The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And supposedly solar minimums and interplanetary cosmic rays don't play any role in volcanism.
Sit back, a 4th eruption maybe about to happen.

The solar/cosmic ray hypotheses are fascinating,and I'll continue to explore those as time permits.Thanks!
Something which did pass by had to do with water.
*There are hydrated serpentine antigorite rock,which in subduction zones,disintegrate into forsterite and enstatite under terrific friction-pressure-induced heating,at depths up to 200-kilometers,which liberate 13% H2O by weight,which in turn,ascends into the hotter,overlying mantle where it can cause partial melting in source regions of calc-alkaline magma.
*The calc-alkaline magma gives rise to subduction-related volcanism.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

AGW, like slavery, is a choice.

I believe [but cite needed] it was Scott Adams that said sequestering all the CO2 would cost $2 trillion compared to a total US debt of $21 trillion. Do those numbers sound right?

Considering it's a global problem, whoever fixes that would gain a lot of prestige.

Went looking and found this:
Re.,'Can we capture all of the world's carbon dioxide emissions?'
Ramez Naam,Mar 31,2011,Guest Blog,Scientific American
*just skimming the article,he infers that there are only 'proposals',no one has done it,which might imply that they don't know how,or know that they can't do it at any price.
*The article is large enough that one would want to read all of it,and in its proper context.
*He does present some $/ton CO2 figures.
*As some fossil fuel energy sources are already non-competitive in the energy market,it's almost just an academic excercize.
*If fossil can't compete as it is,with the added cost of capture and sequestration,how does that position it without artificial price supports/subsidies? (numerical inferiority)

*We do know that ending combustion would do it,by default.
*Some authors suggest that this would be the end goal.

[oil pan 4]

I would go crap in the yard like my dog before I own and use a composting toilet.
Even the people who are into off grid living, self sufficiency and such say they are gross and are or can be necessary evil.
I have a 120+gpm agricultural well. I will keep my regular toilet.

[NeilBlanchard]

All the composting toilets I have used are totally innocuous. Even though some of them are public toilets.

Outhouses are old school, and are awful. Modern composting toilets are virtually odor free, when done right.

[NeilBlanchard]

Acidification of the ocean is a serious problem:

Ocean acidification may cause dramatic changes to phytoplankton

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Sc...y-that-matters

http://www.whoi.edu/ocean-acidification/

Oysters, clams and scallops face high risk from ocean acidification, new study finds

Ocean acidification and oysters: Shellfish are already suffering.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...climate-change

Acidifying Waters Are Endangering Your Oysters And Mussels | CPR

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

As some fossil fuel energy sources are already non-competitive in the energy market,it's almost just an academic excercize.
*If fossil can't compete as it is,with the added cost of capture and sequestration,how does that position it without artificial price supports/subsidies? (numerical inferiority)

*We do know that ending combustion would do it,by default.
*Some authors suggest that this would be the end goal.

Depends what price you place on blackouts. Combustion will leave us long before we are ready to leave it.

[freebeard]

I would go crap in the yard like my dog before I own a composting toilet.
Even the people who are into off grid living, self sufficiency and such say they are gross and are or can be necessary evil.

Yikes!

A pit latrine at least. Think about you family and neighbors.

"Even the people .... say" — That doesn't make them right, and I feel sorry for their miserable lifestyle. I've seen and used composting toilets that work and an almost identical one (a cedar shack in the woods) that failed. The only difference was a piece of fly-screen on the top of the vent.

They were 55-gallon drum cartridges. Remove one and cap it with a vented lid, lay it on it's side on roller-skate wheels and spin it once a week for six months. It's basically a clean-hands operation. An airtight plug in the seat and a ready supply of dry organic material (sawdust, pine needles, etc.) are also critical.

edit:
If you know these people, share this with them. They're giving hippys a bad name.


http://tclocal.org/2010/02/visioning...od_prod_3.html

Figure 4. A functioning home-built composting toilet based on a 55 gallon drum that has been in operation in Cortland County since 1983. The drum is periodically rotated out through a composting cycle

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Depends what price you place on blackouts. Combustion will leave us long before we are ready to leave it.

I'm working through some of the genesis of different scenarios for addressing climate change.
I recently looked at a 1998 work from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
One of their economists suggested that rather than shove Kyoto down industries' throat,that carbon trading would allow them to meet targets,essentially at zero cost,provide for capital accumulation such that by 2023-2028,they would have monies for actual new technology,rather than expensive retrofits to existing infrastructure.
They were looking at carbon capture back then and thought that in 25-30 years,as facilities wore out,that they might have new 'clean' fossil tech.to replace retiring plants.
As of 1998,they figured that we were locked into 560ppmv any way we looked at things,and we ought to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at that level.
In the intervening years they've tried to lobby their way out of meaningful R&D as if the American people would bail them out.
It looks like the market and technology has evolved in the meantime,and today,new fossil combustion is no longer a viable business model.I'm just talking about Adam Smith's invisible hand of capitalism.
There are development models which exist which don't include CO2 as a requisite.Evidently,economic growth is no longer predicated upon petroleum,or coal,or even methane.
There won't be any 'grand gestures' in the US.They send the economy into chaos.There will be steady,incremental transition as we move away from combustion.If we're not to go over 3-degrees C.
'Spinning reserves' is not a concept lost on contemporary planners.And they'll do market-based solutions if they work,otherwise it will be command and control and you'll have no say in the matter.
That's if the climate is important.And looking around me,I see no evidence that this is the case.
'what a strange trip it's been'

[sendler]

Socio-economic chaos from the depletion of energy availability that reducing carbon fuel consumption, particularly liquid fuel that we depend on for mining and food, will kill many times the number of people and much sooner than continued carbon emissions. Why do we think that all of these climate agreements of the last 20 years have failed? Because we are dependant on growth and energy consumption to maintain the function of the world economy and there is no ready energy replacement at anything even close to the current scale. It is not just a matter of choosing to switch energy production sources as Green advocates want to believe. We have built a social trap for ourselves with unprecedented human growth over the last 150 years since discovering fossil fuel and there is now no painless or free market way out. There will be some "speed bumps" coming.
.
Population/ GDP/ Energy consumption is nearly 1:1:1. There has been a slight decoupling in the last few years as GDP shifts a bit toward services, but if energy goes down, so must the others. And so far there are very few 1%er's that are willing to kneel to let the rest of the world rise to a sustainable future.
.
.

.
.

[freebeard]

And so far there are very few 1%er's that are willing to kneel to let the rest of the world rise to a sustainable future.

It's like Q Anon says, "These people are stupid".

https://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/02/buckminster-fullers-critical-path.html

Critical Path

Humanity is moving ever deeper into crisis - a crisis without precedent.

First, it is a crisis brought about by cosmic evolution irrevocably intent upon completely transforming omnidisintegrated humanity from a complex of around-the-world, remotely-deployed-from-one-another, differently colored, differently credoed, differently cultured, differently communicating, and differently competing entities into a completely integrated, comprehensively interconsiderate, harmonious whole.

Second, we are in an unprecedented crisis because cosmic evolution is also irrevocably intent upon making omni-integrated humanity omnisuccessful, able to live sustainingly at an unprecedentedly higher standard of living for all Earthians than has ever been experienced by any; able to live entirely within its cosmic-energy income instead of spending its cosmic energy savings account (i.e., the fossil fuels) or spending its cosmic-capital plant and equipment account (i.e., atomic energy)-the atoms with which our Spaceship Earth and its biosphere are structured and equipped-a spending folly no less illogical than burning your house-and-home to keep the family warm on an unprecedentedly cold midwinter night.

Humanity's cosmic-energy income account consists entirely of our gravity-and star (99 percent Sun)-distributed cosmic dividends of water power, tidal power, wave power, wind power, vegetation-produced alcohols, methane gas, vulcanism, and so on. Humanity's present rate of total energy consumption amounts to only one four-millionth of one percent of the rate of its energy income.

Tax-hungry government and profit-hungry business, for the moment, find it insurmountably difficult to arrange to put meters between humanity and its cosmic energy income, and thus they do nothing realistic to help humanity enjoy its fabulous energy-income wealth. Buckminster Fuller - Critical Path

Critical Path covers a wide range of topics, ranging from an unorthodox history of human development since the dawn of recorded history to his views on the purpose of humanity, a review of how Wall Street lawyers undid the New Deal, a history of his own personal development and 'self disciplines", discussions of some of his key ideas like the "geoscope" and the "world game", a chronology of scientific discoveries and artifacts and finally his recipe (critical path) for solving our key problems.

As one reviewer noted Bucky's writing style is pretty unusual and takes some getting used to ....Another reviewer at Amazon exhorts people to "Do yourself a favor and become familiar with this friendly genius".

Critical Path is a summation of a life devoted to the betterment of all humanity and based on the premise that one individual can make a difference if he or she takes care of the things that need to be done. Through our combined learnings and accumulated metaphysical know-how, humanity has reached a point where we can all do whatever it was we were doing before we had to earn a living.

Unless of course the "pirates" of capital, aka "The Grunch" cheat us of our rightful inheritance.

Critical Path is about the evolution of know-how from the beginning of humanity to the present. Fuller charts out where we came from, the accelerating advance of learning, the ephemeralization of tools and technology and where we go from here.

He also charts out where the "pirates" came from and how they maintain their grip on things. Indeed I was surprised at how candid Bucky's comments are in this regard. It's as if he somehow got inside the inner clique and is reporting its machinations to the rest of us. Read it and see!

Bucky was aware of the limitations and problems posed by our use of fossil fuels for energy, and (like M King Hubbert) believed that we could and should use technology to become vastly more efficient in our energy use and to harness other, renewable, forms of energy.

Bucky believed in a transformation of our economic and political systems, via what he called a "design science revolution", which will result in the "conversion of all humanity into an integrated, omniharmonious, economically successful, one-world family", rather than the confrontational political action favoured by other would be transformers of society of his era.