All time record set for week-to-week annual measurements of annual CO2 increases at Mauna Loa.

[NNadir]

I feel physically sick just posting this; despite my long record of arguing that the popular approach to addressing climate change is delusional, no shadenfreud is involved.

The Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory, the oldest such observatory on this planet, recorded that on June 6, 2016, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide was 4.78 ppm higher than it was on the same week the year before.

Of the 2107 data points ever reported this particular data set since 1975 (Mauna Loa's carbon dioxide observatory began making measurements in 1959) this is the absolute worst ever recorded.

I described how I monitor this data previously many times in this terrifying year of atmospheric collapse in this space, most recently, here: More of the 2016 disastrous CO2 climate year, May 29, 2016 4.16 ppm worse than May 31, 2015. Here is an excerpt from that post containing some links to earlier posts in my nightmarish posts in this series:

I've taken it upon myself to report, whenever the weekly data for 2016 as compared to the same week of 2015 exceeds the unprecedented increase more than 4.00 ppm, of reporting this fact.

Of the approximately 2100 weekly year-to-year data points recorded since the 1970's before 2016 there were only 7 which were higher than 4.00 ppm, one in 2010, one in 2012, one in 2013, one in 2014, and three occurred in 1998, as a result, most probably, of the massive fires in Southeast Asia.

There are now fifteen such data points, with eight occurring this year, and, um, we're only halfway through it.

Some remarks from previous posts on 2016, which is rapidly shaping up as an unparalleled disaster for the accelerating accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere:

As I've remarked many times in this space, the year 2015 was the worst year ever recorded at Mauna Loa's carbon dioxide observatory for increases in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, at 3.05 ppm.

Right now, if trends continue, 2016 will blow that level away.

Something very, very, very, very disturbing is happening if the Mauna Loa observatory's CO₂ measurements are correct.

For clarity, I will repeat some text from one of my earlier posts, showing how I store and analyze this data available from the Mauna Loa observatory's website's data tab:

At the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory website, they have a data page which compares the averages for each week of the year with the same week of the previous year.

The data goes back to 1974, and comprises 2,090 data points.

I import this data into a spreadsheet I maintain each week, and calculate the weekly increases over the previous year. I rank the data for the increases from worst to best, the worst data point being 4.67 ppm over the previous year, which was recorded during the week ending September 6, 1998, when much of the rain forest of Southeast Asia was burning when fires set to clear the forests for palm oil plantations got out of control during unusually dry weather. Six of the worst data points ever recorded occurred in 1998 during this event, another was recorded in the January following that event.

Of the twenty worst data points ever recorded out of 2090 two of them have occurred in the last four weeks. The week ending January 31, 2016 produced a result of a 4.35 ppm of increase. The week just passed, that ending, 2/14/2016, produced a result of 3.79 ppm increase, tying it for the aforementioned week in January 1999, that ending on January 24, 1999, and that of January 2, 2011.

Of the twenty highest points recorded, 9 have occurred in the last 5 years, 10 in the last 10 years.

It's looking very bad these last few weeks at the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory.

The above comes from a post in this very, very, very depressing series on May 1 of this year: For April 2016, the average weekly increase in CO2 levels compared with April 2015 is 4.16 ppm

As described above, the data set now comprises 2107 data points, and that of June 6 of this year is the worst ever recorded.

The previous worst data point ever recorded was 4.67 ppm, measured on September 6, 1998, 1998 having been, until it was displaced by 2015, the worst year ever recorded for carbon dioxide increases, owing to vast destruction of the South East Asia rain forests, after fires set by people setting to clear land for palm oil plantations to make "renewable" biofuels got out of control and burned huge swathes of these forests.

It is very clear that 2016 will blow away the 2015 record - 3.05 ppm higher than 2014 - as well as that of 1998.

Of the 10 worst such data points recorded for week to week comparisons of previous years, six of the worst 10 have occurred in 2016.

Fourteen of the worst 30 have been recorded in the last 5 years, 18 of the worst 30 have been recorded in the last 10 years. Thirteen of the worst 30 occurred in 2016.

The average of all these data points recorded since 1975 is 1.75 ppm; the average for the 20th century was 1.54 ppm; for the 21st century, it is 2.07 ppm, for 2015 - the worst year ever recorded - it was 2.25 ppm. For 2016, the average is now 3.54 ppm. Over the last 4 weeks the average is 4.26 ppm.

Since Japan shut it's nuclear reactors to see if they're "safe" after Fukushima - and replaced the power with that generated in dangerous fossil fueled plants which kill people whenever they operate and not just in accident situations - the average increase is 2.32 ppm.

If any of this bothers you, don't worry, be happy. The dangerous fossil fuel exporting country Norway ran a wind to hydrogen plant on the island of Utsira for a few years back in the earliest years of this century to "demonstrate" how we "could" store wind energy if, um, we wanted to do so. It produced enough hydrogen to power ten homes. The number of industrial scale wind to hydrogen plants built to power a million homes, never mind hundreds of millions of homes, is zero, but, um, lessons were learned.

The wind and solar industries have proved completely useless in addressing climate change, despite trillions of dollars sunk into them. As the data shows, they haven't worked; they aren't working; they won't work, but results don't matter. It's the thought that counts.

I wish all the fathers out there a wonderful and happy fathers day. During my fathers day lunch I discussed this data with my two sons and my wife, but I'm not sure people of my generation should feel comfortable looking people of their generation or any future generation in the eye.

I also wish anyone not involved in father's day, a pleasant Sunday afternoon and evening.

[progree]

1. "The wind and solar industries have proved completely useless in addressing climate change"

[font color = blue]>>The wind and solar industries have proved completely useless in addressing climate change, despite trillions of dollars sunk into them. As the data shows, they haven't worked; they aren't working; they won't work<<[/font]
(emphasis Progree's)

Do you have a link to that?

[hr]
Thanks very much for your work on CO2 tracking.

Have you seen that expanding temperature chart -- where the months are labels around the circumference, and the spokes are the magnitude of the temperature change that month year-by-year from the 1855 level (I know, horrible description, my fault). Its really more finely segmented than just by month, it could be weekly....

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/one-look-visualization-climate-change-believer-234113711.html
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/729753441459945474

Something like that for the CO2 data would be fantastic!

[NNadir]

2. There are many thousands of references on this subject in the primary scientific...

...literature on the subject of how, um, "renewable" so called "renewable energy" actually is.

The literature, if one looks, contains rich resources on the reliance of so called "renewable energy" on increasing rare and toxic materials.

Here for example is just one such reference, among tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands:

The Impact of Tellurium Supply on Cadmium Telluride Photovoltaics

Note that in the abstract of this paper, pulled up at random using the search terms in general Google, Cadmium Tellurium Solar Cells Supplies, the author says the situation "need not be bleak."

And it isn't bleak, since half a century of wild cheering for the solar energy industry has not made it essential in any way. It doesn't produce two of the 570 exajoules of primary energy humanity generates and consumes each year. It could disappear in its entirety tomorrow and no one would notice. Were solar energy to become a significant source of energy, something it will never do no matter how many more trillions are thrown out it, cadmium, tellurium, selenium, indium and a host of other elements on which this industry depends would be an issue comparable with say, oil, or natural gas.

But that won't happen, because direct experience shows that the solar industry is useless.

I really can't give you a quick sound bite link for what I've learned in tens of thousands of hours in libraries, but I did publish three parts of a five part series on the subject of the sustainability of so called "renewable energy" including many references, if you're really interested and are not just attempting to be witty:

Sustaining the Wind Part 1 – Is So Called “Renewable Energy” the Same as “Sustainable Energy?”

Sustaining the Wind Part 2 – Indium and Beyond…

Sustaining the Wind Part 3 – Is Uranium Exhaustible?

There are links to an extensive number of references to the primary scientific literature concerning these issues in those works.

History alone teaches us that so called "renewable energy" won't work. Up until the early 19th century, humanity was almost entirely dependent on so called "renewable energy" with the result that a population less than 1/7th of our current population lived short, miserable lives of general poverty, even more so than today.

Basically, the faith based belief that so called "renewable energy" is a workable scheme relies on an oblivious view of the world: vast masses of people hearing only want they want to hear without checking what the result has been.

The result is written in the planetary atmosphere.

Why we should suddenly believe that a failure centuries ago should suddenly sustain a vastly larger population with much higher living standards is um, surprising, or should be surprising, if one actually looks at it.

Enjoy the coming week.

[progree]

3. Thanks much for the info. n/t

[NNadir]

4. You're quite welcome. n/t