Sigh, it's been so long since I bothered to post here, I forgot the formatting is non-existent. Sorry about the wall of text. :/

Geothermal is fantastic in certain locations. Iceland is approaching 1GW of power generation from geothermal and uses geothermal to heat over 70% of their homes with it. Maybe it's not as helpful in the US, but it does have certain use-cases. Tidal power has a few spots where it would be fantastic. Can you imagine how much power you could generate from the tides at Bay of Fundy? (Looks like it's around 7GW, and 2.5GW if you wanted to limit the change in tides in the region to ~6%) I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, because I also know realistically we need to have enough power sources to pick up the slack from other sources. Can we reduce fossil fuel usage to 0% for power? Not yet. Even if we could build out the renewables, we still need some sort of storage technology cheap enough to straddle any shortages. But as battery technology improves and prices decrease, that storage becomes more and more viable. Hydropower has been an integral part of US base power generation, but wind power now doubles hydro, and solar/photovoltaics are also greater than hydro (which surprised me considering the importance of hydro in the past, US power usage has increased dramatically over the last century while hydro has only marginally increased). You can claim all sorts of reasons to dismiss renewables. But renewables are a critical part of our energy infrastructure. And I'm happy to have more nuclear power being built. Because I want to see a decrease in fossil fuel usage and both Nuclear and renewables both accomplish that. And yes there will be a use-cases for Fossil Fuel types (barring some way to create hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O through renewable sources) but there is a difference in using it because the advantages of it outweigh the drawbacks, and using it because when there are other options that are the same order of magnitude viable to replace it.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about If nothing else. Where is the excess energy from the energy budget imbalance going besides into heating the planet? At least make a real effort to get basic knowledge about the earth system before making remarks. Your ignorance is not useful.

Well regulated also meant that Bob had to sign up and join said militia. And that Bob understood the laws that exist on what militia can and cannot do. Joe, the nominal head of the militial also knew to be well organized, he had to keep track of training, membership, as well as not running foul of any relevant laws that are in place. I think it's worth pointing out what may seem to be obvious, like members implies keeping track of who is in and who isn't. As well as seemingly obvious things like, 'bob can't set up a toll road to fund the militia, nor can Bob ignore laws because he is a part of the militia. Finally, well regulated also implies a regulating authority which also means the authority to disband/decativate said militia. A militia does not grant exemption from legal obligations and regulations.

You really don't understand the greenhouse effect and long wave radiation transparency windows. You also show no comprehension in feedback effects of rising temperatures allowing for more water vapor to be held in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a GHG. It doesn't take much to really impact the climate. 150 ppm change in CO2 is a small change in the overall atmosphere, but a 50% increase in CO2, which causesa significant change to the LW IR window. The math isn't that hard to get the basic concepts. Look it up and try it.

Since the corporation only pays taxes on net profits, higher taxes are actually incentives to put money back into the company instead of shareholders. So your argument isn't really valid. Surely you don't think companies pay based on gross? But it's a neat way to trick people who don't think it through.

It will insulate itself. A great example is lava. It'll form a nice crust is cool enough to touch, but just a little ways down it's still hot enough to be liquid for months and years after.

Some key points, antarctic summer ice is less variable than winter minimums. So the departure from the typical ranges gives a stronger signal. One could hypothesize the loss of land ice was ice pushing into the ocean and maintaining the sea ice levels over the past several decades.

Except only a fraction of all temperature readings take place at airports and near radar stations. It would be simple to examine highs temperatures at airports/radar sites compared to highs away from them. Give it a try. It doesn't have to be comprehensive. Just pick 5 airports and 5 stations nearby and see how they compare to their historical values. Will there be a significant difference between the average highs of one versus the other?

Obviously I'm spitballing here, but I suspect ENSO phase change is playing a role. Having a warm pool of ocean water develop after 3 years of inhibition by La Nina will have some significant impacts on global temperatures. La Nina has been taking a huge amount of solar heating and pushing it deeper into the ocean. Now that process has reversed and not only is the solar energy not being sequestered, the previously stored energy is being brought back to the ocean surface. Don't get me wrong, Sulfur emission reductions and other factors play a role, I just suspect the ENSO phase change is having the main impact.

Curious to know, what are the options to handle obviously false information? Information that is both wrong and could haem/kill someone that uses it. Information that is defamatory *and* false? Is it censorship? And should it be allowed?

Putin wouldnt have needed to invade Ukraine, Trump would have kept the US from aiding Ukraine, and would have actively worked to undermine the Ukrainian government. Add in Trump would have ensured European action. And Ukraine would have been left to fend alone. Russia has made it clear that they have designs on the Baltic states as well as Moldova. Trump has expressed admiration for Autocratic leaders, in fact I would characterize Trump as jealous of the power of Autocratic leaders have.

It takes orders of magnitude longer to catch up?

So, you're saying invertebrates aren't included in a law that says invertebrates are included? It's not judicial activism, it's literally applying the law as written. The taxonomy might be wrong, but that doesn't mean the law should just be ignored.

Jumping in late, but I believe the article is referring to hospitalizations. That is the percentage of people who go go to the hospital in the 50/100/150 days after testing positive. The journal article defined 'severe' as being in-patient. So I assume they mean rehospitalizations for those severe patients (otherwise, it would make no sense). I know the chart uses "survival probability" but the caption says: "Kaplan Meier Curve Comparing Combined Hospitalizations Between Severe COVID-19-Positive and COVID-19-Negative Patients" So I think either the chart label is incorrect, or they're using "survival probability" in a way that is defined differently somewhere in the article that flies in the face of typical usage.