Are we completely sure that this was caused by anything and wasn't entirely within the realm of possible, but unlikely weather? Highly improbable events occur all the time.
Fair point. As has been said here time and again, climate is not weather, and while global warming may increase the frequency of some types of extreme weather events, you can't attribute any particular storm, not even a severe one, to climate change.
I've had a theory about global warming. Basically if most of the earths water is locked up in the poles,
Most of the Earth's water is in the oceans.
OK, that's fair. If we think in the really long run, yes, humans are a small perturbation.
In the shorter run, time scales of human civilization, or even industrial civilization, human activities are having a significant effect.
Between 2016 and 2020, averages dropped by 2-3% across the US
The US saw average drop of 2-3% ANNUALLY.
Those two statements contradict each other. What is it? 2-3% between 2016 and 2020, or 2-3% per year?
The fact you don't know that seems to indicate you don't know or understand the overarching data, just like the article.
The fact that you don't cite references and don't pay attention to units seems to indicate that you don't know or understand any of the data.
I'm not finding this conversation interesting or enlightening, however, so at this point I'm signing off.
That sounds interesting. Do you have links to the study you reference?
https://www.informath.org/appr... (also https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/... )
https://www.informath.org/appr...
Between 2016 and 2020, averages dropped by 2-3% across the US, the 1.8% seems to indicate that California has less reduction than the mean.
1.8 percent per year corresponds to (0.982^4) reduction, or 7% decrease over four years. This is a larger reduction than "2-3%".
This has been a problem with this entire thread, people comparing drop per year with drop over four years. Units matter.
Anyway, more importantly, if that's so easy and economically viable [to recycle lithium-ion batteries], where is it? Where do people actually do this on a non-lab scale if it's so easy and economical?
Large scale production of lithium-ion batteries is a very recent thing (e.g., https://batteriesnews.com/wp-c...). There really aren't a lot of these batteries to recycle yet (despite all the hype about short lifetimes, the current tech of lithium batteries have proven to easily exceed ten year lifetimes, and are still going strong). There are some recycling companies doing business now, but as a general thing, people aren't going into the business of recycling batteries at a large scale without a lot of batteries at end of life to recycle.
Is it like this mythical "EV cheaper than ICE car" that leftist propaganda is chock full of, but which is conspicuously absent at any, you know, actual real real-world car dealership I have asked?
The history of technology shows that new technologies start at high cost, and cost decreases with time. As Neils Bohr said*, "the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet," but I'm old enough to remember $500 calculators. I'll put my money on cost decreasing as the tech goes down the learning curve.
(* also attributed to Yogi Berra, but Bohr said it first. And, as Berra said "I never said half the things I said.")
One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer by a couple of degrees?
Almost. One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer at a very rapid pace compared to geological climate change rates.
More likely, some opportunist corals which had highly specialized over the last 20k years or so are unable to adapt to an ever changing climate and are struggling. That's how life works. What will happen is they will be replaced by more heat tolerant variants
...in ten thousand thousand years or so. A few million at most.
...Corals as a species have survived numerous extinction events.
Nope. Corals species die in extinction events. Corals as an order (Scleractinia) have survived numerous, but not all, extinction events.
And it's not "speed of the change" as some events - like the Chicxulub impact - had a vastly larger effect than a few degrees and it happened in a geological instant, not centuries. And corals likely struggled but survived just fine.
It took two to five million years for corals to reappear in the geological record after the K-T extinction event. The coral that survived were, in general, deep-water genera, not the shallower reef-forming ones. And the corals after the K-T extinction event were different species.
Taking a step back, isn't this just evolution at work? Survival of the fittest? Corals that can survive the warmer temperatures will evolve and spread?
In the long run it is, but the current warming is too fast for evolution to keep up. If species can't adapt fast enough, they just die. In the long run, other species will probably re-occupy the ecological niche, but this can sometimes take a long time. After the extinction of rugose corals at the Permian–Triassic extinction event, for example, there was a gap of tens of millions of years until unrelated species evolved to fill the ecological niche.
Yeah, we're definitely part of the cause of it, but an asteroid millions of years ago caused dramatic climatic change as well.
That did not work out well for the species living at the time. Of the animals, nothing larger than a squirrel survived. We would prefer this not to happen while we are to the species living at the time.
From 110,000 years ago until 11,000 years ago we were in the middle of a pretty substantial ice age.
Yes, the last glacial maximum.
So a 1.1% decline does not contribute to a 1.8% decline for metrics that according to basic logic has a direct relationship?
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%.
Moreover, according to the state in said area the decline of both people and businesses was a lot higher than 1.1% annually.
I gave a link. Go argue with them, not me.
Less people means less emissions, you want zero emission, eliminate all people.
Now you're just trolling.
Turbotax is not required either. They can use HR Block, or, *GASP* pen and paper!
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 the point is that private companies constantly upsell their services in deceptive ways.
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.
Where, exactly, is the power going to come from to charge this? The power from solar is already being used as it's produced. Classic California.
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.
I don't really need Youtube Premium either, but Liz isn't complaining that they keep trying to upsell me on that.
Is Youtube required by the U.S. government for every taxpayer?
FAKE NEWS.
If fossil fuel lobbying was so effective they would have also been able to lobby against carbon reduction policies in general
They did. The US has no carbon reduction policies that have any actual mandates to reduce carbon.
and take the whole 'electrification' issue off the table.
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.
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
