Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem

On Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400, "Edward Rawde"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

"Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> wrote in message news:0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com...

On Sun, 04 May 2025 10:32:21 -0700, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 04 May 2025 11:48:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and
the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter.  It's useful
to hang some numbers on the problem.
>
There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with
much overlap.
>
The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to
wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the
various climate models and thus their predictions.
>
Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the
capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand:
Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on
Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing
river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year
circa 2015, and growing.
>
Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in
scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists
and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019).
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4>
>
The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of
atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are
simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the
question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at
least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the
inventory to pre-industrial levels over time.  This is a far simpler
question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify
and predict.
>
The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number,
the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by
volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide.   People are instinctively suspicious
of the very large numbers that result.  But unlike climate science and
its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual
to verify.
>
The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value
one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and
its FAQ: .<https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/pns/faq.html>, sixth item.
>
The calculation is quite simple.  The official weight of the
atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons,
or 5.148 million metric gigatons.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth>
>
If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density
(they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of
elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is
correct.  The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated
2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.
>
The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400
ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental
carbon in the atmosphere.
>
Joe Gwinn

>
Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people
were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and
nasty.
>
Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high
as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin,
I'd go for 750.

>
It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then
it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to
broadcast emissions fits the data entirely.

>
What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?

>
A 1979 paper on the subject which I still have somewhere upstairs. I
saved it even though I wasn't at that point studying the subject -
that was to come later. Nevertheless, there must have been evidential
value in it for me to have retained it.

Incidentally, you can't have a
proper discussion on the matter all the time Bill Sloman's around,
sententiously dispensing his own novel form of 'wisdom' in his
customary supercilious manner.
>

>
The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x
So they fit but they are not related.
>

CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:
>
>
https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw