Archives par mot-clé : CO2 Emissions

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


 

 

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.

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:

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.”

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Does Scientific Data Show Humans, CO2, And Fossil Fuels Cause Global Warming?

by J. Heller, Aug 10, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Another day, another dire warning about global warming.

The press and its taskmasters could essentially Xerox a copy of what they printed for the public in the Washington Post in 1922, or a UN report in 1989, or a UN report in 2019 for this report here:

U.N. climate report likely to deliver stark warnings on global warming

As always, journalists just print and repeat these never-ending reports to scare the public into submission with no questions asked.

For decades, journalists, educators, scientists, bureaucrats, and other Democrats have colluded to spread these dire warnings, (misinformation) without scientific evidence, to scare and control the public.

We are repeatedly have been told that we only have a few years left to solve the problem.

The end date always evolves. No matter how wrong these dire predictions are they just repeat them and say the science is settled to cut off debate. Why are people who are always so wrong considered experts?

Many CEOs, Republicans, and others repeat the same claims without evidence because it is so much more pleasant to go along instead of being called anti-science, or worse still, “deniers.”

In D.C., and throughout the country, politicians are using these dire forecasts to pass policies to destroy thousands of industries and millions of jobs.

Joe Biden and his administration have been in office for seven months and are working as fast as they can to remake and destroy America.

He has signed executive orders to stop a pipeline, stop drilling and force people to buy vehicles powered by the poisonous, very combustible pollutant Lithium. These anti-oil policies greatly harm the poor, middle class, and small businesses with higher prices.

The Biden administration has rejoined the Paris climate accord where politicians and bureaucrats from around the world pretend they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity if thousands of industries are destroyed and we hand them trillions of our hard-earned dollars.

Does anyone really believe that Iran, Russia, and other major oil-producing countries will give up oil? Isn’t it important that Biden let a pipeline proceed from Russia to Germany while stopping the pipeline from Canada to the United States?

Does anyone believe that China cares about its carbon footprint as it continues to build a large number of coal power plants? Here’s what’s going on in China:

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree

As the Biden administration works so hard to destroy industries, I have not seen one journalist as Biden, Harris, Kerry, Psaki, or anyone else in the administration who has been asked for evidence to support the claimed science that can justify what Biden is doing.

In a free society with independent journalists, we should see the reporters asking questions and doing research to see if what they are told is correct before they repeat talking points to the public.

Sadly, in the United States, we have seen, for decades, almost all journalists have essentially become campaign workers to elect Democrats and lobbyists to sell the radical leftist policies to the public.

Media outlets, especially the social media giants, work very hard to stifle debate and silence anyone who disagrees by repeating the talking points that we are anti-science and climate change deniers who should not be listened to.

It is an outright lie to call people who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and natural climate-change deniers. I have never seen anyone deny that the climate changes.

China, India And 85 Nations Snub U.N. Deadline To Update CO2-Reduction Targets

by Dr. B. Peiser, Aug  2, 2021 in GWPF/ClimateChangeDispatch


In a warning shot across the bows of Joe Biden and Boris Johnson, China, India, and 85 other nations have decided to ignore a UN deadline to submit its pledges for cutting CO2 emissions in time for the UN climate summit in Glasgow later this year.

To underscore their opposition to Joe Biden’s and Boris Johnson’s Net Zero agenda, India has snubbed the UK’s climate meeting last week while China is rolling back its climate policies in an attempt to prop up its economy.

Meanwhile, South Africa has demanded that developed countries should set a target of $750 billion a year to help poorer nations transition to renewable energy.

The latest demands and developments look increasingly like a farcical repeat of the fiasco of the Copenhagen climate summit (COP15) in 2009.

As seasoned COP observers remember, after two weeks of deadlocked negotiations in Denmark’s capital, the leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (the so-called BRICS nations) took charge of the climate summit which was on the brink of disaster and drafted the final communique behind closed doors.

A humiliated US President Obama had to gatecrash the meeting while the entire EU was excluded from the meeting and the final statement.

In many ways, Copenhagen’s diplomatic and political fiasco was a historical watershed that marked the turning point when 500 years of Western dominance was symbolically terminated by China and India.

If Boris and Biden are not very careful, they may face a very similar situation in Glasgow. If push comes to shove there is a pretty good chance that China and India (together with a number of emerging nations) could take over a deadlocked COP yet again and draft an agreement that suits them and humiliates the US, UK, and the EU.

There is, of course, one shrewd game plan to avoid a Copenhagen-type fiasco: Boris Johnson could simply pull the plug on current summit plans, turn COP26 into a virtual conference, and blame Covid for the failure to achieve a breakthrough.

After all, Boris has developed a habit of kicking irreconcilable issues into the long grass … just saying.

Just 25 ‘mega-cities’ produce 52 per cent of the world’s urban greenhouse gas emissions — and 23 of them are in China

by I. Randall, July 12, 2021 in DailyMail


  • Researchers from Sun Yat-sen University recorded the emissions of 167 cities

  • The largest carbon emitters were found to be Asian megacities like Shanghai

  • Cities in Europe and the US emit more than those in most developing countries

  • Of 42 cities with data spanning 2012–2016, 30 showed emissions reductions

  • Yet the team warned we are not on track to meet global climate change targets

THE WORST EMITTERS

In their study, Dr Chen and colleagues looked at greenhouse gas emissions from 167 cities across 53 countries.

The worst 75 cities for total emissions were as follows (with figures in megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent):

  1. Handan, China (199.71)
  2. Shanghai, China (187.93)
  3. Suzhou, China (151.79)
  4. Dalian, China (142.51)
  5. Beijing, China (132.58)
  6. Tianjin, China (125.89)
  7. Moscow, Russia (112.53)
  8. Wuhan, China (110.86)
  9. Qingdao, China (93.56)
  10. Chongqing, China (80.58)
  11. Wuxi, China (76.88)
  12. Urumqi, China (75.32)
  13. Guangzhou, China (71.03)
  14. Huizhou, China (68.74)
  15. Shijiazhuang, China (67.80)
  16. Zhengzhou, China (66.16)
  17. Tokyo, Japan (66.08)
  18. Shengyang, China (64.10)
  19. Kaohsiung, China (63.64)
  20. Kunming, China (62.96)
  21. Shenzhen, China (62.91)
  22. Hangzhou, China (61.41)
  23. Hong Kong, China (55.90)
  24. Yinchuan, China (55.49)
  25. Chengdu , China (54.49)
  26. New York City, US (51.31)
  27. Manilla, Philippines (49.47)
  28. Bangkok, Thailand (49.22)
  29. Dubai, UAE (48.26)
  30. Seoul, Korea (48.06)
  31. Nanjing, China (47.94)
  32. Istanbul, Turkey (47.53)
  33. Frankfurt, Germany (45.73)
  34. Jakarta, Indonesia (43.86)
  35. Changchun, China (42.62)
  36. Guiyang, China (42.09)
  37. Saint Petersburg, Russia (42.07)
  38. Singapore, Singapore (40.38)
  39. Jinan, China (38.49)
  40. Perth, Australia (36.33)
  41. San Diego, USA (35.02)
  42. Jiaxing, China (33.94)
  43. London, United Kingdom (33.58)
  44. Houston, USA (33.41)
  45. Stuttgart, Germany (32.82)
  46. Caracas, Venezuela (31.77)
  47. Chicago, USA (31.48)
  48. Harbin, China (30.81)
  49. Mexico City, Mexico (30.69)
  50. Lanzhou, China (29.87)
  51. Lagos, Nigeria (29.33)
  52. Xi’an, China (28.15)
  53. Berlin, Germany (27.48)
  54. Taiyuan, China (26.73)
  55. Los Angeles, USA (26.55)
  56. Tshwane, South Africa (26.14)
  57. Nanchang, China (25.17)
  58. Sao Paulo, Brazil (24.95)
  59. Johannesburg, South Africa (24.72)
  60. Changsha, China (24.64)
  61. Hohhot, China (23.47)
  62. Durban, South Africa (22.68)
  63. Mumbai, India (22.57)
  64. Hanoi, Vietnam (22.42)
  65. Torino, Italy (21.86)
  66. Cape Town, South Africa (21.53)
  67. Yokohama, Japan (20.96)
  68. Nanning, China (20.90)
  69. Santiago, Chile (20.03)
  70. Osaka, Japan (19.76)
  71. Hamburg, Germany (19.45)
  72. Chennai, India (19.32)
  73. Hefei, China (18.81)
  74. Toronto, Canada (18.08)
  75. Rotterdam, Netherlands (17.54)

EIA: U.S. CO2 Emissions Dropped 11% In 2020; No Change In Rising Atmospheric CO2

by A. Watts, Apr 16, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch


Climate change action proponents regularly tell us we have to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to prevent “climate change”, even to the point of curtailing industry, travel, and food consumption.

Fortunately, a real-world test of just those very things happened in 2020 due to the COVID-19 related lockdowns.

In a report released April 12th by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the Monthly Energy Review, they report that energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020 primarily because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.

Furthermore, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell in every end-use (consumer) sector for the first time since 2012. The EIA notes:

“CO2 emissions associated with energy use fell by 12% in the commercial sector in 2020. Part of this drop in emissions was due to pandemic restrictions.

“Because electricity is a large source of energy for the commercial sector, the declining carbon intensity of electric power also contributed to declining CO2 emissions from commercial activity. Emissions from commercial electricity use fell by 13%. Commercial petroleum and natural gas emissions fell by 13% and 11%, respectively.

“Within the U.S. power sector, emissions from coal declined the most, by almost a fifth, at 19%. Natural gas-related CO2 emissions rose by 3%. Also of note in 2020; fossil fuel generation declined, while power generation from renewables from wind and solar continued to grow.”

EIA: U.S. CO2 Emissions Declined 11% in 2020 – No Change in Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

by Anthony Watts, Apr 10, 2021 in WUWT


Climate change action proponents regularly tell us we have to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to prevent “climate change”, even to the point of curtailing industry, travel, and food consumption. Fortunately, a real-world test of just those very things happened in 2020 due to the COVID-19 related lockdowns.

In a report released April 12th by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the Monthly Energy Review, they report that energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 11% in the United States in 2020 primarily because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions.

Furthermore, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell in every end-use (consumer) sector for the first time since 2012. The EIA notes:

“CO2 emissions associated with energy use fell by 12% in the commercial sector in 2020. Part of this drop in emissions was due to pandemic restrictions. Because electricity is a large source of energy for the commercial sector, the declining carbon intensity of electric power also contributed to declining CO2emissions from commercial activity. Emissions from commercial electricity use fell by 13%. Commercial petroleum and natural gas emissions fell by 13% and 11%, respectively.”

“Within the U.S. power sector, emissions from coal declined the most, by almost a fifth, at 19%. Natural gas-related CO2 emissions rose by 3%. Also of note in 2020; fossil fuel generation declined, while power generation from renewables from wind and solar continued to grow.”

 

As seen in the graph above, CO2 in the atmosphere increased during 2020 during the economy crippling lockdowns at the same rate it has been for decades. There isn’t even a blip.

This lack of any reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration clearly demonstrates that no matter how much the U.S. reduces CO2 emissions, no one living today will, at any point in life, see a measurable change in climate attributable to the reduction. This is especially true since other countries, such as China, who only give lip-service to the COemissions reduction demanded by the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.

Shock News–China 5-Year Plan Will Increase Emissions

by P. Homewood, March 6, 2021 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat


China has set out an economic blueprint for the next five years that could lead to a strong rise in greenhouse gas emissions if further action is not taken to meet the country’s long-term goals.

The 14th five-year plan, published in Beijing on Friday, gave few details on how the world’s biggest emitter would meet its target of reaching net zero emissions by 2060, set out by President Xi Jinping last year, and of ensuring that carbon dioxide output peaks before 2030.

China will reduce its “emissions intensity” – the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP – by 18% over the period 2021 to 2025, but this target is in line with previous trends, and could lead to emissions continuing to increase by 1% a year or more. Non-fossil fuel energy is targeted to make up 20% of China’s energy mix, leaving plenty of room for further expansion of the country’s coal industry.

Swithin Lui, of the Climate Action Tracker and NewClimate Institute, said: “[This is] underwhelming and shows little sign of a concerted switch away from a future coal lock-in. There is little sign of the change needed [to meet net zero].”

Zhang Shuwei, chief economist at Draworld Environment Research Centre, said: “As the first five-year plan after China committed to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, the 14th five-year plan was expected to demonstrate strong climate ambition. However, the draft plan presented does not seem to meet the expectations. The international community expected China’s climate policy to ‘jump’, but in reality it is still crawling.”

Unusually, this five-year plan did not set out GDP targets for the whole five-year period, but allowed for annual targets, with the first for this year a target of 6% growth. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air said that coupled with the emissions intensity target, this could allow the growth rate of China’s emissions to speed up even further, rather than slow down, as is needed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/05/china-five-year-plan-emissions

2020 Review: Observational And Modeling Studies Show Temperature Falls As CO2 Rises

by K. Richard, Dec 28, 2020 in NoTricksZone


A 2020 observational study (Zhang et al., 2020) determined “temperatures of atmospheric air with substantially higher CO2 concentration (ranging from 3200 ppm to 16,900 ppm) were lower than that with the lower CO2 concentration (480 ppm)” and a 2020 modeling study (Drotos et al., 2020) assessed that when CO2 goes beyond 4 times preindustrial – 1,120 ppm – “climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero” because the climate cyclically cools by 10 K.

So the science is settled, right?

 

….

Covid-19 et émissions de CO2

by Prof. Jean N., Dec. 1, 2020 in ScienceClimatEnergie


Début avril 2020, sans que personne ne s’en rende compte, une expérience scientifique très intéressante a été menée, et ce de manière involontaire. En effet, 3,9 milliards de personnes dans le monde ont été placées en confinement suite à l’expansion du virus Covid-19. Il en a résulté une très forte diminution du trafic aérien et automobile accompagné d’une fermeture temporaire de nombreuses industries dans le monde entier. Cette expérience a évidemment provoqué une chute drastique des émissions de CO2 anthropique. Mais pendant l’expérience, les détecteurs mesurant le taux de CO2 atmosphérique ont continué à tourner. Nous disposons maintenant des résultats. Cette diminution abrupte des émissions a-t-elle eu un impact sur le taux de CO2 atmosphérique, ou sur la température globale? C’est ce dont nous allons discuter dans le présent article.

1. Bref rappel concernant la mesure du taux de CO2 atmosphérique.

L’observatoire de Mauna Loa à Hawaii est l’un des plus célèbres sites mesurant en continu le taux de CO2 atmosphérique. Ce taux est mesuré avec précision depuis 1959 par une méthode de spectrométrie infra-rouges, et depuis 2019 par la méthode CRDS (Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy). La courbe obtenue est croissante avec des oscillations régulières (Figure 1). De ± 320 ppm en 1959 on arrive à ± 410 ppm en 2020. SCE a d’ailleurs publié une suite d’articles sur ce sujet[1].

Figure 3. Taux de CO2 mesuré à Mauna Loa depuis 2017. Source : Koutsoyiannis & Kundzewicz (2020) Sci 2020, 2, 72

….

Carbon dioxide levels continue at record levels, despite COVID-19 lockdown

by WMO, Nov 23, 20°20


 

 

2020 Trends

The Global Carbon Project estimated that during the most intense period of the shutdown, daily CO2 emissions may have been reduced by up to 17% globally due to the confinement of the population. As the duration and severity of confinement measures remain unclear, the prediction of the total annual emission reduction over 2020 is very uncertain.

 

Dubai builds first coal power plant despite pledging lowest carbon footprint in the world by 2050

by Independent, Oct 22, 2020


A new wonder is rising in the southern desert of Dubai against the backdrop of Persian Gulf beaches, but it’s not another skyscraper to grace the futuristic sheikhdom. Instead, it’s one of mankind’s oldest power sources gaining its own space on the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula — a coal-fired power plant

The construction of the $3.4 billion Hassyan plant in Dubai appears puzzling, as the United Arab Emirates hosts the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency. It’s also building the peninsula’s first nuclear power plant and endlessly promotes its vast solar-power plant named after Dubai’s ruler. Dubai has also set the lofty goal of having the world’s lowest carbon footprint in the world by 2050 — something that would be impacted by burning coal.

The coal plant’s arrival comes as Gulf Arab nations remain among the world’s hungriest for energy and amid political concerns over the use of natural gas imported from abroad, concerns underscored by a yearslong dispute with gas-producer Qatar, which is boycotted by four Arab nations, including the UAE.

“Dubai was really saying we’re far too exposed on gas imports, those could be interrupted by all kinds of things, the cost is very high and so we have to do something else to diversify our fuel supply and bring down the total cost,” said Robin Mills, the CEO of Qamar Energy, a Dubai-based consulting company. “They got a very competitive offer on the coal plant … and so the decision was made.”

Is Mauna Loa Really The Best Location To Measure ‘Global’ CO2 Levels?

by K. Richard, Oct 19, 2020 in NoTricksZone


Highly anomalous terrain (an active volcano), 40 years of cooling temperatures, and a CO2 record that dramatically contrasts with fluctuating values from forests and meadows reaching 600-900 ppm all beg the question: Is Mauna Loa’s CO2 record globally representative?

Mauna Loa is the Earth’s largest land volcano. It has erupted over 3 dozen times since 1843, making this terrestrial landscape extremely unusual relative to the rest of the globe’s terrain. (Forests, in contrast, cover over 30% of the Earth’s  land surface.)

Mauna Loa has been thought to be the world’s best location to monitor global CO2 levels since 1958.

While Mauna Loa CO2 levels show a rise of 338 ppm to 415 ppm since 1980, Mauna Loa temperatures (HCN) show a cooling trend during this same time period. The only warming period in the last 65 years occurred between about 1975 and 1985.

Image Source: oz4caster

Forest CO2 fluctuations

As mentioned above, forests are orders of magnitude more terrestrially representative than the highly anomalous site of the Earth’s largest volcano.

In forests or tree-covered areas, CO2 rises from around 300 ppm in the warmth of the afternoon (~3 p.m.) to over 600 ppm before sunrise (~4 a.m.), when it is cooler (Fennici, 1986, Hamacher et al., 1994). This massive fluctuation occurs daily and CO2 values average out to be far higher than the Mauna Loa record suggests.

Study: Renewable Energy does Nothing to Reduce CO2 Emissions

by E. Worall, Oct 14, 2020 in WUWT


h/t Dr. Willie Soon / James Delingpole / Breitbart; A group of high profile scientists, including Dr. Willie Soon, have published a meticulously referenced study which discuses the pros and cons of various CO2 reduction strategies.

 

The abstract of the study:

Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018 

by Coilín ÓhAiseadha 1,*Gerré Quinn 2Ronan Connolly 3,4Michael Connolly 3 and Willie Soon 4

1 Department of Public Health, Health Service Executive, Dr Steevens’ Hospital, D08 W2A8 Dublin 8, Ireland
2 Centre for Molecular Biosciences, Ulster University, Coleraine BT521SA, Northern Ireland, UK
3 Independent Scientists, Dublin 8, Ireland
4 Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), Salem, MA 01970, USA*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Concern for climate change is one of the drivers of new, transitional energy policies oriented towards economic growth and energy security, along with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and preservation of biodiversity. Since 2010, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) has been publishing annual Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. According to these reports, US$3660 billion has been spent on global climate change projects over the period 2011–2018. Fifty-five percent of this expenditure has gone to wind and solar energy. According to world energy reports, the contribution of wind and solar to world energy consumption has increased from 0.5% to 3% over this period. Meanwhile, coal, oil, and gas continue to supply 85% of the world’s energy consumption, with hydroelectricity and nuclear providing most of the remainder. With this in mind, we consider the potential engineering challenges and environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the main energy sources (old and new). We find that the literature raises many concerns about the engineering feasibility as well as environmental impacts of wind and solar. However, none of the current or proposed energy sources is a “panacea”. Rather, each technology has pros and cons, and policy-makers should be aware of the cons as well as the pros when making energy policy decisions. We urge policy-makers to identify which priorities are most important to them, and which priorities they are prepared to compromise on.

Read more: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/18/4839/htm

Corona-induced CO2 emission reductions are not yet detectable in the atmosphere

by Karlsruher Institut für Technology, Sep 21, 2020 in EurekAlert


Based on current data measured in the energy, industry, and mobility sectors, restrictions of social life during the corona pandemic can be predicted to lead to a reduction of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions by up to eight percent in 2020. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cumulative reductions of about this magnitude would be required every year to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement by 2030. Recent measurements by researchers of Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) revealed that concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has not yet changed due to the estimated emission reductions. The results are reported in Remote Sensing (DOI: 10.3390/rs12152387).

 

See also here =  Can We Measure a COVID-19-Related Slowdown in Atmospheric CO2 Growth? Sensitivity of Total Carbon Column Observations

Sector by sector: where do global greenhouse gas emissions come from?

by H. Ritchie, Sep 18, 2020, in OurWorldlinData


To prevent severe climate change we need to rapidly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. The world emits around 50 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases each year [measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq)].

To figure out how we can most effectively reduce emissions and what emissions can and can’t be eliminated with current technologies, we need to first understand where our emissions come from.

In this post I present only one chart, but it is an important one – it shows the breakdown of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2016. This is the latest breakdown of global emissions by sector, published by Climate Watch and the World Resources Institute.,

The overall picture you see from this diagram is that almost three-quarters of emissions come from energy use; almost one-fifth from agriculture and land use  [this increases to one-quarter when we consider the food system as a whole – including processing, packaging, transport and retail]; and the remaining 8% from industry and waste.

To know what’s included in each sector category, I provide a short description of each. These descriptions are based on explanations provided in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report AR5) and a methodology paper published by the World Resources Institute.,