During a year of extremes, carbon dioxide levels surge faster than ever: NOAA News Release

[NNadir]

This article was released a few months back, but I missed it. It confirms what I've been seeing in my efforts to monitor the data, as I've reported on this website, most recently, and after the article was published, here:

Latest Update on the Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa

The NOAA news release:

During a year of extremes, carbon dioxide levels surge faster than ever

Subtitle:

The two-year increase in Keeling Curve peak is the largest on record

Some excerpts:

June 6, 2024 — Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than ever — accelerating on a steep rise to levels far above any experienced during human existence, scientists from NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanographyoffsite link at the University of California San Diego announced today.

Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory by NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory surged to a seasonal peak of just under 427 parts per million (426.90 ppm) in May, when CO2 reaches its highest level in the Northern Hemisphere. That’s an increase of 2.9 ppm over May 2023 and the 5th-largest annual growth in NOAA’s 50-year record. When combined with 2023’s increase of 3.0 ppm, the period from 2022 to 2024 has seen the largest two-year jump in the May peak in the NOAA record.

CO2 measurements sending ominous signs

Scientists at Scripps, the organization that initiated CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa in 1958 and maintains an independent record, calculated a May monthly average of 426.7 ppm for 2024, an increase of 2.92 ppm over May 2023’s measurement of 423.78 ppm. For Scripps, the two-year jump tied a previous record set in 2020.

From January through April, NOAA and Scripps scientists said CO2 concentrations increased more rapidly than they have in the first four months of any other year. The surge has come even as one highly regarded international reportoffsite link has found that fossil fuel emissions, the main driver of climate change, have plateaued in recent years.

“Over the past year, we’ve experienced the hottest year on record, the hottest ocean temperatures on record and a seemingly endless string of heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires and storms,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad, Ph.D. “Now we are finding that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing faster than ever. We must recognize that these are clear signals of the damage carbon dioxide pollution is doing to the climate system, and take rapid action to cut fossil fuel use as quickly as we can.”

Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 program that manages the institution’s 56-year-old measurement series, noted that year-to-year increase recorded in March 2024 was the highest for both Scripps and NOAA in Keeling Curve history...

Of course, any disasters associated with this outcome are minor compared with the big bogeymen Fukushima and Chernobyl, one of which wiped out East Asia and the other, wiped out Eastern Europe. At least people use a lot of electricity generated using dangerous natural gas and dangerous coal to tell me so, although I'm, um, um, um, slightly skeptical about whether this is actually true.

And of course, we shouldn't worry; we should be happy. Afterall we're spending trillions of dollars on our reactionary impulse to make our energy supplies dependent on the weather just like the good old days before and including the 19th century. It's not like we need to spend money wisely; it's the thought that counts.

The amount of money spent on so called "renewable energy" since 2015 is 4.12 trillion dollars, compared to 377 billion dollars spent on nuclear energy, mostly to keep vapid cultists spouting fear and ignorance from destroying the valuable nuclear infrastructure.



IEA overview, Energy Investments.

The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy."

Chant after me: "Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen, Solar, wind, batteries, hydrogen..."

It's working out just swell, all this chanting, isn't it?

Have a pleasant week.

[Envirogal]

1. Chernobyl and Fukushima happened.

If something happened, it’s not a boogeyman.

Energy causing carbon dioxide release is not the only reason things are heating up—methane from wasting food and the rise in factory farms is accelerating—all to feed a gluttonous population. The real issue is we have too many people on this planet to support, too much concrete and asphalt, and if you have your way, too much nuclear waste to store.

Solar, wind, batteries! (Not a fan of hydrogen)

[NNadir]

2. Whether they're boogeymen depends on how seriously one is involved in numbers and understanding their meaning.

Last edited Mon Sep 9, 2024, 08:18 PM - Edit history (3)

Since people started whining about radiation at Fukushima, ignoring the people killed by seawater in the same event, and the destruction of a coastal city, about 93 million people died from air pollution.

This calculation comes, as I often repeat, from one of the most prominent medical scientific journals in the world, Lancet:

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).

The death toll from radiation from the boogeyman at Fukushima is also discussed in many scientific publications; here's an example to which I often refer:

Comparison of mortality patterns after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant radiation disaster and during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Motohiro Tsuboi et al 2022 J. Radiol. Prot. 42 031502)

It's open sourced, but an excerpt is relevant:

However, in the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant(FDNPP) accident, no direct health hazards due to radiation, such as acute radiation injury, were observed, while various indirect health effects were reported even in the acute phase [2, 3]. Major health effects are attributed to the initial emergency evacuation and displacement, deterioration of the shelter environment, evacuation from nursing homes, and psychological and social health effects. In addition, there were also the effects of medical collapse, where lives that could normally be saved by medical care could not be saved due to a lack of medical resources [4, 5]. It is known that these effects are particularly susceptible to the socially vulnerable [6].

.

I added the bold.

I would say that if one is on a computer, using electricity largely generated by the combustion of gas and coal to whine about "what happened" at Fukushima, one is not really paying attention to what really happened, and what is happening.

In my tenure here, over the more than 20 years, beginning in the week beginning 11/17/2002, while listening to chants about solar and wind the whole time, something that happened is that the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide rose by 49.65 ppm as demonstrated by the most recent data:

Week beginning on September 01, 2024: 422.33 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 418.64 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 396.29 ppm
Last updated: September 09, 2024

Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

That happened, although it's very clear that many people, many who in my view are reactionaries, don't give a shit.

Since the week of January 1, 2000, that number registering the increase is 53.63 ppm.

I am morally opposed to spending trillions of dollars on stuff that doesn't work.

The rate of atmospheric degradation is increasing, as reported in the OP, is now the worst ever.

The numbers make it clear that it isn't working, and all the quasi-religious chanting make that as clear as can be.

Numbers don't lie. People lie, to themselves and to each other, but numbers don't lie.

We have screwed all of our future generations because we have not understood that nuclear energy saves human lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

This is not to say that it is risk free, but it doesn't have to be risk free to be better than everything else, including the stuff people sweep under the rug.

Many people want to claim that they're environmentalists, and regrettably our "but our emails" media often includes antinuclear people as if they were really "environmentalists" but I don't buy it for a New York second. They are anything but environmentalists, and frankly, their selective attention kills people.

I stand by my remarks.

Have a swell afternoon.

[Envirogal]

3. Insult all you want

And insincerely tell me to have a nice day, but your junk science posts that no one reads but me, is telling why there is a lot of “pee on my leg and tell it’s raining” given the amount of nuclear waste you want to bring to this country…with no where to go. Nevadans don’t want it.

I am not just a dumb tree hugger and all the other insults you assume about people like me. I work in the waste field. The world is filled with short sighted “progress” that ignores the Precautionary Principle of sustainability. And even the sustainability world ignores the threats of waste in an all forms….and we have a litany of problems as a result to show for it. We shouldn’t build economies and “solutions” from dysfunction. Emissions are a problem but reducing methane is also a serious step in reducing the heating effects of ghg.

Solve the waste problem. Solve the legacy waste storage issue. Be self sufficient and not have to relay on the Price Anderson Act to bail out the industry for their failures. Don’t release nuclear waste into the ocean, build these facilities away from waterways. Protect them with military oversight so we don’t have the threats or attacks like what is going on in the war in Ukraine.

But please, solve the waste issue or even mandate it’s recycled.

[NNadir]

4. Thank you for your kind words.

Thank you as well for your comment expressing your opinion.

Regrettably, as I don't consider the evocation of numbers or citations of the scientific literature to be insults, something on which we clearly disagree, we will not have the opportunity for further discussion of your remarks, as I have precluded myself from any such further interactions.

[Envirogal]

5. Nuclear waste, waste water, and poisoning waterways, oh my!

The DEATHS and environmental degradation of Fukushima, that you did downplay, resulted in more than 2000 disaster related deaths, including one directly from RADIATION (according to the Japanese Health Ministry). You say that’s just an alarmist attitude. And don’t forget to mention the 40,000 that cannot return to their homes and the 2% of the land that remains off limits after 13 years later.

And what us tree huggers don’t trust is these so-called “low probability high consequence event” risks, that energy companies are too often tempted to dismiss to save money on needed prevention tactics. That is exactly what happened with the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial “safety” Agency looked away on forcing the utility to take precautions.

What about the fishing industry that have to deal with not only what happened at the time of the disaster but now the spent water waste that is released into the ocean? What do you think that does to species overtime? And this is food that feeds the entire food chain, including us.

One of the biggest problems I personally have with you nuclear energy “cultists” is why can’t the industry be self-sufficient? It not only has to use the US government resources To handle its cost and hassles (insurance and clean up protections) but it also relies on local waterways, and that wastewater has to be released into those local waterways….just to run these plants. (Sure it’s “acceptable levels” But that is incredibly damaging in aggregate over long periods of time.) As an environmentalist and a citizen, I have seen time and time again, Industry has been able to convince our regulatory agencies to allow things that they shouldn’t. Then, when it finally comes around that that was a mistake long-term, it is almost impossible to change course to solve, and the costs are enormous. As I said, in sustainability we must practice the precautionary principle. To think these things through as an entire system, long term, like nature does. Unfortunately, the evidence advocates cite are based on faulty premises and where industry is propped up by the hidden subsidy that is the degradation of the natural world and bean counter “risk/reward” game theory. The old adage “privatize the profits, socialize the losses” rings too often true.

You said we should not be putting trillions into renewable energy, like wind and solar. But the payoffs are incredibly quick once the turbines and the panels are installed. Nuclear power plants take years to plan and years to build. You are so concerned about the short time we have to turn this thing around with carbon emissions, how in the heck is nuclear going to do this in a heating world… we are plants can be shut down At the slightest hint of a natural disaster or a drought. (These are usually the times we need power the most.)

So in my opinion, over investing in an industry that relies too heavily on waterways, public risk subsidies, and the pesky waste storage issue….at a time of Increasing drought, increasing water temperatures, and lower levels of water makes no sense. Why you are so concerned about carbon emissions there are a host of other environmental degradation that is accelerating. And it does not bode well for the nuclear industry.

But perhaps the most telling is the scientific information that you often espouse cannot be in any way competed with because of the amount of money that the nuclear industry invests in it. There are no environmental related advocates that have that kind of money to compete with. And often your scientific evidence does not provide for long-term consequence analysis. THAT is Why environmentalist stop your movement and you are apparently so angry about this. A better tactic would be to take a look at the concerns that are actually legitimate and proven. You have not once answered me on the Waste issue—both legacy and the 2,000 tons emitted annually. And where is it going? Snarky comments about spoken in generality about those you disagree with aren’t solutions either.

As I said, solve the nuclear waste and wastewater issue, provide long-term risk assessments that are done by funding a reputable environmental scientific group that industry cannot cherry pick from or bury. Mandate waste recycling and other innovations and mandate safety over economics globally with accountability. ALWAYS.

In my industry, we have a heck of time, siting waste facilities, such as landfills, compost facilities, waste to energy, and on and on. Now, while it is society that actually generates all this trash and needs places of which to manage it, too many people have heard what it’s like when the waste industry wasn’t a good neighbor. The Nimby factor is real, but the industry needs to understand that the sins of the past has led to the distrust. Nuclear facility incidents (and the paralyzed, unsolved waste issue) are the reasons why people are skeptical at best, but mostly absolutely against them. That is the fault of the nuclear industry, not the “alarmists cults” . And the issue is paralyzed because nuclear industry cannot fund what it takes to deal with it, hence the economics of nuclear rely on government and externalities.

Exhibit A is the fact that you so blatantly ignored the related deaths and other problems caused by Fukushima shows you have your blinders on for some weird mission that I haven’t been able to figure out yet. Your constant lobbying on DU for nuclear energy certainly doesn’t lead to a lot of trust in what you are advocating for.

Since you didn’t read this and aren’t engaging, I guess that’s that.

[Envirogal]

6. The Fukushima costs are not worth the risks of nuclear energy

Especially when it’s going to take decades if not a hundred years to clean up the toxic disaster.

Talk about “weather dependent energy”. These natural disasters are only going to continue as climate change accelerates. Wind and solar don’t have meltdowns that displace entire regions for decades and that the government is left to clean up and pay for…if it’s even able to really clean up since all that waste, including the equipment are just stored as everyone kicks the can on finding sustaining ways to deal with it.

https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-reactor-melted-fuel-robot-9ffc309fb072580bee0161e8a24c8490

And that link came from another thread. You should go there and tell them this is a boogeyman.

[progree]

7. NN found the thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143304324

[NickB79]

8. The cost of uncontrolled CO2 emissions is the collapse of global human civilization

And the death of billions in a climate change hellscape by the end of the century.

So, if you want to talk about costs, what's that worth?

Without nuclear energy to fill the low-carbon gap, the risk of such an event only increases year over year.