Question about climate change

It's not a lie - and it obviously gets under your skin! (trolling???) Note: AFM continuously refers to the "threat to jobs" and the prospect of electricity price increases, if the fossil fuel industry is closed down; concerns addressed below.

Government forced? (I'll pass the implications - likely Libertarian based - in that comment, for the moment).

1. An area about 145 by 145 miles (c. 20.000sq. miles, less than 0.5% of the US) is required to supply the total electricity consumed in the US via solar.

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Nuclear might be part of the solution to the problem of global environmental degradation, eg, smog, carcinogenic compounds, etc, in the air over populated areas, resulting from burning fossil fuels - provided the issue of nuclear waste can be addressed.

No, I propose my plan - outlined in post #76 - which you obviously did not read: Free, clean (as defined above) electricity for 7 billion people is there for the taking! The CO2 emissions problem - whether real or imagined - gets put to rest at the same time.

But I'm guessing you are in favour of Trump's resurrection of MAD as the driving principle for relations between nations, so you will no doubt reject the concept of an international rules-based system.

So the problem is circular: we don't have the 'special purpose' IMF unit needed to create the funds for the multi trillion dollar investment - even though all the resources exist - because we don't have the international rules-based system that is required to authorise creation of said IMF facility....because the Right's world view - instinctively tribal - is opposed to international law.
​

 

Of course it is increasing but at a steady rate of ~ 2 mm per year.

 

Free clean energy. That’s what the Chinese are hoping the alarmist western democracies implement thus destroying their economies.

 

Where is the data that shows an increasing rate of sea level rise ??

You are sounding very shrill. Hilarious. Corrupting money ?? Too funny.

 

I note you agreed with Hoosier's post #101, so I suppose you simply decided to ignore the content of my post #76 as well. (See my reply to Hoosier above (post #176).

Maybe 'were' responsible; certainly not "are". Hint: The EU is phasing out diesel cars for reasons that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

 

Your post is absurd.

Germany is shutting down their nuclear plants and building coal (lignite - the least efficient form of coal there is) plants to replace them.

 

So free, clean energy will "destroy our economies"? Meanwhile the Chinese are desperately trying to clean their own air...

(I noted the paranoia - based in historical experience - of the current Chinese government; but I see you are displaying the same).

 

And you said AOC is a moron; I'll ignore the ad hominem.

Try engaging your brain and addressing the totality of the points in my posts; but I grant that will be difficult because if you did engage your brain you would have to face the inconsistencies in your world view....a painful exercise.

At last, a factual comment from you!

I agree: to the extent that Germany has reverted back to coal as base-load for their growing, but intermittent green energy, to that extent German policy is inconsistent. (They should have looked more to France's experience).

Challenge: will you address my posts #76 and #176 in detail, or are you just trolling here?

 

Look at Spain, Germany, and Denmark.

The Chinese are building coal plants as fast as possible and selling green technology to the West.

 

Your post is absurd. AOC is a moron as well.

 

Another (at least partially) factual comment from you…..but of course my challenge to you in post #183 goes unanswered, as shown in your post #185.

Speaking of absurdities, this comment from you surely takes the prize: "free, clean electricity is damaging to our economies"!

Cheers.

 

That natural cycle, as we see in ice core data, always had CO2 peaking at 300. The same human group, which is now much larger and depends on incredible levels of energy and resources extracted, depend on the same ecosystems to remain stable throughout. Given over 50 feedback loops now detected since 2001, that stability is not likely. That's why the question isn't whether or not the earth will turn into another Venus but whether or not industrial civilization can be maintained given increased warming and those feedback loops, not to mention ocean acidification and extreme weather conditions.

The U.S. military, various multinational banks, and Lloyds of London and other insurers are anticipating major shocks to the global economy given such, at least as seen in reports that they give to their personnel and clients.

So much for implications that this is some sort of leftist issue.

 

The claim that CO2 peaks at 300 ppm is a false statement.

Ocean acidification is not possible. Limestone was being deposited in the oceans at 8000 ppm atmospheric CO2. This is due to the buffering chemistry of sea water.

Feedback loops in nature do not produce tipping points. There are no tipping points out there. Global warming is beneficial to the human race. The worry is not warming. We are close to the end of the current interglacial. The worry is not warming. The worry is the next glaciation period.

What is the feedback loop that is positive and that you most fear ??

Anticipating major economic shocks ?? What are the shocks and when will they happen ??

 

Your plan is absurd. It’s completely unworkable unless forced by very strong totalitarian dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, ...

There is no such thing as free energy. Right over your head. Look at the economic damage in Germany, Denmark, and Spain.

 

Now, you're just trolling! There is absolutely NOTHING in your post where you prove your points. Another worthless forum member to ignore.

 

That's the pattern. If you can't answer the questions then act outraged, throw in some personal attacks, and flee the scene. Typical alarmist behavior. Too funny.

 

The hard data says otherwise.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating
---
The rate of sea level rise in the satellite era has risen from about 0.1 inch (2.5 millimeters) per year in the 1990s to about 0.13 inches (3.4 millimeters) per year today.
---

 

That limestone deposition and buffering works on scales of thousands of years. It's not happening at any significant rate now, hence the oceans are acidifying like mad.

Because of magical things called pH meters, we know this with 100% certainty.

 

Has it ever occurred to you just how much heat that little island would produce? And if not, why not?

 

I will tell you that it is virtually impossible for a satellite to actually take a real measure that has any accuracy to it. The technology, if available, would have been used, again if available, to monitor tsunami waves which are usually less than a meter high while traveling at high velocity across oceans. If we cannot recognize that level of difference, how on earth can you determine height changes of millimeters... Sorry, doesn't exist yet. So, assume that the satellite isn't actually providing or producing the measurement and it's a guess from software that interpolates for the data. Then, you can see where this mystery increase is coming from...

Oh, found the actual disclosure from NASA Jet Propulsion, and they admit they can't do better than 4-5 CMs.. although I think this is at best dubious for reasons mentioned above. Also, the paucity of surveillance produces additional variation because of additional estimation errors, etc. Sorry, even NASA says your estimates are bogus....

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/

 

There are other problems with satellite data. Not one tide gauge worldwide shows any acceleration in 100 years. No one uses satellite data for local planning, only tide gauges.

 

So, you can know it today, for spot locations, and limited number of samples. You clearly cannot know if for anything historically. Again, fail.

 

Let us know the coverage of worldwide ph meters. LOL If only you knew what you were talking about.

 

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Quality+of+pH+Measurements+in+the+NODC+Data+Archives

tl;dr -- coverage since 1990 is excellent.

 

Oh please. Satellite data is not reliable with regard to sea level measurement. Show us the tidal gauge data which shows increasing rate of sea level rise.

Also show us the plot of the satellite data over time including the trend line. And what is the error band on the satellite measurement ??