undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrobomartin6y ago0 comments

You misunderstood. I didn't say we have to leave the planet. What I am exposing in the data is that we know how atmospheric CO2 would decrease if we did (and took all of our toys with us).

The answer is simple: We cannot fix this. Because any attempt would require energy and resources beyond planetary scale. Which means we are far more likely to kill everything on this planet than to fix it.

I am not a climate scientist either. I am, however, an engineer, and I have a pretty solid handle on Physics. Conservation of Energy alone says we cannot fix this.

BTW, by "fix this" I mean, any faster than the natural rate of about 50,000 years for a reduction of 100ppm.

If you take the time to read the Google paper I linked you'll find the statement that sent me on a path to truly try to understand this many years ago. They said, paraphrasing:

"Even if we convert all energy generation on the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy, not only will we not see atmospheric CO2 levels decline or level-off, they will continue to rise exponentially".

This was a conclusion exactly opposite what the researchers went into this "knowing". I appreciate they were honest enough to publish this and actually expose just how confused we've become about this concept of saving the planet. It simply isn't going to happen. Not in a generation, not in a hundred, not even in a thousand.

You see, it's that pesky bit of data: 50,000 years for a reduction of 100 ppm. Without humanity.

This means that if humans stay on the planet, even if population growth stopped, and we magically --because it would require magic-- became carbon neutral, it would still take at least 50,000 years to drop 100 ppm, or, more than likely, 100,000 or 200,000, pick a number.

This is equivalent to trying to remove smoke from your kitchen with a small fan while you continue to burn the food you are cooking on the frying pan. You just can't do it. You have to stop cooking and then wait for the small fan do do the job over a couple of hours. If you want it done faster you have to stop cooking and use a much larger fan (more energy). If you, on the other hand, continue to burn your food and install a bigger fan, you may or may not clear the smoke. If you do, it will likely take just as long or longer.

This isn't difficult stuff to understand. It's actually the most common sense science I've seen in a long time. The graphs tell a story. All we have to do is see it, read it and understand it.

0 comments

magduf6y ago

The entire problem with your logic is that you're assuming that humans will not and cannot do anything at all to change carbon levels, aside from relying on natural processes. That's completely ridiculous. Any attempt to fix the problem has to involve artificial actions: carbon sequestration, solar shades, etc.

Your entire mentality is "it took X years for nature to do this, so it'll take X years to undo it by natural processes, and oh yeah, we have to actually undo it so everything goes back exactly the way it was, instead of just making the end result satisfactory". This isn't helpful at all. As I pointed out before, we can reduce the amount of sunlight using solar shades; we don't actually need CO2 levels to go back to pre-industrial levels. We just need to prevent the temperature from rising so much, while we figure out how to deal with the CO2.

>This is equivalent to trying to remove smoke from your kitchen with a small fan while you continue to burn the food you are cooking on the frying pan. You just can't do it.

Yes, you really can. With a fan powerful enough, and a vent hood, you absolutely can. It really doesn't take that much, and it depends on how much smoke you're producing, but you seem to think you need a turbojet engine to clear the air in a small kitchen from a small cooking fire, and you really don't.

>If you want it done faster you have to stop cooking and use a much larger fan (more energy).

Here's the part you're not getting. The amount of energy you need to run a vent fan isn't anywhere near the amount of energy unleashed by your cooking fire. Even better, if you constrain the air supply, the fire burns itself out quickly, or at least is prevented from producing as much smoke.

>It's actually the most common sense science I've seen in a long time.

I've noticed that people who throw around the term "common sense" a lot do so because they really don't understand things very well, and think their intuitive understanding suffices, when in fact it doesn't.

robomartinOP6y ago

Thanks for the personal attack at the end. Class act.

Don't take the kitchen analogy literally, that's not what an analogy is for. I won't discuss it, because it is purely a tool not a precise model of planetary-scale dynamics.

You also misunderstood my point entirely. And, BTW, don't tell people things like "that's completely ridiculous" unless you are in a position to irrefutably prove what you are saying. Also, it's rude.

Anyhow, my point is very, very simple:

If it takes in the range of 50,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm without humanity around, any solution that claims to be able to do this a thousand times faster has a massive burden or proof equivalent to magic and divine intervention, combined.

Politicians toss around all kinds of proposals and plans that are equivalent of the famous "and then a miracle occurs" cartoon. They want to destroy entire economies just because they say so. And all of it is nonsense.

Now, let's think about what it means that it took 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop (which is about what we need).

Well, it involved massive amounts of rain, hurricanes, cyclones as well as massive amounts of trees and vegetation growth. Please stop and think about the energy it took for, year after, year, for 50,000 years to drop so much water and grow so many trees and vegetation to capture the CO2 and drop it by 100 ppm. The scale is almost inconceivable.

Can we find a more efficient way to do it? OK, let's assume we can (which I think is a fair assumption). A thousand times more efficient? I don't have to do the math to know that even if we were 1,000x more efficient it would still require an astronomical amount of energy and resources. I would not be surprised if an improvement in efficient CO2 capture in the order of a million times better than the natural process still required so much in terms of resources and energy that it would be just about impossible.

And yet we are missing the forest for the trees. What I am talking about mostly is what the zealots and politicians are parading around. With the reality I presented, which is irrefutable --unless someone wants to challenge ice core data-- it is easy to prove how ridiculous their proposals actually are:

Switch to renewable energy sources: Nope, CO2 levels will still continue to rise exponentially. This has already been studied.

Stop coal plants: Nope, even if we left the planet it would take 50,000 years.

Outlaw all forms of petroleum-powered transportation: Nope, even if we left the planet it would take 50,000 years.

On, and on, and on.

What you are saying about blocking the sun is another one of those ideas. First of all, anyone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in aerospace and gotten into the physics of the matter understands the unbelievable amount of energy it would require to launch millions of solar shades and put them into orbit. I mean, it takes energy to create the fuel and oxidant to put into a rocket. And these processes are not clean. On top of that, that many rocket launches would only add to the problem. And then we are talking about meddling with a planetary scale ecological system that is the result of billions of years of adaptation under existing solar conditions. There is no way whatsoever to predict what could happen. Again, we could succeed at killing absolutely everything on this planet. The only people who believe simulations are those who wrote the code, for the most part we have no clue what <doing x> will produce 10 years from now, much less 50 or 100.

It's hubris to think we can actually do this when everything we touch is far more likely to cause more pollution and require hyper-planetary scales of energy and materials.

I know lots of people --politicians!-- have a lot of sunk costs and interest in not challenging --even a little-- the status quo. And so I fear we are going to do a whole bunch of really stupid things. And I can't do a thing about it. Nobody can, because that train is already on the tracks in more ways than one. In that sense and more this conversation is a complete waste of everyone's time.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse