Advertisement
A Grim Signal: Atmospheric CO2 Soared in 2024
The latest anomaly in the climate system that can't be fully explained by researchers is a record annual jump in the global mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured in 2024.
Menu
Front Page Breaking News Comments Flagged Comments Recently Flagged User Blogs Write a Blog Entry Create a Poll Edit Account Weekly Digest Stats Page RSS Feed Back Page
Subscriptions
Read the Retort using RSS.
RSS Feed
Author Info
LampLighter
Joined 2013/04/13Visited 2025/04/29
Status: user
MORE STORIES
MAGA momentum wanes as Trump stumbles across 100-day mark (3 comments) ...
US Consumer Confidence Plunges (19 comments) ...
Seasonal COVID shots may no longer be possible under Trump (8 comments) ...
A Grim Signal: Atmospheric CO2 Soared in 2024 (23 comments) ...
They Wanted to Build Affordable Housing, Town Took Land. (38 comments) ...
Alternate links: Google News | Twitter
[image or embed] -- Ars Technica (@arstechnica.com) April 25, 2025 at 12:26 PM
[image or embed]
Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
More from the article ...
... The concentration, measured in parts per million, has been increasing rapidly since human civilizations started burning coal and oil in the mid-1800s from the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm. In recent decades, the increase has often been in annual increments of 1 to 2 ppm. But last year, the increase measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Laboratory was 3.75 ppm, according to the lab's early April update of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. That brings the annual mean global concentration close to 430 ppm, about 40 percent more than the pre-industrial level, and enough to heat the planet by about 2.7 Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius). Climate researchers have noted that the continuing increase of global CO2 emissions means the world will probably not be able to reach the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 2.7 Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level. "It's definitely worrying to see such a large jump in 2024," said Berkeley Earth climate researcher Zeke Hausfather. "While it's not surprising to set new records given global emissions have yet to peak, and there are generally higher ppm increases in El Nio years, 2024 was still anomalous for just how large it was." ...
In recent decades, the increase has often been in annual increments of 1 to 2 ppm. But last year, the increase measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Laboratory was 3.75 ppm, according to the lab's early April update of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
That brings the annual mean global concentration close to 430 ppm, about 40 percent more than the pre-industrial level, and enough to heat the planet by about 2.7 Fahrenheit (1.5 Celsius). Climate researchers have noted that the continuing increase of global CO2 emissions means the world will probably not be able to reach the Paris Agreement target of limiting warming to 2.7 Fahrenheit above the pre-industrial level.
"It's definitely worrying to see such a large jump in 2024," said Berkeley Earth climate researcher Zeke Hausfather. "While it's not surprising to set new records given global emissions have yet to peak, and there are generally higher ppm increases in El Nio years, 2024 was still anomalous for just how large it was." ...
#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-27 09:08 PM | Reply
Good thing President Trump is genius enough to renew our Coal Industries!
#2 | Posted by Corky at 2025-04-27 09:25 PM | Reply
@#2 ... Good thing President Trump is genius enough to renew our Coal Industries! ...
I appreciate the apparent sarcasm, but, then I look at his problem ...
The models used for climate change somehow missed this surge in CO2 levels.
Why?
Did the models not properly forecast the generation of CO2 from human and/or natural sources?
Or ...
Did the models miss the absorption of CO2 by natural sources?
#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-28 12:37 AM | Reply
@#3
OK, I don't usually post a comment to correct a minor, one character, typo. But in this instance, i think I should.
then I look at his problem
--- should be ---
then I look at this problem
Major difference in meaning in the context of my comment.
Apologies for that typo.
#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-04-28 02:28 AM | Reply
can't be fully explained by researchers is a record annual jump in the global mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere measured in 2024
The explosions that damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, leaked methane and its subsequent oxidation to CO2 contributed to global warming and had a significant environmental impact.
Environmental impact of the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines www.nature.com
Lumpers, like Gaslighter were cheering at this enormous release of Co2.
But here we are .....
#5 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-28 11:41 PM | Reply
Natural gas is CH4 not CO2.aka methane.
#6 | Posted by Scotty at 2025-04-29 03:49 AM | Reply
What model was that?
#7 | Posted by zarnon at 2025-04-29 04:41 AM | Reply
We are a stupid culture doing really stupid things and at the top of the list is ignoring human caused global warming. We should have been working to lower our populations throughout the world, starting in the mid 1960's, but instead we elect the intentionally stupid, Trump and his gang of global warming deniers who now are on board with the hell that is surely going to visit our globe.
#8 | Posted by Hughmass at 2025-04-29 07:05 AM | Reply
"ignoring human caused global warming."
Profits demanded that we ignore it.
Ironically, profits is what is now demanding insurers abandoned regions most affected by global warming.
See, it all works out in the end. The end of modern civilization, that is.
#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:36 AM | Reply
Republicans went straight from calling global warming a hoax to preparing an invasion of northern allies.
#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-04-29 12:11 PM | Reply
How much money will it take to reverse this and who's going to pay for it?
- things no one knows
#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 12:14 PM | Reply
Perfect time to kill FEMA.
Good luck to the hurricane and tornado states, y'all already seeing just how little Sh*tler cares about you.
#12 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-04-29 12:15 PM | Reply
#11 | Posted by lfthndthrds
We know its cheaper than letting climate change continue unrestricted.
#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-04-29 12:52 PM | Reply
"How much money will it take to reverse this and who's going to pay for it?"
First
You have way over reached your abilities
First we have to agree it's happening ... have we done that yet?
Then how about we all agree to do something about it?
Then ... How about we slow it down first? Then ... learn how to stop it. Then ... learn how to reverse it.
Second.
Doesn't matter how much it's gonna cost.
We pay if we do. And we pay if we don't. Generally you pay less now then later (after the billion dollar disasters).
So the real question is do we want to pay now or later. Which way do you prefer? The cheaper route less disruptive or the much more disruptive and much more costly (in lives and dollars) way?
#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-04-29 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
Re 14
Of course there are other options. There most always is.
One is to do nothing and let the next generation deal with it. But we have already tried that. Yes thank you boomers. You accomplished nothing but credit for actually trying. Tho it seems to have made little difference.
Another is to actively make it worse. Seems that's the route we have currently chosen. And if we continue down that road ... well.. it's been said before. By another Boomer no less.
Have a Happy Extinction humans.
#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-04-29 03:18 PM | Reply
#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-04-29 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:
You can't do anything without a budget.... You can't get a budget without quantifying the cost per (tonnage) or whatever unit you'd like to measure with. Then you have to have a proven plan that can be proven with benchmarks - to even prove anything we do is working. What would those costs look like to every person who is asked to fund it? Just throw money at it, right?
It's funny to watch people like you telling others they've over reached their abilities, when it's obvious that you can't even balance a damn checkbook.
#16 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 03:18 PM | Reply
How much money will it take to reverse this and who's going to pay for it? - things no one knows #11 | Posted by lfthndthrds
Reverse what, the Democrat Hoax that Climate Change is real? Good question!
How much have you spent so far?
#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 03:40 PM | Reply
"You can't get a budget without quantifying the cost per (tonnage) or whatever unit you'd like to measure with."
Already been done, ask Alexa about purchasing Carbon Offsets.
"Then you have to have a proven plan that can be proven with benchmarks"
Did the carbon emitters provide a proven plan for warming the globe with benchmarks? No, so why change your standards now?
Did Trump provide a proven plan for tariffs? No, so why change your standards now?
#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 03:43 PM | Reply
How much money will it cost us if we don't reverse this?
Who's gonna pay for that?
Questions you never even thought of.
The only thing you're good at in this life is burying your ignorant head in the sand.
#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1
I will give you credit for one thing, LftHndThrds.
You are committed to the Democrat Hoax theory of Global Warming.
So much so that you haven't made an even bigger fool of yourself by lecturing us that Global Warming Is A Good Thing, because it will help grow more crops.
Your personality profile is halfway there! 25% csam, 25% climate denier.
#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 04:59 PM | Reply
Posted by snoofy
Four replies later and the raetarded bathhouse fluffer-boy has yet to quantify a single thing.
#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 05:13 PM | Reply
"yet to quantify a single thing."
You're holding me to a standard you can't live up to. You can't say what's the cost of doing business as usual. But you demand to know the cost of change.
Do you really not see the disconnect there?
#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 05:15 PM | Reply
Already been done, ask Alexa about purchasing Carbon Offsets. #18 | Posted by snoofy
And surely you've heard of Kyoto, it has a quantified goal.
It kinda looks like you're the one who is running low on quantities and goals. Can't you see taht's how business as usual works? There's no limit to how much CO2 capitalism should produce. By the time the market can react to the negative externalities of CO2, a hundred years will have passed.
That's pretty much where we are now, since the existence of the negative externalities has been known since 1904.
Insurance companies pulling out due to increased storms. That's a negative cost externality a century in the making, still mostly ignored today, except of course by the insurers who stand directly in the path of the externality!
Now price it in for me, bitch.
You can't. You can't even do high school algebra.
#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 05:22 PM | Reply
Post a comment The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed. Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it. Username: Password: Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy
The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.
Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy