HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » July 31, 2016: Mauna Loa...

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 12:04 PM

July 31, 2016: Mauna Loa carbon dioxide levels 5.04 ppm higher than one year ago.

For the first time in recorded history, the weekly year to year comparisons at the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory have exceeded a 5.00 ppm increase over levels a year ago.

On July 31, 2016, the concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa was 403.47 ppm; one year ago it was 398.43 ppm.

Mauna Loa Weekly Trends, accessed Aug 7, 2016

During summers in the Northern Hemisphere, carbon dioxide levels fall slightly from the peaks usually observed in April or May; the minimums usually occur in September. The 2016 max, observed during the week ending on April 10, 2016 was 408.31 ppm.

All of humanity's efforts to address climate change have failed. This includes all the, rhetoric, charts and graphs about the "triumph" of so called "renewable energy" on which we bet, foolishly as it turns out, our planet's atmosphere.

It seems almost incontrovertible that we will never again see a reading at Mauna Loa of less than 400 ppm.

As I've noted in a number of posts in this space, 2016 is shaping up to be an even more disastrous year than 2015, which set the all time record for worst year ever, at 3.05 ppm over 2014.

Here is link to earlier post from this series, referring to the previous record set in June of this year, 4.78 ppm over the same June week of 2015:

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

The world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy is nuclear energy. The advocates of the failed, expensive, and clearly useless so called "renewable energy" scheme have convinced the world to spend two trillion dollars a decade on it. At the same time they have railed against the world's largest, by far, source of climate change primary energy calling it "unsafe." This statement is absurd inasmuch as air pollution kills seven million people per year. Climate change, now accelerating, will undoubtedly raise the death toll associated with the rising and routine use of dangerous fossil fuels.

Except in Asia, the expansion of nuclear energy has been slowed to a crawl by appeals to fear and ignorance.

These advocates have had their way; the results of their faith are written in the chemical analysis of the atmosphere.

If any of this sounds like shadenfreud, it isn't. All living things are effected by our faith in useless things like so called "renewable energy." So called "renewable energy" has not worked; it is not working; and it will not work.

I am a living thing; my two sons are living things; and all future generations will be living things.

My hands started shaking when I saw this incredible and terrible data.

History, should history survive, will not forgive us, nor should it.

Have a nice afternoon.

5 replies, 1098 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 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply July 31, 2016: Mauna Loa carbon dioxide levels 5.04 ppm higher than one year ago. (Original post)
NNadir Aug 2016 OP
kristopher Aug 2016 #1
hunter Aug 2016 #2
NNadir Aug 2016 #3
hunter Aug 2016 #4
NNadir Aug 2016 #5

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 02:22 PM

1. More nuclear hogswallop?

Last edited Tue Aug 9, 2016, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

You write, "The world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy is nuclear energy."

When you write "primary energy" you do so in order to use an irrelevant measure that creates the false impression that nuclear derived energy is anything but a trivial contributor to global energy use.

The graphic below is from 2014. It excludes the energy embodied in fuels that is wasted as heat during the process of generating electricity. Primary energy is the energy embodied in a fuel and includes an accounting of the wasted energy. So, in point of fact, most of the energy from nuclear power (70%+?) is expelled as heat and is actually a contributor to the warming of the planet.

Final energy or energy consumed is a far more revealing metric.



To Slash CO2 And Air Pollution, China’s Coal Use Peaks
BY JOE ROMM JUL 26, 2016 2:45 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/26/3802017/china-peaked-coal-use-study/


And in a recent investors report on the future of energy Goldman Sachs, agreeing with Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency writes,
“On our wind and solar numbers, emissions in IEA scenarios could peak as early as c.2020, rather than 2030.”

Nuclear Power Advocates Claim Cheap Renewable Energy Is A Bad Thing
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/28/3802326/nuclear-power-renewables-cheap/


We need to ramp up, that is undoubtedly true, but the key factor is restructuring the grid away from large scale centralized generation in order to incentivize the distributed structure which maximizes the opportunities for renewable energy's operational profile.

Jul 22, 2016
China installed 20 GW of solar power in first-half; triple from a year ago


China installed 20 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity in the first half of 2016, three times as much as during the same period a year ago, state news agency Xinhua reported late on Thursday citing the country's largest solar industry lobby.

The surge in capacity extended China's lead over Germany as the top solar generator, said Wang Bohua, General Secretary of the China Photovoltaic Industry Association (CPIA), according to Xinhua.

<snip>

Production of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules also increased to 27 GW, up by 37.8 percent in the first half of the year, the CPIA said in a report on its website, adding that the profit margins of the major manufacturers improved to an average of 5 percent from 4.85 percent last year...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-solar-idUSKCN1020P7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #1)

Sun Aug 7, 2016, 05:25 PM

2. We're screwed. "Renewables" won't save us.

It doesn't matter how many of my neighbors have put solar panels on their roofs.

The sun is shining here now, past noon, fog cleared, so I'm guessing this post from my little chromebook and dsl modem is solar powered, courtesy of my self-righteous neighbors whose credit ratings are not in the toilet. (My own credit rating is in the toilet owing to various medical misadventures, and I don't use much electricity as it is, so the solar-selling guys driving their white gasoline powered vans are definitely not interested...)

When the sun's not shining our house power is "natural" gas all the way. "Natural" my ass. There's nothing good or natural about gas. It's not even better than coal when it's fracked.

How do you propose we change that?

The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. Has anyone posting here in E/E quit fossil fuels?

A fully "renewable energy" or "nuclear energy" society would look nothing like our current high-energy fossil-fueled society.

I can quit using electricity any time I like. All I have to do is quit paying the electric bill. The new smart meters allow the electric company to shut off my power remotely. They don't even have to send a guy out anymore.

I can quit driving too. All I have to do is quit buying gasoline. My car won't run without gasoline.

I'll confess, I'm not in the market for whatever it is you are selling, Kristopher, I don't have any extra dollars sloshing around.

Once upon a time I was living in a shack in a crazy Vietnam war vet's backyard. I rode my bike wherever I needed to go. I used trivial amounts of electricity lighting the shack, connected to the house with a 16 gauge extension cord. That, today, is higher than the basic standard of living for billions of people.

Those of us now living as one-percenters don't know shit. I'm a one percenter, and so it seems are you.

We humans will survive this global warming catastrophe, and it will mostly be those now living in poverty surviving, but only because there are so many people living in poverty.

If I'm selling anything then it's education and empowerment, especially for women, and planned parenthood for all. (I'm a radical Social Justice Catholic heretic who hasn't been expelled from the church yet.)

Alternative energy schemes, solar wind or nuclear, will not magically make the world a better place. Unless fossil fuels are simply banned, then renewable and nuclear energy schemes will merely be supplemental. The truth of that is measured at Mana Loa.

Knowing that climate change catastrophe is upon us doesn't make me a "doomer" and it doesn't turn me into any kind of backwoods survivalist. I'm an perverse optimist, I think we can still crash land this world civilization gracefully. But I'm not interested in false hopes.

The only way most of us this civilization survives is by establishing robust local communities and a peaceful world. The gadgets -- solar, wind, or nuclear power -- simply don't matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 08:47 PM

3. I neglected to add the commentary about general trends to this post like those...

...included in previous posts along these lines.

Here goes:

There have been 2114 of these weekly data points collected comparing the levels with those of the previous year, with the July 2016 figure, 5.04 ppm being the worst ever observed.

Seventeen recorded data points exceeded 4.00 ppm. Ten of them occurred in 2016.

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.

Sixteen of the worst 30 have been recorded in the last 5 years, 19 of the worst 30 have been recorded in the last 10 years. Fourteen of the worst 30 occurred in 2016.

Twenty-two of the worst 30 occurred in the 21st century.

The average of all these data points recorded since 1975 is 1.76 ppm; the average for the 20th century was 1.54 ppm; for the 21st century, it is 2.09 ppm, for 2015 - the worst year ever recorded - it was 2.25 ppm. For 2016, the average is now 3.59 ppm. Over the last 4 weeks the average is 3.42 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 2.34 ppm.

If any of this bothers you, don't worry, be happy.

Joe Romm is here to tell us that solar prices are dropping!!!!!

The fact that he's been saying the same damned thing for more than 25 years, since he was a babe in swaddling clothes sitting on the knee of the equally delusional Amory Lovins, doesn't count, just as the fact that no matter what the dropping!!!!! price of solar cells are, they remain a trivial source of energy, even more trivial than wind, the entire industry which cannot even match the growth of dangerous natural gas use also doesn't matter. Even if it's the greatest thing ever, the cheapest thing ever, cheaper than air, water or road salt, no one seems to be using it, at least on any scale that matters.

Here's what matters:

It's the thought that counts, not results.

As Joe Romm, tiresome fool, loves to point out, the means outweigh the end. Who gives a rat's ass if we surge up to 450 ppm in the next 15 years? Solar energy is grrrrrrreeeeeeaaaaaaat.

In any case, since 2015 was so bad, and 2016 is sure to be even worse, I can no longer make my favorite Joe Romm joke, which involved stating that when Joe Romm was running the EPA's climate office (1998), we had the highest surge in carbon dioxide ever recorded.

He no longer has any kind of official position beyond mumbling idiotic crap on his website for the faithful, and that, of course, is for the better, although, that said, we can see he - and is equally mindless pals - had their way, and the signature is written in the atmosphere.

Again, we will never again see a reading at Mauna Loa lower than 400 ppm.

Since we signed off on this delusional wishful thinking crap, we deserve what we are getting.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #3)

Mon Aug 8, 2016, 10:36 PM

4. Trouble is, it's the people who least "deserve what we are getting" who get hurt the most.

Life goes on as usual for the affluent guy with solar panels on his roof and a brand new "green" hybrid SUV in his garage. Solar guy's future' is so bright he's got to wear shades. The song got it wrong. It wasn't nuclear science, it was selling solar.

Meanwhile, for every affluent solar guy there are hundreds of people living in poverty, people who have just about the smallest environmental footprint imaginable, people who couldn't reliably keep a cell phone charged, who are suffering and DYING from fossil fuel wastes in earth's air and water, from rising seas, and from increasingly violent weather extremes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #4)

Tue Aug 9, 2016, 06:34 AM

5. I often say this: We spent two trillion dollars in the last ten years on solar and...

wind energy, with no result, this on a planet where two billion people lack access to even primitive sanitary facilities.

Our indifference is appalling.

Wenige wissen heute, was der Mensch ist. Viele fühlen es, und sterben darum leichter, wie ich leichter sterben werde,


It's remarkable, if terrible.

I wrote at some length on human poverty and energy elsewhere:

Current World Energy Demand, Ethical World Energy Demand, Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come

…der…wichtige und merkwürdige Punkt, wo die Erscheinungen der Welt sich kreuzen, nur einmal so und nie wieder…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread