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
Lindell's Lawyers Used AI to Write Brief, Judge Finds Errors (10 comments) ...
MAGA momentum wanes as Trump stumbles across 100-day mark (4 comments) ...
US Consumer Confidence Plunges (26 comments) ...
Seasonal COVID shots may no longer be possible under Trump (8 comments) ...
A Grim Signal: Atmospheric CO2 Soared in 2024 (57 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
But more to the point, you pretty much dismiss everything I said as being wrong, when it's pretty much right.
The cost of not doing anything about climate change is going to play out over the remainder of our lives, and it's going to cost more than you think. The cost won't just be dollars, it will be shorter, lower quality lives.
One way we quantify the latter is with Quality Adjusted Life Years, since suddenly you've got an itch to learn things about how the world around you works!
#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 05:29 PM | Reply
#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds
Why is your cult so obsessed with gay sex?
#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-04-29 06:15 PM | Reply
The cost of not doing anything about climate change is going to play out over the remainder of our lives, and it's going to cost more than you think.
#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:
What's going to "play out"? How much is it going to cost? What exactly is going to happen?
According to Al Gore 25 years ago, My house should be under water and I should be cooked to medium rare by now.
#26 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 08:35 PM | Reply
"According to Al Gore 25 years ago"
No. According to you. What's your Magic 8 Ball got to say?
#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 08:53 PM | Reply
#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:
When someone tells me what the magic number is for atmospheric CO2 and how we get from where we are to that number I'll bite. But they also need to publish a price per ton for reduction and who will shoulder the costs. Not only that, what would be the carbon offset to even begin taking action?
Everything you touch on a daily basis is related to oil, gas or coal in some fashion or another. And here you sit criticizing the Trump administration for the trade war with China - the nastiest polluter on the planet. Here's your chance to shine and cheer on never doing business with them again.. But you won't because you aren't serious. This is nothing more than a stupid game to you.
#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 10:14 PM | Reply
"When someone tells me what the magic number is for atmospheric CO2 and how we get from where we are to that number I'll bite."
Kyoto has a magic number. We get there by not electing Trump. You didn't bite.
#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1
"Everything you touch on a daily basis is related to oil, gas or coal in some fashion or another."
Oh jesus christ. Here we go. Goatman level autism.
"And here you sit criticizing the Trump administration for the trade war with China - the nastiest polluter on the planet. "
These two things aren't related like you want them to be.
But if you want them to be related, then you need to explain why Nixon (R) opened trade with China in the first place.
#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:20 PM | Reply
"Here's your chance to shine and cheer on never doing business with them again."
You're a stupid person who doesn't know where metformin comes from, even though you probably have to take it to stay alive.
#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:21 PM | Reply
then you need to explain why Nixon (R) opened trade with China in the first place.
#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:20 PM | Reply | Flag:
Because there was money in it. Why did Bill Clinton Sign NAFTA into law? Because there was money in it. They stole jobs from Americans and sent them to 3rd world countries for cheap labor and low/no regulations. And in that process, every lawmaker, lobbyist and corporate whore made a cut.
#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 10:24 PM | Reply
"They stole jobs from Americans"
You're a fucking retard. Nobody "stole" a damn thing. GE and the others moved the jobs there.
But the one thing about your "stole" comment is, It shows your Victim Mentality. You think you're a Victim. But you're just a Bitch.
#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply
"And in that process, every lawmaker, lobbyist and corporate whore made a cut."
Yeah that's how Capitalism is supposed to work you prancing little faggot.
#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply
Maybe not totally, but here's your chance to kick China while they're down.... After all, they are the biggest polluter and you're on record trying to save the world from rapid sea level rise and 200 degree skin temps.
#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply
"but here's your chance to kick China while they're down."
They're not down, idiot. We're down.
#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1
#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:
Look, I know this is hard for you but try to keep your composure. This isn't a good look for you. Our politicians (including the ones you voted for) passed legislation to move American jobs overseas to third world countries. They didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.
#37 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 10:32 PM | Reply
#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:27 PM | Reply | Flag:
And just like that! Snoofys out of cards again.
#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 10:35 PM | Reply
"Maybe not totally, but here's your chance to kick China while they're down"
You don't fix problems by kicking things.
This is what you marginalized people haven't figured out in life.
#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:44 PM | Reply
"Our politicians (including the ones you voted for) passed legislation to move American jobs overseas to third world countries."
Right. Well, the politicians didn't move the jobs. The legislators made it profitable for the Capitalists to move the jobs overseas.
We've already talked about this. That's how Capitalism is supposed to work (you prancing little faggot).
So, what are you a victim of, are you a victim of Capitalism?
#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:49 PM | Reply
Capitalism isn't the problem. Stupid laws are the problem. You probably prefer Communism.
#41 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-29 10:57 PM | Reply
#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag:
And you're a moron who thinks the private and public sectors work in their own silos.
#42 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 11:00 PM | Reply
"Capitalism isn't the problem."
There's a problem? What problem are you referring to here?
#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:01 PM | Reply
#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 10:49 PM | Reply | Flag
Nope, I used capitalism to my advantage, but I would have hated to been an auto worker when Bill Clinton got finished putting the screws to them.
#44 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 11:02 PM | Reply
"The legislators made it profitable for the Capitalists to move the jobs overseas."
"And you're a moron who thinks the private and public sectors work in their own silos."
Actually, my comment indicates an understanding of how government and business work hand in glove, in a Capitalist society, to make Losers Like You a Victim.
#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:03 PM | Reply
#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:01 PM | Reply | Flag
Must be shooting the smack again tonight because he just said "stupid laws" were the problem. Having trouble keeping up, I see.
#46 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 11:03 PM | Reply
"but I would have hated to been an auto worker when Bill Clinton got finished putting the screws to them."
Okay. I would have hated to be in the military when Dick Cheney fired a third of them only to need them when he invaded Iraq a few years later, I guess?
What's your little anecdote got to do with anything?
#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:04 PM | Reply
"stupid laws" were the problem
The ones making it profitable to send jobs to China? The laws the Capitalists wanted? Those stupid laws?
#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:05 PM | Reply
You don't have a coherent thesis. I don't think you've read a book this century.
#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:06 PM | Reply
to make Losers Like You a Victim.
#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-29 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:
I didn't make my living working as a fluffer, living in my mom's basement. I can see why someone like you who wasted your life would be envious though. You pretend to understand how the world works but never did anything to contribute to society. I'd bet money that you were a professional student who will never repay the loans you took out, avoiding having to get a real job.
#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-04-29 11:07 PM | Reply
Capitalism has improved the standard of living to by far the highest level in human history.
No wonder Snoofy hates it. He wants everyone to be as miserable as he is.
#51 | Posted by BellRinger at 2025-04-30 12:21 AM | Reply
#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
What sort of government don't they work hand in glove (not sure what that means exactly)...
Communists? Socialist? Capitalist?
Has there ever been on planet earth a successful government that didn't work with business?
#52 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-30 12:29 AM | Reply
The legislators made it profitable for the Capitalists to move the jobs overseas. #40 | Posted by snoofy
This is a myth. Unless you want lower corporate taxes, which I assume you don't, but then again you don't want tariffs, so WTF is your view?
But they didn't, China being given favorable trade status did. You're welcome, I am here now to catch your lies and misunderstanding of reality.
You're welcome.
#53 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-30 12:32 AM | Reply
Aren't we all?
#54 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-04-30 12:33 AM | Reply
"Capitalism has improved the standard of living to by far the highest level in human history."
Actually that was sanitation. Nothing at all to do with Capitalism.
#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-30 02:48 AM | Reply
"I'd bet money that you were a professional student who will never repay the loans you took out, avoiding having to get a real job."
You're good at making losing bets. We already know this about you.
This also explains why you identify with Trump. You've never seen anyone successful who is like you. Trump isn't successful, but he is our President, and that's close enough.
#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-30 02:51 AM | Reply
I didn't make my living working as a fluffer, living in my mom's basement. #50 | Posted by lfthndthrds
They don't have basements where you live, kid.
#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-04-30 02:54 AM | 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