Emissions halt but atmospheric levels keep rising

I must tear myself away from the Regional cooling paper to throw this together. It’s too fascinating and too much a potential salve of our collective climate dread to ignore.

The IEA has announced that, since 2014, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have not increased. They have flatlined. Our emissions in 2016 were the same as in 2014 (last three columns–click to enlarge):

Co2 data

Actually, since the increase from 2013 was so tiny, we could say four years of practically no increase. Anyway, thinking this might have been confirmed by a reduction in growth of atmospheric levels of CO2, I checked the latest Mauna Loa observations:

CO2 Trend for Mauna Loa

The black line shows monthly mean values after correction for seasonal variations (the big waves in the red line). There’s no sign of a slowdown. In fact, almost giving the lie to my thinking, there’s a clear surge in early 2016 (easier to see in the black line), during the northern spring. These figures show that so far nobody has thought to inform the climate of our unprecedented halt in emissions.

Brief amusement

The IEA emission figures are for energy-related use of hydrocarbons, which represents just under half the crude oil produced, with the remainder (more than half) used for non-energy purposes including feedstock for material production, such as plastics. For your brief amusement, here is a partial list (pdf, 44.3 KB) of 280 products out of more than 6000 made from crude oil (referred to here as petroleum).

These emission figures probably account for most of our energy-related hydrocarbon use. The only remaining emission source is agriculture, forestry and other land use, which is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions. Could that affect this report of stalled emissions?

The magnitude of the natural CO2 flux completely overwhelms anthropogenic emissions and because of that a lot of people think we’re wasting our time trying to limit emissions. But nobody really knows until we discover the climate sensitivity to CO2; though the indications are that it’s very small.

Where to now with the consensus on climate sensitivity? During the long hiatus in temperature, emissions climbed rapidly; but during this brief hiatus in emissions, temperature has climbed. This experiment seems to indicate a loose correlation at worst (some warming effect), no correlation at best (no anthro effect on temperature).

What has the temperature done now?

Someone said it’s climbed a little,
Someone said it’s not.
Others said no, look at this:
El Nino did the lot.

Back soon. Keep well, everyone.

Leave a Reply

67 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
13 Comment authors
Notify of
Mike Jowsey

“a lot of people think we’re wasting our time trying to limit emissions”
– US administration thinks it is a waste of your money too!

Robin Pittwood

Mickey and Donald still keeping us amused.


There are so many misconceptions in your blog post that I don’t know where to start. Let me try and explain things simply:
1. 2016 was one of the highest years ever recorded for CO2 emissions.
2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not decrease until emissions approach zero.
3. Even if total emissions were zero, the temperature would continue to increase until equilibrium is reached.
4. Scientists believe that equilibrium is somewhere around 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for 400ppm of CO2.



“I’m worried having a baby will make climate change worse”

Sydney Morning Herald


“Think of the children”


Richard, It really is impossible to understand what you are thinking when you write things like this:
Actually, since the increase from 2013 was so tiny, we could say four years of practically no increase. Anyway, thinking this might have been confirmed by a reduction in growth of atmospheric levels of CO2, I checked the latest Mauna Loa observations:
Do you not understand the difference between change and rate of change? There will not be a reduction in growth of atmospheric levels of CO2 until net emissions are below the long-run average. This should be obvious to you.

Note: There are complicating factors, e.g. net outgassing of CO2 from warming oceans, but lets try and keep this discussion simple.


Red face AGAIN for Angela – coming after her disaster of a meeting with Trump. Can she get anything right? Embarrassment for Merkel as Germany admits CO2 rise on same day as Berlin climate summit ANGELA Merkel’s Government made an embarrassing admission that their country has seen a rise in CO2 emissions on the same day Berlin hosted a climate summit.The Environmental Agency published figures today showing that emissions of CO2 in 2016 in the country were still rising. It is the seventh year in a row that CO2 emissions have not been reduced in the European country. The news will be of acute embarrassment to Mrs Merkel’s administration as it was announced on the same day more than 1,200 experts from 93 countries travelled to Berlin for talks at a climate summit, according to Die Welt. Despite the enormous green electricity subsidies, the country of the ‘Energiewende’ has not been able to reduce its own CO2 emissions even slightly for seven years in a row. However, the summit ”Berlin Energy Transition can, of course, also be seen as a success if countries learn not to follow Germany’s example. Germany also looks likely… Read more »

Michael Kelly, University of Cambridge

From the iea website:
“Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were flat for a third straight year in 2016 even as the global economy grew, according to the International Energy Agency, signalling a continuing decoupling of emissions and economic activity. ”
What about all the non-energy related emissions – agriculture, transport, communications, ….?

More growth, more productivity, less fighting, better holidays.

The new motto for my new company!

Maggy Wassilieff

Bit off topic , I know

British schoolboy finds massive flaw in NASA radiation data.

NASA has been recording “negative radiation” multiple times a day.

Mike Jowsey

Negative energy is experienced before espresso. Or two.

Maggy Wassilieff

@Mike Jowsey

For a wee fee, I can provide you with some Black Tourmaline.

(Do not substitute with coal)


NOAA’s satellite data shows that long wave radiation escaping to space is increasing, contrary to predictions it should decrease due to it being trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases, i.e. NOAA’s own data disproves AGW theory:


Alexander K

Sometimes those that express themselves here provide comedy gold, such as Simon, who cannot ever answer simple bullet points but always goes on a tangent. I have been absent since having an extreme cataract removed and replaced with a tiny perspex lens. This has made me very aware that science and engineering are marvelous when they work in tandem. And how awkward it can be when one’s Keypad
won’t work on some letters!


Trump has dumped all of Obama’s climate policies, and the UK triggers Article 50 tomorrow, to leave the EU

Expect a major meltdown on social media


Yes I’m getting called “racist” at Hot Topic quite a lot, even though my comments are not visible to the reader, having been snipped (we went off on a tangent about the rape epidemic in Sweden)

If you want a bit of light relief, this video by the young and talented Chris Ray Gun is good

it sums up the crazy world of “anti-trumpers” quite well. I am been called many of the names in this video


I find it interesting observing the correlation between rape deniers and followers of the warmist creed.

My reasonable deduction is that they are mentally ill.


Yet another tangent for you. I went to a talk tonight by Gary Wilson from NZARI showing results from the McMurdo ANDRILL project. In a nutshell, the ice shelf is being severely undercut, we are close to a tipping point. Naively assuming future linear sea level rise is incorrect. At some stage there will be a sea level rise in the order of multiple metres in a single century. NZ is more affected by Greenland ice melt than Antarctic because of gravitational effects. Christchurch South Brighton has favourable sedimentary feedback processes but South Dunedin does not.


But why listen to the experts when the oil lobby tells you there is nothing to worry about?
Perhaps because they successfully lobbied to keep lead in petrol until 1996 in NZ, resulting in a measurable decrease in intelligence and socio-economic status for those exposed to higher levels of exhaust fumes.

Dennis N Horne

The CO2 level is still rising because we are still adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and in human terms that CO2 lasts forever. We have increased the CO2 level from under 280 to over 400ppm: 40%. Does an increase of 40% suggest to you our CO2 is “completely overwhelmed by the natural flux”? It doesn’t to me. More CO2 in the atmosphere means Earth retains more energy. More than 90% of that “extra” went into the oceans, which are warming. Some energy caused the surface to warm more than 1C, mean global. Most of that warming in the last 50 years. The graph is a hockey stick. There was no statistically significant “pause”. That’s wrong. There was some internal variability in this very large complex “natural” system, with energy moving around. But no pause. Arctic temperatures are very high; sea ice is vanishing. Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice, hundreds of cubic kilometres per year. In the past when the CO2 level was 400ppm it was warmer and the sea level 10m higher. Or more. At times the SLR was several metres per century. At present the SLR is approaching 4mm per year,… Read more »


Well, lads it’s election year. We can vote for an intellectual like Gareth Morgan who thinks North Korea is a good place and is obviously concerned about “climate change” too

Maybe if he gets elected, we can dispense with democracy, and send all those racists and bigots like me to concentration camps and start with the important task of shutting down the NZ economy and returning to an agrarian workers paradise


Simon says

” Naively assuming future linear sea level rise is incorrect ”

I thought it was supposed to be accelerating, even though we can’t see it in the instrumental record.


Dennis asks:

“Anyone else?”

yes, of course it’s the people that vote for Trump. You know, the racists, the white supremacists (some of whom are black) the Islamophobes, the homophobes. The “morons”. The untermenschen.
The same people that voted for Brexit (Article 50 today!)

People like ex-punk Johnny Rotten, who apparently supports Brexit and Trump

If only we could make all these deplorable people disappear and live in a socialist paradise where everyone read the Guardian

Wouldn’t it be wonderful?

Except, who would make the sandwiches?


Here’s the footage & testimony of Drs Judith Curry, John Christy, Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann, and John Pielke Jnr. at the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:


John Christy’s testimony starts at 40.30′

Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann got caught out blatantly lying to the committee. Now why would he do that I wonder?:


Dennis N Horne

Professor Michael Kelly was on the committee that vindicated the “Climategate” scientists.

Distinguished Professor Michael Mann explained the “hide the decline”. He applied the KISS rule: Keep It Simple Stupid. Necessary when dealing with mentally deficient deniers.

Judith “Gold standard satellites” Curry. Ha ha ha.
John “Still cooking the data” Christy. Ha ha ha.
Magoon “Anything But Carbon Dioxide” Magoof. Ha ha halfwit.

I guess academics at Florida Atlantic University are a bit touchy about climate change and rising sea levels nuisance flooding…


“Distinguished Professor Michael Mann ”



Dennis dear boy,

Your graph shows a doubling of CO2 levels results in a 1C temperature rise. Strangely enough that’s the conclusion Christy & Spencer have arrived at as well, confirmed also by the radiosonde record. The ocean level rise slows down as the CO2 doubles also.

Two own goals there dear boy, LOL!



‘Hide the decline’ Mann lied when answering the following question:

CONGRESSMAN CLAY HIGGINS: “Are you affiliated or associated with an organization called the Climate Accountability Institute?”

DR. MICHAEL MANN: “No. I mean I may have corresponded with people.”

CONGRESSMAN CLAY HIGGINS: “You’re not affiliated nor associated with them?”

DR. MICHAEL MANN: “I can provide– I’ve submitted my CV you can see who I’m associated with and who I am not.”

CONGRESSMAN CLAY HIGGINS: “These two organisations, are they connected directly with organised efforts to prosecute man influenced climate sceptics via RICO statutes?”

Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann is listed on the Climate Accountability Institute website as being on their board of advisors. Check it out, the video is only 1.25′ and Mann’s blubbering & squirming as he repeatedly lies his ass off is hilarious:



Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann got caught lying to the committee again:

‘She [Dr. Judith Curry] pointed to the way she and Mann have clashed, saying the Penn State professor wrongly called her a climate denier, when she acknowledges that the world is warming and humans play a role. She disagrees with mainstream climate science over implications of global change, the size of the warming, how much is human-caused and its certainty.

At first Mann said he didn’t call Curry a denier. But in his written not oral testimony he called Curry “a climate science denier.” Mann said there’s a difference between denying climate change and “denying established science” on how much humans cause climate change, which he said Curry did.’


One wonders why Michael ‘hide the decline’ Mann has to lie all the time?


‘Clear desperation, isn’t it? All ad hominem and not a climate fact in sight.’

Much like Dennis. Wait a minute … I see a pattern emerging.


Why did Dennis post a graph showing correlation between CO2, temperature and sea level?

Surely he knows that the CO2 lags the others in these graphs

Dennis N Horne

Richard Treadgold. Are you telling me you cannot understand the simple fact that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere can rise while the emission level stays the same or decreases slightly?

Well, I could explain it to you using the analogy of filling a bucket with a small hole in it. But I don’t I’ll bother.

Curry testified the satellite temperature record is the gold standard while Christy was still cooking it, after others explained where he had fcuked it up completely. Thick as a plank.

Magoof: When you stop laughing at something you don’t understand, have a look at a graph of the temperatures from different agencies. See the hockey stick? Of course not. Denier-induced blindness.


Dennis, why did you post that graph of CO2 vs Temps. Are you thick, dishonest, or both?

Mike Jowsey

Well this has become such an entertaining channel! Dennis the Menace has causation-correlation-deficiency-syndrome. Magoo has a great sense of LOL. And Andy has a bash-a-fash-a-fobia. And RT has an all-pervasive omniscience. I love dropping in! Do carry on up the river!


“New Zealanders’ beliefs in climate change increasing”

Hosanna in the highest! Blessed are those that believe


“And Andy has a bash-a-fash-a-fobia.”

It’s true Mike, I am a universal-phobic

Deplorable, racist, bigoted, wife beater.

None of my friends or family know this, but it is on the internet, so it must be true



Ah Dennis dear boy , you’ve discovered an El Nino on the end of the temperature graph. Congratulations & well done, you get a star!

But look dear boy, here’s a magic trick – the temperatures are falling & are back to normal now the mean old El Nino has mysteriously disappeared:


Spooky possums.

I wonder why Real Climate (snigger) haven’t updated their graphs, perhaps they’re afraid of the boogey-man called inconvenient data. We know NASA’s GISS might as well not bother updating their dataset as they’re in the process of being shut down. LOL! (that last LOL is especially for you Mike). 😉

Dennis N Horne


We are ADDING the gas CO2 to a mass of mixed gases, the principal non-condensing gases being nitrogen, oxygen and helium, so of course the proportion of the gas CO2 increases, even if we add less this year than last. (That CO2 is removed only slowly, that’s why the level is up >40% due to human activity.)

Nothing to do with outgassing. In fact the oceans are acidifying, despite warming, so still absorbing CO2.

The atmosphere will keep taking as much CO2 as we can generate; the limit being only the amount of fossil fuel we can find and burn.

Take a glass of water. Add some whisky. Keep adding whisky incrementally, smaller and smaller amounts each time. What happens? The drink gets stronger.

Dennis N Horne

Magoof. Choose either:
comment image

comment image

The “hockey stick” is settled science. Suck it up.

The energy of 400,000 Hiroshima bombs added to the climate system EVERY DAY! It’s a grand experiment and well worth living longer to see.


The “hockey stick” is settled science. Suck it up.

The hockey stick isn’t even science, let alone settled science

We know the story of the Stick from Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and Steyn’s “A Total Disgrace to the Profession”

Anyone peddling this rancid piece of pseudo-science is on very suspect ground

Dennis N Horne

What do you mean, “isn’t science”. Science is evidence, explanation and knowledge.
‘Hockey stick’ climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time

National Science Foundation (NSF) inspector general: “Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed.”

Two things we know with extremely high confidence:

Recent warming is unprecedented in magnitude, speed, and cause (so the temperature history looks like a hockey stick).

Michael Mann, the lead author on the original hockey stick paper, is one of the nation’s top climatologists and a source of first-rate analysis.

We know these things because both the hockey stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist (see links below). [continues]

You remind me of a hen running around after its head has been chopped off.


When I say it “isn’t science”, I am referring to the various essays in the Steyn book ” A total disgrace to the profession”,

This is a collection of essays from various scientists (many from the AGW “consensus”) that state that the Hockey Stick isn’t science. Many also state that Mann is a bully.

This is clear to me, but I’m relieved that there are still scientists out there that are prepared to call out bullies, SJWs and liars.

Dennis N Horne

Hand waving.

In your underpants.


I can find some data to support theory X and ignore data the doesn’t support theory X

This is what Mann did with his Bristlecone data.

It isn’t science

Dennis N Horne

The “hockey stick” is just a name someone gave to the graph. The data are accepted. Look:

comment image

comment image

We are adding energy equivalent to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs to the climate system every day.

Growing greenhouse effect. And out of control.


Mann’s hockey stick is such ‘accepted science’ it’s completely ignored in the last IPCC AR5 report & replaced with real science. LOL!

Junk science discarded to the trash.


Michael Mann is such a idiot – he lied about being associated with the Climate Accountability Institute in his testimony to the recent congressional hearing, but lists himself as being on their advisory board from 2014 to the present in his CV (pg.12):


In fact Mann got caught out lying 4 times:


Dennis N Horne

The so called ‘fake’ hockey stick was proven correct. “An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick – that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.” ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html – “Enough hockey sticks for a team” One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick has been discredited. Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999. Here is a brief list: Crowley, T. J. 2000. Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years. Science 289:270-277: Huang, S, H. N. Pollack, and P. Shen. 2000. Temperature Trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature 403:756-758: Bertrand, C., M. Loutre, M. Crucifix, and A. Berger. 2002. Climate of the Last Millenium: A Sensitivity Study. Tellus… Read more »


The IPCC AR5 report shows temperature reconstructions of the past 2000 years:
comment image

Source: Fig 5.7, page 407, Chapter 5, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis, IPCC AR5 report, 2013.

Sorry Dennis dear boy, the IPCC & mainstream science have discarded the thoroughly debunked & discredited hockey stick, and have reinstated the medieval warm period (in both hemispheres). The hockey stick is redundant & relegated to the trash where it belongs.


Dennis debunks his own argument by stating that the warming is unprecedented in the last 600 years

Manns hockey stick gets rid of the MWP
That is the problem, not the current small amount of warming compared to a couple of hundred years ago

Dennis N Horne

https://skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm The “hockey stick” describes a reconstruction of past temperature over the past 1000 to 2000 years using tree-rings, ice cores, coral and other records that act as proxies for temperature (Mann 1999). The reconstruction found that global temperature gradually cooled over the last 1000 years with a sharp upturn in the 20th Century. The principal result from the hockey stick is that global temperatures over the last few decades are the warmest in the last 1000 years. A critique of the hockey stick was published in 2004 (McIntyre 2004), claiming the hockey stick shape was the inevitable result of the statistical method used (principal components analysis). They also claimed temperatures over the 15th Century were derived from one bristlecone pine proxy record. They concluded that the hockey stick shape was not statistically significant. An independent assessment of Mann’s hockey stick was conducted by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (Wahl 2007). They reconstructed temperatures employing a variety of statistical techniques (with and without principal components analysis). Their results found slightly different temperatures in the early 15th Century. However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick – that the warming… Read more »

Seumas MacLaren

Ljungqvist, F. C. 2010, and recent data from Usoskin Et Al., 2014 related to the ‘Modern Grand Maximum’ of the sun, suggest that Earth is now entering a cooling period. We may need a bit of warming to offset the cooling that may cause another mini ice age. This could well last 50 to 100 years, and reduced crop outputs could be the result, depending on the patterns of weather.
During the last 12 years, the ocean temperature measurements in the large array of 4000 sensors employed by one study suggest that the top half of the oceans has increased in mean temperature by a mere 4/1000 of 1 degree C. I.e. 0.004 Celsius.
There were significant increases in the 1970s and 80’s but this slowed and the result has been no significant increase, as above.

Post Navigation