Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
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

    Update README.md Update README.md Update README.md and 3 more (compare)

  • 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

    Update README.md (compare)

  • Jan 06 2018 14:07

    safiume on master

    Update README.md (compare)

  • Dec 11 2017 12:19

    safiume on master

    Update README.md (compare)

Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
this is superman level shit
yea who do you think will buy graphene/cnts?
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
gotta jump to an appt. ... hang on a sec...
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 CO2CO_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
@/all Ok, the draft is ready. Please comment https://goo.gl/F9HoVz
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
rcp-inc.png
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.
rcp-yrly.png
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
ssps.png
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.
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
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.
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
At the Maker Faire!!!! Please do drop by today.
Tito Jankowski
@titojankowski
hows was Maker Faire @safiume?
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
Sorry, it's been a long few days...
Good! More later, say after The Conference on Negative CO2.
Shannon A Fiume
@safiume
ocean-restoration.png
climate-restored.png
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.