Thats why I said arguably. I was thinking primarily of tax payer funded sports, tech gadgets for every student, etc. It is off subject though.
Solar Dominance Coming....
- Thread starter woodgeek
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Its a very funny thing. 
There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!
web.archive.org
Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it. Why not?
There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!
Wayback Machine
Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it. Why not?
'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.
It's a new site put up by wattsupwiththat.comIts a very funny thing.
There is no record of that website 'everythingcimate.org' existing before last Wednesday, the day before PAMM mentioned it here!
Wayback Machine
Nor is there any information on the internet for who is behind it or funding it or authored it. Why not?
Moving Forward – A New WUWT Reference/Resource Site
A few weeks ago, I stated WUWT would be moving to a “war footing” due to the election of Biden and the inevitable headlong rush into the “climate crisis” mania that seems to…
wattsupwiththat.com
Last edited:
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.
en.wikipedia.org
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.
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.
Watts Up With That? - Wikipedia
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.
Here is a new study documenting the rate of ice loss on the planet. The facts just keep piling up.
www.smithsonianmag.com
Earth Loses 1.2 Trillion Tons of Ice Per Year, a Nearly 60% Increase From 1994
A pair of studies paint a worrying picture of accelerating ice loss around the world, with serious consequences for projections of sea level rise
More facts.
everythingclimate.org
everythingclimate.org
Everything ClimateThe data and the theories
Icecaps in the Antarctica with icebergs melting in the sea Photo by Sarah Atoui licensed from 123rf.com Pro: Antarctic Ice Melt is Dangerous Climate Change is causing accelerated ice los…
everythingclimate.org
Everything ClimateThe data and the theories
Greenland’s Ice Sheet – The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.2 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point. Credit: NASA’s Scientific Visualization St…
everythingclimate.org
Solarguy3500
Feeling the Heat
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.
Lac-Megantic: The runaway train that destroyed a town
Nearly five years after a rail disaster, a small Canadian town still grapples with the aftermath.
www.bbc.com
When reality hits the road.
www.adn.com
Sea levels are rising faster than the most pessimistic of forecasts
Insured property worth trillions of dollars could face even greater danger from floods, superstorms and tidal surges, researchers say.
CaptSpiff
Minister of Fire
Can you provide a non-subscription site, or summerize the contents of the article.When reality hits the road.
Sea levels are rising faster than the most pessimistic of forecasts
Insured property worth trillions of dollars could face even greater danger from floods, superstorms and tidal surges, researchers say.
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
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on Tumblr
Share on Reddit
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google Plus
Print article
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.
And this is the study the ADN article is referencing.
os.copernicus.org
Interesting work with data and models.
I probably won't see the next 79 years to know if their work was accurate.
The transient sensitivity of sea level rise
Abstract. Recent assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) imply that global mean sea level is unlikely to rise more than about 1.1 m within this century but will increase further beyond 2100. Even within the most intensive future anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission...
I probably won't see the next 79 years to know if their work was accurate.
Solarguy3500
Feeling the Heat
More facts.
Everything ClimateThe data and the theories
Icecaps in the Antarctica with icebergs melting in the sea Photo by Sarah Atoui licensed from 123rf.com Pro: Antarctic Ice Melt is Dangerous Climate Change is causing accelerated ice los…Everything ClimateThe data and the theories
Greenland’s Ice Sheet – The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.2 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point. Credit: NASA’s Scientific Visualization St…
Actual, real facts not pseudoscience disguised as research by someone with a political axe to grind:
Fossil fuel air pollution causes almost 1 in 5 deaths globally each year | CNN
More than 8 million people around the world die each year as a result of breathing polluted air that contains particles from fossil fuels, a new study has found.
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.
[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:
If only that were so. (btw: appreciating the links you provide here, I'm learning things)
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.
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.
Similar threads
