Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem
Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 19:12:26 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com>
References: <bp2f1k1tbkaite705netiah5bup0r8k6jg@4ax.com> <028f1k9oi1earfm5cu5m18efe6dos3j4m3@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 20:12:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4272e6f73db55c1d3276f335513b2853";
	logging-data="2681829"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fnHfikjXJ1eMd6cnL6dsgLxrZTJ4429w="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MIuEbRByEezvgyAID3OZ1B7gifY=
Bytes: 4883

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. CO2? Not one bit. I looked
into this some time ago. You can read the results here:


https://disk.yandex.com/d/fz3HkPWpK-qlWw