The only solution ?
Now the picture is becoming clearer where the following 1.2 are the most important basic principles for averting climate disaster:
1. By the second law of thermodynamics, all scientific work has been blocked for a century to generate free energy. Now, however, successful attempts to exploit theBrownian motion are finally coming . All of these demonstrably working experiments violate the Second Law.
Thus the way is finally open (in the long run) for all the energy needed to suck 200 Gt of CO2 and 2 Gt of Methane out of the atmosphere. This is 100% guaranteed to be solvable with sufficient research effort. The technology must be fully operational by 2025.
The same will be said:
2. The incorrect climate sensitivity=3 from the IPCC has for 40 years blocked the world from a correct view of climate, which means the end of civilization, if not corrected quickly. A direct consequence will be the wrong NetZero policy, which cannot work, because global temperatures will continue to rise for 100-800 years after all emissions are stopped. The IPCC continues to lie to our faces on this point. This is a disgrace to science -which is hiding and sweeping the whole issue under the carpet.
Civilization can survive in a comforatbe way and also respect the Paris Agreement
if we long before 2025 (i.e. NOW)
1. have the courage to go against the second law of thermodynamics
2. have the courage to go against the IPCC's erroneous climate sensitivity=3... and recalculate all climate science accordingly. (Coming Scientific Earthquake) --- I can give you the translation of english of this great article (Professor Johan Rockström)-
Probably the best article ever on the subject Climate Sensitivity
These are the two factors that will cause climate catastrophe - completely unnecessarily - if we don't act.
1. The second law of thermodynamics
Physicist James Clerk Maxwell assumed that the molecules of air move at an
average of 1000 km per hour.
Some are faster, some are slower. Maxwell called the model Maxwell's Demon,
By opening and closing a hatch fast enough, the air molecules could be sorted
so that the fast ones end up in one room and the slow ones in the other. It was obvious in 1867 that this would work. Then there is heat and high pressure in one
chamber and cooling and low pressure in the other. Here we have a perpetuum mobile of second order. It's a machine that can deliver unlimited amounts of pure energy just by cooling the environment. A principle known since 1867
and opposed by anyone who has studied the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is unfortunate that the second law of thermodynamics forbids this type of
designs. It has prevented environmentally friendly, free energy by many decades.
Now, at last, such innovations are beginning to emerge anyway, now based
on nanotechnology and graphene.
We can be sure that free energy will soon be a reality.
It will take a lot of research and development
but there is no other way for civilization is to survive
the climate crisis. Very large amounts of energy are needed to suck
200 Gt of CO2 and 2 Gt of methane per year from the atmosphere.
Some links on this topic:
200 Gt of CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere per year.
195 oil projects in the US will instead add 646 Gton
US fracking boom could put the world on the brink of climate catastrophe.
There seems to be only one workable plan that provides a quality solution:
1. Energy from the Brownian movement replacing oil, coal, nuclear....
2. Unlimited energy to suck away
200 Gt of CO2 and 2 Gt of methane per year, starting no later than 2025.
3. Leadership on a level the world has never seen
If there is an even better plan.... good. Tell me !!!
Let the discussion begin !
Every new idea is opposed with full force and not allowed to come out for discussion.
Good example is this topic on DN Parties Bottom Rating which attracts
some tragic comments and then deleted by DN moderator.
Good to know that it may be the most important point in the whole climate debate
to debate the IPCC's possible miscalculations that risk making our entire climate policy ineffective. It's a matter of win or lose.
If we systematically avoid a free discussion of the really important
issues, the question must be asked whether we have a free press .