This just in…
Basic non peer-reviewed research has shown an inverse relationship between the United Nations Conference of Parties (COP) events and atmospheric CO2. In fact, it looks like there has been an acceleration since about 2000. Clearly, COP conferences have had a positive effect on global atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Must be all those private jets flying in.
Dubai’s COP28 is the most effective yet!
And the UN wants the world to stop eating meat. Meanwhile on the menu at COP is… meat! And lots of it. Burgers, steak, Philly cheesesteaks and more. At least they are consistent in their hypocrisy.
What no boiled bugs? Chewy plant roots?
I remember growing up during the Pennsylvanian, C02 was 3800 ppm and we thought nothing of it!
OK, Joe.
But tell the young people that these days, and they won’t believe ya.
(h/t Monty Python)
I grew up in Pennsylvania too. Coal country . . . Oh, wait. Never mind.
Didn’t the world use a record high amount of fossil fuels in the last year? Oh wait, maybe it could have burned more.
Maybe they’re referring to the Net Positive contribution of enhanced CO2 levels
I prefer Cartoons by Josh’s version:
Neads side table for the with a Gourmet burger on it.
But 2024 could be the hottest year EVAH!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/av/67659384
You KNOW they will claim that EVERY year is the new hottest year EVAH! It is all they have and must push it, because if a new year is not the new hottest year then the narrative must be false, can’t have that!
______________________________________________________
Do people emit more CO2 when they’re running their mouths?
Google’s start up page today:
[YouTube] Watch key talks on climate change from COP28
The goal of the annual Climate Outrage Parties is to improve the climate. And they have improved the climate in three ways.
Based on real science, CO2 is the staff of life for our planet. More CO2 = our planet supports more life.
(1) More CO2 in the atmosphere improves plant growth
(2) More CO2 in the atmosphere causes slightly warmer winters in the high latitude, colder nations
(3) And even more important is the third benefit of CO2 at the link below, that requires a “chart” I don’t know how to post here:
Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
If you’re using a PC and mouse, right click on the chart and either Copy URL or Open in a New Window then copy the address ending in .JPG and paste it into your post
You might need the {Image}{/image} tags
If you have a touch screen handheld device just press and hold on the image for the same prompt
Do the chart in Kelvin; its the units of measurement used in science.
I believe it would still look the same Just have an additional 273° of red extended down the bottom…263° – 313° in this case for the sidebar axis
Global warming since 1850 in Kelvin degrees — try not to panic
 .png)
Thanks, Richard. Not much happening with the Big Blue Marble. [Not that the U.S. put men on the moon.]
Dave & Richard –
Thanks!
Note how much cloud cover there is – looks like more white than blue.
And the climate models still don’t know the sign of the effect of clouds.
“Houston, we have a problem.” Indeed.
“Science” is NOT units-of-measurement dependent.
It is if one is attempting to relate radiation to temperature.
No.
The Stefan-Boltzmann equation that relates radiation power flux to absolute temperature yields equal results independent of the calculation being performed in self-consistent English units or self-consistent metric units.
Of course, the appropriate conversion factors have to be applied to show equivalency of end-result between the two measurement systems, but that is rather trivial.
Graphs like this are rather pointless. I notice you chose a scale for the CO2 which neatly fills the space available, rather than having a scale which goes from 0 to 100 percent, which would also appear to be a straight line.
Have you ever been to your doctor or pharmacy with a body temperature of 40 instead of 37, only for him to say “It’s only 1 percent above normal – go away”?
Just one more thing the UN is ineffective at. Security Council doesn’t provide security. Peace keepers don’t keep the peace. UNRWA fronts for Hamas in Gaza. General Assembly elected China to its Human Rights Council in 2023.
UN is an expensive joke.
How to fix the UN.
Only allow actual democracies or democratic republics to have a vote.
Then all the Muslim Theocracies, Dictatorships from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America and the Pacific would have no vote. Don’t forget Canada under Trudope would have no vote, proven to be a dictatorship with the truckers totalitarian actions.
Are there any dictatorships in Europe now? Asking for a friend.
I have a Vet that could FIX them
This is how expensive:
The U.S. government contributed about $12.5 billion to the United Nations in 2021, the most recent fiscal year with full data available.
About one-quarter of this total was assessed and the rest was voluntary.
This represents about a quarter of the roughly $50 billion the United States spends annually on foreign aid.
A sceptic might conclude that the graph suggests Carbon Zero is not the objective of the COP’s. It might be a royal excuse for a grand PARTY! Often at taxpayer expense. Where do I sign up?
It’s invitation only, Ron, and judging by your skepticism on CAGW, I don’t think the invitation is in the post 🤣
OK, Redge, you got me there. Yes, I was born a sceptic, but here’s the good news: my wife says I’m getting worse, which I, of course, take as a compliment.
Global Elite only, bring your own private jet.
Well, the conferences and the policies haven’t been effective at reducing human CO2 emissions themselves (unsurprisingly, it’s all bs).
It’s important to distinguish atmospheric CO2 from the emissions, it’s not the same thing.
Emissions follow energy use, more or less. Can’t do anything about it, for the foreseeable future.
The change in atmospheric CO2, on the other hand, will keep following the temperature.
The growth of atmospheric CO2 will always increase the temperature with no change in any other climate change variable.
CO2 emissions are a climat forcing
They lead temperature changes
CO2 emissions correlate strongly with Real GDP growth
How much temperature change over any given period?
Rubbish, if that were true there would have been no Ice ages after CO2 hit 6000ppm during the Cambrian period.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FGlobal-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391&psig=AOvVaw1JPKoGcrzfnWkuRr4QppNk&ust=1702208161229000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCLDJr9mhgoMDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
My prediction is that the change in atmospheric CO2 will keep correlating with the temperature. The temperature will stay flat or decrease in the coming decade(s). Let’s see who’s right.
Global CO2 emissions correlate with global energy use. Long term the so-called carbon intensity of energy use may decrease a bit, but not by much, unless a big increase in nuclear energy happens.
That’s hilarious!
Question – could someone overlay world cereal grain production onto that same graph? As CO2 goes, so does food production. Yet they want to limit the CO2….
cereal grain production world of data – Bing images
cereal grain production world of data – Bing images
COP conferences.
An International Gore Effect!
Someone sent me a learned essay by Hansen full of the IPCC standard forcing and temperatures.
At the end, I said, such garbage
Not once is mentioned, all subjective computer program temperature predictions are running hot
Not once is mentioned, objective satellite observations of temperatures since 1979, show warming at a rate about 50% less than computer programs
There is not enough fossil fuel left over to double the atmosphere ppm, which is increasing at about 2.5 ppm/y, far in excess of the human fossil use contribution
Happer and Wijngaarden present modern physics analysis to show doubling CO2 would increase temps by 0.8 C by 2050
Not once is mentioned, CO2 is at its lowest level in 600 million years, with optimum for flora, and likely fauna, at 800 to 1200 ppm, as proven in greenhouses. Current CO2 is near starvation levels for flora. The greening of the earth is ongoing. Warm periods are favorable periods, such as the warmer MWP and the RWP
Much of Hansen’s analysis predates CO2 Coalition education efforts. The Coalition came to be to counter the idiocy spouted all around.
That means Net Zero by 2050 is an unaffordable Media-hyped hoax.
It surprises me, so many in academia robotically swallowed the bait
Al Jaber is Right: There Is no Science Showing a Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Will Achieve 1.5C
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/al-jaber-is-right-there-is-no-science-showing-a-fossil-fuel-phase
The Crippling Economic Costs Of Green Energy Subsidies
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-crippling-economic-costs-of-green-energy-subsidies
Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table
Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.
Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year.
The average climate model from 1975, when used for a 70 year climate prediction with the reasonable RCP4.5 CO2 growth rate has been remarkably accurate since 1975.
But the IPCC uses the same models with a worst case RCP8.5 CO2growth rate and assumes 400 years for most of the water vapor positive feedback amplification. With those assumptions the average climate mode has double the warming rate of 70 years with RCP4.5
The model owners want scary predictions because the governments that employs them want scary climate predictions
So they get scary climate predictions.
Models are computer games that do not output data. They predict whatever their owners want predicted.
I would add the money wasted to the graph in an effort to lower CO2 emissions.
If a record number of delegates attended the latest COP, and the carbon emissions have kept rising, one would think that the attendees would throw in the towel and cancel all future conferences since they are consistently proving to be ineffectual. But who’s going to pass up a free ride regardless whether they are accomplishing anything in the first place?
None of these people paid for their vacation/smoozzfest
What’s the r2?
Excellent.
I note a strong correlation between COPs (and climate propaganda) activity and CO2 concentration, thus, in order to save the Planet, alarmists should try to stop COPs (and all the climate propaganda) to see if this correlation translates to a causal relationship.
To be conclusive, this experiment should last at least 3 to 5 decades.
“Must be all those private jets flying in.”
— as surmised in above article
I will offer instead: “Must be all that CO2-laden hot air, flowing out.”