Yet again, as the onion is peeled we find that at every stage the human influence is so small it is undetectable. Go with the data — humans are not even driving global CO2 levels. What does? — maybe ocean currents, phytoplankton, Australian deserts something else…
The Guardian trumpeted the rise of renewables as the reason man-made emissions of CO2 have stopped rising. Oh Bravo.
Graph — IEA
Note the success and grand achievement of trillions spent on expensive electricity and carbon trading programs — record global CO2.
Here’s the newest Mauna Loa figures showing an unprecedented high of 408 evil ppm, a tipping point, a sign of numerical doom. Run, run ye heathens!
…
Why are CO2 levels so high — A record El Nino in 2016 perhaps?
We need global anti-ENSO programs. Give us more money. Save the tradewinds!
Chinese Emissions? Take the emissions figures with a pound of salt. Carbon accounting is hopelessly inaccurate, China can’t be trusted, and everything else is a guess. How can we run a global market on figures so prone to corruption. Is China artificially elevating figures now so they can make cheap “reductions” in future, or are they underestimating figures to reduce the pressure on them to sign up? Could it be that they just can’t account due to the sheer difficulty of it in such a vast and varied economy?
Reuters: New study throws doubt on China car emissions data
Carbon emissions from cars in the Chinese city of Chengdu could be underestimated by more than half under conventional testing methods, according to the preliminary results of a study released on Wednesday.
The findings from the study in the central city were supported by a research arm of China’s top planning body using data from Uber and taxi firms.
It found that standard laboratory estimates of carbon emissions from cars were off by about 6,500 metric tonnes per day, or about 59 percent.
h/t to Willie Soon, Heartland and to GWPF.