Introduction
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. This post reviews the 2022 update to the BP data.
The 2022 dataset accounts for the 2020 effect of the Covid-19 epidemic, the CO2 emissions resulting in the aftermath of the epidemic, its impact on Global economic activity and the outcome for the recovery of Man-made CO2 emissions in 2021.
The progress of the proportions of CO2 emissions since 1965 is shown above, with the Developed world now being responsible for about 37% of Man-made CO2 emissions as opposed to as much as 86% back in 1965.
The comprehensive BP country by country data is aggregated 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
- Europe inc UK TK UA ..
- Nominally Developing
- KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW
- China HK
- India
- Rest of World (~160 Nations)
For an earlier post reporting the status of Man-made CO2 emissions as of 2020, see:
Representation by Region
The pie diagram above shows the proportion of CO2 emissions as of the end of 2021. These 2021 data are set out in tabular form below.
This analysis divides the world’s nations into seven roughly equivalent logical groups with distinct attitudes to their CO2 emissions:
Developed nations: population ~1.3 billion, (~17%) – ~37% CO2 emissions.
United States of America: population ~330m, ~13.9% of global CO2 emissions.
President Biden has negated many of Trump’s climate initiatives, including the USA rejoining support for the Paris Climate accord. The actions of the Trump presidency had established USA energy independence for the first time in several decades. In the USA, simply by exploiting shale gas as opposed to Coal for electricity generation, has already reduced its annual CO2 emissions by some by ~1,000,000,000 tonnes, ie by one third, since 2005. That market driven initiative 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): population ~356m, ~12.1% of global CO2 emissions.
These are nominally developed nations with some ambivalence towards controls on CO2 emissions and not necessarily adhering to the Paris Climate Accord.
Europe including the UK, Turkey and the Ukraine: population ~650m, ~11.2% of global CO2 emissions.
This reassessment including Turkey and the Ukraine adds ~120 million to the wider European population with a resulting lowering of the overall CO2 emissions/head. Currently European governments are still largely committed to action to combat Global Warming; they have generally been enthusiastic supporters of the Paris Climate Accord, but the context is changing rapidly, including:
- since February 2022 the war in Ukraine has suddenly made Western nations realise that their immediate energy security in the is much more important than any Green agenda to save the World from possible warming by the end of the century and that their Energy Security and injudicious dependence of Russian energy sources has enabled that Energy Security as a weapon against their economies. But, after 30 years of unrelenting Green propaganda the Green agenda is still well established in the thinking of European Governments.
- European peoples will come to understand the substantial changes to their lifestyles, personal economies and freedoms that are demanded by their governments’ to pursue the Net Zero / Green agenda and voters may be losing enthusiasm as they understand the real life implications of the imposed policies.
- long-term policies providing generous subsidy support for “Renewables” as opposed to Conventional power generation have been pursued, particularly in Germany and the UK.
- the preferential support of “Renewable” technologies has fruitlessly undermined investment in conventional reliable power generation to the extent that there is now real doubt about the ability of European power grids to provide a consistent service 24/7.
- the subsidy support has meant that ~ 25% is aded to electricity bills go to support the “Renewable” technologies in the UK and elsewhere. With escalating power bills European are at last realising that much of their increased costs are for the support of “Renewables” and progressively these expenditures will meet increasing resistance as the level of waste and the unreliability they represent becomes appreciated.
- the Yellow Vests reaction in France was an immediate and violent reaction to the increase of fuel taxes on grounds of combatting climate change. The fuel price rises in 2022 are much more drastic than those that induced the “Yellow Vest” reaction.
- policies based on climate concerns are irrelevant to improving well-being in the Developing World, which has no interest for actions that would restrain their continuing development and well-being using their indigenous fossil fuels.
Nominally Developing nations: population ~6.6 billion, (84.6%) – ~63% CO2 emissions.
South Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia and Taiwan, (KR IR ZA MX SA BR ID TW): population ~910m, 12.0% of Global CO2 emissions.
These are the more advanced developing nations, they are still growing rapidly, with minimal commitments under the Paris Climate accord.
China and Hong Kong: population 1,439m, ~31.2% of Global CO2 emissions.
China is still developing very rapidly, in-spite of the set back induced by the Covid 19 epidemic. Even though China’s CO2 emissions/head have exceeded the level in Europe, China is still considered as a nominally “developing” Nation China and has no effective commitments under the Paris Climate Accord. China is responsible for the continuing development of its own Coal-Fired installations and multiple Coal-fired installations in the Third World. Its actions are not restricted by the Paris Climate Accord. China has made gestures towards “Renewable Energy”, (but mainly for marketing reasons), as China benefits substantially from Solar PV and other “Renewables” manufacture. At the same time, China is advancing the development of new generations of Nuclear power
India: population 1,339m: ~7.5% of Global CO2 emissions.
India is developing rapidly from a low base with no virtually commitments under the Paris Climate Accord. 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 – ~36%: 15.2% CO2 emissions.
The remainder of the underdeveloped world like India is developing rapidly from a low base of ~1.5 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. To support their growth and development all these nations require real dispatchable electrical power and refuse to be to be fobbed off with unreliable “Renewables” by Western Nations.
As long ago as 2010 Professor Richard Muller made the dilemma for all those who hope to control global warming by reducing the CO2 emissions of 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 more marginal and increasingly irrelevant”.
By 2021 CO2 emissions from the Developing world were ~63% 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 Western Nations.
Contrasting the Developed and Developing worlds
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-19 effect has meant that in 2020 overall:
- in 2020 the Global Man-made CO2 emissions fell by ~2,017 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 ~1,324 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 ~697 million tonnes, (~2%) with CO2 emissions / head reduced from 3.30 tonnes to 3.19 tonnes on average.
- in 2021 the recovery from Covid-19 Global CO2 emissions immediately grew by ~1,800 million tonnes in with a Global uptick of CO2 emissions to 4.35 tonnes/head.
Up until 2020, CO2 emissions in the Developing world were accelerating as the quality of lives for people progressively improved. That growth of CO2 emissions is likely to 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 from the West of major CO2 emitting industries to parts of the world that have less rigorous environmental standards and/or who are less concerned about CO2 emissions.
- the growing use of Coal-firing for electricity generation, the most economic option for 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 as in France.
Having been relatively stable for the previous 5 years, as a result of the Covid-19 effect overall Global CO2 emissions fell in 2020 by ~6.0%. The Developing world has reduced CO2 emissions as a result of Covid-19 but the effect was only marginal when compared to the reductions in the Developed world. In 2021 those reduced CO2 emissions were re-instated in large part.
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. In effect “Renewables” are parasitic on conventional Generation for their existence.
The use of Biomass for electricity generation, although considered to be “carbon neutral by policy” in Western thinking, actually increases the immediate release of CO2 to the atmosphere, producing about twice as much CO2 as Coal-firing and almost 4 times more than Gas-firing for equivalent 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. The use of Biomass in Germany is equally self defeating. In addition the use of Biomass is hugely destructive of natural habitats and its use for energy substituting for food products substantially increases the costs of food Worldwide.
Recent CO2 emissions changes and the Covid-19 effects
The radical changes indicating recent CO2 emissions reduction from Covid-19 can be seen below.
It is clear above that the major reductions in CO2 emissions that arose from Covid-19 in the Developed world, particularly in Europe and the USA have been largely reinstated in 2021.
Global CO2 emissions had previously plateaued, but in the period 2016-2019 they had 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 has improved progressively. After a fall in 2015 – 2016 in 2017 – 2020 the was an uplift in Chinese emissions. China was the only territory to increase its Man-made CO2 emissions in 2020 in spite of the Covid-19 effect.
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.
https://www.thegwpf.com/china-building-300-new-coal-power-plants-around-the-world/
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 and access to electrical power of various Nations.
The USA has already reduced its CO2 emissions/head by 1/3 since 2000. The reduction has arisen by replacing Coal-firing with shale gas for electricity generation: Gas-firing produces about 1/2 the CO2 emissions of Coal-firing. Post Covid-19 in 2021 the USA CO2 emissions/head have been partially restored.
The combination of 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-19. In 2021 those CO2 emissions have been largely restored.
Europe with active legal measures had reduced emissions until ~2013. The reassignment of the European sphere of influence in this post means that overall the CO2 emission have fallen to 5.84 tonnes/head. Much of that downward trend is largely attributed to the decline of European economies and the displacement of industrial processes to countries with laxer environmental regimes. The effect of Covid-19 was particularly acute in Europe.
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 2021 to ~7.36 tonnes / head. With the Covid-19 effect in Europe CO2 emission/head have reduced to 5.84 tonnes/head whereas China has now surpassed the whole of Europe at ~7.36 tonnes / head.
India’s CO2 emissions have grown by 4.7 times since 1965 and are still accelerating. That emissions rate is likely to grow continuously with increased Indian 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 ~1.85 – 1.54 tonnes/head, this level is about 1/7 of the level of the USA and about 1/3 of the level in China and Europe. These under-developed Nations still have poor access to reliable power and consequently very 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 full 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. Their performance measured by Energy Return on Energy Invested, EROI means that Weather-Dependent Renewables will always be Energy parasitic on conventional power generation.
As part of its Cold War aggression towards Western economies, Russia has been actively involved in backing anti-fracking campaigns throughout Europe and in the USA via its support of various NGO groups and its influence on Governments. Originally this has been an obvious commercial policy to protect the large Gasprom markets for Russian Gas in Europe.
The policy of promoting dependence on Russia energy exports has now been now weaponised giving Russia energy stranglehold on EU (27) Nations. With the ongoing war in the Ukraine, the injudicious policies of allowing energy dependence on Russia, particularly of the German economy has now become painfully evident.
The export of Fracked gas from the USA to Europe and the possibility of establishing indigenous fracking of the available resources might break the stranglehold, but a complete reversal of European / Western Green policies will be necessary to achieve that.
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 CO2 emissions 2020 – 2021 grew by a further 272 million tonnes. India has some 450 new Coal-fired generation plants currently under development so this growth in CO2 emissions will continue.
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 5.4%, 545 million tonnes in 2021. However, China has also been promoting the use of Coal-firing for electricity generation both domestically, (300 – 500 new Coal-fired plants) and across the Developing world with some 300 new Coal-fired generating plants currently in the pipeline.
https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy
European CO2 Emissions / head
When the environmentally active / Green aware European Nations are compared with Chinese and USA CO2 emissions/head, the following picture arises.
In 2020 average European CO2 emissions/head, post Covid-19, (5.84 tonnes/head), are now well exceeded by China, (7.36 tonnes/head) and this closely approaches Germany the highest CO2 emitter in Europe. European CO2 emissions overall fell slightly in 2020, notably in Germany and remarkably further in France. The UK has seen a significant drop in CO2 emissions reaching 4.77 tonnes/head in 2021. The UK is now close to 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, and is at 15% below the Global average. This is entirely due to the long-term French commitments to electricity generation by Nuclear energy. The French example shows that, were it desirable, comparatively low CO2 emissions can be achieved in a developed country by using Nuclear energy: this 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, show starkly the very real advantage of using Nuclear power for electricity generation. President Macron’s earlier intentions were to reduce French Nuclear generation from ~75% to 50%: this would have been particularly anachronistic but he now seems to have decided to reverse that decision. Green attitudes in the French government had thus threatened to destroy this unique low-carbon French national asset, which also makes other European Nations, particularly the UK (~9% power 2021 supply imported) and Germany (~13% of 2021 power supply imported) largely dependent on these French power exports.
At 7.70 tonnes/head, Germany virtually is alone in Europe, it now exceeds the CO2 emissions/head level of China by only 10% and is well above the European average. The long-term policy of “die Energiewende” has resulted in Germany having the world’s highest power costs, (save for Denmark).
Germany, one of the largest CO2 emitters in Europe, has emissions/head about twice the worldwide average but that is now only ~10% higher than China. Germany’s emissions have increased recently because they are now burning large quantities of brown coal to compensate for the “irrational” policy closure of almost all of their nuclear generating capacity: irrationally that emotionally based policy still seems to stand in Germany in spite of Russia now weaponising the restriction of German energy supplies.
Such action should have been impossible in the premier engineering environment of Germany but following the Fukushima disaster, the German government position was to rapidly eliminate its own nuclear power. Nonetheless, this irrational and emotional reaction was made in a country with no earthquake risk and no chance of damaging tsunamis.
In 2021 the UK was responsible for just 1.0%, (338 million tonnes) of the 2021 total 33,884 million 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 these insignificant UK CO2 emissions at such enormous cost would therefore seem entirely fatuous in the context of inevitable CO2 emissions growth worldwide and the energy crisis induced by the war in Ukraine.
The futility of Western de-carbonisation
Although there was a momentary hiatus as a result of Covid-19, it is clear that CO2 emissions growth is continuing in the Developing World and that growth can be expected to continue virtually indefinitely in future. So, the futility of the one-sided expenditure of vast resources on Green activities in Europe and throughout the Western world is clear.
When the gross 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 these major changes in Man-made CO2 emissions have not caused any appreciable inflection in the Keeling CO2 concentration curve.
But the self-harming actions of the Western Governments in response to Alarmist Green thinking are 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 all energy users and in addition they will severely damage the economies of all Western Nations.
The effective elimination of Fracking as a technique for fossil fuel recovery in Western Europe is a self-inflicted harm caused by “Green Virtue Signalling” and it has been to sole the benefit of the energy warfare of Russia and China in the continuation of “a less than covert Cold War”.
The resulting excess expenditures across Europe to date compared to using Gas-firing for power generation can be estimated as:
- Weather-Dependent “Renewables” 385GW
- Weather-Dependent power output 2021 69GW
- in wasted excess capital costs ~623 € billion
- in wasted excess long-term costs over a 40-year service life ~1,l825 € billion.
This is the scale of direct fiscal damage that has been caused by the obstruction of Fracking throughout Europe, originally just to benefit of Russian Gas exports and now to give Russia an Energy Security weapon with which to threaten European civilisation.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/december-2019/the-plot-against-fracking/
Conclusions
The recently released data from BP shows:
- the recent 2020 down turn in CO2 emissions arising mainly in the Western world as a result of Covid-19 is already close to being wholly reinstated in 2021.
- with the continuing growth of Coal-firing in China, India and throughout the developing world Man-made CO2 emissions are now continuing to advance.
- Man-made CO2 emissions can be expected to grow strongly in future, whatever actions may be taken in the West curtail their own CO2 emissions.
- even with the marked recent negative and positive variations in Man-made CO2 emissions in the last two years their impact cannot be discerned as any visible perturbation of the standard atmospheric CO2 measurements in the Mauna Loa Keeling curve.
- Western European nations have injudiciously allowed the continuing access to fossil fuels from Russia to be weaponised against them: this will be a particularly acute problem in the coming Winter of 2022 – 2023. This gross policy error will substantially damage the Western economies.
Again this is an estimated total of emissions based on published material from the countries concerned. It’s accuracy has not been determined so the premise of it being ‘accurate data’ is flawed.
Yeah, trusting any statistics from the PRC seems rash.
And the Covid-related 2020/2021 emissions reductions produced no discernable reduction in the atmospheric CO2 measurements.
Not surprising considering It was only a 15 to 20% decrease for a couple of months.
You wouldn’t notice if your income decreased decreased 20% for a couple of months?
It’s not even going to change the global CO2 level if humans stop existing.
What we produce can’t keep up with warming oceans gassing off “greenhouse gasses” (Henry’s law). This is why CO2 levels follow warming on Earth.
“…oceans gassing off “greenhouse gasses”
No, the ocean is currently a net CO2 sink. And we know it’s coming from the atmosphere and not the seabed becasue the increase in concentration is only at the surface, not in the deep.
Since the climate did not? Apparently not. Apples and oranges make a nice salad, fairly crappy argument, especially when used against reality. Computer models? Total crap, apples and oranges in a blender.
All this obsessing about CO2 is ignoring the fact CO2 is hugely beneficial to the world’s flora and fauna
A little more warmth, and a little more CO2 is exactly what is needed to feed all those people.
Precisely! CO2 good! Leftist ideology bad! Savy? Apparently leftarded morons can’t figure it out.
“Precisely! CO2 good! Leftist ideology bad! Savy?”
China and India agree…nothing else matters!
Oh they figured it out years ago, they just don’t like admitting that their objective is the manipulation & control of Humanity, for their profit & theirs alone!!! All this freedom & democracy nonsense is really bad!!! After all, Manmade Globul Warming is the grand-daddy of all scary stories, to create fear, because fear is the weapon of choice for manipulators & controllers!!! Oh the delight of a One-World Globul Guvment, un-elected, un-democratic, un-accountable, AND un-sackable, sounds delightful- NOT!!!
It’s worrying enough that there’s now a major effort in academia to explain the no-show in the atmospheric CO2 measurements. Nature’s already published a paper trying to explain it using a corresponding decrease in air pollution.
That is the interesting thing. Atmospheric pollutants, which were almost certainly anthropogenic, were observed to decline almost immediately. However, CO2, which is intimately tied in with biological processes, and have several natural sources that apparently can substitute for each other and are difficult to assign to the source, has not stopped its annual increase.
This is hugely important, had not read on this.
Why indeed does co2 show no decrease when the real pollutants that come with burning them clearly did decrease?
Shouldn’t they move in lockstep?
No necessarily. The pollutants that are anthropogenic, albeit not as abundant as CO2, don’t have significant sources in Nature. The key is that alarmists say that because the annual atmospheric increase is about half of the anthro’ annual emissions, humans must be responsible even though we only contribute about 4% of the total CO2 flux. I suggest that it is a spurious correlation.
Because there is no measurable correlation between the monthly changes in atmospheric CO2 and human contributions, I maintain that there must be other sources driving the annual increases in the Keeling Curve.
I have seen CO2 mappings from satellite measurement that show the highest CO2 levels corresponding to the locations of the heaviest concentrations of broadleaf forest. Is it certain that broadleaf vegetation is not a source of increased CO2?
Certainly, in the tropics, with heat and moisture, bacterial CO2 is abundant, as shown in the first OCO-2 map:
What gets less press is that the boreal forests will respire CO2 at night and during the Winter, while dormant, from roots and needles.
Sources or reduced sinks? If, for example the world’s diatom population increased at the expense of calcareous phytoplankton then the export of carbon compounds to the deep would decrease..
Diatoms’ limiting resource is dissolved silica. If for some reason the amount of dissolved silica in the oceans is increasing – like farming run-off, land disturbance – then that would explain diatom populations like the Sea of Marmara.
If diatoms – C4 metabolism – displace C3 phytos the lesser exported C will include proportionately more heavy isotope C.
Less export, more heavy C exported proportionately. Light C ‘signal’ in the greater amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere.
JF
Is this correct? Who knows, it’s a Feynman guess.
Something I think that I should emphasize here is that for the anthro’ pollutants that we have good reason to believe are essentially only from humans, there was an immediate and easily measurable decline in 2020, despite the concentrations being much lower than CO2. However, we do not observe that with CO2. That is the primary reason I do not believe humans are responsible for 100% of the annual increase.
Great point, so you would think that pretty much covers it (we can not find the human signal in the CO2 data) so it must be exceedingly small, or in any case shutting down the world had no impact so just forget about it, some things are not under our control, just ask covid.
100%!!!!!!
Exactly. I once had a small business that was required by the EPA to report formaldehyde emissions on an annual basis. I was unable to calculate the number, so did not report. Granted the number was small in comparison but how many thousands of business did not report like me?
The way Co2 is reported by industry the accuracy may be off a lot.
We have accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1958.
What difference does it make if CO2 emissions data are inaccurate?
CO2 emissions certainly account for 100% of the CO2 level increase.
Once you start down that slippery slope where will it end? “There’s no need to investigate and record any form of data – we know what we WANT the data to be, so let’s just use that and say it’s accurate.”
Are you claiming CO2 measurements
since 1958 are wrong?
If so, you have provided no evidence.
Atmospheric CO2 levels can be measured fairly accurately and have been measured from the 1940’s or earlier. Man made Carbon Dioxide emissions must be estimated by totalling the amounts of hydrocarbons used and calculating how much CO2 is released from them. As such the estimates are dependant on each country being an honest broker as regards how much of each type has been used and declaring other sources of CO2 – this is not an accurate measure of emissions, it cannot be checked except in the crudest, least accurate ways and, as such, is completely worthless as ‘data.’
Yep, “CO2 emissions account for 100% of the CO2 increase”!
Emissions from WHERE? The oceans, plants and animals, warming bogs? How many OTHER emissions are there?
Go ahead and take the time to explain your comment Richard.
Manmade CO2 emissions are obviously an estimate.
The estimate is roughly +200ppm from burning fossil fuels.
Actual atmospheric CO2 is up from
an estimated 280ppm in 1850 to 420ppm now
That roughly 140ppm increase
is 100% explained by CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels.
Any natural cause is irrelevant.
Because nature is still absorbing
much of that manmade CO2 increase.
Richard – I simply can’t take your posts seriously when you conflate estimated emissions with measured atmospheric CO2 concentrations then flip-flop between the two using the wrong units. If you want to write about estimated emissions or CO2 concentrations then do so but if you do intend to discuss both in the same post then please keep them seperate and use the appropriate units – don’t mix ‘n’ match and, if you can, please explain the mathematical relationship between emissions (tonnes) and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (ppm).
Except in the Arctic, where the melting permafrost is releasing CO2 and methane, which converts to CO2. Researchers are getting concerned about the visually obvious releases in the Arctic, but I don’t think that the Carbon Cycle estimates of sources have been revised to take them into account.
This is the old Steady State argument. That the natural world maintains everything in perfect balance so any change must be contributed to humans. Do you realise how stupid that argument is.
I do realize how stupid you are.
Do I get partial credit?
Your argument is unprovable strawman argument, which is why you push it. You also probably believe in steady state economics, which sounds nirvana until you realise it is utterly implausible.
I wrote a for profit economics newsletter for 43 years. There is no such thing as steady state economics. You are spouting gibberish.
Obviously wasn’t a very good newsletter. Adam Smith (remember him) proposed the concept of the final economic state would become stationarity. ( did you learn about that). Today you have ecological economists who want to impose a steady state economy as a way of dealing with climate change. You are correct it’s gibberish just not mine, but neither am I sprouting gibberish that all increase in C02 is man-made.
Gibberish for two subjects:
Climate science and economics.
Partial credit for consistency.
Consistently wrong.
At least you now admit your talking gibberish. Just in case you didn’t understand the Adam Smith reference he wrote The Wealth of Nations(1776). It was mandatory reading when I did economics at uni. You might have missed since it was before 1850 when climate alarmists think the world began.
It’s stupid because humans are natural too. Unless you want to invoke divine intervention into the argument. But in my experience greenies don’t ever want to go there although they do like to interject their green religious beliefs such as steady state whenever possible.
I’m with George Carlin on this.
Maybe god created us to put co2 in the atmosphere?
I know, his comment was about plastic, but same thing.
Pinatubo?
If a Volcano emitted one CO2 molecule, your 100% would be wrong.
CO2 emissions accounted for way more than 100% of the CO2 increase. Do you deny that fact?
Not as flawed as data from the climate alarmists.
General question: what is the current percentage of total C02 emitted comes directly from man?
(7 to 9) Gt / 200 Gt so about 3.5% to 5%
3% – 4% as far as I can ascertain.
Complete nonsense from HotScot and JaneHM.
The right question is how much of the increase
of CO2 is manmade. The right answer is 100%.
We climate realists MUST get this basic climate science
right if we are to effectively refute climate scaremongering.
Some of us treat leftists as being100% wrong on every
aspect of climate science. They are pretty bad,
but not 100% wrong!
This is not complicated.
There is no reason to claim CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels did not increase the
CO2 concentration in the troposphere from below
300ppm to above 400ppm.
Our job is to show the
effect of that CO2 increase was harmless.
In my opinion it was beneficial.
We can’t deny that humans have increased
the CO2 level by one third.
Manmade CO2 is 33% not 3% to 5% !
Doing so would make us real science deniers.
I don’t care if I get as many thumbs down as Griff for saying so!
Refute leftist climate scaremongering
with the truth, not alt-science and deceptions.
The truth is on our side.
“Humans emit CO2 by burning fossil fuels, about 40 billion tons per year. Plants emit CO2 when they burn, decay, or respire at night, about 439 billion tons per year. The oceans also release some CO2, about 332 billion tons per year. If you look only at this, humans emit 40 billion tons out of 811 billion tons, or about 4.9% of the CO2 released. This is the figure that climate change deniers like to quote.
However, although dead or dying or respiring plants are releasing these 439 billion tons of CO2, living plants are absorbing much more in the daytime, about 449 billion tons of CO2 per year. While the ocean releases some 332 billion tons of CO2 per year, they then reabsorb that plus another 10 billion tons. Thus, nature absorbs much more CO2 than it emits in total. In fact, plants and oceans absorb about half the CO2 released by humans. Unfortunately, that still leaves the other half, which is why CO2 levels are going up about 3 to 4 ppm each year.
So, to rephrase your question to be more informative, how much of the net CO2 increase in the air is humans responsible for? The answer is 100%. We are also responsible for 100% of the net increase in CO2 in the oceans, which is turning the oceans more acidic, which is very dangerous to life in the oceans.”
SOURCE OF QUOTE:
Of all of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, what percentage is produced by humans? – Quora
Richard the numbers I gave were obviously the per annum i.e. the currently emitted as requested. Note your claim of 33% of the 410 ppm is strictly just supposition. What we need is 10 years of stand-alone real-time source and sink measurements from an OCO-2 successor.
CO2 emissions account for far more than 100% of the estimated CO2 level increase since 1850.
We don’t need more precise measurements or
new theories.
Nature is still absorbing CO2.
Nature is not adding CO2.
Humans are.
You are ignoring reality.
Doing so, you can not be effective
in refuting climate scaremongering.
We actually don’t have stand-alone accurate measurements of sources and sinks. Reality is what the Earth system is doing, not what you assume it’s doing.
We have accurate CO2 measurements since 1958.
We have rough CO2 estimates for the prior 500,000 years from Vostok Ice cores. which show little change in CO2 levels during those years of 100%natural climate changes.
The CO2 increase correlates well with manmade CO2 emissions since the 1800s.
What facts do you deny?
The CO2 measurements since 1958 are mid-troposphere concentrations. The measurements do not identify sources and sinks.
Yes, they are rough because the physical processes that preserve them also result in smoothing. The greater the difference in concentration between a given year and the before and after years, the more diffusion will take place. Thus, reducing peaks. This will be particularly effective before the firn consolidates into ice.
Richard is correct: “CO2 emissions account for far more than 100% of the estimated CO2 level increase since 1850.”
Since man has emitted more CO2 than than that of atmospheric CO2 increases, logically the atmospheric increase is net 100% man.
Only if there are not other increasing sources of comparable or greater magnitude. One such source that is probable is the Arctic Tundra. Another that is possible, although unknown, is undersea volcanic emissions.
It is a logical fallacy to attribute causation to an agent simply because there is no other agent known that could do it.
Clyde (and downvoters), man produces about twice the amount of CO2 increase measured in the atmosphere annually. Show me any significant net increases from tundra, submerged volcanoes, oceans & etc. Your argument from ignorance is unconvincing.
Look, a warming world does logically emit more CO2 into the atmosphere. At the same time Man’s massive emissions have materially contributed to the increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 which, by itself, fertilizes measurable plant growth. To the extent that plants’ growth suck up the much smaller CO2 emissions from Earth’s warming, you can’t measure the difference.
So what if you can guess that Man’s emissions only make up about 97% to 99% of the net CO2’s growth? It is close enough for this engineer to say 100% or thereabouts. Don’t get wrapped around the axle of dogma and lose sight of the bigger picture.
You subtly give away your personal bias when you refer to “Man’s massive emissions.” “Massive” only amounts to about 4% of the estimated annual source fluxes.
I don’t know how much CO2 is coming out of the tundra, or how rapidly it is increasing, because nobody has done a thorough, high-resolution sampling at this point in time. Likewise, I don’t think that the Winter respiration of Boreal forests is well characterized. Although, the Point Barrow station measurements show a much larger seasonal amplitude than Mauna Loa. I note that the likes of PBS TV NOVA has featured a program extolling the concerns about the methane bubbling up in Arctic lakes.
We know enough about submarine volcanoes and spreading centers to know that they provide episodic ‘burps’ of CO2. The magnitude is very elusive because we probably know more about the surface of Mars than we do about what goes on at depths in the oceans. The first Black Smokers weren’t discovered until 1977. It was years later that it was discovered that the Black Smoker fields are ephemeral.
As the Earth warms, the tropics and mid-latitudes will out-gas more CO2; at the same time, less CO2 will be withdrawn at high latitudes. A major sink, which rarely gets mentioned, is rain that absorbs CO2 as it falls. Most of it goes into the ocean. However, if the atmosphere is warming, rain will remove less CO2, allowing a buildup in the atmosphere.
NASA has documented greening of the Earth. However, I don’t think that has made it into the Carbon Cycle models yet.
If the uncertainties of measurements of natural sources are of the same magnitude as anthro’ sources, and measurements can’t confirm an actual statistically significant correlation between monthly anthro’ and natural variations, then I suggest you not “get wrapped around the axle of dogma” and flail your hands about things that can’t actually be measured.
Massive describes the relative increases in Man’s CO2 production as compared to the minor increases in other sources. It is the delta that matters.
You have not made the case for massive CO2 increases in natural emissions anyway near Man’s. A smokescreen of words, Clyde, does not make up for a lack of proof.
The current annual production of anthro’ emissions is of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty in the atmosphere-ocean exchanges. It would appear that “massive” is in the eye of the beholder.
Termites emit more CO2 than humans so it can’t all be Human CO2!
How much more do the termites currently emit than they did in 1900, Greytide?
Does anyone know? My understanding is that land use changes resulting from overgrazing can improve the habitat for termites. There is little incentive for those locked into the current paradigm to go look for counter evidence. They already know what the right answer is. /sarc
And your counter evidence, Clyde?
If you are asking about termites, probably nobody knows. So, those who believe they know the role played by humans are free to ignore the possibility that termites could be making a contribution. Ditto with the Arctic. No need to do further research when “The science is settled.”
Richard Greene ignores the fact that all fossil fuels came from atmospheric CO2 to begin with. The fact that the biosphere sequestered it and humans now release it is an entirely natural sequence of events. He cannot show otherwise. unless he invokes divine intervention as his explanation.
not from the atmosphere but from the deep, hot biosphere
I wonder if anyone who ‘downvoted’ that could explain why? Because it makes them uncomfortable? Because it doesn’t fit their personal narrative? It’s just a presentation of scientific numbers as we understand them–what’s to dislike?
I remember a bit of discussion in a graduate course in the 1970’s that we didn’t know where the CO2 generated by combustion of fossil fuels was going, it was not showing up in the atmosphere in the quantities that it should be (back then).
We must also realize that the presented numbers all also have uncertainties associated with them; they could be cumulative.
Man is certainly adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels–where else does it go from tailpipe or stack?–and consideration should be given to the possibility that just maybe we’re supposed to. Looking at that Smithsonian graph of earth’s temperature over the last 550 million years, imagining the luxuriant life during the Jurassic compared to conditions of the Pleistocene, then noticing the ‘you are here’ right hand end of the temperature plot certainly says this is not a particularly good place to stabilize the climate (as if we could)–not to mention how baffling it is for anyone to conclude that the plot should flat-line from here onward; someone please point out the precedent for that. The history of life says warmer would be better, and to say ‘well we like it here so too bad for all the rest of life’ may not be the correct way to proceed.
OTOH, I’m fencing rural property in the Cariboo in the BC interior right now–if mosquitoes became the size of pterodactyls…
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
One of the problems is that those concerned with measuring the pH of ocean waters did trust (or didn’t like) the historic measurements. So, they ignored all the actual measurements and built a computer model to estimate historic pH values. The historic change is based on modern measurements and historic calculations (estimates). What could go wrong?
The above should read, “… those concerned with measuring the pH of ocean waters
diddidn’t trust (or didn’t like) the historic measurements.”“There is no reason to claim CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels did not increase the
CO2 concentration in the troposphere from below
300ppm to above 400ppm.”
Richard- you’re grandstanding on what is really a spurious correlation.
You see the first relationship in the top panel below as all important, but one step later in the second panel the r=.99 turns into an insignificant r=.03. This is how science is really done, not on the superficial level you et al advocate.
“So, …, how much of the net CO2 increase in the air is humans responsible for? The answer is 100%. We are also responsible for 100% of the net increase in CO2 in the oceans, which is turning the oceans more acidic, which is very dangerous to life in the oceans.”
Richard, MME are not responsible for 100% of the increase because the ocean temperature regulates ML CO2 at a highly statistical significance.
Outgassing isn’t the source of all the CO2, yet the SST largely sets the level, and there are other factors that also increase ocean dissolved CO2, such as from high solar irradiance, high temperature driven coral reef bleaching.
This business of you and others here at WUWT telling the rest of us how we should argue science is pointless when you don’t do enough basic science of your own to even understand the fundamental physical processes involved.
Just like the warmists you cling to your dogma. You are anti-science.
Bob Weber said: “Richard- you’re grandstanding on what is really a spurious correlation.”
The law of conservation of mass is not based on spurious correlations. Humans pumped 660 GtC into the atmosphere. Of that 277 GtC stayed in the atmosphere and 383 GtC got dispatched into the hydrosphere and biosphere. The atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere all have more carbon in them now relative to the preindustrial era. Remove humans and you remove that 660 GtC. That’s what the law of conservation of mass says in so uncertain terms.
The MME-ML CO2 relationship is spurious as noted. I don’t see how you and the law of conservation of mass can overturn my analysis of virtually no correlation to speak of from year to year for the annual changes in MME vs the annual changes in ML CO2.
Unlike many posters I recognize your knowledge and intelligence.
But, your view precludes the changing ocean warming effect on CO2, of more sourcing from larger warmer areas, and less sinking from smaller less cold areas since the preindustrial era, which is represented by my outgassing model images above, with both conditions being favorable for higher atm. CO2 over time.
You are missing a part of the CO2 action by not including those factors in your law of conservation of mass calculations, as are the people who claim the ocean is a net sink with the same uptake every year.
If you are going to claim it’s wrong that CO2 is thermo-regulated you should be able to explain why the 12 month average change in CO2 follows the same for SST>25.6C by 5 months at r=.84, and why the entire ocean conforms to the CO2 solubility law- if it is not following Henry’s Law and instead is supposed to follow MME, which it clearly doesn’t year to year. Can you explain why?
I think if you were being objective you’d have to conclude there is something wrong with your view, particularly if you have no satisfactory answer.to the two questions I just asked of you. In addition, in order to agree with you I’ll need to get a clear answer why ice core CO2 lags T too if it wasn’t also thermo-regulated.
Clearly, El Nino significantly changes the surface temperature of the Pacific, so the out-gassing will be increased during that part of the cycle. Few things are the same every year.
The law of conservation of mass applies in all situations. The warming of the ocean is no exception. We can use the Takahashi 1993 formula d[ln(C)]/dT = 0.042 to conclude that a +1C change in SST results in a +17 ppm (36 GtC) change in atmospheric carbon. In other words, had the oceans not warmed then of the 310 ppm (660 GtC) transferred into the atmosphere only 113 (241 GtC) would have stayed resulting in only 393 ppm (837 GtC) of CO2 in the atmosphere today with the 17 ppm (36 GtC) being taken up by the hydrosphere as opposed to the 410 ppm (873 GtC) we have today. In either case the sum of the uptake in the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere adds up to the 310 ppm (660 GtC) that humans emitted.
Remember that CO2 responds to temperature and temperature responds to CO2. That means CO2 can both lead and lag the temperature depending on the circumstances. When there is no other significant modulating factor other than a temperature change then CO2 will respond to temperature first and force it second resulting in a lag behavior. When CO2 is being modulated independent of the temperature then it forces the temperature first and responds to it second resulting in a lead behavior. The glacial cycles were an era where there were no significant modulating factors pumping the sources and sinks of CO2 directly other than temperature changes. Thus CO2 primarily lagged the temperature during this era. However, during the PETM and other ETM events CO2/CH4 sources were being pumped by temperature independent outgassing events. Thus CO2 primarily lead the temperature during these eras. And it is important to point out that atmospheric CO2 is not lagging the temperature by 400-600 years today.
Anyway, the main point I’m making is that the law of conservation of mass so influential and important that any conclusion must be consistent with it first. It is the very first thing that must be checked. It is a fact. Humans transferred 660 GtC (310 ppm) into the atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere carbon cycle with all of that initially going into the atmosphere first. Humans are the sole cause of that 660 GtC (310 ppm) change in mass. Remove humans and you remove the additional 660 GtC (310 ppm) of mass. That does not mean that there is not an abundance of details regarding how that 660 GtC (310 ppm) got dispatched. It does not mean that CO2 cannot lag the temperature in some circumstances. It does not mean that we will not find correlations between CO2 and other variables today.
That is only half the equation. Warming waters will allow more out-gassing. However, warming water in high latitudes will extract less CO2, meaning the ocean-atmosphere system is no longer in equilibrium.
You have done the typical broad brush approach. What is necessary is to integrate the entire surface of ocean waters as predicted by temperature maps.
And, we know where all the molecules come from because they all have little barcodes on them to identify their source. The barcodes are updated if there is even temporary residence in a sink, and subsequently updated again if they escape from the sink. /sarc
You have to understand that the Quora ‘authorities’ are relying on estimates from those who study the Carbon Cycle. They, in turn, are assuming that they have identified all of the sources and sinks, and have made a reasonably accurate estimate of all the ‘players.’ I have previously demonstrated a lack of correlation that would support their conclusions. Thus, there is reason to believe that their estimates are not as accurate as they would have us believe.
Notably, there are issues of the uncertainties of the ocean uptake and out-gassing, and my personal opinion is that the melting in the Arctic is not well characterized with respect to the GHG releases.
Actually, Clyde, the molecules of CO2 emitted by Man from burning fossil fuels (from vegetation) do have little barcodes on them. I leave it up to enquiring minds to find out what they are and what they mean.
Atmospheric O2 is declining. Why would that be?
This inquiring mind knows what you are suggesting. However, like so much in climatology, it has been painted with a broad brush. The fine details of isotopic fractionation that occurs when CO2 is out-gassed, or dissolved, has not been dealt with. 12C will create CO2 molecules that are more easily out-gassed than the heavier molecules made with 13C. Similarly, I’ve previously pointed out that we know little about the details of the aerobic and anaerobic decomposition of organic material in permafrost. One thing we can be sure of is that the aerobic decomposition extracts oxygen, and the oxidation of methane similarly removes oxygen. How do the ‘barcodes’ from Pleistocene fossils differ from the ‘barcodes’ of Carboniferous or Cretaceous fossils?
Ok. So assuming 50% of human CO2 is absorbed by plants or the oceans or drifts to space, the claim is that the 2% of CO2 generated by humans magically destabilizes the entire atmosphere as to cause catastrophic injury. Not credible.
Your 2% is nonsense.
Give us a better percentage of human sourced CO2 that’s absorbed by sinks.
Since the estimate of +200ppm CO2 increase from burning fossil fuels is just an estimate,
the resulting percentage is an estimate too.
280ppm estimated CO2 in 1850
420ppm measured CO2 now
+140ppm increase from 1850 to 2022
140ppm / 420ppm = +33.3% CO2 increase since 1850
If fossils fuels contributed +200ppm,
but actual CO2 increased only by +140ppm,
then about 60ppm of the +200ppm was absorbed by nature.
60ppm / 200ppm = 30% of manmade C02 absorbed by nature
Many people claim more than 30%.
No. Over 30% of human sourced CO2 is absorbed by the oceans alone.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-oceans-are-absorbing-more-carbon-than-previously-thought/
Adding in soil, plant and other sinks brings the total carbon sink to 60% of all human sourced CO2 is absorbed.
https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/carbon-sinks
(this diagram underestimates the ocean absorption by 5%)
I don’t think that you understand the problem. The Keeling Curve is increasing about 2-2.5 PPM annually. The anthro’ contribution is about twice that. However, that only amounts to about 4% of the total CO2 flux.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/07/carbon-cycle/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
One must perform a marginal analysis, not the total amounts. On the margin, its Man whot dunnit.
How dysfunctional is it to damage your economy with “emissions” reduction when the other guy is increasing his? Never mind that it is plant food and has produced greening of the earth, this foolishness is criminal.
I often wonder if it is only we geologists who understand where the carbon in coal and oil came from–it was originally in the atmosphere and available for life to develop, man is only returning it from whence it came, and that may be the reason humans evolved, to save life on the planet by freeing the sequestered carbon. Life flourished when CO2 was at a much higher atmospheric concentration than its presently dangerously low levels; we shouldn’t be the only ones who know that. I wonder if any environmentalist hell bent on reducing CO2 ’emissions’ ever asked a tree what it thinks–you know, while they were hugging it?
A tree can answer, by the way–just grow in in a greenhouse and vary the CO2 concentration; it will demonstrate quite graphically what it likes.
We have to understand the stupidity here–we have a carbon-based life form demonizing carbon. The same life form is demonizing energy when the universe is made of the stuff; demonizing nuclear energy when that is what dominates it all. And now demonizing nitrogen when it makes up nearly 80% of the atmosphere.
Nobody can be born that stupid; it just has to be learned. What other species ‘educates’ itself to extinction?
Incidentally, the Dutch police shooting at farmers?–how much closer can they get to ‘biting the hand that feeds you’. Those folks must be quite ‘educated’ too.
“it was originally in the atmosphere and available for life to develop, man is only returning it from whence it came”
I said that to leftist friend a decade ago and he went berserk.
I said we are recycling carbon from underground and putting it
back into the atmosphere to make plants grow better.
Then I told him that we love global warming and wish Michigan
would get more of it. He doesn’t talk to me anymore.
Leftists don’t tolerate people who disagree with them.
Based on the derogatory name calling in this forum aimed at persons disagreed with I,d say many WUWT commenters do not tolerate those they disagree with.
I don’t tolerate fake climate “science”
and speak up about it when posted here.
We climate realists must be honest about
climate science. Not everything climate alarmists
say about CO2 is wrong.
Humans added a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere.
That is a fact.
Now let’s move on to what that CO2 has done.
Unknown, but not much.
Those who claim CO2 can’t cause warming
or that manmade CO2 is only 3% to 5% of the all atmospheric CO2 are spouting nonsense
and making climate realists look like fools.
They are contradicting our best skeptic
climate scientists, from Happer to Lindzen.
And they deserve to be corrected !
Corrected YES. Called morons and the like……No.
Leftists don’t tolerate people who share facts with them.
There, fixed it for ya
“…may be the reason humans evolved, to save life on the planet by freeing the sequestered carbon….”
According to Carlin it was because nature wanted plastic. 🙂
The other guy is China, India, Russia and every developing nation on the planet. That’s a lot of “other guys”
Climate hydrophobia has progressed to a point it cannot be survived.
Did you all see this?
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2022/07/09/opinion-beware-exaggerated-benefits-carbon-pipelines/10006523002/
So at what point do vaunted “educated” societies start to reach that point in Charles Mackay’s 1841 enduring work “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” wherein he observed –
We’re not dealing with “popular delusions” but systematic psychological warfare directed at all strata of society (in the West).
This ‘analysis’ (I use that term loosely, but not negatively) goes to show the so called “developing” countries are displacing the ‘developed’ countries use of fossil fuels. Not a surprise, that’s been the plan all along. So when is Greta booking her travel to China and India? Emissions/head is a distraction and nothing more.
What an outstanding, fact-filled article! Thank you edmhdotme.
My take-away, bottom line from the above article and its provided anthropogenic CO2 emissions values for 2021:
If the USA stopped all human-originated CO2 emissions tomorrow, it would only reduce total world anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 13.9% . . . even less a percentage if ratio’d against all sources of annual CO2 emissions.
Not only would such a shift not significantly effect any climate change™ attributed to atmospheric CO2 levels (bogus from the start), it would literally bankrupt the US within a matter of a few years.
But the US must “fight climate change” according to so many federal bureaucrats and MSM talking heads . . . it figures!
Following the science? . . . nah, not so much.
IMO there is science only when the scientific method is used.
OK . . . but does data exist, or not, independent of the scientific method?
Aye, there’s the rub.
All calculated on a spreadsheet, by some spotty oik in his parent’s basement, with information derived from a geeky scientist burning a bit of coal/oil/natural gas in a laboratory and measuring the concentration of gases given off.
The calculation is multiplied up by the amount of coal/gas/bio fuel etc. burned in a power station, the number of trucks sold, the miles driven, number of ships afloat and their lifetime nautical miles sailed.
Every time the calculations pass through yet another spreadsheet, the oik’s conduct the ‘just to be safe’ exercise which is, decimal places are rounded up to a whole number, the next oik rounds that up to his perception of a ‘safe’ number, and so on.
Eventually it’s all rolled up into large reports with impressive looking graphs, and everyone hails it as a scientific/statistical marvel.
It’s not of course, because the margins for error are enormous.
Meanwhile, as mentioned, the Keeling curve, which is measured, continues as if nothing happened in 2020.
But no one other than sceptics thinks – Hang on, this is significant, why hasn’t the CO2 needle even trembled?
I’m a sceptic, and I don’t think it’s significant. The change was too small, for too short a period to show up in data as noisy as the CO2 levels.
We must be mad, the destruction of our secure, reliable, and plentiful energy resources is akin to building our own funeral pyre….
After the ride in the trunk of the car, you get to dig your own grave. It is happening.
Leftists ruin everything they touch.
Why would energy be an exception?
They are now focussing on meat….not content with organising state enforced hypothermia come winter, they now intend to starve us to death all year round by denying us available protein.
Thank goodness we have plastic available, because we won’t be able to have leather shoes or bags either.
What’s that you say, they want to ban plastic too????
How will we insulate our electrical cables or drive our electric cars?
“the Developing World is not joining-in with CO2 emission reductions nor should it have any intention of doing so.”
The contradiction in a sentence. On the one hand, there is a climate crisis and the only thing that matters is reducing tonnage emitted to net zero.
On the other hand, we do not want, and have no right to demand, that the biggest and fastest growing emitters join in with CO2 emission reductions.
In even fewer words: Its only fair for China to destroy human civilization on earth, so don’t criticize.
Stating the obvious, the lede graphic shows an ‘unprecedented’ decline in anthro’ CO2 emissions in 2020, followed by an ‘unprecedented’ re-bound in 2021. Yet, there is no perceptible change in the Keeling curve for either of the years. It continues the smooth monotonic increase, unperturbed by what humans are doing. Yet, the alarmists insist that humans and humans alone are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.
What is wrong with this picture?
Clyde, they don’t dare show it in comparison to natural emissions, or it wouldn’t be acceptable to the governments BP kowtows to.
What is “wrong with the picture” is that there is currently a total mass of about 3290 gigatonnes of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, whereas the lead-in graph to the above article gives year-to-year variations in annual emissions.
Thus an annual variation CO2 emissions of, say, -140 or +110 million tonnes (as happened in 2020 and 2021, respectively) actual amounts to variations of only -0.004% and +0.003%, respectively, in the absolute mass of CO2 to be considered. Such a small percentage variation would not be visible on a Keeling curve, where atmospheric CO2 in ppm does indeed reflect the total mass of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.
That is, 0.004% of 420 ppm is only 0.017 ppm.
The issue is, the alarmists claim that ALL the annual increase is from anthro’ emissions. How can the increase be measurable but a 20% decrease not be? One should not look at the annual net change, but the monthly changes, particularly during the Winter/Spring ramp-up phase when the sources are dominating the shape of the Keeling Curve.
As I explain in the other post the 18% reduction in April 2020 was only 0.07 ppm. Even after removing a considerable amount of noise the variation is still 0.3 ppm for that same month. Nevermind the measurement uncertainty is about ±0.2 ppm for monthly means. How you going to detect a 0.07 ppm signal when the noise itself produces 0.3 ppm movements?
One has to take into account that the shape, absolute changes, and times of the peak are nearly identical year after year. That suggests that the repeatable measurements have an uncertainty much smaller than ±0.2 ppm. Why are the graphs shown with a precision of ±0.005 ppm? The exceptions to the seasonal patterns are during El Nino years, which are obvious.
However, the crux of the problem is that we are being told that we have to make significant cuts in anthro’ emissions to save the world. Cuts of 50% or more are being bandied about. However, monthly cuts of as much as nearly 20% did not produce discernible reductions in the monthly rate of increase or the annual peak, nor does an annual average decrease of about 10% change the curve shape or net annual gain. That argues against the claim that humans are singularly responsible for the monotonic increase in the Keeling Curve average growth. How large of a decline is necessary to be measurable, and what evidence is there to support the estimate? If it isn’t measurable, it is hand waving.
The crux of the problem is one of signal to noise ratio. Human emission policy has little if any relevance to the problem of being able to detect a small perturbation on the concentration.
To be able to detect perturbations on the concentration from a reduction in emissions at p < 0.05 the reduction would have need to be 60%. The evidence is the monthly CO2 concentration and the emissions as reported by Friedlingstein et al. 2022. Note that p < 0.05 is minimal criteria and back testing it yields 18 false positives since 1979. A more robust threshold is p < 0.01 and requires a 107% reduction in emissions for the month of April 2020 which is obviously not possible. Realistically the null hypothesis (that there is no difference in influence on atmospheric mass between human and natural emissions) could have been rejected with reasonable confidence (assuming it was truly false) with about a 50% reduction sustained for 1 year.
Assuming for the sake of the argument that your calculation of 50% reduction is right, what happens to the world economy if such a reduction were imposed on us?
What if it still couldn’t be measured because the absence of anthro’ CO2 would allow more out-gassing from the oceans and tundra? After all, it is the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere that inhibits out-gassing!
Clyde Spencer said: “Assuming for the sake of the argument that your calculation of 50% reduction is right, what happens to the world economy if such a reduction were imposed on us?”
I would imagine that it would have a catastrophic effect on the economy. But that is completely irrelevant. The law of conservation of mass does not care about the economy. If we reduce the emitted amount by 0.15 GtC that is 0.15 GtC less in the atmosphere regardless of what effect that has on the economy. The trick is being able to detect that 0.15 GtC change based on the 0.64 GtC of noise.
Clyde Spencer said: “What if it still couldn’t be measured because the absence of anthro’ CO2 would allow more out-gassing from the oceans and tundra?”
If the human emission reduction is big enough it will be detected. The reason is because outgassing and uptake processes are modulated by the concentration (or mass) of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature of the reservoir. A large reduction in human emissions will not result in an immediate or large change in either of those. Even a 100% reduction in human emissions sustained for one year only perturbs the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by -5 ppm with that -5 ppm only perturbing the planetary energy imbalance by about -0.06 W/m2. -5 ppm and -0.06 W/m2 changes aren’t going to substantially alter the other source and sink configurations in 1 year. Atmospheric CO2 will be forced to decline.
Yet, every year, we see the atmospheric concentration reach a minimum in Fall, increase all Winter long, and reach a peak in May, when the trees leaf out. That argues against any significant lag in CO2 exchanges. An unstated and unexamined assumption on your part (and others) is that if anthro’ emissions were to suddenly disappear, the lack of a rise in CO2 partial pressure wouldn’t allow additional out-gassing or Winter respiration. Thus allowing additional growth even in the absence of anthro’ emissions.
I would like to see this information put into perspective with the CO2 emissions of the oceans and the insect population. My guess is that it becomes dwarfed by comparison.
Oceans are still net absorbers of CO2
… because they become warmer?
There is still an overpressure of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to the ocean.
Yes, human emissions are of the same order of magnitude as the uncertainty in the atmosphere-ocean fluxes, and I don’t think that anyone has a good handle on the methane emissions of termites, which are almost certainly going to vary with rainfall and abundance of food.
Two observations.
First, given the BP data on India and China all the EU and Biden US ‘carbon’ stuff is a waste of time and money.
Second, given that observational ECS is something about 1.65-1.7, it is a DOUBLE waste of time and money. The only ‘bad things’ happen far in the future and only in provably flawed climate models with ECS above 3.
To me the only logical approach is adaptation, for sure. The catch-22 is trying to prepare for what the consensus thinks will happen next. I’m confident that a truly free market can respond best to climate change in whatever direction better than government regulations and power brokering.
It will be funny in the future when there is no economic engine left to pay or even service the national debt. We have already mortgaged the future away on the premise that there will be ever increasing economic wealth. Real wealth comes out of the ground and it won’t be produced using hand shovels.
“the subsidy support has meant that ~ 25% is aded to electricity bills go to support the “Renewable” technologies in the UK and elsewhere.”
What is missing here is that energy is the base support for everything we eat wear and use and its cost is mercilessly compounded in ways apparently not understood by our mindless leaders. Food for example requires equipment (mined, made and transported) and fuel to plant and fertilizer (mined, processed, shipped and appied) and harvest, and the product then shipped again to intermediates – bakers, canners, etc and shipped again….. You aren’t just paying more at the pump or on you electricity bill. Every stage of food’s journey, ending up off your stove and onto the table has everybody in the chain’s gas pump and electrical Bill’s in it.
Yeah, when Bojo’s and Jobo’s policies quadruple the prices of fuel and electricity a huge depression is unavoidable! Only the very beginning of it is here and now. We are going into something awful. Not only that, the innocent poor around the world can’t avoid it. I fear, today’s marxist globalists are going to out do the 20th Century’s toll of policy generated carnage.
It is such a tremendous waste of resources to be doing all this accounting for CO2. We know it is going up and that is good for plant life and the planet.
Now if it was going down there might be some sense in accounting for CO2. The global population needs to keep the effort up to sustain atmospheric concentration above 400ppm.
“The West” doesn’t equal “Developed” anymore.
Diverse countries such as Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Brazil can no longer be considered “developing” in both their economies and moral rights to have a say.
Like the other years, this is all conjecture, assumptions and dubious estimates.
When told the dice game he was entering was crooked, the gambler said: “I know, but it is the only game in town.”
…..access to fossil fuels from Russia created blow-back against them resulting from their own actions (sanctions)
An addition to BP’s “Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2022” edition is a tab labelled “CO2e Emissions”, full title (in cell A1) “Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions from Energy, [Industrial] Process Emissions, Methane, and Flaring”, but numbers are only provided from 1990 (instead of 1965).
For comparison purposes, the “Total World” number for 2021 in the “CO2 Emissions from Energy” tab is 33884 MtCO2 [ NB : See the text above the “pie chart” in the ATL article … ] while the number in the new “CO2e Emissions” tab is 38976.6 MtCO2e.
Playing around with the new table gave me (AKA “some spotty oik in his parent’s basement”, as some posters may decide to put it …) the graph below.
Notes
– Both Y-axes have the same height (16 GtCO2e).
– India now has the same emissions as the “old” EU-28 (including the UK !)
– the “acceleration” in GHG emissions since 2002 wasn’t “fuelled” by western countries …
The Keeling Curve shown in the charts included in this presentation appear to be an exaggeration of the CO2 growth from 1965 until 2020. This is because the curve shows the growth between two whole numbers, 315 and 420. Actually, these values should be shown as 315/1000000 and 420/1000000 to properly reflect their size within the atmosphere. As a percentage of atmosphere, 315/1000000 would be three hundredths of one percent and 420/1000000 would be four hundredths of one percent, rounded to the nearest hundredth. Thus, the growth of atmospheric CO2 would only be one hundredth of one percent from 1960 until 2020. A graph of this growth would be an almost flat line located very close to the bottom border of the graph.
The growth should read 1965 to 2020.
A valid argument can be made for setting the lower limit of the Y-axis for atmospheric CO2 levels to zero, in the same way that for graphs of temperatures (/ heat energy) it can be argued that they “should be” in Kelvin starting from 0K.
Note that graphs with their upper limits set to either 0.000425 (decimal fraction) or 425 (ppm) will be identical when it comes to “properly reflecting their size within the atmosphere”, and will consist of “an almost flat line located very close to the top border of the graph”.
Shouldn’t the Y axis reflect 0 to 100 percent if the discussion is about percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Sorry, I got focussed on the “percentage of CO2” part (which is the only thing that “the Keeling Curve” shows …) and missed you were talking about “the entire atmosphere, including nitrogen“.
A “stacked” line graph — of “changes from 1965 to 2020”, for example — would indeed go from 0% to 100%.
A “separate elements” graphic could be done from 0% to 80% …
China is the only one with no reduction in 2020 (annual). Pranked!
CO2 emissions is a good proxy for industrial activity (and transport). Covid restrictions did an enormous damage.
The Cost?
That is the trillion dollar question.
I notice that activists and politicians expect the cost to be paid by people working in the private sector, people who live frugally and within their means. Politicians keep approving increases in their salaries and increases for those unemployed or the dole – including the activists – but are not prepared to cut government spending and bring their salaries in line with ordinary private sector incomes. They are exploiting the naive voters.
Here is a chart of world emissions in diferent sort order, based on the BP data for 1990 to 2021.
The leading iduustrial regions in 1990 are sorted first, so they are at the lower part of the chart.
It clearly shows that the entirety of the growth in emissions is due to development of the former undeveloped countries.
Emissions from the historically industrialised regions of the US, Europe, CIS have been more or less stable or falling in the period despite population and economic growth.
The data is the same, the only difference is presentation.
Co2, keeping it green since 3 billion BC