Archives par mot-clé : CO2 Emissions

better to know...?, climate-debate

A case for ‘Climate Humility’: Analyzing the DOE’s ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’

by A. Watts, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Honestly, I never thought I’d see the day. To quote Mr. FOIA from ClimateGate, “A miracle has occurred.”

Yesterday’s release of the DOE’s A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate is a watershed moment in the ongoing debate over climate policy in America. Why? Because for the first time, a major U.S. government agency—on official letterhead and with a blue-ribbon cast of authors (John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer)—has published an open challenge to the central claims, data handling, and even the motivations behind mainstream climate science and policy.

This isn’t just another technical report. It is a systematic rebuke of accepted climate “wisdom,” and it does so with unusual clarity, scientific rigor, and (at times) a sense of humor often absent in climate documents. Most importantly, it directly confronts the exaggerated and politicized rhetoric that has dominated headlines for decades.

The Executive Summary from the DOE web page:

This report:

  • Reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and metrics of societal well-being.
  • Assesses the near-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including enhanced plant growth and reduced ocean alkalinity.
  • Evaluates data and projections regarding long-term impacts of elevated concentrations of CO2, including estimates of future warming.
  • Finds that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by U.S. historical data.
  • Asserts that CO2-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial.
  • Finds that U.S. policy actions are expected to have undetectably small direct impacts on the global climate and any effects will emerge only with long delays.

What Makes This Report Unique?

…

climate-debate

Judith Curry’s Take: New Climate Assessment Report from US DOE

by J. Curry, July 31, 2025 in WUWT

Climate science is baaaack

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has commissioned a new climate assessment report:

A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate 

From the Secretary’s Foreword:

What I’ve found is that media coverage often distorts the science. Many people—even well-meaning ones—walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete. To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States.

To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report. Honest scrutiny and scientific transparency should be at the heart of our policymaking.

Climate Working Group (CWG)

These reports were authored by the DOE Climate Working Group (CWG).  Members of the Climate Working Group are: [link to biosketches ]

  • John Christy
  • Judith Curry
  • Steve Koonin
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Roy Spencer

The origins of the Group and rationale for selecting us are described in Secretary Wright’s Foreword:

To provide clarity, I asked a diverse team of independent experts to summarize the current state of climate science, with a focus on how it relates to the United States. I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it. In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments.

—— Disclaimer:  the remainder of the text in this blog post reflects JC’s personal impressions/analysis and not that of the CWG.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Old carbon routed from land to the atmosphere by global river systems

by J.F. Dean et al., June 4, 2025 in Nature

Abstract

Rivers and streams are an important pathway in the global carbon cycle, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from their water surfaces to the atmosphere1,2. Until now, CO2 and CH4 emitted from rivers were thought to be predominantly derived from recent (sub-decadal) biomass production and, thus, part of ecosystem respiration3,4,5,6. Here we combine new and published measurements to create a global database of the radiocarbon content of river dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), CO2 and CH4. Isotopic mass balance of our database suggests that 59 ± 17% of global river CO2 emissions are derived from old carbon (millennial or older), the release of which is linked to river catchment lithology and biome. This previously unrecognized release of old, pre-industrial-aged carbon to the atmosphere from long-term soil, sediment and geologic carbon stores through lateral hydrological routing equates to 1.2 ± 0.3 Pg C year−1, similar in magnitude to terrestrial net ecosystem exchange. A consequence of this flux is a greater than expected net loss of carbon from aged organic matter stores on land. This requires a reassessment of the fate of anthropogenic carbon in terrestrial systems and in global carbon cycle budgets and models.

…

climate-debate

Big Chart Alert: Share of Global Carbon Emissions by Country in 2022

by Voronoi, May 21, 2025

Key Takeaways

  • China accounts for 26% of all global emissions, while the U.S. is responsible for another 11.5%.
  • This was equivalent to 12.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide for China and 5.6 billion tCO2e for the U.S. in 2022.
  • Most of the top 10 emitters are also the world’s most populous countries, barring Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Canada.

Developing Countries Are Driving Emissions Growth

There’s a pattern as to why middle-income countries are seeing emissions growth.

  1. They are prioritizing economic development and have larger populations, driving an overall increase in energy consumption.
  2. Most emissions-heavy industries have moved from high-income countries to middle- and low-income ones.
  3. Thus, high-income countries are able to sustain their consumption levels while the emissions from producing the goods they consume are accounted for elsewhere.

Dataset

Rank Country ISO Code Share of Total Emissions Carbon Emissions (in million tCO2e, 2022)
1 China CHN 26.16% 12,716
2 U.S. USA 11.53% 5,604
3 India IND 7.69% 3,737
4 Russia RUS 3.75% 1,821
5 Brazil BRA 3.16% 1,538
6 Indonesia IDN 3.15% 1,530
7 Japan JPN 2.15% 1,044
8 Iran IRN 2.06% 1,004
9 Saudi Arabia SAU 1.60% 775
10 Canada CAN 1.54% 750

…

…

climate-debate

Drying and rewetting cycles substantially increased soil CO2 release

by Niigata University, Feb 5, 2025 in ScienceDaily

Soil incubation experiments revealed a comprehensive increase in CO2 release by drying-rewetting cycles (DWCs) among Japanese forests and pastureland soils, suggesting a significant contribution of the DWCs-induced destruction of microbial cells and reactive metal-organic matter complex to the CO2 release increase.
…
…
The research group revealed that the amount of CO2 released from soil increases significantly due to repeated drying and rewetting cycles (DWCs) expected to be caused by changes in precipitation patterns due to global warming.
better to know...?, climate-debate

California Blows It Again

by W. Eschenbach, Fab 3, 2025 in WUWT

Encouraged by the reception of my previous post “Eight Ten-Thousandths Of A Degree Per Gigaton“, which ranged from warm acceptance through amused contempt to outright hostility, I’ve expanded my research to analyze the CO2 emissions of the late great State of California.

In my post linked above, I found that IF the IPCC is correct (which is a big “IF”), for each gigaton (Gt) of avoided CO2 emissions, there is an avoided global warming of 0.0008°C. Please read that post for the detailed calculations.

And utilizing that relationship, here are the past and projected future California CO2 emissions.

…

WOW! For all of our sacrifices here in California, for all the money we’ve spent and are projected to spend, we MIGHT cool the world twenty years from now by 0.006°C … be still, my beating heart …

Now, as to how much that has cost and will cost, the numbers are hard to come by. Here are some major costs:

• The California solar mandate is estimated to increase the cost of newly constructed single-family homes by approximately $8,400 each. There are ~ 60,000 new single-family homes built each year in California. That’s about half a billion dollars per year for the next 20 years until 2045, or $10 billion total.

• The “Renewable Mandates” and rooftop solar subsidies have made current California electricity about $0.15 per kWh more expensive than its neighbors. Average since 2004 is about $0.10 per kWh more expensive. California’s annual electricity consumption in 2023 was approximately 287,220,000,000 kWh. That’s a cost of $35 billion per year times 20 years (2025-2045) equals $700 billion, plus $29 billion times 20 years (2004-2024) gives a total of $1.3 TRILLION. And that’s with the totally unrealistic assumption of no increase in either consumption or electricity costs.

…

climate-debate

‘No Measurable Effect’: Study Finds ‘Net Zero’ Emissions Would Have Negligible Climate Impact

by K. Richard, Dec 16, 2024 in ClimateChangeDispatch

net zero
Cost-benefit analyses affirm it would be better to abandon Net Zero policy initiatives and instead “do nothing” about greenhouse gas emissions. [emphasis, links added]

New research finds that CO2’s largest possible climate impact is “negligible.”

The cumulative expected temperature change in doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 PPM is only 0.81°C at most, and this is “certainly not cause for alarm or for declaring a climate emergency”.

As Figure 1 from the paper shows [pictured below], the temperature effects of increasing CO2 are strongest when concentrations hover below 100 PPM.

After that, the CO2 impact collapses logarithmically to less than 0.05°C even as concentrations rise to 900 PPM.

Using heat-transfer calculations, it is estimated that even if governments across the world were to actually achieve all of their proposed Net Zero policy goals, it would only elicit a 0.28°C reduction in global temperature.

In other words, it would have “no measurable effect” on climate.

The tens of trillions in costs to achieve an inconsequential global temperature reduction would be much better spent on policies that would improve the economic, health, and educational conditions of those living in poverty.

…

better to know...?

Hague court denies claim for reduction in Shell’s CO2 emissions

by The Hague, 12 November 2024, in deRechtspraak

The Hague Court of Appeal today handed down its judgment in the appeal proceedings between Milieudefensie and Shell. At issue in the appeal was whether Shell must have reduced its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. The court of appeal ruled that Shell is obliged to reduce its CO₂ emissions, but that it was unable to determine which percentage should apply. The court of appeal therefore rejected the claims of Milieudefensie.

According to Milieudefensie, Shell is acting unlawfully. Milieudefensie is of the opinion that under the social standard of care, Shell is obliged to reduce its CO2 emissions. Milieudefensie and several other environmental organisations submitted a claim for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% in 2030 compared to 2019. This includes Shell’s own CO2 emissions as well as those of its suppliers and customers, known as scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions.

The Hague District Court upheld the claim of Milieudefensie, after which Shell lodged an appeal. The Stichting Milieu en Mens joined as a party in the proceedings before the court of appeal on the side of Shell.

In today’s judgment, the court of appeal held that Shell has an obligation towards citizens to limit its CO2 emissions. This obligation is based on the human right to protection against dangerous climate change. It is first and foremost up to governments to ensure the protection of human rights, but indirectly those rights also have a bearing on the social standard of care which companies like Shell must observe. In its assessment of whether Shell is acting unlawfully, the court of appeal therefore took as a starting point that citizens also have a right vis-à-vis Shell to protection from dangerous climate change.

Nevertheless, the court of appeal denied the claims of Milieudefensie because the court was unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage. There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere. Moreover, Shell is already working to reduce its own scope 1 and 2 emissions. Lastly, the court of appeal is of the opinion that an obligation for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products, scope 3 emissions, by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade. This would consequently not result in a reduction in CO2 emissions.

In conclusion, The Hague Court of Appeal overturned the district court’s judgment and denied the claims of Milieudefensie. An appeal in cassation against this ruling may be brought before the Dutch Supreme Court.

Also here

Climate Litigation: The Dutch Case and a Pattern of Vexatious Lawsuits

climate-debate

Net Zero CO2 Emissions: A Damaging and Totally Unnecessary Goal

by R. Spencer, Apr 18, 2024 in GlobalWarming

The goal of reaching “Net Zero” global anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide sounds overwhelmingly difficult. While humanity continues producing CO2 at increasing rates (with a temporary pause during COVID), how can we ever reach the point where these emissions start to fall, let alone reach zero by 2050 or 2060?

What isn’t being discussed (as far as I can tell) is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels (which we will assume for the sake of discussion causes global warming) will start to fall even while humanity is producing lots of CO2.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed the point:

Atmospheric CO2 levels will start to fall even with modest reductions in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Why is that? The reason is due to something called the CO2 “sink rate”. It has been observed that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more quickly nature removes the excess. The NASA studies showing “global greening” in satellite imagery since the 1980s is evidence of that.

Last year I published a paper showing that the record of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, HI suggests that each year nature removes an average of 2% of the atmospheric excess above 295 ppm (parts per million). The purpose of the paper was to not only show how well a simple CO2 budget model fits the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, but also to demonstrate that the common assumption that nature is becoming less able to remove “excess” CO2 from the atmosphere appears to be an artifact of El Nino and La Nina activity since monitoring began in 1959. As a result, that 2% sink rate has remained remarkably constant over the last 60+ years. (By the way, the previously popular CO2 “airborne fraction” has huge problems as a meaningful statistic, and I wish it had never been invented. If you doubt this, just assume CO2 emissions are cut in half and see what the computed airborne fraction does. It’s meaningless.)

Here’s my latest model fit to the Mauna Loa record through 2023, where I have added a stratospheric aerosol term to account for the fact that major volcanic eruptions actually *reduce* atmospheric CO2 due to increased photosynthesis from diffuse sunlight penetrating deeper into vegetation canopies:

What Would a “Modest” 1% per Year Reduction in Global CO2 Emissions Do?

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Global CO2 emissions rise through 2050 in most IEO2023 cases

by EIA_ Today in Energy, Nov 30, 2023

We project that global energy-related CO2 emissions from consumption of coal, liquid fuels, and natural gas will increase over the next 30 years across most of the cases we analyzed in our International Energy Outlook 2023(IEO2023).

By 2050, energy-related CO2 emissions vary between a 2% decrease and a 34% increase compared with 2022 in all cases we modeled. Growing populations and incomes increase fossil fuel consumption and emissions, particularly in the industrial and electric power sectors. These trends offset emissions reductions from improved energy efficiency, lower carbon intensity of fuel mix, and growth in non-fossil fuel energy.

IEO2023 analyzes long-term world energy markets in 16 regions through 2050. We studied seven cases that explore differing assumptions of economic growth, crude oil prices, and technology costs. These cases consider only the international laws and regulations adopted through March 2023 and rely on the U.S. projections published in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 (AEO2023), which assumed U.S. laws and regulations as of November 2022.

Coal
Across sectors, the highest growth in global coal consumption through 2050 occurs in the electric power sector. Although zero-carbon technologies account for the most growth in electricity capacity and generation, we expect coal-fired generators to continue to operate. Across all cases, China and India account for about two-thirds of the world’s coal consumption between 2022 and 2050. Although China is currently the largest coal consumer, we project its coal consumption to decline by 18% between 2022 and 2050. Coal consumption in India nearly doubles over the same projection period.

Liquid fuels
We project global consumption of liquid fuels—which include gasoline, diesel, and biofuels—will increase through 2050. Across all sectors, the largest share and the fastest growth in liquid fuels consumption is in industrial applications, such as chemical production. Increased liquid fuels consumption in the industrial sector is partially offset by declining liquid fuels consumption in the transportation sector as adoption of electric vehicles (EV) grows. Regionally, we project the United States, China, and Western Europe to remain the top liquid fuels consumers, even though fuel consumption in these regions either declines or plateaus by the mid-2030s due to government policies and growing EV adoption. India has the fastest projected growth in liquid fuels consumption, more than doubling across all cases.

Natural gas
We project natural gas consumption will increase in the electric power and industrial sectors through 2050. In the cases we modeled, the electric power sector continues to rely on existing natural gas-fired plants despite growth in zero-carbon electricity generation. In the industrial sector, increased production of basic chemicals in countries such as the United States propels an increase in natural gas consumption, both as fuel and petrochemical feedstock. Natural gas demand also grows in the Middle East because of the fuel’s role in producing and processing natural gas and oil for export. The United States is projected to remain the world’s top natural gas consumer throughout the projection horizon, but the Middle East shows significant growth during that timeframe and approaches U.S. consumption by 2050, ranging from a 29% to 54% growth rate from 2022 to 2050 in the IEO2023 cases.

Principal contributors: Kevin Nakolan, Michelle Bowman

better to know...?, climate-debate

Artificial unintelligence and global warming

by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Apr 11, 2023 in WUWT

Despite the dire Terminator warnings from Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson and others about the dangers of artificial intelligence, the world has little to fear from it in its present sorry state. I asked ChatGPT the following question:

M of B: If the whole world attained net zero emissions by 2050, how much less would global temperature be by that year than on business as usual?

ClotBot: As an AI language model, I do not have access to the exact data to provide an accurate answer to this question. The amount of temperature reduction would depend on various factors such as the current emissions and future emissions trends, the degree of global cooperation, and the effectiveness of emissions reduction strategies. However, it is widely recognized that global net zero emissions by 2050 is a crucial step towards limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

M of B: Here are the necessary data:

  1. Since 1990 there has been a near-linear uptrend in anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing at 0.3 Watts per square meter per decade.
  2. The trillions of dollars spent on emissions abatement since 1990 have not in any discernible degree altered that near-linear uptrend.
  3. The transient doubled-CO2 temperature response (TCR) is 1.8 degrees at midrange.
  4. The midrange doubled-CO2 radiative forcing is 3.93 Watts per square meter per degree.
  5. Global temperature has risen since 1990 at 0.136 degrees per decade.
  6. In 1990, IPCC predicted that at midrange there would be 0.3 degrees per decade of global warming at midrange.

From these data, which are sufficient for the task, please derive the global warming prevented at midrange if all nations moved in a straight line from their present emissions to net zero emissions by 2050.

…

climate-debate

Emissions and CO2 Concentration: An Evidence Based Approach

by J. Dangler & J. Reid, Mar 25, 2023 in WUWT

A new way of looking at the the atmospheric carbon budget.

Climate science is usually concerned about the question “How much CO2 remains in the atmosphere?”, given the anthropogenic emissions and the limited capability of oceans and biosphere to absorb the surplus CO2 concentration. This has led to conclusions of the kind that a certain increasing part of anthropogenic emissions will remain in the atmosphere forever. The frequently used notion of “airborne fraction”, which is the part of anthropogenic emissions remaining in the atmosphere, seems to suggest this.

…

…

Assuming the unlikely worst case that CO2 concentration is fully responsible for all global temperature changes, the maximum expected rise of global temperature caused by the expected CO2 concentration rise is 0.4 _C from now or 1.4°C from the beginning of industrialisation.

climate-debate

Wildfires in 2021 emitted a record-breaking amount of carbon dioxide

by University of California – Irvine, Mar 3, 2023 in ScienceDaily

Nearly half a gigaton of carbon (or 1.76 billion tons of CO2) was released from burning boreal forests in North America and Eurasia in 2021, 150 percent higher than annual mean CO2 emissions between 2000 and 2020, the scientists reported in a paper in Science.

“According to our measurements, boreal fires in 2021 shattered previous records,” said senior co-author Steven Davis, UCI professor of Earth system science. “These fires are two decades of rapid warming and extreme drought in Northern Canada and Siberia coming to roost, and unfortunately even this new record may not stand for long.”

The researchers said that the worsening fires are part of a climate-fire feedback in which carbon dioxide emissions warm the planet, creating conditions that lead to more fires and more emissions.

“The escalation of wildfires in the boreal region is anticipated to accelerate the release of the large carbon storage in the permafrost soil layer, as well as contribute to the northward expansion of shrubs,” said co-author Yang Chen, a UCI research scientist in Earth system science. “These factors could potentially lead to further warming and create a more favorable climate for the occurrence of wildfires.”

Davis added, “Boreal fires released nearly twice as much CO2 as global aviation in 2021. If this scale of emissions from unmanaged lands becomes a new normal, stabilizing Earth’s climate will be even more challenging than we thought.”

Analyzing the amount of carbon dioxide released during wildfires is difficult for Earth system scientists for a variety of reasons. Rugged, smoke-enshrouded terrain hampers satellite observations during a combustion event, and space-based measurements are not at a sufficiently fine resolution to reveal details of CO2 emissions. Models used to simulate fuel load, fuel consumption and fire efficiency work well under ordinary circumstances but are not robust enough to represent extreme wildfires, according to the researchers.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

THE UNSTOPPABLE GROWTH OF GLOBAL GHG EMISSIONS

by R. Lyman, Oct 2022 in FriendsOfScience

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2022. Robert Lyman’s bio can be read here.

Advocates of the thesis that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change claim that United Nations-led international conferences will succeed in causing the countries of the world collectively to radically reduce fossil fuel use by 2050.

The “climate change” issue is a global one. It concerns the global effects of global emissions and the possibility that collective action by all the countries of the world (or, at least, the vast majority of major emitters) can so reduce emissions and concentrations as to eventually change global impacts. Since 1992, there has been a series of international conferences, mostly under the auspices of the United Nations, seeking agreement on how, by how much, and when to reduce emissions. In spite of these conferences and the series of agreements and lofty political statements they have produced, emissions actually rose by 60 per cent from 1990 to 2020. By 2021, China alone accounted for 30 per cent of world emissions, and was the fastest-growing source of emissions, followed by India.

…

Australia

Emissions from Australia’s oil and gas industry rose 20% in first five years of safeguard mechanism

by A. Norton, Sep 20, 2022 in The Guardian

 

 

better to know...?

Climactivists Rage At Taylor Swift Taking 170 Private Jet Trips In One Year

by P. Bois, Aug 1, in ClimateChangeDispatch

Climate activists have been raging at pop star Taylor Swift after learning her private jet has taken 170 flights so far this year.

According to research from Yard, a sustainable marketing agency that gathered “cutting-edge data” on the celebrities with the “worst private jet Co2 emissions” in 2022, Swift’s private jet flew 170 times this year with an average time of 80 minutes [bold, links added]:

Taylor Swift might be today’s pop princess, but Yard’s research found that Miss Swift is the biggest celebrity CO2 polluter of this year so far.

Racking up a total of 170 flights on her private jet since January, Taylor has amassed a vast 22,923 minutes in the air – 15.9 days. Quite a large amount considering that she is not currently touring.

Taylor’s average flight time is just 80 minutes and an average of 139.36 miles per flight. Her total flight emissions for the year come in at 8,293.54 tonnes or 1,184.8 times more than the average person’s total annual emissions. Taylor’s shortest recorded flight of 2022 was just 36 minutes, flying from Missouri to Nashville.

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Global Man-Made CO2 emissions 1965 – 2021: BP Data

by BP, Jul 10, 2022 in WUWT

Introduction

Every summer BP publish their statistical review of world energy.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/co2-emissions.html

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.

For an earlier post reporting the status of Man-made CO2 emissions as of 2020, see:

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

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.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/weather-dependent-power-generation/embed/#?secret=l8iZWBRns9#?secret=oko5JekhTo

Nominally Developing nations:  population ~6.6 billion, (84.6%) – ~63% CO2 emissions.

…

climate-debate

German Physicist: Human CO2 Emissions Responsible For 0.05°C Of The Global Warming Since 1750

by H. Harde, June 20,2022 in NoTricksZone

Professor Herman Harde, an environmental physicist, has authored a new position paper on the follies of assuming humans significantly impact the climate.

As detailed in his 2017 paper, Dr. Harde concludes the “anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3% [a figure derived from IPCC AR5], its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”

The IPCC overestimates the thermal effect of doubling CO2 by a factor of 5, as the consequent surface air temperature increase for a 120 ppm increase in CO2 is less than 0.3°C.

“Since only about 15% of the global CO2 increase is of anthropogenic origin, just 15% of 0.3°C, i.e., less than 0.05°C remains, which can be attributed to humans in the overall balance.”

“Changes of our climate can be traced back to natural interaction processes that exceed our human influence by orders of magnitude.”

climate and geology, to keep an eye on...

Correcting Misinformation on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

by Bud Bromley, May 20, 2022 in budbromley

Abstract

Digital signal processing technology was used to analyze daily carbon dioxide data from the joint NOAA – Scripps Oceanographic Institution’s Global Monitoring Laboratory (MLO).  The period surrounding the 1991 eruption of the Pinatubo volcano was rigorously analyzed for slope and acceleration of net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration and found to be consistent with the theory that Henry’s Law, the Law of Mass Action, and Le Chatelier’s principle control net global average atmospheric CO2 concentration rather than human-produced CO2 emissions.  Background and theory are explained.  A method of using common physics and math for a novel purpose is presented to compare natural CO2emission or absorption with human-produced CO2 emission.  The claim that human-produced CO2 emission is causing increasing global CO2 concentration and climate change is shown to be without scientific merit.  

Key words: carbon, CO2, climate, warming, Impulse, Pinatubo, Henry’s Law, Mauna Loa 

Figure 1. Photo of Pinatubo eruption by Dave Harlowe, USGS. Public domain

…

climate-debate

Why is the CO₂ Concentration Rising?

by F. Schrijver, Apr 15, 2022 in WUWT

The general view in society is that human emissions of CO₂ are the all-determining cause of the increased concentration in the atmosphere. Most scientists and even many climate skeptics do not question this. There is some debate about how long this extra CO₂ will stay in the atmosphere, but that’s about it. That’s remarkable, as several scientists have published extensively on the flaws and inconsistencies of this narrative. By looking at the significant increase in the CO₂-flows from and to land and sea it’s in fact easy to see that the CO₂-rise is largely due to natural causes.

The idea that human CO₂ is the all-determining cause of the increased concentration is based on the assumption that the natural inflows and outflows are always and exactly in equilibrium with each other. Based on this perfect equilibrium thinking, human emissions, even though they are relatively small, cause a perturbation year after year. In the so-called global carbon budget[2] about 10 PgC of CO₂ is added every year, while the absorption flux has only increased by 6 PgC/yr (1 Petagram = 1 Gigaton = 1 billion tons). The concentration therefore continues to rise indefinitely as long as people emit CO₂.

To support this idea it is also assumed that human emissions accumulate in the atmosphere. Where you would expect a single residence time for a reservoir with in- and outflows, the IPCC-models calculate with a small residence time of about 4 years for natural CO₂ and a large one for human CO₂: “The removal of all the human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence)”.

Several scientists, including Murray Salby[9] and Hermann Harde[3], have published extensively on the flaws and inconsistencies of this narrative. They also showed that it is very illogical to think that a slight increase in the up-flux cannot be compensated by a larger down-flux. It’s like increasing the heat energy flow in a house by 5% and expecting that the temperature will keep on rising forever.

Despite this, belief in the IPCC’s model for the increase in concentration is persistent. In this article we will focus on one of the strangest assumptions: the idea that the in- and outflows are stable and in perfect equilibrium. Although they are about 20 times larger than anthropogenic fluxes and have different drivers for up and down, natural flows are not included in the material balance used in the models.

It is in fact easy to see that the increase in the CO₂ concentration is for the most part the result of natural changes, based on the following unmistakable observations.

  1. Fluxes to and from land and sea have increased significantly since 1750.

  2. The increase in these fluxes is natural, i.e. not due to human emissions.

  3. The growth of the natural fluxes can only take place at a higher concentration in the atmosphere.

…

climate-debate

CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2021

by P. Homewood, Mar 9, 2022 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

Energy-related CO2 emissions grew to
36.3 Gt in 2021, a record high

 

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

The Covid-19 pandemic had far-reaching impacts on energy demand in 2020, reducing global CO2emissions by 5.2%. However, the world has experienced an extremely rapid economic recovery since then, driven by unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus and a fast – although uneven – roll-out of vaccines. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions, which led to more coal being burnt despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever annual growth. 

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

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

…

climate-debate

Global Human CO2 Emissions Have Been On A Slightly Declining Trend Since 2011

by K. Richard, Dec 9, 2021 in NoTricksZone

Until recently, human CO2 emissions were responsible for ~10% of the variance in year-to-year CO2 growth rate. But a new analysis says human CO2 emissions have been slightly declining for the last decade. So 0% responsible, apparently.

CO2 emissions derived from human activity (fossil fuel combustion and land use changes) only account for about +0.1 to 0.3 PgC/yr of the annual change in CO2 concentration. This is about “10% of the variance (σ²) of the CO2 growth rate” (Wang et al., 2013).

…

…

better to know...?, climate-debate

Emission Reductions From Pandemic Had Unexpected Effects on Atmosphere

by J. Lee & J. O’Neill, Nov 9, 2021 in JetPropulsionLaboratory

Earth’s atmosphere reacted in surprising ways to the lowering of emissions during the pandemic, showing how closely climate warming and air pollution are linked.

The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting limitations on travel and other economic sectors by countries around the globe drastically decreased air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions within just a few weeks. That sudden change gave scientists an unprecedented view of results that would take regulations years to achieve.

A comprehensive new survey of the effects of the pandemic on the atmosphere, using satellite data from NASA and other international space agencies, reveals some unexpected findings. The study also offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution. “We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” said Joshua Laughner, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech in Pasadena, California. “To understand what is driving changes to the atmosphere, we must consider how air quality and climate influence each other.”

Published Nov. 9 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the paper grew from a workshop sponsored by Caltech’s W.M. Keck Institute for Space Studies, led by scientists at that institution and at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, which is managed by Caltech. Participants from about 20 U.S. and international universities, federal and state agencies, and laboratories pinpointed four atmospheric components for in-depth study: the two most important greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane; and two air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and microscopic nitrate particles.

Carbon Dioxide

The most surprising result, the authors noted, is that while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 5.4% in 2020, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere continued to grow at about the same rate as in preceding years. “During previous socioeconomic disruptions, like the 1973 oil shortage, you could immediately see a change in the growth rate of CO2,” said David Schimel, head of JPL’s carbon group and a co-author of the study. “We all expected to see it this time, too.”

Using data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite launched in 2014 and the NASA Goddard Earth Observing System atmospheric model, the researchers identified several reasons for this result. First, while the 5.4% drop in emissions was significant, the growth in atmospheric concentrations was within the normal range of year-to-year variation caused by natural processes. Also, the ocean didn’t absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as it has in recent years – probably in an unexpectedly rapid response to the reduced pressure of CO2 in the air at the ocean’s surface.

…

…

climate-debate

BBC’s Fake GHGs Graph

by P. Homewood, Nov 15, 2021 in NotaLot ofPeopleKnowThat

For the last few weeks, the BBC has been regularly publishing the above graph from Climate Action Tracker, showing the extra emission reductions resulting from the new NDCs, National Plans, submitted for COP26.

Essentially they estimate a figure of 3.3 to 4.7 GtCO2e for all GHGs. Significantly this means that they will still be much higher than 2010 in 2030. According to the science, they need to be cut by 45% from 2010 levels to stay on track for 1.5C

Curiously however in the last few days, the BBC has dropped the above graph, and replaced with an ostensibly fake one, which claims that the new COP26 pledges will cut emissions by 10.5 GtCO2e, more than double the Climate Tracker numbers, bringing 2030 levels down to 90% of 2010 ones.

…