> There would be no harm in jumping to 30% Nuclear as an interim target. That is something we agree on. In fact, I believe there is no way we can go full elec

> There would be no harm in jumping to 30% Nuclear as an interim target. That is something we agree on. In fact, I believe there is no way we can go full electric transportation without a massive shift into nuclear energy. With regards to the ocean article. One must understand something very important in order to understand the significance of this article. Two simple questions: How did atmospheric CO2 increase when humanity was not around or was insignificant? Huge forest fires over tens of thousands of years has been the primary source of CO2 released into the atmosphere. How did it go down? Trees grew back and weather. Again, over tens of thousands of years, trees, vegetation, grew and captured carbon. In addition to this, rain, cyclones, weather, water, precipitated CO2 into the oceans. Absent Star Trek technology, the planet locks CO2 into trees and water. > Co2 extraction, which would be expensive but definitely feasible No, it is not. There isn't an single proposed solution that can show real data on CO2 extraction at a rate that would align with a reduction of 100 ppm in 50 years (1000 x faster than the natural baseline). Go look for one. Look for the math. This does not exist. > If the US started right now, they could triple capacity and get to 60% Nuclear within 30 years. Renewables could add another 20% - and then you have 'no more Co2'. What? Where do you think CO2 comes from? Just energy generation? In California, for example, 25% of CO2 contribution comes from forest fires. You cannot get to zero CO2 emissions. That's another myth. Not sure who is pushing that one. It's just silly. Sorry. > Second - your statements that 'It would take 10 000 for Co2 to all to normal levels if we dissapeared' is just not true. First of all, is false. You can't just use 'high school math' because on that timeline there are other, major forces at play. But even if it did take 10 000 years, it's not very helpful. First of all, you are misquoting. I did not say 10K years. I said 50K to 100K. Second. You are, quite literally, saying that 800,000 years of highly reliable ice core atmospheric composition data is false. Seriously? Please show me the data you use to base this assertion on. Really. Ice core sampling is some of the most accurate records we have on atmospheric composition. They are so accurate (I checked, years ago, because I wanted to be sure) that the data is irrefutable. So, reliable atmospheric records going back 800K years --when humanity WAS NOT AROUND OR WAS INSIGNIFICANT-- says it takes 50K to 100K years for a 100 ppm reduction...and you say this is false? Do explain. You must have equally irrefutable scientific data at hand. All I can offer is eight hundred thousand years of accurate atmospheric composition metrics. Sorry my friend, I am trying to tell you most people are part of a the cult of climate change rather than the scientific reality of it. Your claim that 800K years of data is false only serves to prove my point. Sadly. Just do one thing for me and, if you are able to do this, I'll change my point of view: Invalidate 800K of atmospheric data showing how the planet behaves without humanity. I'll wait.