I understand. People don't like to be told they are wrong and most don't like to accept or even explore why they might be. It's uncomfortable. And, in a cult-like environment, it's nearly impossible but for the few who are actually willing to be open-minded and listen to an opposing perspective. The power of cult-like behavior and thinking is very strong in humanity, this is the basis of religious belief. So, yes, again, I get it.

I offer this. No need to reply. All I ask is that a few people browsing this thread take the time to read through this and think a bit. Do your own research afterwards. Try to understand. This does not require advanced math or science skills at all.

Let's organize it a bit:

1- Define the problem
2- Define a metric that tells us when the problem is fixed
3- How did we do this?
4- What is the optimal baseline from which to measure things?
5- How would the planet behave at this optimal baseline solution?
6- Evaluate proposed solutions

The problem:

I think it boils down to atmospheric CO2 accumulation. The historical range (going back hundreds of thousands of years) has been from 200 to 300 ppm. Today, depending on where you measure, we are somewhere around 400 ppm.

We are told we will turn into piles of biological mashed potatoes if this number rises much above these levels. This is, flat-out, a lie.

I urge anyone actually interested in understanding the subject to buy a CO2 meter and measure this concentration around the house, where you work, in your car, at friends and family homes, etc. You will be absolutely astounded when you learn that you, today, live in 600 to 1000 ppm (or more) CO2 air concentration. I own five different devices.

Some of my measurements:

Home office: 856 ppm
Kitchen: 823 ppm
Outside: 623 ppm
In the car: 1000 to 1400 ppm

This is just one of the insights that, a long time ago, made me start to question what we are being told. The narrative is that this CO2 concentration number is an edge trigger for unspeakable cataclysmic events. And yet we have been living in CO2 concentrations of more than double the published atmospheric figure, likely for centuries.

It is very important to gain a sense of proportion when trying to solve a problem. Taking your own CO2 measurements should be an eye opener, or, at the very least, make you think and question what is being pounded into your brain.

...

When is it fixed?

Hard to put a number on, particularly given the revelation that we (humans, animals, plants) seem to be doing just fine with DOUBLE the CO2 concentration we are told is the edge of extinction.

Let's go with the narrative and propose atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to come down by 100 ppm. In other words, from the published 400 ppm to 300 ppm, which would get us to the historical peak before humanity added 100 ppm to the system.

...

How did we do this?

How did we add 100 ppm? It is critical to understand this for one simple reason: We cannot fix the problem with less energy and resources than what went into creating it in the first place. That, in round-about ways, is based on one of the most fundamental laws of Physics: Conservation of Energy.

How? We burned massive quantities of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the result of millions of years of solar energy, chemicals, water, resources acting on unimaginably large amounts of bio-matter to produce petroleum.

It is important to also have a sense of proportion about this. While it is hard to get a precise figure. One study, with data from 1997, states that the gasoline (not petroleum, that would be worse) we burned that year was made using 400 times all the plant matter that grows in the world in a single year plus vast amounts of microscopic life from the oceans.

Understanding this is important for at least two reasons:

First, it explains why humanity was able to add so much CO2 to the atmosphere so quickly. Petroleum locks-in planetary scale energy into a convenient and easy to use (and burn) package that releases far more energy and CO2 into the atmosphere than, say, burning wood.

Second, it helps on understand the scale of the problem. We are trying to answer the "Can we fix it?" question and evaluate proposed solutions. We have to, at least, gain a sense of the kind of energy and mass (materials) that will be required to do this. We can't do it with less energy than how the problem was created in the first place. Not unless we come up with a convenient way to violate the laws of physics. Which brings us to establishing a baseline from which to try to understand what we are being told.

...

What is the baseline?

If we are talking about solutions, the baseline should be the absolute best solution we can possibly imagine. Perhaps something extreme. Something we know, without a shadow of a doubt, will make a massive impact.

The good news is that this baseline is very easy to define:

Baseline:
No humanity on earth
No people
No homes, buildings, offices
No cars, buses, trains, planes, boats
No factories, mining, artificial burning of anything
Nothing. We and all of our toys. Gone.

That's a pretty solid baseline. Anyone should be able to agree that humanity leaving the planet should be as close to the best possible solution. It beats being CO2 neutral by an astronomical margin.

More importantly, everyone should be able to understand this simple idea:

We cannot do any better than if all of humanity and the things we created left this planet next Monday.

That's a baseline. And it is a very useful one because, as it turns out, we actually know PRECISELY what will happen if we left earth.

...

How would the planet behave at this optimal baseline solution?

We know this very well because we have at least 800K years of atmospheric ice-core samples. This is where air is trapped in tiny bubbles inside of ice. The thicker the ice, the older the bubbles. We have published data going back 800,000 years. This data is very precise and reliable.

Because of this we KNOW, to a high degree of certainty, what would happen in the baseline case of humanity leaving the planet.

I want to avoid a bunch of links because people just don't read them. Providing a look at this data is important, so here's this:

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical...

I have annotated the CO2 portion of those graphs to help visualize the next element of this discussion:

https://i.imgur.com/37AKa8L.png

I think we can all agree that humanity (and the stuff we built) was, for all intents and purposes, gone from this planet 100K to 800K years ago. Let's put it this way: We were insignificant and had no ability whatsoever to influence anything at a planetary scale. This is equivalent to not being on this planet at all.

That is our baseline.

The last graph, shows, very clearly, what would happen in terms of atmospheric CO2 decline if humanity left the planet. I very roughly fit red lines to the down-slopes and marked the period with vertical green lines.

In rough terms, I would say a 100 ppm drop takes about 100K years. One hundred thousand years. A useful alternative might be to think in terms of 1 ppm taking 1000 years. That makes it easier when evaluating some of the proposed "save the planet" narratives being pushed today.

If humanity evaporated from this planet tomorrow,
it would take 100000 years for atmospheric CO2
concentration to come down by 100 ppm.

This statement is indisputable. We have reliable data going back hundreds of thousands of years. The only thing one could say might be that it could take longer than that, not less.

Above all, NOBODY WHO ISN"T ABSOLUTELY INSANE, could claim that a 100 ppm drop could be had in, say, 50 or 100 years. This is nothing less than ridiculous at best.

...

Evaluating proposed solutions

Given the above, this is actually the easiest part. Any proposed solution has to answer the simplest question:

How will this be better than all of humanity leaving the planet?

And the answer is brutally simple:

There exists no solution that is better than humanity leaving the planet.

Which means:

The absolute best attainable atmospheric CO2 rate of change is
100 ppm in one hundred thousand years.

Because:

Any, so-called, solution, will, invariably contribute additional CO2
If humanity does not leave the planet, we will continue to add CO2
CO2 neutrality means nothing when the baseline is 100K years for 100 ppm

If we add CO2 with a "solution" and staying on the planet,
we cannot do any better than 100 ppm in 100K years.

Therefore:

We cannot "save the planet", "fix the problem" or bring CO2 under control in just a few decades.
The best we can do is 1 ppm in 1000 years, if we left the planet

A simple question:

When evaluating any proposed solution, ask this simple question:

How is that better than leaving the planet?

...

Finally, one more link. This paper discusses how the idea of globally deployed optimal forms of renewable energy will do nothing at all to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration. This is the paper that, back nearly ten years ago, shocked me out of just believing everything I was being told. As an engineer, I decided to apply the appropriate level of effort and process to actually try to understand and corroborate claims. What came out of it was just as shocking as the findings these researchers say shocked them. They admit going into their research assuming --convinced-- that renewables was the way forward (and say they did this to, once and for all, show everyone this was the case). I appreciate they were honest enough to admit they were wrong and publish this paper. That, in today's cult-led climate, takes guts.

https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...

Please read it.