The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct

I can still see some loon trying to make that claim.

 

Id run if I were you. Run Forrest RUN!

- - - Updated - - -

LOL They are all the same...do as I say not as I do. They think the electricity they use is somehow different than ours because they recycle and are vegans.

 

Liberal idiots shot down the real fix which was zero emissions nuclear power. Barack Obama shut down South Texas Project 3 & 4 and Barbara Boxer shut down San Onofre 2 & 3 all with tons of Liberals as their "Earth ending" aides. The inability to create new nuclear plants with any sort of frequency is all on Liberals. We could have 70%+ of our energy through zero emissions, just like France, but Liberals will not allow it.

Sorry Lefties, you are the cause of all of this. So, we really don't want to hear your whining.

Then again, is CO2 which is .0003 of the atmosphere going up to .0004 going to kill us all?

 

That just floors me. The idiot class will believe it because somebody with alphabet soup after his name said it.

 

So the government is operating the world and the climate and therefore knows how to fix it? Do tell.

 

Oooooo. Another conservative FOXhead who makes false claims that he has absolutely no data to support.

Unless, of course, you can point to even a single datum in any peer-reviewed article that is false or fraudulent.

We'll be waiting (and waiting ... and waiting ...) for that one. Because the truth is, JB, you've been lied to by a the ayatollahs of Denierstan, who have taken you for a rube and a chump. Are they right on that point?

 

Yes, and solar irradiance in the Cambrian was about 3.5% lower than it is today too. So why wasn't it Snowball Earth, when the sun was turned down so low, Einstein? Think maybe CO2 had something to do with it?

 

Cost of climate stabilization, 1% of global GDP, according to the Stern Review.
Cost of not stabilizing the climate, 5%-10% of global GDP, according to the Stern Review.

Cost of adopting In-the-Dark's do-nothing policy: 4% to 9% of global GDP.

Cost of mitigation, $3 trillion per year globally by 2100, according to Kempfert 2005.
Cost of not stabilizing the climate, $20 trillion per year globally by 2100, according to Kempfert 2005.

Cost of adopting In-the-Dark's do-nothing policy: $17 trillion per year by 2100.

Looks like you were dead wrong.

 

Every scientific law is a model. If you don't like models, you don't like science. The nuclear physics of stellar interiors has been well understood for decades, long before computers became common.

No, that's wrong. In every star there is a spherical fusion region, centered on the denser, non-fusable core, that is responsible for the energy output. As the star ages, already fused material drops to the core,making the core larger, heavier, and denser. That drives the fusion region outward, making it larger in area, and also makes it denser too, increasing the reaction rate, and making the stellar output brighter. Mass loss is trivial by comparison.

Quite the reverse. The young sun paradox isn't even thought to be a paradox any more, because it dovetails with CO2 levels to explain the temperature of the early earth so well. See Royer et al. 2007.

You have really seriously misread this article and what it says.

 

No they're not. That's a cherry-picked end-of-the-series from just one of the five datasets you cited.



The plain fact is that the long-term trend, over the past 30 years, is strongly and significantly postitive, and there is no statistically significant change in trend from the long-term trend during the past 17 years, the past 14 years, or the past 10 years.

The other plain fact is that surface temperature is a noisy (therefore statistically shaky) method of measuring global warming. Other, less noisy datasets, such as ocean heat content and sea level rise, also show no significant change in trend over the past 17 years, the past 14 years, or the past 10 years, and continue to show statistically significant global warming over those periods.





Here's a hint, Professor: if you have to close your eyes to 90% of the data, while singing "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" real loud, in order to get the answer you want -- then you're living in Denierstan.

 

Um ... because we caused it.

If forest fires happen naturally, does that mean humans cannot cause forest fires?

 

Most climate realists in the US are pro-nuclear, to one extent or another. That list includes Al Gore, Barack Obama, James Hansen, Carol Browner, Steven Chu, Stewart Brand, and many others. And me.

No. And if you could guarantee it will stop there, I wouldn't be nearly so worried. But since you're supporting policies that guarantee that it won't stop there, hell yes I'm concerned.

 

That is a huge lie. Barack Obama's Administration made the Federal loan process for South Texas Project 3&4 (new units) so incredibly burdensome that they had to scrap the entire project. The effectively killed the project by changing the terms and they did it on purpose.

Stephen Chu has a long history of being incredibly harsh on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and by extension the nuclear operators. None of them like the guy.

Barack Obama let Barbara Boxer stall out all planning to adjust the pipes at the newly refurbished San Onofre units 2&3 effectively forcing them to shut down the plants and 23% of the energy produced for Southern California. The next effect is an additional billion dollars worth of fossil energy pollution pumped into our atmosphere every year... forever.

The lie that Liberals are Pro-Nuclear is exposed by their actions.

Listening to a Liberal complain about Global Warming while they attack carbon free emissions is like hearing Mainstream Media journalists complain out Barack Obama's lack of transparency while refusing to ask any hard questions.

 

Not seeing the wood for the trees

Seeing the Wood for the Trees: Interactive climate analysis for everyone

 

You can't even tender a plausible group of models for the past two decades. You cannot tender any cost estimate.

You are a huckster for a tent revival religion.

 

You've been misinformed. The project was cancelled because (1) TEPCO's financial assistance was put in doubt after Fukushima; (2) low wholesale electricity prices in Texas, driven by cheap natural gas; and (3) NRC's decision to initiate an additional design safety review after Fukushima, which even NRG admitted was the "right decision". In the conference call to investors announcing the cancellation, NRG did not mention federal loan guarantees as a contributing factor.

Meanwhile the NRC is still reviewing the South Texas COL application and during this period NRG has permission to perform site preparation activities, which are underway.

Therefore:
COL's issued by NRC under George W. Bush: 0
COL's issued by NRC under Barack Obama: 2

Oh right. He's so anti-nuke he wrote an essay called "Why We Need More Nuclear Power" and posted it on Facebook.

Read the constitution lately? Maybe you can point out where it says Barack Obama has any control at all over Barbara Boxer.

The truth that conservatives are unable to distinguish shades of gray are exposed every day by their words. Some liberals are anti-nuke and some are pro-nuke. But you actually have to think, read, and listen to tell the difference. While conservatives prefer to just punt. Thinking is soooooo hard!

 

So, I give you an actual cost estimate from a world renowned economist, and you close your eyes and pretend it's not there.

Such brilliant argument from Denierstan. The ignorance, it burrrrrrns.

 

Apparently, you are like most Liberals and are all about revisionism.

Tell us all when STP 3&4 were cancelled. Now share with everyone when Fukushima occurred? Also, gas prices were no low when STP 3&4 were cancelled.

It's just another load of crap spewed out by another "useful idiot".

 

So says the guy who "revised" the South Texas cancellation to include reasons NRG didn't cite; and so says the guy who "revised" Stephen Chu's opinion on nuclear power to something he didn't hold. Yeah, give us all a lecture about revisionism.

STP 3&4 were cancelled in April of 2011, immediately after Fukushima in March of 2011. Looks like you've been misinformed again.

Not compared to today's record lows, but they were compared to then-recent history. Natural gas prices stayed above $5/MMBTU during the entire period of 2003 to 2009, spiking above $12/MMBTU in both '05 and '08. This was the period when the decision to build STP 3&4 took place. In '09, Obama came into office and the fracking boom started, natural gas prices fell, and in April of 2011 priced had been bumping along at about $4/MMBTU with every indication that fracking would keep prices low for the foreseeable future.

Having no evidence to support his position, Our Brave Conservative resorts to name-calling and insults commonly seen among fourth-graders. Yeah, that's convincing all right. We can just imagine all the opinions being swayed by the soaring brilliance of your rhetoric.

 

Stern is OLD news. The modeling is the latest news. Your models have failed. Own it.

Come back in twenty years when you can offer up some science that's more predictive. Until then your just shilling for a religion. Faith is all you have.

 

Me too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_k0_mKL0_M

 

Stern was about economics - as was the Garnaut review which post dates Stern but came to the same conclusions

 

I do not know how much it will cost but we need to stop it and start cleaning it up , Maybe a little at a time ?? How much would it cost to go down to the river and clean up plastics and (*)(*)(*)(*) on the banks? Or the beach , I do not care what causes it we should as good conservatives clean our mess

 

Nuclear power is a lesser evil to fossil fuels because of what happened to the nuclear reactor in Japan, it's leak caused radiation to pollute the pacific ocean, and everyone swimming in Hawaii is going to have health problems later on like the Russians in Chernobyl disaster.

If you watch the movie Chernobyl diaries you would see first hand what could happen when Nuclear power becomes unstable and dangerous. Wind and Solar energy are the true carbon free emissions of the future...

 

So you knew about Stern already? Then why did you ask how much mitigation would cost, if you already knew?

To what "failed" models are you referring? I keep seeing these false rumors from Denierstan, I keep asking for evidence, and you keep coming up with zip.

You've got bupkus. Own it.

The 1990 IPCC report projected that with .63 W/m² of increased greenhouse gas forcing over the twenty year period 1990-2010, we would expect to see warming at a rate of .17° C per century. (IPCC FAR scenario D; temps from Figure 6.11b, page 190, and forcings from Figure A.6, page 335.)

As a matter of fact, we did get exactly .63 W/m² of greenhouse gas forcing between 1990 and 2010 according to NOAA's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, right in line with scenario D. And as a matter of fact, the rate of warming during this period was in fact .17°C per decade in the GISS, HADCRUT, and NCDC datasets, adjusted for volcanos and El Niño, according to Foster & Rahmstorf 2011 -- also right in line with scenario D.

So there's your twenty years of predictive science, cupcake. Looks like you've been lied to by the ayatollahs of Denierstan. I'm the guy with the evidence, and you're the one believing in religious nonsense.