The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

The sun eneryny released it's often not well explained or used wrong,

remamber that Sun light take 5 minutes to reach Earch...

Earth area (flat calculation since sun light reach surface as flat) = earth radios elevated to cube then x 3,14.
The sphere from Sun (sphere center) to Earth's orbit would 90.000.000 x 90.000.000 than this value x 3,14 x 4. A insane number. 191.736.000.000.000.000 square kilometer

I think the energy released by the Sun in 3 second it's more than humanity consumed (as electricity or thermal from fossil fuels) since industrial revolution.

Your using the same formula for area of a circle and sphere. How does the transit time figure in? And I suspect there is more energy in a single solar prominence than mankind has used.
_________________

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

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well sustainable is an imaginary conception anyhow. Nothing is sustainable indefinitely. Whenever the word is used, it needs to be qualified with a timeframe..

The cycle of life is the definition of sustainable. Life is what CREATED the soil.

Artificial chemicals are already ruining the soil, and we are using too much water, and we are polluting at a massive scale.

Artificial nitrogen fertilizer is a huge part of climate change - carbon is leached out of the soil, AND nitrogen becomes nitrous oxide. Which is about 8X stronger a greenhouse gas than METHANE.

We have monoculture - this is the opposite of how life naturally works. Diversity is strength, and diversity is sustainable.

Our current factory farming system is very fragile, and it will fail.

We have to change to a system that BUILDS the soil, and that sinks carbon into the soil. We need to have as many different plants and animals as possible, being raised together. We need to grow all food as close to where it is eaten, as possible. We need to return all nutrient streams back to the soil. Our current sewage system is not sustainable.

[All Darc]

In the final step of my calcultation, my final mistake, I took 1 day of sun energy (that reach Earth) as 1 day of human energy used. But what we use it's less than 1% of the solar energy that reach Earth, since if 1/2 of Sahara desert if covered with solar panels could provide energy for the entire human poplation.

I maybe 0,0001 sec of SUN total energy (not just what reachs Earth) it's probably more than humanity have ever used since industrial revolution.

The ideal energy solution would be a Dyson SPhere.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your using the same formula for area of a circle and sphere. How does the transit time figure in? And I suspect there is more energy in a single solar prominence than mankind has used.
_________________

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

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We have monoculture - this is the opposite of how life naturally works. Diversity is strength, and diversity is sustainable.

Our current factory farming system is very fragile, and it will fail.

We have to change to a system that BUILDS the soil, and that sinks carbon into the soil. We need to have as many different plants and animals as possible, being raised together. We need to grow all food as close to where it is eaten, as possible. We need to return all nutrient streams back to the soil. Our current sewage system is not sustainable.

Part of diversity (of humans) is sustaining a large number of them at various levels of health, genetic predisposition, skills, and environment. Returning to less productive means of farming will certainly cause the death of many people. That may be good from a "survival of the fittest" standpoint, but it's not humane and works against diversity.

Current factory farming is a miracle and works wonderfully to produce an unprecedented amount of food. The world is nearing toward practically no starvation, which I'll probably see within my lifetime.

Nothing is sustainable, and the need for eventual adaptation to changing circumstances is assured. It may be that some of your proposed solutions are what is needed, but that comes at the expense of increased labor and energy inputs. We'll need to solve the energy and labor problems first.

There's this romantic idea that a small local farm with a guy gathering produce in his pickup truck is more energy efficient than the huge combines that harvest produce and the large trucks/ships that send it to far reaches of the world, but that simply isn't the case. Enormous machines are more energy efficient than a bunch of smaller, less energy intensive machines. The number of miles the product has to travel is almost irrelevant.

Besides that, who's going to give up fresh produce in the winter? We'll all go back to boiling/canning our fruits and veggies to make it through the 10 months of the year the produce isn't locally available?

[freebeard]

All Darc — Comparing the total of human energy use to the total of something else is ultimately beside the point. Seasteading comes before Dyson Spheres.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

We have to change to a system that BUILDS the soil, and that sinks carbon into the soil. We need to have as many different plants and animals as possible, being raised together. We need to grow all food as close to where it is eaten, as possible. We need to return all nutrient streams back to the soil. Our current sewage system is not sustainable.

Quoted For Truth. Terra preta before diamonds.

Cool Terra® Biochar-Based Soil Amendment - Cool Planet
[Search domain http://www.coolplanet.com/cool-terra...s-cool-terra/] https://www.coolplanet.com/cool-terr...is-cool-terra/
Cool Planet's technology sits at the confluence of four important global and societal trends. Products that help address any one of these megatrends definitely benefit society and the environment. Cool Planet's Engineered Biocarbon™ technology shows great promise to help address all four at the same time.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Returning to less productive means of farming will certainly cause the death of many people...

Current factory farming is a miracle and works wonderfully to produce an unprecedented amount of food...

There's this romantic idea that a small local farm with a guy gathering produce in his pickup truck is more energy efficient than the huge combines that harvest produce and the large trucks/ships that send it to far reaches of the world, but that simply isn't the case.

Suppose the truck is a Tesla pickup?

Returning to less productive means of farming would be bad. Moving forward to vertical hydroponic robot grocery stores would be good.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Suppose the truck is a Tesla pickup?

Returning to less productive means of farming would be bad. Moving forward to vertical hydroponic robot grocery stores would be good.

Smaller, more distributed farming might be feasible in the future, but as of right now it is not.

I suspect when we solve our electricity problem to the point of having it for practically free combined with advances in robotics and more sophisticated automation, we'll be able to utilize small spaces and get high yields while reducing negative externalities.

If labor was near zero marginal cost for things like pest control, we'd have no need for pesticides. The robots could be pulling weeds, applying just the right nutrients exactly where needed, and harvesting when each plant is at peak rather than needing to harvest everything at once. Perhaps crops wouldn't need to be plowed under every year too.

I haven't read Jeremy Rifkin's book yet, but I think it's probable that we'll continue technological progress that approaches zero marginal cost goods. Of course, that will present whole new problems, but at least it gives us mere humans something to do.

[freebeard]

Robots don't need to pull weeds, they can just poke them back underground while they're still sprouts too small to grasp.

Hydoponics is demonstrable technology. Pick and place robots are a thing. It's just a matter of stacking them vertically.

Ontopic: Suspicious 0bservers: We're all gonna die dept.:

Abrupt global events in the Earth’s history: a physics perspective - GregoryRyskin
https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312617.pdf

I show that a vast amount of seemingly unconnected geophysical and geological data can be understood in a unified way if the source of the Earth’s main magnetic field is a~200-km-thick lithosphere, repeatedly magnetized as a result of methane-driven oceanic eruptions, which produce ocean flow capable of dynamo action.

The world ends not with a bang or whimper, just a bad smell.

Data-driven model of the solar corona above an active region - J. Warnecke and H. Peter
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.00455.pdf

Conclusions.In our model the energy input into the corona is similar as in the scenarios of fieldline-braiding or fluxtube tectonics,i.e. through the driving of the vertical magnetic field by horizontal photospheric motions. The success of our model shows the central role this process plays for the structure, dynamics and heating of the corona.

Solar fusion has the heat of a compost pile.

[RedDevil]

Meanwhile in Delaware...
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...rak-sea-level/

[freebeard]

They called moving or elevating the track “extreme.” Instead, they recommended building temporary flood barriers that can be installed along the river before a storm, and then removed “to maintain aesthetics and passenger views.” Those walls would require 12 to 30 days to put up, and would cost $24 million per mile of track.

Sure, that will work flawlessly.

[NeilBlanchard]

We will have to abandon coasts, eventually. No amount of engineering will stop salt water encroachment, and sea level will push us back.