricted by the Paris Climate Accord. China has made gestures towards Renewable Energy, but now is withdrawing subsidy support.  China has benefitted substantially from Solar PV and other Renewables manufacture.  At the same time, China is advancing the development of new generations of Nuclear power.

India is developing rapidly from a low base with no virtually commitments under the Paris Climate Accord:  population 1,339m:  7.1% of Global CO2 emissions.  India is continuing the rapid development of its own Coal-Fired installations.  Although India makes gestures towards Renewable Energy, its actions reject the Paris Climate Accord.  At the same time, India is advancing the development of new generations of Nuclear power.

Rest of World (~160 Nations), population 2,865m:  15.2% CO2 emissions, like India the remainder of the underdeveloped world is developing rapidly from a low base of ~1.72 tonnes CO2/head.  These nations have no real commitments under the Paris Climate Accord, other than their anticipated receipt of “Climate Funds” from Developed nations.

Even as long ago as October 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing CO2 emissions from Western Nations, very clear.  In essence he said:

“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor should it have any intention of doing so.  The failure of worldwide action negates the unilateral action of any individual Western Nation and the West will become increasingly irrelevant”.

Screenshot 2020-02-16 at 07.22.16.png

By 2020 CO2 emissions from the Developing world were ~65% of the global total.  India, China and the underdeveloped world will certainly be continuing to promote their own development with the ambition to progress to comparable levels of well-being to the Developed Nations.

Contrasting the Developed and Developing worlds

Screenshot 2021-07-14 at 16.51.17.png

Developing world emissions overtook Developed world CO2 emissions in 2005 and they have been growing ever since.  CO2 emissions from the Developing world are now ~10,000 million tonnes higher than the Developed world’s emissions.  It is to be expected that Developing world CO2 emissions to continue to grow unabated.

However the COVID effect has meant that in 2020 overall:

  • the Global Man-made CO2 emissions fell by 1,885 million tonnes to 32,284 million tonnes with CO2 emissions / head reduced from 4.43 tonnes to 4.14 tonnes on average.
  • the Developed world reduced its Man-made CO2 emissions by ~1,400 million tonnes(~11%),with CO2 emissions / head reduced from 10.56 tonnes to 9.35 tonnes on average.
  • the Developing world only reduced its Man-made CO2 emissions by ~450 million tonnes, (~2%) with CO2 emissions / head reduced from 3.30 tonnes to 3.19 tonnes on average.

Up until 2020, CO2 emissions in the Developing world were accelerating as the quality of lives for people improved progressively.  That CO2 emissions growth are likely to  further escalate in future as the Chinese develop Coal-fired power stations both at home and via the “Belt and Road programme” throughout the developing world.  Even so, at present at least ~1.12 billion people, ~15% of the global population, still have no access to reliable electric power.

Since 1990 CO2 emissions from the Developed world have decreased, whereas the Developing world has shown a fourfold increase since 1985.  This differential has arisen as a result of:

  • to the off-shoring of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards or who are less concerned about CO2 emissions.
  • the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation, the most economic option  in the Developing world, particularly as supported by Chinese technology exports via its “Belt and Road Programme”.
  • the use of Fracked natural gas for electricity generation as opposed to Coal-firing as in the USA.
  • the earlier 1990s “dash for gas” policy in the UK.
  • the long-term dependence on Nuclear power, ~80% of power generation in France.

Having been relatively stable for the previous 5 years, as a result of the COVID effect overall Global CO2 emissions fell in 2020 by about 6.0%.  The Developing world has reduced CO2 emissions as a result of COVID but the effect was only marginal when compared to the reductions in the Developed world.

On the other hand, Weather Dependent Renewables, have made very little contribution to CO2 emissions reduction, if at all.  When looked at in the round, from their manufacture to demolition, they are hardly CO2 emissions nor energy neutral over their service life.

The use of Biomass for electricity generation, although considered to be “carbon neutral by policy”, actually increases the immediate release  of CO2 to the atmosphere, producing almost twice as much CO2 as the use of Coal for power generation.  It has been assessed that the whole exercise to substitute Coal firing by Biomass at the UK Drax power plant has negated all the possible CO2 savings that have been made from the extensive installations of Wind and Solar power in the UK.

Recent CO2 emissions changes and the COVID effect

The radical changes indicating recent CO2 emissions reduction from COVID can be seen in the graphic below.

Screenshot 2021-07-14 at 11.40.13.png
Screenshot 2021-07-14 at 06.55.14.png

It is clear above that the major reductions in CO2 emissions from COVID have occurred in the Developed world, particularly in Europe and the USA, whereas in the Developing world the COVID CO2 reduction outcomes have been relatively minor.

Global CO2 emissions had previously plateaued, but in the period 2016-2019 they have shown a significant uplift.  Unsurprisingly the emissions growth has mainly occurred in the developing nation groups India and the Rest of World as their quality of life is progressively improved.  After a fall in 2015 – 2016 in 2017 – 2020 the was an uplift in Chinese emissions.  In spite of the COVID effect, China was the only territory to increase its Man-made CO2 emissions in 2020.

Notably the only Nation that had consistently reduced its CO2 emissions was the USA, that reduction resumed further in 2020.

With increasing installation of Coal-Fired generation throughout the developing world it is now inevitable that Global CO2 emissions will continue to grow significantly, entirely negating the objectives of the Paris Climate accord.

CO2 emissions / head

Possibly more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the CO2 emissions / head for the various nation groups.  This measure represents the level of development of various Nations.

Screenshot 2021-07-14 at 06.58.15.png

The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by 1/3 since 2000.  This has mainly arisen from the substitution of shale gas for electricity generation replacing Coal-firing.

Russia, Japan, Canada and Australia have hardly grown their emissions/head since 2005 but saw a reduction in CO2 emissions as a result of COVID.

The EU(28) with active legal measures had reduced emissions until ~2013.  Much of that downward trend is largely attributed to their declining economies and the displacement of industrial processes to countries with laxer environmental regimes.  The COVID effect was particularly acute in the EU(28) and Co2

In 2003 China overtook the world-wide average for CO2 emissions / head and surpassed the rapidly developing nations.  China’s emissions / head have increased in 2020 to ~6.93 tonnes / head.  China and the EU(28) emissions/ head were closely aligned from 2014 to 2019.  With the COVID effect in Europe CO2 emission/head have reduced to 5.40 tonnes/head whereas China has now surpassed the whole EU(28) at ~6.93 tonnes / head.

India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times since 1965 and are now accelerating.  That emissions rate is likely to grow continuously with increased use of coal for electricity generation.

India and the bulk of the underdeveloped nations, (~55% of the world’s population), still remain at a low level of CO2 emissions levels/head now of about ~1.72 tonnes/head, this level is about 1/8 of the level of the USA and about 1/3 of the level in the EU(28) and China.  As a result, these under-developed Nations have poor access to reliable power and substantial potential for further CO2 emissions growth.

The CO2 emission reduction has not been achieved by the introduction of Weather Dependent Renewables, which will always require ancillary dispatchable back-up to compensate for their intermittent unreliability.  In addition their raw material requirements, manufacture, installation, etc. will always continue to need substantial fossil fuel input.

Russia is actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns throughout Europe and in the USA via its support of various NGO groups.  This is an obvious policy to protect the large Gasprom markets for Russian Gas in the West.  This also achieves an energy stranglehold on Western nations, as already demonstrated in the Ukraine.  The German commitment to the Nordstream pipelines under the Baltic further confirm Western Europe’s vulnerability to Russian control of its energy supplies.  The export of Fracked gas from the USA to Europe and the possibility of indigenous fracking might break such a stranglehold, if the local protests can be ignored.

CO2 emissions / head for India and the Rest of the World’s Underdeveloped nations (~53% of the world population) remains low at ~1.7 tonnes / head, (still ~40% of the Global average) meaning that their state of serious human deprivation and underdevelopment is continuing, even though it is progressively being rectified.

India’s growth in CO2 emissions 2018 – 2018 was by a further 162,000,000 tonnes.  India has some 450 new Coal-fired generation plants currently under development.

China, (still nominally considered here as a “Developing Nation”), according to its un-concerned attitude to the Paris climate accord, showed domestic CO2 emission growth of 2.14%, 314,000,000 tonnes in 2019.  However, China is also promoting the use of Coal-firing for electricity generation both domestically, (300 – 500 Coal-fired plants) and across the Developing world with some 300 new Coal-fired generating plants currently in the pipeline.

European Union (28) CO2 Emissions

When the participating nations particularly in the environmentally active / Green aware EU are compared with Chinese CO2 emissions/head, the following picture arises.

Screenshot 2021-07-15 at 10.59.25.png

In 2020 average EU(28) CO2 emissions/head, post COVID, (5.40 tonnes/head), are now well exceeded by China. (6.93 tonnes/head).  EU(28) CO2 emissions overall have fallen slightly in 2020, notably in Germany and remarkably further in France  The UK has seen a significant drop in CO2 emissions reaching 5.46 tonnes/head in 2019, approaching the Global average for CO2 emissions / head.

At 3.58 tonnes/head, post COVID France, now has the lowest CO2 emission rates in the developed world, well below the global average.  This is entirely due to the French long-term commitments to electricity generation by Nuclear energy.  The French experience shows that comparatively low CO2 emissions can be achieved in a developed country by using consistent Nuclear power supplies.

France as a Developed country has a unique performance of limiting its CO2 emissions must question the logic of Green attitudes in opposing of Nuclear power.  If CO2 emissions really were a concern to arrest Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming / Man-made Climate Change, these results, particularly from France, show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation.  So, President Macron’s stated intention to reduce Nuclear generation from ~75% to 50% is particularly anachronistic.  Green attitudes in the French government are now threatening to destroy this unique low-carbon French national asset.

At 7.41 tonnes/head, Germany virtually is alone amongst the EU(28) still just exceeds the CO2 emissions/head level of China and is well above the EU(28) average, in spite of its major costly policy of “die Energiewende” resulting in the world’s highest power costs.  Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head about twice the worldwide average but it is only ~21% higher than China.  Germany’s emissions / head had increased recently because they are now burning large quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” closure of their nuclear generating capacity.  Following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position of rapidly eliminating nuclear power in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of tsunamis is an emotional reaction and should have been non-tenable.

In 2020 the UK was responsible for just 1.0%, (319,000,000 tonnes) of the 2020 total 32,284,000,000 tonnes of global CO2 emissions.  The UK government has now committed to reduce CO2 emissions to net Zero by 2050 at an estimated cost well in excess of some £1,000,000,000,000.  Any attempt to reduce the insignificant UK CO2 emissions at enormous cost would therefore seem entirely fatuous in the context of inevitable CO2 emissions growth worldwide.

The futility of Western de-carbonisation

Although they hesitated for a moment as a result of COVID, it is clear that CO2 emissions are continuing to grow in the Developing World and they can expected to continue virtually indefinitely.


Western industrial companies will seek more congenial energy / business environments, with laxer attitudes towards CO2 emissions to maintain the performance of their businesses.  So, the futility of the expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Europe and throughout the Western world is clear.

When the changes in Global CO2 emissions over the past 30 years are set against the measured of Global CO2 concentration records from Mauna Loa, it can be seen that changes in Man-made CO2 emissions have not caused any appreciable inflection in the Keeling curve.

Screenshot 2021-07-16 at 07.36.37.png

But the self-harming actions of the Western Governments in response to Alarmist Green thinking are already causing gross risks to Western energy security by the imposition of unreliable and intermittent Weather Dependent Renewables.  These policies will result in substantially increased costs for private energy users and in addition they will severely damage the economics of all Western manufacturing industries.

The effective elimination of Fracking as a technique for fossil fuel recovery in Western Europe is self-inflicted harm by “Green Virtue Signalling” have been to the financial benefit of Russia and China in the continuation of “a less than covert Cold War”.

The environmental context of atmospheric CO2

Any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context.

  • according to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling comparatively rapidly for the last 3000 years, in fact since before Roman times ~1000 BC.
  • the modern short pulse of beneficial Global Warming stopped some 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
  • at 11,000 years long, our congenial Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming to it’s eventual end.
  • so, the World will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York
  • in colder times the weather gets worse because of the energy differential between the poles and the tropics and Man-kind’s survival will be made more difficult.
  • plant productivity is hampered in colder weather:  any cooling can immediately lead to agricultural losses, as has already been seen in the last two growing seasons, 2020-2021, at the present Solar minimum.
  • however, it should now be realised that even a doubling of the level of atmospheric CO2 whether from natural or man-made sources can now only affect global temperature very marginally.

The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly concerned about both for the biosphere and for the survival of man-kind.  


An excellent way to undermine Western economies is to render their power generation unreliable and expensive.  That objective of Green thinking is progressively being achieved by Government policy but without popular voter mandate throughout the Western world.

Spending any effort, for solely emotional and in the quasi-religious belief in the evil of Man-made CO2 emissions, without true cost benefit analysis and without full engineering due diligence for any proposed technical solutions, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1.0% or the EU’s 8.6% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia has to be monumentally ill-considered and ill-advised.

An estimate of the additional 60 year lifetime costs of some €2 trillion that has already been committed for the current installation of Weather Dependent Renewables in Europe.  According to Bjorn Lomborg the ~€125billion German investment in solar power not including other Weather Dependent Renewable investments, could only ever reduce the onset of Global Warming by a matter of a few hours by the year 2100, if at all.

And more recently Bjorn Lomborg has produced evidence that the total effect of any agreement in the terms proposed in Paris could only control future warming in 2100 by less than 0.2°C.

Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals

4.9 17 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 16, 2021 6:34 pm

I agree about at dangers of dealing with movements based on “quasi-religious” beliefs. Those movements do not abide by the rules of logic. However, Greta may turn out to be an exception as she learns more about the real world …

Reply to  John Shewchuk
July 16, 2021 6:55 pm

In my daily interactions with people I come across many believers but I don’t see them as the main problem.
The main problem is non-believers who use the CAGW myth to further their own agenda.
These people may not be neo Marxist but use neo Marxist concepts to get their way.

Reply to  Waza
July 17, 2021 12:37 am

Yes, I think this is right. You want to know what people believe, look at what they do, and what they demand. What the activists demand is that China and India etc shall continue to grow emissions, and that the West shall dramatically reduce them.

If they really believed what they are claiming to believe, they would be furiously demanding real major reductions in the tonnage the world is emitting, including by the biggest and fastest growing emitters.

But when did you ever hear an activist demanding China lower its tonnage emitted to the 1 or 2 billion tons a year which such an agenda would require?

Never, and you never will. Because they don’t believe it either.

Reply to  michel
July 17, 2021 5:41 pm

of course,,,, tell them it’s arsenic or mercury….then ask them if they still feel the same

Kenan Meyer
Reply to  Waza
July 17, 2021 9:45 am

my explanation for man-made global warming is: the marxists lost the working class…

Reply to  Kenan Meyer
July 17, 2021 1:26 pm

Of course, they’re all in China

July 16, 2021 6:56 pm

How has global shipping and global air travel been impacted?

Richard M
July 16, 2021 7:23 pm

The best way to avoid another glaciation is to pump more CO2 into the carbon cycle. It needs to be a lot more than people may think because it will immediately start to drop once we stop.

More CO2 leads to climate moderation. Warm areas get cooler and cold areas get warmer. While this will lead to higher sea levels it will take a long time. Moving coastal populations will not be a major problem. The big increases is land areas with improved climates will also help.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Richard M
July 16, 2021 7:42 pm

When did you last try to move 400 million people? I am curious to know why you think it would be easy?. Where exactly are you going to put them?

Richard M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 7:47 pm

It would probably take a couple hundred years for the sea levels to rise one meter. With proper planning it would be quite easy. By then I expect the population would have peaked except for off Earth colonies.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Richard M
July 17, 2021 5:06 am

Richard: in that time frame, you do not need planning. Peple are not stupid and each generation will move voluntarily (cautiously) to safer places IF (and what a big if!) they see an actual, real danger from sea level rising. If they are not moving now (as the Obamas) this is the indication that they do not see an immediate menace to the value (and existence) of their property. And by “immediate” I mean at least two or three decades.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 8:02 pm

Are you really that dumb?

You and Simon share the same brain?

Reply to  Derg
July 17, 2021 12:12 am

Simple Isaak?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
July 17, 2021 12:19 pm

As in Simple Rick?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 11:01 pm


The sea level is rising at less than 1 foot per century. Where are you going to put 400 million people? One or two feet uphill. Or they can stay where they are now by raising dikes and sea walls by a foot or two. After all, we have an entire century to do that. It’s disgustingly dishonest to suggest that sea level rise will be a big problem in the next century.

You can’t believe it’s a difficult problem given the slow rise and the long time – you are being dishonest because you have an agenda.

Reply to  meab
July 17, 2021 12:20 am

For every fifty years… take one step backwards.

Rich Davis
Reply to  meab
July 17, 2021 6:10 am

We (by which I suppose you mean your beloved nanny state) don’t need to move them. They have feet.

Also, on last check, the Netherlands was still a thing.

Clarification: Dizzy refers to Izzy, not meab

Last edited 11 months ago by Rich Davis
Larry Butler
Reply to  meab
July 17, 2021 6:36 pm

I live about 100 miles to sea from the beach of the ancient ocean. Charleston, SC. The beach is now cal;ed rhe South Carolina Sandhills and is across the state NW of us near Columbia. The ocean is low!

Across the Ashley River from me is a steamboat dock built about 1820 to bring the rich to Magnolia Plantation from downtown. Its Cypress poles are pitted by the 6 foot tides, right where they always were when I moved here 40 years ago…

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 12:31 am

Those of the 400 million that didn’t die of old age and can’t manage to move in the 100 years you just let drown under Darwinian laws.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 4:00 am

A significant are of the Netherlands is below sea level. They didn’t move!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 12:18 pm

And the Dutch moved their entire population where?

Reply to  Richard M
July 16, 2021 8:06 pm

In my lifetime at 100s of million of people have moved from rural to urban without any planning at all. People will migrate as they see fit.
Anyways where did you get the 400 million- sounds bs.

Reply to  Richard M
July 16, 2021 8:21 pm

More CO2 leads to climate moderation. 

Where did you get this nonsense from? CO2 does nothing in the atmosphere.

The next glaciation cycle will begin in the next millennium as perihelion moves into February and the peak in atmospheric water occurs after the boreal summer solstice. The northern land masses abutting the North Atlantic will have increasing snow fall that will not all melt in the following summer and begin to accumulate again.

Richard M
Reply to  RickWill
July 17, 2021 5:28 am

Changes in the energy from CO2 has been measured at the surface (Friedman et al 2015). When it is warmer that energy enhances evaporation hence leading to cooling. However, in very cool climates the energy is often absorbed because evaporation is tied to how much total energy is available.

Because of the high elevation of Antarctica the GHE is reversed so it is not going to see any warming except maybe coastal areas. Also true in parts of Greenland. This is one reason it would take a long time. The changes will be small and take tens of thousands of years to play out.

The added energy will help in the lower elevation areas of Canada and Russia. It is Canada that appears to be where glaciers get started. This added energy should be sufficient to prevent them from getting a foothold.

We are already seeing these effects in the US as high temperatures have been falling while winters are getting warmer.
comment image

Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
July 17, 2021 5:40 am

Dr. Roy Spencer pointed out the way the feedbacks operate with this diagram.
comment image

The net effect of more CO2 is a vastly improved overall climate for the planet. Rick, you have been pointing out how the planet’s temperature is the average of the high and low latitudes. Now, the low latitudes will cool slightly and the high latitudes will warm. The average temperature won’t change much initially but as the ice in the Arctic recedes it will allow more warming.

Larry Butler
Reply to  RickWill
July 17, 2021 6:47 pm

50 years to the day, a bunch of WW2 aviation enthousiasts went searching Greenland for a squadron of American fighters that ran out of gas trying to make England. When they discovered them, 50 years after they crashed, they were buried in 275 FEET of compressed ice and snow in yhe LAST 50 years. Watch “Glacier Girl” on YouTube and convince us the world is melting…

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Richard M
July 16, 2021 8:42 pm

Richard, Amsterdam and Rotterdam are respectively 2m and 6m below sealevel and everyone there are fine! Lowland parts of Manhattan were filled over generations and the island is bigger than it was in the past. In 1860, a 328 ft row of 4 and 5 story masonary buildings on the Chicago waterfront were raised 4ft 8in in 5 days using 6000 screw Jack’s manned by 600 men in preparation for construction of a raised foundation. Those were the days when men were men and the women lovedit.

Of course, we also had Knossos the pyramids, the Acropolis, Rome and sundry other big works of 3000BC to 100AD

Friend the big coastal cities will not retreat from these coastlines by 2100. How have we become so wimpy and helpless these last few generations?

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 17, 2021 12:48 am

As you mention it Gary, it is worth recalling the Egyptians built the pyramids in short order without the benefit of steel or concrete or a coerced workforce (contrary to general consensus) .

I can’t see moving 400 million people over a hundred years, if we have any modern technology left after the greenies have done, as much of a problem.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
July 17, 2021 6:20 am

Ah, but it’s well established that the aliens built the pyramids!

You have not been watching the History Channel I guess.

Richard M
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 17, 2021 5:32 am

I said nothing about 2100 so I am in complete agreement. I did mention a couple hundred years but even that is probably an overstatement. Probably more like thousands of years before the sea level becomes could become a problem. By then I expect technology advancements will have no problem at all dealing with it.

Clyde Spencer
July 16, 2021 7:40 pm

While the estimate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions appears to be reliable, it is not amenable to empirical verification! That is to say, several people (myself included) have unsuccessfully attempted to find evidence of a measurable effect. There is neither a decrease in the total rise in CO2 concentration (MLO) for 2020, or even a decline in the slope of the rise (rate) during the Winter/Spring ramp-up phase when Northern Hemisphere photosynthesis is dormant. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions reduction was greatest during the ramp-up phase!

That means, we have to accept on faith the claim that, if we stop using fossil fuels, we will be rewarded with a decline in the rate of atmospheric CO2 growth initially, and an eventual reduction in concentration.

What’s worse, the real concern is the claimed increase in global temperatures resulting from CO2. Again, despite an unprecedented decline in anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2020, 2020 tied with the El Nino year of 2016 for global average temperature.

What’s wrong with this picture? The apologists for alarmists are basically saying, “Trust.” However, they are leaving out Reagan’s admonition to also “Verify.”

Last edited 11 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 16, 2021 11:53 pm

And they ignore the beneficial effects of that life giving gas, CO2.

Larry Butler
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
July 17, 2021 7:03 pm

I did this for a bunch of brainwashed high school kids. Proved to them CO2 feeds us!

Take a plastic tent with a plastic floor to prevent the soil from sucking your CO2 into the ground.Seal it with duct tape as best you can, especially tent to floor where alll the CO2 collects. Line the walls with 2 litre drink bottles half full of sugar water and yeast to generate lots of CO2. poke small holes in the floor and plant a garden of vegetables. Wait. We got the tent up to almost 3000ppm of CO2 by the time our veggies started exploding. No kid died breathing it. Yields were HUGE.

What the world controllers are terrified of is with all this CO2, WERE GOING TO BE SWIMMING IN FOOD!

Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 7:41 pm

The author seems not to know that the last decade was the warmest on record since he states that “the modern short pulse of beneficial Global Warming stopped some 20 years ago” which is just plain wrong no matter what temperature record you might care to use.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 7:47 pm

… the last decade was the warmest on record …

That is not unlike saying that even though the heat has been turned off on the stove, the teapot is warmer than it was before heat was applied.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 16, 2021 8:33 pm

That’s far too confusing for Isaak.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 8:03 pm

You forgot “evah”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 8:31 pm

“Warmest on record” is meaningless, since records have only been kept for a short time, geologically. In fact the coldest period in ~10,000 years just ended only 150 years ago. Prove that any of the present warmth was caused by humans.

Now prove the cause.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 16, 2021 10:01 pm

Warmest on record is meaningful when the author claims that waming stopped twenty years ago. If you prefer I am happy with the last decade was warmer than any decade in the 20th century. Either way the author’s claim is still wrong.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 16, 2021 10:51 pm

I couldn’t care less what makes you happy, warmest decade on record is meaningless unless you cancel out the many warmer periods in the past. Considering the amount of needless adjustment the temperature records have endured, the last 20 years probably haven’t seen any increase.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 17, 2021 12:15 am

Warmest on record is probably the 30s. Until it was adjusted.
call me when we have hippos in the Thames, like in the Eemian.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
July 17, 2021 10:26 am

Warmest on record is probably the 30s.

It clearly was in North America and there is no reason to believe it wasn’t also global as well.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 17, 2021 1:31 am

The author claimed that “global warming stopped some twenty years”. Is there any temperature record that lends any support to that claim?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 10:26 am

Yes there is, but you deniers pretend there isn’t every time you’re presented with it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 12:55 pm

Actually, the alarmists were freaking out because there was minimal-to-no global warming from 1997 to 2015 by any measure, especially for satellites. Every CliSciFi practitioner trotted his/her favorite theory as to why. Tom Karl adjusted SSTs and Mears adjusted RSS to be more consistent with GCMs. Their partial salvation was obviated at the end of the recent Super El Nino.

The globe did not warm any near the rate as predicted by the GCMs. All GCMs warm, at varying rates, linearly with CO2 concentrations. We could save billions by just extrapolating CO2 concentrations at various levels, pick an ECS or two and calculate “happy days to Armageddon.”

Last edited 11 months ago by Dave Fair
Joao Martins
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 5:17 am

“Warmest on record”:

Two questions, Izaak:

  1. When did your “record” start? 1970? 1980?…
  2. What is your “record”: the one that is written down in papers by the meteorologic observers who read the thermometers, or that record after it was “corrected” decades later by NASA, NOAA, etc. with their “models”?
Last edited 11 months ago by Joao Martins
Joao Martins
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 5:12 am

I take due note: the world stated its existence (was created?) when met records started; at least, for the sake of this stupid argument of Izaak’s.

Izaak: and what about reading the first books of the Bible, and adding up the ages of the protagonists to determined how long ago the world was created?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Izaak Walton
July 17, 2021 6:58 am

Let’s try this one again:

How much of your payday are you willing to donate to the anti-carbon cause?


July 16, 2021 8:01 pm

comment image

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Loydo
July 16, 2021 10:53 pm

Next up:

A graph showing the cumulative benefits to the entire world from each country. Basic categories:

Global peace (relatively)
Global water supply
Technology (computing)
Famine relief
Disaster relief

Need I go on?

Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2021 12:33 am

Sweet Australia can keep burning until we get 457 Billion tons as that is only fair … going to take us a while 🙂

Reply to  Loydo
July 18, 2021 12:14 am

What’s so wrong with that graph?

Reply to  Loydo
July 18, 2021 2:50 am

The surprise is how fast China is catching up that is only to 2017 … got a more recent one?

I got China at 220G historical in 2019 USA at 410G so China is going at twice the rate of USA

That would say today China is a 240G and USA at 420G and that gap is going to close very fast over next decade.

Last edited 11 months ago by LdB
July 16, 2021 8:03 pm

It’s not CO2 per person that counts but rather CO2 per GDP that is important

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Pathway
July 16, 2021 10:54 pm

Not only do Marxists hate people, they hate GDP more.

July 16, 2021 8:10 pm

On the other hand, Weather Dependent Renewables, have made very little contribution to CO2 emissions reduction, if at all. When looked at in the round, from their manufacture to demolition, they are hardly CO2 emissions nor energy neutral over their service life.

Without care, deceptive language creeps in. Surely the inconsistencies in this statement are clear to anyone who understands the language.

If a device cannot produce more energy than it takes to make it, then how could it possibly be termed “Renewable”.

Reply to  RickWill
July 16, 2021 8:28 pm

renewables as in intermittent as in drivers

Reply to  RickWill
July 16, 2021 8:51 pm

Bingo! Making civilization more fragile via unreliable energy sources is profoundly anti-human
One way to decide the truth of a hypothesized “climate crisis” is to assess the proposed solution to that problem. If the solution is irrational (on an engineering, physical, economic and
even moral basis) then you can bet the “crisis” is as well.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  B. Zipperer
July 16, 2021 10:58 pm

Making civilization more fragile via unreliable energy sources is profoundly anti-human

I don’t think it’s the unreliable nature of ‘renewables’ that RickWill is referring to. It is the fact that more energy is used to create, install and run each device than it generates usefully on its entire lifetime. That is not only a net waste of energy, it’s most likely a net emitter of CO2, which is ironic.

Last edited 11 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
July 16, 2021 8:20 pm

July 16, 2021 Cap Allon
Here are a few of the earthly events and phenomena blamed on “climate change” this week — only the clinically indoctrinated could fall for such nonsense…
The usual idiots are claiming that CO2-driven global warming caused the French and German wine harvests to freeze out. You have to be clinically stupid to say that.
In a garbage article coming out of the (written tomorrow, July 17???), a warming planet is making the timing of the harvest date for European wine more difficult, impacting the taste.
“Climate change threatens not only the flavor of wine, but the world’s wine supply,” continues the article, which then goes on to recall those Italian and French growers lighting thousands of bucket-sized candles in April to stave off the “killer frost”.
Despite farmers best efforts, the extreme cold wiped out 90% of crops in some regions, resulting in an estimated loss of €2 billion — the French government declared an “agricultural disaster,” and issued an emergency rescue package after rare freezing temperatures of -8C (17.6F) and beyond caused the worst damage in decades. 
The article then makes the wild claim that “climate change may make such events more common”.

July 17, 2021 3:17 am

The Romans didn’t know what wine was such was the warmth which destroyed their wine supply. /sarc

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  Rusty
July 17, 2021 4:54 pm

Absolutely the Scotts, however, were making their own.

July 17, 2021 3:52 am

Allan “Rug Up” Macrae. The bloke who’s been predicting global cooling for the last twenty years.

Tell us more.

P Wells
Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2021 4:58 am

Patience, these things take a while.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
July 17, 2021 1:03 pm

Well, it is certainly not warming as fast as the GCMs predict. Also, you didn’t address Allan’s assertions. Ad hominin attacks lack credibility.

Reply to  Dave Fair
July 17, 2021 1:43 pm

Thank you Dave.

Loydo actually lied here (quelle surprise!) – I have not been predicting cooling for 20 years.
In fact I stated in 2002 that cooling would start circa 2020 – and it has.

Global LT temperatures have cooled 0.6C since Feb2020, In 2002 we correctly predicted this cooling based on low solar activity. In 2019 there was a huge crop failure across the Great Plains of North America, caused by excessive wet and cold weather. In 2021 the early fruit and grape crop in Germany and France was frozen out. Spring has been late and cold in the Northern Hemisphere and Fall has been unusually cold in the Southern Hemisphere..

The warmist scientists and their comrades in the media were able to perpetuate their global warming fraud during a period of natural, solar-driven global warming, but now the Sun has gone quiet and the world is naturally cooling.

Soon even the most obtuse of humanity will understand that there is no global warming crisis – that they have been duped and scammed out of trillions of dollars. Their vital energy systems have been badly compromised, and lives have been lost due to the global warming / green energy scam.

To end 2020, climate doomsters were proved wrong in their scary climate predictions 48 consecutive times – the odds of that being mere random stupidity is 1 in ~281 trillion! It’s not just global warming scientists being stupid – in fact, they knew they were lying from the start.

Global warming alarmism is a fifty-year-old climate-and-green-energy scam – it IS that simple.

July 17, 2021 4:16 pm

“In fact I stated in 2002 that cooling would start circa 2020 – and it has. Global LT temperatures have cooled 0.6C since Feb2020, In 2002 we correctly predicted this cooling based on low solar activity.”

But you missed the 08C drop in 2011?

comment image

Reply to  Loydo
July 18, 2021 4:05 pm

…or the 1C drop in 1999.


What a blowhard fake.

Reply to  Loydo
July 19, 2021 2:39 am

The big difference in 2020 is the hundreds of record-cold events all over the world. as listed at
We predicted this cooling in 2002 and we were correct.
In contrast Loydo’s warmist comrades have made almost 100 false predictions of global warming catastrophes, not one of which has happened.
Loydo’s climate clowns are masters of false alarm – wolves stampeding the sheep for financial and political gain.

July 19, 2021 Cap Allon
Production numbers continue to be slashed every time a new forecast is released. As it stands –and before the latest rounds of polar cold hit– 88% of Brazil’s corn is already in “poor or average condition” … with a further “significant reduction expected”.

Last edited 11 months ago by ALLAN MACRAE
July 19, 2021 7:08 am

Daily mean temperatures in the Arctic have been holding BELOW the 1958-2002 average for the entirety of the 2021 melt season (so far) — another real-world reality the MSM won’t tell you.

July 16, 2021 8:26 pm

Here AGAIN is DR Rosling’s BBC video 200 countries from 1810 to 2010.
This tells us the true story in less than 5 minutes and global WEALTH and HEALTH is at an all time high.
An today the life expectancy of humans is 73 and FOSSIL FUELS STILL GENERATE OVER 80%+ of TOTAL GLOBAL ENERGY.
When will people wake and stop voting for these crazy L W donkeys?

July 16, 2021 8:37 pm

Don’t forget that Willis Eschenbach tried to find their SO CALLED EMERGENCY and could not.
IOW he agreed with Lomborg, Happer, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Koonin, McKitrick, McIntyre etc. SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THEIR EMERGENCY?

July 16, 2021 8:41 pm

The last two decades demonstrate the difficulty of weaning off fossil fuels. The increasing consumption in China, India and Africa is putting stress on the supply chains and resources. The price of fossil fuels will continue to climb.

It there any alternative to fossil fuels that does not impose significant restraint on current standard of living?

P Wells
Reply to  RickWill
July 17, 2021 4:59 am


July 16, 2021 9:00 pm

At a time span carefully selected like 1965-2020 there will be opportunities to accuse the Global South, but the bottom line is that the climate catastrophe is a creation of the industrial revolution and the industrial revolution is a creation of the Global North. Therefore the climate catastrophe is a creation of the Global North and they must be held fully responsible and fully liable.

P Wells
Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 17, 2021 5:01 am

That is why I moved south back in 2016 – in order to get away from that terrible global warming up north!

July 16, 2021 10:47 pm

So if the developing world were to attain the same level of co2 emissions as the developed world, overall emissions would increase by about 2.5 times. However the developed worlds current share of emissions is only a little more than a third, 35%. Are we comfortable with this increase in emissions? If not, I think the most effective approach would be to set up some international scheme where as the developing world desires a new power station, subsidize the construction of a nuclear power station, with some scheme to supply fuel and store the remains. I would strongly question the cost-effectiveness of renewables. Clearly, reducing co2 emissions in the developed world cannot hope to address the issue.

Peta of Newark
July 17, 2021 12:20 am


Go on, Be A Devil, live dangerously, live by your wits, use what your Mamma Nature gave ya….
Redisover your GSOH – there may be ‘side benefits’ <wink wink>

An excellent way to undermine Western economies Junk Science & Hysterical MSM is to render their power, generation booze and Trash TV supplies unreliable and expensive.

July 17, 2021 12:32 am

When its pointed out on alarmist forums that the developed world only amounts to about one third, and falling, of emissions, and that China, India etc are not only doing most of the emitting, but continuing to grow, the usual reaction is to immediately switch to per capita emissions.

The argument starts out being that its just physics, that the total tonnage currently being emitted is leading to catastrophic warming. Its often argued that we can see this in current extreme weather events. Then the conclusion is drawn that we, usually meaning the country we are writing from, should immediately start dropping net emissions to zero.

However this firm conviction that the total level of emissions is the problem, and is leading to disaster, vanishes as soon as global emission cuts are discussed. At this point all mention of tons emitted stops. Instead the advocates start claiming that the really important thing to do is lower per capita emissions of, for instance, the US. The argument is made that it ‘only fair’. That fairness requires the highest per capita emitters to drastically drop. And that fairness means that China, for instance, should not have to.

At that point, one points out that Chinese per capita is at EU levels, and rising. The argument then shifts again. Now the focus turns to historical emissions. China, its said, should not have to lower its emissions because historically the West has done far more emitting. So its only fair that the West cut back disproportionately.

Notice in this progression that the activists do not actually seem to believe the key tenet of their doctrine: that what counts is the total tons emitted, that the effects of this are just physics, and that the warming they produce is going to be catastrophic.

If they did believe this, they would be begging everyone to get global emissions down to well under 10 billion tons a year, and you obviously cannot do this while China alone is emitting this much, and rising.

A similar bad faith argument occurs about extreme weather events. You find the German greens now arguing, latest bad floods caused by global warming, therefore Germany must get to net-zero immediately. Leave aside the nonsense of the causal argument, just ask right, and how much effect will this have on global totals? None to speak of, as long as the developing world continues on its path.

So why are the German greens not demanding reductions from the developing world? Rationally they are in the position of a Tuvalu politician claiming that sea level rises mean they have to drop their local emissions to zero. Its totally irrational.

Its not irrational if you consider that warming not something anyone really believes, its just the justification that has been latched onto for doing things that they wanted to do anyway. If this goes pear shaped, some other justification will be found.

Metaphysics: the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct. Or in this case, the religious belief in dismantling Western economies.

Robert Alfred Taylor
Reply to  michel
July 17, 2021 5:04 pm

sciosophy: pretended knowledge of natural or supernatural forces systematized by tradition or imaginative invention
A word I learned somewhere on this site.

July 17, 2021 1:00 am

Still waiting for the German floods article… 155mm of rain at cologne in 24 hours: previous record 95mm. 2 months rain in 48 hours – in summer. worse than worst recorded winter floods.

Watts readers can NOT keep pretending extreme weather events of this magnitude are just ‘weather’.

And record 33 C temps in Lapland (after records in 2018), a second year of siberian heatwaves, 4 heatwaves in US/Canada, breaking Canadian record by 5C, and so on.

Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 2:24 am

Oh good, you have noticed that the climate is slowly changing. Now prove it is due to rising C02.

Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 2:29 am

IPCC AR5 2014

Adaptation can prevent most of the projected damages (high confidence, based on medium evidence, high agreement) but there may be constraints to building flood defenses in some areas. {23.3.1, 23.7.1} Direct economic river flood damages in Europe have increased over recent decades (high confidence) but this increase is due to development in flood zones and not due to observed climate change. {; SREX 4.5

What’s changed in 7 years?

Reply to  Charlie
July 17, 2021 3:05 pm

Interestingly, all photographs I have seen of the flooding in Germany, show damaged new build houses. These were often in picturesque river valleys.

P Wells
Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 5:07 am

And what about all the brutal cold across the U.S. back in February? Obviously we in the USA need to substantially INCREASE our emissions!

Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 5:22 am

Write it 😀
Maybe it’s published, as joke of the week 😀

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 17, 2021 1:14 pm

Griff, you post weather extremes to prove CAGW (Climate Change). Your problem is that Climate is average weather at a particular location over decadal periods (CliSciFi currently says a 30-year period). To prove CAGW, you must post decadal average bad weather. UN IPC CliSciFi says there has been no negative changes to weather patterns over multi-decadal periods. Why do you deny “science?”

July 17, 2021 8:11 am

The most important fact about today’s environmental movement, and the book Clean Energy Exploitations explores is that the healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place.

Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, and Africa.

China (1.4 Billion), India (1.36 billion), Indonesia (270 million), Japan (126 million) and Vietnam (80 million) plan to build more than 600 coal power units, and African countries (1.2 Billion) are planning to build more than 1,250 new coal and gas-fired power plants by 2030.


The book “Clean Energy Exploitations” helps citizens attain a better understanding that just for the opportunity to generate intermittent electricity that is dependent on favorable weather conditions, the wealthier and healthier countries like Germany, Australia, Britain, and America continue to exploit the most vulnerable people and environments of the world today.


The healthier and wealthier countries fail to recognize that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world are living on less than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity,  These poor folks need abundant, affordable, reliable, scalable, and flexible electricity while The healthier and wealthier are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine.


Robert of Texas
Reply to  Ronald Stein
July 17, 2021 10:09 am

We should send them all these wind turbines we are building in Texas. We don’t want them and they would be good (for a while) scattered across 3rd world countries that have no electricity.

Oh, wait…how to move each wind turbines 2,000 to 3,000 ton concrete base? You know that concrete base that will still be there after the wind turbines are eventually abandoned. Concrete lying in huge blocks out in corn and wheat fields… This is going to be SUCH a mess to clean up.

Willem Post
July 17, 2021 8:17 am

Guest Blogger,

Thank for your tremendous effort to illuminate, with real-world facts and figures, the futility of expensive CO2 reduction efforts of the US and the EU.

Much more CO2 will be added by Others, than would be reduced by the US and EU, even if they achieved the impossible of zero CO2 emissions

Long before they would get there, their economies and financial structures would have collapsed.

How would the weakened EU and US impose their will on the Others?

Kenan Meyer
July 17, 2021 9:38 am

I wonder how BP has been measuring the reduction of CO2 output due to the plandemic..

If you look at the data auf the Global Monitoring Laboratory, COVID simply doesn’t appear…
How can that be?

John Kelly
July 17, 2021 10:39 am

Has anyone ever tries to reconcile what say this BP report says are annual emissions with the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as measured in Hawaii to see what % of the annual increase in CO2 is caused by man? I’m sure I’ve read its only about 4-6%, but if that is the number, I don’t know the basis for it.

Robert Alfred Taylor
July 17, 2021 5:14 pm

I am sorry. If I hire a hitman, and he kills the person I wanted, I am responsible. If people import from China, the CO2 should be charged to them. Only CO2 emissions from China, from internal uses should be charged to China.

Larry Butler
July 17, 2021 6:21 pm

What these wonderful graphs shows me is it’s not the average American or his utility usage that causes all the ruckus but its the 18 million barrels of aviation fuels per day, fuel guzzling cruise ships, wars that have ended, etc. that stopped guzzling it up while we stayed home. Our power consumption went up at home. Commercial power consumption dived. They’re the problem, not your mom.

If we ground the planes from far away places, we can stop spreading these awful diseases.

Tom Waeghe
July 19, 2021 2:21 pm

Just simply prove demonstrably that CO2 is driving/causing Earth’s temperature to increase and everyone will be on board.

July 19, 2021 4:18 pm

Agree with the author’s conclusions.

Oak Ridge National Lab has been publishing similar information accumulated from 100+ countries for 100+ years.
The problem that skeptics have had for years is they are arguing a point where their opponents – the proponents of AGW – are using estimates of human CO2 emissions. But they have no measurements of global human CO2 emission, obviously because it is buried in the noise of total atmosphere CO2 fluxes which are at least 10 times larger.
AGW proponents, as they tend to do, proposed a hypothesis which they believe cannot be validated by measured data, then get grant funding to gather and analyze expensive data (instruments, super computers, ocean going ships, etc.) to attempt to prove and justify their That is not science. That is advocacy. In science, you design hypotheses which can be falsified by experiment. AGW proponents are doing the opposite. They produce hypotheses to justify spending billions on computer models, research expeditions and conferences. Meanwhile, they ignore the natural answers staring them in the face.
With regard to oil, gas and coal companies, remember these companies make much more profit if their supply and demand are constrained by government policy. That is what is occurring. Never lose sight of that fact. Per dollar of revenue these companies have less required exploration and R&D and lower risk, less production required, and lower distribution expenses. So they support the green initiatives rather than fight. They prefer to sell gasoline for $5 per gallon than $0.5 per gallon, etc. Politicians win with $5 gasoline because taxes on the higher profits that result mean government higher tax revenue, and politicians have an indoctrinated “green” constituency with whom they can divide voters and reap contributions.
The concentrations of CO2 in both atmospheric and in ocean are independent of the source of the CO2. The carbon footprint of an individual, of a country, or the entire population does not change the CO2 concentration. Since ocean is an infinite sink for CO2 and since CO2 is highly soluble in ocean water and also reacts with ocean water and many ions in ocean water, and since the concentration of CO2 gas in ocean and in air are determined ONLY by temperature, pH and pressure, then no amount of CO2 subtracted from or added to the atmosphere by humans will change the CO2 concentration trend.
Notice that AGW proponents including IPCC report that atmospheric concentration of CO2 gas is ~800 gigatonnes, while ocean surface CO2 gas reservoir is ~1000 gigatonnes, and deep ocean contains ~ 40,000 gigatonnes of carbon. And they also report that fossil fuel CO2 emission flux by humans is ~8 gigatonnes per year and that there are annual CO2 fluxes between air and ocean in opposite directions of ~90 gigatonnes in each direction (into air from ocean, and into ocean from air). Using their estimates, there are two annual CO2 fluxes which are each 10 times larger than human CO2 flux. These two ~90 gigatonne fluxes are continuously circulating between an 800 gigatonne atmospheric CO2 reservoir and a 1000 gigatonne ocean surface CO2 reservoir.  Incredibly, they claim to be concerned about an annual CO2 concentration slope of about 2.5 parts per million per year and persist that this slope is due to humans. But try to find an explanation in AGW literature for the cause of these two giant natural fluxes and their size and continuous giant dilution relative to human emission. 

It is obvious that the relatively tiny human CO2 flux cannot be causing or disrupting a hypothetical CO2 balance between these two giant fluxes in opposite directions (each of which are 10 times larger than human CO2 emissions) which are continuously flowing between two CO2 gas sinks/sources which are both 100 times larger than human CO2 emissions. The climate crisis is a fabrication.  

(One gigatonne is equal to 10^9 metric tonnes or 10^12 kilograms, that is 1,000,000,000,000 kilograms.) 
The national CO2 data presented in the article and by ORNL and governments is academic reference only with no effect on global CO2 concentration. It is part of their guilt trip.

The net global average CO2 concentration and its slope are dominantly controlled by the ocean surface temperature, which is 98% of the water on earth and over 70% earth’s surface area. Ocean is the sink for ~ 5000 times more dissolved carbon that humans emit per year, and many more magnitudes of carbon solidified into carbon rocks such as limestone. There is no causal connection between CO2 emission sources and earth’s temperature, nor with earth’s climate, nor with net global CO2 concentration nor with any other climate variable that is co-variable with net global average CO2 concentration.

CO2 concentration in air and ocean is defined by Henry’s Law. Henry’s Law is independent of the source of the CO2 and dominantly dependent on the temperature and net surface area of ocean at that temperature, while being dependent on pH, salinity and pressure because the average net global variability of these other factors are low. The trend or slope of average ocean surface temperature has been slowly increasing, therefore the Henry’s Law partition ratio (coefficient) between ocean surface and air has been adjusting to the warmer temperature. The result is a net global CO2 concentration trend or slope observed at Mauna Loa that is slowly increasing in lock-step with the temperature. The late geologist Lance Endersbee graphed this relationship at near 98% correlation using CO2 data from the NOAA Scripps Keeling lab on Mauna and ocean temperature (SST) after removal of time.

Endersbee_Experience curve CO2 v Temp Mauna Loa data.png
%d bloggers like this: