Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!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 19:04:02 -0400
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <vv8rp4$2ccn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <bp2f1k1tbkaite705netiah5bup0r8k6jg@4ax.com> <028f1k9oi1earfm5cu5m18efe6dos3j4m3@4ax.com> <0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com> <vv8ps2$2idp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <24rf1k93u6kq8figh66209a27fs2edm2il@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 May 2025 23:04:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="78231"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:wILosm+UPe9EQKEzgQBwJTj03F4= sha256:rzHS9NhqFtUKP+Vw+pui/OjvCf2WwT8YlIwYe6GwtKE=
	sha1:HZjU8tPT38UMGfp3lGv60chYaco= sha256:PfDTaUn2lRmGfORkJlyi4lv21DdUdewQmq0ufdTbA2c=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931

"Joe Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message news:24rf1k93u6kq8figh66209a27fs2edm2il@4ax.com...
> 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?

I don't see a way to determine it, even assuming all radiated power causes heating.

>  Compare with the heat content of the
> atmosphere.

That might be easier, approximately.

The total mass of the atmosphere appears to be about 5.148e+18 kg
The heat capacity appears to be about 1012 J/(kg*K)
So if I multiply those I get 5.21e+21 J/K
So if I want to heat by 2K I need about 1.042e+22 J

Anyone should feel free to point out any errors in my not very highly sophisticated calculations.

>
> Joe