Can the grid handle electric cars?

[trader_4]

This is what I'm talking about, refusal to look at or acknowledge the most basic science. Sure, there have been climate changes before, most of them catastrophic for the existing life at the time. Currently we know that CO2 has increased by over a third in the last hundred years, when man accelerated the release of carbon that had been stored for millions of years. And we know that the temperature is rising, the science linking the rise to heat trapped by that CO2 sure looks solid. That increase is shocking. Past cycles where CO2 rose took hundreds of thousands of years, not just 100 years. It sure seems very risky and foolish to just proclaim that it doesn't matter, whatever happens, let it happen. There are many factors here, many we don't even know about or understand, where once we past some point, the change could greatly accelerate and be irreversible. The major ocean currents of the world for example, if they change, stop, reverse it could be disaster. And we are seeing the effects of climate change right here, right now. In NJ we used to have good, decent snow storms every winter. This past winter, close to nothing. I had a tornado a mile from my house a few months ago. There have been many in NJ this year, probably a dozen. Fifty years ago, even ten years ago, a tornado was very rare.

I also don't understand this new Republican obsession with everything is about "control". Masks were supposed to be about control, as if government somehow gains or gets enjoyment over having people put on a mask? There is some vast worldwide conspiracy to do this? Makes no sense to me. When it comes to CO2, there is worldwide, overwhelming consensus at this point among climate scientists. It seems very foolish to rely instead on politics, ignore it and take our chances. This denial stems from people like Rush Limbaugh, who ranted against science. He told his listeners that the earth is simply to big for man to be able to affect it in any way. That's the science analysis from a guy who never graduated college. The solutions are there, yes there will be costs, but it's not like it's so drastic that it's insurmountable. Worst case we will have transitioned away from fossil fuels earlier. Worst case, if we listen to the deniers, is irreversible climate change, the consequences of which we don't know but could be catastrophic.

[trader_4]

How can it be insignificant to what Mother Nature does when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than a third in about the last 100 years? It's now higher than it's been in hundreds of thousands of years, it's still increasing rapidly and those previous high levels took tens of thousands of years, not just a hundred.

Look at the vertical line at the end.

[Scott Lurndal]

Or better, read chapter 9:

That is a comprehensive, science-based description of what's happening with CO2. Even Frank should be able to read and understand it.

"The core physics is unassailble".

[trader_4]

If that was the case, then we would see swings in atmospheric CO2 based on volcanos and forest fires monthly or year to year. Instead we see a steady CO2 line increasing by over a third over the last 100 years. It's gone from 300PPM to over 400PPM and looks like a straight line up in geological timeframe. Previous increases took tens of thousands of years. And CO2 is now higher than it's been in hundreds of thousands of years. That increase corresponds to the great acceleration of burning carbon that had been trapped for millions of years. This is just the most basic of facts.

The ones that really are refusing to look are the people like you. You get your "science" from Rush Limbaugh, who has no degrees, you sound just like him. His science analysis started and ended with that the earth is simply too big for man to be able to affect it. And that is a consistent problem you demonstrate over and over. You form a position based on politics, then you totally ignore even the most basic facts from the most credible sources that show you're wrong, while desperately trying to scrape together and believe anything, from any source that you think supports your position.

[Scott Lurndal]

Of course it is not the case. Simple math confirms that the excess CO2 currently measured comes directly from fossil fuel.

[Bob F]

"Just two-tenths of 1% of Earth's total carbon -- about 43,500 gigatonnes (Gt) -- is above surface in the oceans, on land, and in the atmosphere. The rest is subsurface, including the crust, mantle and core

-- an estimated 1.85 billion Gt in all CO2 out-gassed to the atmosphere and oceans today from volcanoes and other magmatically active regions is estimated at 280 to 360 million tonnes (0.28 to 0.36 Gt) per year, including that released into the oceans from mid-ocean ridges Humanity's annual carbon emissions through the burning of fossil fuels and forests, etc., are 40 to 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions "