Latest UK CO2 emissions figures

Yes, the figures are going to be a lot lower soon when we stop making steel in the UK and the little shipbuilding we have left may/will go to Poland.

We seem to be importing most of our green energy generation components so a big saving in co2 manufacturing generation.

If only they would tell us what the global temperatures have fallen by, as a result of exporting our emissions…

All of that means nothing when a big volcano blows.

Which is not a reason for doing nothing. But it really should put our puny efforts into perspective.

Man made CO2 emissions clearly dominate average volcanic activity, over the last 150 years, so I don't understand your point?

Data?

Yes, human-made CO2 emissions significantly exceed those from volcanic activity. On average, human activities release about 100 times more CO2 into the atmosphere annually than all the world's volcanoes combined. This is mainly due to burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial activities.

NOAA Climate.gov reports that human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. ​ Climate.gov

AP News states that human activity produces far more CO₂ than volcanoes, with experts indicating that human emissions are more than 60 times greater than those from volcanic activity. ​

Skeptical Science notes that volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year, which is about 1% of human CO₂ emissions, estimated at around 29 billion tonnes per year. ​

Yes, as pointed out in the article - the bit you didn't cite.

Lee Anderson asked that question in Parliament recently. It's not especially useful - the answer depends on geography and time scales for example, and the 'true' answer won't be known for many years. I suspect he thought it was a clever contribution to the climate debate.

And for all the CO2 data regarding human activity and volcanoes, no-one but no-one says what the global temperature reduction is as a result of the decrease in the UK’s emissions.

Ah, so it’s all ‘jam tomorrow’ and the climate enthusiasts can’t give any sort of figure for temperature reduction.

But the temperature-reduction figure is crucial, since that is what all this is about. Or is it?

It’s certainly the declared aim of all this effort.

Quite, but even then it doesn't really matter. The issue is what we can affect.

We can't affect Volcanos, if the average human emissions are what is pushing up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't matter if it is 100 times volcanic emissions or 1/100 of volcanic. It is what we can control to deliver happiness or misery.

The only problem we would have with large volcanic emissions is that it would be harder to estimate if human emissions were pushing up global CO2 levels or if the effect was just random variation. Even if we weren't sure, it would be sensible to err on the side of caution. But we are confident it isn't due to random volcano emissions, so it is just a red herring.

Which is a sensible point. We don't control global emissions. If we are being honest about human nature, the only way we will reduce total global human emissions is if we develop cheap alternatives. Expensive solutions in the UK or Germany will not be enough, because the rest of the world will not adopt them. I'm suspicious if we will even adopt them in the UK.

So while offshore wind may work in the UK (possibly), it isn't that relevant as a global solution.

If your point is that UK politicians distort the truth, I think we all know that is true.

Interesting to know. Thanks.

My understanding is that we produce less than 2% of global CO2 emissions, which will produce sweet FA change in global temperature, especially with India and China pumping out CO2 in ever-increasing amounts to keep up with the likes of the UK abandoning primary iron ore smelting and importing their raw steel from the far east. We're just virtue signaling at the expense of British industry and jobs.

It's a crucial part of an overall event: climate change.

You just have to do some reading on the subject. There's no shortcut. For example:

Nope.

Spot on.

Not only, but also, IIRC that a few years ago the climatologists were saying that if the global temperatures reach 1.5°C above whatever the baseline was that they were working to at the time, then the globe would experience thermal runaway, as the rising sea temperatures would emit ever-increasing amounts of CO2 by out-gassing.

Well, I believe last year the globe hit that 1.5°C, with no sign of the increase slowing down. In which case, and assuming that they were right because it's their business to be right (a big if!), then from now on, the globe is going to experience temperature runaway, and there's nothing we can do about it. So we might just as well give up trying, and go back to normal living without wasting squillions on windmills, solar farms etc, which were pretty ineffectual anyway in the grand scheme of things.

No, spot off.

Roughly 100% of the /increase/ in emissions is caused by human activity. It's the /increase/ that's the problem, not CO2 per se.

A tipping point. i.e. move out of a local equilibrium. I think this was always presented as a possibility. Something to be concerned about. I don't think anyone serious pretends to know the exact temperature at which tipping points occur.

I stopped reading when I got to “Changes observed in Earth’s climate since the mid-20th century are driven by human activities…”

So there has been no change in the Sun’s output over the last 70 years? Despite six changes of magnetic polarity in that time? No change in the cosmic ray flux? No change in cloud over in that time?

What do you mean by that?