The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[sendler]

Shipping is by far the biggest transport polluter in the world. There are 760 million cars in the world today emitting approx 78,599 tons of Sulphur Oxides (SOx) annually. The world's 90,000 vessels burn approx 370 million tons of fuel per year emitting 20 million tons of Sulphur Oxides. That equates to 260 times more Sulphur Oxides being emitted by ships than the worlds entire car fleet.
.
Oddly enough there is never any mention of alternative power sources such as nuclear power. Nuclear marine propulsion has been in widespread naval use for over 50 years starting in 1955. There are 150 ships in operation that use nuclear propulsion with most being submarines, although they range from ice breakers to aircraft carriers. A Nimitz class supercarrier has more than twice as much power (240,000 hp, 208 MW) as the largest container ship diesel engines ever built and is capable of continuously operating for 20 years without refueling (some French Rubis-class submarines can go 30 years between refueling). The U.S. Navy has accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operates more than 80 nuclear-powered ships.
.
https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/
.

[freebeard]

The shore power line for an aircraft carrier is no bigger than a Tesla Superbcharger cable.

Could one or some of those 80 be able to send a Gigawatt ashore?

[JockoT]

2016 has seen a record surge in atmospheric CO2, to a level not seen in 800,000 years. The implications of these new atmospheric measurements for the targets agreed under the Paris climate pact, are quite negative, say observers.

Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 - BBC News

[sendler]

.

.
.
Synthetic fertilizer and pesticides account for a majority of farm energy consumption and are made with raw materials and huge amounts of energy from the petroleum industry. Except for the small electricity portion, all of the above is from liquid fuel. How will we feed 10 Billion people when crude oil gets remote and expensive?
.
.

[oil pan 4]

If you are going to do off shore power. Because it's so expensive due to the nature of the rigs them selves and running the power back to shore why not combine wind and tidal on the same rigs where possible?

I also woke up to a dusting of global warming this morning.
No one knows the last time we had snow here in October.
I could really use some of that global warming that's going to kill us all right about now.

[JockoT]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I also woke up to a dusting of global warming this morning.
No one knows the last time we had snow here in October.
I could really use some of that global warming that's going to kill us all right about now.

We are the exact opposite, here in Scotland. We are not even getting frost in Fife. Current temperature 14°C/63°F. The past few winters, snow is something we very occasionally get. Just an overnight flurry, which disappears as soon as dawn breaks. It is years since I last had to drive in snow.
According to Traffic Scotland's web site, they are not having to send gritters out anywhere in the country at all, at the moment.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by sendler

How will we feed 10 Billion people when crude oil gets remote and expensive

The way it was done a thousand years ago in South America, massive investment in biochar. It's a soil amendment and a carbon sink. Here's a skeptical article: Biochar: Black Gold or Just Another Snake Oil Scheme? | Latest News | Earth Island Journal | Earth Island Institute (subhead: There’s little basis for claims that biochar could solve our energy, food, and climate woes)

Betteridge's Law says the answer is no, but the comments section (especially, Erich Knight) provides counter-point. The author even mentions Cool Planet, and says:

This misguided logic is what lies behind claims by companies like Cool Planet that consumers can clean the atmosphere by driving more. The California-based biofuel and biochar company seeks to make transportation fuels from wood, which they say is “carbon neutral,” and then bury the char residue from their production process, thus renderning the entire process “carbon negative.” By Cool Planet’s logic, driving more could actually reduce carbon emissions.

Cool Planet's remit is to create new farmland. The 100-octane gasoline is a byproduct.

The author includes pictures of wood burning in an open atmosphere and a slashed and burned forest to illustrate their points; that's toxic editorializing. Still you need to consider the opposing viewpoints no matter how wrong they are. The comments are very informative, though.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by freebeard

The way it was done a thousand years ago in South America, massive investment in biochar. It's a soil amendment and a carbon sink.

An agro society works again only for 2 Billion people and if 70% of them work the fields. It will take us a long time to get back anywhere near that situation peacefully.

[freebeard]

That's a hard upper limit. What if '70% of them' are robots working vertical farms?

As for 'peacefully', I refer you to R. Buckminster Fuller's Design Science Revolution [do your own citation].

[sendler]

If we are smart we will chose to cycle down instead of crash. The first step is to even raise awareness in the general public. Make them realize they really don't need a big new pickup truck. Or go to Mars. We need to focus.
.
Most have at least heard of carbon emissions even if there is debate about any consequences. We have a much bigger problem than climate change. Fossil fuel and resource depletion will hit us hard. Right in the debt bubble. If we wait too long to change we will be caught in an energy trap without enough left over from daily existence to spend on the big projects we need to take it's place.