Climate Remediation Engineering - Size of Problem

May 04, 2025 Last reply: 1 year ago 46 Replies

For some time, I've been following the debate on Climate Change and the back and forth on the practicality of removing enough carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, soon enough to matter. It's useful to hang some numbers on the problem.



There are two main areas of discussion, Science and Engineering, with much overlap.



The vast majority of the debate to date has been about the Science, to wit the correctness and completeness of the science underlying the various climate models and thus their predictions.



Climate-change science is a very complex field, far exceeding the capabilities of any one individual to follow or fully understand: Currently, about US $20 billion is spent per year globally on Climate-Change related research, yielding an exponentially growing river of paper, at least 10,000 new peer-reviewed articles per year circa 2015, and growing.



Petersen, A.M., Vincent, E.M. & Westerling, A.L. Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians. Nat Commun 10, 3502 (2019).

formatting link



The other area is Engineering, where the predicted levels of atmospheric carbon inventory and flux from the Science debate are simply accepted as true or true enough, proceeding directly to the question of how does one actually remove carbon fast enough to at least stop the increase in carbon inventory, or ideally, to reduce the inventory to pre-industrial levels over time. This is a far simpler question, requiring only first-year chemistry and physics to quantify and predict.



The entire engineering-practicality debate turns on a single number, the mass of carbon in the atmosphere for each part per million by volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide. People are instinctively suspicious of the very large numbers that result. But unlike climate science and its multitude of computer models, this is practical for an individual to verify.



The source of the 2.133 metric gigatons of carbon at one ppmv value one hears is the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Access Center) and its FAQ: .

formatting link
, sixth item.



The calculation is quite simple. The official weight of the atmosphere is 5.1480 x 10^18 kilograms, or 5.148 x 10^15 metric tons, or 5.148 million metric gigatons.

formatting link



If one assumes for simplicity that air and CO2 have the same density (they don't, but never mind), we get 5.148 Gigatons (per ppmv) of elemental carbon, establishing that the order of magnitude (10^18) is correct. The more precise calculation from CDIAC yields the stated



2.133 metric gigatons of elemental carbon per 1 ppmv.

The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 400 ppmv, so the total is 2.133*400= 853 metric gigatons of elemental carbon in the atmosphere.



Joe Gwinn


Are you romanticizing life in the pre-industrial world? Most people were farmers subject to periodic famines. Life spans were short and nasty.

Industrialization and CO2 are a virtuous loop. CO2 was maybe as high as 6000 PPM in the glory days of evolution. If I had the knob to spin, I'd go for 750.

It's all a load of claptrap. If warming is taking place - *if* then it's nothing to do with CO2. Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions fits the data entirely. CO2? Not one bit. I looked into this some time ago. You can read the results here:

formatting link

All possibly true, but irrelevant. The intent of the engineering analysis is to see what will actually be needed. In other words, I'm showing the scale of what's required to move the needle. Hint: Bring a BIG calculator.

Joe

What data do you have on "Atmospheric electron warming due to broadcast emissions" and where from?

The street I live on is straight, and so is the line y = x So they fit but they are not related.

Hang a number on it. What is the total emitted power for all broadcast stations in the world? Compare with the heat content of the atmosphere.

Joe

I don't see a way to determine it, even assuming all radiated power causes heating.

That might be easier, approximately.

The total mass of the atmosphere appears to be about 5.148e+18 kg The heat capacity appears to be about 1012 J/(kg*K) So if I multiply those I get 5.21e+21 J/K So if I want to heat by 2K I need about 1.042e+22 J

Anyone should feel free to point out any errors in my not very highly sophisticated calculations.

A 1979 paper on the subject which I still have somewhere upstairs. I saved it even though I wasn't at that point studying the subject - that was to come later. Nevertheless, there must have been evidential value in it for me to have retained it. Incidentally, you can't have a proper discussion on the matter all the time Bill Sloman's around, sententiously dispensing his own novel form of 'wisdom' in his customary supercilious manner.

When you find it, please scan it and make it downloadable. Thank you.

Cursitor Doom, likes his silly idea to be totally fatuous. He resents this being pointed out.

Actually one which can handle floating point numbers.

What you really need to do first is to understand the problem, and your elaborate calculation of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ignores the fact that only half the CO2 we've been dumping into the atmosphere shows up there.

The other half appears to be going into solution in the oceans. The actual amount of CO2 dissolved in the Earth's oceans is hard to estimate accurately. The ice core data seems to show that it takes about 800 years for the atmospheric level to equilibrate with ocean content.

The top layers of the oceans should equilibrate faster than that, but there's a lot of deep ocean, and not all of it has return currents flowing through it.

The Argo float project is designed to detect those deep return currents

formatting link
It's had roughly 3000 floats drifting around the world's oceans since

2007, which may sound like a lot, but there's a lot of ocean to probe.

At the moment you are coming across as less superficial than the likes of John Larkin and Cursitor Doom, but still pretty superficial. This will undoubtedly strike Cursistor Doom as a supercilious response, but any even moderately well informed response is going to strike him that way. He doesn't really appreciate quite how ignorant he is, any more than Donald Trump does.

Thanks, I have not tried to verify your calculation but if we accept your figure of 1e+22 J needed then over the 100 years of human broadcasting that averages to 300 GW

Google reports 22,000 FM broadcast transmitters in the USA. If we suppose thats 20% of the world's then worldwide there are 100k. If I assume each averages 200 W that's 0.02 GW. If we assume there are similar number TV transmitters each averaging 1 kW then thats another

0.1 GW. If we assume that 0.12 GW is matched by AM and other broadcasts then the total is (roughly) 0.3 GW

That is still three orders of magnitude below the estimate needed to warm the atmosphere - and assumes nothing gets radiated into space!

Or could there be enough non-broadcast contributors to strengthen the claim?

piglet

Indeed. In fact I'll add it to the corpus of literature on the subject I made available on my web space. Just don't hold your breath waiting as it may be some time before I can locate it.

There are still a billion dirt-poor people in the world, without electricity and food insecure. They need energy, transport, and food, all generating or using CO2.

Long-term, prosperous people reduce their birth rates. I expect that in a few hundred years Earth will have maybe 2 billion healthy, literate, peaceful people and CO2 will be around 600 PPM, ideal for trees and crops.

If only, but I don't believe we'll get there. People are far too bellicose.

Jeroen Belleman

We have come an enormous way in the last 1000 years, and in the last

300. I expect continued progress.

Races and languages, the basis of tribal warfare, are gradually merging. Around here every human critter that you can imagine seems to be friends and lovers and parents with every other. That has to continue.

Dolores Park, on a rare day when it's not cold and foggy:

formatting link

Religious and political convictions rather seem to diverge increasingly. The chasm between the richest and poorest grows ever wider. We're far from living in harmony. I don't expect we ever will.

Jeroen Belleman

But the fraction of the population that is super-poor keeps declining.

Having some rich people around is OK. Having super-poor ones isn't.

Most rich people have their wealth in stock shares, just bits on a drive somewhere. A billionaire doesn't eat a million times as much as the average person.

Things keep getting better.

You sound like Trump.

Jeroen Belleman

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required