HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » This is the first anniver...

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 07:50 PM

This is the first anniversary of the last time the ML CO2 observatory will ever be below 4.00 ppm...

...in its weekly measurments the lifetime of anyone now living.

I've been covering this all year in 2016, which evolving to be the worst year ever for new accumulations of carbon dioxide. A recent post along these lines is here:

Eleven of the 37 weeks of 2016 have shown CO2 increases higher than 4.00 ppm...over the same week of 2015 at the Mauna Loa observatory.

There are now 2,127 weekly comparisons posted on the Mauna Loa website comparing readings with the week with the previous year. (Accessed 11/6/2016). This week the reading is 3.87 ppm higher than last year, which makes it the 24th worst reading of all time. Sixteen of the worst 30 readings took place in 2016; twenty of the worst 40 also occurred this year.

Eighteen readings in all of recorded history of these readings, going back to the early 1970's exceeded 4.00 ppm. Eleven of them occurred in 2016. Four others were recorded in the last ten years.

The average of all such readings this year, 2016, is 3.49 ppm; the average for 2015, the weekly average previous worst year ever recorded at Mauna Loa was 2.25 ppm. (Overall, the yearly increase for 2015 over 2014 was 3.05 ppm.)

In the last ten years, we spent two trillion dollars on this planet on so called "renewable energy." It didn't work. It isn't working. It won't work.

The fastest growing source of energy on this planet (despite the fraudulent claims one hears endlessly about renewable capacity even though most so called "renewable energy" installations never actually produce at peak capacity) is dangerous natural gas.

There is no technically feasible way of containing dangerous fossil fuel waste forever, or even for a short time, almost all of it is indiscriminately dumped in the planetary atmosphere; hence the readings at Mauna Loa.

Carbon dioxide is only one of many dangerous fossil fuel wastes dumped by the dangerous fossil fuel industry. Many others are also dumped, which have greater immediate toxicity than carbon dioxide, although carbon dioxide is not, um, good for you.

The only source of energy on this planet that has produced enough energy to prevent as much as two years worth of carbon dioxide dumping, (60 billion metric tons) is nuclear energy. People hate it however, usually mumbling idiotic rhetoric about "waste," despite the fact that the storage of used nuclear fuel for more than half a century has not resulted in a single loss of life. By contrast, air pollution kills seven million people each year.

We couldn't care less.

Have a nice week.

3 replies, 740 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 3 replies Author Time Post
Reply This is the first anniversary of the last time the ML CO2 observatory will ever be below 4.00 ppm... (Original post)
NNadir Nov 2016 OP
The Wielding Truth Nov 2016 #1
NNadir Nov 2016 #2
kristopher Nov 2016 #3

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 08:00 PM

1. Interesting take on fossil fuel vs nuclear. I, however, worry about the immediate effect of a nuclear

accident and the devastatingly long recovery time.

I agree though that we must drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels and rapidly transition to renewables.

It has puts us between a rock and a hard place that's for sure. It is imperative that we get to work on this asap.

Hillary has this on the front burner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wielding Truth (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 6, 2016, 08:05 PM

2. The renewable industry is an expensive and useless failure, a fad and a fantasy.

It's not even "renewable" since it depends on toxic and increasingly rare elements to operate.

You say that it takes a long time to recover from a nuclear accident, even though these two accidents haven't killed as many people as will die in the next two days from air pollution.

How long, do you think, it will take to recover from the destruction of the planetary atmosphere?

Do you have any idea of the magnitude of the engineering difficulty of removing carbon dioxide from the planetary atmosphere?

Anti-nukes with their specious and selective attention, frankly, disgust me at this point.

Have a nice week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 7, 2016, 09:46 AM

3. No, that is the nuclear industry you're describing.

After 50+ years of massive government subsidies (estimated to exceed the value of all electricity nuclear has ever produced) it still isn't economically viable.
However, deployment of renewables (with only a small fraction of the historical subsidy support afforded nuclear) is skyrocketing because they are an affordable, clean, safe option to centralized fossil and nuclear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread