## Where communities thrive

• Join over 1.5M+ people
• Join over 100K+ communities
• Free without limits
##### Activity
• May 11 08:20

safiume on dev

Added out_* variables for magcf… (compare)

• Apr 26 07:47

safiume on master

Moved to CDRex files to new rep… (compare)

• Apr 26 07:30

safiume on dev

Moved to CDRex files to new rep… (compare)

• Apr 26 05:39

safiume on dev

• Apr 26 05:39
safiume closed #1
• Apr 26 05:38
safiume opened #1
• Apr 26 05:16

safiume on master

Modeling Carbon Dioxide Removal… Merge branch 'master' of https:… (compare)

• Jan 06 2018 14:07

safiume on master

• Jan 06 2018 14:07

safiume on master

• Dec 11 2017 12:19

safiume on master

Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
So something stronger than graphite due to the binder. (less possibility of van der waals sheering, like in graphite.)
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
potentially “nano structured carbon"
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
bicycle hoops are crazy! wholly crap, over a grand? I was thinking pro cycling racers and mtb would be interested.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Although, if it's solid rubber+cnts, then if you get goat head thorns or glass, (the killer of all bike tires) then it should be resistant, since it's not an inflatable. the only reason we use air is because it's light. the rubber alone wasn't light enough for high-end uses.
duh! instant market.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
shooting guns at carbon nanotube vests: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG8Dk5FnNxE
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
I've been thinking of graphene/cnts markets. Who is going to buy and pay to make things out of this... yep. armor.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
this video is insane
i can’t stop giggling
this is superman level shit
yea who do you think will buy graphene/cnts?
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
It's shared to the public ONC website docs area.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
tires that last a long time
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
oh, right... I'll fix that..
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
i default to editable for all public docs, if somoene deletes it so be it, have had some great stuff emerge from it
have a good appt!
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
I'm out of the appt, but it's not raining. I should grab a bicycle ride for the next hour.
It's editable by you, Matt, Andy and Dvorit. Humm... I'll put together a general drive area for the public space. This doc is in the onc-pub folder to be available on the website.
If it stays under quota, I'll keep the drive area... I don't want it to blow my drive quota.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
thanks!
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Ok, I've added onc-open as a folder for the general public for collaboration. I'll have to look into getting google apis to monitor that space. Anyone a javascript expert? I might be able to cob something together quickly.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
would love to find something like that, we’ve been wondering how to better monitor our own edits and modifications on google drive
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
neato! wonder if there’s any plugins or stuff we can use easily
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
@/all W00T, the ONC exhibit entry was accepted to the Maker Faire!
And I just updated the mainpage with a blurb on nanocarbons. ONC is all about hexagons!
theandybot
@theandybot
Woohoo
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
So, I'm still head down on some climate science related info. After that I'll jump back to Metat1.
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Based on the climate science info I've been reading. We need to clear up the disconnect between what lawmakers have were able to get global agreement on what's acceptable vs what needs to happen to actually end climate change. The IPCC reports are so huge and written for so many different audiences: policy makers, scientists, etc... that they are very, very time-consuming to read. The climate science has mostly been focused on shooting for targets that have been adopted, 2ºC, and 1.5ºC. which equates to the acceptable level of planet warming from some date, which I forget, 1750 I hope. Most of their models show how to get to 1.5ºC and various ways we can miss it. Where the disconnect is, is that 1.5ºC is only a portion less than 1/2 of all CO2 from anthropogenic emissions since 1750. Since we still have more than 1/2 we've caused to be emitted, it leaks back out from the oceans and land, to raise the temp higher than 1.5ºC for centuries. In order to stop climate change, or restore the planet back to a state before the pre-industrual revolution, just remove all CO2 that was caused by human emissions. That amount of carbon is 627 GtC today. The focus is therefore not how much carbon we think we can delude ourselves in to thinking we can still emit, but to fervently, relentlessly, aggressively pursue peak carbon emissions. Then at the same time bring on carbon negative technologies to solidify carbon or remove $CO_2$ such that we start getting to 25 GtC removal a year. I'm working on coming up with a nice way of showing what GtC equals 1.5ºC and 0ºC and the continued removal... The upside is the oceans should start to recover in a really rough estimate say around 2/3 the time it takes to hit 277PPM -> 13yrs, so maybe 8yrs?
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Some new graphs to visualize how much we'd have to remove to get to levels at 1988, 1959, 1913, and 1750. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10Ih5NItPFPnB5x09QLzG_zn6JwUNmAx1RQ6k2KRlOXI
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
(then I'll jump back to meta1.)
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
So I totally didn't expect this to be so high. For RCP 2.6, it leaves us with CO₂ concentration at just below 450 by 2100. Lots more work ahead
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
﻿﻿﻿﻿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.
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
The line in the lowest black, corresponds to SSP2 RCP 2.6 GCAM4
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
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.