Your numbers are wrong. Typical for “google search expertise”. I devoted a full year to understanding the containership business under consulting contract for an energy company. If you think you can bounce around a few links and understand any subject at all to the depth necessary to reach useful conclusions you are sorely mistaken.
Just answer one question:
Without humanity on the planet it would take about 50,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down 100 ppm. No humans at all. No factories. No cars. No planes. No ships. Nothing we ever made.
How is it that making a few insignificant changes (remember, we are talking planetary scale) will in any way do BETTER than 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop?
You are fond of quick numbers. Go figure that out. How do you produce results at a planetary scale at a rate one THOUSAND TIMES FASTER than the historical average for at least the last 800,000 years?
Someone has to answer that basic science question before starting to wave hands around and name-drop technologies that might sound impressive but, at the end of the day, do nothing.
No humans: 50,000 years; 100 ppm drop.
With seven billion humans and our toys: 50 years; 100 ppm?
OK. How? You would need more energy and resources than the planet has available. In other words, you would destroy the planet in the process.
If you believe the calculation to be incorrect you owe it to yourself to identify the error. It should take much less time for you to do that than it took me to compile and reference the calculation for _you_.
The IPCC has compiled known options for getting CO2 down, including aforestation. Its not revealing to focus on the relative rate of change - we increased CO2 at an unprecedented rate, if you would read the IPCC reports or articles concerning the subject with a basic level of regard, you could learn it is in fact possible to also decrease at an unprecedented rate.
Just answer one question:
Without humanity on the planet it would take about 50,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down 100 ppm. No humans at all. No factories. No cars. No planes. No ships. Nothing we ever made.
How is it that making a few insignificant changes (remember, we are talking planetary scale) will in any way do BETTER than 50,000 years for a 100 ppm drop?
You are fond of quick numbers. Go figure that out. How do you produce results at a planetary scale at a rate one THOUSAND TIMES FASTER than the historical average for at least the last 800,000 years?
Someone has to answer that basic science question before starting to wave hands around and name-drop technologies that might sound impressive but, at the end of the day, do nothing.
No humans: 50,000 years; 100 ppm drop.
With seven billion humans and our toys: 50 years; 100 ppm?
OK. How? You would need more energy and resources than the planet has available. In other words, you would destroy the planet in the process.