This page of the Equilibrium Archive lays out how and why to steadily increase the amount of plant and animal life which Earth can support.
The unofficial plan here is to steadily increase the planet's atmospheric CO2 concentration, in order to support more abundant plant life. In turn, these plants will support increased animal and human life.
Why? Look back to the past-- 65 million years ago, when the planet's CO2 concentration was considerably higher than it is today. The age of the dinosaurs saw the highest abundance of plant (and likely also animal) life on this planet. It would be ideal to safely re-create these conditions. The only way to do this safely is to do it very slowly. For the last 150 years, we have been increasing Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration rapidly, which has been detrimental to the planet's equilibrium. Some (typically "environmentalist" types) advocate that we should reduce CO2 levels to what they were prior to the industrial revolution. This would not do any better for the planet than rapidly increasing the concentration has. Furthermore, the idea is nearly infeasible, because, by refining and burning petroleum, we have released CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) which previously was stored beneath the Earth's surface for millions of years. As such, there is no way to innocently return to the way things were prior to the industrial revolution.
Sidenote: At some point, you may find it helpful to read this page explaining why recent and ongoing changes in the average temperature of the Earth's surface are indeed related to CO2 levels, and not merely to solar activity.
Anyway, the following is an overview on how and why to safely increase the amount of plant and animal life that Earth can support. For more on "how," see the Water Farming page, first and foremost. The Land-Building page will also be pertinent when it is ready.
Think about it: water vapor and CO2 are two of the most prevalent greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases increases the Earth's surface temperature, which causes permafrost to melt and turn into water. So why would we want to "farm water"? See more below...
#692
November 28 2022 3:40AM
First things first, before I get into depth with this, it should be understood that water is the most potent and powerful "greenhouse gas." That's often lost in the discussion of climate change/global warming. The catalyst for injecting this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere beyond the parameters of CURRENT planetary albedo based equilibrium, is the crude oil economy. This is the current state of affairs that's creating the necessity for action. Injection of sequestered carbon dioxide back into this current state of planetary albedo regulated equilibrium, has created an imbalance. Cause and effect. There's nothing complicated about the synopsis. However, the debate centers around carbon dioxide itself, which is a concern, but nowhere near as much as water vapor from the increase in temperature, that stems from the carbon dioxide. In reality, neither "should be" a concern... as long as action is taken to mitigate the impact of the imbalance. And this is where humanity is making a mistake: the imbalance continues without even contemplating a legitimate solution. Carbon capture is a ridiculously energy intensive strategy, and there's no guarantee that the carbon dioxide saturation level being aimed for is a legitimate solution for equilibrium. After all, in the current geological age, interglacial periods are quite frequent. Therefore, basing a strategic defense against carbon dioxide saturation, on a climate and environment that's known to be volatile and hostile at regular intervals (albeit on an abstract scale to the current human perception), is quite foolish. This was the basic strategy that guided my practical resolutions to this dilemma. It has to be understood from this perspective, otherwise the conclusions will seem politically motivated, and I assure you they're not.
With this base intention in mind, given the volatility predicament, one would naturally (well, I did anyway) search for an era in the Earth's past that had the most stable equilibrium achieved planetary albedo environment... that, most importantly, was welcoming to life. There's obviously several epochs that were "stable," but not necessarily capable of sustaining life. This is the first inclusion of nuance into the equation of "what to do." There are no simple solutions here, and that should be stressed during this type of dialogue. Very important to remember, and several of these types of "what ifs" will compile as this moves forward, but I digress. The most stable (geologically) epoch in Earth's past, that was beneficial to complex life, was the age of the dinosaurs prior to their extinction. We discuss this epoch in terms of millions of years... not thousands. It's referred to as the Mesozoic period, that's also broken down into its own separate epochs, but for our purposes here, the general Mesozoic period is a good example alone. This era lasted for roughly 200 million years with fairly minimal cataclysmic intrusion... at least until the extinction level event.
The carbon dioxide saturation was much greater than today. Upwards of 1000+ parts per million, whereas today we're concerned with 400+ PPM. Before the industrial revolution, the saturation was hovering around 250 PPM, for reference. In the Mesozoic period, the higher carbon dioxide saturation went through stabilizing periods as it rose upwards that lasted for millions of years at a time increments. The saturation didn't jump upward 150+ PPM in 150 years. Doing this creates survivability issues for everything that has regulated its internal systems. This is the basis of imbalance. There needs to be a grace period for all life to catch up to the higher saturation levels, otherwise other types of consequences amount, which is exactly what humanity is witnessing right now. Some of these problems are oceanic acidification, trees that grow faster and larger, but become punky, unstable and rotten much faster than previously grown lumber, anoxic events (particularly in the ocean due to acidification), and a host of weather anomalies that further destabilize the environment, which leads to passive damage like coral reefs dying, and direct damage from things like landslides, droughts and flooding, particularly in areas where those types of events have simply never occurred. So, when I explain this next portion, it should be understood that raising the carbon dioxide saturation to Mesozoic levels, is a very long process. As the saturation levels rise, there needs to accompany with it, many stabilization periods. During these stabilization periods problems will occur, but they should be seen as opportunities, not consequences that give credence to less carbon dioxide saturation. These stabilization periods are the foundation for what is considered "equilibrium." Planetary albedo has not fluctuated much since the Mesozoic era, so in theory, the saturation levels during the age of dinosaurs is indeed possible globally. However, it's not a race to get the carbon dioxide saturation up to that point... and then bask in the warmth of a planet turned into a tropical paradise. That's a suicidal tendency that humanity is known for: DO IT RIGHT NOW MAAAN BECAUSE I WANT TO EXPERIENCE ALL THE BENEFITS BRO! The reality is that a tropical paradise, globally, induced by a conscious effort to regulate global atmospheric saturation, will not be available (without detrimental consequences that could eliminate life forever on Earth), until thousands of years into the future. It is possible. The fossil evidence is available that proves higher carbon dioxide saturation is possible, stable, and much more beneficial to the Earth's trophic web. That era is the Mesozoic period. If there was a bright, shining example of what to aim for, that's it. However, without stabilization periods during the transition, all life could greatly suffer.
The biggest hurdle to this type of all encompassing transition is everyone being on the same page. Unfortunately, as you've corrected surmised in a previous email, this type of dialogue centers around politics. Any and all forms of this political theater is based upon centralization, which is exactly why ALL of these degenerate philosophies are wrong. For example, there will not be a system of governance, company, or any other collective that will become a focal point to this type of transition. There won't be a Google, Ford, military, etc type of group that will be able to spearhead the transition. Simply because it's too vast, and control followed by corruption will inevitably consume. So, making this type of transition is solely based upon the ideology of decentralization, which is the exact opposite of any type of organized political reference. In other words, there's no way to force this type of transition through violence, regulation, or common law. The only way to make a transition like this possible is to educate the populace, and hope that they conclude, selfishness, consumerism, and political alignment towards competition is a detriment for the Earth, and by proxy humanity. Why am I stating this? Because in order to fully commit to this type of transition, there can be no discourse once the process is set in motion. With that in mind, and knowing what we know of human behavior, the completion of this process is highly unlikely. However, in the context of what you're asking me, and the guise of the possibility that humanity will collectively "pull their heads out of their asses," this is the absolute most beneficial outcome for the Earth and humanity. It's important to reiterate this because what's most likely to happen, what should happen, and what will happen are more than likely, very different summations. For our purposes here, devoid of the politically based biases that cloud this discussion in almost every conversation outside of our dialogue, we'll focus on "what should happen," and the pathway to that point. The fact of the matter is that humanity, the political systems that have emerged, and the unbridled drunkenness of egalitarian ideals that are completely devoid of unemotional scientific method based conclusions, are the predominant societal clauses adhered to by the masses. What "should happen," probably won't, and I'm well aware of this dichotomy to what I'm explaining. Just wanted to make sure that you know that I know that before moving forward into the particulars of this process.
All of that was basically a preamble to answer your initial question. The "what should happen" portion is that no... the water returning to solid form, or ice, is not the goal. The goal of returning the Earth to the same planetary albedo environment that's most beneficial to complex life, as was the case in the bulk of the Mesozoic period, is to extend the tropical climates towards the poles, thusly increasing the temperate climate. Will there be an actual arctic climate? Probably, but it will be almost entirely devoid of glaciers, permafrost, and other forms of permanent frozen structures. Sea ice will probably grow into the dark months still at the poles, snow will still fall during the respective winter months, some lakes might freeze over, but the areas that currently sustain year round freezing temperatures will gradually become habitable temperate areas. Again, I must stress that this transformation has to be gradual. The plant life will have to adjust to the climate shift, along with the insects and animals. Technically this is occurring right now, but it's happening at a pace that's making the transition very painful for everything involved, hence why this needs to be very gradual. Based on empirical evidence, as in watching how the trophic web is suffering from the saturation of 150+ PPM carbon dioxide in a span of roughly 150 years, the current pace is way too fast. A goal of say... 100 PPM carbon dioxide every 1000 years might be sufficient for the trophic web to find equilibrium at each given precipice. I don't know exactly how long each transitionary stage should be. All I do know is that what's happening, and has happened, is far too rapid of an increase for the trophic web to cope with the saturation levels. That said, humanity has committed itself to the current saturation: 418 PPM according to CO2.earth. Meaning that we must deal with the epic shortsightedness of our forefathers, and hope that we can stabilize the environment to such a rapid increase, allow the trophic web to catch up, then slowly increase. Is that even possible? Yes, but it needs to be a global movement, and everybody has to participate, and more importantly SUSTAIN the growth of such an endeavor well into the future. Will THAT happen? Probably not... but it is possible. Just not likely.
That brings us to "what's most likely to happen." In my younger years, that were admittedly clouded due to my own perceptions of political alignment strategies, I "drank the koolaid" about the alarmist side of the global warming debate. This seems to have now caught up with the masses, and everyone whose not politically aligned with unmitigated consumerism using crude oil as the catalyst for that consumption, appears to be drinking the "koolaid" I was drinking in my late teens and early twenties. The basic assumption is that all carbon dioxide saturation that's occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution is bad for the environment, and thusly must be removed from the equation. This is a shortsighted viewpoint that doesn't account for the macro viewpoint of Earth's entire empirical record. It instead focuses on humanity's efforts being detrimental to the equilibrium achieved by current carbon sequestration standards, the form and function of the current thermohaline conveyor, and the trophic web that emerged from the equilibrium parameters BEFORE humanity saturated the atmosphere with previously sequestered carbon. To make such a claim, one must conclude that the current stage of the Cenozoic period (which is also subdivided into various categories), which humanity's entire existence is based within, is the most stable, and fundamentally beneficial to the Earth's trophic web. And this is where I had made a mistake. Consequently, this is also where "armchair quarterback paleoclimatologists" otherwise known as environmentalists, have a theoretical approach, that's simply incorrect. The latter portion of the current Cenozoic period is full of cataclysmic events ranging from ice ages, to desertification, that is/has been induced by humanity directly (remember when we talked about Australia?), or the simple parameters of physics that cause massive weight imbalances at the arctic polar regions (as per the cataclysmology of researchers like Chan Thomas). Therefore, aiming to balance the equilibrium point of planetary albedo with the latter stages of the Cenozoic period PRIOR to the industrial revolution, is striving for the most violent and cataclysmic environment in the entirety of Earth's geologic record. Not a very well thought out plan, but that's the basis for the shortsightedness of current environmentalist theory. Even so, this seems to be the agreed upon philosophy of the collective governmental influences around the world. So... "what's most likely to happen," if this type of strategy continues gaining strength, and then acted upon, the best case scenario will be a roughly 12,000 year cyclical upheaval (cataclysm) causing ice ages, major die offs, and subsequent emerging during the "interglacial periods." That's if the current strategic defense of "carbon sequestration" is employed globally, everyone adheres, and the current saturation of 418 PPM is reduced to preindustrial revolution saturation: roughly 250 PPM (actually closer to 280 PPM, but there were several swings). Both dichotomies of this debate are equally foolish. I currently give the most grief to the "environmentalists," though, because I was one. In my teens I was vehemently opposed to what the collective strategic goals of the crude oil economy were based upon, as well as the detrimental environmental implications of that movement. I gathered the available (and now admittedly shortsighted) evidence, formed a synopsis, and acted upon it. It wasn't until my mid twenties that I gathered ALL available evidence; the macro viewpoint of the entirety of Earth's past, as opposed to the latter stages of the Cenozoic period, that the nuances started to resonate with my previously determined (incorrectly) synopsis. The conclusion is that plain and simply, striving for an environment that's responsible for rapidly cyclical (on a geologic timescale) cataclysms, is not a good strategy. At its most basic fundamental level, the goals are justified, but regardless, it's not a well thought out strategy. The flip side is equally as idiotic, but that has more to do with the extreme shortsightedness of not recognizing the genetic malleability cannot coincide with such a rapid increase in temperature, induced by carbon dioxide saturation from previously sequestered sources. Yes, increasing the saturation has been, and COULD BE beneficial to life, but when the genetic structures of this current epoch have had 65 million years (ish) to form an equilibrium within current saturation levels, increasing it rapidly is suicidal. It's like taking a baby fur seal and dropping it on a Hawaiian beach. The sheer heat exhaustion will kill the animal, and this is analogous to the entire trophic web; from plants, to insects, to animals, including especially, sea life. As we've discussed, very small changes in the oceanic environments can cause extreme damage. It's called GLOBAL warming, and the oceans are definitely a portion of that, if not the largest portion. Atmospheric fluctuations are one thing. Oceanic fluctuations are much more sensitive, which is why when people complain and/or celebrate when winters are warmer or summers are cooler, and that ridiculous synopsis gives credence to their pathetic views, they become firmly planted in the "I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about" camp. There are millions of these types of scenarios that are impossible to foresee through this type of transition, which is why stabilization periods are an absolute must, and furthermore why crude oil consumerists are equally as foolish as shortsighted environmentalists.
Now we've reached the "what will happen" portion. Admittedly, this is impossible to predict with absolute certainty, but given the sloth-like idiocy of humanity's short hellish past, along with all empirical evidence and data from every available source, this is as close as "1" can get to a "prophecy" about "what will happen." The fight to industrialize the "developing world" will continue. This means crude oil usage, at least in this current transitional phase of "developed," or first world countries, will globally increase. The education of this type of dialogue will ultimately be suppressed by the developing world governments as they continue to trade sustainability, for economic growth. The carbon dioxide saturation will increase, even as first world governments suppress their own populations of utilizing sequestered hydrocarbon sources. Without a direct defensive strategy to stabilize the atmosphere while these developing countries "develop," which will be next to impossible, and considered nothing more than theatrical, the resulting carbon dioxide saturation will reach a tipping point. This tipping point will be a constant influx of fresh water from permanently (at least currently geologically speaking) melting sources that were previously suspended as solids (ice, permafrost, glaciers, etc). This will cause portions of the thermohaline conveyor to falter, which will destabilize the entire Earth's temperate climates. Very rapidly as this tipping point reaches its precipice, massive amounts of snow and ice will accumulate in the arctic regions. Next, comes the Adam and Eve Story by Chan Thomas: a global crustal displacement, or "pole shift," and I don't mean the magnetic poles, followed by a global flood, an entire realignment of the continents, and by proxy, the thermohaline conveyor. Of course as I've previously mentioned, due to the excessive mining, power generation, and forever chemical inclusions into the Earth's surface, this cyclical event that's occurred repeatedly over the latter half (at least) of the Cenozoic era, will eliminate the possibility of life to ever respawn again. That is, without the help from a drastically superior species cleaning up the mess made by industrialized humanity. The radiation leakage from 440ish nuclear reactors will be exposed to the environment during such an event, the tailings from 150 years of terpenes accumulation from crude oil mining and refinement will be blanketing the entire Earth's surface in an instant, the PFAS and PFOS on every nonstick surface and water repellent material globally will leach into every water source worldwide, lead tailings, uranium tailings, sulphur dioxide and mercury remnants from gold mining, and on and on that list goes will be an environmentally disastrous problem, so prominent, that nothing will be able to survive for tens of thousands of years... if ever. These things are not "what ifs." These are empirically based conclusions coinciding with the shortsighted constituency of global crude oil economics run amok. In my educated opinion, without a global realignment of educational parameters focused entirely upon equilibrium based sustainable development, and thusly the cleanup of our forefathers' wake of too numerous to list poisons, what I just explained is inevitable/will happen. Definitely doesn't "need to happen," but probably will.
Water farming is the first step to preventing such an outcome, if it's even a possibility. In the interim, water farming in temperate and tropical climates will by proxy lead to the accumulation of solids/ice in arctic regions. If the sudden adherence to this principle is employed, the thermohaline conveyor will function as it has for millions of years, with the current continental configuration. The freshwater influx will be circumvented by storing that freshwater in man made structures (reservoirs), and the plant life that will thrive from having constant access to said reservoir water. The result is that the weather will stabilize at the current carbon dioxide saturation level, and for the next however-many-hundreds of years, will begin to form an equilibrium... as long as the water farming continues. Should that ever cease, for whatever reason, the freshwater will accumulate in the thermohaline conveyor, and the weather will destroy the gains of the artificially constructed climate. But, enough about the detrimental effects. Instead let's focus on the benefits. Perennial food stuffs from fruit trees to domesticated animals, will be so abundant, the economics of the sustenance portion of societal structure now in place, will be forever obliterated. Food, water, and warmth/shelter will be stupendously inexpensive and accessible to every living thing, animals included. It will be so abundant that the the excess will be converted into hydrocarbons like ethanol, methane and syngas, effectively eliminating the desire to mine sequestered hydrocarbon sources indefinitely. Fuel... will be abundant, recyclable through the planetary albedo based seasonal change, and 100% carbon neutral. What this type of strategy will also create, is a much more accurate and stable capability to raise carbon dioxide saturation levels in the future. It won't be a question of dealing with the detrimental consequences of humanity's past, as the equation of "what to do" is facing us now, but more so a dialect of "if we do THIS, everything can improve." That all starts with artificially beginning a global movement to farm water, directly from the atmosphere. As the heat from carbon dioxide saturation raises, more water, which is the most abundant "greenhouse gas," will be excessively available to farm from. Eventually, as enough people do this, and the land these reservoirs are in close proximity to begin to thrive with previously incapable of growing perennial crops, the water that would have created an insurmountable problem for the thermohaline conveyor to deal with, will be locked up in lifeforms, especially plants. Then... slowly expand towards the polar regions until the entire Earth is a variable temperate and tropical paradise. Then... lol... start "knocking down the Rockies" to create more temperate land. But yeah, if you remember our conversation, that's effectively an abstract request to anyone alive now, or several generations into the future.
Anyways, that's a basic gestalt that I'm sure you weren't expecting from a seemingly mundane question about a particular aspect of water farming. However, with the what ifs, the coulda, shoulda, wouldas, and the probable, and/or likely outcomes for the current trajectories of humanity's degenerative ideals, it's a highly nuanced question to ask. This type of thing requires a serious amount of discussion to accompany a proper answer. At its most basic theoretical level, water farming is beneficial to everything and everyone, no matter what the scale. No having to rely on water rights contracts based in Jewish law constituency, a deteriorating weather source to supply your water, and having the constant capability to grow abundant food sources as a result, is unconscionably a "good thing." That's the most basic goal of water farming on an individual basis. However, when extended to a global movement, the profits of such an endeavor are too numerous and beneficial to life to encapsulate, or even fathom from a currently aligned economic foundation. In other words, it's highly complex, and simple... depending on which scale your question is in reference to. Before we can even contemplate such an enormous undertaking though, it must also be stressed that constructing and maintaining these types of devices will have to become the focus. Otherwise, it'll just become another complexity of the crude oil economy, and that will essentially defeat the purpose. You've done that by becoming a machinist. Now... we have to work on getting the other 8 billion+ people to understand what you were capable of recognizing on your own.
#698
December 5 2022 5:00AM
…this is a complex and fluid system. The saturation of salt in water makes water heavier/more dense. The inclusion of freshwater into a system that is stabilized at a certain salinity content is not immediate. So, the destabilization occurs in differing ways, and depends on the region specifically: what the geography is, latitude, influx of freshwater, etc. This is the issue that seems to cause the most confusion. The Greenland ice sheet melting into the North Atlantic current is a primary concern to climate stability for the entire northern hemisphere. Glaciers melting into the Pacific ocean from South America will cause issues, but nowhere near the same impact, as in immediate climate emergency impact, as Greenland. There needs to be a fluidity of thought where regional focus determines the outcome. The complexity of this atmospheric system resides in the continuation of the thermohaline conveyor functioning as it has. That's a very different concern for tropical regions than temperate and arctic regions. So... it's not a very specific type of argument to make saying simply "freshwater destabilizes the thermohaline conveyor." That is accurate as a statement, but the concern varies depending on location. The biggest concern humanity SHOULD HAVE in this regard, is the freshwater saturation from Greenland, into the north Atlantic current. Nowhere else does this salinity decrease cause such a disastrous outcome. The north Atlantic current feeds warmth and temperate weather conditions to most of Europe. If that system falters, it's highly likely that Europe, followed by Russia and Siberia, will turn into an immediate arctic region. From that event, the destabilization will migrate to the entire planet, at which point, it's highly likely... that the entire thermohaline conveyor will breakdown and reorganize. Again, this will become a regional issue, but overall globally, weather will be extremely unpredictable and hostile to life for a considerable amount of time. How long exactly? Nobody knows that answer. It's impossible to know because the breakdown and subsequent reorganization of the thermohaline conveyor could happen in a few days depending on the severity, or thousands of years depending on the aftermath of reorganization process. A lot of the things we discuss are dependent upon the context of the question. This is one of those situations, and there's more to follow in this regard coming up...
Although indeed Earth is a closed system of environmental management from a macro perspective, micro/regional perspectives matter. Not just to those regions, but the system as a whole. However, cause and effect are not immediate in this type of a system. It's important to recognize perspective for the regional concerns, but to maintain focus on the global scenario. Sometimes you ask me something that pertains to a regional issue, but then extrapolate that information beyond the scope inherent in the answer. It creates a problem for me because your interpretations are not illogical or incorrect, but often times the scope is distorted by implying information outside of its intended purpose. What ends up ensuing from this are drastically simplified synopses. I understand why: trying to encapsulate issues into simple and ubiquitous solutions that are almost egalitarian in essence. However, that, although on the surface seems "equal," it's not, and there's a differing motivation for various regions. For example, northern Europe, Asia and North America will need to stave off these problems at a much quicker pace than anyone in the southern hemisphere. The ole "not my problem" adage is inevitable, and that's something that might become an unforeseen complication to ANY solution offered. It's important to understand that when we talk about such complex things. That's why I recently gave you the "what should happen," "what's likely to happen," and the "what will happen" kind of compartmentalization for context. Nothing is definite.
That all said, in its most simplified version, where everyone alive becomes almost robotic, selfless, focused on global sustainable equilibrium, and educational in this subject matter to all progeny, yes; this basic synopsis is accurate.
Regarding solutions, water farming is the strategy for reversing the freshwater melt caused by the atmospheric temperature increase, which in turn was caused by the increase of atmospheric carbon.
"Reversing" is not a good definition to use in this context. Containment... is better suited for what you're trying to imply. To take it a step further, it should be "containment, followed by a newly acquired resource for expansion of other resources: plants, animals, etc." Water is the most important resource to all life, but too much or too little of it, turns it into a problem. "WATER FARMING," is better seen as a way to create abundance; to turn a resource that's historically been seen as a "luck of the regional draw" kind of commodity, into a ubiquitous and sustainable staple to any and all environments. To put it in into perspective, regardless of what happens with carbon; whether a reversal to preindustrial revolution saturation occurs, or a runaway effect occurs, water farming in this way should be done ubiquitously. People in Death valley should be doing this. People in the Pacific Northwest (essentially a rain forest) should be doing this. Higher elevations, sea level elevations, tiny islands... everywhere SHOULD BE doing this REGARDLESS of what's happening with the the carbon inclusions. It's a stabilization tactic for everywhere first and foremost. The implications to the stabilization of the thermohaline conveyor system by containing atmospheric water vapor is a longterm solution that PROBABLY... won't have the type of immediate impact that it seems you're implying here. Over a long enough period of time, yes, but the immediate impact is better defined in the context of supplying and sustaining sustenance to the point of abundance.
So you're saying that the solution isn't to sequester the atmospheric carbon but to "sequester," or rather, condensate the atmospheric WATER.
...which will provide the water necessary for converting the carbon dioxide into plants. Thusly, ultimately, indeed, sequester the carbon dioxide. The water is the pathway to stabilizing the atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's not a strategy to sequester, as much as a strategy to stabilize the available carbon dioxide. Water farming is the catalyst to make that possible.
The focused condensation of this atmospheric water into reservoirs is also the strategy for slowly increasing CO2 concentrations.--- Water farming, on the other hand, slowly increases CO2 concentrations by steadily creating an environment capable of supporting more plant life.
Where you wrote increases or increasing, replace them with “stabilize” and “stabilizing.”
And it will achieve that by simultaneously increasing the freshwater availability on land "everywhere," and allowing the thermohaline conveyor to find an equilibrium, which will stabilize the weather at current CO2 levels, preventing further freshwater melt. In turn, the increased plant life will hold water which would otherwise evaporate and eventually return to the oceans. Is this all correct?
Yes... basically, although it's extremely oversimplified. But yeah, that's the basic gestalt.
So maybe the point I "should" start making in arguments is that you can increase CO2, but you have to do so slowly. It's like wearing orthodontic braces: you can't straighten someone's teeth out in a few days-- it takes a few years, with periodic monitoring and adjustments made along the way.
Brilliant analogy.
Perhaps another point to be made is that we need to think more often in terms of relationships and whole systems. The liberal-environmentalist approach to the situation is just, CO2, CO2, CO2. Whereas you're saying that we need to affect water, in order to get things right with CO2. It's not that they aren't thinking of water, but apparently they've only considered affecting CO2 in order to affect water, rather than the other way around.
Exactly. Well said.
With that out of the way, I still am curious about the saturation/concentration of CO2. At would point would the spike to 1500ppm and consequent leveling out at 400-600ppm take place? Would this be after global water farming first begins, or is that the long-term goal?
Well, that's a combination of what's best case scenario, combined with what should happen. Is this LIKELY to happen? No. However, in this context, I'll answer. The spike to 1500ppm carbon dioxide would probably occur sometime in the region of about 10,000-100,000 years. I realize this is a big difference, but I'm basing that on everyone everywhere working in unison for a unified goal, and to extend the unlikelyness further, everyone of those everyone's being white, empathetic, hard working, and non-migratory. Damn near impossible, but that's why context is so important.
The stabilization from 1500 to 400-600 PPM carbon dioxide saturation globally would take hundreds of thousands of years beyond that spike point. This is the era of converting humanity's "legacy carbon" into a sustainable level, and that's a very long drawn out process. The thing is, while the carbon dioxide saturation expands (and water farming follows suit), for a very long time, plants will absorb the carbon dioxide, be harvested, and get converted back into carbon dioxide. So... the sequestration will become a very slow process as the land increases, plant life moves in, the resources are harvested, and equilibrium between all factors slowly stabilizes between the carbon locked up in plant and animal life, and the carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere... which hopefully by then will not be subjected to the constant pressure of humanity introducing previously sequestered sources of carbon.
You see, the basis of this timeframe between 1500, and 600-800, is based on the premonition that knocking down the Rockies will be done with the intention of creating new land with the demolished rock spoils. More available land means more available (previously unavailable) plant and animal environment. So, the idea of slowly raising the carbon dioxide saturation to 1500 (which I'd recant to a certain extent and say 1000 is more realistic), is before this land creation/knocking down the Rockies idea even starts. Doing it this way allows the thermohaline conveyor to function in a relatively stable manner. Once global "new land" creation starts to become the norm, the thermohaline conveyor system will be getting intruded upon. That's why it's probably the best idea to take on one global project at a time. Can the knocking down the Rockies idea happen congruently with the water farming and atmospheric stabilization process? In theory... yes, but there's unforeseen issues that could create dilemmas along the way. Again, apologies for seeming so callous, but the reality is that demographics, and the availability of intelligence from those demographics have to be included in this synopsis. A world where 8+ billion white people are homogeneous, satisfactory sexually to everyone on average, to the point where lustful migrations (which is a significant problem right now) do not occur, and competitive resource hoarding is unprofitable... it might be possible to attempt engineering such a daunting task... 2 times over. But as the world is now, where white women are lusted after by every brown, yellow and black man, migration into white majority societies is strived for by every other society with absolutely zero interest in preserving or stabilizing white majority societies, and everyone worldwide is trying their hardest to accumulate and hoard resources even if they don't know how to use those resources, it's a very difficult proposition to even hope that any of this will ever happen at all. That's not a justification for not trying. It's just the reality of what's actually occurring, so integrating that type of information into the equation is necessary. Hence, why I'm trying to answer your question in the context in which it was asked, which, if memory serves, we were originally speaking in terms of "what should happen" under the best case scenario, while on the shortest possible timeline. With that in mind, asking WHEN something like a controlled 1500 PPM spike, followed by a stabilization period indefinitely fluctuating between 600-800 PPM... is damn near impossible to properly answer without an excessive amount of information preceding the answer. Do you understand why I'm answering in this way? That email excerpt you quoted had a very different context than simply asking "when will this happen?" To properly answer in this current context, first thing I'd do is answer your question with a question. Are demographics going to stabilize and migration going to end? If yes, a fairly easy to predict timeline of events would be your answer, albeit longer than what I just described. Or... Are demographics going to swing drastically in favor of white people becoming 90+% of the world's population, while effectively ending all migration? If yes, then the timelines I just described are pretty accurate. Or... is what's happening now, where white societies are being inundated by brown, black and yellow hordes, so much so that white genetics are in serious trouble of being genocided by race mixing them out of existence, and migration into these areas ranges in the millions of emigrants per year levels, going to be the prevailing societal structure? Well, it's safe to conclude that these timelines will never happen, and all of this could be considered theatrical or academic, in a "coulda, shoulda, woulda" type of category. Hopefully this makes sense. Context is everything when asking these types of questions.
…I should clarify-- we are speaking of atmospheric CO2, and not ALL atmospheric carbon, right?
That's what we're focusing on, yes.
Finally, even if water farming is carried out, the global water cycle progresses to a state of equilibrium, and the weather stabilizes at the current CO2 level, there is still the issue of all the methane. Water farming helps us to contend with CO2, but not with the unprecedented levels of methane that have been released near Siberia-- right?
Methane is less of a concern than carbon dioxide IF!!! carbon dioxide is properly controlled. Methane oxidizes, and thusly breaks down into carbon dioxide and water over the span of roughly 8 years. Immediately? Yes, it will be a concern as very large quantities are released from the environment. Remember our old pal Zeolite? That's the best method for artificially absorbing and converting methane. However, it's also a valuable fuel that can help the transition process. It's a dilemma indeed, but if all else fails, burning it is the best solution. Soils, forests, water columns, etc do absorb methane, but that form of "carbon sink" has been reducing for decades, so the methane remains in the atmosphere. Even so, it breaks down much faster than carbon dioxide. While methane either gets absorbed into the environment, and/or oxidizes into water and carbon dioxide in roughly 8 years, carbon dioxide saturation stays prevalent for upwards of 1000 years. The problem is that ultimately, carbon dioxide has to be absorbed by plants, or oceanic systems. Without those sources of carbon dioxide sequestration, carbon dioxide would not break down at all. Like as in ever, or until the sun (Sol) goes supernova and the gas integrates with the other planets' pulverized remnants. Absorption into plant life is the preferred method, as these conversations have concluded. Absorption into the oceanic water column creates an entirely different problem that we've touched on but haven't covered in depth: carbonic acidification. When scientists discuss the "acidification of Earth's oceans," carbonic acid is the culprit.
There's a phenomenon called "the blanketing effect" where the oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and thusly form carbonic acid, but rerelease it back into the atmosphere at about 90% levels. So... for every 100 tons of carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs, 90 tons are released back into the atmosphere, while the remainder turns into phytoplankton, and/or carbonic acid. This is the fundamental primary concern for oceanic living organisms in a "no holds barred" pump as much carbon dioxide into the environment as possible type of mind frame. There's a tipping point where phytoplankton cannot keep up with the inundation, followed by a feedback loop of carbonic acid saturation, which changes the pH balance beyond their capacity to exist at all. If not properly balanced, over very long periods of time, the phytoplankton will die off, followed by everything else. Hence, why I stress stabilization periods. It's a complex system top to bottom, and all of these factors matter. That said, even though methane is excessively destructive in the interim, by accumulating ozone in the troposphere, adding denser and more reactive carbon to increase warming, and thusly rapidly increasing the net warming effect (some estimates ranging in the 80 times more effective in warming range than that of carbon dioxide), methane oxidizes, and has a drastically reduced lifespan than carbon dioxide. It's a concern indeed, but less so than that of carbon dioxide saturation. My opinion? Burn it all, wherever possible. If it's possible to store it and utilize it as a fuel, do it. Otherwise burn it. Whatever cannot be burned, wait it out, and plan for the inevitable increase in carbon dioxide that the methane will produce whether it's burned or oxidizes. If that fails, and containment is necessary for survival due to overwhelming methane saturation, Zeolite (which is essentially a type of clay) can be used to absorb it. That said, with an emphasis on bolstering plant life everywhere, thusly improving the soil quality, bacterial absorption into the soil should mitigate any form of drastic methane release. SHOULD being the operative word. Methane has many solutions... is the point I'm trying to make. Carbon dioxide has very few, and the consequences of not preparing for the issues carbon dioxide creates, multiplies those problems significantly more than methane, and for a much longer time period. It's an issue, indeed, but there's much larger concerns to focus on.
That could "only" be fixed either by a miracle (which "must" be earned, which a global water farming effort could make possible) and/or by finding the resonant frequency of methane and breaking it down thus, presumably into carbon and hydrogen (then using the hydrogen as fuel).
We haven't really discussed methane like this, but I think you're under the impression it's a long term problem. I don't think I've ever mentioned it in terms of oxidation, but no, there's not really a need for a miracle in this regard. Now... since context is important, I'll add here that I'm speaking in terms of GRADUAL methane reintroductive saturation into the atmosphere. As our limited number of conversations on methane would suggest (methane hydrates specifically), a runaway effect where massive amounts of methane are suddenly released, you're absolutely correct. A miracle would be required. The sudden inundation would create all kinds of problems, namely, the immediate runaway warming effect. Consequently, from that an ozone saturation within the troposphere that will "eat" beneficial atmosphere, and create an environment where plants and animals have a difficult time functioning at all. This could also lead to a blight epidemic where plant life degrades beyond the capacity to recover at all. So... in a runaway scenario of methane saturation, yep, that's essentially beyond the capability of humanity to deal with in any technologically feasible capacity at this current stage of progression. I have no answer for a scenario like that. The effects would be sudden and fatal, for all intents and purposes. Even trying to fracture the hydrocarbon methane molecule via resonant frequency dissociation is beyond the scope of possibility on that scale. We're talking about plumes the size of Canada here in a serious runaway effect methane release. There are no machines capable of handling that type of situation... at least not immediately available to humanity. Morbid, but the truth nonetheless.