Reposted from Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog
June 5th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration data continue to show no reduction in the rate of rise due to the recent global economic slowdown. This demonstrates how difficult it is to reduce global CO2 emissions without causing a major disruption to the global economy and exacerbation of poverty.
After removal of the strong seasonal cycle in Mauna Loa CO2 data, and a first order estimate of the CO2 influence of El Nino and La Nina activity (ENSO), the May 2020 update shows no indication of a reduction in the rate of rise in the last few months, when the reduction in economic activity should have shown up.
I had previously explained why the slowdown would likely not be large enough to affect measured atmospheric CO2 levels compared to natural variations in global sources and sinks of CO2. I calculated that the Energy Information Administration-estimated 11% reductions in CO2 emissions during 2020 would have to be four times larger to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2 over 2019 values (assuming no substantial natural variations in CO2 sources and sinks).
If you want *REAL* science and history now, you MUST study under Randall Carlson, Ben Davidson, Walt Thornhill, and Douglas Vogt. And you’ll the mental capacity for a computer sciences degree around 1976 levels.
Prepare to be shocked/angered to your core as to what “gov’t” has done to us/hidden from us. A good primer on what you will conclude is in the YouTube channel “Mars Anomalies”, which is heavily censored and shadowbanned now, as time is running VERY short!
An article in Science Daily seems to disagree, “COVID-19 crisis causes 17 percent drop in global carbon emissions”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200519114233.htm
“The COVID-19 global lockdown has had an “extreme” effect on daily carbon emissions, but it is unlikely to last — according to a new analysis by an international team of scientists.”
Or, Mauna Loa didn’t get the memo and has continued to increase her output of CO2.
Why is the CO2 reference in a volcanic region anyway?
We shouldn’t get suprised with it at all: the similar situation did already
happen after global 2008 financial
crisis
which did
cost the U.S. economy more than $22 trillion.
This crisis leaved
huge dent in the trend of fossil fuel
consumption. But this dent wasn’t visible
on the trend of carbon dioxide levels
at all
– it just means, the carbon dioxide trend
is not driven
by human consumption of fossil fuels at all. Even some alarmists itself
realized it already
– unfortunately most of them are profit driven and they prefer to take
multi-billion dollars subsidizes
for their "fight" with "anthropogenic" global warming. The profit based and
occupation driven thinking is nowadays religion. See also:
Carbon tax and "renewables" only make impact of climatic changes worse
1,
2,
3,
4,
5
Geothermal theory of global warming
1,
2,
3,
4,
5