At 3.37 ppm over November of 2015, November 2016 is the worst November for new carbon dioxide...

[NNadir]

Last edited Sun Dec 11, 2016, 04:57 AM - Edit history (2)

...accumulations observed since record keeping at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory began recording its measurements.

This follows the 3.03 ppm increase recorded last November, which contributed to the fact that 2015 was the worst year ever observed, 2015 being the first year that the annual increase exceeded 3.00 ppm.

January 2016 (2.56 ppm) was the 4th worst January in recorded history.

February 2016 (3.75) was the worst February in recorded history.

March 2016 (3.31 ppm) was the worst March in recorded history.

April 2016 (4.16 ppm) was the worst April in recorded history - and, in fact, the worst month of any month in history.

May 2016 (3.76 ppm) was the worst May in recorded history - and, in fact, the third worst month of any month in history.

June 2016 (4.01 ppm) was the worst June in recorded history - and, in fact, the second worst month of any month in history.

July 2016 (3.09 ppm) was the third worst July in recorded history.

August 2016 (3.09 ppm) was the second worst August in recorded history.

September 2016 (3.39 ppm) was the second worst September in recorded history.

October 2016 (3.28 ppm) was the second worst October in recorded history.

And then, returning to the fold of "worst ever" months, we have November of 2016, as mentioned in the opening paragraph.

2015 was recorded as the worst year ever, coming in at 3.05 ppm over 2014. With the exception of January, every single month this year has exceeded, and in some cases dwarfed that doleful figure.

If any of this troubles you, don't worry, be happy. Dipshits, I mean, um, "experts" in Wisconsin, a Trump/Walker state with a once great state university system in research and intellectual free fall owing to decreased funding has experts who have announced that so called "renewable energy" will do just fine under Trump: Wisconsin Experts Confident About Renewable Energy's Future, Even Under Trump.

You read it right here at Democratic Underground.

We may be amused that voters in Wisconsin are so pleased with their ability to lie to themselves, but the fact is that we on the left are also lying to ourselves.

So called "renewable energy" has not worked. It is not working. It will not work, this because of the laws of physics, which no state legislature, no congress, no dictator can repeal.

If we on the left were anywhere as nearly concerned with the 7 million people who die each year from air pollution as we were and are with a few atoms of cesium-137 and cesium-134 found in a tuna fish, things might have been different.

Look, in the next 4 years, for more "don't worry, be happy." The new thought police will probably defund the Mauna Loa observatory, pushing the wax deeper into their ear canals with their fingers and screaming, "La...la...la, live for today and don't worry about tomorrow."

History will not forgive the generation now living for what it has done, should history survive.

Have a nice weekend.

[pscot]

1. We can't stop

[madokie]

2. WHO puts the number of deaths due to air pollution

Mostly in third world countries from indoor air pollution at 3.3 million of that 7 million you want us to believe could be eliminated simply by adopting nuclear energy.

Regionally, low- and middle-income countries in the WHO South-East Asia and Western Pacific Regions had the largest air pollution-related burden in 2012, with a total of 3.3 million deaths linked to indoor air pollution and 2.6 million deaths related to outdoor air pollution.

“Cleaning up the air we breathe prevents noncommunicable diseases as well as reduces disease risks among women and vulnerable groups, including children and the elderly,” says Dr Flavia Bustreo, WHO Assistant Director-General Family, Women and Children’s Health. “Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves.”

Much more at the link

We have a long way to go to clean up our environment but nuclear itself isn't the holly grail, Education and getting clean technology in the average persons hands is the key.

[NNadir]

3. Maybe instead of googling mindlessly, one might be inspired to read the scientific paper...

I am personally disgusted in any case by ANYONE, who could carry on with cold indifference at 3.3 million deaths - if they are so miserably informed as to think that 3.3 million is the actual death toll while whining endlessly and stupidly about nuclear energy, which in its entire history, has not killed as many people as will die in the next two hours from air pollution.

What's your position? That it's "only" 3.3 million deaths per year and therefore we should burn more oil and coal and gas to run computers to whine about Fukushima?

To my mind this equivalent to the "head in the sand" notion that despite the fact that a two trillion dollar "investment" in so called "renewable energy" has lead to an increase and not a decrease in the rate of the destruction of the atmosphere, it's still just great, great! great!! GRRRRRRRRREAT!.

Sorry Tony the Tiger, but it isn't great. It's isn't working. All the little whiny assholes complaining that Fukushima was the end of the world spouting all the crap in the world on their gas powered computers will not change the physical measurement of carbon dioxide in the air because so called "renewable energy" is GRRRREAT!

The fact is that nuclear energy saves lives, and might have saved infinitely more lives than it has, were it not for the idiotic contention that it is OK for 70 million people to die every ten years because poorly educated whiners can't understand basic mathematics.

Here's the link again to the scientific text, which by the way, is the most comprehensive work ever assembled on the subject of human risk and mortality: Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60

Now. One may need to go to a scientific library at a research university to read the table 3 on page 2238 or the text on page 2240. If one has never been in a scientific library at a research university, one is in no position to lecture me on how many people die each year from air pollution. Neither is any such person even remotely capable to evoke a need for "education."

Nowhere by the way, returning the Lancet paper does this comprehensive text from medical professionals and researchers all over the world record "nuclear power operations" at all as a major cause of death.

The Lancet gets to a pretty low level for some risks too, reporting that occupational exposure to beryllium caused 114 deaths in 2010, and exposure to cadmium - an element in many of those swell solar cells - killed 410 people in 2010.

How many radiation deaths took place from Fukushima again?

And yet, right here, we've had the same airheads here, year after year after year after year - while, in my 14 years here, more than 400 billion tons of carbon dioxide was dumped in the planetary atmosphere - bitching and moaning that nuclear power is "dangerous."

I certainly wouldn't want my sons to smoke what these people have been smoking.

Since you don't give a shit about what you think is "only" 3.3 million deaths every fucking year, why don't you report how many people died from commercial nuclear power operations in the last half a century?

My figure for air pollution, 7 million per year, every year, this reported in a scientific paper with hundreds of references, implies about 800 deaths an hour, yours, from a two minute google to a WHO website that hasn't been updated in years, 370 an hour.

Give us your figures, and when you do, tell me why Jim Hansen's paper on the the subject of the lives saved by nuclear energy, is wrong, and your figure is right. Jim Hansen's figures are here, (open access): Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

And note, I'm not looking for some gummed brain shit "fake news" off the internet from the vast circle jerk of anti-nuke airheads citing one another. The only useful and worthwhile information on this topic will be, um, peer reviewed, where the "peers" are not googling shit heads with hardened lime brains but real live epidemiologists and/or medical researchers.

One reads this kind of ignorant, dullard, morally vapid crap and one understands how it is that a creep like Trump could even come close to the highest office in this land, never mind occupy it.

People just hate, literally hate, to think.

Have a nice Sunday.