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
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment