Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!border-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 22:40:31 +0000
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem
Date: Sun, 04 May 2025 18:40:31 -0400
Message-ID: <24rf1k93u6kq8figh66209a27fs2edm2il@4ax.com>
References: <bp2f1k1tbkaite705netiah5bup0r8k6jg@4ax.com> <028f1k9oi1earfm5cu5m18efe6dos3j4m3@4ax.com> <0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com> <vv8ps2$2idp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 99
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-Efc1C8oz9h3RSYabUYg/Bhc333g8MAiB1+bpCuBiqVz3FNUqo/hb7XA8Daudzf14t//5BHT7lTsTXRQ!dz34JtgykznZKcMKOfeOMQlIStLB4zseeK43mN3YEgCpPTKIhCCHXymHQ9VSAZPzAQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

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?
>
>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 
>
Hang a number on it.  What is the total emitted power for all
broadcast stations in the world?  Compare with the heat content of the
atmosphere.

Joe