Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem

On 5/05/2025 6:58 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:

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:

<snip>

All possibly true, but irrelevant.  The intent of the engineering
analysis is to see what will actually be needed.  In other words, I'm
showing the scale of what's required to move the needle.  Hint:  Bring
a BIG calculator.

Actually one which can handle floating point numbers.
What you really need to do first is to understand the problem, and your elaborate calculation of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ignores the fact that only half the CO2 we've been dumping into the atmosphere shows up there.
The other half appears to be going into solution in the oceans. The actual amount of CO2 dissolved in the Earth's oceans is hard to estimate accurately. The ice core data seems to show that it takes about 800 years for the atmospheric level to equilibrate with ocean content.
The top layers of the oceans should equilibrate faster than that, but there's a lot of deep ocean, and not all of it has return currents flowing through it.
The Argo float project is designed to detect those deep return currents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)
It's had roughly 3000 floats drifting around the world's oceans since 2007, which may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of ocean to probe.
At the moment you are coming across as less superficial than the likes of John Larkin and Cursitor Doom, but still pretty superficial. This will undoubtedly strike Cursistor Doom as a supercilious response, but any even moderately well informed response is going to strike him that way. He doesn't really appreciate quite how ignorant he is, any more than Donald Trump does.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney