HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » New record for atmospheri...

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 07:34 AM

New record for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations established: 405.61 ppm.

On March 20 of this year, which is clearly shaping up to be the worst year ever observed for increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory, and may well exceed the previous worst year ever observed, which would be, um, um, um, 2015.

The value observed was 405.61 for the week ending May 20.

2015 was the first year in which the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations exceeded 3.00 ppm in a single year, the exact number being 3.05 ppm.

If one follows this data closely - as I do - one will recognize that the data represents a sinusoidal curve superimposed on a straight line axis that is steadily increasing at an alarming rate. Generally the annual peak is observed in May.

Mauna Loa weekly data. If one looks at the data, one will observe from the graph that there is a certain amount of noise in the readings, and the week of March 29 was slightly lower than March 20.

Nevertheless many more appalling records will be established this year, that is clear.



At this point, I'd like to congratulate all of the people who railed mindlessly against what still remains the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy, nuclear energy.

Their rhetoric, based on their fetid imaginations, consists entirely of disaster movie scripts for bad movies.

Unfortunately for all of humanity, a real disaster is taking place, on an unimaginable scale.

Have a wonderful week.

9 replies, 1418 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 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply New record for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations established: 405.61 ppm. (Original post)
NNadir Apr 2016 OP
hatrack Apr 2016 #1
Blues Heron Apr 2016 #2
NNadir Apr 2016 #8
kristopher Apr 2016 #9
kristopher Apr 2016 #3
GliderGuider Apr 2016 #4
pscot Apr 2016 #5
hunter Apr 2016 #6
GliderGuider Apr 2016 #7

Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 08:10 AM

1. Tool Monkeys!! Fuck Yeah!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 08:33 AM

2. Fukushima was a movie?

I'm not sure the nuclear refugees from Chernobyl and Fukushima would agree with your assessment that those disasters were fictional. Sadly they were all too real. Will we ever be able to retrieve the corium from reactors in Fukushima? It's so hot in there even robots get fried within minutes.

Why can't we scale up wind? Too loud/ugly? What's the big downside there?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blues Heron (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:15 PM

8. Fukushima and Chernobyl were trivial events.

Seven million people die from air pollution each year, and no one cares, but they are willing to burn gas and coal to generate electricity to run computers to complain about Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Combined, both events are easily surpassed by a few hours of air pollution deaths.

Quick! Which event killed more people, Fukushima radiation or the Alpha Piper Oil Platform explosion?

Which killed more people, Fukushima or the gas explosion in New York City last year?

The entire rap on the entire nuclear industry is a case of selective attention. I would note with due disgust, that this selective attention, since nuclear energy saves lives.

The wind industry soaked up nearly a trillion dollars in ten years. It doesn't even produce 5 of the 560 exajoules of energy that humanity consumes each year. It will never be as clean, as safe, as affordable, nor as reliable as nuclear energy.

Moreover, the wind industry would die in a New York minute if it didn't have dangerous fossil fuels to back it up. It's an expensive and unsustainable daydream that hasn't, isn't and won't work.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:52 AM

9. Nuclear is a trivial source of energy and sinking

Nuclear v produces less than 3% of global final energy consumed.
The forecast is for negative growth.

Renewables ^ produce about 20% of global final energy consumed.
That's from about 1.6TW of capacity, which is expected to double to about 3.5TW by 2025.

3% is much less than 20%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:41 AM

3. Hey Dude.

Pg 1

Global renewables capacity to reach 3,200 GW in 2025

Jan 28, 2015 09:45 CET by Ivan Shumkov


Jan 28, 2015 (SeeNews) - The installed renewable energy capacity around the world is projected to jump to 3,203 GW in 2025 from 1,566 GW in 2012 as declining costs allow developing countries to adopt such technologies.

This is indicated in Frost & Sullivan’s Annual Renewable Energy Outlook 2014 report, which says that the global green energy capacity will grow at an average annual rate of 5.7% in 2012-2025. The market researcher has determined that solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind power will account for 33.4% and 32.7%, respectively, of the total capacity added over the period under review, followed by hydropower with a 25.3% share.

Frost & Sullivan estimates that the worldwide solar power capacity will surge to 668.4 GW in 2025 from 93.7 GW in 2012, but the falling PV prices and the “veritable boom” in that segment will hurt the concentrated solar power (CSP) market.

Meanwhile, global wind power capacity is expected to hit 814 GW in 2025, going up from 279 GW in 2012. Frost & Sullivan stressed that the offshore wind market will not grow at the expected pace, but small-scale wind turbines will open up new applications.
http://renewables.seenews.com/news/global-renewables-capacity-to-reach-3-200-gw-in-2025-460517

Good to keep solar heat applications in mind also. It's definitely, by some, an under appreciated resource.
https://www.iea-shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/Solar-Heat-Worldwide-2015.pdf

And what's even better? The goal and expectations have increased just since these reports were written.


Now, if we could just get the cooperation of the crackpot-obstructionists-that-can't-give-up-their-dreams-of-a-glowing-future-through-nuclear, things would ramp up even more quickly. I mean it should be a crime what they've done in Britain! The lies, energy chaos, and locked in increased emissions that the pursuit of nuclear has resulted in literally should be a crime, don't you think. Dismantling their very successful energy efficiency program in order to preserve energy demand so that they would have a rate base for a nuclear plant guaranteed to produce some of the most expensive electricity in the world - Yes, I'm sure that the negative influence of energy we see here is an ethical crime.


Pg 2
Climate Change 2016: Investors Vow To Pour Trillions Of Dollars Into Clean Energy Transition
BY MARIA GALLUCCI 01/29/16




<snip>

The financial sector’s participation is considered critical for ensuring the goals of the Paris climate conference are actually achieved. Last December, the leaders of nearly 200 nations agreed to limit the rise of global average temperatures to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-Industrial levels.

To hit that target, the world must invest at least $12.1 trillion in renewable electricity — including solar and wind power, battery storage and energy efficiency — within the next 25 years,analysts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance said in a new report. So far, countries are on track to spend $6.9 trillion by 2040, resulting in an investment gap of $5.2 billion, by BNEF’s estimate. Investments in emissions-free vehicles, alternative fuels and sustainable-agriculture practices will add trillions more to the total.

Investors and fund managers at the event pledged to plug that funding hole by backing more renewable energy projects and revisiting their investments in fossil fuel companies or energy-intensive sectors.

“We want to be part of closing that gap,” Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State comptroller, told reporters at the U.N. headquarters. He noted the state this month launched a 10-year, $5 billion Clean Energy Fund to install more solar and wind power in New York. “Investors have put the word out that we’re looking to put more money into these kinds of opportunities, so the opportunities are coming to us,” he said.

The financial industry has transformed from a reluctant bystander on the topic of climate change to an active participant in the past few years...

http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-change-2016-investors-vow-pour-trillions-dollars-clean-energy-transition-2285080



Pg 3

Reviving 'The Negative Influence of Nuclear' at the end of Pg 1

Contrary to the Nadir myth claiming anti-nuclear zealots are causing increased CO2e emissions...

What has happened is that in order to serve corporate interests, the rightwing government of Japan is trying to ram nuclear down the throats of an unwilling populace. Involved public sentiment and the government had approved a transition to renewable energy after Fukushima, but the new rightwing government changed the plan with no public input.

The result? A long term stalemate that requires Japan to escalate consumption of fossil fuels. By now, if they'd pursued to original program they'd have built enough renewable generation and storage to almost completely compensate for the lost reactor capacity. They'd have also started well on the path to complete decarbonization of their economy.


Instead, because of the efforts to push nuclear on an unwilling population here we sit racking up CO2e by the ton.

It's the same thing in Britain where a conservative government destroyed a great renewable build program and an absolutely superb energy efficiency program so that they could preserve the rate base for several new reactors that they wanted to build but which every sane person knew was far too expensive by unit of electricity to ever get off the ground.

Again - massive quantities of unnecessary CO2e flow into the world just to serve the corporate masters that want to have a stranglehold on a nation's energy production.

TTFN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 09:42 AM

4. Unfortunately for all of life, a real disaster is taking place, on an unimaginable scale.

 

That disaster is human activity. One of its side effects is climate change. Others are rampant species extinctions, oceanic and fresh-water over-fishing, soil depletion, deforestation and chemical pollution. None of those would be helped by switching to either nuclear or renewable energy.

The only long-term answer is a drastic (99%+) overall reduction in both human numbers and economic activity levels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 10:14 AM

5. Yeay! Winning!

Humanity looks like a brief but gaudy evolutionary experiment that hasn't worked out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 11:10 AM

6. It's okay. Solar and wind energy augmented fossil fuel use is "natural."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Original post)

Mon Apr 4, 2016, 01:45 PM

7. The April 3 value is 405.98

 

4 ppm higher than last year.

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread