The data I'm using for today's post comes from the website CO2Now.org. If some "skeptic" wanders by and says this is data from an interested party and therefore not unbiased, bite me.
In fact, unlike temperature data which swings wildly from year to year, average yearly CO2 levels are increasing steadily and there is no contrarian position.
My question is how steadily?
This graph is a manipulation of a data set taken from the Mauna Loa CO2 readings. Let me explain my process.
1. Take the average yearly levels from 1959 to 2012, the first and last years with a full twelve months of data.
2. Starting in 1968, subtract the yearly level from ten years prior (example: 1968 level - 1959 level) and divide by 10 to get the average yearly change over the previous decade.
What this says is not that CO2 levels are increasing, but that the rate of change is increasing as well. The increase is not exactly linear, but you can see how close the black trend line is to the jagged red line with the white dots. The R² value of 0.88... means the fit to the line is very good. If the rate of increase is exactly linear, the graph on the CO2 levels would be the increasing part of a parabola. We call this quadratic growth.
The good news is this is not exponential growth, for all the good that does us. Quadratic growth is faster than linear growth, and even if it flattened out at current levels, CO2 levels are increasing about twice as fast as they did in 1970. (In comparison, world population has increased by a factor of 1.8 over the same period.) Given the relatively steady growth of the rate, the amount of change in the last 40 year span should only take next 30 years.
CO2 matters. It's a natural part of our environment, but like everything in nature, too much of it is not good. CO2 does a lot of things, many of them positive for the environment, but it is a greenhouse gas, which means it helps trap the heat from the Sun. The greenhouse effect is about as controversial as gravity. More CO2 in the long run means higher temperatures in the long run. This can mean big changes in the environment, positive changes for some and negative changes for others. Overall, it does not look like a zero sum game, with much more pain than gain.
The so-called Serious People In Washington are convinced the economy needs austerity. We must curb spending or the next generation will inherit a mess. On the other hand, these Serious People are not fully on board about us changing the way we spend energy. Austerity means lower taxes for the rich, so they are in favor. Changing energy habits means less money in their pockets and possibly regulatory limits on their styles of living. For anyone saying this is cynical, let me use Lily Tomlin's apt quote from years ago, "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up."
Right now, people are paying attention because of breaking the 400 ppm barrier. As a mathematician, I know that most people are impressed by round numbers and ignore the rest of them. We may be decades away from 450 ppm, but we can't wait for that news story. We may not be able to put on the brakes, but we sure as hell should take our foot off the gas pedal, both literally and figuratively.
Think about your use of carbon, which for the most part means how you use energy. Think of ways you can cut back. For the people who argue that we shouldn't have to limit ourselves unless China, India, Brazil and others also set limits, my counterargument is this.
How old are you? Seven?
If you love anyone who is younger than you are, that is reason enough. We may not be able to give them a better world than we have, but we shouldn't consign them a hellhole.
No comments:
Post a Comment