Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(33,526 posts)
Sun Jan 5, 2020, 10:34 PM Jan 2020

2019 Ended at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory reporting a 3.54 ppm increase over the last 2018 reading

The Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory which measures the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere daily, keeps a record of yearly increases and posts them on its website, both graphically and in a text menu on the right of the page where the data is recorded. The "official" yearly increase for a year generally is reported in February of the following year.

Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

Here, for convenience, is the graphic that can be accessed on that page:



If you have good eye sight, you can make out that the first data point to reach the 3.00 ppm mark was in the decade just ended: It was recorded in 2016.

The designation of the end of the calendar year as marking the "official" increase is somewhat artificial; the concentration of carbon dioxide is sinusoidal each year, a sine wave's zero axis being more or less super imposed on a steadily rising axis that varies slightly from linear, as this graphic, also from the Mauna Loa website shows:



The actual maxima take place in late spring. In 2019, this maxima was reached during the week beginning May 12, 2019 when the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide was 415.39 ppm.

Still the end of the calendar year has some importance to "official readings" and it's useful to note what is happening at the end of the calendar year.

Here, again from the website is the "official data" for the week beginning December 29, 2019:

[link:Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa|Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa]

Week beginning on December 29, 2019: 413.09 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 409.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 388.67 ppm
Last updated: January 5, 2020



Somewhat obsessively I keep a spreadsheet of the weekly data, 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. I note, with sadness and regret, that we on the left are not free of such fear ignorance and dogma, although I wish we were. We cannot, with justice, attribute this outcome to Ronald Reagan, George Bush the first and second, and Donald Trump. We bear responsibility, no matter how much we pat ourselves on the back for our insane, and frankly, delusional worship of so called "renewable energy."

It is obvious that all the money thrown at so called "renewable energy" - the figures are in the trillions of dollars - did not work, are not working. I, for one, am absolutely and irrevocably certain that even more money, tens of trillions of dollars, will not work.

The reason is physics. The laws of physics are not determined by popular opinion, delusional or otherwise. They are independent of politics, and politicians ignore them at the peril of all humanity.

As of this writing, there have been 2,290 such weekly readings recorded at Mauna Loa, going back to 1975. If the increase recorded for the week of December 29, 2019 compared to the last reading of 2018, 3.54 ppm, had occurred before 2016, it would have easily been in the top 50 such readings. However 2016 recorded 20 of the top 50 readings as of this date. 2017 produced one such reading in the top 50, 2018, also one, five were recorded in 2019. In 2019, the ten year figures suggest that the current rate of carbon dioxide increases is between 2.4 - 2.5 ppm/year, the highest such rate recorded for any decade at Mauna Loa, going back to 1959. As it is, the 3.54 measurement for the week beginning December 29, 2019 is "only" the 70th highest out of 2,290 readings - tied with three other weeks - ever recorded.

The Mauna Loa observatory will not report 2019 as coming in at 3.54 ppm higher than 2018, thus shattering all previous records. Because of observational "noise" in the readings, the final "official" number is an average for the last weeks of the year averaged with the first weeks of the next year. The average for the last four weeks of these readings is 2.74 ppm higher than the same weeks of the previous year. Were this average to hold through the first several weeks of 2020, 2019 would "only" be the 4th worst observed in more than 60 years of collected data.

If the fact that this reading is 24.42 ppm higher than it was ten years ago bothers you, don't worry, be happy. You can read all about how wonderful things will be "by 2050" or "by 2100." Wind. Solar. Elon Musk. Tesla Car. And all that.

Don't worry. Be happy. Head on over to the E&E forum here and read all the joy expressed there for the German nuclear phase out.

I personally consider such talk to be abysmally ignorant, of course, and an obvious statement that the people expressing such points are completely disinterested in the environmental issue of climate change as compared to their fear and ignorance connected with nuclear energy, but that's not my forum. I'm a scientist, not a cheerleader for the steel, aluminum, lanthanide and copper mining industries, nor the gas industry, industries on which so called "renewable energy" depends for its tortured (and hopefully short) existence.

Nuclear energy was, is, and always will be the only tool available to humanity capable of addressing climate change.

My impression is that I've been hearing all about how rapidly bird and bat grinding wind turbines are being installed, mostly written by simpleton anti-nukes, since I began writing here in 2002, when the reading on April 21, 2002 was 375.42 ppm.

All this jawboning about the wonderful growth of so called "renewable energy" has had no effect on climate change, is having no effect on climate change, and won't have any effect on climate change, but it's not climate change that counts: It's all that wonderful marketing showing pictures giant sleek wind turbines on steel posts that counts.

The reality - and I regret reference to reality in these times of triumph of the unreal - of what is happening is this:

In this century, world energy demand grew by 179.15 exajoules to 599.34 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 50.33 exajoules to 137.03 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 34.79 exajoules to 188.45 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 63.22 exajoules to 159.98 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 9.76 exajoules to 12.27 exajoules.

12.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand.

Source: 2019 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38] (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

Don't worry; be happy. It's not your problem. It's the problem of every living thing that comes after us, including but not limited to human beings. We obviously couldn't care less.

Have a pleasant work week.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
2019 Ended at the Mauna Loa CO2 observatory reporting a 3.54 ppm increase over the last 2018 reading (Original Post) NNadir Jan 2020 OP
What caused that CO2 anomaly in what looks like 1998 or 9? defacto7 Jan 2020 #1
1998 was an El Nino year. The rising popularity of the "renewable" fuel biodiesel lead to... NNadir Jan 2020 #2
Ah, yes. Unfortunately no fluke. defacto7 Jan 2020 #3
Usually, after an El Nino event, the following years... NNadir Jan 2020 #4

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
1. What caused that CO2 anomaly in what looks like 1998 or 9?
Sun Jan 5, 2020, 10:57 PM
Jan 2020

or is that some statistical fluke? It's quite a jump. The following year drops off so maybe it's a data collection adjustment. ???

NNadir

(33,526 posts)
2. 1998 was an El Nino year. The rising popularity of the "renewable" fuel biodiesel lead to...
Sun Jan 5, 2020, 11:13 PM
Jan 2020

...rain forest clearing in South East Asia, notably Indonesia and Malaysia using fire, to start palm oil plantations.

Because of the El Nino, that region of the world was unusually dry and the fires went out of control, far beyond their intended areas. All the carbon injected into the atmosphere from those burned fires lead to the spike.

1998 was a warning year but also was another "victory" for so called "renewable energy."

We can expect something similar in Brazil in the next few years. I'm guessing we'll be well over 420 ppm, perhaps approaching 430, by the midway point of the 2020's. We will still, however, be hearing the interminable rhetoric from people in ignorance organizations like Greenpeace about how wonderful things will be "by 2050...2060...2070...whatever" when the world will putatively be run on 100% renewable energy.

We are living in a dark time, times where ignorance is ascendant.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
3. Ah, yes. Unfortunately no fluke.
Sun Jan 5, 2020, 11:36 PM
Jan 2020

Can you blame me for trying to read something less pessimistic into this graphic of our demise? But no, the data doesn't lie. There had to be something there.

NNadir

(33,526 posts)
4. Usually, after an El Nino event, the following years...
Mon Jan 6, 2020, 10:00 AM
Jan 2020

...are relatively mild. I wouldn't characterize 2017 as "mild" however.

It will be both interesting and scary to see what effect a burning continent has.

I went to a lecture by Bob Kopp of Rutgers University, last year, a leading expert on climate.

His figure for new CO2 was about 10 billion tons higher per year than those about which I read. He explained to me that my figures were connected only to the release of dangerous fossil fuel waste. His, by contrast, included land use changes.

Land use changes were what caused 1998.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»2019 Ended at the Mauna L...