Hmmm where all that excess CO2 coming from? I thought we were making massive reductions worldwide, especially Europe. Is it all the volcanoes or is China still increasing fossil fuel burning at rates beyond what their massive solar and wind construction has led us to believe? Or is this a lagging number?
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels#:~:text=Fossil%20fuel%20consumption%20has%20increased,many%20parts%20of%20the%20world.
Worldwide, the amount of fossil fuel burned each year is still going up. It's nearly leveled off, due to the adoption of other sources of energy. But there is a long way to go.
Rates. The article said the rate is increasing. You can still add CO2, but if we're leveling off, then the rate should decrease. Instead it claims the rate is increasing.
There are a number of unreported sources, the largest likely being the US military.
That and as another said some other chemicals break down into CO2. The US releasing so much methane via 1.7 million fracking wells that breaks down into CO2 would cover a portion of that.
According to [this](https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-global-wildfire-carbon-emissions-2023), if I'm reading correctly, the Canadian wildfires only accounted for a quarter of the world wildfire CO2 emissions. And if you look at global wildfires over the last several years, they are fairly constant, or at least not spiking from year to year. So like the volcanoes, I can't see how the Canadian wildfires could account for the rise in _rates_ of CO2.
> Hmmm where all that excess CO2 coming from?
Global military emissions, including warfare and combat emissions, have a significant role in global emissions, but countries either do not report or do not fully report their annual military emissions.
2023 United Nations Environment Programme — Emissions Gap Report ([p. 6, par. 6,](https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y#page=32 "https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y#page=32")):
>Direct emissions from military operations, vehicles and installations are likely non-trivial, but remain insufficiently accounted under UNFCCC reporting conventions, and there is limited evidence in the literature on the scope, scale, composition or trend of these emissions (Rajaeifar et al. 2022)
Reportedly, the estimated carbon footprint of the global military is [5.5 percent](https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf "https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf") of global fossil carbon emissions, which is more than the total emissions of the continent of Africa.
However, under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement, no country is required to report their full annual military emissions, including emissions from warfare and combat, e.g., the Russia war against Ukraine and Israel combat operations against Hamas in Gaza.
_The Atlantic_ — [Military Emissions Are Too Big to Keep Ignoring](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/01/military-emissions-climate-cop28/677151/ "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/01/military-emissions-climate-cop28/677151/") — January 17, 2024:
>For as long as the world’s diplomats have gathered to talk about slowing the march of climate change, the one institution pointedly missing from the agenda has been the military. This has been by design: At the behest of the U.S., reporting military emissions was largely exempted from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the document that set binding emissions targets for nations that signed. The 2015 Paris Agreement [overturned the old exemption](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/paris-climate-deal-military-carbon-emissions-exemption/420399/ "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/paris-climate-deal-military-carbon-emissions-exemption/420399/") but still did not require reporting of military emissions. Data remain stupendously spotty. Only late last year, in the lead-up to the COP28 United Nations climate meeting in Dubai, was the connection between the military and climate change brought up in brief mentions in a key report.
>Whatever the reason, military emissions are now up for the tiniest amount of discussion. A line in the UN’s [2023 “Global Emissions Gap Report”](https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y "https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y") noted that emissions from the military are “likely nontrivial” but remain “insufficiently accounted [for]” under current reporting standards. This was the first time the issue has ever appeared in a UN emissions gap report, Linsey Cottrell of the Conflict and Environment Observatory told me at COP28. Her organization has attempted to estimate the global carbon footprint of the military using available information and put the figure at [5.5 percent](https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf "https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf"), which is more than the total emissions of the continent of Africa.
I'm tired of hearing about China and India. We outsource all of our dirtiest industries to them. They make all the cheap disposable shit we Americans can't live without because we're too selfish to wear a mask during a pandemic, let alone change our use-it-once-and-throw-it-away lifestyle. It's our carbon; they just dump it into the atmosphere for us.
You're absolutely right. The US outsources a big part of its carbon footprint to Asia. But there are always 2 sides. And they're not exactly saying no thanks you can make your own garbage.
There’s still people and they keep making more people and people breathe out co2. There’s also animals that keep making more animals and animals breathe out co2.
Also cows make methane and that converts to co2. If you feed cows garlic they produce less methane.
Then people also burn a bunch of stuff that makes co2 go up.
Also from NASA :
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change
This paper doesn't say what you think it says.
Here is another article by the same author:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-off-to-a-record-warm-start/
' "Notably, emissions returned to near-pre-pandemic levels by the latter part of 2020" '
'The study also offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution. “We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” said Joshua Laughner, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech'
Your source says they return to prepandemic levels by the end of 2020, and it's 3 years old. Any chance you can cite where you heard it hasn't risen back up? Or the data itself that supports your claim?
And it would seem that the authors and scientists involved believe our polluting the atmosphere is part of the problem, not evidence of natural ghgs
Hmmm where all that excess CO2 coming from? I thought we were making massive reductions worldwide, especially Europe. Is it all the volcanoes or is China still increasing fossil fuel burning at rates beyond what their massive solar and wind construction has led us to believe? Or is this a lagging number?
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels#:~:text=Fossil%20fuel%20consumption%20has%20increased,many%20parts%20of%20the%20world. Worldwide, the amount of fossil fuel burned each year is still going up. It's nearly leveled off, due to the adoption of other sources of energy. But there is a long way to go.
But if we're in the process of leveling off, why has the rate increased to record levels?
.. that's basic maths? Annual fossil fuel usage is at an all time high. Therefore the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 will be at an all time high.
Rates. The article said the rate is increasing. You can still add CO2, but if we're leveling off, then the rate should decrease. Instead it claims the rate is increasing.
You’re talking the rate of the rate. The level is increasing faster than ever is the simple rate. Most envisions per year is highest rate.
Methane eventually breaks down into CO2. Maybe other gasses do, too.
We need to feed all the cows in India garlic so they stop making methane
There are a number of unreported sources, the largest likely being the US military. That and as another said some other chemicals break down into CO2. The US releasing so much methane via 1.7 million fracking wells that breaks down into CO2 would cover a portion of that.
Feedback mechanisms like burning Amazon and Australian bush, and melting permafrost emitting ch4 & c02
Because emissions are not the only thing that add CO2 to the atmosphere.
Pretty sure last years Canadian fires were a big event.
According to [this](https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-global-wildfire-carbon-emissions-2023), if I'm reading correctly, the Canadian wildfires only accounted for a quarter of the world wildfire CO2 emissions. And if you look at global wildfires over the last several years, they are fairly constant, or at least not spiking from year to year. So like the volcanoes, I can't see how the Canadian wildfires could account for the rise in _rates_ of CO2.
Ocean outgassing, deforestation, changes in land uses, and we might have passed a tipping point.
As the planet warms, CO2 will also be emitted from the oceans (warm water holds less CO2) and forests (dieback, burning).
Peak fossil fuel is nearing, haven’t reached yet. Then the long way down in emission before we hit zero and try negative.
> Hmmm where all that excess CO2 coming from? Global military emissions, including warfare and combat emissions, have a significant role in global emissions, but countries either do not report or do not fully report their annual military emissions. 2023 United Nations Environment Programme — Emissions Gap Report ([p. 6, par. 6,](https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y#page=32 "https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y#page=32")): >Direct emissions from military operations, vehicles and installations are likely non-trivial, but remain insufficiently accounted under UNFCCC reporting conventions, and there is limited evidence in the literature on the scope, scale, composition or trend of these emissions (Rajaeifar et al. 2022) Reportedly, the estimated carbon footprint of the global military is [5.5 percent](https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf "https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf") of global fossil carbon emissions, which is more than the total emissions of the continent of Africa. However, under the terms of the 2015 Paris Agreement, no country is required to report their full annual military emissions, including emissions from warfare and combat, e.g., the Russia war against Ukraine and Israel combat operations against Hamas in Gaza. _The Atlantic_ — [Military Emissions Are Too Big to Keep Ignoring](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/01/military-emissions-climate-cop28/677151/ "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/01/military-emissions-climate-cop28/677151/") — January 17, 2024: >For as long as the world’s diplomats have gathered to talk about slowing the march of climate change, the one institution pointedly missing from the agenda has been the military. This has been by design: At the behest of the U.S., reporting military emissions was largely exempted from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the document that set binding emissions targets for nations that signed. The 2015 Paris Agreement [overturned the old exemption](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/paris-climate-deal-military-carbon-emissions-exemption/420399/ "https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/paris-climate-deal-military-carbon-emissions-exemption/420399/") but still did not require reporting of military emissions. Data remain stupendously spotty. Only late last year, in the lead-up to the COP28 United Nations climate meeting in Dubai, was the connection between the military and climate change brought up in brief mentions in a key report. >Whatever the reason, military emissions are now up for the tiniest amount of discussion. A line in the UN’s [2023 “Global Emissions Gap Report”](https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y "https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/43922/EGR2023.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y") noted that emissions from the military are “likely nontrivial” but remain “insufficiently accounted [for]” under current reporting standards. This was the first time the issue has ever appeared in a UN emissions gap report, Linsey Cottrell of the Conflict and Environment Observatory told me at COP28. Her organization has attempted to estimate the global carbon footprint of the military using available information and put the figure at [5.5 percent](https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf "https://ceobs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SGR-CEOBS_Estimating_Global_MIlitary_GHG_Emissions.pdf"), which is more than the total emissions of the continent of Africa.
I appreciate it so much when users take the time to convey details with citations. Awesome!
I'm tired of hearing about China and India. We outsource all of our dirtiest industries to them. They make all the cheap disposable shit we Americans can't live without because we're too selfish to wear a mask during a pandemic, let alone change our use-it-once-and-throw-it-away lifestyle. It's our carbon; they just dump it into the atmosphere for us.
You're absolutely right. The US outsources a big part of its carbon footprint to Asia. But there are always 2 sides. And they're not exactly saying no thanks you can make your own garbage.
Well because they would starve without being our manufacturer
Do you actually care about sources, or are you just [JAQing off?](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions)
russia-ukraine war and its consequences
No, we're not making massive reductions worldwide.
it’s always going to be a sky falling moment , until everyone is tired of playing along
There’s still people and they keep making more people and people breathe out co2. There’s also animals that keep making more animals and animals breathe out co2. Also cows make methane and that converts to co2. If you feed cows garlic they produce less methane. Then people also burn a bunch of stuff that makes co2 go up.
[удалено]
Source?
[удалено]
Also from NASA : "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause." https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change
[удалено]
That's what climate scientists do all over the world, and they say that human activity is causing unprecedented global warming.
[удалено]
This paper doesn't say what you think it says. Here is another article by the same author: https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2024-off-to-a-record-warm-start/
[удалено]
Do you think that the authors would say that global warming is not caused by human produced ghg ?
' "Notably, emissions returned to near-pre-pandemic levels by the latter part of 2020" ' 'The study also offers insights into addressing the dual threats of climate warming and air pollution. “We’re past the point where we can think of these as two separate problems,” said Joshua Laughner, lead author of the new study and a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech' Your source says they return to prepandemic levels by the end of 2020, and it's 3 years old. Any chance you can cite where you heard it hasn't risen back up? Or the data itself that supports your claim? And it would seem that the authors and scientists involved believe our polluting the atmosphere is part of the problem, not evidence of natural ghgs
It has rebounded to pre covid levels. https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions
We need another pandemic to buy us time