CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2021

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

MARCH 9, 2022

By Paul Homewood

CO2 emissions still growing, say IEA:

Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes1 rebounded in 2021 to reach their highest ever annual level. A 6% increase from 2020 pushed emissions to 36.3 gigatonnes (Gt), an estimate based on the IEA’s detailed region-by-region and fuel-by-fuel analysis, drawing on the latest official national data and publicly available energy, economic and weather data.

The Covid-19 pandemic had far-reaching impacts on energy demand in 2020, reducing global CO2 emissions by 5.2%. However, the world has experienced an extremely rapid economic recovery since then, driven by unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus and a fast – although uneven – roll-out of vaccines. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions, which led to more coal being burnt despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever annual growth. 

Emissions increased by almost 2.1 Gt from 2020 levels. This puts 2021 above 2010 as the largest ever year-on-year increase in energy-related CO2 emissions in absolute terms. The rebound in 2021 more than reversed the pandemic-induced decline in emissions of 1.9 Gt experienced in 2020. CO2 emissions in 2021 rose to around 180 megatonnes (Mt) above the pre-pandemic level of 2019.

The 6% increase in CO2 emissions in 2021 was in line with the jump in global economic output of 5.9%. This marks the strongest coupling of CO2 emissions with Gross domestic product (GDP) growth since 2010, when global emissions rebounded by 6.1% while economic output grew by 5.1% as the world emerged from the Global Financial Crisis.

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2

Although a large rise was inevitable following the lockdowns of 2020, the significant fact is that emissions are higher than in 2019. Given that the global economy still has not fully recovered from the pandemic, we should expect further increases in emissions this year.

4.9 10 votes
Article Rating
171 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Megs
March 9, 2022 10:13 pm

The demand for wind and solar is ever increasing. You need to burn large amounts of coal to manufacture clean energy.

2hotel9
Reply to  Megs
March 10, 2022 3:15 am

Actually, no, the only demand for fake energy is from leftards in government and academia. Real human beings want real energy production. Stop spreading leftards’ lie for them.

commieBob
Reply to  2hotel9
March 10, 2022 4:23 am

Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
link

2hotel9
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2022 4:31 am

Spreading the lies of leftards is spreading the lies of leftards, intentions mean nothing. Knock it off.

MarkW
Reply to  2hotel9
March 10, 2022 5:53 am

Please re-read Meg’s comment. Especially the second sentence. She is not supporting the lies of the alarmists.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Megs
Reply to  MarkW
March 11, 2022 4:12 am

So much going on at the moment in regards to an onslaught of renewables. You have no idea how much I appreciate your support. You are spot on! I responded to the ‘attack’, you might be interested in reading it if you have a moment.

Megs
Reply to  commieBob
March 11, 2022 4:07 am

I am indeed pleased that you understood the intent of my comment Bob. And I thank you for your trademark link. I am on the other hand known for my often overly verbose comments (see my response above, if you have time). I suspect the likes to my first comment were because I kept it short! 🙂

Megs
Reply to  2hotel9
March 11, 2022 3:57 am

I awoke to your comment and then had an eight hour road trip to contend with so unfortunately the opportunity to defend the attack on my integrity is lost. The thread have moved on to more current posts. Nonetheless I can at least set the record straight with you.

I am deeply disappointed that you have assumed my stance. You couldn’t be more wrong. But given the general response, most understood exactly the intent of my comment. You are incorrect to assume the demand for renewables comes only from “leftards in government and academia”. The sitting government in Australia is supposedly conservative. Though sadly there is no conservative major party in Australia in reality, they are ruled by bureaucrats. And I certainly wouldn’t call any of them academics. “Real human beings” have no clue about the reality of renewable energy. Most have fallen for the propaganda and truly believe that “clean green energy ” is the only solution to the problem of CO2. You and I (and the daily readers of WUWT) know this to be absolute rubbish but they are fed the narrative day and night, their children are indoctrinated in this belief. There is very little MSM to counter any of this.

I have been actively fighting renewables for more than three years now. I am a part of a group that I was involved in starting up which has gone national. No money has exchanged hands in all this, all research and time spent is done voluntarily. I have personally written more than 10 submissions, one against a climate bill, another against a 180 kilometre transmission line and a multitude against wind and solar projects. Our group also wrote, printed and distributed 500 double sided information fliers, 100 were posted and we hand delivered the rest. We also wrote articles for sixteen, from memory, of the local monthly magazine publications. We were endeavouring to educate the local farmers who are fed lies and misinformation from greedy developers. The local Chamber of Commerce shut us down and banned our publications. With more than 200 square kilometres of renewables planned very close to our town over years they see only the short term business gain and none of the down side.

Based on more than two years of research we wrote a paper which covers significant amounts of information in regard to the downside of renewables. This paper was included in our submission against the climate bill that went before parliament. We were called as witnesses to speak at parliament house in Canberra based on this paper. There were thousands of submissions, the vast majority were in favour of the whole ‘clean green’ scenario. Around thirty people were invited to speak over two days and I believe we were the only ones speaking against the bill. This is the reality, few are willing to speak up or have the knowledge to do so. The bill did not go ahead, doesn’t mean it won’t be presented again in a different form of course.

When I realised I had an opportunity to be the first to comment on this post I knew that if I wasn’t succinct then the majority of readers would simply not bother reading it. Which is likely why you are not familiar with my posts. That’s fine..and I maybe should have added the sarc tag.

By the way the paper that took us to parliament is on the net. It’s called “Wind and Solar Electricity Generation are the Answer. Seriously?” If you could be bothered looking it up. The relevant government department put it online, we’ve updated it twice since then.

As a matter of interest, and as you obviously feel very strongly against renewables as I do, I’d love to know what actions you yourself have taken to speak against the abomination that is being forced apon us in the name of clean green energy.

2hotel9
Reply to  Megs
March 11, 2022 6:12 am

OK, you just wrote all that and it reinforces the fact that all this stupidity comes from the political left. And it is not a joke. No one who actually THINKS wanted any of this crap. Just because someone calls themself conservative does not make it true. As the old farm wife said, “Just cuz the cat had her kittens in the oven that don’t make them biscuits.”.

And as for what I have done? I voted against this sh*t at every opportunity. Stolen elections have consequences, and the entire developed world is now suffering the consequences of our stolen election. You are welcome. I have also urged all the farmers I know to top off their fuel storage and buy fertilizer and seed stock beginning back in November. Most looked at me like I was crazy. Those who actually took the information I printed out and gave them and acted on it are sitting on sufficient fuel, fertilizer and seed to actually get crops in the ground come spring. The others are screwed, the price of all those have tripled in 26 days, and it is going up steadily.

All of this has been created and pushed by the political left. Period. Full stop. All this economic and energy sector destruction has been the goal of the political left for decades. To believe anything else is to succumb to fantasy.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Megs
March 10, 2022 9:17 am

You got the second half right, the first, not so much.

Nobody ever “demanded” wind and solar. If they were “demanding” wind and solar, government mandates, subsidies and tax credits to “encourage” them would be unnecessary.

And without government mandates, subsidies and tax credits, wind and solar would be unnecessary.

Megs
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 11, 2022 2:26 am

My point was, at least in regard to Australia is that we have no choice. The Climate Council are one of the ‘independent advisors’ to the Australian government, have been, potentially under different guises for quite some time. Tim Flannery heads that organisation and has lead the government astray over decades. The geothermal debacle cost us 90 million dollars. Well, in his wisdom, this man is suggesting that renewable energy be mandated.

I agree with you, renewables are not only unnecessary, they are detrimental to mankind on so many levels. People who have taken the time to educate themselves on this issue know this, sadly the general population have no clue. At present Australia is proudly leading the way in regard to rolling out renewable energy. They seem to be oblivious to the energy crisis unfolding in the Northern Hemisphere.

Streetcred
March 9, 2022 10:16 pm

Must have been all of that heavy breathing from the catastrophista.

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Editor
Reply to  Streetcred
March 10, 2022 1:52 am

Catastrophista artificial respiration: Out with the good air. In with the bad. Out with the good air. In with the bad.

Regards,
Bob

Brad-DXT
March 9, 2022 10:36 pm

Biden and his cohorts have a plan for less energy usage – higher costs.
It involves a lot of suffering but, that’s what the little people are for.

Disputin
Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 10, 2022 3:28 am

“Biden and his cohorts…”

Surely not. They have legions!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Brad-DXT
March 10, 2022 7:13 am

Let’s see . . . $1.2 trillion for Biden’s Infrastructure bill . . . range of $2.1 to 4.5 trillion for Biden’s Build Back Better bill . . . and yet Biden (and his cohorts) just can’t propose temporarily dropping the federal tax on gasoline to help out the “little people” because, of course, the federal government just cannot stand the loss of the less-than-$50 billion-per-year in revenue that would result.

Such bliders result when you don’t have to buy your own gas.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 10, 2022 10:06 am

Apparently the House just passed a $1.5T ‘budget’ last night. Problem is that no one in the Senate has seen it yet and the most recent temporary authorization expires tomorrow. Notwithstanding how much green and woke crap is probably stuffed into this bill, I’ll take the over on how many RINOs vote for it.

Redge
March 9, 2022 11:07 pm

With all the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere, I have one question:

Where’s my warming?

I was promised warming, I want it now

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Redge
March 10, 2022 4:27 am

Warming seems to be missing from this equation.

Obviously, we need to pump more CO2 into the atmosphere.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 9:23 am

Let’s rephrase…

“Obviously, the pittance of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere is meaningless.”

commieBob
Reply to  Redge
March 10, 2022 4:32 am

If you live within a hundred miles of where I live, you shall have it. I have been studying traditional rain dances. I think I have perfected the warm dance. If I’m right, it will be much warmer around here in mere weeks.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2022 9:24 am

The reason the rain dance works is ’cause they just keep dancing until it rains.

Richard Page
Reply to  commieBob
March 11, 2022 9:02 am

Uh-huh? Might you, perchance, have been doing them backwards up ’til now? Only sayin’ cos it’s bleeding freezing here!

Scissor
Reply to  Redge
March 10, 2022 4:33 am

I hear you.

In my 30+ years experiencing Colorado winters, this perhaps wasn’t the coldest but since late December it’s been in the running.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 10, 2022 6:39 am

Plus snowing 2-3 times per week.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
March 11, 2022 6:23 am

1 F here this morning…

TonyL
Reply to  Redge
March 10, 2022 5:12 am

commieBob is on to something, for sure. As things turn out, the world is a big place, with room for other solutions.
Where I am we have the “Snowbird Ritual”. Like various other rituals, this one involves the production and release of admirable quantities of carbon dioxide.
Here is how the ritual works:
Go to your local international airport. Get on board one of those huge gleaming CO2 generator machines they have there. check the schedules, be sure to get onto one heading South. (Very Important) Miami is good, San Juan is better. When all is ready, the operators will start the Global Warming generators. After a few hours, you will be instructed to deplane, you can now enjoy your global warming.
If you chose Miami, congratulations, you are officially one of the millions of Snowbirds who migrate to Florida every year.
If you are in San Juan, you have options to consider. You can stay where you are. Hop on a puddle jumper over to the Virgin Islands. US or British, highly recommended.
Remember:
Global Warming works best, when you put it to work, working for you!


Allan MacRae
Reply to  Redge
March 10, 2022 5:15 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/16/how-much-manmade-co2-is-in-the-atmosphere-really/#comment-3433172
 
“…warming does precede CO2 level rises”

Correct, as proved in my January 2008 paper – maligned and ignored.
CARBON DIOXIDE IS NOT THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING, THE FUTURE CAN NOT CAUSE THE PAST
By Allan M.R. MacRae, January 2008
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
 
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/07/carbon-cycle/#comment-3264363
[excerpt]
 
Atmospheric CO2 changes lag temperature changes at all measured time scales. (MacRae, 2008). Humlum et al (2013) confirmed this conclusion.
 
Kuo et al (1990) made similar observations in the journal Nature, but have been studiously ignored.
 
IF CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature, CO2 changes would lead temperature changes but they do NOT – CO2 changes lag temperature changes.
 
Think about that:
Kuo was correct in 1990, and for 31 years climate science has ignored that conclusion and has been going backwards!
 
Climate Sensitivity (CS) to CO2 is a fiction – so small, if it even exists, it is practically irrelevant.
 
“The future cannot cause the past.” Here is the proof, from my 2008 paper:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
 
In the modern data record, the lag of atmospheric CO2 changes after atmospheric temperature changes is ~9 months. This is an absolute disproof of the CAGW hypothesis, which states that increasing CO2 drives temperature.
“The future cannot cause the past.” 
 
In my 2019 paper below, I explained why the lag is ~9 months – it is basic calculus, the 90 degree (1/4 cycle) lag of the derivative and its integral, which is the ~3 year ENSO period.
 
My 2008 paper remains very important. My 2008 conclusion was confirmed and expanded by Humlum et al in 2013, for which I am grateful.
 
All warmists and most skeptics argue about the magnitude of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2, and whether the resulting CO2-driven global warming will be hot and dangerous or warm and beneficial. Both groups are probably wrong.
 
There is a high probability that the mainstream climate debate about the magnitude of CS is wrong – a waste of decades of vital time, tens of trillions of dollars of green energy nonsense and millions of lives. Vital energy systems have been compromised, damaged with intermittent, unreliable wind and solar generation – a debacle.
 
It is important to note that Global Cooling is happening now, even as CO2 concentration increases – another disproof of the global warming fraud.
 
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of humanity – it IS that simple. The green sabotage of our vital energy systems, whether innocent or deliberate, has cost lives and could cost very many more.
 

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 10, 2022 9:27 am

+infinity Allan, keep speaking truth to power (or in this case to the inability to reliably produce it if they get their way).

Ben Vorlich
March 9, 2022 11:12 pm

It’s going to be a lot less in 2022 and 2023 the way things are looking at the moment. I’m praying for the warmest windiest two years in recorded history for the UK. We’re run by a PM who can’t do basic arithmetic and neither can Boris.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 10, 2022 1:18 am

So do I!

2hotel9
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 10, 2022 3:19 am

No, widespread war produces more pollution, not less. CO2 is not pollution. More CO2 equals more plants equals more oxygen equals more food. CO2 is good for the planet and for the human race, which is why leftarded f**ksticks hate it.

Simon
March 9, 2022 11:33 pm

Heading is misleading. Energy combustion and industrial processes presumably excludes transportation (which will be well down) and net afforestation.

LdB
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2022 11:45 pm

Simon logic … CO2 increased to a new high but “CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2021” is misleading.

Look on the bright side Simon they increased and they will again this year and next on current figures so be happy.

Last edited 2 months ago by LdB
Joao Martins
Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2022 1:21 am

There is also another flaw: what the hell is “energy combustion”? Do we “burn” energy?

bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 10, 2022 7:42 am

A significant component of anthropogenic CO2 emissions occur via the combustion process used to extract energy from fossil fuel sources. I believe that process is what is being referred to here. We “burn” fossil fuel to extract energy. There are other sources of CO2 emissions including industrial processes and land use changes in which the combustion process is not in play.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 8:28 am

Lol

Joao Martins
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 9:35 am

In my comment, which of these two words did you not understand: “energy” and “combustion”? (perhaps both?)

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 10, 2022 11:01 am

I understand both of them. What I don’t fully understand is the way in which Paul Homewood used them which I thought was nonsensical. But I think we can make reasonable inferences as to his meaning. Do you think he was referring to something other than fossil fuel combustion when he used the words “energy combustion”?

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Andy Wilkins
Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2022 3:44 am

Heading is misleading

So are you saying emissions didn’t hit a record high?
Or are you just waffling?
Personally, I’m glad they hit a record high.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
March 10, 2022 3:49 am

The Russia Colluuuusion clown to the scene.

Geoff Sherrington
March 9, 2022 11:55 pm

Mauna Low CO2 signal unchanged by CO2 emissions drop in 2020.
CO2 at Mauna Low signals no rise with emissions increase in 2021?
What, precisely, is being measured at Mauna Low? Geoff S

M Courtney
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2022 12:04 am

It is measuring atmospheric CO2 concentration. The annual wiggles show it responds to the seasons in a timely manner.
The issue is that atmospheric CO2 concentration (and thus anthropogenic global warming) is virtually unrelated to anthropogenic emissions.
The natural sinks dwarf man’s output. As do the natural changes in the sinks.
This is now known because of the (lack of) impact of the Corona Virus lockdown.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  M Courtney
March 10, 2022 12:15 am

M Courtney,
Yes, one could (should) infer what you describe, but in these days of adulteration of good science there would be retribution from idealist activists. This tragedy for science will peter out one day when people rediscover the value of truth, but it has a lot of momentum just now. I wonder each day what motivates those who refuse to believe, or even contemplate, good, hard science.
(This is not a criticism of the Keeling measurements at Mauna Loa).
Geoff S

Joao Martins
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2022 1:25 am

Be careful! If they understand your reasoning (which is a bit too deep for their minds) the catastrophist will shut down Mauna Loa recorders and replace the direct measurements of the CO2 concentration with some kind of “model”.

bdgwx
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 10, 2022 7:26 am

Measuring CO2 or any gas species concentration already requires a model. CO2 can be measured primarily in 3 different ways: electrochemical, non-dispersive IR, and metal oxide semiconductor. Each of these requires a complex model to map electromagnetic behavior into meaningful concentration units. Most CO2 instruments today use non-dispersive IR (NDIR). These instruments exploit the same IR blocking properties of a gas that also bestow upon them their greenhouse gas effect to detect the amount of the gas between the IR source and the detector. Using a model that takes the sent and received amounts of IR the instrument can report the amount of gas present. The wavelength of the IR being analyzed is selected based on what the target gas species is known to respond. The point is that a model is already used. This is actually true for temperature and many other measurable quantities of the atmosphere as well.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 7:51 am

metal oxide semiconductor

This is nonsense.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 8:12 am

For those curious wikipedia has a decent overview of MOS or MOSFET as it is sometimes called here.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 12:04 pm

More nonsense—a MOSFET is a transistor (i.e. a field effect transistor), not an “IR detector”.

Try again.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 12:35 pm

Heh, some clown gave this a down vote.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 12:56 pm

Where did he call a MOSFET an IR detector? I am not a EE, but could it be that he just wanted to school you up on a component of many IR detectors.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2022 4:22 pm

CO2 can be measured primarily in 3 different ways: electrochemical, non-dispersive IR, and metal oxide semiconductor.

blob can’t read.

Maybe blob can expound (i.e. rant) on how field effect transistors are affected by CO2.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 5:40 pm

Yes! Another down vote from the Holy Trenders.

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 1:22 pm

Strawman. I never said MOS or MOSFET was an IR detector. You and you alone are the one who made a connection between the two. Don’t expect me to defend your misunderstanding. I don’t even know why you would make that connection anyway since you think the whole concept of a MOS is nonsense. Which, by the way, is ironic since you rely on countless numbers of them to be able to post here. Anyway, what I said is that MOS is one of 3 primary ways to measure CO2 concentrations.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 4:15 pm

CO2 can be measured primarily in 3 different ways: electrochemical, non-dispersive IR, and metal oxide semiconductor.

And bzx can’t write. How exactly does CO2 affect a “metal oxide semiconductor”?

I don’t even know why you would make that connection anyway since you think the whole concept of a MOS is nonsense.

I *know* what the term means, and you had to use a lame wiki search to try to hide your ignorance.

Next time, maybe you should try a wiki lookup for “photovoltaic effect”.

Last edited 2 months ago by Carlo, Monte
Joao Martins
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 9:38 am

… as I have “predicted“!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 9:46 am

I think you are confusing a “calibration curve” with a “model”.

Lot’s of electronic measurement devices depend on calibration curves for their output.

The sensors in the Argo floats use a calibration curve to determine output values, not a “model”.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 6:03 pm

bdgwx notes “ Most CO2 instruments today use non-dispersive IR (NDIR). “
What is the point of your comment?
Do you assert that the instrument does not or cannot effectively measure the CO2 content of air?
A Yes or No would help.
Geoff S
p.s. Analytical Chemistry once provided my income.

bdgwx
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 11, 2022 6:13 am

GS said: “What is the point of your comment?”

My primary point is that no matter how it is done measuring CO2 requires a model of some kind. This is also true for temperature and many other measurable properties.

My secondary point is that one way of doing it exploits the mechanism that is respondible for CO2’s greenhouse effect.

GS said: “Do you assert that the instrument does not or cannot effectively measure the CO2 content of air?”

I assert NDIRs are effective in measuring the CO2 content of the air. I make that assertion given the countless number of devices deployed

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 7:03 am

Are you going to explain how “metal oxide semiconductors” are used to detect CO2?

bdgwx
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 11, 2022 8:26 am

The presence of gas causes reduction and oxidation reactions on the sensor which changes its electrical characteristics that can be detected and run through a model that outputs a concentration. I’m not a MOS sensor expert so that is the limit of my knowledge in that regard. I did a quick google search and found papers going into the details including the exact chemical reactions that occur. It’s pretty interesting actually. I’ll have to study up on it a bit more when I get time.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 2:39 pm

You are still confusing a model with a calibration curve. Sensors have a calibration curve based on comparison with measurements of a known standard.

There is no such thing as a “model” for a measurement sensor. A model can’t account for the actual manufacturing tolerances of components in in a measuring device, e.g. 1%, 5%, 10%, and 20% resistors. A calibration curve is created to handle this.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joao Martins
March 10, 2022 9:31 am

LOL.

Yes that’s true, you’re absolutely right. (h/t to Bill Murray)

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2022 1:57 am

Soil Erosion

bdgwx
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2022 6:33 am

GS said: “Mauna Low CO2 signal unchanged by CO2 emissions drop in 2020.”

The issue is that the emissions drop in 2020 wasn’t very much. The Global Carbon Project estimates that emissions declined 5.4% or 2.0 GtCO2 which is about 0.3 ppm [1].

From 1979 through 2021 the detrended 13 month centered average had a standard deviation of 2.2 ppm. A 0.3 ppm drop when we are expecting random variation of 2.2 ppm means the signal to noise ratio is very low. You aren’t going to be able to discern that 0.3 ppm signal with the noise floor being so high without modelling and advanced signal processing techniques.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
TallDave
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 8:17 am

wrong, the net flip from 2020 to 2021 was 4GT for energy alone

energy has the largest share but the smallest variance so the total flip might have been as much as 7GT

difference between 2021 and 2020 was by far the largest absolute change on record

bdgwx
Reply to  TallDave
March 10, 2022 8:31 am

Is that gigatons of C or gigatons of CO2 or something else? Can you provide a link to the source where you are getting those figures?

Jim Ross
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 10:27 am

bdgwx,

I am able to check your annual estimated emissions numbers, but not your standard deviation calculation for annual atmospheric growth. You do not state your source of monthly atmospheric CO2 values or the reason for starting in 1979. However, since NOAA provides annual numbers for atmospheric growth at Mauna Loa from 1959 to 2021, I used those (available at: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html). Just visually, the graph at that link shows an annual variability against the general trend of mostly around +/- 0.5 ppmv, with +/- 1.0 ppmv in a couple of extreme cases (1997-98 El Niño and Pinatubo eruption).

The Global Carbon Budget source that you used for estimated emissions also provides annual atmospheric growth rates since 1959 (in GtC); these are a bit of a pseudo-global rate mixture, but do not deviate much from the NOAA annual data linked above, which are for Mauna Loa alone.

The NOAA data show an average annual rate of growth over that period of 1.62 ppm/yr, with a min-max range of 0.32 to 3.03 ppmv/yr. Detrending the NOAA annual values gives a standard deviation of 0.45 ppmv. This is a long way short of your 2.2 ppmv/yr for the standard deviation, so I would appreciate you checking your calculations. While it may not change your conclusion, it would be good to confirm which figure is ‘more correct’.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jim Ross
March 10, 2022 12:51 pm

The source I used is Mauna Loa from https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/data.html. I detrended the 13m centered average of concentration (in units of ppm) from 1979 to 2021. The SD is 2.2 ppm. You can also detrend the annual values as-is as well. That gives you 2.3 ppm. That means we expect the 13m or annual concentration to randomly vary by 2.2 ppm and 2.3 ppm respectively wrt to the trend.

We can analyze the growth (in units of ppm/yr) like you did instead. Doing it that way I get a standard deviation of 0.6 ppm/yr on a mean of 1.8 ppm/yr. Notice the difference in units. It’s 2.2 ppm vs 0.6 ppm/yr. Both are consistent with each other and we can assess the ability of detecting the expected -0.3 ppm perturbation on the concentration (ppm) or -0.3 ppm/yr perturbation on the growth (ppm/yr) equally. For example, the expectation for 2020 is 412.9 ± 4.6 ppm or for a year-over-year change of 1.8 ± 1.2 ppm with 2σ confidence with no pandemic change or 412.6 ± 4.6 ppm and 1.5 ± 1.2 ppm/yr with the pandemic change assuming the law of conservation of mass holds. The observation was 414.2 ± 0.1 ppm and 2.3 ± 0.1 ppm/yr. We are a bit closer to the crucial p < 0.05 on the growth rate test at 2.3 – 1.5 = 0.8 ppm/yr against the 1.2 ppm/yr standard vs the concentration test at 414.2 – 412.6 = 1.6 ppm against the 4.6 ppm standard to falsify the null hypothesis.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 12:33 pm

“From 1979 through 2021 the detrended 13 month centered average had a standard deviation of 2.2 ppm

What was the change in the expected value of your ~2020 13 month detrended, centered average and that preceding it? Seems like the valuation should be to find that change, and then to calculate a difference distribution with a mean =expected value of the change, and a standard deviation =2,2*sqrt2. Then evaluate it at 0.3 to see how detectable that would be.*

Whaddya think?

  • Trusting you on those values. I can recall mistakes, but none you have not corrected.
Last edited 2 months ago by bigoilbob
bdgwx
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2022 1:35 pm

I discussed that in a post just above. Neither an evaluation of concentration (ppm) nor growth rate (ppm/yr) is able to able to falsify the null hypothesis that there is no difference in effect between anthropogenic or natural CO2 emissions on the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the standard p < 0.05 level.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 3:22 pm

Thanks, and I made a mistake with my approach. Since I was describing an annual trend, it should have been evaluated at my expected value – 0.3ppm, not just at the expected value. I believe that calculating that p value makes it statistically equivalent with the trend evaluation you did.

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2022 3:48 pm

And a mistake in my check on my mistake. “not just at the expected value” s/b “not just at 0.3”.

Specificity matters and matters to me. Embarrassing…

Mike
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 1:31 pm

The point is there was a huge decrease in “man made” CO2 emissions in 2020 and it made not the slightest difference in atmospheric CO2 levels. No amount of handwaving changes that fact. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that human influence on atmospheric CO2 levels is so small as to be undetectable. How can you not see this? This should be the absolute death knell for the entire scam but it won’t be because people like you are true believers and no amount of data or logic is going to change what is effectively a religious belief.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Mike
March 10, 2022 3:26 pm

Please read a few of the posts above. Engineers have term for this that they incorporate into their cognescenti lingo that every discipline acquires. TSTM – too small to measure.

bdgwx
Reply to  Mike
March 10, 2022 5:34 pm

I don’t know if I’d call it huge. We’re talking about only a 0.3 ppm decline from 4.6 ppm to 4.3 ppm.

The law of conservation of mass says that 0.3 ppm would have an effect even only slight. The issue is in detecting the effect against the background noise.

I can’t see the contrarian position here because the data is not sufficient to falsify the null hypothesis that says there is no difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions in regards to the way the atmosphere accumulates mass.

The minimum criteria we need to even cast doubt on the null hypothesis at p < 0.05 is for a reduction in emissions of at least 5 GtCO2. But more practically and convincingly it would need to have been over 35 GtCO2 to achieve a 3σ deviation from the expectation of concentration.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
March 10, 2022 9:29 am

A CO2 level increase that has nothing to do with human emissions, mostly.

Philip
March 10, 2022 1:20 am

Kamala Harris, “Imagine if everyone drove an electric car”.

How would we charge those millions of batteries on demand? Solar? Wind? Unicorns? ROTFLMAO

Scissor
Reply to  Philip
March 10, 2022 4:37 am

A software hack could disable vehicles. Could EMP cause batteries to catch fire, explode?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Philip
March 10, 2022 4:39 am

Where would we get enough materials to build everyone an electric car?

An estimate I saw not long ago claimed if the UK vehicle fleet were completely electified, it would require all the available exotic materials required for electic cars, produced in the world today.

That’s one country. And the U.S. is a lot bigger than the UK as far as vehicle fleets go. And that’s only two countries.

Kamala and those who think like her, are delusional if they think electric cars are any kind of a short-term fix.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 8:42 am

The IEA estimate there are currently 16m EVs on the road world wide. That compares to the more than 1.4 BILLION ICEVs.

They also said that the the savings of oil consumption and CO2 emissions from the growth of EVs during 2021 were cancelled out by the increase in sales of SUVs during the year.

And in further ‘good news’ for the EV market that the world faces potential shortages of lithium and cobalt as early as 2025.

I don’t think KH has a clue about the real world.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 9:37 am

That’s because what they really mean is, “imagine if the elites drove electric cars, and all you little people rode public transport or walked.”

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 10:16 am

Let’s agree that the puppets are simply stupid. The wire pullers, not so much. For these parasites, it’s all about power and graft.

Doonman
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 11:12 am

We knew Kamala Harris was delusional a long time ago. It was apparent when she showed up everywhere in the company of Willie Brown, who is also delusional.

Richard Page
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2022 9:06 am

No I think you misunderstand. An electric car – there’ll only be enough materials and electricity for one of them.

Derg
Reply to  Philip
March 10, 2022 8:30 am

That woman is either dumb or high on edibles.

davetherealist
Reply to  Derg
March 10, 2022 10:13 am

She is both.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Philip
March 10, 2022 9:35 am

I can imagine it.

Strip-mined landscapes, blackouts, and immobilized vehicles everywhere you look. Lots of fires, too – and they can’t be extinguished.

NEXT!

Ron Long
March 10, 2022 2:03 am

Sneaking up on “Net Zero” are we? Going in the wrong direction as regards the Doom Princess demands? Here’s an idea (try to think of where this idea originated): let’s cripple our economy by senseless and uneconomic energy restrictions, coupled with demands for gross inefficiency, just to teach the Chinese not to build those new 1,000+ coal-fired electricity generating plants.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ron Long
March 10, 2022 3:10 am

… the Doom Princess …

Wasn’t the term Jeremy Clarkson came up with “Swedish Doom Goblin” ?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 10, 2022 9:38 am

“Swedish Dumb Goblin,” more like.

Peta of Newark
March 10, 2022 2:45 am

eneter Devil’s Avocado…

So, lets go from 1950, roughly about when my parents first met
Average UK wage was £150 per year and a house cost £450
There was totally no requirement for any guy’s wife to get paid work away from home

Now, a UK house costs about £350,000, annual wage of £35,000
Both husband and wife are required to work ## if they want a house.

In 1950, heart attacks were a medical mystery – no-one had them
In 1920, a very small number of people got ‘a touch of the sugar’ – (Read= Type 2 diabetes) and there was well established protocol on how to fix it

Alzhiemer’s demetia (most dementisa in fact) were very very rare occurrences – now Alzheimer’s alone kills over 15% of everybody
At present rate of increase, all children born by year 2050 will be full-blown Autistic

During German bombing raids and while ‘sheltering’ in air-raid shelters, UK boys and girls ‘Went at it like rabbits
Almost all men in this modern time are regarded as latent and actual sex monsters within the UK Statute Book and treated as such.
Elderly folks were respected – now they are (ageing white males esp) Planet Wrecking Monsters. Hard Drug abuse was virtually nil

In 1950, world population was about 2.5 billion and fossil use was 5GT per year – now population has tripled but CO2 is now nearly 7 times higher – even before plastics are considered as ‘fossil use’
Is that really a good idea – is anyone claiming that fossils are an infinite resource?

So, what have we got for all that CO2 – was it worth it.
Here are just a few random stories from just today’s news:

Quote:”Navy face backlash after it REFUSES to deploy multi-billion-dollar guided missile destroyer because its commander won’t get COVID vaccineDaily Mail – lets call that rampant paranoia

Quote:Arrests, Cries of Racial Profiling End Feds’ China InitiativeWebMD – more paranoia

Quote:Drought robs Amazon communities of ‘life-giving’ riverBBC – junk science. Climate didn’t do that, chainsaws and Zippo lighters did it

Quote:”Borrow billions or let bills soar, Rishi Sunak toldBBC what do we put that down to – political/financial ineptitude – possibly borne of the paranoia panic reaction to Wuhan Flu

Previously a truly paroid Trudeau declared an emergency on the truckers’s convey and has now set about freezing the bank accounts of anyone and everyone who donated even a couple of dollars to them,

That is not a comprehensive list at all, even before we get into the lunacy of what effectively was NATO invading the Ukraine and other countries boredering Russia – or the contining saga of brain-dead, demented, diabetic and drunken western leaders.
All those things considered, is ANYONE gonna venture a (haha) ‘projection’ on where Ukraine will end?
Especially considering the inflammatory war-mongering prose coming out of the BBC – and Auntie B is not the mouthpiece of UK Government, please someone tell me who she is.

Does anyone consider we got ‘value for money’ out of those emissions?

/end avocado

approval = too many links I suppose.
is anyone else in the room getting a bit paranoid

What A Mess

Last edited 2 months ago by Peta of Newark
diggs
March 10, 2022 3:09 am

Is there graph that plots annual CO2 emissions, vs atmospheric co2 vs global temps over the same period?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  diggs
March 10, 2022 4:43 am

No honest graphs before 1979, if you include temperatures.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 6:07 am

Overlay the CO2 graph on this graph:

comment image

You will see that his graph doesn’t pay any attention to CO2. It goes up and down while CO2 just goes up. No correlation.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 6:52 am

The graph also does not contain the corrections for the time-of-observation changes and shelter/instrument changes. Would you mind posting the graph that contains the corrections and explaining to the WUWT audience the details behind the corrections? It might be good to remind them that the United States only covers 2% of the Earth and that near surface temperatures are modulated by many factors including but not limited to CO2.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 7:52 am

The fraudulent Mannipulated data?

Why should the USA be special? Lots of “carbon” comes from our modern economy.

Meab
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 8:21 am

But, badwaxjob, those corrections haven’t been necessary since ~1980, have they? Not since the instruments were computerized, and they’ve been standardized for a century. No badwaxjob, even applying a correction for time of day in the early 20th century won’t cause the variability that clearly isn’t correlated with CO2 to go away, your implications is just a lie.

CO2 isn’t the sole control knob on the climate.

Let me give you some advice – when you’ve dug yourself into a hole, you can’t climb out by trying to stand on your own excrement.

bdgwx
Reply to  Meab
March 10, 2022 10:43 am

Meab said: “But, badwaxjob, those corrections haven’t been necessary since ~1980, have they?”

Yes. They are still necessary since ToB changes and shelter/instrument changes continued after 1980.

Meab said: “No badwaxjob, even applying a correction for time of day in the early 20th century won’t cause the variability that clearly isn’t correlated with CO2 to go away, your implications is just a lie.”

The early 20th century isn’t really the problem. It is the period after WWII in which the changes became most acute.

The ToB change, shelter/instrument changes, nor CO2 are not the cause of the variability seen in the average temperature record of the United States as shown in graph above.

Meab said: “CO2 isn’t the sole control knob on the climate.”

I completely agree. I’ve been trying to explain this to various commenters on this site with marginal success.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 12:06 pm

Thank you for again revealing your distinct lack of any ethics.

Derg
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 8:31 am

Corrections 😉

davetherealist
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 10:22 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvuhxv1Ywd4 those changes are proven to be fraudulent. Its not that hard. US may be 2% but we have the most accurate long term records on the planet across many climates. HICC, AGW is complete bullshit.

meab
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 10:30 am

badwaxjob, you are (fecklessly) trying to mislead about the fact that the US covers only 2% of the Earth. In the early 20th century, the vast majority of all standardized temperature measurements came from just the US and a portion of Europe. Those temperature measurements covering just a small fraction of the Earth are the majority of the ones that we have that allows us to estimate century-long trends.

Why are you always trying to mislead, badwaxjob?

bdgwx
Reply to  meab
March 10, 2022 10:52 am

meab said: “badwaxjob, you are (fecklessly) trying to mislead about the fact that the US covers only 2% of the Earth.”

According to wikipedia the area of the United States is 9.8e12 m2 and the Earth’s area is 510e12 m2. That is 9.8e12 / 510e12 = 1.9%.

meab said: “Those temperature measurements covering just a small fraction of the Earth are the majority of the ones that we have that allows us to estimate century-long trends.”

1.9% is pretty small. How effective do you think that 1.9% is in proxifying the remaining 98.1%? Can you provide evidence that the 98.1% behaves exactly the same as the 1.9%?

Meab
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 1:26 pm

You’re actually arguing that we know little about global century-length trends, badwaxjob. On that point I agree.

You’re lying if you are claiming that significant widespread “corrections” are needed owing to recent changes in shelter design. The last significant change to the Stevenson Screen was in 1884, and most current stations are still based on a very similar design. Besides, it’s clear that the small corrections that would be needed station by station would be both positive and negative – more negative than positive because of the Urban Heat Island effect. Unfortunately, that’s not what has been happening. Nearly all “corrections” have warmed recent temps – extremely unlikely to be correct in the era of computerized measurements.

bdgwx
Reply to  Meab
March 10, 2022 6:13 pm

According to Hubbard & Lin 2006 the switch from LiG to MMTS introduced a low bias. The the instrument included a cylindrical radiation shield. The switch began in the mid to late 1980’s.

The urban heat island effect is different than the urban heat island bias. The effect is the observation that urban areas are warmer than rural areas. the bias is the error caused by the spatial averaging technique. The effect is always positive. The bias can be either positive or negative. It is positive when a predominately rural grid cell experiences an increase in the urban-to-rural observation ratio. It is negative when a predominately urban grid cell experiences a decrease in the urban-to-rural observation ratio. It is important that the UHI effect not be conflated with the UHI bias.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 12:25 pm

“The graph also does not contain the corrections for the time-of-observation changes and shelter/instrument changes.”

Tell it to Hansen, he’s the author of the chart.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 1:01 pm

TA said: “Tell it to Hansen, he’s the author of the chart.”

He already knows. GISTEMP switched to the adjusted USHCN dataset in 2000.

b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 2:19 pm

“GISTEMP switched to the adjusted USHCN dataset in 2000.”

Yep, around that time they were desperate to get rid of the 1940’s peak.. to “adjust” it away.

Just in time to push the AGW farce.. Thanks for the confirmation. 🙂

bdgwx
Reply to  b.nice
March 10, 2022 4:55 pm

Here is what the global average temperature looks like with and without adjustments [1].

comment image

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 5:37 pm

No 1930s hot spot, both are bogus.

Try again (although it is a nice hockey stick).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 11, 2022 3:56 am

“No 1930s hot spot, both are bogus.”

Yes, that’s how you tell if you are looking at a bogus, bastadized chart. If it doesn’t show the warming in the Early Twenthieth Century was equal to the warming today, then it is a bogus, bastardized, instrument-era, computer-generated Hockey Stick Chart Lie created to sell the Human-caused Climate Change fraud.

b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 6:24 pm

No that is before GISS adjustments.

You forget all the one’s done beforehand by GHCN et al.

Basically every NH and many SH sites show a peak around 1940, similar to current temperatures.

All gone now. !

Tom Abbott
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 4:04 am

The Climategate Conspirators also give us evidence of a peak around 1940, and it is global, and includes both ocean and land.

So the Climategate Charlatans knew they had a problem with the “1940’s blip” and so they conspired to remove the 1940’s blip from the temperature record so they could claim unprecendented warming today. They rigged the global chart to make it look like that is the case.

Liars and scoundrels all. Liars and scoundrels who have been extremely damaging to Western nations that believe their lies and proceed accordingly.

There’s a special place in Hell reserved for Putin, and I think there should be a special place in Hell for the Temperature Data Mannipulators. They have done untold damage to humanity. And it’s not over yet.

bdgwx
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 6:01 am

b.nice said: “No that is before GISS adjustments.”

The red line is with all adjustments. The blue line is with no adjustments.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 6:18 am

They are both flat in the 1930s…enough said

Tom Abbott
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 3:52 am

“Yep, around that time they were desperate to get rid of the 1940’s peak.. to “adjust” it away.”

It was also about that time that Hansen and the other data mannipulators realized they were going to have to redo the temperature profile to sell the CAGW narrative, because after 1998, it wasn’t getting any warmer, but was starting to cool, all the while CO2 was increasing. CO2 was increasing, yet temperatures were cooling. Not good for those promoting CO2 as a warming agent.

Now, again today, CO2 is increasing yet temperatures are cooling. Not good for those promoting CO2 as a warming agent.

b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 2:15 pm

Tony Heller has proven that the TOB is totally junk fabrication.

An unscientific farce.

Try again.

A large proportion of places in the NH have the same pattern of warm 1940 then cooling….. in any real untampered data.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  b.nice
March 10, 2022 4:18 pm

The Trenders like to whine about “it’s only the USA!”, and thereby implicitly admit that CO2 has no effect in the USA.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 11, 2022 4:10 am

And on top of that, it’s not just the USA, it’s every nation on Earth that has an unmodified temperature record.

All the unmodified, regional surface temperature charts show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. They look nothing like a Hockey Stick “hotter and hotter” temperature profile. The unmodified charts show no unprecedented warming today.

We are being lied to by data mannipulators.

bdgwx
Reply to  b.nice
March 10, 2022 5:12 pm

b.nice: “Tony Heller has proven that the TOB is totally junk fabrication.”

I’ve not seen any such proof. He discusses the topic here. But based on the article I think he misunderstands what the TOB bias actually is. He constructs a test that quantifies the difference between morning and afternoon observations times and concludes that because there is no difference that cannot already be explained by location then the TOB bias cannot be real. The problem is that his test only checks to see if there is a difference between AM and PM observations. He’s not actually testing the bias which is caused not by either AM or PM observations themselves, but by the change from AM to PM. The easiest way to test this is to check for the telltale carry-over and drift observations by comparing Tmin and Tmax to hourly observations like what Vose et al. 2003 did.

b.nice
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 6:26 pm

Linking to his proof that you obviously don’t comprehend, doesn’t help your cause.

bdgwx
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 6:05 am

Do you know what the TOB bias is? Can you describe it in your own words?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 4:12 am

“But based on the article I think he misunderstands what the TOB bias actually is.”

Tony Heller showed TOBs was not necessary.

I have a good link on that somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2022 6:06 am

TA said: “Tony Heller showed TOBs was not necessary.”

Is it the link I posted?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 7:19 am

TOB is a more a problem? How about splitting NH winter and SH summer over different years? Can yuou show a climate science paper concluding that doesn’t introduce a bias? Hell of lot more chance for bias there than a few days of duplicate measurements.

Mark BLR
Reply to  diggs
March 10, 2022 8:09 am

Is there graph that plots annual CO2 emissions, vs atmospheric co2 vs global temps over the same period [ 1900 to 2021 ] ?

Yes.

Is there a version that “everyone” agrees uses both “valid” datasets and presents the results in a “neutral / unbiased / fair and balanced” way ?

No.

CO2-vs-GMST_1900-2021.png
b.nice
Reply to  Mark BLR
March 10, 2022 2:22 pm

The temperature series you have there is a fabrication by adjustments and should most aptly be called..

“The fabricated global URBAN temperature non-data.”

The series shown are all based on the same series of ideological tampering.

They are not real.

Mark BLR
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 3:18 am

They are not real.

OK.

Please provide a reference (or, even better, a link) to a “temperature series” that you consider to be “real”, that goes back to (at least) 1900.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mark BLR
bdgwx
Reply to  b.nice
March 11, 2022 6:17 am

The temperature timeseries comes from GISTEMP. Like all datasets they cover the Earth in a grid mesh so as not to overweight urban areas or otherwise. It does contain adjustments to correct the changepoints caused by station moves, time-of-observation changes, shelter/instrument changes, bucket/engine/buoy differences, etc. That’s a good thing though. We want them to do that. If they weren’t addressing those issues we’d consider it unethical at best.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 7:06 am

That’s a good thing though. We want them to do that. If they weren’t addressing those issues we’d consider it unethical at best.

No, its fraud, and by pushing this shite, you are demonstrating that you are not an honest person.

And BTW, who is “we”?

Last edited 2 months ago by Carlo, Monte
2hotel9
March 10, 2022 3:16 am

Good! CO2 is a positive in the planet’s atmosphere and we need more!

Derg
Reply to  2hotel9
March 10, 2022 3:51 am

This ^

Bruce Cobb
March 10, 2022 4:23 am

“Energy combustion”. LOL.

Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 4:24 am

From the article: “Although a large rise was inevitable following the lockdowns of 2020, the significant fact is that emissions are higher than in 2019. Given that the global economy still has not fully recovered from the pandemic, we should expect further increases in emissions this year.”

Added to that, many more coal-fired powerplants are being built today, so CO2 emissions will continue to climb.

The Earth’s temperatures don’t seem to be affected by this additional CO2. The temperatures have cooled by 0.7C, even as CO2 amounts in the atmosphere climb higher.

Alarmists claim that temperatures will go higher if CO2 goes higher. That’s not happening currently. Alarmists should explain this discrepancy with their Human-caused Climate Change hypothesis. What mechanism causes cooling when more CO2 is in the air?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 6:45 am

Alarmists claim that temperatures will go higher if CO2 goes higher. That’s not happening currently.

And they get apoplectic if anyone tries to point this out (c.f. C. Monckton).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 10, 2022 4:47 pm

They do, don’t they. 🙂

bdgwx
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 10, 2022 7:12 am

TA said: “What mechanism causes cooling when more CO2 is in the air?”

Here are a few of the obvious factors that can offset the effect of more CO2.

Increased aerosols
Increased albedo
Decreased radiative forcing from other GHGs
Decreased solar radiation
Decreased net latent heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere
Decreased net sensible heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 7:53 am

You forgot “sunspots” in this lits.

HTH

Drake
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 8:16 am

Decreased solar radiation CAN’T be the cause. CAGW modelers don’t even have such a component in their models.

bdgwx
Reply to  Drake
March 10, 2022 8:30 am

I’ve never seen a CAGW model nor I do know what it is or what it is supposed to be modeling. I don’t even know what CAGW means. I asked the WUWT audience a couple of weeks and I got 3 definitions: 1) the theory that predicts all humans will die by March of 2022, 2) the theory that predicts all humans will die by 2070 and 3) the theory that predicts 3 C of warming. I’m not sure which of these if any are more widely used. Whatever it may be I’ll take your word that they don’t include solar radiation.

Anyway, climate scientists use various kinds of models including but not limited global circulation models like those within the CMIP suite and energy budgets both of which incorporate solar radiation.

Mr.
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 10:14 am

Here ya go –
comment image

bdgwx
Reply to  Mr.
March 10, 2022 10:44 am

Which model is that from?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 12:08 pm

Is this cluelessness part of your act?

Herbert
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 11:56 am

bdgwx,
“..I don’t even know what CAGW means.”
To complete your education, please read “CAGW:a snarl word?”at Climate Etc.on November 26,2018.
Your continual reference to the 3 meanings given by “the audience” at WUWT is a diversionary ploy.
It is probative of nothing even if an accurate summary of the views of “the audience”which I doubt.
CAGW means “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”.
As the Climate Etc.post indicates,
“So CAGW can be used as a ‘snarl word’,( a derogatory label) and is,albeit misunderstanding is likely the main cause.
It is also a perfectly reasonable and meaningful term for a long term narrative elephant ( with consequent effects) in the public domain and from top authority sources, plus a presence in some science too, and an ethic behind some social responses.
Thus when describing these phenomena, CAGW is not at all the straw-man that some of the orthodox claim.”

bdgwx
Reply to  Herbert
March 10, 2022 1:29 pm

Thanks. It sounds like CAGW is defined by JC as “a long term narrative elephant (with consequent effects) in the public domain and from top authority sources, plus a presence in some science too, and an ethic behind some social responses.” If that is the WUWT audience is willing to accept then we can safely say that CAGW doesn’t really make scientific predictions at all and is of more use in labeling a social or political position to facilitate discussions of that nature. I’m not sure how labeling people based on their social or political position helps us in identifying agents that can offset the CO2 forcing.

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Herbert
March 10, 2022 4:53 pm

Great comment, Herbert.

An example: Herbert: “It is probative of nothing even if an accurate summary of the views of “the audience”which I doubt.”

I doubt that, too.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
March 11, 2022 7:55 am

I gave you an answer to that, references to existential dangers. Here are some instances.

It’s — that’s why I’m signing today an executive order to supercharge our administration ambitious plan to confront the existential threat of climate change. And it is an existential threat.”

Remarks by President Biden Before Signing Executive Actions on Tackling Climate Change, Creating Jobs, and Restoring Scientific Integrity | The White House

“We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does,” he said, adding that “climate change is making the world more unsafe and we need to act.”

Defense Secretary Calls Climate Change an Existential Threat > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

“Climate change now represents a near- to mid-term existential threat to human civilisation. “

(PDF) Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach THE AUTHORS | David J Spratt and Ian Dunlop – Academia.edu

None of the world’s challenges loom as large as climate change, the United Nations chief told a major climate action summit on Tuesday, reiterating his belief that global warming poses an “existential threat” to humanity.”

Climate change: An ‘existential threat’ to humanity, UN chief warns global summit | | UN News

Climate change, Elizabeth Warren said during CNN’s climate town hall on Wednesday night, “is the existential threat. It is the one that threatens all life on this planet.” Fellow presidential candidate Kamala Harris and former candidate Jay Inslee have used the phrase “existential threat” to describe climate change as well.”

Is climate change an “existential threat” — or just a catastrophic one? – Vox

Do I need to give you more. Perhaps you think existential does not mean ceasing to exist.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  bdgwx
March 10, 2022 9:50 am

There’s nothing to offset. Try showing empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels drive the Earth’s temperature.

THERE ISN’T ANY.

On the contrary, there’s plenty of empirical evidence that CO2 drives absolutely nothing.

Except plant growth.

Leo Smith
March 10, 2022 4:40 am

Be a Hero
Kick Net Zero.

(copied from anon. blogger – too good to waste)
If WUWT makes a bumper sticker, I’ll buy.

H.R.
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2022 5:36 am

That’s a good one.

I ran across this one that I really like.

“Forget Build Back Better. Just put it back the way it was.”

DMacKenzie
March 10, 2022 5:53 am

So a leading indicator shows that the world had less energy poverty, more goods and services were produced for humanity. It’s really difficult to put a gloom and doom twist in this.

H.R.
March 10, 2022 5:58 am

Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes1 rebounded in 2021 to reach their highest ever annual level.



Greta: “We are not amused. 😡”

David
March 10, 2022 6:22 am

Looking at the report, the interesting graphs in there are how China is not only the leading producer of CO2, but now produce more CO2 per capita than the advanced economies, with a continuing strong postive trend (vs a negative trend for the advanced economies). The conclusion is obvious: any reduction targets by the advanced economies are useless if China doesn’t have the same targets. It is only a very costly virtue signaling with no possibility of reaching the wanted objectives. If we are to shoot ourselves in the foot, China should too.

Gordon A. Dressler
March 10, 2022 6:53 am

Addendum to above article’s title: “. . . despite which the global average lower tropospheric temperature warming has been at a constant rate for 43 years, with recent data indicating no change at all for CY2021.”

References:
a) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2022-0-00-deg-c/
b) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/04/the-pause-lengthens-again-no-global-warming-for-7-years-5-months/

With this add, there is a logical conclusion that is not hard to reach.

Last edited 2 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Andy Pattullo
March 10, 2022 7:21 am

A good news story for plants and all life on earth.

Alan Millar
March 10, 2022 7:34 am

Good, I like the world being a bit warmer and wetter, it is good for life.

Also, the radiative forcing increase caused by CO2 is logarithmic, so the greatest forcing has already passed and things will never get harmfully hot. I mean, in the UK, temperatures could rise by another 2 degrees, on top of the current warming and it would still be cooler than France is now. If France rose another 2 degrees they would still be significantly cooler than Spain is currently. If Spain rose another 2 degrees they would still be significantly cooler than Greece is currently and so on.

Of course the alarmist scientists are trying to convince us declining cause will lead to an increasing effect but there has never been a scientist born yet who can convince me of that!

Opus
March 10, 2022 7:43 am

CO² is slowly being released from the billions of masks littering Walmart parking lots.

TallDave
March 10, 2022 8:07 am

that’s an awfully big blip

energy has the largest share but the smallest variance so the total 2020/2021 flip might have been as much as 7GT

shouldn’t a flip this large be clearly visible in the Mauna Loa data?

almost like it never happened

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/

even before the pandemic the trend was suspiciously smooth relative to its supposed drivers, but this is somewhat ridiculous

Last edited 2 months ago by TallDave
davetherealist
March 10, 2022 10:07 am

Why do we let the Globull Warming Enthusiast continue to drive this idiotic narrative. CO2 is a nothing burger in the complex and chaotic system. It is responsible for continuation of life on this planet, not a pollutant and focusing on it is a fools errand.

Jeremy
March 10, 2022 10:43 am

And yet the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained virtually unchanged for at least 30 years, despite the large increase of  human emissions…

Surface-average-atmospheric-CO-2-concentration-ppm-The-1980-2018-monthly-data-are-from.ppm.png
Martin Pinder
March 10, 2022 10:58 am

Rather a misleading headline. It would be better if it read: ‘Accumulated total of CO2 emitted from energy combustion & industrial processes since 1900 has risen to 36.3 Giga tonnes’. I wonder how they knew what the amount of CO2 from these processes was in 1900? The whole thing is an estimate. Treat it accordingly.

Doonman
March 10, 2022 11:00 am

Remember, when human CO2 emissions go lower as in 2020, it makes no difference to measured atmospheric concentrations which are always increasing.

However, when they go higher, They are responsible for all the measured increase.

Nicholas McGinley
March 10, 2022 2:11 pm

“CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2021”
I had noticed it looked unusually green and verdant outside recently…

angech
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 10, 2022 4:17 pm

Thanks Paul.
the interesting fact here is an actual link between CO2 levels and human activity
on theother hand it could just be cooler conditions caused a drop in CO2 followed by a rise in earth temp with ocean warming April to November.
Will we blame the next expected fall with 5 months cooling on the fall in earth temperature or the Ukraine crisis?

Jack
March 11, 2022 6:53 am

CO2 emissions were record high in 2021, while the planet’s global temperatures according to UAH are showing no warming at all since 2015.
Any comments ?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Jack
March 11, 2022 7:11 am

According to the Keepers of the Holy Trends, this is caused by “random effects” and everything will be back on track shortly.

bdgwx
Reply to  Jack
March 11, 2022 8:38 am

Point one…UAH TLT temperatures are driven by the net flow of energy/heat in/out of the layer. CO2 is only one among many factors that participate in the modulate of energy/heat in the UAH TLT layer.

Point two…UAH TLT is only a small portion of the climate system. It happens to have a low heat capacity which means the temperature exhibits a lot of variation. There are various heat flux processes that are moving the heat around in the climate system. These include DWIR radiation, UWIR radiation, sensible, latent, and shortwave radiation.

Point three…The ocean takes up 90% of the planetary energy imbalance. 2021 ended up being another record year in terms of oceanic heat content during the period of record. UAH TLT can only diverge from OHC for so long until it is forced to equilibriate with the ocean. As long as the planetary energy imbalance remains positive UAH TLT will go higher. It might pause for another 10 years or it might start going up again next year. But it will go up. The laws of thermodynamics say so.

comment image

Last edited 2 months ago by bdgwx
Sylvia
March 11, 2022 9:22 am

HURRAY !!!!! Lots more food !!!! CO2 is plant food and is helping “green” the planet. Some parts of our deserts are becoming green because plants are able to grow with lots more CO2 (plant food). Why is this SUCH A CRIME ????? There are more people on the planet – we are told – and they all need feeding so why the PANIC ????????????????????

Hubert
March 11, 2022 9:31 am

it looks terrifying , but when we convert it in watts/m2 , the real climate unit , the impact on Earth is not so impressive , only a few milli degrees per year as the AGGI shows it :

AGGI.png
Rod Elliott
March 13, 2022 5:11 pm

Just think about when China increases their mega coal fired plants with hundreds of new ones.

%d bloggers like this: