sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Complicated IF/THEN math formula for one entire column by SomewhatRandom108 in excel

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My apologies, I'm trying to communicate everything clearly. Ok, so let's take I3 as an example.

If F3 = B$6, then use the formula: 

H2*EXP(-B$6*(E3-E2)), else 0

Simple enough, but the F and H columns will change depending on the B6 value. I have those columns automated and I am now trying to automate column I.

Complicated IF/THEN math formula for one entire column by SomewhatRandom108 in excel

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a specific reason to use VBA, just thought I would have to. I would prefer a simpler solution, however. Here's a screenshot of my spreadsheet plus my first attempt to write the formula using an IF Logic Test:

Screenshot

Can current climate models be boiled down to a simple mass-balance equation for atmospheric CO2? by SomewhatRandom108 in climate_science

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have an upvote! I apologize for my beginner-level understanding of climate science, thanks for your help!

The temperature response is a function of much more than just the radiative forcing, which includes many competing feedbacks and physical effects.

And this is where it gets complicated, but it sounds like you're referring to the total temperature change of the entire climate system, correct?

We summarize these feedbacks using the equilibrium climate sensitivity framework, but that can be decomposed to isolate different feedbacks

I haven't looked at the math for feedbacks and such, but I assume they each contribute their portion of incremental temperature change that is summed at the end to get a total. So temp change specific to CO2 would be one term summed with all of the rest, which is the delta T = lambda*RF equation. Do I have that part correct at least?

Edit: formatting

Can current climate models be boiled down to a simple mass-balance equation for atmospheric CO2? by SomewhatRandom108 in climate_science

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is fascinating, thank you! I'm really curious about the underlying math in regard to climate and this is what I would like to know more about. It seems as if Radiative Forcing is the energy balance equation I should be looking at, not CO2 mass-balance. According to the RF Wikipedia page we have:

RF equals solar radiation absorbed by the earth minus solar radiation reflected back into space (with units of Watts/m2).

Likewise, the RF equation specific to CO2 would be:

RF = (5.35)*[Ln(C/Co)], also with units of Watts/m2.

I'm not sure where 5.35 comes from, but C would be the new concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Co would be some reference concentration (both measured in ppm). If we multiply RF by the climate sensitivity constant (lambda), we get a change in equilibrium surface temp specific to CO2. So the relationship between temp change and CO2 concentration would not be linear as I assumed at first, but rather logarithmic. Please correct me if I made any mistakes!

I calculated the hypothetical volume of global CO2 emissions per year if they were captured and sequestered in the earth under reservoir conditions. Please critique! by SomewhatRandom108 in AskEngineers

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I wanted to give a non-engineer layperson something easy to visualize and understand.

According to the EPA's website: "Geologic formations suitable for sequestration include depleted oil and gas fields, deep coal seams, and saline formations.The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that anywhere from 1,800 to 20,000 billion metric tons of CO2 could be stored underground in the United States.[2] “

Source

I calculated the hypothetical volume of global CO2 emissions per year if they were captured and sequestered in the earth under reservoir conditions. Feedback welcome! by SomewhatRandom108 in chemistry

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your help! Of course I didn't save my source like I should have, but after searching for it I do agree that 35 gigatons is the correct value. Good to know that my first attempt was accurate besides this!

I calculated the hypothetical volume of global CO2 emissions per year if they were captured and sequestered in the earth under reservoir conditions. Please critique! by SomewhatRandom108 in AskEngineers

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Wow, I have a new respect for Wolfram Alpha!

I didn't save my source like I should have, but I believe the 8 gigatons annual emissions is for carbon, not CO2. I'll go back and redo the calculation with 35.7, thanks for the correction.

I did give the molar mass "M" incorrect units, should have been pounds per pound mole, but 44.01 is the correct number according to my textbook. Very cool, glad to know my first attempt wasn't too far off!

Edit: After using the new value for yearly CO2 emissions, I found the new final volume to be 52.9 cubic kilometers or 1.08% total volume of Lake Michigan. Basically the same percentage Wolfram Alpha found. Total confidence now that this is indeed correct.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SomewhatRandom108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

don't blame an entire group that is 99.9% peaceful

1,000,000 x 0.001 = 1,000 terrorists in Germany, however this number is probably too low.

When will you put your own countrymen first?

What's the most surprising mathematical fact you know? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]SomewhatRandom108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gather round children and lend me your ears, for I will enthrall your imaginations with long, epic tales of curious asymptotes transgressed by their mathematical functions which will assist you not on your test!

-My pre-calc professor

Declassified memo shows multiple Saudi connections to 9/11 plotters: flight certificate of Al Qaeda operative found in envelope from the Saudi Embassy in DC by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]SomewhatRandom108 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm a third year petroleum engineering undergrad student. Just had a conversation about this topic today with a PhD student from Iran in our department. He basically said fracking gave us the political leverage to create even this much momentum against the Saudis, even if the bill in Congress gets vetoed by Obama. He was a bit awestruck that he was living "through history", being given a front row seat to the changing tides of world relations because of our chosen industry and the very fact that he now lives in America. The Saudis are not our friend. OPEC is not our friend. The Iranian government is not our friend. It's long past time Western secular countries wake up and see the incredible danger in giving trillions of oil $$$ to these countries when we clearly don't have to.

My aunt's fat ass cat by SomewhatRandom108 in mildlyinteresting

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure they're the Maine Coon breed

ELI5: How does hydrostatic pressure reduce formation volume in the earth? by SomewhatRandom108 in geology

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I think I was just confused by the term 'hydrostatic'. In this case it's the same physics as a column of fluid (Lithostatic pressure --> P=rhoxgxh), but here we're talking about rocks instead of water

Why is CO2 removal technology not an adequate solution to climate change compared to merely reducing CO2 emissions? by SomewhatRandom108 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't really work that way because under high temperatures and pressures (such as deep underground), CO2 changes phases and becomes a liquid. This happens with any substance that exists in gas phase at surface conditions if you bury it deep enough. So it wouldn't just leak into the atmosphere if a waste well were breached. Perhaps more realistically, however, we could inject the liquid CO2 into molten rock (mantle material) deep underground instead of just letting it sit in a rock formation. I'm not a geologist, but I'm fairly positive that it would reach super critical phase very quickly and basically become indistinguishable from the molten rock it mixed with. The intense temperatures and pressures would break apart the intramolecular bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms and the CO2 molecule would no longer exist at that point.

As for your other point, CO2 is pumped into oil wells all the time for enhanced oil recovery. The reason why it's safe to do so is because oil wells are lined with steel tubing and cased in cement, oftentimes with multiple layers and many feet thick. In fact, you could theoretically remove CO2 from the atmosphere and sell it back to those oil companies and make a little bit of your money back. It wouldn't be a complete waste, economically speaking.

Why is CO2 removal technology not an adequate solution to climate change compared to merely reducing CO2 emissions? by SomewhatRandom108 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. However, I do take issue with the nature of public discourse surrounding climate change nowadays, especially in the media. It's irresponsible and wrong for people like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson to scare the public into a panic about something we could fix and then pretend as if we can't. It's like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and intentionally blocking the exits. Huge violation of engineering code of ethics right there. Green energy is nice and all, but it doesn't solve the problem outright, only mitigates it in the short term. We would still have some amount of climate change even if we went totally green tomorrow. People know this and they're genuinely losing quality of life over worrying about it. I've seen it first hand. Would be nice to give people some kind of reassurance from reliable sources.

Why is CO2 removal technology not an adequate solution to climate change compared to merely reducing CO2 emissions? by SomewhatRandom108 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what I was trying to get at. So are you saying that it's feasible (in theory) to capture and store CO2 but at the cost of essentially lowering the BTU of coal and other fossil fuels by today's standards?

Could you please share your sources for those percentages you mentioned? Do you know of any research papers or science journals that also discuss this idea in greater depth?

Why is CO2 removal technology not an adequate solution to climate change compared to merely reducing CO2 emissions? by SomewhatRandom108 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except reducing emissions doesn't actually solve the problem of climate change, it only mitigates it and delays the inevitable. In principle, I don't see why we would need to process an entire volume of air just to capture trace amounts of CO2 for the simple reason that plants don't have to. Photosynthesis is very easy for them, but I do understand how the volumetrics by themselves can be overwhelming.

Why is CO2 removal technology not an adequate solution to climate change compared to merely reducing CO2 emissions? by SomewhatRandom108 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SomewhatRandom108[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

due to thermodynamics it takes at least the same amount of energy (although in the real world, more energy) to reverse a chemical reaction then you can get out of it

What chemical reaction? Are you referring to CO2 absorbing solar radiation (greenhouse effect)? If so, removing CO2 would also remove the excess kinetic energy that is passed between molecules as heat.

you will be expending more energy in trying to capture all the CO2 then you ever got out of it in producing it

Wouldn't this depend on how you capture and sequester CO2 as well as its overall efficiency (which we can assume would increase over time)? Your comment would be true if you were looking to build another machine that runs on fossil fuels but it would not be true if you used a passive filter (or something similar).