6 ms·

NOTE: I don't really care about downvotes and try my best not to comment on them. They are pointless without engaging the author. Please take the time to exp

NOTE: I don't really care about downvotes and try my best not to comment on them. They are pointless without engaging the author. Please take the time to explore the simple exercise I present here and understand. If you don't, and your power is in the form of a downvote, what you are doing is becoming part of the problem and behaving in a manner that is no different from climate change deniers. Can you at least try to understand? In the years I have been talking about this I have yet to see anyone challenge the simple findings that can be had from looking at a simple graph. Interesting. > This move feels radical, but I don't see how we avert catastrophe without moves that feel radical. If we keep plodding down the course we're on we'll just sleepwalk into oblivion. One of the most frustrating things for me in the global warming debate is the total lack of interest in the scientific truth on BOTH sides of the issue. The truly odd scenario it sets-up is one where both sides are, well, to be kind, confused. It's weird, deniers don't know what they are talking about --because it is most-definitely real-- and advocates are confused because they are ignoring the most basic science on the subject. What is the truth? There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. Plain and simple. This is a planetary-scale problem that cannot be solved in thousands of years even if the entirety of humanity and our technology left this planet at once. If we all left earth immediately, at best, it will take somewhere in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 years for atmospheric CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm. That's the truth. And it requires everyone leaving earth right away. A consequence of this is that no partial measure anyone can cook-up can even begin to make a dent. In fact, we have years-long research findings concluding that, even if we converted the entire planet to the most optimal forms of renewable energy not only would atmospheric CO2 not go down, it would continue to grow exponentially. And yet everyone ignores the most basic of scientific analysis that confirms this reality. Scientists don't want to speak-up because it would mean losing grants and likely having their lives and careers destroyed. Nobody wants to go against something politicians and others are too happy to use to gain votes and make money. And so, the scientific truth is suppressed and lay-people believe nonsense. OK, so, what is this simple analysis that proves this idea that it would take 50,000 to 100,000 years for CO2 levels to come down by 100 ppm if we all left earth? We know EXACTLY how quickly natural processes reduce atmospheric CO2 through historical ice core sample records going back 800,000 years. In case it isn't obvious, this means we know the rate of change for a planet without humanity. Here's were you will find the 800,000 years of ice core data: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical... https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html Here's a paper that explains why it is that atmospheric CO2 will continue to rise exponentially even if we switch the the most optimal forms of renewable energy world-wide: https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/43326.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-... Take that graph into your favorite image editor and fit lines to it for the decline phase in every cycle. Measure the slope for each cycle. Take the average or median, your choice. The number is in the tens of thousands of years. Not hundreds. Tens of thousands. Then read the paper and understand how a transition to clean energy is an exercise in futility. I challenge anyone to show how anything short of all of humanity leaving earth can produce a rate of change dramatically better than tens of thousands of years per 100 ppm. No magic hand-wavy stuff. Whatever anyone proposes must include analysis of energy and resources needed to execute a planetary scale solution that is able to force a change at a rate up to a thousand times faster than the natural "no humans on earth" rate. This is not to say there aren't a lot of good reasons to clean-up our act. There are. Of course. We just need to stop lying to ourselves, understand reality and start talking about how to adapt for the sake of future generations. We must also free-up our brilliant scientists so they can deal with this issue factually without fear for the destruction of their careers and loss of funding. The current path will lead nowhere. Converting California to all electric vehicles in the name of climate change is farcical at best and potentially detrimental. There isn't anyone alive who can solve a scientific problem by ignoring evidence and data.

svachalek 6y ago
"There's nothing whatsoever we can do about it" makes it sound like a 600ppm world and a 1000ppm world are indistinguishable. Or that carbon sequestration at less than 1000X natural processes is equivalent to none at all. Your own links dispute that.
- robomartin 6y ago
  Not sure how you morphed what I said into what you are saying. I did not say that a "600ppm world and a 1000ppm world are indistinguishable" anywhere. We cannot stop it" much less reduce it. The amount of energy and resources this would require is far more likely to kill everything on this planet than fix anything. You have to think in terms of planetary scale. California is a rounding error. Switching every car in CA to electrics is a rounding error. Switching everyone to solar and wind power is a rounding error. The comparison is to every human being not being on this planet* and our technology shutting down. And in that we know we are looking at tens of thousands of years for a 100 ppm drop. Look, I don't like this reality any more than anyone else. I just want us to stop lying so we can look at this issue from a far more honest perspective. We cannot fix this. We cannot create an artificial solution for a planetary scale problem that would take longer to solve without us around than humanity might survive. Look at the massive forest fires we've had just this year in CA. Care to guess how much CO2 these fires released? I've done the numbers for other fires in the past. It's hard to estimate but I think it is very safe to say that these annual fires easily release YEARS of equivalent transportation CO2 into the atmosphere every year. In fact, that's how the planetary system works! If you go back to the 800,000 years of CO2 data there are two obvious questions anyone inquisitive enough should be asking: How did CO2 increase without humanity around? Massive continental scale fires across somewhere in the order of 25,000 years. How did CO2 decrease without humanity around? Weather. Rains. Hurricanes. Cyclones. Water precipitating CO2. And, yes, trees and plants growing back after the massive fires. Destruction is always easier and faster than reconstruction. These are basic principles. If you curve fit the charts you'll come up with about 25,000 years for a 100 ppm increase due to massive fires and 50,000 to 100,000 years for a drop of the same amount due to weather. Another question that comes up is: Well, we were able to increase it by 100 ppm in a few hundred years. How does that make any sense? Good question. Easy answer. We did it by burning through billions of years in accumulated energy in the form of petroleum". When we burn one gallon of gasoline in a car or one ton of bunker fuel in a cargo ship we are burning something that took an exceedingly long period of time to "manufacture". It took energy in the form of solar energy and an unimaginably large amount of raw materials (plants and animals) to produce the black goo we pull out of the ground and burn. So, yes, in a few hundred years we were able to burn energy that took millions of years and, again, unimaginable amounts of biomass, to produce. And that's another reason for which fixing the problem is impossible. I challenge anyone to name one problem that can be solved with less* energy than that which produced it. If we start with the premise that nothing can be 100% efficient and add to that the sheer scale of the energy and mass that went into what caused this problem the answer, which is right there in the graphs, is beyond obvious. It's high school physics. We need to stop lying if we want a chance to understand the future and make it a better one.

svachalek 6y ago

"There's nothing whatsoever we can do about it" makes it sound like a 600ppm world and a 1000ppm world are indistinguishable. Or that carbon sequestration at less than 1000X natural processes is equivalent to none at all. Your own links dispute that.

robomartin 6y ago
Not sure how you morphed what I said into what you are saying. I did not say that a "600ppm world and a 1000ppm world are indistinguishable" anywhere. We cannot stop it" much less reduce it. The amount of energy and resources this would require is far more likely to kill everything on this planet than fix anything. You have to think in terms of planetary scale. California is a rounding error. Switching every car in CA to electrics is a rounding error. Switching everyone to solar and wind power is a rounding error. The comparison is to every human being not being on this planet* and our technology shutting down. And in that we know we are looking at tens of thousands of years for a 100 ppm drop. Look, I don't like this reality any more than anyone else. I just want us to stop lying so we can look at this issue from a far more honest perspective. We cannot fix this. We cannot create an artificial solution for a planetary scale problem that would take longer to solve without us around than humanity might survive. Look at the massive forest fires we've had just this year in CA. Care to guess how much CO2 these fires released? I've done the numbers for other fires in the past. It's hard to estimate but I think it is very safe to say that these annual fires easily release YEARS of equivalent transportation CO2 into the atmosphere every year. In fact, that's how the planetary system works! If you go back to the 800,000 years of CO2 data there are two obvious questions anyone inquisitive enough should be asking: How did CO2 increase without humanity around? Massive continental scale fires across somewhere in the order of 25,000 years. How did CO2 decrease without humanity around? Weather. Rains. Hurricanes. Cyclones. Water precipitating CO2. And, yes, trees and plants growing back after the massive fires. Destruction is always easier and faster than reconstruction. These are basic principles. If you curve fit the charts you'll come up with about 25,000 years for a 100 ppm increase due to massive fires and 50,000 to 100,000 years for a drop of the same amount due to weather. Another question that comes up is: Well, we were able to increase it by 100 ppm in a few hundred years. How does that make any sense? Good question. Easy answer. We did it by burning through billions of years in accumulated energy in the form of petroleum". When we burn one gallon of gasoline in a car or one ton of bunker fuel in a cargo ship we are burning something that took an exceedingly long period of time to "manufacture". It took energy in the form of solar energy and an unimaginably large amount of raw materials (plants and animals) to produce the black goo we pull out of the ground and burn. So, yes, in a few hundred years we were able to burn energy that took millions of years and, again, unimaginable amounts of biomass, to produce. And that's another reason for which fixing the problem is impossible. I challenge anyone to name one problem that can be solved with less* energy than that which produced it. If we start with the premise that nothing can be 100% efficient and add to that the sheer scale of the energy and mass that went into what caused this problem the answer, which is right there in the graphs, is beyond obvious. It's high school physics. We need to stop lying if we want a chance to understand the future and make it a better one.