Monster growth in CO2 emissions — or monster omission?

Critical information was omitted from the recent Associated Press headline about “monster” growth in global CO2 emissions in 2010 and how it was much worse than the IPCC or anyone thought.

The following is from an anonymous submission to

The climate impacts are theoretically from the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This differs substantially from the amount of global emissions in a given year as there are natural carbon sinks(trees and the ocean) that suck up CO2.

The chart (below) shows the actual annual change in the CO2 PPM concentration has been decelerating since 1998 as nature has apparently found a way to adapt.

This is the opposite trend expected by the IPCC. This deceleration would be even steeper on a percentage of existing CO2 in the atmosphere.

The AP writer of the monster story has a history of promoting climate alarmism by omitting this kind of information.

Of course, all the media picks up an AP byline as gospel and we’re off to the races.

This story is probably going to be used to pressure Obama on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Click to enlarge the chart.

2 thoughts on “Monster growth in CO2 emissions — or monster omission?”


    The bureaucrats can force humnas to fill out forms reporting their CO2 emissions. But no matter how hard they try, they can’t get the CO2 absorbers to file their paperwork. The mighty Oak, Pine and Aspen and even the simple grass, simply refuse to fill out and file bureaucratic forms reporting how much CO2 they sequestered. They don’t even report what their voracious saplings absorb either.

    So if you only have half the data, the report is next to useless. What they do is guesstimate. The guess how much is emitted and absorbed. Which turns out to be completely erroneous.

    Recently all the Greens apparently discovered that the annual CO2 flux was much bigger than they thought and what Mr. Trendbert had graphed. The mere minor “correction” turned out to be 25-40 times the total amount of CO2 flux that Mankind emitted in any year. IOW, the delta change that they accepted, said Nature emitted and absorbed 25 times more CO2 in a year, than they thought, and that Mankind emitted, in total.

    So any CO2 emissions report is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

  2. The article by Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein was written to cause concern about increased global use of fossil fuels. He cites the growth in 2010 was 6 percent greater than 2009, past studies predicted lower growth rates, China and the U. S. were responsible for half the growth, and global warming due to fossil fuels will cause temperatures at the end of the century to be greater than 7.5 degrees warmer than now.

    The Earth Policy Institute determined carbon dioxide emissions in the U. S.
    decreased by 7 percent from 2007 through the first 8 months of 2011. All the increase in fossil fuel use in 2010 was in China, India, Brazil, and other
    developing nations who are trying to improve their standard of living. As shown data from the carbon dioxide monitoring station at Mauna Loa, HI indicate the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been decreasing each year since 1998 in spite of increasing use of fossil fuels. This means the earth has been increasing its absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide through increased plant growth. Carbon dioxide is an airborne fertilizer whose increase produces higher crop yields and reduces demand for water. This has enabled the earth to feed its increasing population.

    Another important factor is NASA’s satellite global sea surface temperature
    measurements have been decreasing from 2009 to the end of September 2011. This indicates increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels has a negligible affect on global temperatures.

    The good news from all these measurements is global temperatures won’t change whether we ruin our economy by curtailing fossil fuel use or develop our national fossil fuel resources and expand our economy.

    A good news reporter should be a skeptic, like we are, and check sources of information. A question remains is a requirement to be an AP reporter is relationship with the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz

Comments are closed.