Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vvaev7$i49e$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: piglet <erichpwagner@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 14:37:43 +0100 Organization: A noisesome patent Spinner Lines: 136 Message-ID: <vvaev7$i49e$1@dont-email.me> References: <bp2f1k1tbkaite705netiah5bup0r8k6jg@4ax.com> <028f1k9oi1earfm5cu5m18efe6dos3j4m3@4ax.com> <0uaf1k9jr2dqrnlka6na4fq5stjollm6md@4ax.com> <vv8ps2$2idp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <24rf1k93u6kq8figh66209a27fs2edm2il@4ax.com> <vv8rp4$2ccn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 05 May 2025 15:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0723e60db8ebf6e2a0589968bc6eafff"; logging-data="594222"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18X6lv0rRa1oyJi9qeuvTH4" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:Inwq4xbcxeQ5Oxqz+oEX1DFiiQU= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <vv8rp4$2ccn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> Bytes: 7635 On 05/05/2025 12:04 am, Edward Rawde wrote: > "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 > > Thanks, I have not tried to verify your calculation but if we accept your figure of 1e+22 J needed then over the 100 years of human broadcasting that averages to 300 GW Google reports 22,000 FM broadcast transmitters in the USA. If we suppose thats 20% of the world's then worldwide there are 100k. If I assume each averages 200 W that's 0.02 GW. If we assume there are similar number TV transmitters each averaging 1 kW then thats another 0.1 GW. If we assume that 0.12 GW is matched by AM and other broadcasts then the total is (roughly) 0.3 GW That is still three orders of magnitude below the estimate needed to warm the atmosphere - and assumes nothing gets radiated into space! Or could there be enough non-broadcast contributors to strengthen the claim? piglet