7 ms·

"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 le

"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.
- ScottBurson 6y ago
  Yes. This is why I think we should be doing much more geoengineering research than we are now. I realize that geoengineering poses its own dangers. I just don't think we're going to have any choice.
- Dylan16807 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. It's a direct consequence of "There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it." We're at 400ppm right now. For there to be "nothing we can do", there would have to be no appreciable difference between keeping our current trajectory (1000+) versus slowing emissions down to 600, or 500, or 400. If what you're actually saying is that "nothing we can do will bring us down to 300ppm", then that might be true, but that's a statement about a hundred times weaker than what you actually said. Being stuck at 400 would not be a tragedy. 400ppm is not what people are extremely worried about.
  - robomartin 6y ago
    Please argue against the data. What I say does not matter. Go through the very simple exercise I describe in my original comment. Pull-up the 800,000 year ice core sample CO2 chart. Determine the natural "no humans on earth" rate of change for the reduction of atmospheric CO2. Then explain how anything we do --anything-- can deliver a 1000x improvement on this rate of change. Even a 100x improvement on this rate of change would mean, at best, 500 years and at worst about 1,000 years. This isn't very complicated but people seem intent in ignoring it. I have yet to find someone, anyone, from lay persons to PhD's who, when forced to argue against the data we have don't go "Oh shit. You are right". The problem is people read the words and never really take the time to engage in a simple high school geometry exercise that, from my perspective, represents a mind-bending revelation for most folks. It was for me. I set out to understand the subject and ran into this irrefutable wall. I am still looking for someone who, having honestly looked at the data, is able to honestly explain why the conclusion is wrong. Can you? Have you looked at the data? Ignore me. I'm just some fool typing words. The data is what matters here. My words don't. Argue against the data. That's how you prove me wrong. I don't think anyone can. And that's a pretty serious statement. The problem with the down-votes on something like HN is that they are a cheap, low-effort and no consequence to muzzle opinions in the laziest of ways. It eliminates any degree of engagement and does not promote dialogue or learning. Having just watched "The Social Dilemma" this seems par for the course. Radicalization by "cancel culture" rather than dialogue. At least you are engaging with me. Now I am asking you to stop focusing on my words and please take some time to go look at the data, just the data, nothing more, nothing less. And then answer the question yourself and refute my conclusion if you can. BTW, I am DESPERATE for someone to actually tell me how my conclusion is wrong. I don't like this conclusion. I would very much prefer to be wrong and learn how. Again, can you?

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.

ScottBurson 6y ago
Yes. This is why I think we should be doing much more geoengineering research than we are now. I realize that geoengineering poses its own dangers. I just don't think we're going to have any choice.
Dylan16807 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. It's a direct consequence of "There is nothing whatsoever we can do about it." We're at 400ppm right now. For there to be "nothing we can do", there would have to be no appreciable difference between keeping our current trajectory (1000+) versus slowing emissions down to 600, or 500, or 400. If what you're actually saying is that "nothing we can do will bring us down to 300ppm", then that might be true, but that's a statement about a hundred times weaker than what you actually said. Being stuck at 400 would not be a tragedy. 400ppm is not what people are extremely worried about.
- robomartin 6y ago
  Please argue against the data. What I say does not matter. Go through the very simple exercise I describe in my original comment. Pull-up the 800,000 year ice core sample CO2 chart. Determine the natural "no humans on earth" rate of change for the reduction of atmospheric CO2. Then explain how anything we do --anything-- can deliver a 1000x improvement on this rate of change. Even a 100x improvement on this rate of change would mean, at best, 500 years and at worst about 1,000 years. This isn't very complicated but people seem intent in ignoring it. I have yet to find someone, anyone, from lay persons to PhD's who, when forced to argue against the data we have don't go "Oh shit. You are right". The problem is people read the words and never really take the time to engage in a simple high school geometry exercise that, from my perspective, represents a mind-bending revelation for most folks. It was for me. I set out to understand the subject and ran into this irrefutable wall. I am still looking for someone who, having honestly looked at the data, is able to honestly explain why the conclusion is wrong. Can you? Have you looked at the data? Ignore me. I'm just some fool typing words. The data is what matters here. My words don't. Argue against the data. That's how you prove me wrong. I don't think anyone can. And that's a pretty serious statement. The problem with the down-votes on something like HN is that they are a cheap, low-effort and no consequence to muzzle opinions in the laziest of ways. It eliminates any degree of engagement and does not promote dialogue or learning. Having just watched "The Social Dilemma" this seems par for the course. Radicalization by "cancel culture" rather than dialogue. At least you are engaging with me. Now I am asking you to stop focusing on my words and please take some time to go look at the data, just the data, nothing more, nothing less. And then answer the question yourself and refute my conclusion if you can. BTW, I am DESPERATE for someone to actually tell me how my conclusion is wrong. I don't like this conclusion. I would very much prefer to be wrong and learn how. Again, can you?