Solar Dominance Coming....

woodgeek

Minister of Fire
Jan 27, 2008
4,311
SE PA
Its a very funny thing. ;hm

There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!


Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it. Why not?
 
Dec 14, 2020
92
Lisburn, PA
Tired old strawman argument. Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed. It completely sidesteps the effects of high CO2 levels, like ocean acidification and glacial melt.
'Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed.' You are correct and we are doing a very good job feeding most of those billions with modern agricultural practices and plants that do better with higher CO2 levels.
Agricultural production is increasing because there are billions of more mouths to feed.
Its a very funny thing. ;hm

There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!


Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it. Why not?
It's a new site put up by wattsupwiththat.com
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: woodgeek

woodgeek

Minister of Fire
Jan 27, 2008
4,311
SE PA
Thanks for the tip.

From WUWT:

You might ask: why do we have a second website done this way?

It’s simple – I wanted a site that was entirely a factual website, without discussions that could be used as a reference. I also wanted a website that has the word “climate” in it as opposed to WUWT, which has no such word. This might be helpful in search engines. It’s certainly helpful in discussions, since climate alarmists put on blinders, shut their minds, open their mouths and scream “climate deniers” anytime WUWT is mentioned. EC doesn’t have that baggage. Finally, speaking of search engines, EC will have SEO separate from WUWT.


Hahaha. EC doesn't have 'that baggage' that WUWT has.


I guess Mr. Watts is trying to break out, after hitting his high water mark a decade ago, when he doxxed a bunch of scientists with help from Russian hackers. Now new and improved without the pesky comment section, or any mention on the EC site of its 'heritage'.

It's not 2011 anymore. I will seek wisdom elsewhere.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
86,454
South Puget Sound, WA
Dec 14, 2020
92
Lisburn, PA
More facts.
 

Solarguy3500

New Member
Dec 3, 2020
58
Western MA
We have since the industrial revolution learned how to harness coal, oil and natural gas to enrich the lives of 7+ billion people and in modern democratically run countries we have learned to do this with minimal impact on the environment.
I guess if you just ignore all the environmental disasters, billions of dollars of damage and lives lost from increasingly devastating weather events, and chronic health problems caused by fossil fuel use, you can make a statement like that.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
86,454
South Puget Sound, WA
  • Wow
Reactions: vinny11950

CaptSpiff

Minister of Fire
Jan 13, 2014
538
Long Island, NY
Dec 14, 2020
92
Lisburn, PA
Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.
Apparently linking to the site (first time ever I think) results in ADN concluding I've exceeded my free visits.
I was able to cut and paste the text.
It's at the bottom
Share on Facebook
Facebook

Share on Twitter
Twitter

Share via Email
Email

Share on Tumblr
Tumblr

Share on Reddit
Reddit

Share on LinkedIn
LinkedIn

Share on Google Plus
Google Plus

Print article
Reddit

Increase Article Font Size

Decrease Article Font Size

Climate change is causing oceans to rise more quickly than scientists’ most pessimistic forecasts, resulting in earlier flood risks to coastal economies already struggling to adapt.
The revised estimates published Tuesday in Ocean Science affect the two-fifths of the Earth’s population who live near coastlines. Insured property worth trillions of dollars could face even greater danger from floods, superstorms and tidal surges. The research suggests that countries will have to rein in their greenhouse gas emissions even more than expected to keep sea levels in check.
“It means our carbon budget is even more depleted,” said Aslak Grinsted, a geophysicist at the University of Copenhagen who co-authored the research. Economies need to slash an additional 200 billion metric tons of carbon - equivalent to about five years of global emissions - to remain within the thresholds set by previous forecasts, he said.
The researchers built on the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s models, many of which only consider the last 150 years, by incorporating data going back several centuries. The new observations show about a half-meter of sea rise by the end of the century can now be expected with just a 0.5 degree Celsius rise in temperatures. Oceans could rise more than 1 meter at 2 degrees Celsius, a trajectory that will be easily passed under current climate policies.
“The models we are basing our predictions of sea-level rise on presently are not sensitive enough,” Grinsted said. “To put it plainly, they don’t hit the mark when we compare them to the rate of sea-level rise we see when comparing future scenarios with observations going back in time.”
The conclusions follow last month’s warning that rising temperatures have melted 28 trillion metric tons of ice - equivalent to a 100 meter thick sheet of ice covering the entire U.K. - making the worst-case climate scenarios more likely. The new methodology for tracking sea level change could help insurance companies, real estate developers and city planners erecting tidal-defense systems.

“The scenarios we see before us now regarding sea-level rise are too conservative - the sea looks, using our method, to rise more than what is believed using the present method,” Grinsted said, adding that his team at the Niels Bohr Institute is in touch with the IPCC about incorporating its results in next year’s sixth Assessment Report.
 
Dec 14, 2020
92
Lisburn, PA
And this is the study the ADN article is referencing.
Interesting work with data and models.
I probably won't see the next 79 years to know if their work was accurate.
 

begreen

Mooderator
Staff member
Nov 18, 2005
86,454
South Puget Sound, WA
Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.
Apparently linking to the site (first time ever I think) results in ADN concluding I've exceeded my free visits.
That's odd. I have not been bumped there.
 

Solarguy3500

New Member
Dec 3, 2020
58
Western MA
More facts.
Actual, real facts not pseudoscience disguised as research by someone with a political axe to grind:
 
  • Like
Reactions: woodgeek

woodgeek

Minister of Fire
Jan 27, 2008
4,311
SE PA
A nice long-read below on the current state of climate POLICY. The climate science debate has long ENDED. Climate denial is DEAD, even in the US.

[Careful PAMM... you don't want to be in the 'flat earth' society.]

The 'business as usual' climate projection is no longer the 'burn everything' curve, 4+ degrees of warming and an unliveable planet by 2100. It is now a really chitty 2100 with a warming between 1.5 and 2.x degrees, versus our current 1.2°C. Vive la Paris Accord.


Lots of good stuff in there:
— The cost of electricity decarbonization is now lower than the savings from public health costs from reduced FF pollution. Zero or negative net cost.
— The worry about climate 'free riders' polluting to get cheap power while others bankrupt themselves for the climate... nope!
— The flipside of how hard it is to get to 1.5°C relative to 2.0°C, is that slow or too little action for several decades more before mitigation still leaves us in the low 2's of warming, not 5.

These 3 points IMO quash all the worries and turmoil and bad politics of Copenhagen. Its a Paris world.
 
Last edited:

peakbagger

Minister of Fire
Jul 11, 2008
5,993
Northern NH
I think you are going to see another big technology shift similar to computers. All the technology has been developed in the background its just the will to put it in place. The countries that embrace i will be the winners. Sad to say the US has handed a lot of the tech offshore.
 

mcdougy

Minister of Fire
Apr 15, 2014
625
ontario
I think you are going to see another big technology shift similar to computers. All the technology has been developed in the background its just the will to put it in place. The countries that embrace i will be the winners. Sad to say the US has handed a lot of the tech offshore.
What tech are you referring too?
Uranaium, solar,wind,hydrogen?
 

peakbagger

Minister of Fire
Jul 11, 2008
5,993
Northern NH
What tech are you referring too?
Uranaium, solar,wind,hydrogen?
Nuclear , yup, no longer any US nuke companies, the Westinghouse AP 1000 was copied and improved upon by the Chinese. The Russians have the other nuke tech. France has a market but pretty well sticks to keeping their own units running. The big research on thorium reactors developed at Oak Ridge is now all offshore in China. Solar, yup thats mostly offshore. Wind tech went offshore. Hydrogen is probably the only one that still has a lot of US research behind it for now. The mostly foreign offshore wind producers have figured out that offshore hydrogen production is the path forward so expect its going to be developed offshore given the US's lag in offshore wind. Early stage battery tech is still US but odds are once its developed, third world countries will get their hands on it.

The tech really is not rocket science, its just takes a government decision to focus on building it domestically.