China carbon emissions now stand at 9 Billion tons

[Sunny and Warm]

A new study by the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency shows China now emits far more greenhouse emissions than any other country, with emissions doubling between 2003 and 2010.

China’s carbon emissions rose 10 per cent last year alone, to 9 billion tonnes, compared with 5.2 billion tonnes for the United States.

The report showed India’s emissions also rose rapidly, by 9 per cent, although its total emissions are still only one-fifth of China’s.

The most startling finding, however, is that China’s per capita emissions are now higher than several rich nations including France and Italy. China’s per capita emissions could even overtake the US within six years, the study said.

…

”If the current trends in emissions by China and the industrialised countries including the US would continue for another seven years, China will overtake the US by 2017 as highest per capita emitter among the 25 largest emitting countries,” said the Netherlands report, which was sponsored by the European Commission and is based partly on BP energy consumption statistics.

[matthewweatherwatcher]

It seriously doesn't matter how much we within the USA cut...China will make up for it and the global emissions will keep going up. Lets not kill our economy.

[skierinvermont]

Well no doubt China's CO2 emissions will keep rising, but I doubt that their per/capita emissions surpass ours in 2017 as mentioned. I expect their emissions growth rate will slow as their GDP growth increasing comes from a transition to higher tech and service sector growth which are less carbon intensive per $ of product than low tech manufacturing.

The hope is that an international agreement can be reached which will slow their CO2 growth rate even further or perhaps stall it, while reducing the CO2 emissions of the western nations, thus reducing global emissions. Unilateral moves won't be effective, but coordinated agreements can be.

[WeatherRusty]

Me thinks we're up the creek without a paddle. Any international agreement with teeth to it will come much to late to prevent at least a two degree Celsius rise in global temperature. Most scientists agree that at about 2C over pre-industrial temps, the serious affects to climate dependent systems take hold for good with little to no chance of reversal for many centuries.

We are already committed to over 1C of warming with less 1C to go in reaching this not so arbitrary line of demarcation . This while CO2 is pouring into the atmosphere like never before in human history.

[Sunny and Warm]

Me thinks we're up the creek without a paddle. Any international agreement with teeth to it will come much to late to prevent at least a two degree Celsius rise in global temperature. Most scientists agree that at about 2C over pre-industrial temps, the serious affects to climate dependent systems take hold for good with little to no chance of reversal for many centuries.

We are already committed to over 1C of warming with less 1C to go in reaching this not so arbitrary line of demarcation . This while CO2 is pouring into the atmosphere like never before in human history.

While I don't agree with you on the whole AGW issue at all, I will agree that IF you are correct about AGW, then this news is essentially the nail in the coffin for getting it under control. It might be better at this point to perform the science necessary to prove AGW and hope that when smarter energies take over the second half of the century, that the science will have proved it definitively and that action can be taken more forcefully. Again, I do not agree with your views on AGW, but if I did, I'd see it going this way as Plan B.

[WeatherRusty]

While I don't agree with you on the whole AGW issue at all, I will agree that IF you are correct about AGW, then this news is essentially the nail in the coffin for getting it under control. It might be better at this point to perform the science necessary to prove AGW and hope that when smarter energies take over the second half of the century, that the science will have proved it definitively and that action can be taken more forcefully. Again, I do not agree with your views on AGW, but if I did, I'd see it going this way as Plan B.

The science that gets us to 2C has been done already. No need to seriously doubt it at all. I would doubt 6C-10C but that may be wishful thinking because we are not sure.

2C-5C? The jury is out, but somewhere in there is a definite strong possibility.

[Sunny and Warm]

The science that gets us to 2C has been done already. No need to seriously doubt it at all. I would doubt 6C-10C but that may be wishful thinking because we are not sure.

2C-5C? The jury is out, but somewhere in there is a definite strong possibility.

The positive feedback science might get us to 2C. My belief is that not enough science has been done to understand the negative feedbacks. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The positive feedback science might get us to 2C. My belief is that not enough science has been done to understand the negative feedbacks. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

What are the negative feedback's?

[BeastFromTheEast]

What are the negative feedback's?

Hmm... Let's see, REforestation, volcanoes, gasses escaping out into space, antarctic ice effects (rarely talked about here in the alarmist den)..

Here is an article about the antarctic stuff...

http://www.theregist...plankton_boost/

Some cheerful news on the climate change front today, as US government boffins report that ice breaking off the Antarctic shelves and melting in the sea causes carbon dioxide to be removed from the environment. This powerful, previously unknown "negative feedback" would seem likely to revise forecasts of future global warming significantly downwards.

If the phytoplankton-boosting effect of the bergs is as big as the NSF appears to be suggesting, however, it would seem that any carbon-driven temperature rise could be at least partly self-correcting.

Stop being arrogant Friv, there is still a LOT yet to learn about GW... Countless other factors both for and against it yet to be discovered... Should be some fun times coming up.

The science is not settled

[skierinvermont]

Hmm... Let's see, REforestation, volcanoes, gasses escaping out into space, antarctic ice effects (rarely talked about here in the alarmist den)..

Here is an article about the antarctic stuff...

http://www.theregist...plankton_boost/

Stop being arrogant Friv, there is still a LOT yet to learn about GW... Countless other factors both for and against it yet to be discovered...

The science is not settled

So basically antarctica is going to prevent CO2 from rising?

Really?

So how come Co2 is rising at over 2ppm/year now?

So much for that negative feedback.

[BeastFromTheEast]

So basically antarctica is going to prevent CO2 from rising?

Really?

So how come Co2 is rising at over 2ppm/year now?

So much for that negative feedback.

I see you're not going to comment on my other stuff(Reforestation) and the general premise of my post, very nice

And who said it was? I was just listing out some variables from the other side that are rarely talked about here.. Not trying to list THE ONE that prevents CO2 from rising because there is no single variable in climate science..

[skierinvermont]

I see you're not going to comment on my other stuff(Reforestation) and the general premise of my post, very nice

And who said it was? I was just listing out some variables from the other side that are rarely talked about here.. Not trying to list THE ONE that prevents CO2 from rising because there is no single variable in climate science..

These comments of yours and the negative feedbacks are addressed and included in the IPCC report and most climate modelling.

The science is strong that we will warm 2-4.5C per doubling of CO2 and that CO2 will double this century on a BAU emissions scenario.

[Hambone]

I've made this observation before. China, India, Malaysia, third world agricultural contributions to CO2 emissions are essentially uncontrollable and inevitable. These are huge populations of people who need to eat and work. We can cut our emissions at great expense to our economy and standards of living, but it won't have a meaniingful effect on the rest of the planet.

If the science is "settled" why do AGWers continue to seek grants to continue what are essentially redundant, unnecessary studies.

It seems to me that research money should be redirected towards corrective science. Clean coal technologies, alternative energy sources, carbon sequestration is where the money should go.

Or is the "science settled" that the only solution is to shut off human economic activity and third world agriculture?

[skierinvermont]

I've made this observation before. China, India, Malaysia, third world agricultural contributions to CO2 emissions are essentially uncontrollable and inevitable. These are huge populations of people who need to eat and work. We can cut our emissions at great expense to our economy and standards of living, but it won't have a meaniingful effect on the rest of the planet.

If the science is "settled" why do AGWers continue to seek grants to continue what are essentially redundant, unnecessary studies.

It seems to me that research money should be redirected towards corrective science. Clean coal technologies, alternative energy sources, carbon sequestration is where the money should go.

Or is the "science settled" that the only solution is to shut off human economic activity and third world agriculture?

it's those big bad scientists using up the federal budget! so that's we we're running a deficit!

A lot more money IS going to CCS, solar, wind etc. than climate science.

The solution is not as black and white as you make it seem. If the west cuts their emissions and China and India stop growing their emissions or grow them very slowly then that will have a meaningful impact on climate.

China is an incredibly carbon intensive economy. They could become much less carbon intensive and still enjoy a higher standard of living than they do at present. China uses nearly 3X as much carbon to produce $1 of GDP as we do.

[WeatherRusty]

I've made this observation before. China, India, Malaysia, third world agricultural contributions to CO2 emissions are essentially uncontrollable and inevitable. These are huge populations of people who need to eat and work. We can cut our emissions at great expense to our economy and standards of living, but it won't have a meaniingful effect on the rest of the planet.

If the science is "settled" why do AGWers continue to seek grants to continue what are essentially redundant, unnecessary studies.

It seems to me that research money should be redirected towards corrective science. Clean coal technologies, alternative energy sources, carbon sequestration is where the money should go.

Or is the "science settled" that the only solution is to shut off human economic activity and third world agriculture?

What exactly does the "science is settled" refer to?

The settled science is that the Earth is rapidly warming and mankind's activities are the principle driving force behind it. That doesn't mean we know all the details.

[gracetoyou]

As for the increase in carbon dioxide, human activity may be only a tiny

factor. Last month, Murry Salby, chair of the climate department at Macquarie

University in Australia, asserted that natural sources account for 96 percent of

overall CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not the supervillain the warming crowd makes

it out to be. It is essential to the environment, according to Craig Idso, chief of the Center for the Study of

Carbon Dioxide. He has even written a book listing 55 ways

CO2 improves the environment.

In extreme amounts virtually anything is a poison, but CO2 is simply not

present in extreme amounts. And even if it were, there’s nothing anybody could

do about it.

“Everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas,” Idso has said. “What very few

people seem to know is that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse

gas, and so as far as I know we will not be able to control water vapor in the

atmosphere as long as the wind blows over the ocean.”

[The_Global_Warmer]

sounds like more reason to not want the ice to melt

[gracetoyou]

sounds like more reason to not want the ice to melt

That could be true, but I'm not sure how high the levels of global Water Vapor would be raised even if the whole artice melted.

FWIW, I really like your sig...GO CARDS!!

[WeatherRusty]

As for the increase in carbon dioxide, human activity may be only a tiny

factor. Last month, Murry Salby, chair of the climate department at Macquarie

University in Australia, asserted that natural sources account for 96 percent of

overall CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, carbon dioxide is not the supervillain the warming crowd makes

it out to be. It is essential to the environment, according to Craig Idso, chief of the Center for the Study of

Carbon Dioxide. He has even written a book listing 55 ways

CO2 improves the environment.

In extreme amounts virtually anything is a poison, but CO2 is simply not

present in extreme amounts. And even if it were, there’s nothing anybody could

do about it.

“Everyone knows CO2 is a greenhouse gas,” Idso has said. “What very few

people seem to know is that water vapor is a much more significant greenhouse

gas, and so as far as I know we will not be able to control water vapor in the

atmosphere as long as the wind blows over the ocean.”

The mere fact that you would post such nonsense indicates either your ignorance or disingenuous purpose. That's taken out of the skeptic playbook from years gone by, get up with the times.

[gracetoyou]

The mere fact that you would post such nonsense indicates either your ignorance or disingenuous purpose. That's taken out of the skeptic playbook from years gone by, get up with the times.

I figured you would result to calling me ignorant...that's what some of you do to everyone that doesn't agree with your view. I guess these guys are ignorant & stupid like me:

Meanwhile, more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that human

activity is responsible for major climate change. The petition, now under the

auspices of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, asserts: “There is no

convincing scientific evidence that human release of ... greenhouse gases is

causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the

Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is

substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide

produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal

environments.”

It's a shame there's not more "know it all" folks in the world like yourself. The arrogance that comes from people like yourself is what destroys science. I do not deny that C02 emissions can have an effect on earth's climate, but right now I don't believe for one minute that it is. And even in the future it will take massive, absolutely massive amounts of C02 to begin to affect our climate. I'm not alone in thinking this, so do not call me stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. To be "informed" as you call it, might be looked upon as learned ignorance.

[skierinvermont]

umm seriously? this is nothing new.. you can find the fact that humans are less than 4% of annual Co2 emmissions right in the IPCC report... this is nothing new. But because each year this extra carbon accumulates.. the concentration continues to rise. It's too bad some are still falling for this old denier trick. It's funny when the deniers take old information right from the IPCC report and then "announce" it like it's something new and sensational.

You come in here and think you are educating us when all you are doing is presenting misinformation that most of us can see right through.

There is a difference between annual emissions and the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Emissions are predominantly natural, but the accumulation in the atmosphere is undoubtedly human. You won't even find any 'skeptics' here who would dispute that (just ask tacoman, ORH, zucker etc.).

If the increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400 ppm (soon to be 500ppm) is natural, can you tell me why CO2 has never risen above 300ppm in the last 500k+ years (from ice core data). I guess it's just chance that CO2 rapidly rose to 400ppm right when humans started emitting CO2 after CO2 had not once risen above 300ppm in the last 500,000 years.

Honestly you should be ashamed to be falling for such misinformation.

[The_Global_Warmer]

September 2011 is 2.2 ppm above 2010 and 4.2 above 2009. I believe this Is the low part of the year at 389.

[WeatherRusty]

I figured you would result to calling me ignorant...that's what some of you do to everyone that doesn't agree with your view. I guess these guys are ignorant & stupid like me:

It's a shame there's not more "know it all" folks in the world like yourself. The arrogance that comes from people like yourself is what destroys science. I do not deny that C02 emissions can have an effect on earth's climate, but right now I don't believe for one minute that it is. And even in the future it will take massive, absolutely massive amounts of C02 to begin to affect our climate. I'm not alone in thinking this, so do not call me stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. To be "informed" as you call it, might be looked upon as learned ignorance.

I am sure you are a very smart person, but it is clear you are not up on the science you are so much against. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the increase from 280ppm to 390ppm in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement, agricultural practices and deforestation. Ignorance is not a crime, or a failing...a refusal to learn and properly inform yourself before coming in here with a contentious attitude sets you up to look bad.

Do your home work and argue from a sound scientific basis. And yes, the folks who signed that petition were duped into doing so, believing they were agreeing with an official document of the National Academies of Science, when in fact they responding to a deceptive boiler room operation.

SEE: Oregon Petition

and

Here: Desmog

[gracetoyou]

I am sure you are a very smart person, but it is clear you are not up on the science you are so much against. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the increase from 280ppm to 390ppm in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the result of burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement, agricultural practices and deforestation. Ignorance is not a crime, or a failing...a refusal to learn and properly inform yourself before coming in here with a contentious attitude sets you up to look bad.

Do your home work and argue from a sound scientific basis. And yes, the folks who signed that petition were duped into doing so, believing they were agreeing with an official document of the National Academies of Science, when in fact they responding to a deceptive boiler room operation.

SEE: Oregon Petition

and

Here: Desmog

This is absolutely false. There is no proof that the increased amounts of C02 were all from humans. There are also natural factors that can increase C02...never mind I know you knew that.

You have know idea what I know or don't know. I do not post here very often, but actually just read most of the time. It's not worth wasting my breath or getting into a peeing contest. When I do respond it's mostly just to stir the pot because I'm irritated at what I've read.

[BeastFromTheEast]

This is absolutely false. There is no proof that the increased amounts of C02 were all from humans. There are also natural factors that can increase C02...never mind I know you knew that.

You have know idea what I know or don't know. I do not post here very often, but actually just read most of the time. It's not worth wasting my breath or getting into a peeing contest. When I do respond it's mostly just to stir the pot because I'm irritated at what I've read.

Same here, sometimes the stuff posted here by the alarmists can be eye-bleeding..

[skierinvermont]

This is absolutely false. There is no proof that the increased amounts of C02 were all from humans. There are also natural factors that can increase C02...never mind I know you knew that.

You have know idea what I know or don't know. I do not post here very often, but actually just read most of the time. It's not worth wasting my breath or getting into a peeing contest. When I do respond it's mostly just to stir the pot because I'm irritated at what I've read.

CO2 has stayed below 300ppm for the last 500,000 years... then suddenly it has spiked to 390ppm over the last century right when we start emitting CO2. The probability that these two events would occur simultaneously by chance is less than .001%.

If the extreme low probability that this is a coincidence is not enough to prove it to you there are other methods of proving empirically that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 using the changing isotope ratio.

Almost no 'skeptics' deny that the rise in CO2 is due to humans.. the only people that deny this are a very few fringe wackjobs. Most of the self-identified skeptics on this board agree that the rise in CO2 is due to humans.

Seeing people post this kind of misinformation with such misplaced conviction is really upsetting to me. The fact that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 is a basic proven objective truth.. disputing this is no better than disputing 2+2=4.

[tacoman25]

CO2 has stayed below 300ppm for the last 500,000 years... then suddenly it has spiked to 390ppm over the last century right when we start emitting CO2. The probability that these two events would occur simultaneously by chance is less than .001%.

If the extreme low probability that this is a coincidence is not enough to prove it to you there are other methods of proving empirically that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 using the changing isotope ratio.

Almost no 'skeptics' deny that the rise in CO2 is due to humans.. the only people that deny this are a very few fringe wackjobs. Most of the self-identified skeptics on this board agree that the rise in CO2 is due to humans.

Seeing people post this kind of misinformation with such misplaced conviction is really upsetting to me. The fact that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 is a basic proven objective truth.. disputing this is no better than disputing 2+2=4.

I agree with most of what you are saying...but we really don't know this for sure.

[skierinvermont]

I agree with most of what you are saying...but we really don't know this for sure.

yes we do.. ice cores among other lines of evidence.

[tacoman25]

yes we do.. ice cores among other lines of evidence.

Given the history of science, I find the evidence less than compelling....especially for 500,000 years back. To say we know it for sure is presumptive.

[skierinvermont]

Given the history of science, I find the evidence less than compelling....especially for 500,000 years back.

it's pretty basic stuff taco..they are simply measuring the CO2 concentration of trapped air.

I assume you apply the same level of scrutiny to all science observations.. does the burning of gasoline REALLY give off heat???? I am not so sure given the history of science...

sure there is always some level of doubt associated with ALL science (maybe the external world doesn't even exist and you are just a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrical inputs) but all you are doing here is feeding the fodder for this lie when what you should be doing is explaining why it is false... now these two will come back and think 'oooooo look taco agrees with me I'm right' when you in fact know better. But like most 'skeptics' you are perfectly happy to let lies go unnoticed, even encouraging them, if it can be used to cast doubt on AGW.