400 PPM Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Breach The Arctic






Before the industrial revolution, concentrations were closer to 280 ppm and have been increasing at an accelerating pace ever since. Back in the 1960s, carbon dioxide was climbing the scales at about 0.7 ppm per year, however for the last decade the rate has been closer to 2 ppm per year.

While carbon dioxide is one of the most significant greenhouse gases, most people know by now that it's not the only one. More powerful greenhouse gases like methane, nitrous oxides, and CFCs absorb more heat than carbon dioxide. If you convert the strength of these gases to the same scale as CO2, then by that measure the concentrations are calculated to be even higher than 400 ppm.

The reason the Arctic measurements are notable is because it's an area that is, for the most part, devoid of human development and industry. For example, measuring stations near urban centers have spiked over 400 ppm for years because of the proximity to excess activity. But the Arctic doesn't have scores of cars and factories nearby and shows that the effect of the worldwide burning of fossil fuels is reaching remote areas.

Another characteristic of the Arctic is that vegetation is scarce, meaning there's no foliage to soak up atmospheric carbon. Normally every year during the summer, CO2 levels depress slightly because the trees of the Northern Hemisphere (where most of the world's forests are located) start to green again. This is also why CO2 levels may seem lower at the equator, where most of the rainforests are.

Despite minor local variations, global concentrations are steadily rising.

With news like this, it's important to not succumb to bad journalistic habits, such as quoting representatives from CEI and the Cato Institute, who are still trotting out the narrative that temperatures have leveled since 1998.


The rise in CO2 looks unstopable. Any significant cuts that the US makes will be dwarfed by increases in places like China and India. It may be physically possible to stop the rise in emisions (with air strikes on existing power plants), but politically, economically and ethically, I don’t think it’s possible or desirable. Impoverishing people now, to “save” future generations seems like a dubious prospect. I think advances in nanotech or fusion could make it a moot point.



Who’s impovershed?

Germany?  The power house of Europe pays the highest electricity rates in the world.  Its not slowing them down.  They are churning out 11twh of renewables per year as we speak.

Looks like Germany will be building some new coal plants to replace those nukes that are going away:


You don’t need to go to conservative sources to find that out either.

They are adding coal and gas even as they add 11Twh of renewables per year.

But my point which you are side stepping is that high energy prices are hardly crippling the tiger in the economy of Europe.

What are you afraid of?


Ahh yes, the well trained compliant monotone of the denier droning the usual dogma, in an ever halting voice, where their logic constantly interupts the overriding ideologically dominant thought process :








David Koch strokes the fluffy white lap dog on his lap and fondly urges “bark again dog, bark again”.


Here’s the Wiki;




Oh… Vidkun came to an unhappy end.