Levels rose 3 ppm to 405.1 ppm in 2016, putting CO2 at its highest levels in over 10,000 years. This increase matched the record rise recorded in 2015, when CO2 levels officially passed 400 ppm, which climate scientists call the “point of no return.” After this mark, they claim, climate change is irreversible.
“This is a real shock to the atmosphere,” Peter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, said in a statement. “The rate of CO2 growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last Ice Age.”
The 400 ppm level, known as the “carbon threshold,” was long used by scientists as a warning that once we passed this mark, the climate cycle would be thrown into turmoil. From 10,000 years ago to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1760, CO2 levels averaged around 280 ppm.
And we’ll probably never see levels drop below 400 ppm in our lifetime, according to Tans. If the world stopped burning fossil fuels right this second, the carbon dioxide would still be trapped in the atmosphere for the next few decades.
We've had these "irreversible tipping points" set by experts for decades: every time, the deadline arrives, and every time, the scientists who make a living from their scam just shrug it off and come up with a new date, warning that this time, they "really, really mean it!" If there's a difference between these charlatans and the end-of-the-world prophets who gather their faithful to the mountain tops to witness the end of the world, let me know: I can't see it.
"Irreversible" means "can't be fixed" and no, we're not likely to see the world shut down the global economy by ending the use of fossil fuels today. So if that's the case, let's get on with dealing with the supposed inevitable effects, and start spending money relocating critical infrastructure like sewage plants, roads and bridges above the Al Gore waterline, addressing increased malarial rates and malnutrition, and all the other predicted horror shows, as has long been proposed by people like Bjorn Lomborg, a scientist who not only believes in global warming, but that humans contribute to it. Lomborg has predicted, for decades, what warmists now say has happened: there's no way to stop global warming, and so he's called for dealing with it, rather than spending trillions in a doomed attempt to prevent it (the Kyoto Protocol, for instance, so beloved by warmists, has always been conceded to call for reductions in CO2 that are only half what would actually be necessary to reach the dreaded "tipping point".)
So fine - let's take these experts at their word and declare game over: now, what are we going to do about it?