Backwards. If there are shortages during the day, then replacing a GENERATOR with storage will work fine. You no longer need to size generators for peaking peak power, you can size them for average power-- much less.

If there are shortages averaged over 24 hours, then replacing a generator with storage won't work.

The data was: "Between 2018 and 2022, the region's carbon emissions fell by 1.8% each year."

Over that period of time, the bay area population was nearly constant (declined by 1.1%, to be accurate). That is not enough to account for a 1.8 percent decrease in emissions per year compounded over four years.
  https://usafacts.org/data/topi...

No it isn't. Carbon dioxide absorption spectrum is measured. Once you have that, you know the radiative forcing. The rest is details. Complicated details, but details.

You're telling me you're willing to lie for pay? OK, noted.

There are "dissenting opinions" on almost anything, including Newtons laws and whether the Earth is flat.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/def...

Even eighteen years ago, when that was written, the data was already pretty much running against the thesis that the writer was asserting. Yes, "taking a different tack, some scientists seek other explanations for climate change." Unfortunately, all of the other explanations proposed so far have been falsified by measurements. A scientist who comes up with a different explanation of warming trends and simultaneously shows that the greenhouse effect is not causing warming would instantly become the most famous atmospheric scientist in the world. So far, however, all the other hypotheses have been shot down.

In this particular case, however, the headline is accurate. China's progress in space is astonishing. They have plans for a lunar landing by 2030, and from the pace of their progress, I'll expect that they've got a good shot at making that goal.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chinese+space+program

In some alternate reality, maybe.

That "AFAIK" is a phrase that leaves out a lot.

There's a lot of arguments over the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman warm period among climate scientists, particularly different opinions of whether these were regional or global climate variations. It's not clear. Current thinking, based on climate proxy records, says that the warm period occurred at different times in different places on the Earth, and thus the MWP was regional rather than a global warming.

But in any case, we have now exceeded the MWP temperatures.

Nobody suggests that the sun is not the primary heat source for the planet. This is the input to every climate model ever done. However, we measure the solar output, and measured solar output has not been changing. So one thing that we know with a great degree of certainty is that changes in solar intensity are not the cause of the current warming trend.

The world is not going to end, and no, schools are not telling students that it is. They do, I expect, get an overview of what the greenhouse effect is, something our generation didn't get. (That is, if they listen in class, which half the students don't)

Nah, not even in the top ten list of levers being used to pry people apart.

That's an artifact of Slashdot, and the headline-driven news ecology. It is indeed important that science is replicated by different groups, but in fact, multiple independent research groups are deriving the same data from different sources.

The primary sources for temperature information, other the Copernicus (EU) group linked in the article, are:
  NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): https://www.noaa.gov/
  NASA (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
  BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature): https://berkeleyearth.org/data...
  CRU (Climate Research Unit, Great Britain): https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/...
  Australia Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.bom.gov.au/
  Tokyo Climate Center: https://www.data.jma.go.jp/tcc...

In addition, most countries have their own meteorology agencies, most of which compile climatr records. And some other sources are:
  University of Delaware DANTE (Data Analytics and Tools for Ecosecurity), Terrestrial Precipitation and Temperature data set: https://www.dante-project.org/
  NCAR (NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research): https://www.ucar.edu/

How easy is it to fool different research groups on four different continents, and thousands of scientists who analyze and criticize the data>?

Indeed, the temperature record includes only the part of human history we have temperature records for, and does not include the part of human history we don't have temperature records for.

I would have thought that was obvious.

Twenty years ago there was a well-publicized attack on the climate data from a blog that claimed that the data was wrong because (some of) the temperature measurements were in inappropriate sites, but there was an independent project by another group that looked at the sites one by one and re-analyzed the data without any of the suspect sites... and got the same results.

You have to keep in mind that seven different groups on four continents do these temperature analyses, and to a large extent they're competing with each other. If you're claiming "scientists are stupid, they can't see when the data is bad," it's pretty hard to credit that nobody has noticed.

And, as AC mentions afterwards, there is also satellite data. (Satellite data doesn't actually measure temperature at ground level, it measures troposphere temperature, but it's an independent measurement.)

About all I can say is, if you've play around with any of the "AI" tools, you quickly realize that they don't have any understanding of what objects are. They are just manipulating patterns of pixels.

...because it is not actually intelligent. It doesn't know what a traffic cone is (it doesn't know what anything is), it just implements a set of rules, "when you see something looking like this, implement this strategy."

And it will fail in some other instance, like somebody put a Nine-inch-Nails sticker on the traffic cone, because it doesn't actually have any idea what a traffic cone is, it's just implementing rulse.

Exactly.

Turns out chaos makes even deterministic motion unpredictable.

Not in this case.

The experiment was, identical resumes were sent, some with black applicants, some white, and they recorded the propabilities that the resume got a response asking to set up an interview.

In this case, yes, that is correct.