CO2 and Temperature Change, The Thermal Flywheel, How Long Before We Are Roasted? Solutions?

A great deal has been said about how global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 parts per million (ppm) continue to go up. Statistically CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on the average by slightly more than 1.5 ppm per year over the last 20 years.

Wikipedia agrees with me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere


In the year 2000 based on NOAA data we were well below 370 ppm. In the last 16 years we have have shifted to being well over 400, closer to 404. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

What is seldomly mentioned is how high temperatures will rise based on the 100,000 year charts. If you look closely at the correlation between temperature and CO2, temperature has closely followed CO2 levels to a T.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/figures/icecore_records

In the chart above you will notice that temperature lags CO2 changes by somewhere between 500 to 2000 years. It is actually difficult to judge since the span is across 300,000 years.

So what interests me is the topic, when will we be toast?

The answer is simple. CO2 has varied from 180 to 300 ppm over the last 350,00 years. In conjunction with variations in CO2, in Antarctica, temperature has varied from -82 F to -60 F. So let's say for the sake of arguement that we say CO2 ppm varies by 100 ppm and temperature varies by 20 F, then we can very easily conclude that every 1 degree (F) rise is pegged to a 5 ppm CO2 shift.

Another way to quantify this relationship is to state that every 3 years (1.5 ppm x 3 = 4.5 ppm), we should be experiencing a one degree rise in temperature on the Fahrenheit scale,

So guess what we need to do? We need to drop CO2 levels as quickly as they rose in order to avoid the atmosphere from thermally catching up to the sharp rise in CO2. We don't have a choice.

The most obvious method for mitigating the continuous addition of CO2 to the environment is do everything you can to avoid using fossil fuels. I have made a list of options that should be considered:
1. Convert your car to electric or buy an electric car and buy solar panels
2. Ride the mass transit system or bike
3. Minimize the use of concrete during construction projects, consider Magnesium Oxide as a substitute
4. Convert all of your light bulbs to LED
5. Buy products locally to avoid the CO2 contribution from transportation
6. Contact your local mayor to pass a city bond to build solar farms outside your city, in order to get your city carbon neutral
7. Support solar and other alternative energy subsidies and vote for people that do

8. Use Variable frequency drives and a control panel on all motors over 5 horse power

Some trends that we can look forward is the drop in the cost of solar: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/solar-panel-cost-trends-10-charts/

Solar prices in terms of price per watt have consistently dropped every year, also known as the Swanson Effect.

The cost of solar in terms of price per watt is just starting to become extremely attractive but it is all relative anyways, because in the end you end up owning your solar panels, and then when you sell your home you get all of that money back as added equity to your home. So what you want to compare is monthly disposable income and how it is affected by switching to solar versus buying electricity from the grid. Note: At least 50% or more of the electricity on any state grid in the US is generated by fossil fuels. It is typically natural gas or coal, but sometimes such as on island communities it is nearly 100% petroleum.

The way to compare the impact of solar panels vs. an electric grid bill on monthly spending is to compare the cost of a 30-year home improvement loan for the purchase of a solar panels system vs. your electricity bill. Then you can see the true monthly cost of solar photo-voltaic energy generation versus buying from the grid. I call this the apples to apples not oranges to apples comparison. Oranges to apples is when a solar system is sold at a dollar per watt figure but your utility residential bill is priced at a dollars per kilowatt-hour figure.


I think people with banking industry experience should create municipal credit unions that offer 50-year term solar financing for home owners to get their monthly utility payments really low and then use the money gained via interest to subsidize the solar industry as well as provide more loans.

You can compare the entirety of the fossil fuel industry to renting and solar to owning a home, primarily because you own the means of production of the electricity that you consume as opposed to paying a monthly cost because someone else owns the means of production. 

In short, we have to find solutions that make entire cities carbon neutral as quickly as possible, and solar photovoltaics is a major component in balancing the chemistry of our atmosphere.

So to answer the original question - How long do we have before global warming becomes unbearable? The answer is -  if we mitigate CO2 today we will never have to answer that question.

Sun-Planet Gear Systems and Sinusoidal Centripetal Acceleration

This is my invention as well as the physical representation of my theory. My theory is simple and it actually works. I present all of this as open source data, that you are welcome to COPY and USE in anyway!

I am going to derive how energy is calculated mathematically in most force induced systems such as a windmill or hydroelectric turbine in order to show a simplified method for harnessing energy from mechanical vibration.

Typically when we go to generate energy in a force induced system what is required is an outside input force, where: Force = Mass x Acceleration. (Units = Newtons)

Work is then defined as Force x Distance, and the units are in (Newton x Meter = Joule).

All that is required to create energy is Force x Distance.

Power then is measured in Watts = Joules per second. It is the rate at which Energy (Joules) is being created through time (Seconds).

Consumption, or what you pay the utility is measured in kiloWatt-Hours. If you notice the units are the same as Joules, just on a different time scale. If you take Power and multiply it by hours, you get kiloWatt hours, that is to say 1 kiloJoule x 3600 = 1 kiloWatt-Hour, because there are 3600 seconds in an hour.

So in my version I did something slightly different. In the first formula F=MA, I added a sinusoidal component. Planet gear systems will create a sinusoidally oscillating centripetal acceleration on whatever is placed in the planet gear so long as it isn't place at the center of the planet gear.

Gravity and centripetal acceleration have the same units, namely Meters per Second Squared, (m/s^2).

So instead of having a steady push force on a mass across a distance, which would give you Work in Joules, I have decided to take a different approach.

The centripetal acceleration at the edge of a spinning disk is defined as A=V^2/R, where V = the instantaneous velocity of a point on the edge of a disk and R = the radius of the disk.

If A=V^2/R and for disk 2 it is A2=V2^2/R2, then the net acceleration is the sum except that to add them you need to know the angle, because you are adding two vectors.

Without going into it too deeply, you can conclude that at some point a tooth from the planet gear will face the sun gear and at another point in time it will be 180 degrees opposed to the sun gear, call this angle x. Therefore the sinusoidal acceleration would look something like this A(t) = A1 + A2 sin(x). Where t is time, and A1 and A2 are the magnitude of the acceleration force for each gear at that RPM.

So in summary, we can conclude that in a typical system:

F = MA
W = FD, or MAD
P = W/S or MAD/S

We can also conclude that in our system:

F = M(A1 + A2 sin(x))
W= M(A1 + A2 sin(x))D
P = M(A1 + A2 sin(x))D/s

F=Force, M=Mass, A=Acceleration

W=Work, F=Force, D= Distance

P=Power, S=Seconds, for D and W it is the same as above

In short what all of this means is that the power input to the system for very small systems would be much more than the power output, because induction is proportional to the size of the magnet being used, but for larger systems where the volume of the magnet has increased to a significant size, the output energy should be significantly impressive, it is much much more than the power input.

The input motor torque is opposed by three forces: air resistance, gear tooth friction and bearing resistance, it doesn't actually have a mechanical load attached to it and the inertia doesn't change after the gears have accelerated to their full RPM.

The output energy on the other hand is proportional to Mass x Acceleration x Distance which is equal to Work.

Final notes:
1) You can add mass to a magnet by encasing it in steel. 
2) Theoretically if the RPM of a system could achieve extremely high speeds then the power output could also be extremely high, as acceleration is proportional to the velocity squared. So as the RPM climbs the power output which is proportional to velocity squared would as climb as the square of the velocity.
3) As RPM goes up, Power density (kW/m^3) increases, but material strength must also increase in order to prevent structural failure. So as we engineer motors with very high RPMs we will witness very high power densities but the bottle neck on power density will be decided by the strength of the material.

4) Magnets that are a minimum of 1 inch cubed or greater are a good starting point for your research, if you make the magnets too small your output amperage will be hard to measure as it is miniscule. 

5) You can get the electricity out of your system by using conductive gears. You'll need 2 conductive plates for every magnet pair. 

Here is a link to high speed motors: http://www.celeroton.com/en/products/motors.html
Some of the motors can achieve speeds of 1 million RPM.