You are under arrest, you do not have to say anything but anything you don’t say will be made up by me and written in this here notebook

Sure, I basically agree that condemning is pointless and am not interested in condemning anyone. That’s not what climate science is about. I guess that’s maybe more what happens in the political spheres? Idk

Just regarding the 5-10% accuracy thing (and without meaning to nitpick, just explaining what assumption I’m making from what you said); I guess you meant more than 5-10% accuracy because if you’re yet to find data with less than 5-10% accuracy that means you’ve only found data that’s more accurate than that.

If you’ve not found data that’s more accurate than 5-10% you might want to check again. The CO2 analyzer that was installed at Mauna Loa (an active volcano) uses a technique called Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (CRDS). (Prior to this, an analyzer was used based on infrared absorption). CDRS I think is about 99% accurate and infrared absorption I am not too certain of but I’m sure it’s more than 5-10%.

They measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesn’t really matter if it’s coming from humans or not (incidentally, some of it is, but that’s irrelevant). The point is that we know the effect of more CO2 in the system is that the planet warms, and having modelled that we understand that’s going to cause problems for us. There’s things we can do about it like carbon capture and switching from fossil fuels. Which is cool.

As atmospheric carbon concentrations rise, carbon dioxide begins to dissolve into seawater. The ocean currently soaks up some 30-40% of all humanity's annual carbon emissions, and maintains a constant free exchange with the air. Suck the carbon out of the seawater, and it'll suck more out of the air to re-balance the concentrations.

K30 is a CO2 sensor which has 3% error bars, NDIR is another which is accurate to 0.005%. What is it we don’t understand about the carbon cycle? I learned it in high school. What does it mean that 95% of CO2 is done naturally with the CO2 cycle?

Edit: i understand what you meant now about 95% of CO2 is done naturally; it’s that thing of 95% of atmospheric CO2 comes from natural sources. So while that’s true in a way, it misunderstands the nature of the carbon cycle; decomposing and composting organisms, fires and all kinds of other natural processes do release carbon, but it’s carbon that was captured from the atmosphere by the growth of those organisms in the first place so there’s no net increase of carbon in the system. They do cycle through a lot of carbon, but they also take a lot up too when stuff grows. As for volcanoes, human activity releases 60-100 times more carbon than volcanoes. One of the problems with coal and oil is that it’s not part of the carbon cycle until we burn it so it’s disrupting that system by adding more carbon into it. In order to mitigate that, we need technologies that can capture what we’ve put out otherwise we’ll have to deal with the impact of there being more carbon in the system now than before we got all the oil out

Why do you think this

More gains can be made in the sea. As well as there being more sea surface area than land, the article says the concentration of carbon in the sea is 100 times greater. I agree though, let’s do both

Just to nitpick point 3; disregarding the helicopters and trucks, if the wood never biodegrades isn’t that permanent sequestration rather than just carbon neutral?