Well, folks, we "got there:" The first weekly average CO2 concentration over 420 ppm at Mauna Loa.

[NNadir]

As I've indicated several times I somewhat obsessively keep a spreadsheet of the weekly data at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory, which I use to do calculations to record the dying of our atmosphere, a triumph of fear, dogma and ignorance that did not have to be, but nonetheless is.

This week's reading is the first in the history of weekly average readings, going back, to 1975 posted by the Mauna Loa is the highest ever recorded at the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory, 420.01 ppm.

Generally, each year, these measurements peak in late May or early June. We probably haven't seen the worst measurement of 2021 yet, despite all the enthusiasm for the idea that Covid lockdowns would slow climate change. If they did, it's imperceptible.



The figures for this past week:

Week beginning on April 25, 2021: 420.01 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 416.95 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 393.48 ppm
Last updated: May 2, 2021

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa


The increase in carbon dioxide concentrations when compared to the same week in 2020 is "only" 3.04 ppm. (If one keeps track as I do, there is a fair amount of statistical noise in these measurements, but the trends are consistent.) The highest weekly increase over 2020 this year, 2021, was 3.90 ppm, observed in the week beginning February 28, 2021.

In my spreadsheet, I keep records of the increases over 10 year periods, in this case, a comparison of the reading this past week, with the last week of May in 2011. Using Excel functions, I can sort them by values high to low and do a lot of other things. The value for the 10 year increase is the highest ever recorded, 26.53 ppm.

The 12 month running average for increases over a ten year period, week to week, 2021 to 2011, is 24.37 ppm, 2.44 ppm per year and rising.

If any of this troubles you, don't worry, be happy. Head on over to Benny Sovacool's paper in Environmental Science and Technology about how so called "renewable energy" could save as many lives as nuclear energy saves, and could prevent as much carbon dioxide emissions as nuclear energy has been doing consistently for decades if only...if only...if only...if only...

If only what, exactly?

Positive Externalities of Decarbonization: Quantifying the Full Potential of Avoided Deaths and Displaced Carbon Emissions from Renewable Energy and Nuclear Power (Benjamin K. Sovacool and Chukwuka G. Monyei, Environmental Science & Technology 2021 55 (8), 5258-5271.

I discussed "Benny boy's" paper last night, with my head about to explode, because I'm sick and tired of hearing what so called "renewable energy" could do. I've been hearing it for half a century, and here we are...here we are...

The anti-nuke squad tries to steal Jim Hansen's thunder and manages to look stupid again.

At least it does seem that "Benny Boy" finally may have conceded, after spending his entire adult life bashing nuclear energy, that it saves lives.

That doesn't stop him from repeating his cult mantras that so called "renewable energy" is the bestest bestest best yet, even if we have to put dredging mines to haul up metal ores from the seafloor to get materials to convert our last wilderness into industrial parks for wind turbines.

Guess what? So called "renewable energy" hasn't done anything. It isn't doing anything. It won't do anything, where "anything" is saving human lives from air pollution and addressing climate change.

It's not "we could hit 420 ppm concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere;" It's "we did hit 420 ppm concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere." We did this after half a century of cheering wildly for wind and solar energy.

The history of the reactionary attempt to go to a so called "renewable energy" powered world like the one abandoned by humanity in the 19th and early 20th century, this on a planet with 1/7th the population it supports now, is filled with conditional "could" statements. And it's not about money, because we've been throwing oodles of money at so called "renewable energy" for this entire century, on a scale of trillions of dollars:

The amount of money "invested" in so called "renewable energy" in the period between 2004 and 2018 is over 3.036 trillion dollars; dominated by solar and wind which soaked up 2.774 trillion dollars.
Source: UNEP/Bloomberg Global Investment in Renewable Energy, 2019

The result of spending all of this money has had no result with respect to addressing climate change, other than the result that as a result of this squandering on stuff about which we liked to talk but didn't work - that's the only word for it, "squandering" - we're at 420 ppm.

That's a fact.

Facts matter.

This isn't a popular statement, necessarily, among my fellow Democrats - and I've gotten in lots of trouble for making it even as I insist it is true - but the reality is that opposing nuclear energy is rapidly morphing into a crime against humanity.

Have a nice Sunday afternoon.

[cilla4progress]

1. Ive.been positing that the explosion if wildflowers here

In recent years could be due to higher CO2 levels.

Can't recall where I read that things grow more / faster with higher CO2?

[NNadir]

2. Increased/reduced growth of plants in elevated CO2 situations is a mixed bag.

Some plants do better, others do worse.

One species that is known to do better with elevated CO2 is Toxicodendron radicans. It is discussed in this paper, to which, regrettably I do not have full access, but which states the outcome clearly enough in the Abstract: Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Potential Impacts on the Growth and Toxicity of Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) (Ziska, L., Sicher, R., George, K., & Mohan, J. (2007). Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Potential Impacts on the Growth and Toxicity of Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Weed Science, 55(4), 288-292. doi:10.1614/WS-06-190)

I am aware, vaguely, of articles about other plants, including crop plants, where carbon dioxide level increases have had a baleful effect on growth, and of course, changes in rainfall clearly are a real risk to flora in general.

[Karadeniz]

3. Thanks so much for keeping us alert to this!