Carbon dioxide “greenhouse gas” emissions have been dropping, but the fear and anxiety continue unabated.
When the facts don’t match the global warming ideology, fear and loathing are tools used to keep the faithful full of faith. The correct inference, that “greenhouse gas” emissions are declining, is short circuited with a call to keep up the vigilance against the evil plutocrats greedily bent on destroying the planet.
Note the falsely titled photos of “CO2 [emmissions] from fossil fuels” that accompany the article. These are actually cooling towers emitting steam from hot waste water. But the towers, evocative of nuclear power plants, the ecologically cleanest form of energy, are EPA-mandated to avoid dumping hot waste water directly into the ocean. There is nothing sinister about them.
Despite emissions stalling, around 35 billion tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels and industry are still being emitted each year PA
From the Independent (UK):
Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row
by Steve Connor
Global emissions of carbon dioxide this year have stalled for the second year in a row, but scientists have warned that this does not mean the world has reached “peak carbon” with greenhouse gases set to fall year on year.
How much? How do you know? Which scientists? Probably the 97% of scientists who are convinced that “global warming” (aka “climate change”) is real.
By the way, just for the record, I believe that the Earth is globally warming. And cooling. And warming. And cooling. I just think that this cycle is normal, and that we are a long, long way from the much hyped runaway greenhouse phenomenon that will turn the Earth into another Venus.
I even agree that human activity may contribute to this cycle. But given that the Sun’s own activity is largely unpredictable and varies widely, the extent of human contribution to any climactic change is negligible and ultimately immeasurable. It is like talking quietly in a rock concert. No one will hear you because the sound system will drown you out. Raising or lowering your voice will not make a difference.
Latest figures on fossil-fuel emissions for 2015 show for the first time during a period of global economic growth that the amount of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere has remained stable for two consecutive years.
Good thing. Right?
Scientists believe however that the unprecedented decline is almost entirely due to the economic slowdown in China, now the world’s single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, which is likely to see a rapid return to growth in carbon emissions as its energy-hungry economy picks up again.
India and other developing nations are also expected to increase the amount of coal they burn in the coming years. This is likely to feed in to an overall increase in the growth in global carbon emissions globally, making the current slowdown a transitory “blip”, the scientists said.
Yet again, unknown “scientists” are cited as authorities on “energy-hungry” economics and chemistry. I guess an MS in Earth and Ecological Studies from a community college qualifies you to be a scientist these days. Break out the white coats and Erlenmeyer flasks, boys! We got ourselves a real Ecologist in the room.
“With two years of untypical emissions growth, it looks like the trajectory of global emissions might have changed temporarily,” said Professor Corinne Le Quéré, director of the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia, a lead author of the study presented at the Paris conference on climate change.
“Untypical emissions growth.” Don’t you love the way that a downturn in the trend is reclassified as “growth”?
Prof. Le Quere is notorious for making wildly inaccurate statements on the internet like
“The UK has suffered a spate of unusual weather recently: 2012 was the second wettest year since records began, while this year saw the coldest March in more than 50 years and the longest heatwave since 2006.”
“The cost of extreme weather to business is growing, with flooding in 2012 alone costing the economy more than £12bn.”
As English writer Sean Thomas notes in his blog, Le Quere is way off the mark. Historically, English weather has always had extremes:
As islanders in the changeable north Atlantic, Brits have been obsessed with “unusual weather” for centuries, and recorded the same. Here are some excerpts from a highly intriguing database of weather events.
- 1270AD, the Thames: “The downpour and the ensuing inundations were never so bad since the days of the flood of Noah”.
- 1948, Scottish Borders: “it was the principal scene for the worst series of washouts and storm damage… ever experienced on the railways of Britain”.
- 1091, London: “Terrible flood followed by a great frost and then a second flood as the like was remembered by none”.
- 1875, the Trent: “the flooding is stated to be the worst on record”.
- 1947, East Anglia: “In the main stream of the Great Ouse.. the discharge of water was 50 percent higher than ever previously recorded”.
- 1346, the Trent: “an extraordinary visitation of Providence, in the sending forth the most terrible floods of rain almost ever recorded to have taken place in England.”
- 1893, Sussex: “such extensive flooding never having been experienced before”.
- 1900, Yorkshire: “The heavy rains of Sunday and Sunday night caused Melton to experience the worst floods that have ever occurred in the town”.
- 1258, the Severn: “torrents of rain fell on and raised all the waters… from Shrewsbury to Bristol to a degree that has not been seen in our times”.
- 1918, Beds & Bucks: “At Hockcliffe the floods were severe and at Leighton were the worst ever known”.
- AD38: “10,000 drown”.
There are thousands more entries like this – “worst deluge in living memory”, “the worst rains ever witnessed”, “floods and rains the like of which no man has seen” – but you get the gist. This vast database shows that any notion that our rain, right now, is getting “worse” is farcically incoherent. What does “worse” even mean? Worse than what? Worse than the Ice Age? Worse in the sense of “colder”? “Spittier”? What?
And of course, she is an expert on economics and coal futures:
“It is unlikely that emissions have peaked for good. This is because energy needs for growing economies still rely primarily on coal, and emissions decreases in some industrial countries are still modest at best,” Professor Le Quéré said.
But let us get back to the facts, at least as she sees them….
The emissions figures, published simultaneously in the journals Nature Climate Change and Earth System Science Data, show that China was the biggest CO2 emitter in 2014, releasing some 9.7 billion tonnes. Last year China experienced an increase in emissions growth of 1.2 per cent, compared to an annual growth rate of 6.7 per cent for the previous decade.
The US was the second biggest emitter in 2014, releasing 5.6 billion tonnes, followed by the EU and India with 3.4 billion tonnes and 2.6 billion tonnes respectively.
The UK released 0.43 tonnes of CO2 in 2014, which was 1.2 per cent of the world total, a decrease of 9 per cent on the previous year, and 28 per cent below 1990 levels.
First of all, the article and its authors was never named explicitly. But other sources on the internet reveal that the article is written by LeQuarre and others.
The big reveal in “Reaching peak emissions,” by Robert B. Jackson, Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters & Nebojsa Nakicenovic, is the announcement of a 0.6% drop in CO2 emissions in 2015 over 2014 levels. It cites some of the results from one of the discredited NOAA reports which proclaims that 2015 was the hottest year on record, but other than that, it reads as pretty straight-forward assessment of recent carbon emission levels with plenty of mea culpas to the global warming true believers. Nonetheless, the authors appear to be very uncomfortable with their findings. In their summary, they admit that they don’t know what this means.
“Time will tell whether this surprising interruption in emissions growth is transitory or a first step towards emissions stabilization.”
One of the publishing venues for this report, “Nature Climate Change” is not a scholarly scientific journal, but a propaganda organ for junk science. The journal’s editors are thirty-something Marine Biologists fresh from Trinity College who prefer to edit other people’s articles in a cushy seat behind a desk in an under-heated London flat rather than brave the cold, wind, and sea-sickness on some smelly research vessel in the North Sea. In their initial editorial, “Whole-system science“, it is clear they have bitten into the “scientific consensus” and “collective action” poisoned apples.
“Despite the scientific consensus on climate change, much work remains to be done on understanding what the impacts of climate change will be, and how we will respond — collectively and as individuals — to minimize the avoidable impacts and to adapt to those that are now inevitable. Doing so will present a challenge for society, but also a tremendous opportunity for scientific discovery — one that will ultimately move us towards a better understanding of the physical workings of our planet and our role as its exploiters and guardians. Nature Climate Change provides a forum for publishing, and discussing, the most innovative and interesting of this emerging body of research.”
But the optimism about “tremendous opportunity” and “innovative research” is but a veneer of scientific curiosity. Behind their enthusiasm of new frontiers, lies a cynicism about established science or contrary scientific evidence. In the journal’s “About the Journal” section, they state,
“Nature Climate Change will publish cutting-edge research on the science of contemporary climate change, its impacts, and the wider implications for the economy, society and policy. Thus, while we certainly appreciate the importance of palaeoclimate research in its own right, we can only consider for publication palaeoclimate studies that shed significant new light on the nature, underlying causes or impacts of current climate change.”
or more succinctly, they are not interested in historical climate studies that might contradict their world view of gloomy environmental doom.
Luboš Motl, in his blog on NCC points out that the whole thing was set up by people who have no idea what real science is.
“The very concept of a “Whole-System Science” is an oxymoron. Science may study complicated systems but whenever it works, it always decomposes them into pieces that are studied separately. If a scientific disciplines [sic] remains a “whole-system science”, it’s just junk science. A “whole-system science” and “bad science” are pretty much synonymous.”
The point of Motl’s critique is that true scientists study phenomena from the bottom-up, not the top-down. You don’t come up with a prediction for something as large as the climate system of the Earth and then search for data that supports the prediction. Instead, you build up knowledge like you would build a pyramid, with as wide a base as possible. First, you examine the phenomena, take measurements, and them make small conclusions that are repeatable and verifiable. You never incorporate guesses or intuitions in your process. They can lead you astray. Only after a series of these observations and much peer review can you begin to make conceptual models on what you believe to be true. Even then, you must be prepared to accept that your initial assumptions can be undermined by newly discovered facts, and that they have skewed your interpretation. This is the nature of the scientific method.
The fact that these educated morons at NCC — and the climate movement as a whole — don’t understand this is a sign that logical thinking and the scientific method of discovery have totally collapsed.
Still, given the amount of data falsification that goes on in government-funded research labs, we must be grateful that NCC has acknowledged any drop in emissions.
And now a chart….
“Yes, green comrades, we must do better! We have not yet destroyed the capitalist economy.”
Zero CO2 emissions is an impossibility short of killing all human beings. I suppose that my objection is covered elsewhere in their collectivized brains, but anything that burns organic material — wood, coal, oil, peat — will create smoke. You can reclaim some of that smoke, but not entirely. The production of CO2 gas is just byproduct of human activity. Even then, one must consider the plants and animals and other organisms that both consume and exude carbon dioxide for their symbiotic benefit.
All that we are really measuring with this chart is the rise and fall of industry, expressed in the form of a molecule. It tells us nothing of how CO2 release has disrupted climate.
Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University said that global temperatures respond to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – not the rate of emissions in any given year – nevertheless, the latest figures are encouraging.
No, Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University, global temperatures are not a response to accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere! In fact, the opposite occurs. Rise or fall in atmospheric temperature precedes carbon dioxide levels. In the chart shown below, prehistoric CO2 levels stayed steady for 20,000 years despite a drop in overall air temperature.
This makes sense. When the Earth is warmer, more plants, on the land and in the sea, grow and emit higher levels of carbon dioxide. When the Earth is cooler, those plants die off, reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
And the ice core sampling has been consistent in this observation. As Joanne Nova, concludes in her article “Carbon rises 800 years after temperatures“,
“1. Ice cores don’t prove what caused past warming or cooling. The simplest explanation is that when temperatures rise, more carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere (because as oceans warm they release more CO2).
“2. Something else is causing the warming.”
Big Lies of the type promulgated by Prof. Allen are just a staple of the Global Warming conspiracy which relies heavily on the myth of the hockey stick graph to scare Chicken Little minds full of mush that the sky is falling.
“So to stop temperatures rising, net emissions need to be reduced to zero. But for that, emissions need to peak first. So evidence that it is possible to grow the world economy while reducing emissions is of course good news,” Professor Allen said.
“Is this the beginning of the end of global warming? Probably not. But let’s hope it is the end of the beginning,” he said.
When do we know that “net emissions” have been reduced to zero, or that emissions have or have not peaked?
The idea that we need to limit “dirty” industry in order to achieve a balance between human activity and nature is preposterous because it presumes that nature is in a steady state and that man is the cause for nature’s unsteady state. Unfortunately for us, nature does what it does, and, from a human perspective, it is very unbalanced and unpredictable in the best of times.
We are not in control of the Earth’s cycles any more than we can control the activity of the Sun, and all available historical evidence shows that warming periods and cooling periods rise and fall of their own accord, including CO2 levels and average atmospheric temperatures.