2010 sets new record for carbon dioxide emissions

[stellarfun]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Highest level on record, and greatest year-to-year jump on record.

[LakeEffectKing]

http://cdiac.ornl.go..._estimates.html

Highest level on record, and greatest year-to-year jump on record.

I was wondering why my house plants are looking fantastic!!! Now I know why.

[Alpha5]

how far beck do records go

[stellarfun]

how far beck do records go

Since the Eocene.

[aslkahuna]

Since the Eocene.

Are those actual measurements from the Eocene? From what part of the Globe did the greatest increase in CO₂ emissons come from? I know the overall increase is global but I'm sure the sources are not evenly distributed.

Steve

[stellarfun]

Are those actual measurements from the Eocene? From what part of the Globe did the greatest increase in CO₂ emissons come from? I know the overall increase is global but I'm sure the sources are not evenly distributed.

Steve

The sources of the increase are predominately China and India, with the U.S. also contributing (some of the U.S. increase is an uptick from the slowed economy pf 2009). The increase was 564 million tons; only China, India, and the U.S. emit more CO2 emissions

[aslkahuna]

Just as I expected as far as distribution is concerned. Just imagine what the increase would be if China and India's per capita emission rates were close to ours!

Steve

[Kelathos]

For some info behind the emissions:

[skierinvermont]

For some info behind the emissions:

That chart is wrong. In 2006 the U.S. and the EU15 were ~32% of global emissions. That's just 15 European nations, not all of Europe. And 32% > 26% which is what your chart shows.

The U.S. and all of Europe is probably ~38-40% of global emissions (in 2006).

Your chart also has an extremely narrow/false definition of industrialized.

If we use a realistic definition of industrialized, then the % of emissions from industrialized countries is more like 60% in 2006. The OECD was ~50% of emissions in 2005, but that doesn't include Russia or eastern Europe or South Korea or Taiwan. Which would add on another 10%-12%.

Developed nations were roughly 60% of emissions in 2006.

Somebody at WUWT used phony math to create that chart. As usual.

Please post information only from reliable sources.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

That chart is wrong. In 2006 the U.S. and the EU15 were ~32% of global emissions. That's just 15 European nations, not all of Europe. And 32% > 26% which is what your chart shows.

The U.S. and all of Europe is probably ~38-40% of global emissions (in 2006).

Your chart also has an extremely narrow/false definition of industrialized.

If we use a realistic definition of industrialized, then the % of emissions from industrialized countries is more like 60% in 2006. The OECD was ~50% of emissions in 2005, but that doesn't include Russia or eastern Europe or South Korea or Taiwan. Which would add on another 10%-12%.

Developed nations were roughly 60% of emissions in 2006.

Somebody at WUWT used phony math to create that chart. As usual.

Please post information only from reliable sources.

This! I LOL'd when I saw that chart. All industrialized nations are to blame for the rise in CO2 emissions. I highly doubt South America, Africa, and remote countries in Asia and Europe are to blame compared to the US, China, India, Russia, Australia, Japan and most industrialized countries in Europe. It is only going to get worse from countries like India and China as they continue to grow economically. People need to realize this isn't a game anymore and that drastic reductions need to start taking place. There is no reason to not be fully operating on alternative sources, especially with the technology we have today. Iceland is one of my favorite countries ever, they are a very responsible community. Humanity makes me sick sometimes on how we neglect our responsiblities as a society, especially with the knowledge we now have today and how are actions affect everything. When I see someone throwing away cans, bottles, paper or trash in general it makes me want to puke. There is no repect period by the majority of society towards Earth and the lives that are indirectly or directly affected. How we still live with waste and emission problems is beyond me. I sometimes wish the green police were real, because obviously alot of people can't act responsibly on their own. Society shouldn't have to wait for regulations and force to be issued in order to act responsibly. Instead greed, ignorance, and shortcuts pave the way. As long as I'm still not around to see it, who cares right?

[WeatherRusty]

This! I LOL'd when I saw that chart. All industrialized nations are to blame for the rise in CO2 emissions. I highly doubt South America, Africa, and remote countries in Asia and Europe are to blame compared to the US, China, India, Russia, Australia, Japan and most industrialized countries in Europe. It is only going to get worse from countries like India and China as they continue to grow economically. People need to realize this isn't a game anymore and that drastic reductions need to start taking place. There is no reason to not be fully operating on alternative sources, especially with the technology we have today. Iceland is one of my favorite countries ever, they are a very responsible community. Humanity makes me sick sometimes on how we neglect our responsiblities as a society, especially with the knowledge we now have today and how are actions affect everything. When I see someone throwing away cans, bottles, paper or trash in general it makes me want to puke. There is no repect period by the majority of society towards Earth and the lives that are indirectly or directly affected. How we still live with waste and emission problems is beyond me. I sometimes wish the green police were real, because obviously alot of people can't act responsibly on their own. Society shouldn't have to wait for regulations and force to be issued in order to act responsibly. Instead greed, ignorance, and shortcuts pave the way. As long as I'm still not around to see it, who cares right?

The great irony of the skeptical/denier tactical approach is that eventually they will have forced the very outcome they fear the most.....severe government regulation and forced compliance as well as a world in political turmoil with tenuous national sovereignty.

[LakeEffectKing]

The great irony of the skeptical/denier tactical approach is that eventually they will have forced the very outcome they fear the most.....severe government regulation and forced compliance as well as a world in political turmoil with tenuous national sovereignty.

Ummmmmm......no.

[skierinvermont]

This! I LOL'd when I saw that chart. All industrialized nations are to blame for the rise in CO2 emissions. I highly doubt South America, Africa, and remote countries in Asia and Europe are to blame compared to the US, China, India, Russia, Australia, Japan and most industrialized countries in Europe. It is only going to get worse from countries like India and China as they continue to grow economically. People need to realize this isn't a game anymore and that drastic reductions need to start taking place. There is no reason to not be fully operating on alternative sources, especially with the technology we have today. Iceland is one of my favorite countries ever, they are a very responsible community. Humanity makes me sick sometimes on how we neglect our responsiblities as a society, especially with the knowledge we now have today and how are actions affect everything. When I see someone throwing away cans, bottles, paper or trash in general it makes me want to puke. There is no repect period by the majority of society towards Earth and the lives that are indirectly or directly affected. How we still live with waste and emission problems is beyond me. I sometimes wish the green police were real, because obviously alot of people can't act responsibly on their own. Society shouldn't have to wait for regulations and force to be issued in order to act responsibly. Instead greed, ignorance, and shortcuts pave the way. As long as I'm still not around to see it, who cares right?

I wasn't even including China or India in "industrialized."

By industrialized I included only OECD countries + Russia, South Korea, Taiwan + eastern Europe. I think all or nearly all have GPP PPP/capita of 15k+, mostly 25k+. These countries were = ~60% of emissions in 2006, this has probably fallen to the mid or upper 50s at present.

If you throw on some borderline countries like Brazil, China and a few SE Asian countries you account for over 75%

When you throw on India you're accounting for over 80%. But I wouldn't even consider India borderline really in the way that China and Brazil are. India, though growing rapidly and despite a growing class of wealthy elites, is still a very poor nation overall. It's about half as wealthy as China in GDP PPP / capita.

[tacoman25]

The great irony of the skeptical/denier tactical approach is that eventually they will have forced the very outcome they fear the most.....severe government regulation and forced compliance as well as a world in political turmoil with tenuous national sovereignty.

Please try to differentiate between these terms, especially when making broad generalizations. Thank you.

[skierinvermont]

Please try to differentiate between these terms, especially when making broad generalizations. Thank you.

I believe he just did.

[tacoman25]

I believe he just did.

No, he didn't. He lumped them together into one "approach".

[skierinvermont]

No, he didn't. He lumped them together into one "approach".

Skeptics/deniers do share the approach he described (advocating political inaction on AGW), despite other differences.

Lumping them together would be using one word to refer to both groups. What he did by using both words was actually implicitly differentiate them. He simply wanted to refer to a commonality both groups shares and this entailed using skeptics and deniers in the same sentence, which apparently you do not like.

[tacoman25]

Skeptics/deniers do share the approach he described (advocating political inaction on AGW), despite other differences.

Depends on the individual. I know it's easier to lump everyone together, like calling all AGW supporters "alarmists", but it's just not accurate. These overly broad, assumptive generalizations do nothing to encourage open discussion.

[skierinvermont]

Depends on the individual. I know it's easier to lump everyone together, like calling all AGW supporters "alarmists", but it's just not accurate. These overly broad, assumptive generalizations do nothing to encourage open discussion.

That's an entirely different objection than your original objection. Your original objection was that he lumped skeptics and deniers together, which he did not. In fact he specifically separated them while at the same time pointing out that the political inaction which they both advocate will actually likely lead to more authoritarian governments later in the 21st century to deal with the various catastrophes and chaos.

And I don't believe it is an unfair generalization to say that skeptics and deniers advocate little or no political action regarding AGW. I certainly do not know of any skeptics or deniers who are advocating for the serious CO2 curbing legislation which is necessary.

And even if there were some skeptics and deniers which I have neither met nor heard of that did advocate serious CO2 curbing legislation (though I have no idea why they would do that) it would still be a generally valid and useful generalization to point out that the vast majority oppose such political action.

[tacoman25]

That's an entirely different objection than your original objection. Your original objection was that he lumped skeptics and deniers together, which he did not. In fact he specifically separated them while at the same time pointing out that the political inaction which they both advocate will actually likely lead to more authoritarian governments later in the 21st century to deal with the various catastrophes and chaos.

And I don't believe it is an unfair generalization to say that skeptics and deniers advocate little or no political action regarding AGW. I certainly do not know of any skeptics or deniers who are advocating for the serious CO2 curbing legislation which is necessary.

And even if there were some skeptics and deniers which I have neither met nor heard of that did advocate serious CO2 curbing legislation (though I have no idea why they would do that) it would still be a generally valid and useful generalization to point out that the vast majority oppose such political action.

Putting a slash between them is not differentiating when you lump them together into the same generalization.

Not all AGW supporters, proponents, etc (or whatever term you choose to use) are in favor of the same amount of political/legislative action, either. It really does vary, and it is not always just based on the individual's level of belief in AGW or the possible consequences associated with it.

[skierinvermont]

Putting a slash between them is not differentiating when you lump them together into the same generalization.

What generalization did he lump them into? Saying that skeptics/deniers oppose serious curbing of CO2 is a statement of fact, not a generalization. I do not know of a single skeptic or denier that advocates serious curbing of Co2.

It seems that your primary objection is simply that he used the words skeptic and denier in the same sentence which in your mind is some how a confounding of the two terms.

[tacoman25]

What generalization did he lump them into? Saying that skeptics/deniers oppose serious curbing of CO2 is a statement of fact, not a generalization. I do not know of a single skeptic or denier that advocates serious curbing of Co2.

It seems that your primary objection is simply that he used the words skeptic and denier in the same sentence which in your mind is some how a confounding of the two terms.

He combined the two and generalized about them as one "tactical approach" - whatever that means. Arguing otherwise is just semantics.

[skierinvermont]

He combined the two and generalized about them as one "tactical approach" - whatever that means. Arguing otherwise is just semantics.

He did not combine the two. He listed both groups individually. Combining the two would require using one word to refer to both groups. He did the opposite and you should actually be applauding him for distinguishing between the two. Obviously he recognized the differences between skeptics and deniers or he would not have bothered to use both terms redundantly.

Basically you are telling me that if I said "In fifteen or twenty years today's young girls/boys will be adults" I am conflating girls and boys as the same thing? People write like that all the time.

[tacoman25]

He did not combine the two. He listed both groups individually. Combining the two would require using one word to refer to both groups. He did the opposite and you should actually be applauding him for distinguishing between the two.

Basically you are telling me that if I said "In fifteen or twenty years today's young girls/boys will be adults" I am conflating girls and boys?

That is a terrible comparison, since both girls and boys always become adults. Girls/boys could also be listed as young adults. Again, you apparently just want to pointlessly argue semantics here.

Fact is, he may have used separate terms, but he lumped them together. In his statement and his eyes, they are no different, just one group under a couple different names. I'm not going to applaud that.

[skierinvermont]

That is a terrible comparison, since both girls and boys always become adults. Girls/boys could also be listed as young adults. Again, you apparently just want to pointlessly argue semantics here.

Fact is, he may have used separate terms, but he lumped them together. In his statement and his eyes, they are no different, just one group under a couple different names. I'm not going to applaud that.

And both skeptics and deniers unanimously have a tactical approach of opposing serious carbon cutting legislation. The analogy stands.

I stand by what Rusty said:

"Ironically the tactical approach of skeptics/deniers* will lead to more authoritarian governments in the future." Bite me.

*Note for those not familiar with the use of the slash: the above does not mean skeptics = deniers

In the future I intend to make statements about skeptics/deniers as frequently as possible.

[tacoman25]

And both skeptics and deniers unanimously have a tactical approach of opposing serious carbon cutting legislation. The analogy stands.

I stand by what Rusty said:

"Ironically the tactical approach of skeptics/deniers* will lead to more authoritarian governments in the future." Bite me.

*Note for those not familiar with the use of the slash: the above does not mean skeptics != deniers

In the future I intend to make statements about skeptics/deniers as frequently as possible.

Mature.

[skierinvermont]

Mature.

Skeptics/deniers like you really get on my nerves.

[tacoman25]

Skeptics/deniers like you really get on my nerves.

Improper use, by your own definition. I am only one person.

F is for fail.

[WeatherRusty]

Mature.

Laughing my ass off!

Both camps (skeptics and deniers) exist as separate entities if you like. It seems rather obvious to me that both groups share common areas of overlapping interest, and effectively if not intentionally act as a unified roadblock to meaningful action in addressing climate change.

If the term "denier" offends you, I'm sorry but that's what they are. Many on here are deniers. I had one yesterday say to me that he will never acknowledge AGW as real, no matter what. He does not trust the sources of the science and that's the end of it.

[tacoman25]

Laughing my ass off!

Both camps (skeptics and deniers) exist as separate entities if you like. It seems rather obvious to me that both groups share common areas of overlapping interest, and effectively if not intentionally act as a unified roadblock to meaningful action in addressing climate change.

If the term "denier" offends you, I'm sorry but that's what they are. Many on here are deniers. I had one yesterday say to me that he will never acknowledge AGW as real, no matter what. He does not trust the sources of the science and that's the end of it.

The term "denier" does not offend me, I just don't like that term grouped unequivocally with skeptics. As you said, there can definitely be some overlap, and some people that I would consider "deniers" call themselves skeptics.

But at the same time, some people blindly trust science as if it is utterly infallible. They have no skepticism. For the same reason you call some deniers, I would call this segment "true believers".