> None of what you have said is new to people that know anything about climate change

And yet we keep talking about solar panels and wind.

> A switch to renewables isn't fixing anything, it is merely stopping even worse damage, and giving us a way to have energy that doesn't increase carbon.

No. That is precisely the point. The Google researchers went into their project CONVINCED of what you just said and came out of it shocked when they realized they were 100% wrong.

The conclusion was that, even if we use the most optimal forms of renewable energy (something that is likely ten years away, BTW) at a global scale, not only will we not stop atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, it will continue to rise exponentially.

Again (not yelling, just emphasis):

IF WE COVER THE WORLD WITH RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND STOP USING FOSSIL SOURCES ATMOSPHERIC CO2 WILL CONTINUE TO RISE EXPONENTIALLY.

This is a massive finding. And one that is being summarily ignored by politicians and anyone pushing fake solutions.

Look, I am not saying that we should not cleanup our act. We definitely have to. All I am saying is that we should not lie about why we should do this. After all, I installed a 13 kW solar array and will likely expand it to 20 kW next year, with capacity for more beyond that. I will, once more options become available and it makes sense, switch to electric vehicles.

So, yes, we should be cleaner. Yet, we need to understand that this is not going to save the planet. It isn't even going to dent the rate of atmospheric CO2 growth.

> Civilization is going to struggle this century, how bad it is depends on the solutions we can figure out.

I'll argue humanity might struggle with this for centuries. If I am right in my conclusion that it is impossible to bend down the the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 much below the natural "no humans on earth" scenario, well, it's 1 ppm every 500 years or so --only if we all leave the planet.

That's the key value of the analysis I did on historical ice core data. It reveals the planet can, at best, bring it down 1 ppm every 500 years if, and only if, we are not burning a hundred million barrels of oil per day worldwide (roughly what we consume). That's what I mean by "a time when humanity was not significant". During those 800,000 years humans on earth did not number in the billions and we certainly did not burn 100M barrels of oil or anything equivalent to that each and every day.

And so, any purported solution must explain and prove how it will push down the curve, the slope, from 1 ppm in 500 years to 100 ppm in 50 years. A factor of a thousand. And, one must not forget, the scale is planetary. It is easy to conduct experiments in a lab or warehouse and achieve results. Quite a
different scenario when these experiments have contact with reality.

> The problems are insanely difficult

Yes!

> that's why we've been screaming for decades to start doing something.

Yes! And at least since the Google paper we have known we have been screaming about a false solution. If we invested trillions of dollars on renewables the Titanic would still sink. That's my point. We have been having the wrong conversation.

> I'm glad you, at least, have finally listened. Of course, you came to the opposite conclusion of "oh well, nothing to be done!"

I think you are completely misinterpreting my conclusion and my intent. Also my position on this.

This last statement makes it sound like I was a denier and I finally listened. Not so at all. I was pushing the same kinds of agendas as most until the Google paper compelled me to devote over a year to reading piles of papers and actually doing the math to verify claims.

This did not turn me into a climate change denier. That would be impossible. My life is about science and engineering. The data clearly shows what's going on.

I am NOT saying "oh well, nothing to be done!". I don't think you'll find one quotable sentence where I say this.

I am saying we can't do anything about the rate of change, bending the curve, if you will. We do not have the technology, energy and resources to affect a thousand-fold improvement in rate of change (from 1 ppm in 500 years to 100 ppm in 50 years).

I am also saying we need to stop wasting time and money on fake solutions. We could bankrupt our nation or multiple nations going after full-out renewable energy everywhere and we would, most definitely, come out of the other side of that with a collective "Oh, shit! What have we done!" as we discover that atmospheric CO2 continues to rise exponentially and we blew our resources --and decades-- on a non-solution.

I am saying we need to start having the right conversation. Part of which must include the idea that it is delusional to think we are going to have control of a planetary scale problem on anything even close to a human time scale. We made a mess. It will take a massive amount of time to clean it.

This isn't about denying climate change or proposing we do nothing. This is about desperately wanting to start having the right conversation because the one we are having is based on a delusion.

Here's what I don't know (and hope to be true): If we stopped the delusion and threw our resources at research aimed at coming up with a viable carbon capture technology --I mean billions of dollars. Could we come up with something that help? It this even possible?

There's some basic science and math that can be applied to proving whether or not this is even realistically possible or attainable. I keep referring to the principle of conservation of energy because it is the single most "lets get real" heartless lesson in Physics.

<split due to length>