Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by skepticalmike, May 19, 2021.
Wow, I wonder why these scientists haven't lost their jobs for obviously faking all their data.
Easy: that's what their employers want them to do.
None of which is CO2.
"Scientists" believe that, do they?
No, only anti-CO2 scaremongers for hire do; real scientists are aware of the fact that it can't be.
No, that's certainly completely false. Solar activity went from basically zero in the depth of the Little Ice Age in the 18th century to the highest sustained level in thousands of years in the 20th century. As CO2 cannot have any significant effect on the earth's surface temperature, it would have to have increased by an order of magnitude to cause the warming we have seen.
Over the last several years, the same period of time that lower troposphere temperatures have fallen.
It's 5 years, and your claim was that the cooling trend never BEGINS. Trends can't begin over several decades, they have to begin with a few years.
Then stop falsely claiming the trend never begins.
I have no interest in contriving analyses falsified to agree with the lying fools you falsely claim are experts in climate science.
Nope. It requires only a handful of individuals committed to putting their thumbs on the scale, backed by an organization with the money and power to make and break careers. Everyone else just falls into line out of self-interest.
An honest look at the data clearly shows no such increase as you have claimed.
No, there is only one significant positive feedback: the ice albedo feedback that causes alternating ice ages and interglacials. Most of the significant feedbacks are negative, which is why the earth's climate is as stable as it is.
Coal - 1 G20 - 0
G20 fails to agree on climate goals in communique
Clearly China, Russia and India were never going to commit to give a date for phasing out coal power, as they know their economies depend on it. And while ever…
Ohio leads the way. This is a victory for people and communities, and a defeat for the renewables lobby. Let's hope other states follow suit.
Ohio Eviscerates Preferred Siting, Accelerated Permission for Wind/Solar Developers (communities win!)
For a wind industry that has been overriding, even bull dozing, unwilling host communities, this new legal framework will be a significant brake. Some say, it is a death knell…
The near future is all about natural gas.
Carbon-Neutral LNG: Another Reason Why Natural Gas Could Win ‘The Energy Transition’
Jude Clemente, Forbes
". . . Any serious low-carbon outlook has gas as a foundational resource. Experts at McKinsey model “resilient” gas demand through 2050, even in an accelerated transition scenario to meet climate change goals.
The world is simply too poor, too fast-growing, and too energy-starved for this not to be true: more practically, the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts a 40-45% jump in global gas consumption. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) new climate road map assumes that energy demand will be 8% lower in 2050 than today but serve an economy twice as big and a population with over 2 billion more people. . . . "
Coal saves the day.
German Wind Power Consumption Plummets 20% In First Half 2021… Coal Power Consumption Jumps 38%!
By P Gosselin on 27. July 2021
What would we do without coal?
The first half of 2021 saw a massive 20% drop in wind power consumption in Germany…while “coal power saw a renaissance.”. . . .
Natural gas continues upswing.
US LNG Exports Hit New Record High!
Guest “And the year is only half over!” by David Middleton JULY 27, 2021U.S. liquefied natural gas exports grew to record highs in the first half of 2021 U.S. exports…
Renewable energy targets are increasingly implausible.
The Triumphant March Toward 100% "Renewable" Electricity: Germany and California
July 28, 2021/ Francis Menton
As a state or a country, if you want to have any status in the ranks of the climate virtuous, the key metric is your commitment to get most or all of your energy from “renewables” (mainly wind and solar) by the earliest possible date. Everybody is doing it, and you are nobody if you don’t get in on the bidding.
Just a couple of weeks ago (July 14), according to Reuters, the European Commission entered a bid of 40% of final energy consumption from “renewables” by 2030. Back here in the US, the most recent bid from the Biden administration (from April 2 is a goal of 80% of electricity by 2030, which is ambitious on its own, although electricity is a minority of final energy consumption. Congress has yet to consider the Biden administration bid.
Within both the EU and the US, there are national and state champions that are far out-virtuing everybody else. In the EU, it’s Germany. . . . Here in the US, our champion is California.
Another day, another lithium battery fire.
Crews battle Tesla battery fire at Moorabool, near Geelong
A toxic blaze at the site of Australia’s largest Tesla battery project is set to burn throughout the night. . . .
The dirty little secret is that renewables don't work for base load power.
A Little Arithmetic: The Costs Of A Solar-Powered Grid Without Fossil Fuel Back-up
July 29, 2021/ Francis Menton
Yesterday’s post made the point that states or countries seeking to march toward 100% “renewable” electricity don’t seem to be able to get past about the 50% mark, no matter how many wind turbines and solar panels they build.
The reason is that, in practical operation, due to what is called “intermittency,” no output is available from the solar and wind sources at many times of high demand; therefore, during those times, other sources must supply the juice. This practical problem is presented most starkly in California, where the “renewable” strategy is based almost entirely on solar panels, with only a very small wind component.
Daily graphs published by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) show a clear and obvious pattern, where the solar generation drops right to zero every evening just as the peak demand period kicks in from about 6 to 9 PM.
Commenter Sean thinks he has the answer: . . .
The Euros are dancing on the rim of a volcano.
Power Grid Expert Warns: “Signs Being Ignored” As Europe’s Grid Teeters On The Brink
By P Gosselin on 3. August 2021
Power grid expert Herbert Saurugg warns at RiskNet that European authorities continue to ignore danger signals even after another grid disruption occurred in the afternoon of July 24th and left around 2 million people in France, Spain and Portugal briefly without electricity.
It was the second major disruption in the last 7 months.
The root of the problem on July 24th appears to be a firefighting aircraft unloading its cargo directly above an extra-high voltage line, causing a short circuit, during a wildfire. . . .
Reality does not conform to hype.
Forbes: “Forget About Peak Oil – We Haven’t Even Reached Peak Coal Yet”
Mainstream media is waking up that despite billions invested in renewable energy, oil and coal use are surging. . . .
California has run up the white flag on renewables.
California Admits Wind & Solar Aren’t Reliable – Commissions Five New NatGas Plants
ENERGY SECURITY AUGUST 21, 2021
In a surprise about-face in California’s love affair with the climate change darlings of wind and solar energy, it was announced on Friday 8/13 that California’s Department of Water Resources is now in the process of designing, financing, and building five new 30-megawatt natural gas power plants. According to recent news reports, these go “counter” to the state plan of decarbonizing the electricity grid to reduce emissions.
As reported in the Fresno Bee, CA Assembly member Jim Patterson broke the news:
The decision to install the five plants has been a result of flawed policies by decision-makers, he said.
“California has been forced to do this because we now have growing demand on a grid that has flattening supplies and that has caused these Flex Alerts,” he said.
“Our grid is destabilized because of political decisions.”
He’s certainly right about that. . . .
When the declining of 24/7 baseload power reaches a point of being unable to handle the growing instability of Wind and Solar power production on the grid system then brownouts and blacks out shows up despite the excess of power production in the system.
Wind power is too unstable and unreliable for sustained and stable grid support, it has to be backed up when its natural instability reaches a trigger point for Grid operators to scale it back and increase stable power producers to maintain control of the distribution system.
The well known weaknesses are commonly ignored by those who blindly favor unstable power producing "renewable" systems, it is what warmist/alarmists do out of habit.
Why are they so small? Efficient combined-cycle natural gas power plants are in the hundreds of MW. Are they in rural areas or small markets?
I don't know.
More on natural gas power generation in California.
California: Curtailing Solar Power & Building Natural Gas Plants… Because…
Because “I don’t care who you are! That’s funny right there!” by David Middleton Solar power delivers more electricity than Californians can use from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and…
The Chinese have their own plan.
China To Build 43 New Coal-Fired Power Plants
The report reckons that these new coal plants and blast furnaces will add 150 million tonnes to China’s CO2 emissions. This is roughly half the UK’s total emissions. . . .
We're the suckers.
While the United States Closes Coal Plants, China Is Building 43 New Ones
ECONOMICS AND POLICY AUGUST 25, 2021
It is not possible to trap heat. -- IOW, there is no such thing as a "perfect insulator".
Maybe you should learn some basic mathematics before parroting any pretty looking graph that you see, and then realize why this graph (that you're allowing to do your thinking for you) only amounts to being a bunch of random numbers that are ultimately meaningless.
A few of the many issues at hand with the graph that you presented:
Temperature measuring stations are not uniformly spaced across the Earth. This introduces location bias into the data, which is not allowed. Location bias is vital because temperature variance is very high. Temperature is known to often enough vary by as much as 20degF per mile.
Temperature measuring stations are not simultaneously read by the same observer. This introduces time bias into the data, which is not allowed. Time bias is vital because temperature variance is very high. Temperature has been known to vary by as much as 49degF in as little as two minutes.
Temperature measuring stations are not at varying heights in the atmosphere (they are only at surface level). This is another form of location bias, which is not allowed. The atmosphere of Earth is just as much a part of Earth as the surface of Earth is, so if you wish to measure "the temperature of Earth", then the atmosphere must be included as well.
There are not enough temperature measuring stations to yield any sort of accurate result for Earth's temperature, due to how high of a variance temperature has. For Earth's surface alone, [and this depends upon whatever one's target margin of error is, which is yet another vital bit of info which most everyone tends to skip over], more than 200 million of such stations would be required. Including Earth's atmosphere, which needs to be included as it is also a part of Earth, you would need over a billion thermometers.
The "temperature change" axis on the graph implies that there are "actual temperature" readings of Earth. The aforementioned issues, amongst numerous other issues, make it very clear that there is no valid data set of Earth's temperature in existence from which to pull "temperature change" numbers from.
The "temperature change" axis also implies that there is some "baseline temperature" amount for Earth. What precisely IS this "baseline temperature"? How, precisely, was it determined? Why is whatever period of time that this mystery number is being derived from "holier than thou" compared to any other period of time in all of history?
This graph is just as meaningless as the other one that you presented for the same reasons that I provided in my other response to you.
Climate does not "shift". Climate is not a business cycle.
Separate names with a comma.