The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Sounds like Obama on many instances. He tried, he failed.


The problem with nuclear is people have trouble comprehending how much power s nuclear plant can produce and how little solar produces.

My extremely on the cheap solar build I want to do has a return on investment of around 4 or 5. Bit it depends how long the panels and inverters last.

James Hansen spared nothing when criticizing Obama and th rest of the Democratic Party.
Obama was in a perfect position to do things and didn't as far as Hansen is concerned.
Later,anything he tried could be obstructed or undone in Congress.That's still in process today.
Hansen also emphasizes the important role nuclear power can play in a post-combustion world.Solar and wind will never get us off fossil fuels he believes.
Your PV system and LEAF is inspiring.I lived a decade off the grid,although it wasn't without issues.I got as far as a PV-charged EV scooter,but it's a toy more than real transportation.
Today,all my budget allows,is to purchase wind-power from West Texas,through my electric cooperative.It's a penny more per kW/h.Happy to pay it.I can't afford the solar-electric program they offer.Boo hiss!
I watch Green-eyed Motors sometimes.Before I die,I'd like to be driving a plug-in.And it looks like I can buy a 'real' used one cheaper than I can convert one from ICE.20-miles range would do me fine,so the most entry-level,no whistles and bells kinda vehicle would be fine for me.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

It's important to know about the relationship of the ER/ EI of liquid fuel and the world economy.
.
"The prosperity and stability of modern society is inextricably linked to the production and consumption of energy, especially oil (Odum, 1973, Hall et al., 1986, Hall and Klitgaard, 2012; Tverberg, 2012).

Economic production, exchange and growth requires work and consequently a steady and consistent flow of energy to do that work. Longer intervals of sustained economic growth in countries and the world have been punctuated by numerous oscillations; i.e. there are periods of economic expansion but also recession. In general, the growth of real GDP is highly correlated with rates of oil consumption (Murphy et al., 2011). Four out of the five recessions experienced since 1970 can be explained by examining oil price shocks."
.
"Thus society seems to be caught in a dilemma unlike anything experienced in the last few centuries. During that time most problems (such as needs for more agricultural output, worker pay, transport, pensions, schools and social services) were solved by throwing more technology investments and energy at the problem. In many senses this approach worked, for many of these problems were resolved or at least ameliorated, although at each step populations grew so that more potential issues had to be served. In a general sense all of this was possible only because there was an abundance of cheap (i.e. high EROI) high quality energy, mostly oil, gas or electricity. We believe that the future is likely to be very different, for while there remains considerable energy in the ground it is unlikely to be exploitable cheaply, or eventually at all, because of its decreasing EROI. Alternatives such as photovoltaics and wind turbines are unlikely to be nearly as cheap energetically or economically as past oil and gas when backup costs are considered. In addition there are increasing costs everywhere pertaining to potential climate changes and other pollutants. Any transition to solar energies would require massive investments of fossil fuels. Despite many claims to the contrary—from oil and gas advocates on the one hand and solar advocates on the other—we see no easy solution to these issues when EROI is considered. If any resolution to these problems is possible it is probable that it would have to come at least as much from an adjustment of society's aspirations for increased material affluence and an increase in willingness to share as from technology. Unfortunately recent political events do not leave us with great optimism that such changes in societal values will be forthcoming."
.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13003856#bib37
.

If it's agreed that internal combustion must go,then it would have to go.
Those charged with the responsibility to drive the technology transition would also be in a position to participate in the timeline.
Economics wouldn't necessarily be a driver in the equation.I can imagine the howls of protest!
This is a physics problem.
Whatever decisions are made,by default,they're all Machiavellian.
It can be with kisses or bayonets.
The 'trial' should take place in a scientific venue,as with the British Royal Society,when arguing the provenance of the discovery of the human egg.
A court of law,the judge,and attorneys simply would not be knowledgeable enough to adjudicate the case.
If you want to be courteous to capital,then,in the past,they've suggested allowing 12-years for them to reconfigure their investment portfolios.
It's 2018,so how's about we designate 2030 as the last year of internal combustion.That's three more automotive model years of production.
Twelve more years of natural gas.
If coal can sequester 100% of their carbon emissions,go for it!
After that,the only use for hydrocarbons is for all the chemicals we produce today for durable products.
We'll figure it out.
And I'll give you the Phil Knox guarantee.If it doesn't work out,then I'm a dirty S.O.B..

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

Actually the same will be said about the global economy crash when the next debt bubble collapses and there is declining energy availability from dwindling fossil fuels to try to prop it up again. And this will happen much sooner than any climate change complications.

Some economists are said to recognize economic models that are decoupled from fossil fuels.
If there are no structural obstacles to pursuing those architectures then maybe we'll just skip over.And not look back.
Our greatest fear would be another Alan Greenspan at the FED.
When Brooksley Born (a national hero!) at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission,with oversight of the derivatives market, sounded the alarm for the impending economic meltdown of 2008,she was obstructed by Greenspan and his Libertarian ilk,summarily defunded,and defenestrated, making it structurally impossible for her to protect the American People.
All it cost Greenspan was some breath,as he appologised before Congress, for ruining the world.

[oil pan 4]

That's why I'm trying to get mine now.

[gumby79]

There have been studies done on the flip side of the global warming coin does anyone know how far the sea levels drop during the last ice age 10,000 years ago?

400'+ that is more devastating than 10"of rise

[oil pan 4]

I read over the years many times that 12,000 to 14,000 years ago before the ice melted the sea levels were around 300 feet lower than today and all that water locked up as ice exposed land equal to about the combined area of Russia and Europe.

[freebeard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_shelf

The continental shelf is an underwater landmass which extends from a continent, resulting in an area of relatively shallow water known as a shelf sea. Much of the shelves were exposed during glacial periods and interglacial periods.

The shelf surrounding an island is known as an insular shelf

Global continental shelf highlighted in cyan.

[Xist]

"In fact, some experts fear that the world will run out of usable topsoil to grow food within 60 years."
"The estimate is that we are now losing about 1 percent of our topsoil every year to erosion, most of this caused by agriculture." Topsoil Erosion

Stop growing food everyone!

I tried to find out how much sand gets washed away every year. I found this and just found lengthy explanations of how beach sand is insuitable for almost every project, sandy places import good sand, and we are running out of the good stuff: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...ng-out-of-sand

I just wondered how much land gets washed away every year. It seems like that would affect sea levels.

[NeilBlanchard]

We need to stop using factory farming methods. When we put artificial chemicals - fertilizer, herbicides, and pesticides - they kill the living things in the soil THAT MADE THE SOIL.

The carbon in the soil - which is what makes good soil dark colored - is released into the air, which adds to climate change.

The nitrogen fertilizer - which is made from natural gas - runs off in the first rainfall. Which poisons the runoff, which makes the water undrinkable. It then causes algae blooms, which causes dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

It breaks down, and becomes nitrous oxide - which is about 8X stronger than even methane.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/und...ing-potentials

CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1 regardless of the time period used, because it is the gas being used as the reference. CO2 remains in the climate system for a very long time: CO2 emissions cause increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that will last thousands of years.
Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years (Learn why EPA's U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks uses a different value.). CH4 emitted today lasts about a decade on average, which is much less time than CO2. But CH4 also absorbs much more energy than CO2. The net effect of the shorter lifetime and higher energy absorption is reflected in the GWP. The CH4 GWP also accounts for some indirect effects, such as the fact that CH4 is a precursor to ozone, and ozone is itself a GHG.
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) has a GWP 265–298 times that of CO2 for a 100-year timescale. N2O emitted today remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, on average.

[added emphasis is mine]

[sendler]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We need to stop using factory farming methods

This is the only method that has allowed the world population to explode to 7.5 Billion and have enough food. The same statements are made regarding fossil fuel use. "We need to just stop burning fossil fuel". Again, we can't. Fossil fuel props up all of that super agriculture, and everything else we need, to sustain the population that we have. It's not a matter of choice. The only hope for 9 Billion people in 2050 is that we could somehow replace all liquid fuel with electric before the oil becomes too remote to make sense economically. But we will fall well short. And there will be a Great Simplification.