Global Co2 Emissions 2018

It is not hypocritital to state truthfully that the US leads the world in CO2 emissions per capita, or per person. We do, and have for a long time.What I’d like to see someone do is calculate some additional ratios and stats, such as tons of CO2 per dollar of GDP or tons of CO2 per dollar of foreign aid granted per nation or tons of CO2 per dollar of charitable contribution per nation.Those are all real numbers that matter, are relevant too. All is fair as long as the stat isn’t intentionally misleading, or untrue. “I know of zero warmistas who will even acknowledge that the US is the first country in the world, AFAIK, to reduce emissions to 1990 levels?”They won’t, because it isn’t the first, by a long shot. Even this article says:“there has been an overall reduction of CO2 emissions from most of the Developed economies since 1990.”And the graph above shows what happened. USA emissions went up from 1990 until about 2005, and then came back to about 1990 levels.

• Global Co2 Emissions 2018 By Industry

China’s CO2 emissions grew by approximately 3% last year, the largest rise since at least 2013, and all but ensuring global CO2 emissions also increased last year, according to an Unearthed analysis of newly released official data in Chinese. Here are 6 energy trends and takeaways from China’s latest statistical communique, including developments that promise to push emissions down in.

1. Download dataset 'tables global CO2 greenhouse gases 1990-2017 Appendix C and D (ODS, 200 KB) more information on CO2 emissions in JRC 2018 report: booklet with pictures and tables of sectoral emissions for all countries (1990 - 2017) Growth in global greenhouse gas emissions resumed in 2017.
2. Global carbon dioxide emissions surged to record levels the year after the landmark 2016 Paris climate agreement was signed. Energy-related emissions climbed 1.4 percent to 32.5 gigatons in 2017.

EU emissions have been diminishing since 1990, with a pause around 2005, but are down from 4Gtons 1990 to 3.44 Gtons now. The fatal flaws to the warming alarmists’ arguments are many – here are two:9. CO2 emissions / headPossibly more significant than the total CO2 emissions output is the comparison of the CO2 emissions / head for the various nation groups.

This measure represents the level of development of various NationsRealistically the least significant measurement is CO2 emissiond/Head (per capita) as those nations that prefer this measurement are 30% energy impoverished. Total CO2 production per anum is what will have the greatest effect on global temps (provided their ballyhooed equation isisn’t correct and CO2 is isn’t the driver of temperatures)It doesn’t matter if you have 1 person producing 5% of global CO2 output or 2 billion producing 35% of global output. The 35% output has the greater effect. Not to mention that all human sources of CO2 emissions in total amount to just 5% of annual total CO2 emissions on the planet. Which fact the climate alarmists NEVER utter.Meaning that if humans totally eliminated 100% of man caused CO2, we’d still be left with 95% of what we have now.And if the earth keeps on warming, as it has for most of the last 16,000 years, those natural emissions will continue to grow, due to gassing from the oceans. Not to mention weathering of CO2 containing rocks, where most of the planetary total CO2 mass resides.

The only applicable metric is the incremental GDP per ton of CO2 emissions as this is a measure of economic energy efficiency since CO2 emissions are roughly proportional to energy consumption. Minimizing CO2 is the wrong goal and it should be maximizing GDP per Joule of consumed energy. The absolute emissions have such an inconsequential impact on the surface temperature, they should be ignored.Yes, it’s clear that the UNFCCC’s policy goals will do nothing to effect the climate, even if CO2 was the problem they claim, and the only result will be for the developed world to waste trillions mitigating a problem that isn’t even possible. If this insanity continues, the IPCC’s gross misrepresentation of climate science is being done knowingly and willfully based on their acknowledged receipt of my report as an official expert reviewer of AR6 where I identified the many serious errors in their assessment that comprise the sole support for the policy goals of the UNFCCC.

Fine and interesting—as long as you don’t compare the relative contribution of human produced CO2 to the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from all sources. It is only 3.4%—the entire remainder (96%) comes from natural sources (the biosphere, ocean degassing, volcanoes principally).And then you have to factor in that CO2 is only 4% of all GHGs, with over 95% being water vapor, so the “climate change” effect of anthropogenic CO2 is actually trivial, if not negligible. (See the last graphic of WUWT ).Going one step further based in the data of that article, the US emissions of 14.9% produces only 0.5% of total CO2 going into the atmosphere and 0.02% of all GHGs.Somehow, I’m not going to lose sleep over it. And reducing out CO2 output by 20% is meaningless.

Climate Alarmunists are NOT loudly and desperately leaning on the developing countries about reducing emissions.They are also not working desperately to rapidly ramp up international nuclear power production capabilities. TENS (10’s) of thousands of nuclear plants need tOo go online this decade, else emissions targets CANNOT BE MET. And since that cannot happen soon enough, I guess we are all doomed.The only rational conclusion to draw from this: it’s not about avoiding an actual climate catastrophe. CAGW was always and was only a Trojan Horse strategy for the advancement of Socialism internationally.

Alarmists are nakedto anyone willing to take an honest look at the numbers. Developing countries are condescendingly considered “noble savages” by the eco-leftists.

Their traditional primitive lifestyles are “better” than the mechanized, industrialized, nations. They believe the industrialized nations “owe” them something. It’s akin to affirmative-action for the savages.

Cripple the developed nations, and enable the lesser nations. That’s the simple explanation.

It’s counterproductive to their stated eco-goals. But none of this is about science or the environment.

It’s ALL about transferring wealth from the rich nations to the poor. It’s all about an artificial crisis to punish Western culture.

To punish the human success of capitalism. Richard, CO2 doesn’t “remain in the air”.

It gets recycled en suite:Carbon dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees and other biological materials, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.fraction of total emissions that remain in the atmosphere. ‘Yes, but it isn’t true that your atmosphere is your own atmosphere. And in case you missed Pat Frank’s post below, allow me to second it:Pat Frank:Alarmist Green thinking have also already caused:. an increase in winter deaths from fuel poverty in the UK. continued premature death from the effects of indoor smoke in developing countries. murder to protect green-virtue palm oil plantations.

threat against large mammalian species due, again, to green-virtue palm oil plantationsSeems to me there’s a case for negligent homicide to be made against the green NGOs and their political supporters.Check link, not found as originally typed.mod. Hence Nick, why emission control is never going to work and world emissions are going to continue to increase. See if it really was being taken seriously then developed nations have to stay at there current level and developed nations would have to drop to them.It reminds me of skit so a group of people find themselves in a plane crash in a dessert and they decide they must ration the food and water.

They then sit around to decide who had a big breakfast this morning and who had drinks on the plane because they should get less rations because they have historic consumption. None of them can agree on the how to account for the historic consumption and so in the end they die still arguing. No his claim was people can do whatever they like “I’m big on the whole ‘live and let live’ – ‘your life is your own journey’ thing” Yes, but it isn’t true that your atmosphere is your own atmosphere. We all have to share it.I am with Eamon above who saidEamon That’s chasing your tail a bit.

Either the problem is CO2 or it isn’t.When you start rationing things fair doesn’t come into it, it becomes about what you can control and enforce and can get a majority to go along with. It is amusing watching socialist and the educated stupids try to implement things in the real harsh world. To me some 90% of the materiel and labour costs involved in all this data collection is a waste of time. OK we we need to keep an eye on CO2 levels; but this is ridiculous.Going back pre- industrial we were rather sparse on CO2 levels sufficient to maintain a heathy plant life; but generally OK for population prevailing at the time. Then subsequent gentle warming started to increase this fortunately (CO2 levels laging temperature) and we assisted this a bit with our fossil fuels.No idea what the optimum CO2 levels should be; but natural climate processes will determine that, taking into account manmade contributions and humanity will adapt accordingly.IMO there is no place in science for hysterical reactions. This excellent and realistic post says:“The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.”In the GWPF Briefing 24 Executive Summary Curry says.“Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system.

However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries,with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energysystems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.”.Bottom up GCMs are not fit for forecasting purposes but this does not mean that reasonably plausible projections of future climate cannot be made from the emergent properties of the complex climate system.When analyzing complex systems with multiple interacting variables it is essential to note the advice of Enrico Fermi who reportedly said “never make something more accurate than absolutely necessary”.

In 2017 I proposed the adoption of a simple heuristic approach to climate science which plausibly proposes that a Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity was reached in 1991, that this turning point correlates with a temperature MTP in 2003/4, and that a general cooling trend will now follow until approximately 2650. See “The coming cooling: usefully accurate climate forecasting for policy makers.”and an earlier accessible blog version atSee also the discussion with Professor William Happer atThe establishment’s dangerous global warming meme, the associated IPCC series of reports, the entire UNFCCC circus, the recent hysterical IPCC SR1.5 proposals and Nordhaus’ recent Nobel prize are thus founded on two basic errors in scientific judgement. First – the sample size is too small.

Most IPCC model studies retrofit from the present back for only 100 – 150 years when the currently most important climate controlling, largest amplitude, solar activity cycle is millennial. This means that all climate model temperature outcomes are too hot and likely fall outside of the real future world.

(See Kahneman. Thinking Fast and Slow p 118) Second – the models make the fundamental scientific error of forecasting straight ahead beyond the Millennial Turning Point (MTP) and peak in solar activity which was reached in 1991. All this is reasonably obvious using basic common sense and Occam’s razor.The establishment academic science community exhibit an almost total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent patterns which are trivially obvious in solar activity and global temperature data. The delusionary world inhabited by the eco-left establishment activist elite is epitomized by Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes science-based fiction, ” The Collapse of Western-Civilization: A View from the Future” Oreskes and Conway imagine a world devastated by climate change.

Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused the academic establishment to delude themselves, teenage students, politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main and most dangerous climate driver. The certainty with which this proposition has been advanced led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and inherently futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions. With so much CO2 being produced naturally, how do we tell thedifference between Natural and the so called “”Man made”” variety.If wood is burned in a human mad wood stove, is the resulting CO2 anydifferent to the CO2 produced when the wood from the same forest isburnt in a naturally occurring bush fire.Its a giant Scam, pushed by the United Nations and the other “”Usefulidiots”” for the short term benefit of the so called “Developing Countries”” and long term for a world ((Communist) type government run by thebosses of the United Nations.MJE VK5ELL. Michael – June 19, 2019 at 3:41 pm“ With so much CO2 being produced naturally, how do we tell thedifference between Natural and the so called “”Man made”” variety. ”There are actually two (2) different types of CO2,. The naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a “manmade” hybrid or CO2 isotope.

The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human (anthropogenic) activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away. That’s true, Johann Wundersamer, pyrons are too small to see, but the committed “warminists” can easily see the slight difference in the LWIR that is radiated from an anthropogenically released CO2 molecule.

The “warminists” measure the amount of H-p/LWIR and that is exactly how they determine the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 that humans emit each year and/or is in the atmosphere at any given time.And “HEY”,. I just betcha that Greta Thunberg was born with a mutant gene in the retina of her eyes that detects (sees) the same frequency of IR that is emitted by CO2,. Just like some frogs and fish that can see LWIR. Pretty funny skit there Mr. That was a good riff. 😉Unfortunately I have met people who are so falsely informed about their personal grasp of science and ignorant about the difficult task of physical and psychological inquiry, that your bit of fun either sets their hair on fire or inflates their egocentric ego’s virtue to dangerously psychotic levels without them ever knowing it until it’s too late.This inflation leads to “charging” their psyche with even more extreme levels of delusion effectively creating cognitive dissonance that has explosive potential. An example of this can be seen in the Social Justice Warriors, Antifa, and those associated with them.I enjoy your post here on WUWT, however please be careful when you are out in the world amongst those who do not possess your discipline and reason informed self control.That being said, Keep the humor that you share here coming.

It lightens the load.Thanks for your contributions. Charlie Adamson, Thank You,.for your kind words. A boost to my ego that makes my posting of actual factual science in response to the misnurtured, miseducated and/or intentional posting of non-factual, wrong or “junk science” that will surely be believed by many observers, viewers or readers of said “tripe n’ piffle”.“ Unfortunately I have met people who are so falsely informed about their personal grasp of science and ignorant of. ”My thoughts exactly about those that post their “falsely informed” commentary on/to this blog/forum.“HA”, even when I tell them that something is “ biological impossible”, they simply ignore it,.

Because they are no longer a student in school that need to be taught,. And thus they cannot even imagine themselves being wrong about what they were nurtured to believe. The basic claim that CO2 “emissions” are “bad” is based on the assumption that global climate will change for the worse due to the added CO2.That claim has never been supported by empirical data. Global temperatures have been warmer in the geological past, with no damage to biology. Evolution will do the job. A snail could outrun the 2 mm/year increase in global sealevel. Coral reefs are expanding.The return to a colder global climate is far more likely.

Advancing ice sheets would be devastating.More CO2 in the atmosphere is an observed benefit to global agriculture. That’s an iron-clad fact.Atmospheric CO2 is the substrate molecule for all life on Earth. More is better. Ask any biologist.

Thinking beyond the data presented, it is quite clear that:1. Modern economies are dependent on fossil fuels and will remain so for the foreseeable future.2. Given the ever rising demand for fossil fuels and growing impediments to their recovery, their prices are inclined to maintain an upward trend.3. Weather dependent intermittents increase reliance on fossil fuels when used for grid scale power generation.

There are some trivial off-grid applications where they may reduce reliance on fossil fuels.4. There remains value in seeking out efficiency in use of fossil fuels; savings could easily offset fuel costs given the rising cost trend of fossil fuels.5.

Nuclear power remains a possibility to replace fossil fuels but the technology is yet to inspire confidence in the broad community. Nuclear’s linkage to devastating consequences through intent or accident remains a serious hurdle.6. The early 21st century obsession with atmospheric CO2 concentration will be viewed by future generations as a massive waste of effort. I’m yet to see any sequence of WX events (climate noise) that’s outside of the range of natural variation, so I remain very unimpressed by the hysterically exaggerated fear of the EFFECT of the scale of the CO2 change measured over 100 years. It’s really hard to get too worried about what amounts to approximately nothing much over a century.Especially once you discount the a-scientific ‘official’ tax-funded historical met-data corruption programs that are rolling out a colder past century, every other year.And then there are clowns from University of Reading making “warming stripes” visualisations with the resulting met-pseudo-data CAGW propaganda BS.Compelling!

The link provided says nothing substantive about their sources and methods.I tried a number of years ago to find sources for Chinese CO2 emissions and found it an impossible task. How did BP come up with their numbers?Their numbers for Japan and Germany are farcical. Japan shut down all their nuclear electricity plants after Fukushima and replaced them with coal. Germany did the same thing, with a year or so lag. How do these decisions show up as only minor blips?I would be very interested in a credible analysis of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and how they compare to James Hansen’s scenario A – it seems likely to me that emissions have far surpassed predictions, but CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen more slowly than the worst-case scenario.

Half a century from Malthusian Paul Ehrlich’s stupefyingly inane “Population Bomb” in 1968, going on ten years from the anonymous “Climategate” publication of chiliastic deviants’ back-story propaganda in November 2009, our 4.5 billion-year old Earth is (once again) due to deliquesce by AD 2030. Indeed, since late Pliocene times about 3.5 million YBP cyclical plate tectonic-driven Ice Ages lasting an average 102 kiloyears have regularly interspersed with median 12,250-year Interglacial Epochs such as the recent Holocene (which ended in AD 1350 with a 500-year Little Ice Age now rebounding over 140 years to c. 2030).For the record, Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.Applying Holmes’ relation to all planets in Earth’s solar system, zero error-margins attest that there is no empirical or mathematical basis for any “forced” carbon-accumulation factor (CO2) affecting Planet Earth.

Global Co2 Emissions 2018 By Industry

To say that commentators of all stripes have studiously neglected this definitive insight is an extreme understatement: When facts don’t matter, myths sow Cadmus’ dragons-teeth that spring up as armed men.