Darn it, I'm embarrassed. Can't pin the figures. I give up. Now I'm curious. Mine remains Pink Floyd, despite my rather eclectic tastes.

Steely Dan (left, Walter Becker, now deceased, right, Donald Fagen, still kicking.) I’m told, although I’ve never validated it, that it was the name of a preposterously large dildo in the book of that name.

:rofl: OK, got it now. It's been a while since I read that book. Cool.

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us." — Xtrix

Actually, a few dozen nukes detonated over the main United States and Chinese cities would largely take care of the climate change problem, at least temporarily, by bringing global GHG emissions way down. So maybe the devil can save us.

I've googled it. What I appear to find is that geothermal energy is indeed an energy source, has some pros, some cons, is location dependent, is expensive. Nothing that says geothermal energy is the panacea for all the world's energy problems. — Wayfarer

The word geothermal covers a wide range of technologies, from low temperature heat difference for domestic use, right through to volcanic springs. My approach is different again; it's very high temperature geothermal - produced by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. I mentioned above, I'm looking for temperatures around 700'C. It's magma energy; not geothermal as we know it!

The evaporate - probably water, would be contained in pipes - and heated to 700 degrees to produce superheated steam. This is important, because it's the expansion of water superheated to 700'C - that produces the power.

This can be shown with reference to early steam engines - and the problems they had with condensation lowering the steam pressure. Ribbed boilers! What were they thinking?

So for various reasons - working examples of geothermal in the US, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Italy, New Zealand, Iceland and Japan, are not wholly indicative of what I have in mind. Clearly though, there's vast amounts of energy there, and we need it to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

My approach is different again; it's very high temperature geothermal - produced by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. I mentioned above, I'm looking for temperatures around 700'C. It's magma energy; not geothermal as we know it! — counterpunch

Got anything published?

Sure, it's a default position the whole survival of the fittest mind set, which puts emphasis on everyone to only care about themselves. At the same time, a lot of people really feel completely helpless. The whole Mad Max thing may be what they think the world is currently like, but it's going to get much worse.

But I don't understand the closet hippies comment.

But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die — Xtrix

We're probably going to die then. North America has like 200 years worth of coal to burn. Gimungous.

Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future. At least I can’t think of anyone who got it right. Some of them may have, but there are more who are still waiting for Revelations to pan out. So nowadays the whole doomsday thing is a hard sell. Oh well. Better to lead by example than try to lead a mob, I’d say.

For me, the leading problem is one of values held and aspired toward by the majority of humans inhabiting this earth: both those in power and those who grant them their power. — javra

Well said. This is also what I mean by awakening. A paradigm shift, a revolution -- all similar: a major, far-reaching event that happens relatively quickly.

But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die
— Xtrix

We're probably going to die then. North America has like 200 years worth of coal to burn. — frank

Maybe. But again, it's up to all of us. It's not like an asteroid -- this is self-inflicted, and can be stopped. It'll be difficult, but not impossible. It can be achieved by spending something like 3% of GDP a year according to Robert Pollin.

Large asset managers are shifting their AUM to ESGs, solar and wind are cheaper to build, major automobile makers are going fully EV by 2035, and increasing majorities are concerned and want something done quickly (here). To name a few glimmers of hope.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.

Got anything published? — Wayfarer

Thank you for your question. No. I haven't tried to publish anything - except here, where, with all due respect to the moderators, the editorial standards are virtually non existent! The problem is that, it's such a large subject area - a quality piece of readable length, could only cover a tiny part of the whole. I'm trying to reveal a vista - and here seems the perfect place to do that. Low resolution, broad brush strokes, immediate - if somewhat indifferent audience.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up. — Xtrix

Awesome

For me, the leading problem is one of values held and aspired toward by the majority of humans inhabiting this earth: both those in power and those who grant them their power.
— javra

Well said. This is also what I mean by awakening. A paradigm shift, a revolution -- all similar: a major, far-reaching event that happens relatively quickly. — Xtrix

The dream of a global awakening is an age-old wish. But I think it’s wrong-headed , and comparable to wishing that all species of animals were to awaken and begin exhibiting the same behavior. But just as animal species occupy diverse niches for a reason, so do human communities identify with diverse worldviews. Not only will we never get these communities to ‘awaken’ to the same understanding on any issue , we shouldn’t consider it a desirable goal. I think we will eventually overcome our climate challenges, but it wo nt be because our interpretation of the issues involved , the validity of the science or the means of resolution. will have achieved some sort of planetary consensus.

Not only will we never get these communities to ‘awaken’ to the same understanding on any issue , we shouldn’t consider it a desirable goal. — Joshs

I can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem. That doesn't mean I think it'll happen.

It'll take a lot of education, organization, conversations with one another, practical (and local) efforts, etc. All possible, many of it going on right now. It's just pure delusion to consider this anything but desirable.

can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem. — Xtrix

One could make the same argument about World war 1, World war 2 and the Cold war. People make accommodations to alien cultures ( peace treaties) and adjustments to perceived threats from within their own way of seeing the world , not by melding into a single universal perspective.

can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem.
— Xtrix

One could make the same argument about World war 1, World war 2 and the Cold war. People make accommodations to alien cultures ( peace treaties) and adjustments to perceived threats from within their own way of seeing the world , not by melding into a single universal perspective. — Joshs

Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.

I'll repeat: what's needed is wide-scale awareness and prioritization of the particular problem (climate change). Without it, it's business as usual and we're toast. This has nothing to do with World War 1 and 2 or the Cold War. It's pure delusion not to recognize this.

Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future. At least I can’t think of anyone who got it right. — NOS4A2

We get it right all the time, every day in fact. This is just another stupid talking point used whenever climate change is brought up. You're not fooling me or anyone else.

what's needed is wide-scale awareness and prioritization of the particular problem (climate change). — Xtrix

My point is that there will never be precise agreement , nor does there need to be, on what exactly the ‘particular problem’ is. There is already wide-scale
awareness of something called ‘climate change’ , but what exactly this means varies widely according to political affiliation , etc. More scare tactics from the left will just backfire.

What issue one considers worth prioritizing is a function of how seriously one considers the threat , which is itself a function. of how one construes the issue. You will not get right wing conservatives to see the issue in the way climate scientists do , because this is t about facts, it’s about complex worldviews within which the facts appear as what they are. Complex worldviews are extremely resistant to change. If you want to influence climate skeptics and others who are slow to act , you have to connect with their worldview and work with them from within those bounds rather than trying to get them on the same page as the climate scientists. Without your help, conservatives will eventually arrive at the realization of the necessity to act. Will it be too late?No. It would obviously be preferable from our vantage if they felt a greater sense of urgency right now , but I suspect they are going to have to be pushed to the precipice in order to act. That will be costly financially as well as in terms of lives and quality of life, but I don’t see any alternative.

One of the problems with global warming is that the costs aren't distributed evenly. North America, Europe, and East Asia gain the most from using carbon fuels, while the costs will be borne most by Sub-Saharan Africa.

The scale of the problem is almost mind boggling. Population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa across the century even for low level projections is astounding. A region that just passed a billion people five years ago will be more populous than all of Asia by 2100. More than half of all children on Earth will live in SSA (and this supposed massive out migration as well).

The obvious problem is that areas of SSA, with the exception of Bangladesh, will be the high density population areas most effected. Part of this is geography (Bangladesh for example is vulnerable due to its low elevation), and another large part is state capacity and resources. You have a situation where there is exponential population growth even as the climate deteriorates as state capacity is low, or as is the case in areas of CAR and the DRC, practically non-existent.

Just as the threat of WWI could be seen on the decades leading up to it, we now have the setting for a disaster that could dwarf both the World Wars emerging.

The effects in wealthier nations might be mitigated, although prior evidence suggests the influx of people fleeing distressed areas could easily lead to a destablization or even collapse in governance. Without strong states, mitigation will likely only occur in wealthy pockets, with investment at the local level.

So for example, the Las Vegas strip might be saved, even as the city is abandoned.

My point is that there will never be precise agreement , nor does there need to be, on what exactly the ‘particular problem’ is. — Joshs

There is 97% + agreement on what the problem is -- from those in the field. That's good enough for me.

I'm not interested in the minority who have been brainwashed into denialism by the fossil fuel propaganda juggernaut, I'm interested only in those who either don't know enough about it or know but don't prioritize it.

There is 97% + agreement on what the problem is -- from those in the field. That's good enough for me. — Xtrix

That’s good enough for me, too, but this thread isnt talking about us, it’s talking about the large number of people who are doubtful it’s as big or immediate a problem as the scientists claim it to be.

I'm not interested in the minority who have been brainwashed into denialism by the fossil fuel propaganda juggernaut, — Xtrix

First of all, this is a very large minority. Secondly, believing the opposition is simply ‘brainwashed’ rather than operating from an entirely different frame of understanding than yours will keep you tied up in knots.


“Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.”

Assuming that those who disagree with you on this issue are brainwashed pre-supposes that facts can be separated from perspectives and values.

First of all, this is a very large minority. — Joshs

No, actually it isn't. If you're talking about the United States, it's fairly large -- but still a minority. Most of them are immobile, and I have no hope or interest in converting them.

Secondly, believing the opposition is simply ‘brainwashed’ rather than operating from an entirely different frame of understanding than yours will keep you tied up in knots. — Joshs

So you're going to keep arguing nonsense, I see. I should just ignore it, but I won't:

Of COURSE they are operating from a "different frame of reference." So are ISIS, so are Creationists, so were the Nazis. What good do you think you're doing pointing out truisms like this? Do you really think I've overlooked this fact -- a fact that a child could grasp?

One can "operate from a different frame of reference" and be brainwashed. That's what's happening with climate denial. No, I'm not "tied up in knots" about it -- I have very little hatred for ignorant or brainwashed people, despite the consequences of their deluded beliefs. But there's simply not enough time to try to "convince" people who are already deeply caught in propaganda. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but please continue arguing on anyway...

“Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.”

Assuming that those who disagree with you on this issue are brainwashed pre-supposes that facts can be separated from perspectives and values. — Joshs

No, it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth. Call me crazy.

But in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective." Not once. That, as I said before, is your own fantasy.

in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective." — Xtrix

No, I think your statement below articulates what I had in mind more clearly than ‘single universal perspective’.

it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth — Xtrix

We get it right all the time, every day in fact. This is just another stupid talking point used whenever climate change is brought up. You're not fooling me or anyone else.

Which one of these has come true?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale. — Xtrix

What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary!

What we need is clear thinking and sound approaches to how to solve problems that take into considerations various points of view, factors and data. The boring complex engineering stuff, the extremely annoying political consensus building. To the idealist yearning for a new World, this all is a disappointment. But idealists shouldn't make the decisions, their role is to get others to think about the issues, not to decide what is done. And hell with the neo-religious moral babble!!!

What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.) — Xtrix

Starting with those.

So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.

Zero emissions.

All greenhouse gas emissions.

I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. And in the winter, guess I cannot heat the summerplace using wood either. Better just rely on the electricity produced by a nuclear plant and buy more electric heaters.

And then the nukes. How about other WMDs? And where do you draw the line then? Can there be a thing called military deterrence or is that bad too? Is military strategy allowed? How about the possibility that we would have more wars, more conflict when there would be no WMDs? Or is that a morally wrong question to even utter in the new religious awakening?

Complex problems have to tackled without having moral blinders on.

"Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future."

You didn't say anything about apocalypse.

True, maybe the world isn't destroyed by climate change or nuclear weapons. Which is like saying "Maybe the asteroid will miss us, despite scientists telling us there's 99% likelihood that it will". After all, Nostradamus was wrong.

Climate change not only will radically alter the world, it already has. There is also the possibility of tipping points, which are irreversible -- for anyone willing to read what the scientists are telling us. Or we can take your attitude: maybe they're all wrong. Yeah, maybe there won't be an solar eclipse on April 4th, 2024. Maybe? Who knows? The Aztecs were way off, remember.

in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective."
— Xtrix

No, I think your statement below articulates what I had in mind more clearly than ‘single universal perspective’.

it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth
— Xtrix — Joshs

Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.

Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you.

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale.
— Xtrix
What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary! — ssu

Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion.

What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.)
— Xtrix
Starting with those.

So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.

Zero emissions.

All greenhouse gas emissions. — ssu

How disingenuous. You got me! Well done. I again made the fatal mistake of thinking I was writing for adults.

I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. — ssu

Yeah, and don't forget exhaling. Because that's definitely what I meant too.

Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion. — Xtrix

That is a good start.

Yet my main point is that a "religious" approach is easy, but can be very counterproductive. Our society and nature are so complex, that the short nice sounding solutions can actually be really bad. A person wanting to commit into something good, the simple easy solutions might be the ones they tug along with. Yet if you start from a moral stance, then you won't be listening to the counterpoints. All people will hear is that someone is attacking a good moral value.