4 ms·

I'm not talking about this one project, but multiple projects going on at the same time. And yes we can measure it daily but do we know what's the lag? If we r

by 6d6b73 7y ago

I'm not talking about this one project, but multiple projects going on at the same time. And yes we can measure it daily but do we know what's the lag? If we remove 1mln tons of CO2 from the atmosphere today, will it show up in the results tomorrow? If not, do we know how that's going to affect the climate?

graeme 7y ago
You can monitor CO2 real time. And if we ever took too much out, which is vanishingly unlikely: just burn more oil! You can buy a co2 sensor for $150 or so.
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  Lol. Im sure $150 co2 sensor will be able to detect co2 concentration in the atmosphere of our planet. Climat is a very delicate system. Once we remove too much there might not be enough time to reverse this.
  - dependsontheq 7y ago
    In general yes - Outside my co2 sensor shows an accurate enough current planetary co2 level. Watching it is frightening.
    - 6d6b73 7y ago
      So you're looking at the display and instantly you know what the value was last year, and how the seasonal variability affect whatever you see on the display? Whatever you're reading on your co2 sensor, thermometer, or any other sensor device RIGHT NOW is only indication of what's happening right now, in your location. That's not a global trend, not even a local trend. And having the sensor installed in incorrect place can mean that the data is worth less.
  - kragen 7y ago
    Yes, “lol”, it will. In fact you don't even need to spend US$150. Your ignorance is not a good reason to sneer at people who are doing you the favor of sharing their knowledge with you.
    - 6d6b73 7y ago
      Well, the problem with most of these off the shelf , indoor sensors, is that they are calibrated to current reading of about 400ppm, that's their base. To correctly measure CO2 you will need something that does not depend on that value to self-calibrate. What's more, some of them can have +/- 20ppm or worse accuracy. If the average annual ppm increase is 2ppm you can't reliably see the increase on your home device. To do that you need to have something that's NIST calibrated, with correct accuracy, set in a right place, and gather the data for longer period of time. You will need to smooth the data, and know how to interpret it. Source: I develop software for data acquisition systems
      - kragen 7y ago
        Thank you!
SwellJoe 7y ago
We are decades into pumping vastly more carbon into the atmosphere than is sustainable. We're not going to accidentally flip that problem upside down without noticing years in advance.
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  Like we've reacted when scientists told us about rising co2 levels 30 or 40 years ago?
  - SwellJoe 7y ago
    I don't think I understand your position here. Do you believe there is a profit motive to doing this kind of carbon sequestration? As I understand it, it's going to be expensive to do, and require significant money/time/effort to keep doing it. So, what will keep it going in your runaway scenario? Why will people keep mining and moving these materials into place beyond the point where it is necessary to counter our current crisis?
    - 6d6b73 7y ago
      I was talking about possibility of having multiple projects run by different countries/non-profits at the same time, without any coordination, and messing up the climate even more. Why is that so controversial?
      - SwellJoe 7y ago
        I think it's an unpopular opinion because there's no evidence that states will "over-do" any climate action. So far, climate action is almost entirely theoretical. States are doing effectively nothing to counter climate change. One might even argue they're doing less than nothing, by continuing to allow externalizing costs of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, etc. It seems implausible that there would be too much action on climate change, because there is currently effectively none. Maybe your theory will seem more believable if any major climate action takes place. But, given the costs and current inertia in the other direction, I don't think it is a realistic problem to worry about today.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I have no doubt that any project that gets scaled will be closely monitored for CO2 and effects locally - governments will want to know they getting something for their money. First to prove it works well enough, that they're not being defrauded by convincing snake oil, and also any unintended consequences no one mentioned. It took years of the gigatons from burning oil, and the gigatons coming from burning forest and other plant material not being replaced by new growth that got us into this mess. We might be remediating for decades or centuries. Any and all are going to take years to ramp up to required scale - of mining, building, logistics, finance. We should get ample warning. So long as contracts are written such they can stop when no longer needed... (I believe they'll probably always be needed until the oil is literally finished, but that's entirely different conversation!)

by 6d6b73 7y ago

graeme 7y ago

You can monitor CO2 real time. And if we ever took too much out, which is vanishingly unlikely: just burn more oil! You can buy a co2 sensor for $150 or so.

6d6b73 7y ago
Lol. Im sure $150 co2 sensor will be able to detect co2 concentration in the atmosphere of our planet. Climat is a very delicate system. Once we remove too much there might not be enough time to reverse this.
- dependsontheq 7y ago
  In general yes - Outside my co2 sensor shows an accurate enough current planetary co2 level. Watching it is frightening.
  - 6d6b73 7y ago
    So you're looking at the display and instantly you know what the value was last year, and how the seasonal variability affect whatever you see on the display? Whatever you're reading on your co2 sensor, thermometer, or any other sensor device RIGHT NOW is only indication of what's happening right now, in your location. That's not a global trend, not even a local trend. And having the sensor installed in incorrect place can mean that the data is worth less.
- kragen 7y ago
  Yes, “lol”, it will. In fact you don't even need to spend US$150. Your ignorance is not a good reason to sneer at people who are doing you the favor of sharing their knowledge with you.
  - 6d6b73 7y ago
    Well, the problem with most of these off the shelf , indoor sensors, is that they are calibrated to current reading of about 400ppm, that's their base. To correctly measure CO2 you will need something that does not depend on that value to self-calibrate. What's more, some of them can have +/- 20ppm or worse accuracy. If the average annual ppm increase is 2ppm you can't reliably see the increase on your home device. To do that you need to have something that's NIST calibrated, with correct accuracy, set in a right place, and gather the data for longer period of time. You will need to smooth the data, and know how to interpret it. Source: I develop software for data acquisition systems
    - kragen 7y ago
      Thank you!

SwellJoe 7y ago

We are decades into pumping vastly more carbon into the atmosphere than is sustainable. We're not going to accidentally flip that problem upside down without noticing years in advance.

6d6b73 7y ago
Like we've reacted when scientists told us about rising co2 levels 30 or 40 years ago?
- SwellJoe 7y ago
  I don't think I understand your position here. Do you believe there is a profit motive to doing this kind of carbon sequestration? As I understand it, it's going to be expensive to do, and require significant money/time/effort to keep doing it. So, what will keep it going in your runaway scenario? Why will people keep mining and moving these materials into place beyond the point where it is necessary to counter our current crisis?
  - 6d6b73 7y ago
    I was talking about possibility of having multiple projects run by different countries/non-profits at the same time, without any coordination, and messing up the climate even more. Why is that so controversial?
    - SwellJoe 7y ago
      I think it's an unpopular opinion because there's no evidence that states will "over-do" any climate action. So far, climate action is almost entirely theoretical. States are doing effectively nothing to counter climate change. One might even argue they're doing less than nothing, by continuing to allow externalizing costs of fossil fuels, animal agriculture, etc. It seems implausible that there would be too much action on climate change, because there is currently effectively none. Maybe your theory will seem more believable if any major climate action takes place. But, given the costs and current inertia in the other direction, I don't think it is a realistic problem to worry about today.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

I have no doubt that any project that gets scaled will be closely monitored for CO2 and effects locally - governments will want to know they getting something for their money. First to prove it works well enough, that they're not being defrauded by convincing snake oil, and also any unintended consequences no one mentioned. It took years of the gigatons from burning oil, and the gigatons coming from burning forest and other plant material not being replaced by new growth that got us into this mess. We might be remediating for decades or centuries. Any and all are going to take years to ramp up to required scale - of mining, building, logistics, finance. We should get ample warning. So long as contracts are written such they can stop when no longer needed... (I believe they'll probably always be needed until the oil is literally finished, but that's entirely different conversation!)