Solving Climate Change.

[Vitruvius]

I'll not give you any more of my time, your brain is made of granite, I'd rather you stay a self serving fool! Your premises are invalid, thus your conclusions false. I always look for the smart ones, that understand the legacy of humankind, those not in denial or deluded. I'm not a Michaelangelo, I'm far too tired to chisel a gem out of solid rock. You're not worth it, you're too far gone. What I've said is the only way for humankind to survive themselves, PERIOD! At this time, I know more about humankind thus this planets life, than you'll ever know, (to the end of your days.)

I make no demands upon your time. The post you are responding to is from a month ago. Are you sure you've responded to the right person, because nothing I've said is self serving - other than in the sense that, it serves my interests to belong to a species with a future. I'm not "bigging myself up" as the urban patois would have it. Nor am I trying to put you down, but you are so very frequently mistaken.

What you are failing or refusing to see is the vast potential of magma energy. It's such a large source of energy, we could meet all our energy needs, and sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle - with clean energy. We could make the deserts bloom if we so chose. Fountains, fruit trees and marble floors for miles.

All your magma crap will do is eventually create another Mars.
Solar is the only way out!

You seem stuck with the false assumption that sustainability requires sacrifice. Solar does not have the potential to meet, less yet exceed - current energy demand. In terms of electricity generation for the national grid, solar can only ever reduce in some small part, carbon emissions that would otherwise have been produced from burning fossil fuels. It's a supplemental technology - because it's unreliable, low grade energy. Magma is vast, constant high grade energy. Magma energy is not a supplemental technology, because it can replace fossil fuels entirely - and much, much more besides. That's the point.

Every great leap forward in human evolutionary history is preceded by an energy revolution; from meat eating to fossil fuels, it's all about energy. In face of the threat from climate change, we need an energy revolution to transcend it, and can transcend it by harnessing magma energy as surely as the Homo-Sapiens who discovered fire, immediately multiplied their resources. Limits to resources is inherent only to the current technological basis of civilisation; which is to say - resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Magma energy offers the opportunity to overcome limits to resources, and prosper sustainably long term.

As for creating another Mars; in astronomical terms, the sun will explode before the earth goes cold. That aside, the earth emits absurd amounts of heat energy all the time. Our power demands, however large - cannot possibly make a dent - not least because 50% of the heat produced by earth is radiological, as opposed to primordial in origin. In other words, the earth generates heat. We can capture that heat energy, and use it to power technology - or let it bleed into space, it makes no difference to the overall rate at which it decays - which is, not quite as quick as the sun is burning through fuel. If in 5 billion years we haven't figured out a way to avoid the supernova it's because there's no way. But there is a way to secure a prosperous sustainable future, and it doesn't have to be some existentially communist solar powered misery fest!

[Vitruvius]

How to re-platform your post!

[Age]

To get back on the True and Right track is to just simply recognize that it IS 'businesses' and 'investors', themselves, which is what iIS causing climate change, itself. Money dies NOT stop, slow, not prevent climate change. Money, itself, or more correctly, 'the love of money', itself, which 'you', adult human beings, all have is THE CAUSEof climate change. Understand this FACT then you will realize HOW and WHY "your solution" will NOT work. You are still seeing that money is needed in order to be able to achieve "your solution". Money is a completely UNNECESSARY commodity in the 'world'. The love of money is CAUSING climate change. So, thee ACTUAL Real and True SOLUTION, should be obvious now.

Blaming the love of money is like blaming love of oxygen.

Lol Oxygen is needed, money is not, to live. The love of them are therefore nothing like.

If it weren't for inhalation, all our problems would be solved. Just stop breathing in.

You can ignore what I have been pointing out and saying and go down some completely off topic and deflectory tangent if you like, but the only ones you are fooling here are "yourself" and some "others".

What you fail to appreciate, other than the necessary inevitability of money, is that capitalism operates within a legislative and regulatory framework.

What you have clearly yet failed to recognise is that money is NOT needed in Life, and that it is the love of money which has and is continuing to cause climate change, itself. It really is just that simple.

Legitimate business could operate perfectly well within a scientifically rational legislative and regulatory framework, and in that context would not imply a race to the bottom.

That's not where we are, because science was decried as heresy - so politics was not informed by science, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution. However, even now - given limitless clean energy from magma, capitalism could be sustained long term.

But greed and the love of money is WHY energy from magma has not yet come to fruition. When will you understand this fact?

Consequently, it's not capitalism - per se, that's to blame for climate change.

I NEVER said it was. So, WHY did you just say those words?

It's a mistaken relationship to science, leading to a misapplication of technology.

If you say so, but this has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have been saying and have been talking about.

Maybe when you start looking at the actual words I have used and start seeing what I have been actually saying, then you start to recognize and understand what I have been actually talking about. Until then continue on with your wrong assumptions.

[Vitruvius]

Maybe when you start looking at the actual words I have used and start seeing what I have been actually saying, then you start to recognize and understand what I have been actually talking about. Until then continue on with your wrong assumptions.

I'll look at the actual words you have used when you put them in your own thread - with an explanatory introduction, but it's not about solving climate change, is it? How do you imagine the technology could be developed and applied without serving the interests of money? To say nothing of the fact capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and has the knowledge, skills, resources and means of communication and exchange - necessary to develop and apply the technology to sustain capitalist growth. If it weren't for love of money; to protect the value of existing assets, why would those with the means and ability, apply the technology to secure the future? One must surely appeal to the best interests of capital, rather than make anti-capitalist political bias, or is it religious morality, an obstacle to sustainability!

[Age]

Maybe when you start looking at the actual words I have used and start seeing what I have been actually saying, then you start to recognize and understand what I have been actually talking about. Until then continue on with your wrong assumptions.

I'll look at the actual words you have used when you put them in your own thread - with an explanatory introduction, but it's not about solving climate change, is it?

What is the 'it' here?

Solving climate change is VERY MUCH a part of what I have to say. In fact, climate change reversal is just another natural occurring positive consequence of what I will propose.

Also, ONLY looking at "another's" words when they are put in another thread SHOWS just how CLOSED 'you' REALLY ARE to your OWN words, in your, literally, OWN thread.

How do you imagine the technology could be developed and applied without serving the interests of money?

VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY. But first things first.

To say nothing of the fact capitalism is the prevailing economic system, and has the knowledge, skills, resources and means of communication and exchange - necessary to develop and apply the technology to sustain capitalist growth.

You speak as though 'capitalism' is some sort of its own identity.

If it weren't for love of money; to protect the value of existing assets, why would those with the means and ability, apply the technology to secure the future?

There is only "assets" and "a protection of existing assets" because of a 'love of money/greed'.

If things were made for the benefit of ALL, instead of just for some and because of their 'love of money', then the, so called, "assets" would be for Everyone, EQUALLY, and NOT for just some, disproportionally.

One must surely appeal to the best interests of capital, rather than make anti-capitalist political bias, or is it religious morality, an obstacle to sustainability!

What are you on about here?

Do you know WHY 'capital' (money, or love of money) is your motive?

[Vitruvius]

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

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.

[Vitruvius]

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

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.

If we can't solve climate change, we might have to do things like that. Tell me, in your mind, are these technologies powered by fossil fuels?

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

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.

If we can't solve climate change, we might have to do things like that. Tell me, in your mind, are these technologies powered by fossil fuels?

They might be but they might be powered by solar energy, rain energy and wind energy. Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly.

It should be clear that we won't solve global warming in the next decades. We must adapt. (IMO)

Reducing smog will also help because smog is billions of solar energy catching particles mixed with ozone. Spraying peroxide over cities will temporarily clean the air and, as a side benefit, reduce germs. Other oxidizers can be bad for people's health.

[Vitruvius]

They might be but they might be powered by solar energy, rain energy and wind energy. Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly.

It should be clear that we won't solve global warming in the next decades. We must adapt. (IMO)

Reducing smog will also help because smog is billions of solar energy catching particles mixed with ozone. Spraying peroxide over cities will temporarily clean the air and, as a side benefit, reduce germs. Other oxidizers can be bad for people's health.

I'm not saying solar, rain, and wind energy have no place. There are places where you'd want to produce energy, and they are just the ticket, but... what I'm trying to get to is the primary source of energy, in your future - where we failed to solve climate change, so must adapt. Surely you understand that wind, solar, rain?... cannot replace fossil fuels, ever!

The sheer scale of the infrastructure necessary would be prohibitive. They can only ever take the edge off carbon emissions because they are low grade forms of energy - and need to be gathered, and concentrated to be useful; compared with the high grade, base load power available by harnessing magma energy. The infrastructure necessary to produce and distribute magma energy would be large, but could be built. With solar and wind it's like painting the Forth Bridge. The UK alone would need something like 15000 windmills, that need replacing every 25 years, you'd never stop building them. So, you are advocating some wind power - and continued dependence on fossil fuels, whether you know it or not.

You say "Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly." But then advocate a technological approach that implies you will either have continued dependence on fossil fuels, or you will have much less energy to spend, at far greater cost. So, I ask you - how do you envisage your adaptation technologies would be powered? Your strategy of adaptation implies considerable technological infrastructure and expenditure of energy - that you'd be that much less able to afford, unless we solve climate change by harnessing magma energy. You seem very confused. If you're willing to go to such enormous lengths, why not do the one thing that could solve the problem?

[jayjacobus]

They might be but they might be powered by solar energy, rain energy and wind energy. Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly.

It should be clear that we won't solve global warming in the next decades. We must adapt. (IMO)

Reducing smog will also help because smog is billions of solar energy catching particles mixed with ozone. Spraying peroxide over cities will temporarily clean the air and, as a side benefit, reduce germs. Other oxidizers can be bad for people's health.

I'm not saying solar, rain, and wind energy have no place. There are places where you'd want to produce energy, and they are just the ticket, but... what I'm trying to get to is the primary source of energy, in your future - where we failed to solve climate change, so must adapt. Surely you understand that wind, solar, rain?... cannot replace fossil fuels, ever!

The sheer scale of the infrastructure necessary would be prohibitive. They can only ever take the edge off carbon emissions because they are low grade forms of energy - and need to be gathered, and concentrated to be useful; compared with the high grade, base load power available by harnessing magma energy. The infrastructure necessary to produce and distribute magma energy would be large, but could be built. With solar and wind it's like painting the Forth Bridge. The UK alone would need something like 15000 windmills, that need replacing every 25 years, you'd never stop building them. So, you are advocating some wind power - and continued dependence on fossil fuels, whether you know it or not.

You say "Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly." But then advocate a technological approach that implies you will either have continued dependence on fossil fuels, or you will have much less energy to spend, at far greater cost. So, I ask you - how do you envisage your adaptation technologies would be powered? Your strategy of adaptation implies considerable technological infrastructure and expenditure of energy - that you'd be that much less able to afford, unless we solve climate change by harnessing magma energy. You seem very confused. If you're willing to go to such enormous lengths, why not do the one thing that could solve the problem?

I did offer a number of solutions that are all cost effective. Don't reduce fossil fuel usage if you are wedded to that or tap into magma if that can be cost effective but take the steps that I suggest to reduce the cost of cooling, reduce smog and make life in the sunbelt more pleasant.
I am thinking about plausable, practicle solutions that exist today.

You seem to be thinking about science fiction.

If you think that minute amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause global warming while massive amouts of smog don't, you are drinking the wrong koolaid.

Reducing smog with hydrogen peroxide is much more cost effective than planting thousands of trees and it can be done right away.

[Vitruvius]

They might be but they might be powered by solar energy, rain energy and wind energy. Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly.

It should be clear that we won't solve global warming in the next decades. We must adapt. (IMO)

Reducing smog will also help because smog is billions of solar energy catching particles mixed with ozone. Spraying peroxide over cities will temporarily clean the air and, as a side benefit, reduce germs. Other oxidizers can be bad for people's health.

I'm not saying solar, rain, and wind energy have no place. There are places where you'd want to produce energy, and they are just the ticket, but... what I'm trying to get to is the primary source of energy, in your future - where we failed to solve climate change, so must adapt. Surely you understand that wind, solar, rain?... cannot replace fossil fuels, ever!

The sheer scale of the infrastructure necessary would be prohibitive. They can only ever take the edge off carbon emissions because they are low grade forms of energy - and need to be gathered, and concentrated to be useful; compared with the high grade, base load power available by harnessing magma energy. The infrastructure necessary to produce and distribute magma energy would be large, but could be built. With solar and wind it's like painting the Forth Bridge. The UK alone would need something like 15000 windmills, that need replacing every 25 years, you'd never stop building them. So, you are advocating some wind power - and continued dependence on fossil fuels, whether you know it or not.

You say "Adding more fossil fuel power would be detrimental and costly." But then advocate a technological approach that implies you will either have continued dependence on fossil fuels, or you will have much less energy to spend, at far greater cost. So, I ask you - how do you envisage your adaptation technologies would be powered? Your strategy of adaptation implies considerable technological infrastructure and expenditure of energy - that you'd be that much less able to afford, unless we solve climate change by harnessing magma energy. You seem very confused. If you're willing to go to such enormous lengths, why not do the one thing that could solve the problem?

I did offer a number of solutions that are all cost effective. Don't reduce fossil fuel usage if you are wedded to that or tap into magma if that can be cost effective but take the steps that I suggest to reduce the cost of cooling, reduce smog and make life in the sunbelt more pleasant.
I am thinking about plausable, practicle solutions that exist today.

You seem to be thinking about science fiction.

If you think that minute amounts of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause global warming while massive amouts of smog don't, you are drinking the wrong koolaid.

Reducing smog with hydrogen peroxide is much more cost effective than planting thousands of trees and it can be done right away.

I'm sorry. Your post has fallen below the minimum quality threshold required for a reply from Vitruivius. Please vacate the area!

[Vitruvius]

[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.