On the Threshold of Renewable Energy Chaos

And what do you believe? What are you advocating for? Even a few sentences would be useful...

 

Looks like honest adherence to science, fact, and logic to me.

 

I find the solar/GCR climate hypothesis to be persuasive -- the work of Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv.
Forbes censored an interview with me
Henrik Svensmark: Force Majeure – The Sun’s Role In Climate Change (PDF)

 

Ok, I've had a scan and I'll have a better look later and let you know what I think.

So, I'm still a bit unclear. When you say that you find this argument persuasive, do you agree that the earth is warming and are you suggesting that this model explains it? Do you advocate for other global warming models? Do you believe that humans have had zero or partial influence on warming, and if the latter, to what degree?

 

Human activity was responsible for roughly half of 20th century warming, and that share should continue. The other half is solar-derived. The important takeaway from this is that climate sensitivity is quite low, and warming is not a threat.

 

Ok, so you believe that roughly half is human influence and the other half is according to the model you posted? may I ask is this based on a body of research, or just a gut feeling? I'm afraid I am uncertain about what the rest means and I'm not sure how conclusions about the effect of climate change are are takeaway from degree of climate change.* They are two massively separate issues, surely

I.e. I'm not sure what 'this' is, in 'takeaway from this'

 

Shaviv is clear.
Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic
". . . . The body of evidence however clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is on the low side, about 1 to 1.5 degree increase per CO2 doubling. People in the climate community are scratching their heads trying to understand the so called hiatus in the warming. Where is the heat hiding? While in reality it simply points to a low sensitivity. The “missing” heat has actually escaped Earth already! If you look at the average global response to large volcanic eruptions, from Krakatoa to Pinatubo, you would see that the global temperature decreased by only about 0.1°C while the hypersensitive climate models give 0.3 to 0.5°C, not seen in reality. Over geological time scales, the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature places a clear upper limit of a 1.5°C per CO2 doubling sensitivity. Last, once we take the solar contribution into account, a much more consistent picture for the 20th century climate changes arises, one in which the climate drivers (humans AND solar) are notably larger, and the sensitivity notably smaller.

So, how do we know that the sun has a large effect on climate? If you search on google images “oceans as a calorimeter”, you would find one of the most important graphs to the understanding of climate change which is simply ignored by the IPCC and alarmists. You can see that over more than 80 years of tide gauge records there is an extremely clear correlation between solar activity and sea level rise - active sun, the oceans rise. Inactive sun - the oceans fall. On short time scales it is predominantly heat going to the oceans and thermal expansion of the water. This can then be used to quantify the radiative forcing of the sun, and see that it is about 10 times larger than what the IPCC is willing to admit is there. They only take into account changes in the irradiance, while this (and other such data) unequivocally demonstrate that there is an amplifying mechanism linking solar activity and climate. . . . "

 

Lots of text, but again, can't really work out where your comments start, original source begins and blog quotes end. Well at least you acknowledge some warming.

From what I've read, the science community is waiting for Sven to quantify his effect. Hopefully he'll be able to do this, but I doubt the scientific community is going to put the current climate change recommendations on hold while we wait for Sven to come through with the goods.

 

That depends on what your definition of "is" is. The earth certainly has warmed since the Little Ice Age, but UAH shows the peak in 2016, while arctic sea ice bottomed in 2012, so the earth has most likely recently been cooling.

There are many factors and complex interactions involved, but the dominant one on the century-to-millennium time scale is the sun.

Less than the sun, and CO2 does not account for all of that. IMO the opacity of water vapor to IR radiation means the effect of CO2 is almost entirely confined to high altitude (>5-10km, depending on latitude) and winter at high latitude, where the air is extremely dry. Its effect on surface temperature is likely less than 1C per doubling, a total non-issue.

 

May I ask, Bringiton, are you a climate change scientist? You appear to have the tone of absolute authority in your typings (though admittedly you did say IMO for one conjecture)

 

Ech. As usual, old tech is the most reliable tech. Burn the trees for energy, spread their ashes on the seedlings.

...ya, I don't much like burning trees either, but thats what folks r gonna do when the windmills and solar panels all get covered in ice.

 

Sounds reasonable. I would do that too under the circumstance

 

No; but many years ago I did study planetary physics, including atmospheric physics, at an internationally respected university. I have also read dozens of peer-reviewed papers on climate-related topics, and relevant portions of hundreds more. IMO there is too much shaky logic, dubious methodology, and outright dishonesty in the anti-fossil-fuel nonscience for it to be true. But perhaps most persuasive is the systematic attempt to suppress dissenting views. It's a dead giveaway. No honest scientist has ever done that, or ever will.

Over the years, I have grown accustomed to disagreeing with experts and subsequently being proved right. It started in elementary school, but didn't become a real problem until I was at university.

 

Ok, so you are not against fossil fuels...got it. Look, I really don't know how to respond regarding your previous qualifications.

 

Why would my qualifications matter? That's just an ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacy. Address the facts and logic I identify.

 

Might give it a miss actually. All the best!

 

The quotation marks aren't hard to follow.

 

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: Hoisted by her own pipeline petard!
David Middleton
Guest “irony can be so ironic” by David Middleton Enbridge foe Whitmer declares Michigan energy emergencyIan Vandaelle, BNN Bloomberg Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has stood out as one of the…

 

UN Shames Australia for a Lack of Climate Ambition
Eric Worrall
Making big climate pledges was a cheap political win when the goal was way off in the future. But now the first deadlines are approaching, long serving politicians in countries…

". . . There is no viable path to global net zero except nuclear power. The staggering extractive minerals cost and manufacturing effort required to go 100% renewable is well beyond our civilisation’s current engineering capabilities. Google tried and failed to find a path to 100% renewable energy. Green Left Film producer Michael Moore gets that renewables will not replace fossil fuel. Nature presenter David Attenborough has called for a green “Apollo Project”, to try to bridge the currently insurmountable technology gaps.

But with nuclear off the table in most countries, politicians, especially long serving politicians, are in the increasingly hilarious position of trying to explain why they have achieved nothing, but are still sincere about their commitment.

The renewable push will end in certain failure. The gross failure of renewables is becoming increasingly difficult to conceal. But at least we’ll get some entertainment value for our money, watching our politicians publicly denounce each other in an effort to shift the blame for all those broken green promises. . . . "

 

What you have completely missed are the facts

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/germanys-stressed-grid-is-causing-trouble-across-europe

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/10/is-germany-making-too-much-renewable-energy/

 

Typical nonsense.

 

An oversupply of green energy! Who would have thought that by 2021 the problem would be storage and distribution of green electricity?

 

I believe your links make my point. Note the thread title phrase: "renewable energy chaos."

 

Dammed If They Do. British Columbia’s Site C Ironies.
Charles Rotter
Charles asked me to look at this WUWT reader Earthling2’s submission. Having done so, the saga is so loaded with ironies that this guest post resulted. Site C is a…

 

The Germans are doing it to themselves.
Germans Spent “More Than Ever Before”…Consumer Electricity Costs Reach Record High In 2020
By P Gosselin on 3. March 2021

Share this...
German online public broadcasting site ntv here reports how German consumers last year spent “around 37.8 billion euros in 2020 – more than ever before.”

Citing calculations from the shopping portal Check24, the total amount paid was about 900 million euros more than in 2019.

One reason was the high consumption due to home office use. But the primary reason was because of the rising cost of green electricity.

The last time private consumption was about the same as in 2020 was in 2016. But in 2020 the electricity costs increased by a total of three billion euros.

“The average price per kilowatt hour rose from 27 cents to around 30 cents during this period,” ntv reports. “The rise in electricity costs is not only due to more frequent use of the home office during the Corona crisis. The levies and taxes included in the electricity price have risen particularly sharply in recent years.”



German consumer electricity prices are the highest in Europe. Source: Eurostat. . . . .