Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem
Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 18:31:28 -0400
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <vv8ps2$2idp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <bp2f1k1tbkaite705netiah5bup0r8k6jg@4ax.com> <028f1k9oi1earfm5cu5m18efe6dos3j4m3@4ax.com> <0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 22:31:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="84409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PqmFHmwJIJo0JPHhv2Q/kYl0BTY= sha256:nDYRiNlu916aQnHqf5pgF9bqz6uqCIfU+6ypaTlTFE8=
	sha1:7XpsJQTHeScE/+WoQlVA8OCkKxw= sha256:aaJ6bVffyJZSPxVlK2HSkhfFHeze4ioN58QdB2XKBYk=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Bytes: 5516

"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