Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?  (Read 15657 times)

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #200 on: October 10, 2020, 10:00:51 PM »
Is there a way to change the final value to CO2e, in ppm?
And a way to compare the sum of them with what we have, by example, versus 1980?

Here you go, Juan:

I converted the radiative forcing back into CO2 equivalents. Please find the values for each January of the following years. Please also keep in mind that these numbers only represent the four "NOAA gases" CO2, CH4, N2O and SF6. Therefore the "true" value is higher than that.

Jan 1980 372.2 ppm
Jan 1990 394.8 ppm (+22.6 ppm or +6.1%)
Jan 2000 415.7 ppm (+20.9 ppm or +5.3%)
Jan 2010 440.4 ppm (+24.7 ppm or +5.9%)
Jan 2020 473.4 ppm (+33.0 ppm or +7.5%)

The latest value (June 2020) represents a CO2 equivalent of 477.1 ppm (annual increase of 3.6 ppm). I will report this equivalent in future, once a month, when NOAA adds the latest monthly averages to its website.

It is obvious that we are on an exponential track. The smaller increase during the 1990s is a consequence of the breakdown of the Soviet Union's and its allies' economy after the revolutions of 1989/90. 
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2470
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1182
  • Likes Given: 1027
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #201 on: October 11, 2020, 01:34:03 AM »
That is quite the progression.

Now there were always two ways of looking at it. OK so 1 you have got a number for  the CO2eq but what does it actually mean.

What does it mean for the actual world?

For this you can look to graphs and theories or alternatively you look out of the window and see what is already happening.

We will lose the arctic ice some time the next decade , we have already comittted to a whole lot of sea level rise. Somewhere out there we are comitting to a protocol to stop some dangerous undefined future climate change while ignoring where we already are.

And we are on the edge of going from ice house to hot house earth. So much things will change so drastically before we do anything meaningful.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2381
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 20175
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #202 on: October 11, 2020, 09:48:10 AM »
Thanks for that, Stephan.
What CO₂e factor do you use for methane?
I would expect the total to be more than a bit above 500ppm, using a short-term factor of 80.

--

I agree with kassy and oren.
But 'we' do meaningful stuff, we aren't doing nothing. But it is not mitigation but the opposite; worsening the problem even more. Year in year out. We can't even stop deforestation. Governments have no power over large international companies and these companies WILL NOT STOP WITH DESTRUCTION because their investors want more profit of them. Nice system eh? Out of control, just like the climate and biosphere destruction.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Stephan

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1377
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« Reply #203 on: October 11, 2020, 06:59:19 PM »
I do not use a factor for methane, but I convert the actual concentration into radiative forcing (values listed in my posting). I sum up all the radiative forcings of the four "NOAA gases" and re-convert them into CO2 equivalents using the same formula I use to convert CO2 concentrations into radiative forcing.

There has been a lengthy discussion how to do it some months ago in this thread, because before that I had used the factors 28 and 80. But this is scientifically not correct as I was told.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change