From the “central committee told me to pay lip-service to China’s net-zero pathway” department comes this eye-roller via EurekaAlert:
Over the past two decades, global warming has continued to accelerate. In response to the climate crisis, the 2015 Paris Agreement established a global consensus to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 °C by the end of the century. Compared to the initial Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), most parties have submitted updated second-round NDCs since 2020. Against this backdrop, a critical scientific question has emerged: will the accelerating trend of global warming be effectively curbed by current climate actions?
This study, based on a global emissions scenario consistent with China’s net-zero pathway and the 2 °C target, employed the widely used Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) to conduct more policy-relevant climate change projections. The results indicate that even if all parties fully implement the decarbonization targets outlined in the second-round NDCs, the current acceleration of global warming may still not be effectively curbed over the next two decades. The primary reason is the significant decline in atmospheric aerosol burdens co-emitted with greenhouse gases. Aerosols exert a cooling effect by reflecting solar radiation. A reduction in their emissions weakens this “umbrella” effect, thereby allowing the warming effect of accumulated greenhouse gases—previously partially masked—to become increasingly apparent. The warming acceleration induced by aerosol reduction is particularly pronounced in the Arctic and Eurasia during the Northern Hemisphere winter.
Climate action is crucial for achieving long-term sustainable development: reducing greenhouse gases emissions not only mitigates global warming but also decreases the frequency and intensity of extreme climate events, thereby reducing associated economic losses. Simultaneously, aerosol reduction helps improve air quality and has positive impacts on public health. However, in the process of advancing the net-zero transition, it is essential to consider the additional climate effect owing to co-reduced aerosols and the resulting risks. The study recommends integrating this factor into comprehensive climate policy assessments to more fully capture the long-term benefits and overall climate effectiveness of emission reduction actions.
Journal Science Bulletin DOI 10.1016/j.scib.2025.09.024
Meanwhile:
I believe the PRC is just humoring the baiguo (The White Left).
Great fireworks though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmnc1Bqipaw
I learn a new word here every day.
“the 2015 Paris Agreement established a global consensus to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 °C”
Like everyone else, I snickered and thought: “Oh, now that 1.5 is unnoticeable to the average voter lets go back to 2.0”
The temperature chart upward slope-inator program is in trouble if dates -after- the Algore film are revised downward.
It’s about minus 2 F here in Wokeachusetts this morning. Please add 2 degrees and get it up to zero! 🙂
I, too, am suffering from a dearth of global warming, but not so bad as you.
I’ll see your paltry -2 and add another 2. Forecast for Friday night in my area is -22 F.
Back in the ’80s, I spent a few hours in a forest, doing forestry work, when it was -22. Got frost bite in my lungs- last 4-5 days.
Haven’t seen much negative F here in recent years. I suppose I should be fearful of that. 🙂
Detroit is forecast to reach 32 degrees today, but has not.
Just to complete the graph shown:
Nick Stokes, if I were a climate activist, would I be justified in claiming that based on this graph, a ton of CO2 emitted in the United States has twice as much effect on the climate than a ton of CO2 emitted in China?
WUWT chose to show emissions per capita. I just completed the picture.
You didn’t complete the picture you didn’t put your AKA Australia emissions on the graph … surely you must feel guilty you bad person?
Why yes you did.
“Per capita CO2 emissions in China are now 16% higher than in advanced societies as a group”
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2025’ (Nov. 2025)
I think these are the kinds of graphs that prompted that well-founded observation that there are –
“lies, damned lies, and statistics”
Comparative ‘per capita’ CO2 emissions constructs designed to assign ‘sinfulness’ to countries is the lowest form of bullshit the climate catastrophist cult ever stooped to.
Agreed. And here’s Nick!
Again, it was AW and WUWT who chose to show that graph. Take it up with them.
Nick. You posted it here for purposes you will know only too well. So don’t deflect when you get called out for it.
I wasn’t having a go at you Nick.
Your responses are predictable.
I was just making a general observation to Beta Blocker about the perfidy of “per capita” sins.
Did you also find punctuation errors or font changes? What a nitwit.
The other thing that used to be a thing was showing historical emissions, with the implied argument that China obviously has the right to catch up with Western historical emissions, either tonnage or per capita. This was because it has caught up on per capita, and way exceeded don tonnage, so neither of those work any more,
The problem they have is that China is emitting a good third of global emissions, using and mining more coal than the rest of the world put together, and has no plans to reduce, in fact it plans to increase. And on their theory historical emissions are irrelevant, we cannot change them, they happened, what will produce the disaster is future emissions.
So they should be outraged, and be picketing Chinese embassies and boycotting Chinese goods because this is one country on its own destroying the planet’s climate.
But they cannot bring themselves to do that, so you see them twisting and turning and essentially arguing that its only fair for China to do what, if any Western country like the US were to be be doing it, they would regard as reprehensible destruction of the climate.
And then in the case of the UK they find themselves arguing that the country should go to net zero in power generation at vast expense and probably a price which includes not just soaring prices but also rationing and blackouts, And with no effect on the global climate. Just doing it because? Because what?
Not to mention UK funding China’s emissions.
It has more than caught up. The IEA say that “per capita CO2 emissions in China are now 16% higher than advanced countries as a group”
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook’ (Nov. 2025)
Precisely, if you agree with the CO2 hypothesis, then total amount must be the definer, not per capita.
Proves that Americans are the greenest.
You ever wondered why Chinese emissions stalled around 2015?
That is when the CCP “discovered” their coal held far less carbon than “previously thought”. Because 49.9 is 40% less than 71.3.. 😉
‘CCP “discovered” their coal held far less carbon than “previously thought”’
It is not what was “previously thought”’. It was a global default value, posted in 2006 (and revised 2019). The others are actual measured Chinese coal samples. Chinese thermal coal isn’t that good, which is why they import metallurgical coal from Australia and Indonesia.
Their thermal coal isn’t so good, so they import metallurgical coal? Well, that certainly makes sense.
Nick,
I got a new project for you. The project is: How to determine the natural variation in temperature at a weather station.
Shown in the chart (See below) is a plot of the average annual temperature at Adelaide from 1857 to 1999. In 1857 the concentration of CO2 in air was ca. 280 ppmv (0.55 g CO2/cu. m. of air ) and by 1999,
it had increased to 368 ppmv (0.72 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no increase in air temperature at this port city. In 1999 Tavg was 16.7° C. Note cooling after ca. 1940.
To obtain more recent Adelaide temperature data, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/adelaide/average-temperature-by-year. The average Tmax and Tmin data from 1887 to 2025 are displayed in a long table. In 2025 Tavg was 17.4° C and the concentration of was ca. 426 ppmv (0.84 g CO2/cu. m. of air). Was the increase of Tavg due the increase of CO2 concentration or within range of natural variability Tmax and Tmin? If you scan the table, note the variability of the annual Tmax and Tmin.
To be computed from 1887 to 2025 are:
average Tmax +/- average deviation
average Tmin +/- average deviation
average Tavg +/- average deviation.
where the average deviation is the classical deviation from the average value. If the value of the average deviation is several degrees for example, then CO2 can be ruled out as cause of recent warming.
My idea is to try to use the natural variability of temperature to convince Premier Anthony A. and the Canberra Climate Cartel to abandon their draconian climate agenda and the goal of Net Zero by 2050.
Is what I have proposed a good idea or a bad idea?
PS: The chart was obtained from the late John L. Daly website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page page down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “Australia”. There is shown a list of weather stations. Click on Adelaide. Use the back arrow to return the list of stations. Use the back arrow to return to the “World Map”. John Daly was an Aussie and found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
NB: If you click on or the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle or near the chart to return to Comments.
Harold,
You need to keep an eye on unnatural variation. The ones before 1948 were likely measured with a Glaisher screen, while after, with a cooler Stevenson screen.
http://www.john-daly.com/screens1.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/screens.htm
Note the variation. That is not random bias.
From your Daly site, Warwick Hughes writing:
“This short note presents seasonal time series for the 1888-1946 period of an Adelaide experiment comparing Glaisher stand and Stevenson screen temperature data examined by Nicholls et al (1996). Site changes and a station move for the Adelaide experiment may account for discontinuities in the seasonal trends which make the data unrepresentative as a test of comparative thermometer exposure. Research directions are suggested that might cast light on these problems in the data.”
He’s saying that other hapennings overwhelm the 0.2C difference between Stevenson and Glaisher, which is bad enough.
He is saying it may have not that it did have. All is grist to the mill. Did you not note the “MAY”? 😉
“Likely”. The certainty is amazing.
Harold:
To add to Nicks reply. It seems that temperatures up until 1947 at Adelaide were from thermometers mounted in a Glaisher screen and after in a Stevenson screen (a notable drop in values can be seen then in your graph).
Both types of screen were in fact present throughout and the temps from both were recorded in parallel.
It was found that the Glaisher screen recorded maxes higher by up to 1C (on average) in the summer (though mins were a little lower).
https://lindenashcroft.com/2022/02/15/paper-summary-the-worlds-longest-known-series-of-parallel-temperature-data-adelaide-1887-1947/
Differences in maximum temperatures (Glaisher stand – Stevenson screen) by month, and by 5ºC bins from 1887 to 1947. Image adapted from Ashcroft et al. 2021.
Nick, nice graph. Pretty colours.
Is it supposed to mean something?
Any fool can measure things, and many do. Temperatures, or the percentage of gases in the atmosphere.
The ignorant and gullible enjoy wasting time measuring things for no reason at all.
I think the thing is China is still playing the CO2 emissions game USA has well and truely given up on it. So USA has the highest emissions per capita is pretty moot and they don’t care and left the Paris agreement.
Now if you are going to have the complete picture put Australia on there as we also are one of the highest emitters per capita.
The bottom line is it’s all your fault Nick you aren’t saving the planet 🙂
Talking of popping sounds, here’s Nick!
The stages of grief: Or anyway, the stages of something.
China is emitting far less than us, we must stop, all that tonnage we emit is destroying the climate.China is emitting as much as us, but its far lower per capita, so we must stop emitting [oh, never mind the tonnage so much per capita is what counts now….]China is now emitting as much as us per capita, and hugely more in tonnage, but its installing lots of wind and solar, so we must stop.China is still growing its emissions both absolute and per capita, but its historical emissions are still lower than ours, so we must stop. [never mind the per capita so much now,,,,]In 2025 China used a bit less coal than in 2024, so its leading the world in the fight against climate change….so like I keep telling you, we must stop.China is still increasing but only for its export industries, exporting to us, so we must stop, [And no, we must not ban Chinese imports, that would be racism on top of denialism]And as for the US, just look at its per capita emissions! Didn’t I say all along that per capita is what counts? The US must stop! Now!”What about Saudi, don’t they have huge per capita emissions? Do they have to stop? [No, of course not, their tonnage is tiny and they are only extracting all that oil to export most of it…. and anyway their skin is brown out there…]And as for the UK, it must get to net zero which will lead the world in tackling climate change. [You say less than 2% and what difference will it make? Clearly we are dealing with a denier serving misinformation, its probably a non crime hate incident, send someone round to talk to them….]
Sorry, it ate my formatting…. But you get the point.
Nicks obviously embarrassed to put up our Australian emissions so here let me
We are higher than USA and supposedly we are playing the emissions shell game.
Nations with high per capita emissions also have high standards of living.
Thanks. CO₂ emissions are, of course, essentially irrelevant, except as an indicator of the potential quality of life. As such, your offering shows that prosperity per capita is decreasing in the US and UK (not shown is the same decrease in other Western-aligned nations), and the increase in general prosperity for China and India.
What’s your point? China increasing. US decreasing. Rest of world increasing to off set U.S. decrease. I think that was the message provided above. Goodness.
Of course, China i purporting this narrative to encourage all climate western activists to continue this scam, undermining the prosperity and well-being of western nations while China continues to build a new coal-fired power utility a week!
Are the CCP duplicitous or are we Westerners babes in the woods?
(“both” is probably the correct answer)
“Aerosols exert a cooling effect by reflecting solar radiation. A reduction in their emissions weakens this “umbrella” effect, thereby allowing the warming effect of accumulated greenhouse gases—previously negligible in the end result
partially masked—to remain so despite rising emissions of CO2become increasingly apparent.”There. That is all for now.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patience in this matter.
A reduction in their emissions weakens this “umbrella” effect, thereby allowing the warming effect of the planet’s surface (land and water).
There is no greenhouse effect.
The closest physical attribute to a “greenhouse effect” is the change in the specific heat capacity (Cp) of the atmosphere due to change in gas composition.
“Aerosols exert a cooling effect by reflecting solar radiation. A reduction in their emissions weakens this “umbrella” effect, thereby allowing the Sun to add additional heat to the oceans thereby warming the climate
warming effect of accumulated greenhouse gases—previouslynegligible in the end resultpartially masked—toremain so despite rising emissions of CO2become increasingly apparent.”Additional corrections shown.
Fair.
Media will seize upon this bunkum to show how ‘China is leading the way on climate change’.
Not that the media needs any encouragement in this regard.
It’s standard practise as far as Australia’s ridiculous public broadcaster is concerned.
Here’s a recent effort by the ABC: When it comes to saving the world from climate change “it could be China to the rescue“.
Hold your nose before clicking the link.
https://twitter.com/BrianBellia/status/1944559587241365915
Generally CO2 emissions per capita indicate a country’s standard of living.
CO2 emissions are also contributing to the greening of the Earth and improving world agricultural productivity.
A corollary might be that people with a higher “standard of living” might be better equipped to ameliorate the uncomfortable aspects of weather – warm clothing, heating, air conditioning, healthier diet – all that sort of thing.
Do “climate scientists” advocate a lower “standard of living”, or just want to exterminate the human race by removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
Anybody who believes that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter is ignorant and gullible at least – possibly genocidal as well.
The Population Bomb is the proscribed handbook.
Yep Nicks emissions aren’t that small either he is guilty … repent all emitters 🙂
Nick emits 2 lb. of CO2 daily just by breathing.
Great opening paragraph from the quoted article. I could almost hear the popping sound of the author disappearing up his own fundamental orifice.
“A reduction in their emissions weakens this “umbrella” effect, thereby allowing the warming effect of accumulated greenhouse gases—previously partially masked—to become increasingly apparent. The warming acceleration induced by aerosol reduction is particularly pronounced in the Arctic and Eurasia during the Northern Hemisphere winter.”
Well well, the tell is right there. Even though global emissions have almost flatlined in recent decades, it’s come with a price: cleaner emissions and slow or no growth in total output. That means that at least a good bit of observed warming is due to cleaner air. Friends and neighbors have even noted that the “sun looks whiter” than they remembered as kids. Add to that, no recent major volcanic eruptions except for the moist-greenhouse HT event.
Then there’s the admission that a great deal of the warming is occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere in winter (and I would add, at night). This benefits everyone. Would the UN ever admit that?
For US temperature check I went to:
https:?//www.extremeweatherevent.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The average annual Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in a table from 1901 to 2024. Here is the temperature data for these two years:
Year——-Tmax——-Tmin——-Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024——-16.8——–4.3———-10.5
1901——-14.9——–1.6———–8.2
Change-+ 1.9——–2.7———+2.3
Although the US Tavg has exceeded the 1.5° C limit by 0.8° C, I don’t recall any reports on the TV of climate catastrophes. Presently the Canadian polar vortex is pouring very cold air into the US. In winter the greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 hibernate.
Air Force One flies over Kamchatka looking for suitable golf course possibilities-
Take a walk around Russia’s Kamchatka after record snowfalls | Watch
Scratch that and maybe Iran is the go just as soon as Israelis can fix the water problem? Get me Reza on the blower. He’s everywhere he’s everywhere!
The whole idea of per capita emissions is BS. Since we are taking about the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as supposedly having an impact in f warming the climate, the atmosphere as a physical system doesn’t give a rats patootie about who emitted it or when or how much each person is responsible for. So, on one hand we have a nation that builds about two new coal plants a month. Where as the rest of the work is shutting them down. Who is now “driving” the climate?
Nature, as always.
Another way to consider this is the idea the world is in a climate emergency. So, adding any more CO2 at all by anyone is a terrible idea. An analogy one could draw is the US & western civ have filled a life boat with a lot of water. Any more water will sink the boat. But other passengers say, hey! We never got a chance to add any water and western civ needs to knock it off so we get a chance! But it’s not safe to add *any* water. So, why does this per capita emissions argument have any logic to it at all?
Cause it ain’t fair, man, it ain’t fair! I’m actually surprised that the developing world doesn’t throw the race card back at the lefties. They could say, “Why did the Caucasian and Asian countries get to burn cheap fossil fuels, and now we can’t??”
The “emissions” argument has no logic to it at all, no matter how you slice it.
Because the notion that CO2 “drives” the Earth’s climate is nonsense. All they have to support this notion is “hypothetical bullshit” that assumes all other things held equal, a state of affairs that has never existed, does not exist now, and will never exist in the future.
In reality, the “feedbacks” to higher atmospheric CO2 are negative, offsetting feedbacks, and the actual, as opposed to hypothetical, “effect” cannot be distinguished from ZERO.
And that is what observations of reality support.
….at a snail’s pace.
I went to the WUWT reference link at the top of this page, looked at the “global temperature” page and can’t find anything that shows an increase in acceleration or indeed any acceleration at all. Slight increase in temperature perhaps, but no acceleration.
Too many people think if a number is rising- that means it’s accelerating.
I just checked on my hometown of Bemidji Minnesota. It’s closing in on -40 there, which it occasionally hit and even dropped below when I lived there in the 60s. That might even forbode global cooling.
I wonder how the Somali folks like -40. Maybe they’ll hate it and go back to their nation.
Not enough- it’s minus 2 F here in Wokeachusetts this morning.
“Reducing greenhouse gases emissions not only mitigates global warming but also decreases the frequency and intensity of extreme climate events”.
Outrageous lie.
To be expected- all religions lie.
The trans-reality alarmists at play.
Can I have fat free ranch with that word salad?
If humans lowered the temperature through emitting aerosols wouldn’t removing them return the state of nature to where it was before these evil humans arrived?
This is a religion.
Anything humans do that MIGHT, hypothetically, warm the climate, IS BAD.
Anything humans do that MIGHT, hypothetically, cool the climate, IS BAD.
In summary, anything humans do that might, hypothetically, have any effect whatsoever on the climate, IS BAD.
BAD HUMANS!
/sarc if needed
What a pile of manure.
Cherry picking AND bullshit. No acceleration has occurred.
There is no “crisis,” a warmer climate compared with the Little Ice Age is AN IMPROVEMENT,not a crisis.
Pure hubris. They think they can CONTROL THE CLIMATE?! Through something as irrelevant as our PITTANCE OF CO2 EMISSIONS?! LMFAO
So, another modeling fantasy world circle Jerk.
😄😆😅🤣😂 Might as well say “consistent with Maduro’s Venezuelan economic miracle.”
Pay attention! Buried in that word salad is AN ADMISSION THAT THE SUN HAS AN EFFECT ON THE EARTH’S CLIMATE!
DAMAGE CONTROL! Hint: Alternative explanation for global warming. MORE SOLAR ENERGY WARMING THE SURFACE due to decreased pollution.
Amazing how reduced aerosols target the Arctic! In winter! When more sunlight getting through the atmosphere is meaningless since the angles of incidence in the Arctic means sunlight is reflected rather than absorbed, even if there’s no sea ice.
“Climate action” IS NOT “sustainable.” Their stupid ideas could be pursued until humanity is bankrupt and starving and they STILL wouldn’t have an effect on “the climate” that could be measured.
Absolute nonsense and outright LIES. Only in “model world” do these fantasies about “frequency and intensity” of extreme WEATHER exist. And THERE ARE NO “CLIMATE EVENTS.” Just WEATHER events. Observations of reality show no worsening of “extreme weather.”
There is no “net zero transition.” There WILL NEVER BE a “net zero transition.” Nor would such a thing, if possible, impart ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. Trillions have already been wasted. Yet EMISSIONS CONTINUE TO RISE.
Not that the emissions matter.
There ARE NO RISKS other than the risk of “climate action” continuing.
Translation: Send more money!
You reek alert!