1.1% in four years does not account for a 1.8% per year. To put them in the same units, 0.275% per year accounts for only 15% of the decline. So, it yes "contributes", but it only contributes 15%.

I gave a link. Go argue with them, not me.

Now you're just trolling.

When Turbotax is advertised free, why would you think people will search for something else?

The answer is, Turbotax has been doing bait and switch.

Bait and switch is one thing on something that is an optional purchase (although still illegal). What makes this specifically the government's business is that it is bait and switch on something that is required by the government.

I think that the point is that filling in a tax return is required by the government, and TurboTax is trying to graft onto that a payment that goes to them.

So, make more solar power. Right now, adding more solar helps some, but doesn't solve the electrical peak problem, since the electrical peak is now late afternoon/early evening.

But, solar power is cheap during peak solar hours. So, if you generate the energy during peak solar hours, and use it during peak usage hours, it's a big win.

But, you didn't need me to explain that. If you have even a slight familiarity with utility-scale electrical power, you already knew that.

Is Youtube required by the U.S. government for every taxpayer?

They did. The US has no carbon reduction policies that have any actual mandates to reduce carbon.

It's popular to hate on Elon Musk these days, but the origin of auto electrification is pretty much entirely due to one company: Tesla. Up until the Tesla roadster debuted, real-world electric cars were little more than fancy golf carts. The ones that tried to be more got killed (there's an amusing documentary Who Killed the Electric Car" about that history.

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>?