New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 429.24 ppm
Last edited Sun Apr 13, 2025, 11:39 AM - Edit history (1)
As I've indicated repeatedly in my DU writings, somewhat obsessively I keep spreadsheets of the of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual data at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory, 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, a fact.
Facts matter.
When writing these depressing repeating posts about new records being set, reminiscent, over the years, to the ticking of a clock at a deathwatch, I often repeat some of the language from a previous post on this awful series, as I am doing here with some modifications. It saves time.
A recent post (not my last on this topic) reflecting updating this a few weeks back is here:
New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 428.38 ppm
This post was actually in error since there had been a previous record set this year that I missed because I was traveling.
This week's readings are not dramatically higher, than those recorded in the same week of 2024, week 14, "only" 3.33 ppm, which would have been extremely shocking in the 1980's or early 1990's but these days, with things getting worse faster, is only "ho hum."
The readings are, as of this morning as follows:
Week beginning on April 06, 2025: 429.24 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 425.91 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 403.44 ppm
Last updated: April 13, 2025
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
What is worthy of remark is that 429.24 ppm is the highest ever recorded for any week going back to 1959.
Here is a post of mine from April 2023 when the highest value ever recorded was lower:
New Weekly CO2 Concentration Record Set at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 424.40 ppm.
As this is early Aprill, the 429.24 ppm "highest ever" reading weekly reading at Mauna Loa. As I always remark in this series of posts, if one looks, one can see that the rate of accumulation recorded at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory is a sine wave superimposed on a roughly quadratic axis:
Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
An interesting and disturbing thing about this week's reading is where it stands among comparators with the reading of ten years previous. It is 25.80 ppm higher than week 14 of 2015. Of all such ten year comparators among the 2088 comparators week to week comparator over a ten year period, this is tied for the 46th highest ever recorded. The highest, 27.65 ppm occurred in 2024, in the week beginning February 4, 2024, week 5, which also gave the highest single year comparator, that with week 5 of 2023, where it was 5.75 ppm higher.
All of the top 50 highest comparators in week to week comparisons with that of ten years earlier have taken place since 2020. Of the top 50 such data points, the 10 highest have occurred since January 1st 2024. Overall, 13 of the top 50 occurred in 2025, which of course is not done yet. All of the top 50 such readings have taken place in this decade, 29 of them in 2024.
There is a lot of statistical noise in these readings. Week 13 of 2025 for instance, was anomalous given that it was one of the now rare readings to be less than 1.00 ppm higher than Week 13 of 2024, 0.94 ppm higher to be precise. This kind of event is relatively rare in these times, the last time having occurred in 2023 in week 7 of that year. In 1975, the first year available as data at the Mauna Loa observatory, 44% of the readings were lower than 1.00 ppm compared to the previous year.
Because of statistical noise, in my spreadsheet I keep a 52 week running average of the week to week comparators with those of ten years earlier. Two weeks ago, week 12 of 2025, this running average hit 26.00 ppm for the first time. As of week 14, it is now 26.02 ppm/10 years. This is the highest value ever obtained.
The maxima of the sine wave usually occurs later in the spring. In 2024, the then highest value ever recorded 427.94 ppm took place in the week beginning April 21, 2024, and fell thereafter. In 2023, the then highest value ever recorded 424.64 ppm took place in the week beginning May 28, 2023, and fell thereafter. In 2022, the then highest value ever recorded 421.63 ppm took place in the week beginning May 29, 2022, and fell thereafter and so on.
We may end up in 2025 seeing readings slightly lower, at, or even higher than 430 ppm in 2025. We'll probably see it by late May, assuming that the Observatory is not shut by the anti-science bigots who have seized control of our government and canceled our Constitution. The consequences, irrespective of whether the numbers are available and honestly reported, will not be subject to lies or misrepresentations by potentially thuggish liars; the planet will continue to burn, the weather will become more extreme and out of control. Oh and assholes will still carry on about how nuclear energy is "too dangerous," and the destruction of the planetary atmosphere isn't "too dangerous." These people will tell us, in a delusional counterfactual statement that so called "renewable energy" will save us.
This week, by the way, saw the 2nd and 3rd highest daily reading ever recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory, 430.36 ppm, and 430.24 ppm:
April 12: 430.36 ppm
April 11: 430.24 ppm
April 10: Unavailable
April 09: 429.12 ppm
April 08: 428.69 ppm
Last Updated: April 13, 2025
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
March 7, 2025 was the first such reading to exceed 430 ppm, and as of today is still the highest, 430.60 ppm.
The people who chant that "renewable energy" will save us and that nuclear energy is "too dangerous," will continue to so chant despite the observable fact that "renewable energy" has not saved us, isn't saving us, and I assert won't save us.
The reactionary impulse to make our energy supplies dependent on the weather, this precisely at the time we have destabilized the weather by lying to ourselves about our continuous and rising use of dangerous fossil fuels, was always an ignorant attack on nuclear energy. It was never about preventing the extreme global heating we now observe, never about the environment (you don't tear the shit out of wilderness to make industrial parks and declare yourself "green" ) and never about costs, since the required redundancy - while kept off the books dishonestly - is expensive, and, as it is almost always fossil fuel based, dirty.
We still have people here at DU, this late into the disaster prattling on about how so called "renewable energy" is beating out nuclear energy, even though the combined solar and wind industry combined has never, in an atmosphere of sybaritic bourgeois saturnalian enthusiasm, not once, produced as energy as nuclear energy produces routinely in an atmosphere of malign (and ignorant) criticism.
It is interesting and notable that the same people who still carry on with stupid reference to "costs" - they couldn't give a fuck about the cost of the extreme global heating we are now experiencing - and attack nuclear energy on this basis are completely and totally disinterested in attacking the unimaginable external costs of dangerous fossil fuels, costs recorded in millions of deaths each year, the destruction of vast ecosystems by fire and alternately inundation or just plain heat.
Irrespective of their inane anti-science rhetoric about batteries and hydrogen, as it disregards the laws of thermodynamics, an apologetic orgy of wishful thinking designed to make the failed solar and wind industries appear to be reliable, which they will never be, all the money spent on solar and wind is clearly wasted and ineffective. The impulse is reactionary, to make our energy supplies depend on the weather, precisely at the time we have destabilized the weather because the reactionary fantasy is not working.
How much money is it?
The amount of money spent on so called "renewable energy" since 2015 is 4.9 trillion dollars, compared to 524 billion dollars spent on nuclear energy (including a vague term the IEA calls "other clean energy" ), much of the latter to prevent the willful and deadly destruction of existing nuclear infrastructure. Presumably "other clean energy" includes fusion, which has provided zero useable energy for any purpose
IEA overview, Energy Investments.
The graphic is interactive at the link; one can calculate overall expenditures on what the IEA dubiously calls "clean energy," ignoring the fact that the expenditure on so called "renewable energy" is basically a front for maintaining the growing use of fossil fuels. One may also download a *.csv file with the data.
The Biden administration has rightly described itself as promoting "the largest sustained push to accelerate civil nuclear deployment in the United States in nearly five decades."
It is sad that we are now entering a very dark age, one in which propaganda and lies will obscure real knowledge. President did what he could do to save us; it proved to not be enough to overcome our collective ignorance.
White House holds summit on US nuclear energy deployment
My strong opinion that nuclear energy is the last best hope of the planet is not subject to change by appeals to clap trap about so called "nuclear waste," the big bogeymen at Fukushima, Chernobyl (and even more silly) Three Mile Island, blah, blah, blah...
I suggest finding someone more credulous than I to whom to chant endlessly about these points. Take a drive in your swell car out to a "no nukes" concert and convincing yourself that rock stars know more about energy than engineers and scientists. You deserve it. Whether future generations suffer in extreme poverty because of your smug pleasures and appalling selective attention is not your concern.
Oh, and of course, be sure self identify as an "environmentalist." As one who gives a shit about extreme global heating, I won't credit this self identification anymore than I credit Donold Trump's descriptions of himself as a "very stable genius" and all that, but who cares what I think? The "...but her emails..." and "...sane washed Donold Trump..." media describes antinukes as "environmentalists" after all, even if I find that absurd and delusional, so there's that.
Be sure to prattle on about your complete and total indifference to the laws of thermodynamics, laws of physics that are not subject to repeal by appeals to wishful thinking, by carrying on about energy storage, lots of battery bullshit, hydrogen bullshit, etc. as if there was enough so called “renewable energy” to store for months at a time. There hasn’t been any such "renewable energy" surfeits, to justify this junk, there aren't any and there won’t be any, but none of this should prevent you from the ruined landscapes and mining pits you leave for future generations as piles of ruins. Screw future generations. If they need resources, they can sort through our landfills and ruins.
Do all these things. Don't worry. Be happy.
Our media will declare you an “environmentalist.” Good for you.
As for me, I'm far more concerned with the collapse of the planetary atmosphere than I am with the fear that someone somewhere at sometime may die from an industrial accident involving radiation. Let me repeat: I am far more concerned with the vast death toll, extreme environmental destruction, and the global heating associated with the normal use of dangerous fossil fuels than I am about carrying on insipidly about Fukushima.
Nuclear energy is not risk free, nor will it ever be. It is simply vastly superior to all other options, which in a rational world, as opposed to the one in which we live, would be enough to embrace it.
In any case I am certainly prone to thank our last Constitutional President, Joe Biden, for his hard work to press for the expansion of nuclear energy, since very clearly we are out of time.
When our country, as precious as it has been to us, is an ancient memory, the rot we left behind in the planetary atmosphere will still persist.
History, should history exist, will not forgive us, nor should it.
Have a pleasant Sunday afternoon.
= new reply since forum marked as read
