> I'd be happy if I could establish the model as at > least being a start in the direction of accurately costing the carbon in > the atmosphere.
> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/TABULA/samples/cost_to_capture_atmospheric_CO2 > > <https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/TABULA/samples/cost_to_capture_atmospheric_CO2> > Atmospheric CO2 concentration has been rising steadily since 1960, when it > first began to be measured regularly at Mauna Loa, HI. At that time it > stood at <320 ppm (parts-per-million). Now it stands at >400 ppm, an > increase of over 80 ppm. Yes my comment was about what you said you wanted to model and not TABULA. This April, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hit 415 parts per million for the first time. It’s the highest level in human history. Current emissions are around 40 giga-tons a year. So far – we got a free ride--forests and oceans mop up more than half our carbon waste. To reduce levels the best thing would be to curb carbon emissions now. To model CO2 in the atmosphere you need to account for ongoing sources and sinks—its not static, it's a carbon cycle. In terms of sinks, someone mentioned forests, someone mentioned phytoplankton in the ocean, and I mentioned coastal habitats (see Blue Carbon). Mounting CO2 in the atmosphere mopped up by the ocean is making large sections of the ocean anoxic—these are not bottomless sinks. It's acceptable to use Mauna Loa data as a proxy for global CO2 levels since CO2 mixes well throughout the atmosphere. The trend in Mauna Loa CO2 (1.64 ppm per year) is statistically indistinguishable from the trend in global CO2 levels (1.66 ppm per year). There is a history of atmospheric CO2, derived from the Mauna Loa observations back to 1958. Annual CO2 levels from Mauna Loa--60 data points (that would seem easy to cross check) With ice core, data goes back to year 900. Longer history of atmospheric CO2 was reconstructed from studies of deep-sea sediments To find atmospheric CO2 levels equivalent to the present, we have to go back 2.5 million years 1 ppmv of CO2= 2.13 Gt of carbon Enough direct air capture to remove current emissions would take 40,000 large Carbon Engineering plants that they say will capture 500,000 tons of CO2 annually. Carbon Engineering published a paper saying that it had dropped costs to around $94 to $232 a ton. That assumes selling the CO2—it can be sold for as much as $350 a ton in niche applications, like remote soda bottling plants—the market would quickly be saturated. Your $100 cost is a net cost assuming the CO2 can be sold. It does not include the cost of carbon storage. Clean Power Plan (US EPA 2015) $11 per ton CO2—would have resulted in large emissions reductions for a cost far below the $100 in your model. Example Carbon sinks: 83% of the global carbon cycle is circulated through the ocean. Coastal habitats account for approximately half of the total carbon sequestered in ocean sediments. Forests and oceans both draw in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, —reforestation—$ 1—$10 per ton CO2 Paradox: Three billion years ago, the sun was only about 70 percent as bright as it is today. Earth should have frozen over, but it didn’t. Why not? Because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mainly methane and carbon dioxide, trapped enough of the sun’s heat to keep temperatures above freezing. When photosynthetic organisms produced enough oxygen it reacted with the methane in the atmosphere, transforming it forever. About two billion years ago, the methane haze cleared and the sky turned blue. In the world of a Pigouvian tax (cost imposed on activities that create social harms), markets sort out the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions Blending corn ethanol into gasoline up to a 10 percent ratio provides essentially costless emissions reductions (replacing more expensive octane booster) Replacing coal-fired electricity generation with natural gas Using an electric vehicle in a region in which electricity is generated by coal has approximately the same CO2 footprint a gas fuelled vehicle. Aim to minimize the cost of mitigation both today and into the future, recognizing that actions taken today can influence future costs. > Some groups have taken a stab at calculating what climate change will cost > the world, or conversely, how much humanity would save by becoming more > sustainable. Earlier this month, the Global Commission on the Economy and > Climate > <https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/5/17816808/sustainability-26-trillion-global-commission-economy-climate> > tallied the number at a truly massive $26 trillion in savings by 2030. > Critically, it’s also the foundation of US climate policies, including the > Clean Power Plan > <https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17763916/epa-clean-power-plan-affordable-clean-energy>. > Revising this number down has been a key part of the Trump administration’s > strategy to roll back environmental rules > <https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/29/16684952/epa-scott-pruitt-director-regulations>. > Under Obama, the social cost of carbon > <https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html> > was set at $45 per ton > <https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2017/11/15/trump-vs-obama-on-the-social-cost-of-carbon-and-why-it-matters/> > of carbon dioxide; under Trump, it’s as little as $1. Donna Y [email protected] > On Jun 9, 2019, at 11:15 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, Donna & Greg, off-topic. I didn't want to start a disputation about > climate science per-se. If I didn't make that clear, I'm really sorry. > > This thread's for mathematical modelling with sufficiently transparent and > trusty software; TABULA in particular; plus suggestions for how to provide > assurance that it is to be trusted. > > Or alternatively, establish that it isn't. > > Then there's how much trust to place in the model itself, but that's a > different issue -- a colossal one. Maybe that needs a thread of its own too. > > Except that the 11 built-in models are part of the TABULA release, so maybe > we need some assurance about those, or at least a clear statement of their > assumptions and limitations. > > > > On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 at 23:35, Donna Y <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> The ocean acts as a carbon sink and covers 71% of the earth’s surface >> (and is 270 times greater in mass than the atmosphere >>> >>> coastline is extensive enough to wrap around the earth almost fifteen >> times (372,000 miles!). The study found that annually, such ecosystems >> could trap and store 2 to 35 times more carbon than even ocean phytoplankton >> >> Donna Y >> [email protected] >> >> >>> On Jun 7, 2019, at 2:28 PM, greg heil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> If good/cheap/big/fast carbon sinks are up for discussion i would >> recommend phytoplankton... Salmon are tasty too, but that is a side dish. >>> >>> >> https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral-geoengineering >> < >> https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral-geoengineering >> >> <https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral-geoengineering> >>> >>> >>> ~greg >>> http://krsnada <http://krsnada/> <http://krsnadas.org/ >>> <http://krsnadas.org/>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm >> <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > <http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
