HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » From February to June of ...

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:41 PM

From February to June of 2016, each month has established new records for CO2 increases in that...


The Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory (accessed 07/08/16) reports each month the values for carbon dioxide concentrations of the previous month, comparing them with the same month of the previous year.

Previously in this space, I reported that April 2016 set a new record for any monthly increase in any month, 4.16 ppm higher than April of 2015, 2015 itself having been the worst year ever recorded for carbon dioxide increases.

April 2016 over April 2015 sets the all time monthly record for increases in atmospheric CO2.

That was the first value ever recorded to exceed 4.00 ppm for a month compared to the same month of the previous year.

June of 2016, the month just passed has now become the second such month, coming in at 4.01 ppm over June of 2015.

For perspective, consider this: This data goes back to 1959 when the observatory was opened. It took until 1973 to record the first month that had an increase in carbon dioxide greater than 2.00 ppm. March of 1973 was 2.55 ppm over March of 1972. August of 1973 narrowly missed being the first month to exceed 3.00, having come in at 2.99 ppm. However no month did exceed 3.00 ppm until June of 1998, when after the massive fires in Southeast Asia that began when fires set to clear rain forest for palm oil plantations designed to produce so called "renewable energy," biodiesel, went out of control, burning much of the Indonesian and Malaysian rain forests. Since January of 2015 only three of the eighteen months recorded have been below 2.00 ppm increases over the same month of previous year, seven of the eighteen have been over 3.00 ppm, and all seven have occurred since November of 2015.

February of 2016 was the worst February ever recorded, coming in at 3.76 ppm over February 2015. March of 2016 was the worst March ever recorded, coming in at 3.31 ppm over March of 2015. April of 2016 we've already discussed as the worst monthly increase ever observed. May of 2016 was the worst May ever recorded, coming in at 3.76 ppm, tying it with February for the 3rd worst month ever observed, and, again, June of 2016 is the worst June ever recorded, and the second worst month ever recorded.

Thus five of the six past months have each set a records for those months for being the worst of all time.

It is very clear from this data, and the weekly data which I similarly record and about which I've written this year extensively, most recently a few weeks back ( All time record set for week-to-week annual measurements of annual CO2 increases at Mauna Loa.) that all our efforts to address climate change are miserable failures.

If any of this upsets you, don't worry be happy. Reporters - obviously reporters who have never passed or taken a science or engineering course but who cares? - at Reuters have reported that Big solar is leaving rooftop systems in the dust. "Big Solar" after decades of cheering for it, and hundreds of billions of dollars sunk into it, is producing as much energy as three average sized coal plants in the United States, but it's the thought that counts, not the results.

I'm sure future generations, when considering ours, will happily overlook the fact that we completely and totally destroyed the atmosphere, this while dreaming of the wind and solar nirvana that, like Godot, never comes.

As a long time critic of our delusions of these types, if any of this sounds like Shadenfreud, it's not. The heat chokes the just and unjust alike.

Have a nice weekend.

5 replies, 1063 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 From February to June of 2016, each month has established new records for CO2 increases in that... (Original post)
NNadir Jul 2016 OP
Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #1
NNadir Jul 2016 #2
Kelvin Mace Jul 2016 #3
NNadir Jul 2016 #4
kristopher Jul 2016 #5

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 08:55 PM

1. Dude,


I'm sure future generations, when considering ours, will happily overlook the fact that we completely and totally destroyed the atmosphere, this while dreaming of the wind and solar nirvana that, like Godot, never comes.

I'm sorry that a solar panel fell off a wind turbine and killed your puppy when you were six.

Based on your avatar I guess you want nukes built everywhere instead of solar/wind. I am sure the people around Fukushima might point out that "Nuclear Nirvana" also has serious problems.

Now please understand, I TOTALLY agree with you that we are headed for a climate disaster of cataclysmic consequences and we need to take DRASTIC action. Given that fusion is perpetually 20 years away and anti-matter isn't happening in this century (if ever), what exactly should we use to generate power?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 8, 2016, 09:16 PM

2. Um, dude...

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:46 AM - Edit history (1)

If your railing about Fukushima on a planet where seven million people die each year from air pollution, there is absolutely no point in even discussing this issue with you, period.

Here's a report, from the primary scientific literature, on this topic even if you clearly couldn't give a shit:

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 ( Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

I'm sure you'll have a wonderful summer weekend, even though on Saturday and Sunday, about 38,000 people will die from air pollution.

Since you're so concerned, and so content to complain about Fukushima, maybe you can report to us - only reputable peer reviewed papers are acceptable and not some horseshit website - how many people died from radiation exposure at Fukushima.

How many oil workers were vaporized on the Deep Water Horizon platform? Any concern about the epidemiology of crude oil residues in the Gulf of Mexico, or is all Fukushima all the time? How many people wee vaporized by the Alpha Piper Explosion?


The ignorance connected with the idiots muttering these words all day long is written clearly in the planetary atmosphere.

Listen, kiddie. Nuclear energy need not be perfect, nor without risk to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else which it is.

More of the same, more horseshit about solar and wind, is not going to change the clear facts, nor the clear results in the data in the opening post.

Oh, as it happens, a solar panel was ripped off a telephone pole on my block during Hurricane Sandy, and although no one was injured by it, it caused me to reflect on the stupidity of the popularity of so called "renewable energy." Since, unlike the airheads muttering "Fukushima...Fukushima...Fukushima..." all the time, I have opened science books and scientific journals, I happened to know what that solar cell was made of; it was a First Solar job, a cadmium telluride piece of electronic waste. It left me more than a little concerned, but after six months or so, someone finally came by and picked it. They probably hauled it to a landfill, where it will leach cadmium into the ground water for centuries.

The world's largest, by far, form of climate change free primary energy is nuclear energy, and all of my posts on climate change, resulting from three decades of burying my head in the primary scientific literature, are about precisely that.

The effects of dumb, uneducated people criticizing the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy are written in the data at Mauna Loa.

Have a nice weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 02:00 PM

3. Straw man argument


You lecture me as though I declared fossil fuel technologies viable, when I did the complete opposite. I EXPLICITLY agreed with you that the climate situation was dire and required drastic action. You are not the only who can open a science book, believe it or not.

And yes, the production of PVs and pretty much ALL high tech hardware requires the use of toxic processes. That would certainly include nuclear power plants. The uranium ore doesn't magically leap out of the ground and process itself into enriched reactor-grade uranium. Lots of fossil fuels are needed, and certainly lots of toxic chemicals as well for the enrichment process. You conveniently leave out the people who would die as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and the production of toxic chemicals to run a nuke when citing all the deaths from bad air.

I AGREE (please note this carefully) that nukes are LESS toxic than fossil fuel plants, but I DISAGREE that solar and wind facilities are as bad as fossil fuel plants. Like nukes, they are cleaner, but still have a toxic impact.

Nuclear energy, especially if we could get some 4gen reactors built would be a great. But, we still run into the problem that no matter how safe the design, it would be immediately undermined by corporate profiteers looking to cut costs and maximize profits. Also, the process of creating fuel means the expenditure of carbon into the atmosphere and the production of toxic by products at all levels of construction and operation.

So, in my view, nukes are PART of the solution, but are still problematic, as is solar and wind power. But they are still WAY cleaner than fossil fueled plants.

But, I am certain I will never be convinced you of this, so I bid you good day and have a nice weekend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #3)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 03:28 PM

4. Um...dude...

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

On this planet in the last ten years, we spent two trillion dollars on so called "renewable energy" in the form of of wind and solar energy and they don't produce 5 of the 570 exajoules of energy that humanity requires.

Two trillion bucks...got it?

Now, I'm sure I'll hear some stupid evocation of a "straw man" in noting this - a claim often raised as the refuge of poor thinkers who start out whining about Fukushima, for instance - but two billion people on this planet lack basic sanitation. Just for reference, what would have saved more lives, sinking two trillion bucks into infrastructure that works only when the weather co-operates, and relies in its practical entirety on dangerous natural gas when the weather doesn't cooperate, or spending two trillion bucks on basic sanitation for those who lack it?

Yeah...yeah...yeah...yeah...I know..."straw man." The money spent - "squandered" is a far better term - on so called "renewable energy" has nothing to do with two billion people lacking even primitive sanitation."

Despite this insipid claim of a "straw man," actually it does. Producing items that are barely productive, impoverishes everyone, inasmuch as the planet has a limited supply of many elements in the periodic table, and the way they are used will affect not only people living now - but all future generations. When non-productive efforts soak up resources, that eliminates resources that might be better utilized everywhere. No matter how much insipid "strawman" rhetoric I hear on this topic, I am resolutely convinced that this is very much the case.

The problem you face in musing (while providing very little real information), about energy, about which you are expressing considerable ignorance despite your claim to have read science books, is energy to mass density. There are zero fuels on this planet that have the same energy to mass density as uranium and thorium. So called "renewable energy" with the exception, perhaps of the hydroelectric plants that have destroyed almost all of the planet's major river systems, has far lower energy to mass ratios than nuclear energy, in fact, far less than dangerous fossil fuels. This is the main reason that so called "renewable energy" is a technical, economic, and environmental failure.

I have long argued, by the way, that enrichment facilities are undesirable and unnecessary, and have demonstrated, that were it not for stupidity, the uranium and thorium already mined, used intelligently, would eliminate the need to mine anything, including gas, oil and coal, for the entire lifetimes of anyone born in the next ten years. The latter element, thorium, is a waste product of the horrible lanthanide mining and refining processes that are the (ignored) reality of so called "renewable energy" in the form of magnets for wind turbines.

I have advanced this argument, supplying, unlike you, references to the primary scientific literature, albeit only a minuscule subset of the references in that literature which exist: Current World Energy Demand, Ethical World Energy Demand, Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come. Included in the calculations therein, is an estimate of the amount of actinides that would be required to support a human being who lived to 100 years old, and lived at a continuous average power consumption of 5000 watts, about double the per capita consumption for the average human being right now, albeit half of what Americans consume.

It comes to about 100 grams, or one gram per year per lifetime.

I also showed that the uranium already mined is sufficient to meet all of humanity's energy needs for centuries.

I have also shown that uranium is inexhaustible: Sustaining the Wind Part 3 – Is Uranium Exhaustible?

So, um, would you like to provide some information showing that nuclear fuel processing is a significant contributor to the seven million people who die each year from air pollution, or are you just making stuff up?

It's very clear that you know very little, next to nothing, about nuclear technology.

You also apparently know almost nothing about so called "renewable energy" technology.

There are many reports, thousands of reports, in the scientific literature on this topic, which brings into question whether the term "renewable energy" is in fact, an oxymoron.

Your claim about "lots of fossil fuels" being required to be refine uranium is nonsensical in the extreme, particularly when one considers the requirements for aluminum, steel, and exotic metals - increasing rare and toxic - required to make stupid wind turbines and useless solar cells, all of which will become landfill within 20 to 30 years of manufacture, much if it being a form of the entirely intractable problem on this planet.

There are many reports, thousands of reports, in the scientific literature on this topic, which brings into question whether the term "renewable energy" is in fact, an oxymoron.

I covered this topic - again with a sampling of only a tiny subset of this literature as references, probably less than 70 combined (to the primary scientific literature) - elsewhere:

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

Sustaining the Wind Part 2 – Indium and Beyond…

The so called "renewable energy" industry hasn't worked; it isn't working; and it won't work, the latter statement being true because there's very little "renewable" about it. In addition, the extremely low energy to mass ratio, along with its requirement to be diffuse and distributed will make it, and are making it despite its tremendous failure written in the planetary atmosphere, an environmental nightmare that will cause great damage to all future generations.

You are right about one thing, however. You will never convince me that so called "renewable energy" is, will be, or can be a significant tool in fighting climate change. I just checked the size of my "E&E" "Environment and Energy" sub-directory on my computer, a sub-directory of my "s" or science directory. It consists 35,369 files, many of which are downloaded technical books in electronic format, but with the majority being scientific papers in PDF format. They are organized in 2,225 folders totaling 49GB. (They do not include topics like engineering, chemistry, materials science, physics, medicine, astrophysics, biology and math, although the collections on these topics do inform my views on energy and the environment.)

This collection is thirty years of work, thirty years beginning with Chernobyl, and leading up to the present day. It was about 20 years into this process that I changed my mind about so called "renewable energy" - as I fact checked the insipid commentaries of anti-nuke advocates of this expensive, toxic and failed technology. I decided it was a bad idea. (I was for so called "renewable energy" before I was against it. cf: I offer a crazy energy idea about which I've fantasized: The Salton Sea.)

If you think it is easy to change one's mind about an idea that's insanely popular, if stupid, think again. I am often disliked, attacked, and criticized for my objection to a pop fantasy that is, in my view, merely a tool for avoiding the problem, the problem being that the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere are now running higher than 3.5 ppm per year. Again, we're spending two trillion bucks a decade on so called "renewable energy" and this problem is getting worse, not better.

It is therefore very, very, very, very unlikely, to the point of impossibility that my mind is about to be changed on this topic by a blog post, particularly one that I know to be nonsense based on my thirty years of work and a very deep understanding of these issues.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend, Dude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Sat Jul 9, 2016, 08:58 PM

5. "...like Godot, never comes." = Bullpuckey

Last edited Sun Jul 10, 2016, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Post Script:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread