Leave a Comment:
I am finding it impossible to get a current ppm for CO2e. Please tell me why CO2e is rarely used these days. As all new articles refer only to CO2, am I to assume “all radiative gases are NOT accounted for” in the current ppm of approximatley 407 ppm
CO2. And, if the value of “e” a decade ago was published to be 20% over CO2 what is it today given the last decade of increased water vapor and the increase of ESAS methane per the work of Shakova/Semiletov, and, permafrost releases per the work of Romanovsky and others.
I have become very sceptical of media publications on “where we are today” vis a vis total heat forcing ppm when that damn little e is missing.
Also, what was the original date used for “pre-industrial” to present when discussing temperature increases in C? I thought it was 1780 or roughly 200 years. Today several baseline dates are used which of course alters the amount of increase. The latest report from Incheon, K. Was 115 years.
Thank you so much. I have asked several these questions of well know earth scientists and no one has responded. Todd AndersonReply
Hi Todd, appreciate your frustration on this, especially since no earth scientists are responding to your query. Unfortunately our environmental correspondent has left us so we don’t have the internal expertise to give you a solid answer. This article get’s quite a bit of traffic so hopefully another reader can provide some clarity. Otherwise I recommend contacting a few academic institutions that specialise in climate change – UEA comes to mind: https://www2.uea.ac.uk/Reply
To Todd and François
I must say it is apparent the article above and any and all information from municipalities and evironment offices in many communities completely misunderstood the role of GWP.
P is potential, ergo, not a factual amount but a rating system for comparison.
There is NOT CO2e in the atmosphere as CO2e is not a molecule but a mathematical attempt to compare two different factors.
Imagine if you will, how many kJoule energy you receive from burning petrol for a vehicle.
Compare this to burning LPG and evaluate how much LPG you need to burn to produce the same amount of energy.
The relation between the two is the “equivalent” in “CO2e”.
It does not imply that there is or is no CO2 in a particular GHG (green house gas) but that it allegedly excerpts the same level of energy when released in the atmosphere.
It is not a physical product. It is a unit.
The question of how many C there is in CO2e is thus equivalent as to asking
“How many apples fits in a banana crate”.
Make, great response. I have a few questions I would like to run past you. Reach out to me on LinkedIn. Thanks TimReply
In our company we’ve calculated that a change in process can achieve a 42kgCO2e saving. Is it correct to translate this to the equivalent of 2 trees absorption of CO2 in a year if a tree can absorb up 21kgCO2 in a year?Reply
That logic seems accurate! It sounds like, from a CO2 emissions perspective, the change in process is equivalent to planting ~2 trees.Reply
we always hear about CO2 been a polloutent but the CO2 is also a Natural Refrigerant with a GWP of 1. I was ased what is the difference? This is a question I cannot answer.
How can CO2 be a Natural Refrigerant and good for the Environment and then keep hearing about CO2 been a polloution and bad for the Environment>
Can someone explain
Why not a word on the correspondance between the two: How many C in a CO2e ?Reply