Engineer and deploy high speed process to solidify carbon from atmospheric CO₂.
The dashed orange are two SSP2 RCP 2.6 GCAM4 scenarios. As I was unable to determine what the SSPs assume is cumulative carbon, either cumulative carbon from emissions only or cumulative carbon from emissions + land-use, I modeled both. Both show that RCP 2.6 exceeds the red hexagons signifying when we hit 450 ppm for their respective aggregations. What does this mean? RCP 2.6, overshoots 450 ppm, then returns Earth to just shy of 450 ppm by 2100. RCP 2.6 still leaves us with GtC of carbon in the atmosphere, enough to keep the total radiative forcing at just shy of 450ppm. That's a lot of carbon debt we should remove if we want to keep our glaciers.
That's the yearly graph of SSP RCP 2.6 GCAM4 and my two proposed carbon removal, the existing emissions, and sinks. This is the yearly graph which doesn't show clearly how much we need to remove in order to get to a desired PPM level. The cumulative graphs more clearly show that as to reach a ppm level, is when the line ends, not a summation of area under a line or aggregate line curves.
I chose SSP RCP 2.6 GCAM4 as that's pathway contains the least amount of emissions. All other pathways are much, much larger.
The line in the lowest black, corresponds to SSP2 RCP 2.6 GCAM4
I have the sheets I used for the paper in google drive. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1LlqAwfGhQR72Q4O8qh1OW7owMroctGjz
The original RCPs are in iamc_db_co2_sorted.xlsx and lists that SSP2 RCP 2.6 GCAM4 is the pathway with the fewest emissions.
Ack. I completely forgot about the entirety of radiative forcing. So, RCP 2.6 equals CO₂-eq, and not directly CO₂. Under RCP 2.6, if radiative forcing percentages were what they were when the Earth last experienced rf 2.6, then actual CO₂ ppm should be 375 ppm. That brings the orange curves down to end adjusted to about 375 ppm. That's likely not enough to reverse the damage to the polar regions but it's likely just barely be enough to not cause total deglacation depending on how long elevated levels persist.
Good! More later, say after The Conference on Negative CO2.
What I outlined in the paper as the method to restore the climate, if it were possible, as in if we had the tech to accomplish that much removal, would restore the climate and keep it restored.
!@#$%^&^%!!^$!^%$!%^$!!!!!!!!
I'll get these actual model runs include in the paper to have it hopfully ready for final review Monday.
So, the latest MAGICC 6.801 runs look like this:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1g8n_nRpOHsnK_7d73KsRmiZkRZND1ns4S0PxgEGZaKs/edit#gid=0
I'm still tracking down the error and uncertainty of the model for these numbers.
The next ONC meetup is this evening at either Hacker Dojo or a cafe in Palo Alto. I'm half tempted to do a cafe near the Palo Alto train station.
@titojankowski It was very lightly attended. Met a new member Scott and refereed him to the CARBON RUSH -- The Next Mega-Trillion Frontier meetup and http://manylabs.org. He's reviewing the current entrepreneurial carbon projects to decide how to contribute.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y7CcI4ykhJOYWqAJrvR04elrDbBKe9CFXuSjns1nCJA/edit#gid=0 We need to get CDR to scale to make this happen.
@/all I created a jupyter notebook of the CDR Experiments for Susan's and my upcoming paper. The notebook and magicc input files for the new paper are on github: https://github.com/hsbay/cdrmex.
I do need volunteers for the Maker Faire! 5/17-19! And especially when I'm talking on CDR on the 18th. dm me.
ONC Meetup, 9/20 12:30 PDT: https://meet.google.com/fuj-wszx-pqv
I'm at Peet's in Santa Clara.
Discovery Days volunteer form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19fIWeBTOkV4o3B_xfCDEXP7nsXNKo7d1qjFDFry5Fho
OnC will be Discovery Days in SR, and SF.
(And I'll physically be at the UCSF lib on Parnassus St in SF tonight.)
Once ONC finds the fastest way to go to solid C from CO₂, it allows nearly all of these markets to store carbon and become a Negative Emissions Technology: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1pZRQcMRGDybmGChXYFyawuOJWIIo8RXlq4ngw2csyms/. I say nearly all because forming a carbonate rock is likely to be faster than an electrochemical process.
Why create a portfolio allocation? Because most people are touting individual solutions but they can't globally reach gigatonne scale. A combined retooling of multiple industries, albeit resource-intensive, will allow us to have multiple markets when aggregated capable of negative emissions in the gigatonne scale. Other people have simply been overwhelmed with the negative and are trying to tune out to the climate discussion. This document is meant to be a seed to incentivize thinking different about carbon use and reengineering products to ultimately create a market to pay for DAC.