2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

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.

Kind of sorta have to agree with you on this jon. I received a solar quote. It will cost me after subsidies 30k. At most it will save me $1500/year. Solar just is not ready for primetime for most residential applications.
Now if it drops a bit more I am certainly interested. There are much better uses for my family's #0k at this time.

Corrections(1) it's the 'lazy' do nothing approach to your bills -- let them keep billing you more and more ...(2) my installation costs me $10,000.00 and(3) all the solar companies offer loans to pay for them, where payments are less than the utility bills, and when paid off you still get the full benefit.Enjoy

Jon, you may or may not be right about the value of solar, wind etc. They may or may not be more economic than coal, oil and gas.But we all better hope that the renewables get adopted one way or the other.To simplify the issue:
If we keep producing CO2 at anything anywhere near the current rate or even a fraction of it the ice will melt. I'm not saying when that will happen but it will .What is the current value of New York, all of florida, San Franciso, Portland and much else? If the ice doesn't completely melt in a century the present value can be discounted to a decreased loss in current dollars. If it doesn't melt for a millennium the current value is much less.Somebody better calculate that value for various time frames though. Even if the ice doesn't completely melt for 1,000 years the value might still be in the many hundreds of billions of dollars. If the ice melts fast then we are talking about trillions of dollars in loss.Suddenly some dollars "wasted" on solar panels starts to seem like a bargin.The is 216 feet of ocean raise locked up in ice that will melt.
National Geographic - 404

In certain parts of the country they may. In states where there is little state support the costs are not so easily absorbed. There is no way I can borrow 30k for an installation and have a payment that is less than what I save from my electric bill. I have run the #'s many ways, it just does not make financial sense in northern Wisconsin. Even if I paid cash for the system my return is not high enough to justify the expense.

A possible alternative is to buy electricity from one of the "Green" plans offered and often available at a very low rates with annual commitments.

quote:

---

The is 216 feet of ocean raise locked up in ice that will melt.

---

Only about 9 inches has melted in the last 100+ years.People just aren't impressed with that argument.The melting hasn't really begun to happen.All people remember is the Al Gore movie and its exaggerated predictions.Al Gore responded by pointing out that the waters of the Atlantic were 9 degrees hotter during the October 2012 hurricane and that - temporarily at least - Ground Zero, Manhattan was indeed under water, only much sooner.It is a fact is that man-made global warming is very costly, from an economic perspective.The (permanent)ocean life deaths(due to acidification)seem to be the urgent concern, from the environmental perspective.

I agree that this may turn out to be a far worse thing for our survival than a little thing like many of the world's cities disappearing. However it is hard to say with total certainty just what will happen. It may involve our total extinction but we can't say for sure.What we can say for sure is that the sea will rise by 200 ft if we carry on.

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

That is so simple you can get a rough answer all by yourself. It is easy to get a rough approximation to the volume of ice sitting on Antarctica. The area of the continent by a km or two of ice depth. It works out to waay over 100 ft.The 216 foot is given by the link I gave you and I have read it in numerous sources.That is why I like this. It is extremely simple. Anyone can check the volume and the physics is dead simple and obvious.So in answer to your question: everyone who is competent is predicting that, if we melt all the ice. Edited by NosyNed, : fixed spelling

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

It is something like 3-5 times the overall increase in land temperature.It truly does make hurricanes more powerful.And it turns (what would be)tropical storms into hurricanes.Both carbon and methane heat the oceans.But the issue of acidity & extinct ocean life comes about from carbon alone, I think.

Correct.

quote:

---

Ocean acidification

​

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30—40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean acidity (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs[8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and disrupt the provision of many goods and services associated with the ocean.[9]

​

Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.

​

Other chemical reactions are triggered which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[10] Ongoing acidification of the oceans threatens food chains connected with the oceans.[11][12] As members of the InterAcademy Panel, 105 science academies have issued a statement on ocean acidification recommending that by 2050, global CO2 emissions be reduced by at least 50% compared to the 1990 level.[13]

​

Ocean acidification has been called the "evil twin of global warming"[14][15][16][17][18] and "the other CO2 problem".[15][17][19]

---

When shellfish can't make strong shells whole ecosystems will collapse.The same acidification process also effects fresh water systems -- lakes and streams -- and their ecologies.

No one is predicting that we will melt all the ice and I didn't say that. I emphasized the if.However, there is no good reason to think we are not going to. Continuing as we are now and arguing about the cents per KWH of solar vs coal will push us past the point of no return and up the water will come.We are making that decision now. I don't see a lot of reason for optimism. If we continue then the ice will melt. The physics is very clear.

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.