• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Climate Change - by the Numbers
 

Climate Change - by the Numbers

on

  • 5,258 views

Climate Change - by the Numbers

Climate Change - by the Numbers

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,258
Views on SlideShare
5,242
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
377
Comments
2

4 Embeds 16

http://www.slideshare.net 7
http://www.weebly.com 6
http://eco-sustainabilityproject.weebly.com 2
https://home.jolicloud.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

12 of 2 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • thank you for sharing
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • I'm a peruvian, and my english isn`t perfect, but I want say you than the climate change worried us.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Climate Change - by the Numbers Climate Change - by the Numbers Presentation Transcript

    • Climate Change By the Numbers Robert D. Cormia Foothill College
    • Overview
      • The Greenhouse effect
      • Earth’s biogeochemical thermostat
      • Industrial carbon emissions – 250 yrs
      • GHG forcing models – projected heat
      • Warming effects – on the cryosphere
      • Affluence, energy, GHGs, and iPAT
        • Two easy solutions – mpg and efficiency
        • One program – the Electron Economy
    • Solar Energy - earth’s Heat http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
    • 250 years of Carbon Emissions It took 125 years to burn the first trillion barrels of oil – we’ll burn the next trillion in less than 30 years – why should you care?
    • Rising CO 2 over 50 Years http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html See saw swings in CO 2 result from seasonal ‘biological production’
    • Temperatures over 1000 Years http://www.mala.bc.ca/~earles/ipcc-tar-feb01.htm
    • Story of Vostok
      • 500,000 years of ice core data
      • CO 2 / CH 4 and temperature track perfectly!
      • Why is this?
      • Earth uses GHGs as a regulatory process
        • Biogeochemical thermostat
        • Raise CO 2 and you raise temps
      • Nothing could be worse than burning carbon
        • It guarantees that the planet will get warmer
    • Ice Cores – Story of Vostok
    • Vostok Ice Core Data
      • A perfect correlation between CO 2 , temperature, and sea level
      • For every one ppm CO 2 , sea level rises 1 meter, temp rises .05 C (global)
      • Process takes 100 years to add 1 ppm CO 2 , and reach thermal equilibrium
      This is not just a correlation, this is a complex and dynamic process , with multiple inputs. Touching one input affects all other inputs , and increases in temperature becomes a further feedback and multiplier of these inputs.
    • Vostok CO 2 and Temperature
      • The relationship between CO 2 and temperature is nearly perfect (r 2 *100 = 99)
      • However, the casual relationship is the basis for significant (expert) controversy
      • Why does this occur?
    • The Vostok Equilibrium
      • Vostok ‘equilibrium’
      • 100K year cycles
        • earth’s orbital eccentricity
      • Sun heats up the planet
        • Biosphere expands
      • CO 2 maintains temp
        • Otherwise earth would be very cold ~ 0 degrees F
        • CO 2 has not exceeded 280 ppm in the last 500K years and 4 major cycles
    • GHGs and Vostok Data James Kirchner Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley
    • The Thermostat Inputs
      • CO 2 - largest input
      • CH 4 – most potent input
      • Water vapor – potent GHG
      • Clouds – absorb / reflect
      • Albedo – moderates energy
      • Temperature
        • Reacts to increased forcings
        • Amplifies / induces other inputs
    • Dials on the Thermostat GHGs force energy into the planet, surface warming leads to feedbacks Thermal inertia Climate feedbacks GHGs CO 2 CH 4 Ice / albedo Water vapor Clouds Temperature
    • Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming Margaret S. Torn and John Harte AGU GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L10703 Effect of Climate Feedbacks
    • The Alpine Effect 90% reflective, 10% absorptive 50% reflective, 50% absorptive A surface that is 90% reflective absorbs 10% of incident solar radiation A surface that is 50% reflective absorbs 50% of incident solar radiation When surfaces melt and refreeze, surface texture changes , it is no longer ‘ white’, and a much higher amount of incident solar radiation is absorbed . Alpine surfaces are undergoing these changes, and absorbing five times or more of the solar radiation – not from being warmer, but from being ‘darker’ Permafrost is especially at risk of warming as the surface albedo changes
    • Carbon Burned and CO 2
      • Plot atmospheric CO 2 as a function of cumulative carbon burned (megatons)
      • Linear regression has an almost perfect correlation coefficient (r 2 *100) of 99%
      • Allows a confident prediction of future CO 2 based on future carbon burned .
      • Since forcing can be calculated directly from CO 2 , it is a very important model!
      Devin Cormia ‘The Gaia Hypothesis’ Carlmont High School AP Bio Term Project 2005
    • Carbon Emissions and CO 2 Carbon emissions can be used to predict atmospheric CO 2 with 99% confidence using simple linear regression data
    • Carbon Emissions and CO 2
      • Carbon burned => CO 2
      • Linear from 1850 to 2000
        • - ppm CO 2 =2.55 e 10-4 *M tons C + 297 ppm (r 2 *100=99%)
      • ~ 50% of carbon goes into atmospheric CO 2
        • 50% into soil and oceans
      • Trend is constant over 100 years – is this how the biosphere will react over the next 500 years?
      Devin Cormia ‘The Gaia Hypothesis’ Carlmont High School AP Bio Term Project 2005
    • Forcing Models
      • Calculating greenhouse numbers
        • Start with some basic physics
        • Get out your log calculator
      • CO 2 is straightforward to calculate
      • Generate forcing in watts, temps in deg C
      • Data validated by NASA / NOAA
        • Model fits observed ocean warming well
        • Also explains the Vostok ice core data
    • Forcing Model from GISS
      • http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
      • Definitive work in March 2005
      • 1,800 ocean buoys sampling sea temperatures to a depth of ~2,500 meters from 1990 - 2000
      • Temps must rise 0.66 0 C per 1 W of forcing
      • ‘ Thermal inertia’ of oceans requires 25 to 50 years to experience 60% of total ‘ equilibration’
      • http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/
      Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications James Hansen,* Larissa Nazarenko, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Josh Willis, Anthony Del Genio, Dorothy Koch, Andrew Lacis, Ken Lo, Surabi Menon, Tica Novakov, Judith Perlwitz, Gary Russell, Gavin A. Schmidt, Nicholas Tausnev – http://www.sciencexpress.org / 28 April 2004 / Page 1/ 10.1126/science.1110252
    • http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/04.htm
    • Earth Out of Balance http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/
    • Calculating Radiative Forcing 5.35 watts x ln [current ppm CO 2 ] _______________ [historic ppm CO 2 ] Temperature increase C = 2/3 Watts radiative forcing Historic CO 2 is 280 ppm, current CO 2 is 387 ppm
    • NASA Climate Model http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
    • Putting it all Together
      • Spreadsheet modeling
        • Carbon burned becomes CO 2
        • More CO 2 leads to radiative forcing
        • Radiative forcing warms the earth
        • Need to factor in thermal inertia
      • Shows where temperatures are headed
      • Use it for modeling mitigation strategies
    • Projected Energy Demand
    • Future CO 2 – the Next 30 Yrs Devin Cormia ‘The Gaia Hypothesis’ Carlmont High School AP Bio Term Project 2005 Year Emissions CO 2 2000 283,373 369 2005 318,465 378 2010 357,209 388 2015 399,986 399 2020 447,216 411 2025 499,360 424 2030 556,932 439
    • Thermal Inertia
      • Takes 25 to 50 years to warm to 60% equilibrium => radiative forcing (37.5 yrs)
      • You can model that in with an exponent:
      • Raise 0.975 to the 37.5 th power
        • Each year 2.5% of warming is realized
        • Need 37.5 years to reach 60% equilibrium
      • In 37.5 years you are at 39% (pretty close)
      With calculus you could do this even better 
    • Spreadsheet Modeling
    • Forcing / Heat From CO 2 Year CO 2 Forcing (W) 0 C / 0 F 1900 300 0.40 .27 / .48 1950 310 0.60 .40 / .71 1975 325 0.87 .58 / 1.05 2000 380 1.78 1.2 / 2.1 2025 420 2.37 1.6 / 2.8 2050 480 3.15 2.1 / 3.8 2075 510 3.50 2.3 / 4.2 2100 540 3.84 2.6 / 4.6
    • Forcing, Predicted Temperature, and Climate Lag, 2000 - 2100 0 F - Model built assuming ~60% of forcing is felt over 25 – 50 years
    • The Melting North Pole The North Pole is thinning in area ~10% per decade, and thinning in thickness ~1 meter per decade. At these rates, it may be an open sea as early as 2020 – 2030. Water then becomes an absorber, not a reflector. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ClimateClues/
    • Arctic Ice Loss
      • Accelerating ice loss over the last 30 years
      • One meter already lost, in ~20 years (1975-1995)
      • Rate now at 0.1 meters / yr or ~1 meter / decade
      • North pole could be gone in summer by ~ 2015/20
      • Affects heat entering the permafrost, now warming
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/ClimateClues /
    •  
    • Arctic Sea Ice Thickness http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Arctic_Warming_ESU.html
    • Greenland Ice Change http://www.comcast.net/data/news/photoshow/html/news/246569.html
    • Sea Level Expansion
      • Sea expands from water molecule changing 0.0002 in volume for each 0 C
      • Over 5,000 to 7,500 meters, it adds up
      • Thermal expansion is 1 – 2 cm / 10 yrs.
      • But is accelerating to 2.5 cm / decade
      • For every 1 0 C, sea expands ~1 meter in height - sea cannot expand ‘down or out’
      http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublicationsProbability.html
    • Long Term Warming Effects
    • Wealth and Energy
      • There is a strong correlation between wealth and energy – more income => more energy
      • Plot log income as a function of log energy
        • 85% correlation (r=0.92)
        • Slope = 0.73
        • Intercept = 5.11
      • By 2030, income = $10,000, population ~8x10 9
      • Energy => 10 8 BTU x 8x10 9 people = 800 Quads
    • Affluence and Energy Use Income in dollars per capita per year Log energy BTU/ person / year slope intercept correlation 0.730938814 5.107092 0.91899
    • Log Income vs. Log Energy
      • RFF Report - population
      • Resources For the Future
      • http://www.rff.org/
      • Three groups of countries
        • Low income
        • Medium income
        • High income
      • 10,000 BTU rise / $1 income
      • Baseline of ~ 125,000 BTU
      Country Income Energy in BTU log income log energy Kenya 350 4.00E+06 2.54 6.60 Vietnam 390 7.30E+06 2.59 6.86 Pakistan 440 1.27E+07 2.64 7.10 India 450 1.15E+07 2.65 7.06 Zimbabwe 460 1.13E+07 2.66 7.05 Armenia 520 2.00E+07 2.72 7.30 Congo 570 3.00E+06 2.76 6.48 Indonesia 570 1.15E+07 2.76 7.06 Georgia 630 2.50E+07 2.80 7.40 China 840 2.70E+07 2.92 7.43 Iran 1680 7.70E+07 3.23 7.89 South Africa 3020 9.40E+07 3.48 7.97 Turkey 3100 5.10E+07 3.49 7.71 Brazil 3580 3.60E+07 3.55 7.56 Venzuala 4310 9.20E+07 3.63 7.96 Chile 4590 5.40E+07 3.66 7.73 Mexico 5070 6.00E+07 3.71 7.78 South Korea 8910 1.41E+08 3.95 8.15 New Zealand 12990 1.70E+08 4.11 8.23 Isreal 16710 1.21E+08 4.22 8.08 Italy 20160 1.20E+08 4.30 8.08 Australia 20420 2.64E+08 4.31 8.42 Canada 21130 3.32E+08 4.32 8.52 France 24090 1.28E+08 4.38 8.11 United Kingdom 24430 1.40E+08 4.39 8.15 Germany 25120 1.72E+08 4.40 8.24 United States 34100 3.07E+08 4.53 8.49 Japan 35620 1.43E+08 4.55 8.16
    • Calculating iPAT
      • Calculating i(PAT)
        • P opulation
        • A ffluence
        • T echnology
      • Look at 6.6 x 10 9 people growing to ~8 x 10 9
        • Carbon per person grows from ~1.1 to ~1.6
        • Global GHG emissions rise by ~50% by 2025
      • Cannot have global energy based on carbon!
      Effects of population and affluence on CO2 emissions THOMAS DIETZ*† AND EUGENE A. ROSA‡ Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 175–179, January 1997 Ecology
    • Global Carbon Profiles India 0.3 China 0.6 Mexico 1.0 France 2.0 Germany 2.2 England 2.5 Canada 4.0 USA 5.1 Developing World Europe North America Tons of carbon per person – year 2000 average = ~1.1 2025 at least 1.25
    • The Population Problem 8 billion people @ 1.25 tons each = 10 G tons of carbon / year That is 10% more carbon emissions than today!
    • Fuel Switching
      • How do get to the hydrogen economy ?
      • Just add hydrogen to your fuel source!
        • Coal is 85% carbon (15% hydrogen)
        • Petroleum is ~2 hydrogen / 1 carbon (CH 2 )
        • Methane has 4 hydrogen / 1 carbon (CH 4 )
      • Pounds of CO 2 per KwHr (equiv) energy
        • Coal = 2.0
        • Petroleum = 1.6
        • Methane = 1.2
        • Wind = 0
    • GHG Emissions by Source
    • Carbon Intensity of Energy An ideal mixture of primary energy for electricity requires significant renewables
    • Energy Efficiency / Conservation
      • It is not glitzy but it sure does the trick
      • Set a per capita emission reduction goal
        • 3% year over year reduction in CO 2 emissions
        • Over 40 years, reduce CO 2 by almost 70%
      • Largest single ‘wedge’ in the arsenal
      • If remaining energy is 3% greener per year
        • We can reach the mid century Kyoto targets
        • 70% emissions reduction from 2007 baseline
      Stabilization Wedges - Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 years with Current Technologies S. Pacala and R. Socolow AUGUST 2004 VOL 305 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
    • Automobile Emissions
      • Fastest way to lowering GHGs is driving less
      • 40% of US CO 2 is associated with petroleum
      • If we doubled CAFE, we would halve CO 2
        • We could reach 2020 emission goals tomorrow
      • If the US all drove hybrids – no imported oil
        • 20 mpg => 50 mpg => 60% reduction (12/20 MBD)
      • We can decide to change the CAFE
        • 50 mpg is current, 100 mpg is the new target
    • Honda Insight – MPG Champ 1 liter - 3 cylinders ‘ electric turbocharger’ 61 / 70 MPG Seating for two 2,000 pounds All aluminum body
    • A Real Hybrid Vehicle Gas Electric Synergy Drive™ - ‘plug-in hybrids’ coming soon
    • Electric Vehicles (EVMT)
      • In the US we use 400 million gallons of gasoline a day (400 x 10 6 gallons/day)
      • At 20 mpg that is 8 billion miles a day (8 x 10 9 )
      • Cross check VMT chart ( 3.0 trillion miles/year )
      • An electric car uses 0.25 KwHr per mile
      • US would need 2.5 billion KwHrs per day (EV) to replace gasoline (~25% charging overhead)
      • Where can we get 2.5 x 10 9 KwHrs per day?
      Building the Electron Economy – Robert D. Cormia 2010
    • US GDP/VMT VMT data from green car congress => http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/05/us-vehicle-mile.html
    • Energy Efficiency/Liquidity
      • US buildings use 60% of all electricity
      • Could we be 40% more efficient with energy?
        • (40% is the typical efficiency goal for LEED)
      • 40% energy reduction of 60% electricity is 24%
      • 24% of 10.5 x 10 9 KwHrs a day = 2.5 x 10 9 / day
      • ~2.5 x 10 9 KwHrs/day is needed for EVMT
      • What we could gain *with efficiency alone* could (almost) *completely* replace gasoline
    •  
    •  
    • Vision the Electron Economy
    • It’s all About the Numbers!
      • It’s about number sense (numeracy)
        • Scale of energy use (BTU/person)
        • Global population and income (iPAT)
        • Atmospheric CO 2 and forcing models
      • Projecting energy, CO 2 , and temperature
      • Build spreadsheets / predicative models
        • Don’t like the results? Change your world!
      • It is our job as educators to understand this!
    • References
      • http://www.eia.doe.gov/
      • http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
      • http://www.rff.org/
      • http://yosemite.epa.gov/
      • http://www.grida.no/climate/
      • http://www.ipcc.ch/
      • http://www.climate.org/CI/sis.shtml
      • http://www.theclimateproject.org/
      • http://www.climatecentral.org/
      • http://apolloalliance.org/