CO2 Emissions Hit Record High in 2021
By Paul Homewood
CO2 emissions still growing, say IEA:
Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes1 rebounded in 2021 to reach their highest ever annual level. A 6% increase from 2020 pushed emissions to 36.3 gigatonnes (Gt), an estimate based on the IEA’s detailed region-by-region and fuel-by-fuel analysis, drawing on the latest official national data and publicly available energy, economic and weather data.
The Covid-19 pandemic had far-reaching impacts on energy demand in 2020, reducing global CO2 emissions by 5.2%. However, the world has experienced an extremely rapid economic recovery since then, driven by unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus and a fast – although uneven – roll-out of vaccines. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions, which led to more coal being burnt despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever annual growth.
Emissions increased by almost 2.1 Gt from 2020 levels. This puts 2021 above 2010 as the largest ever year-on-year increase in energy-related CO2 emissions in absolute terms. The rebound in 2021 more than reversed the pandemic-induced decline in emissions of 1.9 Gt experienced in 2020. CO2 emissions in 2021 rose to around 180 megatonnes (Mt) above the pre-pandemic level of 2019.
The 6% increase in CO2 emissions in 2021 was in line with the jump in global economic output of 5.9%. This marks the strongest coupling of CO2 emissions with Gross domestic product (GDP) growth since 2010, when global emissions rebounded by 6.1% while economic output grew by 5.1% as the world emerged from the Global Financial Crisis.
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-co2-emissions-in-2021-2
Although a large rise was inevitable following the lockdowns of 2020, the significant fact is that emissions are higher than in 2019. Given that the global economy still has not fully recovered from the pandemic, we should expect further increases in emissions this year.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Curiously, the sudden dip and increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions hasn’t had any effect on the Mauna Loa graph.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fgml.noaa.gov%2Fwebdata%2Fccgg%2Ftrends%2Fco2_trend_mlo.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fgml.noaa.gov%2Fccgg%2Ftrends%2F&tbnid=gk0uM9A9K-hWqM&vet=12ahUKEwjem9uyrbn2AhVthP0HHV1iD7cQMygCegUIARC-AQ..i&docid=4lIrpMz2Mjo2OM&w=681&h=509&q=atmospheric%20co2%20concentration%20graph&hl=en-GB&ved=2ahUKEwjem9uyrbn2AhVthP0HHV1iD7cQMygCegUIARC-AQ
Well, just so long as the IEA feels that is the highest evvaah, I’m sure that’s what counts.
Don’t need no stinkin’ facts……
Indeed, the only recognisable signal in the slow uptick in the co2 record since it’s’ inception is the changing of the seasons across the planet. And by seasons, I mean not man made northern hemispheric industrial output but by the entirely predictable rise and fall of emissions from the earth’s biota. Man’s impact barely gets a look in.
We are in a ‘Natural Period’ of Global Warming that has been with us since the mid 1700’s. If the 5 previous warming periods that exceed our present temperatures can be used as our guide, a great deal of ‘Melt’ in the Northern Hemisphere is to be expected. Vikings living and farming for 500 years in Greenland – 950 – 1450.
The permafrost is melting and adding to both the methane and the CO2 in the atmosphere – The Earth’s 97% contribution. A 1% increase from Nature is .97% . . . 50% more than the decrease called for at the Paris Accord . . .
Interesting . . . Eh ?
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/abrupt-permafrost-thaw-has-scientists-worried
That could because human emissions are too small to be other than a bit player, even more so as, according to the IPCC half of them are sequestered by the biosphere and oceans. They add little more than 2 ppm to the 100 ppm of natural emissions
Precisely !!
Yep!
No doubt they got their “reality” from a moggle
Excellent news for my garden
The pandemic continued to impact oil use for transport in 2021, with demand more than 6 million barrels per day below 2019 levels…”
But all uses of carbon for energy require oil for transport, as do renewables including the manufacture and distribution of electric vehicles. We rely on gasolines, diesel and biofuels. That means a very long transition to electric so that the atmosphere will continue to increase in CO2 for quite a while. Wasting that energy on climate “crisis” mitigation will not help.
Not to mention the production of electricity to charge those EV’s . . .
https://www.academia.edu/62574334/Tesla_Versus_Toyota_Camry
Ain’t nothing Free in life . . .
Surely the author is referring to man made emissions, which are trivial besides that of nature. it didn’t leave a dent in the keeling curve which registers all co2, not just mans
https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
Comparing the two reports reveals the absurdity that ‘man’ has any appreciable effect on total CO2. Moreover, as man’s contribution is c0.12%, or roughly 5ppm, how does anyone relate 0.0005% as a controlling factor in climate change. Answers on a postcard please Greta.
Graphic representation . . .
https://www.academia.edu/49537285/Climate_Change_A_fresh_Perspective
The The Elitist Environmental Propagandists . . . Don’t want to get it . . .
Thank you!
We would ALL love to watch these gweenies demonstrate quite HOW they measure and WEIGH a lighter than air gas. AND conclude that millions of tons/tonnes have been emitted.
Remember – Greta can SEE it
CO2 is actually heavier than air, just that strong brownian motion producer called the atmosphere keeps it stirred up
Of course this is all according to the IEA Computer model game.
Meanwhile in the real world CO2 did not dip at all in 2020.
‘A 6% increase from 2020 pushed emissions to 36.3 gigatonnes (Gt), an estimate based on the IEA’s detailed region-by-region and fuel-by-fuel analysis, drawing on the latest official national data and publicly available energy, economic and weather data.’
They confess to it being an estimate, yet still use a decimal point.
It’s “False Precision Syndrome”, Climate “scientists” are very good at it.
That dinosaur egg is 100 million and 5 years old!
Yes . . . ?
Such Accuracy . . .
One thing Great Britain could do to address the energy tariff crisis would be to switch to coal to maximum extent (flat-line maximum output). This would reduce dependence on supply gas in NW Europe to the maximum extent.
Good old fashioned “fuel switching”. That would certainly get the CO2 emissions up in the next year.
However, this is exactly what the power market is presently signalling to producers. Today’s clean spark-spread is down to £2/MWh-£4MWh, indicative of (expensive) gas is setting the power price. The clean dark-spread is well over £100/MWh, even though coal prices are at a historic high and coal fired generation suffers a CO2 penalty under the UK emissions schemes. Even with those disadvantages, the market price signals are pointing decisively to coal fired generation.
So why don’t we see coal units all stepping up to flat-line maximum output?
The last remaining coal fired power stations are in a relatively dilapidated condition (but safe to operate). They have been readied for closure, with staffing and maintenance patterns tailored for standby duties to spread out the final remaining hours for a couple more years. They will do this until the next boiler statutory inspection (which is very expensive), and then close.
To change their operating patterns, they will need very significant sums to be spent on them, including the maintenance to get through another “statutory inspection”. We’re talking about £10M’s per generating set, and difficulties in sourcing spares for old equipment. And staffing levels would need to be restored to support another few years’ operation at high load factors (getting shifts in place for round-the-clock fuel deliveries etc).
The full and final abandonment of coal fired generation in Great Britain isn’t quite the cliff edge you might imagine. We already have one foot in that particular grave, for the above reasons. Although we still have some remaining coal sets, we have limited ability to use them. Today’s developing crisis in the energy market is a foretaste of what is to come once these coal stations are finally closed.
If we don’t fancy that idea too much, Great Britain will need to find a way to spend the £10Ms needed to prepare these coal units for another few years’ operation (another maintenance cycle). And if we are serious about avoiding the permanent loss of coal fired generation (with the benefit of fuel switching the market is presently crying out for), Great Britain will need to come to terms with building a new fleet of modern coal fired power stations.
Yes, emissions will go up. But society is now faced with a stark choice, and it’s not going to magically disappear any time soon.
Rather than sending miners down holes in the ground, what is needed is to restart research into in situ coal gasification that was discontinued in the UK in 2016.
This produces something similar to the old town gas we discontinued in the 1960s and produces amongst other useful products carbon monoxide and hydrogen AKA synthesis gas, not only useful for burning but a feedstock for the chemical industry.
Using the steerable drilling technology perfected by the shale boys there are literally trillions of tons of available coal both on and off shore.
My point about fuel switching is because coal and gas prices (expressed per GJ) are coupled in the medium term, even if they deviate in the short term.
The ability to choose the lowest cost alternative in world markets is one of the main advantages of fuel switching as it hitches UK power prices to the margins of world energy prices. This keeps UK energy competitive.
The other main advantage of fuel switching is the increase in access to primary energy resources, helping to secure primary energy supply.
To be a part of this, deep mining or in-situ gasification would need to be competitive against world prices. That’s probably not the case today (it might be in future, following developments in technology). My comment about a new fleet of new coal fired power stations only rests on accessing world markets, and is not conditional on UK deep mining or in-situ gasification.
“My comment about a new fleet of new coal fired power stations only rests on accessing world markets,”
Which leaves us vulnerable to the sort of market disruption we are suffering at the moment.
We need self-sufficiency in energy and we have the coal, oil and gas reserves to become so.
No it doesn’t David.
If we run the self-sufficiency argument to its logical conclusion, we throw away crucial diversity in fuel supply because we’d be limiting our total available market (supply). This could only have the effect of pushing up our marginal cost of supply by omitting competitive supply. It would be for no good reason and to no good end.
For example, if we insist on self-sufficiency, we can forget uranium as a fuel in the UK. This would kill off any suggestion that nuclear could be a part of our energy mix.
David – could you please try to calm yourself down and give yourself a moment to think about what is being said. Try to pay attention laddie!
“David – could you please try to calm yourself down and give yourself a moment to think about what is being said. Try to pay attention laddie!”
Somewhat patronising don’t you think? You may quite possibly not be the “expert” you seem to think you are. For example the sentence immediately prior to the above quoted one was quite incorrect.
“For example, if we insist on self-sufficiency, we can forget uranium as a fuel in the UK.”
Oh dear…
It appears to have escaped your notice that as we won’t acquire anywhere near a substantial nuclear generating capability for some decades yet, we are primarily discussing coal, oil and gas supply in the short to medium term.
Clearly, as we haven’t any uranium deposits in this country, it is obvious that I am unlikely to include those in my desire for maximum self-sufficiency (although breeder reactors could go a long way to reducing our dependence on imports), unlike coal, oil and gas, where although we ARE capable of it you seem to believe we should continue to maintain our dependance on unstable World market and I find it difficult to believe that it is likely that importing such will be competitive with extracting it locally.
As to my expertise, as a chemical engineer who worked on the old Woodall-Duckham continuous vertical retort carbonising plant and was subsequently involved in the ‘Dash for Gas’ conversion project to turn the country over to North Sea Gas, I suspect my experience and expertise in the field considerably exceeds yours.
So go patronise someone else, sonny!
RE: Coal . . . Scrubbers and Electrostatic converters an Nitrogen Oxide Burners. Plus, recycle the water from the scrubbers . . . You get Fertilizer and a byproduct to make ‘drywall’ . . . Technology that has been available for over 30 years removing up to 97% of flue gases and solid particles . . . things the ‘Greenies’ NEVER advocate . . . That would mean Crawling into bed with their enemy . . . The Fossil Fuel Industry. Pages 5 – 7 . . .
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
As a Canadian, the first to come to Great Britten’s aid in WW2, we have plenty of Nuclear fuel that we would be glad to share with an ally.
My thoughts . . .
To David and Ray
On this and another thread, David has told me what (he thinks) I think and what I don’t think, and has told me what (he thinks) my experience is and what my experience is not. I’d prefer he keeps his tiresome guesswork to himself because it just dilutes the quality of the discussion.
I commented here on the benefit of coal fired generation in the UK. David decided to add his irrelevant ideas about limitations around deep mining and in-situ gasification. He then tries to run an equally irrelevant argument about self-sufficiency. None of these add anything to what I came here to say, so it just becomes a distraction.
When explaining that self-sufficiency was not part of my comment, I explained the logical cul-de-sac he had set up, by taking it to an absurd conclusion. David does’t get it., He never does because he cannot pay attention to what is being said. Instead he goes into a spin what he has done, and proclaims himself much cleverer between us. That’s just a repeat of his habit of assuming to know what others do and do not know.
To answer Ray’s point, I’m not aware of uranium mining in the UK to contradict what I said about self-sufficiency. You can keep me right on that, but not more whataboutery as it would be more irrelevance to my comment.
BORED NOW! BYEEE!!!
Jordan, your knowledge of the nuclear industry is frankly the square root of fuck all. Please stop trying to sound authoritative about things you simply do not understand.
Have a read up about Breeder reactors and then consider how daft your remark about Uranium mining for the UK is.
Odd Ray, because you are wrong. But I’m not going to compare dicks with you and the chemist. You’ll need to judge what I say, and that’s all you get. If you want clarification, feel free to ask questions to get to my point.
Your irrelevant whataboutery on UK self-sufficiency in nuclear primary resource is noted. You failed there. But the foulmouthedness raised a smile.
“Britain’s huge plutonium stockpile makes it a vast energy resource. David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, recently said British plutonium contains enough energy to run the country’s electricity grid for 500 years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jul/30/fast-breeder-reactors-nuclear-waste-nightmare
Only Five Hundred years with no Uranium mining.
Even the goddamn Guardian understands this enough to print it, why do you struggle understanding it?
Ray
From 2011:
Click to access 1243-uk-plutonium-stocks.pdf
Paragraph 12: Previous UK attempts at manufacturing MOX fuel were not very successful.
Paragraph 13: Importing uranium preferred on economics.
Paragraph 14: Significant practical before any policy decision could be reached.
Paragraph 21: Ongoing work needed
That’s why I call it “whataboutery”. I suggest we cut it there.
Of course, any short term increase in energy consumption will have to be supplied by coal. If you want to ramp up oil and gas, you have get out and find it, usually by offshore drilling rigs (No sure thing, I’ve seen a few dry holes!). Coal on the other hand,no drillbit required, you just go to the Geography textbooks. We’ve been very successful in stopping new gas and oil development, unintended consequence is more Coal, hence more CO2.
Maybe I’m just being thick (OK..OK) but, is not the entire hypothesis (it’s not even a theory) of MM Global Warming based on the residual CO2 in the atmosphere (approx 0.04%) and not the transient emissions?
36.3 Gt CO2 = 4.65ppme in the atmosphere, of which half are sequestrated by the bio sphere and oceans (according to IPCC lore); thus human emissions that remain in the atmosphere are 2.3 ppm. As the biosphere and oceans emit around 100 ppm each year, the human contribution is around 2% – not a great deal? And as annual absorption and emissions are both around 100 ppm or 1/4 of what is currently in the atmosphere (414 ppm) it would appear more likely that only 1/4 of human emissions should be sequestrated?
Reporting emissions in Gt C or cO2 is perhaps a sophistry (if intentional) as it prevents simple comparison with changes in of atmospheric CO2?
Most so-called greenhouse gas is water vapour anyway.
Even Nasa agrees, (not Gavin’s lot),
https://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV
“Water is constantly cycling through the atmosphere. Under the heat of the Sun, water evaporates from the Earth’s surface and rises upon warm updrafts into the atmosphere where it condenses into clouds, is blown by the wind, and then falls back to the Earth as rain or snow.
This cycle is one important way that heat and energy are transferred from the surface of the Earth to the atmosphere, and transported from one place to another on our planet. Water vapor measurements are crucial to scientists who make weather forecasts and study the water cycle.
Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no water vapor, then our world would likely be a giant snowball—far too cold to support life as we know it today. Water vapor traps heat near the surface of the Earth.
Though most people think of carbon dioxide when they think of greenhouse gases, water vapor actually causes most of the atmosphere’s “greenhouse effect.”
They then go on to say: “Scientists are concerned that adding more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause it to warm, thus setting up a positive feedback loop.”
Note, “concerned that it will” not that it has…
However, they can’t quite agree with themselves, different department: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change…
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.”
A couple of simple observations at two places on roughly the same latitude will tell us all we need to know.
Check the diurnal temperature range between a point in the Amazon basin and another in the Sahara desert.
Both will have substantially the same atmospheric CO2 concentration but very different water vapour concentration.
The daily swing in the Amazon with its very high humidity is less than 2 deg C, whereas in the Sahara low humidity it may range from below zero deg C at night to over 50 deg C in the hottest part of the day
The only difference is the water vapour vapour concentration.
Go figure!
Water does become clouds, yes, but not without being attached to fine particles of DUST. The number 2 ingredient in cloud formation. As for sea levels rising, I suggest you study ‘Gyers’. There are 5 around the world. As temperatures rise they turn faster and collect water in the ‘CENTER’ of the ocean. Remember the Earth is a centrifuge, spinning at 1,700 km per hour. All that water from melting glaciers collects at the middle of the oceans and along the Equator, NOT along the shorelines.
The crust of the Ocean Floor or ‘Plate’ is arched. It follows the curvature of the Earth’s Mantle. Water from melting Glaciers collects in the center of the Ocean at the Gyers. They are thousands of kilometers in diameter. Accumulated water at the Gyers applies a downward and outward force against the center of these ‘curved plates’ and against the Mantle below. The outward forces cause subduction along the continents that can cause Volcanoes to erupt. Immense pressure caused by the out bound Sub-Oceanic plates causes increased subduction along the continents. For every Meter of Decline applied to the Curved Pacific Ocean Plate, there is a corresponding 3.14 meters of outward spread . . . Pi . . . from Math. C = Pi x D . . . flatten the circumference, you broaden the diameter!
This field of Science, to say the least, is controversial. Any Science pointing to Planetary Dynamics flies in the face of Environmentalist ‘theology’ and their projections that Ocean levels will rise with Global Warming and shorelines will be flooded. Normal cycles of Warming and Cooling from Nature throughout History proves that the shore lines will NOT significantly rise as Glaciers melt. This research provides a far more clear understanding of how Natural Evolution will cause swings back and forth between periods of Global Cooling to periods of Global Warming. This explains how and why the Earth changes without any Dramatic rise in Ocean levels. During the average 500-year periods of Warming and or Cooling. The shore lines remain relatively stable. Pages 28 – 30 . . .
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
Natural self-regulation from Mother Nature
The entire debate about the role that CO2 does or doesn’t play in climate change that may or may not be happening is IRRELEVANT. In the UK the amount we emit is inconsequential and we have no influence whatsover. So if China, India etc are going down we go down with them. Tough, but nothing we can do about it. The last thing is to unilaterally bankrupt
ourselves with futile virtue signalling.
Absolutely !!!
The problem for liars is, even when they inadvertently speak the truth, no one believes them.
O/t but my energy industry feed has this story this morning:
https://www.energy-pedia.com/news/united-kingdom/extinction-rebellion-to-block-oil-refineries-across-the-uk-186097
Who the f*ck do XR think they are that the government has to come to their negotiating table? Utterly, utterly bonkers.
As a further point, perhaps XR campaign makes sense: if they really are being funded by Putin/Russian money? I have seen claims that Russia has funded anti-fracking campaigners here and across EU to the tune of $95 million. I have been unable to find a reliable source for that claim.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1575605/russia-news-putin-exposed-climate-activists-ban-fracking-ploy-gas
“XR funded by the Russians” is another distraction from the major funding by US liberal billionaires. A bit like how the Russians delivered President Trump and Brexit.
There is a comprehensive piece on XR by Tony Thomas at Quadrant:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/04/the-most-disgusting-climate-cult-of-all/
“Big surprise, XR has been part-funded by the J. Paul Getty oil heirs’ $US5 billion wealth. The Getty’s Climate Emergency Fund has given $US600,000 to XR and one of the Getty heir’s websites touts XR’s work: “The only way to force a change is to disrupt the status quo through legal, non-violent direct action.”
There is much involvement by UK politicians:
IPPR is a Labour think tank although it claims to be independent – “IPPR is a registered charity and the UK’s pre-eminent progressive think tank.”
Having given us the Climate Change Act, Ed Miliband is involved with IPPR, and was initially the Co-chair, with Caroline Lucas of the Green Party, of the
IPPR Environmental Justice Commission.
https://www.ippr.org/environment-and-justice/commissioners/
One of their “commissioners” is “Farhana Yamin, Associate Fellow at Chatham House, founder Track 0 and Extinction Rebellion activist. An internationally recognised environmental lawyer, climate change and development policy expert, Farhana has advised leaders and countries for 20 years. She is a visiting professor at University College London and a member of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change at the World Economic Forum, as well as lead author for three assessment reports for the IPCC on adaptation and mitigation issues. [She is not a scientist but contributes to reports that are described as by “the world’s top scientists”]
She continues to provide legal, strategy and policy advice to NGOs, foundations and developing nations on international climate change negotiations under the UNFCCC.”
It is interesting that XR are represented at IPPR, as XR co-founder Gail Bradbrooke has a long association with them.
https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/dr-gail-marie-bradbrook-compassionate-revolutionary-for-hire/
“Gail epitomises the new generation of ‘professional activists’, having positioned herself at the epicentre of the revolving door between big business, government bureaucracies and establishment-friendly NGOs, campaign groups and charitable organisations, all of which increasingly function as the public face of international corporate and financial power.
The fact of the matter is, Dr Gail Bradbrook is one of the UK State’s go-to ‘experts’, chosen to give (the right kind of) evidence at various parliamentary hearings and committees.
Before she was engaged in (pre-approved) rabble rousing, or pretending to glue herself to the Department of Energy Headquarters, Gail was more likely to be found attending meetings held under Chatham House Rules, sat alongside people like Anthony Walker, former communications officer for the American Chamber of Commerce, who previously worked for the European Commission’s PR firm Rowland Company (owned by Saatchi & Saatchi).”
dennisambler:
Good stuff, very interesting. Thank you.
Great Stuff ! . . . It takes us a while in the West . . . But we do learn from our mistakes . . . Now, Time to bring home the processing of natural resources from China . . . remember steel? 60% of global steel production is in China . . . You think they won’t use that against us?? We have a wake up call . . . time to upgrade and invest in ‘Clean’ processing (scrubbers) back here at home !! Canada has the dense coal . . . we all just need to clean up how we process and reduce the pollution.
I seriously doubt this will be allowed to happen. If XR were to try such stunts in the current climate they would likely be physically attacked by vigilante groups. Covid and Ukraine really has changed the overall public’s view…..I pray!
For once . . . There may well be a ‘Chink’ in the Media’s armor through which ‘right thinking’ scientists and common sense advocates may pass . . . Let’s all hope . . .
Take the gloves off.
Set the army on them, drag them away and charge them with something serious, confiscate their property and pensions.
Thank you sir ! Long past due that we ALL f*ck the extinction rebellion and render all these mad men Extinct !!
Nothing suspicious here:
Extinction Rebellion relies on donations from crowdfunding, major donors, NGOs, trusts and foundations.
Christopher Hohn gave £50,000 to the group. Additionally, the charity he co-founded, The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, has donated more than £150,000.
All profits from Michael Stipe’s debut solo single, ‘Your Capricious Soul’, went to the group.
In addition, XR received $350,000 (£273,544.39) from the Climate Emergency Fund in 2019.
Metro article
And yet the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained virtually unchanged for at least 30 years, despite the large increase of human emissions…
By the way, carbon dioxide levels in our air have increased around 50% in my long life, while my thermometers show about the same, maybe lower temps., than they did in the mid-1930’s. Now food crops yield so much more than we need that we make gasoline out of corn and other excesses. What is the problem, exactly ?
Well said !! . . . Answer . . . Propaganda . . .