I was recently asked whether, under Labour, New Zealand’s CO2 emissions have increased, and if so, by what percentage? I found some interesting things. Numbers are rounded.
The present Labour Government came to power in 2017 and were re-elected in 2020 with a majority of 49%.
Our net emissions in 2017 were 55,000,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. By 2020, the last year data are available (this is normal, they allow two years for reporting), our emissions had increased slightly by 280,000 tonnes, or 0.5%.
Our emissions in 1990, the first year of record, were 44,000,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,500,000 tonnes in 2020 to 55,000,000 tonnes, or 26%. In the same 31-year period, our population increased from 3,400,000 to 4,800,000, or a whopping 42%.
The pandemic shutdowns virtually closed down tourism, transport and industry, presumably causing emissions to plummet, although we won’t be able to confirm that until the next inventory report. But we’re not so shabby.
The Greens maintain our global warming guilt out of habit, because there’s no other reason for it. Even the IPCC have no evidence that CO2 dangerously heats the planet. I know that because I asked them myself and organised a team of scientists to check their answer.
We have to acknowledge, too, that a reduction in emissions happened only because our productivity declined, which means we were less prosperous. More poverty, fewer cellphones, holidays and nice cars.
Shame on the Greens and the Government.
NOTE
I’ve rejected recent off-topic comments about COVID-19. Your time may be more usefully spent offering them elsewhere. Thanks.
Views: 499
That’s Right m8 its not how the atmosphere works, its not how the weather works, its how communist’s work when they are trying to take permanent power away from the voting masses and slip vast wealth into their back pockets.
The UN is a con job and there’s plenty of evidence that’s exactly what that mob are doing, along with crimes against humanity, the next step is to seize all country’s sovereignty in another fake crisis though the WHO using their new treaty, then we will see cbdc to control all wealth, ready for your social credit check?
conspiracy fact!
On Sunday evening the TVNZ Sunday program is about to broadcast an episode about climate change. The mere fleeting appearance of Michael Mann on the promotion shows that it will be a series of lies and falsehoods. I would urge anyone who has a strong constitution to watch the program and take notes. Between us we should then write a complaint letter to the broadcasting standards authority about the lies and deceit that will no doubt be contained in the story. If enough of us can sign up to a point by point rebuttal, the broadcasting standards may ignore us, but we would then have a case against them. The current government and their climate change budget has to be brought to account. They are fraudulently taking our money. More and more peer reviewed science is showing that carbon dioxide does not cause climate change and now the powers that be are getting desperate. Hence the Sunday program. It needs to be pointed out that:
– Fraud is wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain
– Taking money from us under the pretense of climate change is fraudulent
– No one can show where this money has gone, what good it has done or that it has managed to slow down rising carbon dioxide levels
It is about time we banded together to show our strength. If a bunch of school kids can take the government to court over a lack of action on climate change, surely a group of well armed and educated adults should be able to make enough waves to at least rock the boat. If you rock the boat you are a trouble maker and a problem. If you capsize it then everyone has to take notice. Let’s make people take notice.
Suggestions please. We should not let this opportunity pass us by.
The tax payers deserve to know what each party believes the science is as part of their policy. They talk about settled science and following the science but will not actually state the science that billions of tax payers money is being spent on, transparency and accountability I think they call it. They reference the IPCC/UN models, weather events, they say its complicated, they say its settled science and of course the consensus but they will not actually say what the science is. All of the above are easily debunked which leaves the crux of the matter which is the theory around radiative forcing of CO2. Conclusive scientific debunking of this is required. There is a good number of blogs and webs outside the MSM that would that would publish this to the extent that the politicians may take notice
( as I have said before I have no formal science background but find most comments here educational)
For any given level of insolation, determined by the Sun’s output, Milankovitch cycles and aerosols in the atmosphere, it is CO2 that governs planet Earth’s temperature.
CO2 is a forcing and a feedback, which is how Earth comes out of an ice age. A little warming causes the oceans to outgas CO2, which cause more heating, which causes more CO2…
This is normal/standard/orthodox science. You can argue till you’re black in the face, it won’t alter the physics.
And it doesn’t matter how qualified anyone is, if he disputes this fact, he is wrong.
Haha, very funny. No, water vapour does all the heavy lifting, though CO2 is important in cooling the stratosphere, where water vapour largely condenses out. Water vapour is about 25 times (2500 percent) more abundant than CO2. It absorbs about 86% of all outgoing solar radiation and 35% of incoming radiation. CO2 absorbs about 7% of incoming and 9% of outgoing solar radiation—it’s far out-muscled by wv. CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere, laughably tiny for a so-called “controller” of global temperature for the last billion years or so. You describe a positive temperature feedback but I wonder whether you realise its implications. How does positive feedback end?
You overstate the case in claiming what you say is “normal/standard/orthodox” when it’s actually moronic. You could possibly create some credibility by quantifying your short list of climate elements to show how they might influence temperature. Calling CO2 a forcing and a feedback may be true, but show you know how much of those things it does. Outgassing? This is regularly measured around the oceans but I’ve never seen a paper describing how temperature alters as a result. Never even seen a claim that outgassing fluctuations do alter temperature.
Here are all the main global temperature datasets.
You’re talking nonsense, Dennis, and you’re not listening to yourself. The temperature isn’t going up, there is no climate crisis.
“A little warming causes the oceans to outgas CO2, which causes more heating, which causes more CO2.” This implies runaway global warming, which has never occurred. One reason for this is the logarithmic decrease in CO2’s absorption of heat as its concentration increases. The world with over 400 ppm of CO2 has reached this point where the effect of increased CO2 is negligible. This also is an inconvenient truth for which the physics is settled.
There’s more and more evidence that the suns role in creating our weather instantly though electric plasma connection coming out every year, then there’s the incoming cosmic dust sheet and its current reversal that comes along every 6k years or so, Malkovich cycles anyone, cloud seeding bye particles incoming from outa galaxy’s, facts matter and need investigating, basically our general model of physics is kaput,
Mainstream Science is not infallible because we are all only human and we don’t know what we don’t know.
Id encourage you all to check out the electric universe theory, co2 is plant food and we need more not less, but we definitely need less climate activists.
Don’t forget that our planet is currently undergoing a magnetic excursion, which with the weather anomalies underway round the world is the lens they should be viewed though, they are not called electrical storms for nothing.
Then there’s the changes underway in the other planets in our solar system, that should be a red light to science that problems are incoming from space not only generated on earth by driving your car.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers but am keen to find them.
Let’s see if we can make this as simple as possible for certain people out there. The UNIPCC bases its man made climate change models on a simple equation:
Natural variation in total solar irradiance + Man’s activities = Climate change
Total solar irradiance (TSI) does not vary much and therefore, as this variation is effectively zero, the equation becomes
Man’s activities = Climate change
But, as TSI does not vary, neither does the infrared. I recently had dinner at a friend’s place. After dinner we were just talking in general about various aspects of politics and, naturally, some climate change crept in. My friend’s 14 year old daughter chimed in. Her teacher was leaving the profession. She said she was sick of the political interference in the teaching of science, particularly climate change. As she put it, it was totally unbalanced, unscientific and deliberately misleading, designed as part of the dumbing down of education in general and science in particular. So, much against the mainstream teaching dogma, she decided that there needed to be some balance and to give the kids a simple but effective demonstration of climate change. The teacher took a test tube and put in some tap water. To this she added some red food colouring and tipped the contents out on to the bench top. The red coloured water represented the infrared entering the Earth’s climate system. The teacher then took a piece of kitchen towel and just placed it on the spill and left it for a few moments. Naturally, the coloured water soaked in to the kitchen towel. The teacher explained that the kitchen towel was the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and, by soaking up the infrared, caused warming. She then laid a second piece of kitchen towel on top of the first piece. The red water came through to the second piece and started to spread. Again, the teacher explained that by adding more carbon dioxide, even more of the infrared is soaked up, causing further warming. A third piece was added and whilst some of the water came through, there was not as much as the first 2 pieces. A fourth piece showed some water soaked up, but a fifth piece barely had any. Addition of a 6th and 7th piece showed no absorption at all. As the teacher explained, she could keep on adding more and more pieces of kitchen towel, but there was no more water to soak up. This is the same as the atmosphere. We can keep adding more carbon dioxide, but there is no more infrared for it to interact with. This atmospheric saturation point had effectively been reached at 280 ppm of carbon dioxide. As the teacher explained, there is more to the science, but this provided an adequate visual demonstration of the basic principles for them. There have now been hundreds of papers, written, peer reviewed and published that show the influence of particle forcing, the global electrical circuit, plasma forcing, the electromagnetic interaction between the Earth and the Sun, the auroral coupling at the poles driving energy towards the equator – the list of known energy inputs to the climate system other than TSI is growing all the time and yet the IPCC blindly, stubbornly and fraudulently, continues only to recognize TSI. Quite frankly, I would vote for anyone who had the kohones to stand up and call this out for what it is, a blatant power and money grab.
Tricky,
You refer to science that I have no knowledge of, such as particle and plasma forcing, global electrical circuit, EM interaction between Earth and Sun and more (and I haven’t followed the pandemic stories so I can’t comment either), but the matter of deliberate IPCC blindness is troubling. Physicists and the more informed climatologists understand that water’s ability to change state means that it moves incredible amounts of energy within the atmosphere and from the Earth’s surface to space. By comparison, energy moved by methane is insignificant. You’ll notice that Dennis Horne repeats their main points above. I’m sitting on a couple of rude replies from him I may respond to shortly.
The pig-headed IPCC insistence that atmospheric water vapour is only a feedback to warming is risible and its assertion that water vapour concentration depends solely on temperature is a blatant lie. Above every body of water lies a region of water molecules that move in and out of the atmosphere, with insufficient energy to remain there. A puff of breeze or the movement of a wave will sweep them away, to be replaced by new molecules from the water body. So after hours of breeze the clothing dries on the line and in days the paddock dries out under a constant wind—no temperature rise is required! Every housewife and every farmer knows and uses this simple truth that the IPCC refuse to acknowledge.
Prof Geoff Duffy has taught me about this and he says that atmospheric water vapour concentration can increase even when the temperature goes down.
Oh well put Tricky, U.N. conjob to promote a global power grab by the dumbist group of wannabe global Dictators ever, then there’s the jab, forced human experimentation on a global scale=crimes against humanity, read the statutes its crystal clear, but you cant have a human rights trail judged by the very perpetrators of the attempted genocide.
So no justice till political change
Hi Rickoshay, Thanks for the reply. As for the Pfizer jab, man have I seen so many research papers trashing that toxic crap. At this stage, all I will say on that subject is there are a lot of very nefarious reasons why the FDA will not release the long terms safety data until 2095 – no one will be around to sue them.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the comments. I will try and put together some information with references to the climate forcing mechanisms I mentioned. It will take me a little time between having to work and my messed up filing system. I have some graphs and other documents that I can send, but obviously not through a general post. As for Dennis the menace, he is just yer average nasty little troll. Typically, when they have no real argument, they resort of insults and name calling. I wouldn’t waste my time. To paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. Against stupidity we are defenceless. Reasons fall on deaf ears and facts that contradict the stupid person’s prejudgment simply need not be believed. This is when the stupid person can become critical and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person is utterly self-satisfied. When flaws in their reasoning are pointed out, rather than listening and then engaging in a reasoned discussion they are more inclined to become irritated and go on the attack. “Never try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is dangerous and senseless.” One of my mantras to live by, never argue with a stupid person.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, Tricky, and I’d like to be better informed on those things, but don’t go to too much trouble. Regarding Dennis, I’d like to answer some of his points for the sake of the onlookers. We’ll see. Lots to do.
Hi Richard,
Just a very brief synopsis of some of the other energy inputs and effects to the Earth’s climate system.
– Cloud cover. Totally ignored by the IPCC as pointed out by Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Kobe (Japan)
– The IPCC considers the temperature rise caused by increasing carbon dioxide to be linear. Multiple papers have shown this to be incorrect and temperature rise in relation to increasing CO2 is logarithmic. We are now at a point where any temperature rise relating to increased CO2 is so small it cannot be measured, only calculated.
– If we do incorrectly consider temperature rise to be linear, then the best estimate is an increase of 0.02 watts/sq m/year. That is an increase of 0.4 watts/sq m over the past 20 years. NASA MERRA 2 satellite shows an increase of 3.6 watts/sq m over the same period of time due to an increase in shortwave radiation caused by changes in cloud cover. An increase 9 times greater than the totally made up increase caused by CO2. But with nowhere else to put this, the IPCC lumps it in with man’s activities.
– At the same time that temperatures began to rise, the Earth’s magnetic field strength started to drop and the magnetic poles began to move. This has caused a number of changes. Charged particles from the galactic cosmic rays and the solar wind enter the Earth’s energy system through the magnetosphere, the ionosphere and in through the poles. These high speed, high energy particles, particularly atomic nuclei, cause heating through a number of effects including:
High speed collisions. Breakdown in to smaller nuclei and subatomic particles releasing energy and causing secondary cosmic rays. Particle collisions leading to destruction of ozone allowing more shortwave radiation in to the system. Increased energy input in to the global electrical circuit. As far as the electrical circuit is concerned, put an electrical current through a resistive media and you get heating.
– The Birkeland circuits in the Earth’s magnetosphere that are driven by the interplanetary / Sun electromagnetic interactions and the solar wind. This affects the bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere and transport through convection. At times this will exceed 1 million amperes.
– Parker spirals. The Sun is a rotation ball of magnetism and therefore generates an electrical field and this varies according to the Sun’s activity. We pass through the spiral waves every 6 days or so. This has various effects depending on the current density and our own magnetic field strength at the time of the interaction.
That’s just a start and there is much more to this and plenty of papers supporting real science. The atmosphere of Saturn is twice as warm as it should be if the only energy input was TSI. This extra heating is caused by particle forcing and electrical circuits – the same as here on earth, yet the IPCC refuse to recognise this.
Make sure you take care of yourself.
Some interesting data analysis by Zoe Phin, 20 years of climate change at phzoe.com
Let’s just stay with FACTS. FACTS !! Not propaganda.
New Zealand’s CO2 emissions are only 0.17% (= 1/6th of a %) of total world human CO2 emissions. The other 99.83% is China, India, U.S. etc. So NOTHING we do will have any effect on any thing is this regard. We are basically a Zero CO2 producer.
Also – world human CO2 emissions altogether are only 3% of total global (human plus natural) emissions. 97% of ALL CO2 global emissions are natural. Only 3% are from human activity.
And – combining those figures (remember – these are official numbers from the IPCC) New Zealand’s CO2 emissions each year are 0.17% x 3%, which equals 0.0051% of total global CO2 emissions. The other 99.9949% is NOT us. NZ emissions are 1/20,000 of total. The other 19,999 are NOT us. Our emissions simply do not matter at all.
You’re right, Doug, that’s what science says. Regrettably, we have a Minister for Climate Change who either doesn’t know any science or doesn’t think science is important. Otherwise he wouldn’t try to make us reduce our emissions, stop farming and grow trees instead of livestock. No brains, only dust.
…….and then there is the methane story! these stats are quoted from an article on F.A.R.M by Owen Jennings
“The Climate Change Commission (CCC) proposes reducing ruminant methane by 10% over the next 9
years or 1.1% per year. Ruminant methane, according to NASA/ NOAA, is only 12% to 15% of all
global methane emissions. NZ has just over 1% of the world’s ruminants.
Therefore, every year, the CCC’s suggestion will lead to a reduction in the planet’s methane by 1.1%
of 1% (our share of ruminants) of 12-15% (the share of methane emissions caused by ruminants).
That is a reduction contribution of 0.0000132% – 0.0000165% of all methane emissions per annum!
It is immeasurable, absurdly insignificant and any suggestion of warming is a fantasy.”
As most of us know, Methane is already a very minor player in the atmosphere and yet here we are about to trash our biggest export earner by proposing to reduce CH4 by a mere 0.0000165%. it is madness but probably what annoys me the most is no other political party has said it is madness nor do the press report it at such.
I will still continue to convert CO2 into lamb meat!!!!!!!
True. All the GHG are minor players in the troposphere. Water vapour is the king.
Owen’s a good friend and he’s been fighting for the farmer for ages.
Hi Andrew,
You are right on the money. It really doesn’t make any sense unless you are a virtue signalling government with a crime minister, oops sorry, prime minister, who is looking for a job with the UN once we have dumped her. Unfortunately, even the climate alarmists admit that CO2 and CH4 are minor players. They put the problem down, not to the direct impact, but to feedback. Only a very slight warming from CO2 or CH4 leads to more evaporation from the oceans and therefore more water vapour. More water vapour causes more warming. More warming causes more water vapour etc. You get the picture. So you can’t win. It doesn’t seem to matter that the CH4 from farming is biogenic. The “carbon” is derived from what is already in the atmosphere and is not additional as with fossil fuels. It also doesn’t matter that cows and sheep are pretty good at locking up atmospheric CO2 by converting grass to beef and lamb. If we are going after CH4 regardless of the fact that the overall balance of beef and lamb farming is carbon negative, we will need to go after forestry and arable farming. All plants produce methane as a by product of metabolising the amino acid methionine. Trees produce significant quantities. NASA satellites have identified large clouds of methane produced by the Amazon rain forests. It comes direct from methionine production and, in some cases, the trees act as chimneys and funnel methane from the anaerobic layer in the soil out to the atmosphere. Brazil nut trees are so full of methane that you can drive a hollow spike in to the trunk and set fire to it. This can also be done with American cottonwood trees.
So, if this government is going to be fair, they need to go after trees. Good job we don’t have termites, that would really drive Jacinda a co absolutely nuts.