I'm sorry, this is nothing like what you are suggesting.

This is, at it's core, a physics problem.

This is like saying we are going to decelerate a cruise ship from 20 knots to 0 in one microsecond without killing everyone on board and destroying the ship in the process due to the forces you have to apply. In other words, it doesn't take much more than elementary science to understand that the claim is just plain nuts.

> Humans are actors. Collectively, we have huge powers to shape the planet. We have used those powers to change the planet's atmosphere and we could use those powers to change it differently.

This is the other false claim. First of all, we are not Superman. The universe follows the laws of physics. You can't violate them any more than you can turn off the sun.

The common fallacy is to claim something like "we've done this in 200 years and we can undo it in 50 if we set our minds to it".

No, we can't.

And, no, we did not do this in 200 years (or 300, or whatever). We did this in MILLIONS of years.

What?

Conservation of Energy.

Pesky physics again.

Let's go back to the ice core sample data and ask a question: How did CO2 levels go UP when humanity was not around or we were insignificant?

Simple answer: Shit burned. Massive fires over thousands of years caused CO2 accumulation.

How did CO2 go down?

Trees grew back, capturing CO2 and storms did the same, over tens of thousands of years. After all, the basic process of photosynthesis tells us how this works in the plant domain:

CO2 + 2H2O + photons → CH2O + O2

CO2 and water and photons are converted to carbohydrates (plant) and oxygen.

OK, so, why am I claiming that we did this in millions of years rather than a few hundred when humanity hasn't really been around that long?

Simple, we did this by burning plants.

What?

Where does OIL come from and how was it made?

It is made through a highly inefficient process that uses solar energy to convert plant and animal matter into oil.

Some studies have estimated that one gallon of oil required about 98 MILLION TONS of plants and millions of years of solar energy.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/uou-bm910260...

Yes, we did this in a few hundred years in human terms. However, in terms of the physics of the matter, we did this in MILLIONS of years. Before our use of fossil fuels the planet could only really burn the plants on the surface to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. We came along and unlocked millions of years of stored energy through burning oil that was the result of an unimaginably large number of plants and animal matter crunched together and cooked over geological time scales. It was like burning the entire plant population of the planet every day rather than a small percentage of it every year for ten thousand years. The scale and rate of CO2 production we achieved in a few hundred years was the result of converting an unimaginably large amount of energy and having no natural process to deal with the CO2 we produced at the same scale.

And so, we go back to physics:

The problem was created by an unimaginably large amount of energy and matter. This is the kind of scale you can only measure using moles (Avogadro's number). If we only use the principle of Conservation of Energy to evaluate any proposed solution to this problem we are going to run right into a solid wall:

How do we use LESS energy to fix a problem that was cause by an unimaginably large amount of energy and matter.

The answer it:

We can't.

And if we deploy some of these crazy ideas floating around we are far more likely to kill us all than to fix anything.

I mean, how are we going to fix the result of unleashing multiples of Avogadro's number of plan matter and the unimaginable amount of solar energy that went into storing that energy by simply not flying, or installing solar panels or switching to electric cars? When looked at in the proper scale and context these ideas are laughable at best. We are wasting time talking about religion --on both sides of this matter.

Simple physics. This isn't hard at all. It does require thinking beyond the surface of the matter though.