Skepticism about Climate Change

[LesPalenik]

In a recently published paper  in ESSD, the Copernicus open-access journal providing free access to high-quality research data, researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project reported that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth.

The new data show that emissions growth remained below 1 per cent despite a strong global economy. Prof Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the Tyndall Centre at UEA who led the data analysis, said: "This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. It is possible that the trajectory of global emissions has permanently deviated from the long-term growth trend."

The break in emissions rise is aligned with the pledges by countries to reduce emissions by 2030, but it falls short of the reductions needed to limit climate change well below 2 degrees Celsius. Prof Le Quéré said: "The break in emissions rise is a great help for tackling climate change but it is not enough. Global emissions now need to decrease rapidly, not just stop growing. If climate negotiators in Marrakech can leverage ambitions for further cuts in emissions, we could be making a serious start to addressing climate change."

https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/about/news_and_press/2016-11-14_global-carbon-budget-2016.html

https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1

[Alan Klein]

In a recently published paper  in ESSD, the Copernicus open-access journal providing free access to high-quality research data, researchers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) and the Global Carbon Project reported that carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes did not grow in 2015 and are projected to rise only slightly in 2016, marking three years of almost no growth.

https://www.earth-system-science-data.net/about/news_and_press/2016-11-14_global-carbon-budget-2016.html

https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1

Les, this comment from the report tells me they really don't know why the CO2 is steady despite economic growth and more production of CO2.  Surely the Paris Accord has no effect at this early date.  So they think El Nino???  How about soils that I posted on an earlier post having a huge effect that they recently discovered?  My point is they really don't have all the variables that go into why the climate appears to be warming. There's so much they don't know.  The data points are not complete to make accurate predictions, yet they want to spend trillions to do things that may have no effect and help no one.  Yet the scientist who acknowledges his lack of all data points suggest we should double down on Paris. 

Also, your second link is interesting.  Since 2000, it shows America and Europe decreasing in carbon emissions while China and India increasing substantially.  Yet, the Paris accord requires no reduction measures have to be taken by China or India until 2030.  How dumb is that? 

 "The Global Carbon Budget analysis also shows that, in spite of a lack of growth in fossil fuel emissions, the growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration was a record high in 2015 and could be a record again in 2016, due to weak carbon sinks on land from the hot and dry conditions related to the recent El Niño event."
... "This third year of almost no growth in emissions is unprecedented at a time of strong economic growth. It is possible that the trajectory of global emissions has permanently deviated from the long-term growth trend."

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Les, this comment from the report tells me they really don't know why the CO2 is steady despite economic growth and more production of CO2.

It's the growth of CO2 production that has slowed down. We are still adding huge amounts of CO2, so it keeps accumulating at a faster rate than the carbon sinks can accommodate, and thus the CO2 levels are still rising at an accelerated rate. Much more reduction is needed to make the accumulation level off. That's why real reductions now will help limit temperature rises towards the end of the century.


 

Also, your second link is interesting.  Since 2000, it shows America and Europe decreasing in carbon emissions while China and India increasing substantially.  Yet, the Paris accord requires no reduction measures have to be taken by China or India until 2030.  How dumb is that?

We've been over that, multiple times, it's an incorrect understanding of what's going on, and China is likely to beat its own reduction goals sooner rather than later.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

It's the growth of CO2 production that has slowed down. We are still adding huge amounts of CO2, so it keeps accumulating at a faster rate than the carbon sinks can accommodate, and thus the CO2 levels are still rising at an accelerated rate. Much more reduction is needed to make the accumulation level off. That's why real reductions now will help limit temperature rises towards the end of the century.

 

We've been over that, multiple times, it's an incorrect understanding of what's going on, and China is likely to beat its own reduction goals sooner rather than later.

Cheers,
Bart

The chart proves my point not yours.  China is the highest producer of CO2 by more than double.  If they intend to reduce CO2 anyway as you claim, they should have agreed to do that in the Paris Accord?  Your trust for the Red Chinese is greater than mine.   The fact is they intend to keep growing their economy by leaps and bound which will increase their CO2 production.  With only 300 million having reached middle class, they have another 1.1 billion more poor Chinese to go.  They can only grow that population with carbon fuels and lots more CO2.  When 2030 comes rolling around,. they'll tell Paris they need a few more years.  They've conned you.
https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The chart proves my point not yours.  China is the highest producer of CO2 by more than double.

More people in China than in the USA, many more than double of the USA.
Their per Capita emissions are much lower than in the USA.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

More people in China than in the USA, many more than double of the USA.
Their per Capita emissions are much lower than in the USA.

Cheers,
Bart

Only an apologist for China, would argue per capita. The point is China produces more than double anyone else and it's going up. That's what counts. 

[RSL]

Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.

Yes Russ, but that doesn't really apply to developing countries with large levels of industrialization and urbanization, like China (and they still produce less CO2 per Capita). And yet, in other countries like e.g. India or in Africa, people use wood/charcoal stoves to cook their meals or boil their water, and those stoves also produce CO2 (and soot), but admittedly most of those do not use Airconditioners that run on electricity. For those who do have access to electricity and can afford a mechanical ceiling fan, there are affordable high-efficiency ones that require less energy than many Western products in a similar price range.

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

Only an apologist for China, would argue per capita. The point is China produces more than double anyone else and it's going up. That's what counts.

Only apologists for the US use these arguments, point fingers at the one country that emits more then the US (and has 4 times as many people) and then conveniently forget there's about 195 countries which emit less then the US. Don't you think it's time to lower both your total as well as your per capita contribution before blaming others?

[pegelli]

Ever been to Asia, Bart? If you live in a hut and use a hole in the ground for a toilet your "per capita" emissions are going to be much lower than if you live in a house with heat and cooling and use a flush toilet. It's just the way the world works.

How long has it been since you've been there Russ? Seems your description is more from the time you created the holes there and not from a more recent experience.

[pegelli]

@ Kevin and Chris, I hope my answers to Russ and Alan can help you decide that this thread really needs to follow Trump I - IV and the NRA thread, it's all political and has nothing to do with photography. Half of what is posted here is crap, and it just depends on which side you stand which half gets that title. 

[RSL]

Yes Russ, but that doesn't really apply to developing countries with large levels of industrialization and urbanization, like China (and they still produce less CO2 per Capita).

Come on, Bart. It certainly applies if you're applying the statistic to per capita production of CO2. What "per capita" means is per individual. I hate to have to explain this, but if you have a country full of peasants, then you have to include the very, very low CO2 producing peasants in the divisor to get a per capita figure. What matters is total production, most of which comes from the large levels of industrialization you mention, and that's out of sight and rising.

[RSL]

@ Kevin and Chris, I hope my answers to Russ and Alan can help you decide that this thread really needs to follow Trump I - IV and the NRA thread, it's all political and has nothing to do with photography. Half of what is posted here is crap, and it just depends on which side you stand which half gets that title.

I absolutely agree, Pieter, but it sure is fun, isn't it.

[pegelli]

I absolutely agree, Pieter, but it sure is fun, isn't it.

Let me say it was fun, but rehashing the same discussion over-and-over again gets tiring, but if I see crap I just can't let it go by and that's still fun. I just love debunking silly arguments.

Maybe I should have more this state of mind:



But I really need the LuLa's staff help for that, and it seems you as well 

[Alan Klein]

Only apologists for the US use these arguments, point fingers at the one country that emits more then the US (and has 4 times as many people) and then conveniently forget there's about 195 countries which emit less then the US. Don't you think it's time to lower both your total as well as your per capita contribution before blaming others?

The graph shown above and reposted below shows that America's CO2 production is ticking down while the EU is going up.  Don't you think it's time to lower your  contribution before criticizing America?

https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1

[pegelli]

The graph shown above and reposted below shows that America's CO2 production is ticking down while the EU is going up.  Don't you think it's time to lower your  contribution before criticizing America?

https://twitter.com/gcarbonproject/status/797977457663950849/photo/1

The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it? 
And the EU countries I live in or am born in are also going down, so I have no problem pointing to bigger emitters then my felllow countrymen and the US is bigger on both counts, total as well as per capita (pick whichever one you choose)
Contrary to popular belief in the US Europe is not one country, it's many countries. We don't count the US together with Canada and Mexico either.

And even China is going down according to this source you posted, how many posts have you cried they go up, now your own post exposes the truth about what you tried to make us believe. Must be a big disapointment that this myth you're trying to spread is debunked as well 

[Alan Klein]

You're still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it? 
And the EU countries I live in or am born in are also going down, so I have no problem pointing to bigger emitters then my felllow countrymen and the US is bigger on both counts, total as well as per capita (pick whichever one you choose)
Contrary to popular belief in the US Europe is not one country, it's many countries. We don't count the US together with Canada and Mexico either.

And even China is going down according to this source you posted, how many posts have you cried they go up, now your own post exposes the truth about what you tried to make us believe. Must be a big disapointment that this myth you're trying to spread is debunked as well 

Well I'm glad your country is going down like America.  Also, I'm sorry that America was left pretty much unscathed after WWII and we did better then most of the world and have a high standard of living.  You play the guilt game like a practiced liberal and Democrat here.  It won't work.  Americans worked too hard to live well.  We aren't going to apologize for our success because Communists in China spent 40 years killing their own people and destroying their economy.  Or because Europeans, in their desire to kill each other in two World Wars in the last century, got a later start re-industrializing then America.  We'll reduce our CO2 at our pace.

[RSL]

The US is still more, that's what counts on your scale doesn't it?

But not when China is involved? Right? Check with Bart.

[pegelli]

But not when China is involved? Right? Check with Bart.

Per capita the US Trumps them

And my comment was on Alan's point that Europeans should not critisise the US because for one year they went up while the US went down.
Big deal if you realize that up to the early 80's the US was about equal to Europe and then your firing spree took off and are still far above Europe (and the latter not being one country, while the US is). 

[pegelli]

Well I'm glad your country is going down like America.  Also, I'm sorry that America was left pretty much unscathed after WWII and we did better then most of the world and have a high standard of living.  You play the guilt game like a practiced liberal and Democrat here.  It won't work.  Americans worked too hard to live well.  We aren't going to apologize for our success because Communists in China spent 40 years killing their own people and destroying their economy.  Or because Europeans, in their desire to kill each other in two World Wars in the last century, got a later start re-industrializing then America.  We'll reduce our CO2 at our pace.

Alan, I'm so glad you finally admit it's not China that's going up and creating the problem One myth debunked, so it's time start a few others. As I mentioned to Russ up to the early 80's US and Europe were equal, so all this talk about a head start after WW2, hard working Americans, Chinese killings, bla-bla-bla is just more hot air. Maybe you should reduce that as well as the CO2