2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

And have you been experiencing any civil wars lately?

Well no, because other people's energy consumption doesn't really do Syria any good. Much like I know the future of clothing isn't me making my own pants, I am very sure the future of electricity isn't me generating my own.

It is nonsense to claim solar and fossil fuels to be on the 'same utility-scale'.Fossil fuels generate power nonstop, every second, every hour, every day of the year; whenever, wherever, as much as can be desired. Renewable energy shows up when it feels like it as much as it wants - maybe.Fossil fuels currently account for almost 70% of U.S. energy generation; solar less than 1%.To say they operate on the same 'scale' is delusional.And your praise for Texas is humorous: See the big ass red blob at the bottom of that map? That's Texas - coal capital U.S.A.You'd think with the price of solar 'so low' sunny-ville Texas would switch over already. I wonder what's holding them back...Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I've had a lot of good laughs reading through this thread so far. Here 're some of the things I find funny...First, LamarkNewAge made the claim that: "It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state [of Maryland]" (Message 32).That's a big claim, so it wasn't surprising when somewhere in the discussion, 'energy' switched to 'electricity'. But where the laughs really started coming was when the evidence presented to support this amounted to demonstrating that a city in Maryland representing less than 2% of the state's total population was able to offset (not directly fuel) about 25% of its electricity use with solar generation (Message 87). Oh, and it was maybe just a coincidence that they managed this as the second richest county in the country (or probably not).Funny shit. But then Dr Adequate chimed in singing the praises of Germany (Message 95) - which is the top installer of solar panels in the world - only to be shown that in spite of all this, Germany meets less than a tenth of its electricity demand with solar power, or about enough to make up for what the U.S. loses in transmission (Message 97).Finally we heard that if anything is proof that we can all do solar, it's the fact that Texas can do solar (Message 100)- Texas, the sunny southern state that generates more power burning coal than any other state in the Union (Message 114).Since the initial claims about solar's amazing capabilities were first laid down, they have been revised and lessened to the point where all anyone's able to say is that 'solar power can provide some energy some of the time and a certain cost'.So yes, this thread has been roller coaster of retracted exaggerations and dreamy idealism when it comes to renewable energy - enough to make anyone laugh (and be thankful they don't have to wait for the sun to come up to cook breakfast).Edited by Jon, : Links, typos, and other bad things...

Well I guess we now know everything we need to know about RAZD's position: people who can't afford a $20,000 solar installation (or even the homes to put it on) are just 'lazy'.With humanitarians like that who needs the Koch brothers?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Two hundred and sixteen feet?Who's predicting that?

You're just pushing my question around.Who's predicting we'll melt all the ice?

According to... ? Cost is important.But the real problem with solar power is that it simply doesn't power anything. It just can't give us the power our societies need.And without that power it doesn't matter how high the water gets - low or high - our lives will be filled with the same miserable diseases, harsh labor, and untimely deaths.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Clearly not.And I've been doing a fair amount of research the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of this. I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice and the rise in sea levels this would cause.

Oh for fuck's sake already, will you address the actual points being made against your position?Cost is only a part of it.The real problem, as I said and as you quoted is that renewables like solar and wind just cannot provide the power our societies need. And I think you're wrong. How do you plan to settle this?

You might have to; because I read through that article and I couldn't find a single mention of a realistic 200 food rise in sea level or a prediction that we'll melt all the ice.What I did find was this:

quote:

---

"How Much Will Sea Level Rise in the 21st Century?" from Skeptical Science (emphasis added):

​

If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) were to melt, this would add around 6 metres to sea levels. If the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) were to melt as well, seas would rise by around 70 metres [= ~230 ft].

​

In a process that is accelerating, all three ice caps are losing mass. While nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing, only a small amount of melting would cause great problems.

---

Did you even read the article before you pasted the link?The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out.I guess we'll just have to add this to the 'another laugh' category...Thanks for the chuckle.

A worst-case scenario means nothing if there is no reasonable way that scenario could come to pass.And there's a reason the experts are not suggesting that these things will happen: because the scenario is so fucking absurd and unrealistic that not even the most die-hard opponents of fossil fuel use within the scientific community can bring themselves to advance such an academically dishonest position.We don't need to hope "renewables get adopted" soon lest we melt all the ice and drown the city of New York as NosyNed has suggested because that's literally not going to happen and no one is predicting it will.So it doesn't make "some dollars 'wasted' on solar panels ... seem like a bargin" - it makes it seem like the frantic fear-fueled foolishness that it is. I think that the serious rises in sea level are so far into the future that to sit in the cold disease-ridden dark (which is what adopting renewable energy means) to avoid a few meters of sea level rise in a few hundred years or more is stupid. And it's certainly far more self destructive than our current use of carbon.I think that if we really want to help future generations we can do so better by creating the wealth and technology useful for adapting to the new realities than by retreating into our caves and mud huts.

I see what you did there. Very clever. I'll deal with you when I get home.

How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?

The question was: How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?When you say "[i]f we continue at the current rate", you're just preaching and not offering any hard facts.So how much FF do we have to burn to melt all the ice and how fast do we have to burn it?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.