CO2 emissions increased dramatically between 1990-2010: Where's the warming?

A new report says global CO2 emissions have dramatically increased since 1990.

The European Commission reports that global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010, and reached an all-time high of 33 billion tons in 2010.

Increased energy efficiency, nuclear energy and the growing contribution of renewable energy are not compensating for the globally increasing demand for power and transport, which is strongest in developing countries.

But as Climategate’s Phil Jones pointed out, there’s been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

So where’s the warming? Oh yeah, the ocean ate it.

Click for the media release.
Click for the report.

20 thoughts on “CO2 emissions increased dramatically between 1990-2010: Where's the warming?”

  1. I do feel bad for you. I’m sensing a lot of bitterness in your postings. I would understand great regret in putting all of that time, work, and money in a degree where they emphasized subjects that are already being deprecated by history. Since you are sincere, I’m not going to try a match of zingers but try to help. I’m not the strong resource you might need, but there are plenty around here. Steve Milloy can be trusted on these subjects.

    Have you read the FAQs for this site? They will help.

    In your own research, are you finding that the predictions made by GW science are or are not coming true? Have you found that the predictions are being adjusted post ipso facto to meet conditions or are they staying the same and meeting conditions as they come to pass? Have you found that the predictions are specific and falsifiable or general and can be met by any event that may or may not take place (ie: Floods are proof of GW. Droughts are proof of GW)?

    I was the proprietor of savegreenearth.com. Trying to put together an honest site pushing AGW almost drove me bonkers. I found it impossible to make the math and the theory and the facts come together. And finally the line of questioning about the predictions was enough to convince me.

  2. oh im serious. and im not out for a chuckle at all. if i could make the lairs and frauds hurt i would. but i dont know steven milloy at all…he could be a liar and fraud and my emails never made it to anyone in his organization. all i know is something called a barry hearn responded to my emails about global warming and ddt when i emailed junkscience.com.

    having to have paid a student loan to get taught that ddt was a killer beyond mosquitoes seems to me high fraud. and the govt should pay me back.
    that is if the info on ddt and global warming at junkscience is even true.

  3. rst: I’m trying to figure out if you’re serious or having a good chuckle. If you’re serious, Steve Milloy knows his stuff. Read his FAQs on this site. He answers almost all of your questions.

    If you’re out for a chuckle: Good one. You got me!

  4. now if you and others behind junkscience.com are lying and being frauds…then i will save my wrath for you, or others until i get you.

  5. you be worried.

    i spent a few thoudans dollars on a so called environmntal science degree to get ddt taught as a killer to things other than mosquitos…..here i have read otherwise. still tryign to find out the truth…not be a skeptic as you claim.

    also was taught that anthro sources of co2 are causing or increasin global warming…never once was any counter info taught, if there even is any.

    i just dont think i need to pay on a student loan for such crap.

  6. But we have record CO2 so be worried….

    junkscience also told me that co2 has been orders of magnituede higher in eons past than it is now. what is record co2??

  7. Why not just look at the satelite temps yourself? This is not hard, most “skeptical” websites have them linked so you don’t have to take anyones word for it. WUWT, has the best list…..

    You are right it is hard to calculate global temps from surface stations, but this cuts both ways..

    if there are those commiting internet fraud it is hard. and i will cut back.

    in correspondece to somehtign called a barry hearn at junkscience this individual didnt distinguish between satellite and surface temps he or whatever they are claimed a global temp was impossible to determine…now the article here asks “where is the warming?” maybe it is.

  8. A real skeptic would demand better rigour from their sources…..

    if someone is seeking things that are true i dont think that is a real skpetic…what does a skeptic have to do wit trying to find out truth.

    you shut up and move along.

  9. Funny that when it’s pointed out that JunkScience-guy just lied on your faces by saying that “there’s been no statistically significant global warming since 1995” you jump with all sorts of non sequiturs, red herrings, hand-waving and accusations. A real skeptic would demand better rigour from their sources.
    But, hey again! Don’t let me stand on your way of rationalization and cognitive dissonance resolution, just move along.

  10. RST………

    Why not just look at the satelite temps yourself? This is not hard, most “skeptical” websites have them linked so you don’t have to take anyones word for it. WUWT, has the best list.

    I prefer the satelite temps because they actually have data for almost the whole planet instead of a few spot locations and guesses between, this is important if you are trying get an average “global” temp. Also the satelites dont have hundreds of adjustments to the temps for each station, like the ground data. They don’t go back nearly as far, but are more than adequate to cover the mainly promoted AGW period from 1980-present.

    You are right it is hard to calculate global temps from surface stations, but this cuts both ways, as the same uncertanties cut into the reliability of the alarmists to claim temp rises to the hundreth of a degree.

    The greatest service most skeptical websites offer is to point out that the uncertanties, the ones alarmists never want to talk about, are usually greater than the supposed effects. Also good at pointing out when they get into a “black is white” rant. Notice how they are focusing on how much CO2 we produced……but they are not pointing to the actual temps in their releases because it would undermine their “message”.

    Remember that they are the ones who have admitted the temps are not warming and they are blaming China, Volcanoes and sinking into the oceans. But we have record CO2 so be worried even if they can’t find anything wrong right now and have to point to regular weather and normal storms as the “new” normal. Same as the “old” normal.

  11. FTA: “Since then, nothing has emerged through mainstream science to challenge the IPCC’s basic picture of a world warming through greenhouse gas emissions.”

    That one sentence is pretty loaded. First, who is defining “mainstream science” and how? Does that mean anyone who agrees with AGW?

    Second, “nothing has emerged […] to challenge […]” ?? My science-challenged mind did not know that the way things worked is that someone posits a theory and then it is up to the rest of the world to “challenge the basic picture” of that theory.

    And, lastly for my science-challenged mind: 95% level of what? Level of confidence in your correlations? Correlation between level of a RARE trace gas that is essential to our biosphere and temperature data that have been cooked (so to speak)?

  12. How do we know that the assertion that there is global warming is not true?

    I love that one. It’s like a cop coming up to me in the parking lot as I’m leaving work in the afternoon and gives me a speeding ticket for the morning. He then says, “Prove to me you didn’t speed in the morning.”

  13. Love this quote from Daneel’s Story:

    Since then, nothing has emerged through mainstream science to challenge the IPCC’s basic picture of a world warming through greenhouse gas emissions.

    Yeah, those CERN guys sure are a bunch of FRINGE scientists!

  14. If man emits approximately 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere, I would think that it is nearly impossible to have an effect.

  15. Just a heads up for the deniers out there.

    Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant’

    Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
    “The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.

    So, yeah. The trend is statistically significant. But, hey! Don’t let the facts ruin a good story, no?

  16. Since the main source of heat is the Sun and physic’s law of thermal dynamics states that heat transfers to cold, and the upper atmosphere is colder any warming is do to the Sun.

  17. i had a response from a junkscience person that says global temps are extremely hard if not impossible to measure…how do you know that there isnt any warming?

  18. Algore is the answer man on this. According to the royal charlatan, and world renown climate psychic: “Global cooling, extreme snowfall, sea level declining, and basically all weather is caused by global warming. However it sometimes takes a vacation, but it will be back with a vengeance. Former natural climate change has been usurped by man’s wicked emissions of CO2.Trust me on this”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.