Human CO2 emissions flat

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,874
5,290
290
N/A
Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
By Helen Briggs
Environment Correspondent
BBCNews.com

Wind turbines in China [Caption for photo that did not come along]
China is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, far outstripping the US

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

But the IEA warned that while the results were "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency".

"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables"

Prof Corinne Le Quere
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
"It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth."

And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said while the data was "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency" and "certainly not the time to use this positive news as an excuse to stall further action".

Changing patterns
Analysts attribute the slowdown in emissions to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries.

Prof Corinne Le Quere, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: "An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables.

"Efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere will have played a role, but there are also more random factors such as the weather and the relative price of oil, coal and gas."

The IEA said changing patterns of energy use in China and in OECD countries, including the shift towards more renewable energy, was having the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse emissions.

The Paris-based organisation said that in the 40 years it had been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, annual emissions had stalled or fallen only three other times, which were all associated with global downturns:

After the US recession in the early 1980s
In 1992 after the collapse of the former Soviet Union
In 2009 during the global financial crisis.

Greenhouse gas emissions may finally be decoupling from economic growth
Full details of the IEA report will be released in June, ahead of UN negotiations to sign a new international climate change agreement at talks in Paris in December.

Countries are aiming to reach agreement on a deal that will come into force from 2020.

The aim is to limit the increase of the average global surface temperature to no more than 2C (3.6F) compared with pre-industrial levels, to avoid "dangerous" climate change.
***************************************************************************************

This tickles me pink for several reasons:

How many times have we heard from the deniers here that all our efforts were pointless because China and India would never follow along. Yet here they are most determinedly in the lead.

And how many times have we heard that slowing fossil fuel consumption would destroy the world's industrial economies. Apparently not.
 
Helen Briggs
Environment Correspondent

Left wing Hack and known alarmist.. And no attribution to the earths systems responding to the CO2 and increasing uptake by 500% since 1960.... Nice piece of propaganda you got there Crick..

Fig.-2.jpg



I wonder why she left the SCIENCE OUT of her story?
 
"You can imagine that this is the result of creative accounting in order to ‘demonstrate’ in Paris later in the year that the ‘pause/hiatus/lack of warming’ is not due to natural variability but to the ‘pause/hiatus’ in the growth of carbon emissions.

Anyone want to bet?"


Now this statement is right on the money... Anything to keep the AGW myth alive..

Source
 
Now Billy Boob, the solution is obvious. Just leave the Goddamned coal in the ground, do not burn it. No need for CSS.

As for you silly 'natural variability' arguement, show us the driving force for that varibility. You guys are really reaching. And getting desperate.

Coal is dead, and will be buried by market forces. Wind is cheaper than coal, and solar will soon be. In the meantime, fools like you will be working to hand the race for clean energy technology to Europe and Asia.
 
From the other thread where you attempted to use this JAMES HANSEN graphic without attribution and without the caption explaining exactly what it's showing.
******************************************************
Never mind. Here is the original with its caption.


Fig.-2.jpg


Fig. 2. Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions (top curve). Measured CO2 increase in air is yellow area. The 7-year mean of CO2 going into the ocean, soil and biosphere is blue (5-, 3- and 1-year means at the end; dark blue line is annual).

Assuring Real Progess on Climate Climate Science Awareness and Solutions

CO2 gone into the ocean, the soil and the biosphere, has not "disappeared". And that it should increase as a solute when it increases in atmospheric partial pressure is high school chemistry.
 
An' 2017 not even over with yet...
eek.gif

Research: Carbon emissions rise in 2017 after leveling off for 3 years
Nov. 13, 2017 -- Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from industry are projected to rise 2 percent in 2017 after staying flat for three consecutive years, the Global Carbon Project announced Monday.
The organization was founded in 2001 to quantify global carbon emissions and headquartered in Canberra, Australia. Monday, it simultaneously published its annual findings, the Global Carbon Budget report, in three scholarly journals. The report shows that emissions from industry and use of fossil fuels leveled off between 2014 and 2016 after increases every decade since the 1960s, but will rise this year. China, with its use of coal increasing, is projected to see a 3.5 percent rise in emissions. The United States is expected to see a 0.4 percent decline and the European Union a decline of 0.2 percent.

Research-Carbon-emissions-rise-in-2017-after-leveling-off-for-3-years.jpg

Monday's report is a disappointment to some who believed that three recent years without an increase was the start of a worldwide fall in carbon dioxide emissions.​

The results are a disappointment to those who believed that three years without an increase was the start of a worldwide fall in carbon dioxide emissions. "Global CO2 emissions appear to be going up strongly once again after a three-year stable period. This is very disappointing," researcher Corinne Le Quere of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at England's University of East Anglia told CNBC. "This is a window into the future. We need to reach a peak in global emissions in the next few years and drive emissions down rapidly afterwards to address climate change and limit its impacts."

The Global Carbon Budget also noted that cumulative carbon emissions include readings from the atmosphere, on land and in the water. In each case, stores of emissions, known as natural sinks, grew in the years 2007 to 2016 in response to increased man-made emissions.

Research: Carbon emissions rise in 2017 after leveling off for 3 years
 
"You can imagine that this is the result of creative accounting in order to ‘demonstrate’ in Paris later in the year that the ‘pause/hiatus/lack of warming’ is not due to natural variability but to the ‘pause/hiatus’ in the growth of carbon emissions.

Anyone want to bet?"


Now this statement is right on the money... Anything to keep the AGW myth alive..

Source

So the 2 decade pause was caused by flat CO2 the past three years?

"This new learning amazes me..."
 
Global CO2 emissions 'stalled' in 2014
By Helen Briggs
Environment Correspondent
BBCNews.com

Wind turbines in China [Caption for photo that did not come along]
China is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, far outstripping the US

The growth in global carbon emissions stalled last year, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

It marks the first time in 40 years that annual CO2 emissions growth has remained stable, in the absence of a major economic crisis, the agency said.

Annual global emissions remained at 32 gigatonnes in 2014, unchanged from the previous year.

But the IEA warned that while the results were "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency".

"This is both a very welcome surprise and a significant one," said IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables"

Prof Corinne Le Quere
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
"It provides much-needed momentum to negotiators preparing to forge a global climate deal in Paris in December: for the first time, greenhouse gas emissions are decoupling from economic growth."

And IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said while the data was "encouraging", this was "no time for complacency" and "certainly not the time to use this positive news as an excuse to stall further action".

Changing patterns
Analysts attribute the slowdown in emissions to changing patterns of energy consumption in China and OECD countries.

Prof Corinne Le Quere, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: "An important factor could be that China's coal consumption fell in 2014, driven by their efforts to fight pollution, use energy more efficiently and deploy renewables.

"Efforts to reduce emissions elsewhere will have played a role, but there are also more random factors such as the weather and the relative price of oil, coal and gas."

The IEA said changing patterns of energy use in China and in OECD countries, including the shift towards more renewable energy, was having the desired effect of decoupling economic growth from greenhouse emissions.

The Paris-based organisation said that in the 40 years it had been collecting data on carbon dioxide emissions, annual emissions had stalled or fallen only three other times, which were all associated with global downturns:

After the US recession in the early 1980s
In 1992 after the collapse of the former Soviet Union
In 2009 during the global financial crisis.

Greenhouse gas emissions may finally be decoupling from economic growth
Full details of the IEA report will be released in June, ahead of UN negotiations to sign a new international climate change agreement at talks in Paris in December.

Countries are aiming to reach agreement on a deal that will come into force from 2020.

The aim is to limit the increase of the average global surface temperature to no more than 2C (3.6F) compared with pre-industrial levels, to avoid "dangerous" climate change.
***************************************************************************************

This tickles me pink for several reasons:

How many times have we heard from the deniers here that all our efforts were pointless because China and India would never follow along. Yet here they are most determinedly in the lead.

And how many times have we heard that slowing fossil fuel consumption would destroy the world's industrial economies. Apparently not.



Now.....the OP is either one of the most naïve USMB members OR just a propaganda peddler. With this guy, I think it is the former.

What every single AGW climate crusader never wants to consider in the discussion is, having to answer the question, "As compared to what?". When they are forced to confront this question, in half a hearbeat, their point is decimated.............decimated s0ns!!!!:coffee:


So the operative point being made by the OP is, this >> China is now by far the world's biggest investor in renewable energy, far outstripping the US






But the point is 100% moot. Why? Because China continues to build 2-3 coal plants/month and will.......ready for this.......DOUBLE their production of coal by 2050 ( well sourced in these pages for years now ).









LOL.....who's not winning??:boobies::boobies::popcorn:
 
If AGW is a "myth", why do so many scientists believe it? Sounds like wishful thinking from the denialists. 16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN
"Believe it..." lol like its an article of faith
It's not faith; it's science. If CO2 starts its upswing again, how can we expect anything but higher temps?

You might ask yourself how ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm...or you might not since faith is clearly the position you are working from. Certainly not from a position that deals with observed, measured, quantified data...
 
If AGW is a "myth", why do so many scientists believe it? Sounds like wishful thinking from the denialists. 16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN
"Believe it..." lol like its an article of faith
It's not faith; it's science. If CO2 starts its upswing again, how can we expect anything but higher temps?
You might ask yourself how ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000 ppm...or you might not since faith is clearly the position you are working from. Certainly not from a position that deals with observed, measured, quantified data.
You might want to do some research into why that's true and how it's possible.

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
 
"You can imagine that this is the result of creative accounting in order to ‘demonstrate’ in Paris later in the year that the ‘pause/hiatus/lack of warming’ is not due to natural variability but to the ‘pause/hiatus’ in the growth of carbon emissions.

Anyone want to bet?"


Now this statement is right on the money... Anything to keep the AGW myth alive..

Source

So the 2 decade pause was caused by flat CO2 the past three years?

"This new learning amazes me..."


it is called "common core" --LOL
 
If AGW is a "myth", why do so many scientists believe it? Sounds like wishful thinking from the denialists. 16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN
"Believe it..." lol like its an article of faith
It's not faith; it's science. If CO2 starts its upswing again, how can we expect anything but higher temps?
You might ask yourself how ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000 ppm...or you might not since faith is clearly the position you are working from. Certainly not from a position that deals with observed, measured, quantified data.
You might want to do some research into why that's true and how it's possible.

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

That article is hilarious! It says that the Sun was much cooler and the CO2 measurement wasn't accurate -- these are the same people who tell us they have the 1880 average temperatures charted to a tenth of a degree
 
If AGW is a "myth", why do so many scientists believe it? Sounds like wishful thinking from the denialists. 16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN
"Believe it..." lol like its an article of faith
It's not faith; it's science. If CO2 starts its upswing again, how can we expect anything but higher temps?
You might ask yourself how ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000 ppm...or you might not since faith is clearly the position you are working from. Certainly not from a position that deals with observed, measured, quantified data.
You might want to do some research into why that's true and how it's possible.

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

That article is hilarious! It says that the Sun was much cooler and the CO2 measurement wasn't accurate -- these are the same people who tell us they have the 1880 average temperatures charted to a tenth of a degree
Actually that would be hundredth of a degree.. 0.04

I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out how they get that level of accuracy...
 
If AGW is a "myth", why do so many scientists believe it? Sounds like wishful thinking from the denialists. 16,000 scientists sign dire warning to humanity - CNN
"Believe it..." lol like its an article of faith
It's not faith; it's science. If CO2 starts its upswing again, how can we expect anything but higher temps?
You might ask yourself how ice ages began with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 1000 ppm...or you might not since faith is clearly the position you are working from. Certainly not from a position that deals with observed, measured, quantified data.
You might want to do some research into why that's true and how it's possible.

Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

SS? skeptical science?...konradv...I am laughing out loud...great horse laughs right in your stupid face...
 

Forum List

Back
Top