Solving Climate Change.

[Vitruvius]

...

[jayjacobus]

Consider the enormous energy released by storms. The energy is in wind and rain. Wind in a storm is too fierce to harness but rain pouring down can be harnessed to create electricity. So far technology focuses on capturing the energy from the sun but ignores the energy from rain.

The heat will continue to rise.

But WHY is it rising?

If it is rising because of human being's behavior, then all that is needed, to stop the rise, is just stop doing 'that' what is causing the rise.

So, to stop 'that', what is causing the rise, one just has to discover, or learn, and understand WHY they are doing 'that'.

And, what will be found is what is causing adult human beings' to do that behavior, which is causing the rise, just comes from being greedy individuals.

Which, by the way, 'being greedy' is NOT a natural behavior of being human. 'Being greedy' is just a learned behavior, of which children learn off, and copy from, greedy adult human beings.

There is no sense in moaning about it. But there are ways to cool the Earth with manmade inventions.

I found 'prevention' is always better than the 'cure'.

Making more human made inventions to overcome the wrongs of the previous human made inventions is just a never ending cycle. That is; until humans wipe themselves out from this nonsensical and absurd way of thinking and behaving.

If climate change is because of human behavior, then just stop doing behavior which is causing climate change. How much more simpler can this get?

Dry ice, circulated water, cooling towers, covered public squares and parks, misting,fans and other methods can turn hot places into cooling oases.

Can whole cities be cooled? I believe that they can be.

We can't shut down industries. We should keep the industries running and solve the problems they create.

A major problem is smog which is a combination of smoke and ozone. Smog creates a blanket which stores heat that radiates up from the Earth and down from the sun.

Filtering the smog may help but there is a better way.

Ozone (O3) when combined with Hydrogen produces Water (H2O) and Oxygen (O2).

There is very little free Hydrogen in cities but Hydrogen can be purified in labs, transported to smog bound cities and released.

The bi-products of water and oxygen will help cool the city.

[Vitruvius]

Beyond XR: Could government failure at Cop26 fire the starting gun on a brave green future?
Harry Cockburn
3 hrs ago


"To stave off the most catastrophic impacts of living in an overheating world, we must slash greenhouse gas emissions down to practically nothing. We have known this for a long time. Yet emissions are still rising. Even as hundreds of people have drowned across Europe this summer in terrifying extreme weather events made “nine times” more likely by human-induced climate change, and as scores of wildfires ravaged the US and Canada following a heatdome made “150 times” more likely by human-induced climate change, projects to recover more oil, more coal and more gas are continuing. And the countries claiming to lead the response to the crisis, such as the UK and the US, are engaged in huge new fossil fuel enterprises. With thousands of the world’s best scientists from hundreds of institutions around the world united in their message that every year is vital in the race to cut emissions to zero, the gulf between the understanding of the perils, and the action required to deal with them, has never seemed bigger."

The Independent spoke to former XR strategist and spokesperson Rupert Read, who is also a professor of philosophy at the University of East Anglia, to find out what is going on. Crucially, he describes it as XR having “moved the Overton window – the window of what’s politically possible. XR has opened this huge space, but it may now be for others to enter this huge space and really use it – who don’t seem so polarising to the average person.” It is this new space that Read is now intensely focused on.

But while it is tempting to suggest a new, more moderate environmentally focused organisation or party could fill this power vacuum in a revolution which could supersede the likes of the Green Party, take power from the government and leave XR as a more radical flank of the environment movement, Read hesitantly rejects the notion of a sweeping revolutionary force.

“It would be great. I have no idea whether it’s possible,” he says. “I do think the Green Party needs to step up in relation to this crisis. I have co-created a new organisation loosely affiliated to the Green Party called ‘Greens CAN’ – Greens Climate Action Network. Basically the idea is that the Green Party, as well as contesting elections, should engage in non-violent civil-disobedience.” He says he hopes this will create a “radical flank to the Green Party, but it would be a moderate flank to Extinction Rebellion – a little more careful than Extinction Rebellion is sometimes being, so as not to alienate people”.

But asked how groups such as Greens Can, the Green Party, XR and other environment groups, can really take power from government on the timescale required to meet the demands of the IPCC report, Read does not offer a particular framework. Instead, his optimism lies in the fractured, piecemeal reaction of the public to the worsening environment crisis, which he believes will kick-start a more grass-roots revolution of public priorities. “I think it’s quite possible that we’re going to see a big upsurge in workplace-based activism. We may be starting to see that with the creation of Lawyers for Net Zero, for example.”

“It’s a useful thought experiment – if our children can’t go on symbolic strikes for an hour or a day, then why can’t the rest of us? That could be possible to get a significantly larger cohort of people involved in. We need to try something new again,” Read adds. What could be the trigger that could take the environment level to the next level? It’s on the imminent horizon – Cop26. “It’s going to be a huge wake-up call,” says Read. “After the terrible weather and the ‘code red’ IPCC report, the huge wake up call is going to be when the world realises that the world’s so-called leaders are definitively not coming to the rescue.”

“If they make any agreement at all at Glasgow, it is going to be so woefully inadequate. “Then there is going to be a huge mobilisation opportunity. What I’m seeking to do – along with many other people – is to prepare for that, really. We don’t know exactly what’s going to work, but it seems to me that what’s going to work is something which is very honest and direct about the situation, but has lower barriers to entry than existing movements such as XR are perceived, rightly or wrongly, to have. This could mobilise a much larger phalanx of the population to understand that our government, our so-called leaders, are not coming to rescue us and that we have to act in a much more direct and dramatic way, and in much larger numbers.

We are living in terrifying unprecedented times, but that also creates unprecedented possibilities. “We’re going to change history.” This sounds like revolution. But Read does not characterise it as such. “I don’t think there’s going to be a revolution. What I’m looking for is a really huge mobilisation which is going to put a lot more pressure on existing governments. The potential for some of that mobilisation to take place through politics – so that’s where something like Greens CAN could come in, and also a more direct building of resilience – of community action – given the extent to which the powers that be have failed us.”

“We are living in terrifying unprecedented times, but that also creates unprecedented possibilities,” he says. The concept that the environment crisis will have to be dealt with by existing governments and within the framework of capitalism remains highly alien to the wider environmental movement. This is what Read’s inclusive, non-polarising efforts are grappling with. But it also appears he is leaving some room for manoeuvre, almost saying, “if there is a revolution, bring it on.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/be ... d=msedgntp

Aside from the admission a philosopher professor is actively recruiting for a revolution, and all the crap I edited out about the rise and fall of XR's stock, so to speak - I do not agree that XR have moved the Overton window of what's politically possible. I think climate change has moved that window. When California is on fire end to end, throwing paint and blocking traffic is just gilding the lily. Governments and industry know; whether they admit it or not. XR role has been to make the public aware of what governments and industry already know. i.e. we know you know.

Professor Read draws the conclusion "our government, our so-called leaders, are not coming to rescue us and that we have to act in a much more direct and dramatic way, and in much larger numbers" ... but without saying what this green revolutionary government would do instead. It's very reminiscent of Communism. Cast off your chains - and hand them over to us! No thank you! It won't happen, but nonetheless, the green left are clearly concerned with power - before they are concerned with the climate.

My own concern has been with proving that a sustainable future is possible, and describing what is necessary to that future - on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality, and given todays technologies. It requires international cooperation to develop magma energy on a very large scale, for the purposes of addressing climate change. It would mean massive infrastructure, but the cost shared by the world; relative to continued and escalating climate catastrophes, is tiny. Basically, I suggest drilling through hot rock close to magma chambers and subduction zones, pumping water through to produce steam, to generate electricity - and I suggest this energy is used initially to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle - while building capacity, to transition from fossil fuels. I would then suggest a sectoral approach obviates many of the national and capitalist economic conflicts in transitioning to clean energy - so starting with energy intensive industries like concrete, steel and aluminium.

In this way, in contrast to Professor Read, I have sought to devise a strategy to solve climate change that falls within the Overton window of what's politically possible, and the fact/hope I'm able to - write something sensible within this pre-existing and socially acceptable Overton window, begs the question of why Professor Read and his ilk have not even tried. I don't think it's a matter of piety, per se - none can doubt they have genuine environmental concern. Rather, it's a product of the very structure of left wing thought - informing an environmental narrative since the 1960's that presumes Limits to Resources for the purposes of anti-capitalist politics, i.e. the left have no solutions because their only solution is themselves!

[Age]

Consider the enormous energy released by storms. The energy is in wind and rain. Wind in a storm is too fierce to harness but rain pouring down can be harnessed to create electricity. So far technology focuses on capturing the energy from the sun but ignores the energy from rain.

The heat will continue to rise.

But WHY is it rising?

If it is rising because of human being's behavior, then all that is needed, to stop the rise, is just stop doing 'that' what is causing the rise.

So, to stop 'that', what is causing the rise, one just has to discover, or learn, and understand WHY they are doing 'that'.

And, what will be found is what is causing adult human beings' to do that behavior, which is causing the rise, just comes from being greedy individuals.

Which, by the way, 'being greedy' is NOT a natural behavior of being human. 'Being greedy' is just a learned behavior, of which children learn off, and copy from, greedy adult human beings.

There is no sense in moaning about it. But there are ways to cool the Earth with manmade inventions.

I found 'prevention' is always better than the 'cure'.

Making more human made inventions to overcome the wrongs of the previous human made inventions is just a never ending cycle. That is; until humans wipe themselves out from this nonsensical and absurd way of thinking and behaving.

If climate change is because of human behavior, then just stop doing behavior which is causing climate change. How much more simpler can this get?

Dry ice, circulated water, cooling towers, covered public squares and parks, misting,fans and other methods can turn hot places into cooling oases.

Can whole cities be cooled? I believe that they can be.

We can't shut down industries. We should keep the industries running and solve the problems they create.

You have missed my point, completely.

In fact, you are saying the exact opposite of what I was meaning.

A major problem is smog which is a combination of smoke and ozone. Smog creates a blanket which stores heat that radiates up from the Earth and down from the sun.

I say pollution is a far more and bigger, so called, "problem". Human beings can very easily adapt to rising or cooling temperatures. They can, after all, and do adapt, very easily, to temperature differences of over 100 degree celsius, (which maybe no other animal can?). So adapting to temperature rises is not an issue at all, really.

But, human beings can NOT adapt to their continual polluting of the air and the water, which they actually NEED, in order to keep living, and surviving.

Filtering the smog may help but there is a better way.

Ozone (O3) when combined with Hydrogen produces Water (H2O) and Oxygen (O2).

There is very little free Hydrogen in cities but Hydrogen can be purified in labs, transported to smog bound cities and released.

The bi-products of water and oxygen will help cool the city.

Okay.

But, in the meantime, while 'you' remain greedy and selfish beings, 'you' will just keep doing what 'you' are doing in order to obtain more and more money, and just keep buying more and more air conditioners so that 'you' keep cool, but which keep increasing 'your' cities temperatures.

[Vitruvius]

[simplicity]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

[jayjacobus]

But WHY is it rising?

If it is rising because of human being's behavior, then all that is needed, to stop the rise, is just stop doing 'that' what is causing the rise.

So, to stop 'that', what is causing the rise, one just has to discover, or learn, and understand WHY they are doing 'that'.

And, what will be found is what is causing adult human beings' to do that behavior, which is causing the rise, just comes from being greedy individuals.

Which, by the way, 'being greedy' is NOT a natural behavior of being human. 'Being greedy' is just a learned behavior, of which children learn off, and copy from, greedy adult human beings.


I found 'prevention' is always better than the 'cure'.

Making more human made inventions to overcome the wrongs of the previous human made inventions is just a never ending cycle. That is; until humans wipe themselves out from this nonsensical and absurd way of thinking and behaving.

If climate change is because of human behavior, then just stop doing behavior which is causing climate change. How much more simpler can this get?

We can't shut down industries. We should keep the industries running and solve the problems they create.

You have missed my point, completely.

In fact, you are saying the exact opposite of what I was meaning.

A major problem is smog which is a combination of smoke and ozone. Smog creates a blanket which stores heat that radiates up from the Earth and down from the sun.

I say pollution is a far more and bigger, so called, "problem". Human beings can very easily adapt to rising or cooling temperatures. They can, after all, and do adapt, very easily, to temperature differences of over 100 degree celsius, (which maybe no other animal can?). So adapting to temperature rises is not an issue at all, really.

But, human beings can NOT adapt to their continual polluting of the air and the water, which they actually NEED, in order to keep living, and surviving.

Filtering the smog may help but there is a better way.

Ozone (O3) when combined with Hydrogen produces Water (H2O) and Oxygen (O2).

There is very little free Hydrogen in cities but Hydrogen can be purified in labs, transported to smog bound cities and released.

The bi-products of water and oxygen will help cool the city.

Okay.

But, in the meantime, while 'you' remain greedy and selfish beings, 'you' will just keep doing what 'you' are doing in order to obtain more and more money, and just keep buying more and more air conditioners so that 'you' keep cool, but which keep increasing 'your' cities temperatures.

Mostpeople, like me, are consumers, not a/c sales people. Besides, dry ice is a cheaper way to cool a home than airconditioning. That simple technology could reduce cooling costs by enormous amounts.

[Walker]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

Trying to solve what isn't a problem is like washing the car after a heavy rainstorm.

[Vitruvius]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

Trying to solve what isn't a problem is like washing the car after a heavy rainstorm.

You are banished; but it's not because of your opinions - per se. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you like, and were those remarks on topic they would be welcome here. They're not on topic, or welcome, but I want you to know your right to your view remains sacrosanct. You could, according to strictly scientific epistemic protocols, be a rogue genius professing a truth beyond the comprehension of the mere consensus of world scientists, but the overwhelming probability is your motives are either malicious or stupid, and so, I regret to inform you are no longer permitted to post in this thread.

[jayjacobus]

We can't shut down industries. We should keep the industries running and solve the problems they create.

You have missed my point, completely.

In fact, you are saying the exact opposite of what I was meaning.

A major problem is smog which is a combination of smoke and ozone. Smog creates a blanket which stores heat that radiates up from the Earth and down from the sun.

I say pollution is a far more and bigger, so called, "problem". Human beings can very easily adapt to rising or cooling temperatures. They can, after all, and do adapt, very easily, to temperature differences of over 100 degree celsius, (which maybe no other animal can?). So adapting to temperature rises is not an issue at all, really.

But, human beings can NOT adapt to their continual polluting of the air and the water, which they actually NEED, in order to keep living, and surviving.

Filtering the smog may help but there is a better way.

Ozone (O3) when combined with Hydrogen produces Water (H2O) and Oxygen (O2).

There is very little free Hydrogen in cities but Hydrogen can be purified in labs, transported to smog bound cities and released.

The bi-products of water and oxygen will help cool the city.

Okay.

But, in the meantime, while 'you' remain greedy and selfish beings, 'you' will just keep doing what 'you' are doing in order to obtain more and more money, and just keep buying more and more air conditioners so that 'you' keep cool, but which keep increasing 'your' cities temperatures.

Mostpeople, like me, are consumers, not a/c sales people. Besides, dry ice is a cheaper way to cool a home than airconditioning. That simple technology could reduce cooling costs by enormous amounts.

Refrigiration is based on compressing a gas into a liquid where the heated liquid cools in the ouside coils and there the gas expands. When it is compressed. it becomes cold but no where near as cold as compressed CO2. Therefore compressed CO2 (dry ice) is more efficient.

[simplicity]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

Trying to solve what isn't a problem is like washing the car after a heavy rainstorm.

You are banished; but it's not because of your opinions - per se. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you like, and were those remarks on topic they would be welcome here. They're not on topic, or welcome, but I want you to know your right to your view remains sacrosanct. You could, according to strictly scientific epistemic protocols, be a rogue genius professing a truth beyond the comprehension of the mere consensus of world scientists, but the overwhelming probability is your motives are either malicious or stupid, and so, I regret to inform you are no longer permitted to post in this thread.

I think it's the rogue genius one.

And the probability is 100% that it is what it is [regardless of anybody's opinion].

[Walker]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

Trying to solve what isn't a problem is like washing the car after a heavy rainstorm.

You are banished; but it's not because of your opinions - per se. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you like, and were those remarks on topic they would be welcome here. They're not on topic, or welcome, but I want you to know your right to your view remains sacrosanct. You could, according to strictly scientific epistemic protocols, be a rogue genius professing a truth beyond the comprehension of the mere consensus of world scientists, but the overwhelming probability is your motives are either malicious or stupid, and so, I regret to inform you are no longer permitted to post in this thread.

Such an unscientific declaration is characteristic of political movements.

Do you have administrative powers to block any poster from the thread, or does your banishment hinge on an assumed social contract of the banished respecting your wishes?

Just a curious question, and not that I particularly care to participate, seeing as how the relevant principles relating to philosophy carried by this tired old horse of a topic have been flogged from top to bottom already over the years, starting with the concept of "consensus" in science. Be that consensus majority, or unanimous?

[Vitruvius]

Haven't you guys solved the climate change thing yet?

Trying to solve what isn't a problem is like washing the car after a heavy rainstorm.

You are banished; but it's not because of your opinions - per se. You are perfectly entitled to believe what you like, and were those remarks on topic they would be welcome here. They're not on topic, or welcome, but I want you to know your right to your view remains sacrosanct. You could, according to strictly scientific epistemic protocols, be a rogue genius professing a truth beyond the comprehension of the mere consensus of world scientists, but the overwhelming probability is your motives are either malicious or stupid, and so, I regret to inform you are no longer permitted to post in this thread.

Such an unscientific declaration is characteristic of political movements.

Do you have administrative powers to block any poster from the thread, or does your banishment hinge on an assumed social contract of the banished respecting your wishes?

No, I have no such power. It was worth a shot! I understand your instinct to label me left wing - as I am concerned with climate change, and then tried to de-platform you, but this thread is about solving climate change in such a way as to sustain continued prosperity. This is such a particular argument - I feel entitled to insist we stay on topic. If you want to argue whether climate change is real - you can argue that with someone who's entire argument is that climate change is real. The left have been contributing the 'Oh, yes it is' to that argument since the 1960's; they have not sought to solve the problem. I have.

I am trying to solve climate change in the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective way possible - given a scientific understanding of reality and an overview of existing technologies. On that basis, it turns out it's obvious what we need to do. The earth is a big ball of molten rock containing a virtually limitless amount of high grade clean energy. Of course, it's much more complicated when viewed through an ideological lens, but scientifically and technologically, it seems entirely possible to secure a prosperous sustainable future - and in my opinion, it's also our best bet.

[Vitruvius]

Australia sees strong future for coal beyond 2030 despite U.N. call
8 hrs ago

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Coal will be a major contributor to Australia's economy well beyond 2030 given growth in global demand, the country's resources minister said on Monday, a day after a United Nations envoy called on the country to phase out the fossil fuel.

Without greater efforts to cut coal, climate change will dramatically damage Australia's economy, Selwin Hart, the United Nations special adviser on climate change, said in a speech https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 2021-09-05 in the capital Canberra on Sunday.

Australia's heavy reliance on coal-fired power makes it one of the world's largest carbon emitters per capita, but its conservative government has steadfastly backed https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 2021-06-21 fossil fuel industries, saying tougher action on emissions would cost jobs.

Australia's latest export figures show "the reports of coal's impending death are greatly exaggerated and its future is assured well beyond 2030," Resources Minister Keith Pitt said in a statement.

In the three months to July, Australian coal exports grew 26% in value to A$12.5 billion ($9.3 billion), he noted. Coal prices have climbed as global economies recover from COVID-19 restrictions.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/au ... d=msedgntp


There again is the ubiquitous, kneejerk assumption that action on emissions requires sacrifice - when, scientifically and technologically, that need not be the case. Certainly, coal mining jobs would be lost, just as blacksmiths lost business when cars replaced horses. But overall, the economy driven by the internal combustion engine was far more prosperous than a horse drawn economy! Similarly now, the opportunity exists for a far greater, sustainable prosperity based on the limitless clean energy available from the molten interior of the earth. Harnessing that energy would allow us to overcome fossil fuel use; and sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - all at no carbon cost. The economic advantages flow like water - even if some coal mining jobs will be lost, we can be much better off than we are now.

[simplicity]

I am trying to solve climate change in the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective way possible - given a scientific understanding of reality and an overview of existing technologies. On that basis, it turns out it's obvious what we need to do. The earth is a big ball of molten rock containing a virtually limitless amount of high grade clean energy. Of course, it's much more complicated when viewed through an ideological lens, but scientifically and technologically, it seems entirely possible to secure a prosperous sustainable future - and in my opinion, it's also our best bet.

Although it would seem ideal to solve all the world's problems, it's not. Things are the way they are because of the infinite number of events leading up to them. Trying to figure out climate change is like trying to figure out what's on the other side of the Universe. There are infinite inputs that affect the climate.

Instead, it might make more sense taking a balanced approach instead of the climate change folks running around like their collective hair is on fire. The first thing you need to do is calm down. The Earth is not going away [any time soon]. The second is to have rational conversations about transitioning to sustainable approaches [to all kinds of things]. Being an alarmist doesn't work [except in very rare cases]. For example, the financial wizards have been spinning paper into to [their own] gold for the last century and although people have been warning about this, almost nobody cares [even though we are facing a catastrophic financial crisis].

99.99999...% want all the good things [clean air, clean water, safe food, real money, compassionate health care, etc.]. The way you get there is by people doing their part to that end. Major policy changes happen slowly for good reason [to make sure they are prudent]. Look at recycling. It took a few decades, but it works pretty well for some materials.

Attempting to frighten people into action is bad policy [although the current favorite praxis of the political class (especially the left)]. People need to calm down, take a breath, and see the truth of the matter the best they can. Reacting [and being manipulated] emotionally results in poor outcomes every time.