Question about climate change

One location ??

That water is alkaline and not acidic.

Too funny.

 

As on obvious example, the Battery Park gauge in NYC shows it clearly. Note how the linear regression line there starts agove the trend and ends up below. That's obvious acceleration.



No one uses satellite data for local planning, only tide gauges.[/QUOTE]

The tide gauges show more acceleration than the satellites.

 

The buffering process occurs continuously. The deposition of limestone only occurs in alkaline water. Even with CO2 at 8000 ppm in the atmosphere limestone was continuously deposited. The oceans did not become acidic even with 8000 ppm atmospheric CO2.

The oceans are alkaline and will remain alkaline. Why do we know this - it's the magic of pH meters which measure the H+ concentration. pH is - base 10 log [H+].

 

I could show more, but you'd just call it a conspiracy, so what's the point?

So is blood, but if blood pH declines, that's called 'acidosis', even though the blood remains alkaline.

Indeed. You fail at basic chemistry terminology, where any pH decline is "acidification".

 

The tide gauges show more acceleration than the satellites.

[/QUOTE]

That is a straight line showing a constant sea level rate of rise. Your knowledge of statistics and least squares curve fitting is abysmal.

 

That's ridiculous. Please show us more.

So what - the blood is still alkaline.

The proper way to describe a reduction in pH in an alkaline solution is that the solution is less alkaline. But the important point is that the solution is alkaline and not acidic. The term acidification is used by alarmists to confuse lay persons. BTW I am a retired chemical engineer.

 

The tide gauges show more acceleration than the satellites.

[/QUOTE]

The Church White reconstruction has a big problem. Do you know what that problem is ??

 

LOL, one station is great coverage? LOL

 

No. I've proven my case, and you've only handwaved in return. I don't need to provide more, especially since you're either going to ignore it or call it a fraud.

And yet the disease is called acidosis. You might want to tell them they're doing it wrong.

Then you should tell the scientists, as they've missed the memo. A reduction in pH is acidification. That's standard terminology in science, and it's a better term than "less alkalinization".

That's the most irrelevant part, as the damage is the same no matter what you call it.

 

So what did the paid shills at WUWT tell you it was?

 

Don't tell me to believe you over my lying eyes. It doesn't work.

Says the one ignoring that the line starts above the trend, and finishes below it. That indicates obvious acceleration. If you don't understand that, you need to brush up on your statistics.

 

The tide gauges show more acceleration than the satellites.

[/QUOTE]

What you get when you don't ever look up what you think you know. The Church, J.A., and N.J.White data concentrated mostly on the eastern seaboard which has had higher sea level rise generally from ocean current changes. Your battery park tide gauge shows no acceleration. Neither do others.

 

Paid shills? Another one of those false narratives from the true believers. Facts are not in their vocabulary.

 

You have proven nothing.

So what ??

And yet the solution is more that a full point alkaline on a log scale.

What damage ??

 

Your ignorance is showing.

 

That’s ^^^ hilarious. Again your ignorance is showing. Do some homework on least squares curve fitting.

 

All the other studies show the same. Jevrejeva is the odd one out, and it's an older study with known problems.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/01/a-new-sea-level-curve/#ITEM-18022-0

The statistics say the opposite.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/

 

The flaw in the Church and White paper is as follows. Starting in 1993 they splice satellite data into the tide gauge data (which has not been corrected for land mass movement).

https://judithcurry.com/2016/07/20/sea-level-rise-acceleration-and-the-closure-problem/

 

Your link is based on the flawed Church & White reconstruction which is bogus.

 

Enough heat to produce steam to drive a turbine, as well as the PV electricity?

 

Or how much land is required for the batteries necessary to store the energy for when the sun don’t shine like at night.

 

Ah, so we come the crux of the matter: it's a political problem, not an economic problem (just as the objections to MMT itself are political, not based on economic realities)

An international rules based system.....is (in your world view, of course), equivalent to a "totalitarian dictatorship"; hence your preference for MAD (an excruciatingly appropriate acronym) as the basis for international relations.

Now you are contradicting yourself: you conceded the problem is political, not economic, ie, solar energy falling on half the world's surface, 24/7, is free; and the engineers can convert it to electricity, which - after the initial infrastructure investment funded by an IMF facility - is free.

But I agree with you to this extent: if the Left doesn't accept MMT principles, within an international rules based system, then cost (of transition from fossil to green energy) is a problem - which the Right is only too willing to exploit, as you demonstrate in your comment about "economic damage".

 

And the politics of global warming alarmism will result in economic damage to the western democracies to the advantage of the Chinese. Fortunately any political attempt to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions of a democratic nation is impossible but real economic damage can be done.

 

But let's be clear: the filth from burning fossil fuels, regardless of the CO2 controversy, is a particular problem in China: they are acutely aware they have to transition from coal, and, contrary to your assertion that they are gleefully opening coal plants as fast as possible while exporting solar panels to the rest of the world ("to destroy the economies of the Western democracies" as you put it...), they are investing in solar:
In fact China has the largest installed solar capacity in the world.

"China is the largest solar market in the world, and has installed capacity of around 130 GW, far greater than the U.S. at around 60 GW, and Japan's roughly 46 GW".

 

Link for that quote ??