Sea level won't rise overnight. People will have time to pull back front the coastlines if they choose to.
You won't wake up one morning to 3 feet of water in your house.
Solray said:Bigger government and more regulation isn't a good answer to any problem though. The key is in making it more profitable to do the right thing, then it will get done.
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next
25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on
football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning
Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height
of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
In countries like China, India, and Ghana,
communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to
salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process
requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic
fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.
Ontario now has more than 4,700 MW of installed wind capacity – the most in Canada, according CanWEA. In 2016, the province began to pare back
on renewable-energy projects, cutting a major renewable-energy
procurement plan in a bid to save the province and rate-payers billions.
Mr. Hickey did not comment on this directly when asked how it might
have affected demand, except to say that the region’s outlook “played a
factor in this decision.”
In 2010, Siemens began investing
$20-million in the 253,000-square-foot facility after Ontario’s Liberals
signed a $7-billion deal with a Samsung Group-led consortium to develop
a green-energy cluster in the province, as part of a 600-megawatt
Touted at the time as one of Canada’s
biggest-ever green-energy bets, it drew criticism from other energy
developers and provincial opposition members as both costly and
potentially stifling to competition. The deal was renegotiated in 2013
after Samsung missed production deadlines.
Pulling back from the coastline isn't an option for everybody. Anyway, sea level isn't the only problem. In some countries like India and China, you can't find clean air to breathe. Spending a day in some cities is equivalent to smoking 40 cigarettes.
That's not a problem the US can solve though, that is something those countries need to address if they want to. There are electric cars to help with emissions on the roads and in cities, but that does nothing about the production of the power to charge them.
The science is pretty simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which increases retained heat on Earth. We are dramatically increasing the concentration of CO2. The planet is warming as we increase CO2 concentrations, and is closely matching predictions.
So it's based on science. How you solve the problem - how you reduce CO2 emissions, how you decide where, when and how to cut, how to get people to agree to do that - is politics. That's true of any big effort, whether it's the Apollo project, the Montreal protocol, the Panama Canal or the public-health vaccination efforts.
Extreme heat waves like the one that killed more than 70,000 Europeans
in 2003 may be the most visible examples of deadly weather, but cold
days actually cause more deaths than hot ones, a new study says.
examining more than 74 million deaths that occurred in 13 countries
from 1985 to 2012, researchers calculated that 7.3% of them could be
attributed to cold weather and 0.4% to hot weather.
counterintuitive finding, extreme weather — either hot or cold — was
responsible for only 11% of the weather-related deaths, according to
the study published Thursday in the journal Lancet.
stroke on hot days and hypothermia on cold days only account for small
proportions of excess deaths,” the international research team wrote.
researchers collected daily data on weather conditions, air pollution
and deaths from 384 cities around the world. For each city, they
calculated the temperature at which deaths were least likely to occur.
All other days were compared to days with this “optimum” temperature.
No, CO2 is either not a green house gas, or a very weak one.
I'd much prefer more CO2 in the air, since that fluctuates naturally and is absorbed by the earth without long term damage, than create billions of tons of toxic waste from solar panel production.
Solray said:Nope. My goal is getting the US back on top in the global community where it was before the Democrats started their policies of global redistribution of wealth. Who can forget Hilary's stove bill that had US stove manufacturers shipping free subsidized stoves to places without any electricity to run them? Lol
Gentlemen,pardon the pun, 'you are all wet' on the topic..... Please read up on Henrik Svensmark, a Danish researcher, that investigated the link back in the last century that it is WATER VAPOUR and cosmic rays that are at the heart of the warming and cooling of the atmosphere.
LONDON – Changes in solar activity, sunspots and cosmic rays, and their effects on clouds have contributed no more than 10 percent to global warming, according to two British scientists.
The findings, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, reconfirm the basic science that increasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing most climate change. They also reexamine the alternative case made by climate skeptics: that it is the Sun's changing activity and not us that is causing the Earth to heat up.
The two scientists, Terry Sloan at the University of Lancaster and Sir Arnold Wolfendale at the University of Durham, conclude that neither changes in the activity of the sun, nor its impact in blocking cosmic rays, can be a significant contributor to global warming.
Clouds and their role in keeping the Earth's surface cool by reflecting sunlight back into space have been one of the biggest uncertainties of climate change science.
The acknowledged role of sunspots and cosmic rays in forming clouds has been fertile ground for climate deniers, who have cast doubt on whether anthropogenic climate change (in other words, change caused by humans) is occurring at all.
Sunspot activity, which ebbs and flows on an 11-year cycle, decreases the cosmic ray flux by periodically increasing the solar wind – a stream of charged particles emitted by the sun.
The solar wind's greater magnetic field deflects away some of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the Earth from elsewhere in the galaxy. So, if the theory linking cosmic rays and cloud formation is correct, increased sunspot activity could potentially reduce cloud cover.
To try to quantify the effect that solar activity – whether directly or through cosmic rays – may have had on global temperatures in the 20th century, Sloan and Wolfendale compared data on the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere with the record of global temperatures going back to 1955.
They found a small correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures occurring every 22 years; however, the changing cosmic ray rate lagged behind the change in temperatures by between one and two years, suggesting that the cause of the temperature rise might not be attributable to cosmic rays and cloud formation, but could be caused by the direct effects of the sun.
By comparing the small oscillations in cosmic ray rate and temperature with the overall trends in both since 1955, Sloan and Wolfendale found that less than 14 percent of the global warming seen during this period could have been caused by solar activity.
Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science, published a paper with several other global warming alarmists claiming they reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. Cook reported that he and his colleagues found that 97 percent of the papers that expressed a position on human-caused global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.
Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.
Investigative journalists at Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.
Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."
When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”
“What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006,” Scafetta added.
Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope... it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”
“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.
To manufacture their misleading asserted consensus, Cook and his colleagues also misclassified various papers as taking “no position” on human-caused global warming. When Cook and his colleagues determined a paper took no position on the issue, they simply pretended, for the purpose of their 97-percent claim, that the paper did not exist.
Morner, a sea level scientist, told Popular Technology that Cook classifying one of his papers as “no position” was "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW [anthropogenic global warming], and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."
Soon, an astrophysicist, similarly objected to Cook classifying his paper as “no position.”
"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct,” said Soon.
“I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works,” Soon emphasized.
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
Non partisan Patriotism, not partisan politics. You are right, I do not have the goals of redistributing the worlds wealth from the richest countries to the poorest ones, I would rather the poorest countries work to do better for themselves so the entire global community grows together rather than bringing the richest countries down to a common level with the poorest ones. All countries have ways of improving even if they lack natural resources because they have the most prized and valuable commodity in the human mind and the ideas it can produce.I am for improving the quality of life in the US and in the rest of the world by improving the quality of life in the poorest areas but not by lowering it in the wealthiest ones.Schools teach down to the slowest child's abilities and we now have the worst test scores in history as a result. 'No child left behind' sounds great until the scores come in. When I was in school you had to earn your right to get placed in the advanced classes and it was a goal worth attaining.