Slashdot Mirror

No, it does not ... there is no scalable TWh storage technology to carry any significant power across a Dunkelflaute. The German's way to deal with the problem for instance as they were turning off coal and nuclear has been to just borrow power from their neighbours when there's shortage. except everyone is doing the same thing and excess generating capacity is disappearing fast.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/0...

As long as solar and wind are not cheaper than fueling the backup plants, or we get cheap scalable TWh scale storage, it is being subsidized. Merely being able to be cheaper than wholesale pricing at a given point in time is not enough. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with it needing subsidy, but the lies about it being profitable without it are dangerous. Politicians aren't very smart, they are prone to drinking their own koolaid. Then suddenly you'll get rolling blackouts.

Baloney. Germany has increased their emissions in 2017, as they have for 9 years straight: http://notrickszone.com/2017/0...

You live in a fantasy world. 2018 will be worse.

Appeals to the masses didn't stop Einstein and he was correct in his rebuttal. And even your contention of 95% is actually false as the original "study" was highly flawed in methodology, to such an extent it should never be heard from again.

Currently we see models increasingly diverging from measured data, and the biggest suspect is the value used for climate sensitivity to CO2. Most models assume 3 deg C, but research shows it to be about half that.

Oh, and if you'd actually look at those linked pages, you'll finds lots of links to real published data, peer reviewed and everything.

More and more research is showing that the estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is quickly falling, making the projections based upon a much higher sensitivity value less and less accurate. Most of the IPCC models assume 3 deg C for a doubling of CO2, but research since 2012 basically supports a value about half that. And it would explain why there is a divergence between models and measurements.

Blackbody radiation absorption for CO2 is at less than 11%. Absorption in the lower atmosphere is saturated so can only be absorbed in the troposphere, where CO2 is much less common, and yet no measurements have found a "hot spot" that high up.

Dr. Reinhart, Swiss Physicist with over 240 peer reviewed articles says of the IPCC assumptions

A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius. Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8C.

There's a growing list of peer reviewed papers making similar statements based on math and laws of thermodynamics.

Thanks for nicely framing "cherry picking" in eloquent words. Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative. You can add Cox et al. 2018 on to that graph : http://notrickszone.com/wp-con... And it'll be up there with Marvel 2016 as an outlier. Mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies showing the spectrum of ECS over the years from studies on all sides of the debate is a little disingenuous. My point was quite clear. You just don't like the studies that don't fit. Even though, as the graph shows, the trend is obvious. That is not to say I brush off Cox et al. 2018, though there have been critics of the paper on all sides of the debate. But like all papers, there is some good and some less good in his study, it should still be up there on an updated graph compiling different studies on this subject.

3C is on the high side of estimates. http://notrickszone.com/2017/1... Most likely lower. However studies are all over the place about ECS. One thing that seems to be consistent is the fact that as more studies are done, ECS seems to be trending downward. 2.0C being likely, but now on the high side of estimates as well.

The problem is that the data doesn't match the models, and it's those models that say it is supposed to be 2 deg C warmer. The data doesn't support the models' claims. Science says that when data and theory/model conflict, the theory/model is wrong.

Additionally, the theory is that a warming world should have more and stronger hurricanes, yet the trendline since 1992 is down and this year is forecast to be lower still. More data and theory conflicting...

Furthermore, look at the GISS temperature record from 1988 and from 2018. You'll see that it's been adjusted to eliminate the peak in 1940, and the cooling from 1940 to 1970. When you can adjust away the past, then you can dictate the present. But it's not quite honest now, is it?

Lastly, look at HadCRUT4 from 1895 to 1943, and then again from 1957 to 2005. They are essentially the same - yet the former (1895 to 1943) is supposed to be not affected by the sudden rise in CO2. If we had the same type of climate change with and without the impact of CO2, then what does that say about the impact of CO2?

http://notrickszone.com/2011/0...

Not even close anywhere.

Accumulated cyclone energy has been trending down for 25 years. Global warming didn't burn Ventura County (where I live). Santa Anas, and a delayed rainy season (because of La Nina - and which we've already more than recovered from, it's been a wet and cold fall, winter, and spring) combined with some extremely difficult terrain that hadn't burned in a decade (lots of fuel) to create the fire.

This Bullshit is why the Alarmists are doubted all the time.

The authors expose how PSMSL data-adjusters make it appear that stable sea levels can be rendered to look like they are nonetheless rising at an accelerated pace.

      The data-adjusters take misaligned and incomplete sea level data from tide gauges that show no sea level rise (or even a falling trend). Then, they subjectively and arbitrarily cobble them together, or realign them. In each case assessed, PSMSL data-adjusters lower the earlier misaligned rates and raise the more recent measurements. By doing so, they concoct a new linearly-rising trend.

How about you link to an article that doesn't use five year old data?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
http://notrickszone.com/2017/1...
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...

The majority of CO2 reductions from Germany in the past 25 years has been from shutting down old Soviet designed power plants that Germany inherited from reunification. If there are any of these inefficient power plants left then any future shutdowns will have diminishing returns on CO2 reductions. A large part of their current zero emission electricity is from currently operating nuclear power. Shutting them down will only increase their CO2 output since nothing has a lower CO2 footprint than nuclear. Wind and hydroelectric have marginally lower CO2 output if good spots are found. Germany ran out of rivers to dam long ago, and their optimal wind locations will only last so long before their CO2 output exceeds nuclear.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/u...

I know the link I provided is from a nuclear power advocacy site, they only compiled data from other sources and funded no studies themselves.

Germany is a good example. I have more.

African nations kept in poverty over UN "green energy" mandates.
https://www.thegwpf.com/james-...

Australia is feeling the pain too.
https://www.thegwpf.com/global...

I happened across something on Germany.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/1...

An article on the general threats posed to real people today by "green energy" mandates.
http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/0...

I find the corn ethanol mandates exceedingly frustrating. That's food we are burning while people need to eat. Not only that I'll read about farmers buying this "brewer's grain" (the stuff left over from turning corn into ethanol) and feeding it to cattle. The problem is that while this grain has protein and minerals it doesn't have enough calories. What do the farmers do then? They buy up discarded corn syrup laden candy and mix it with the grain. Here's an idea, how about we give the corn to the cattle and send the candy to the ethanol producers? We can't do that though because using discarded candy to make ethanol isn't "green" enough, or some shit.

I know people complain that feeding corn to cattle is "unnatural" or something. Well, is feeding cattle brewer's grain mixed with expired Hershey bars somehow "better"? It must be because the laws that the "environmentalists" got passed made this happen.

To those that think we should not eat meat I'll say this, fuck you. If you want to talk about eating "naturally" then what's more natural than going out hunting for wild deer? People have been eating meat for a very long time. Domesticating animals might be recent on the grand scheme of things be we need meat in our diet to be healthy and to hunt for population control. What's wrong with going out to hunt a deer? Or a wild pig? Or hunt a bear? Speaking of which, hunting bans on polar bears has created a polar bear over population problem.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/10...

everything is happening faster than expected by all but the most pessimistic models. (Even most of them are being outpaced by reality.)

Wow no, the opposite, the models over-estimate, as multiple studies have shown. Graph.

a significant increase in recent volcanic activity has not been recorded, while variations in solar insolation or activity still require rather speculative amplification mechanisms that could contribute to the observed recentdecrease in global warming

Not much unusual going on with sea levels either.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/0...

That XKCD comic WOULD be very scary, if it was accurate. But it is not. The hockey stick runaway temperatures since 1900 never happened.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/0...

... like this bizarre episode with Riffgat in 2013? (But even Riffgat went into actual power production later.)

Note that these "scientists" put their thermometers next to airports. These "scientists" don't even understand that airplanes have hot exhaust and we are supposed to reshape our entire worldwide economic system based on THEIR pinhead "theories"? Global cooling continues unabated while the "science" community (aka the loony left) keeps pushing their shit stain theories.

If you examine the URL you'll see the referenced picture without all the yimg stuff. For those interested: http://notrickszone.com/wp-con...

Sigh. When someone has something to say about your superstitious beliefs, it doesn't automatically mean they are making stuff up: you could start here..

Now, in fairness, in 2014, German CO2 emissions fell quite significantly, but that is very, very hard to tie to energiwende, since the entire CO2 emission drop can be explained by a dramatic reduction in energy consumption in 2014. Now, this energy consumption reduction can be tied directly to a mild winter, so 2014 is, most likely, an anomaly. You can read more about that in this very eco-friendly publication. It's cool to see how they wriggle and worm to try not to put the "blame" of the 2014 CO2 emission reduction on the lower energy consumption.

There are other articles covering some of this also.

Currently, most renewable alternatives are, as the Tesla home batteries, woefully inadequate for the task at hand, at least in large parts of the world. Oh, and the Tesla home battery stuff is a sad, sad, sad joke.

So why is Germany going full speed ahead with the construction of 26 more coal burning power plants? Oh, that's right, Germany is forced to import two thirds of the energy it consumes, and the massive investments in renewables hasn't done anything to change this situation. Here's an interesting development in Germany's quest for wind powered electricity: Wind power woes.

1. German wind production is known to periodically drop to essentially zero during the day. Here's the facts showing that.
2. Including solar doesn't help this either, as total production from both together varies by as much as 25x. Fact.
3. German daily peak power demand is around 80 GW. Again, fact.
4. The goal is 80% renewables at latest 2050. Fact.
5. 80% of 80 GW is about 60 GW (I stress the word "about" here - these are ballpark figures).
6. As such there will be days when Germany hits peak or close to peak demand with essentially the bulk of the REE resources being unavailable, hence the 60 GW figure.
7. Your proposal was to import this shortfall from other places where the wind blows, as it always blows somewhere (I didn't dispute that). However, this carries several problems: (1) there's no such large-capacity transmission infrastructure and any expansion projects are being heavily opposed by land owners, (2) this requires installing surplus capacity at remote locations, (3) dealing with the transport losses and complex line control (oversized lines introduce severe problems with lots of reactive power, etc, and finally (4) being willing to absorb the political risks of having the power come from out of the land on really short terms.

You might counter that a portion of that energy can come from hydro & biomass. Hydro is unfortunately already nearly maxed out (*) and biomass has problems with cost and repurposing of lots of farm land for energy crop production (and questionable CO2 benefits due to the excessive use of industrially produced fertilizers and use of heavy agricultural machinery running on fossil fuels; though there is room for improvement here, so no biggie). Still, this requires installing extra capacity, which must be counted against the cost of RE sources of energy. The alternative is to install energy storage on a massive scale to smooth out the intermittent sources and deliver power when needed - not an easy proposition either.

(*) Source: "23% of total technically feasible hydropower potential is exploited in China, 82% in USA, 65% in Canada, 73% in Germany"

No wind anywhere? What crap! Why should I remain silent when someone is pushing that line to try to bully someone else?

Is citing facts bullying? Read the graph. 32 GW nameplate installed capacity. Overall production average on 04/06/2013 + 04/07/2013 less than 1/20 of that, dropping to 1 GW for a few hours around noon 02/06/2013 and to almost zero around noon 04/25/2013).

Yeah, see that's where you have to take those green colored glasses off and realize that its not working in Germany and its not going to work in the US either.

Germany's green energy is
Generally
Considered
A failure.
It's not getting better
Any time soon

There simply isn't enough windy places to power all of the United States 24/7. The sun doesn't shine at night, and we can't build a grid to someplace where it does.

Grid is a substitute for storage and local generation. But grids simply aren't world wide, and aren't likely to be.

Germany's green jobs are very heavily subsidized by the government. Jobs are certainly being created, however the cost is enormous to their economy. The latest figures show Germany has spent over $130 Billion dollars for 6000 green jobs. That is a cool $20 million per job created. Each consumer subsidizes these jobs to the tune of an extra $260 per year making German electricity among the most expensive in the world. To quote that hard core leftist site Slate

Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germanyâ(TM)s CO2 emissions by roughly 8 million metric tonsâ"or about 1 percent â" for the next 20 years.

...
In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming.

The one thing that they were really doing right, nuclear energy they voted to get rid of once the Greens got in power. Now since even Germany can't run everything off of renewables the net effect is that Germany is massively ramping up building more coal power plants. So, how about those Germans?

We don't know, but we have quite clear data that rates of increase themselves *are* increasing.

Actually, no, we don't.

http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/29/stefan-rahmstorfs-sea-level-amnesia-using-his-own-numbers-sea-level-rise-actually-dropped-3/

Frankly, rates of change in this system will *always* be changing. As it stands, they're not following the steady uptick in atmospheric CO2, which tends to cast doubt on any causal relationship from CO2.

So a tiny scrap of sample data is enough to make a grandiose statement.

Note to the wise: Any big, popular theory heralded by the emotionally over-active and therefore biased public is always going to be overlooking several key pieces of information.

Things are a-changing, no doubt, but the forces involved are much bigger than these ego-centric thinkers can contain in their limted, "socially aware" minds.

Bring up the fact that the environments on the other planets in our solar system are also undergoing observable changes, link and you get spittle in your face. Also bring up the fact that Carbon Taxes would benefit the same elites who currently run the oil/banking cartels, and you get blank stares.

We know that science is corrupt; there are many hundreds of instances, dozens of which have been reported on this very site, but few are willing to concede that this problem might be affecting this particular sacred cow of the research spectrum, where there is arguably more at stake than nearly any other.

I'm not saying that pollution isn't a problem, but it's just one part of a much larger puzzle. I see the situation being spun by the psychopathic element of our world's leadership to their own advantage, using emotionalism to shut down the rational centers of the populace.

There's a giant con job going down, and very few of us are willing to question its basic premises.

Humans are part of the equation, but there are much larger forces at work which we do not have the power to alter.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/12/manmade-co2-causing-atmospheric-changes-on-all-9-planets/

This is not an attempt to excuse psychopathic leadership of governments and corporations. They are criminals and we could be living far, far more effectively on our host planet. But we are not the prime cause of climate change. Ignoring this, pretending that we have more power than we really do is an anthropocentric evasion.

Hippie and well-meaning Liberal: "It's all our fault! Anybody who says otherwise is funded by the Big Oil Oligarchs!"

Yeah? Guess who benefits from Carbon Taxes?

That's right. Big Oil Oligarchs.

Climate Change is happening on all the other planets.

Though, the debunkers are furiously trying to kill that idea. Type in "Climate change on other planets" and Google returns the first two pages full of polished debunking, shoutdowns and high profile folks wearing Doctor Who bow ties and Doctor Who faces (who openly claim to be American patriots) telling us it's all about car exhaust. That large a coordinated over reaction is a type of media hysteria, and when people over-react with such intensity, it is an indicator of psychological denial and propaganda; that there is a dangerous truth in the suggestion.

And of course, any time a popular belief has all the normals convinced and feeling righteous, you can bet it's the result of successful mind-control campaigning. Because, yes, people really are that stupid. Even the nice ones.

The question is not whether CO2 causes the climate to warm. The question is how much.

The application of basic physics says the climate will warm about a degree for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. The alarmists postulate some kind of positive feedback that causes the planet to warm much more. The evidence to support that hypothesis is quite weak.

The skeptics like to point out that CO2 is plant food. It enables the world to produce more nutrition for the huddled billions. In that regard, CO2 sequestration is a dumb idea.

We should soon know who is right. There is a famous bet between an alarmist and a Russian scientist. The bet is whether the climate will cool between now and 2017. http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/21/scientists-of-the-russian-academy-of-sciences-global-warming-is-coming-to-an-end-return-to-early-1980s-level/

Those who think solar activity controls the climate point out that we are in for a serious slump in sunspots similar to what we had in previous cool periods. In any event, we should see who is right within the next decade. Our problem could be global cooling. That, if we take a lesson from history, is a much more serious problem than warming. We may look back at the idea of sequestration as idiotic.

Since there are a slew of climate scientists who claim the IPCC is making many absurd claims, you come off as the real denier for cherry-picking who you pay attention to. You just can't stand being wrong so you've doubled down on your cultism.

You are ignoring the work of REAL scientists, not those backed by governments that stand to gain hugely by the changes they wish to force upon us.

Sorry pal, but the world has woken up to the massive scam you nearly succeeding in pulling over on the world - now the earth will go on just as it did, in some centuries warmer, in some cooler. But 20 years hence when there's not a problem to be found YOU and your puppeteers will not be able to claim credit for it.

For some reason that link did not show up.

Here it is again.

Ever think that you might be the uninformed citizen?

If you accept the theory that c02 causes significant warming why is it getting cooler?
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/16/alfred-wegener-institute-neumayer-station-iii-antarctic-cooling-over-the-last-30-years/

Apparently you do not live in a cold climate, or didn't turn on the news.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/21/moscow-shivering-in-coldest-winter-in-100-years/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80%932011_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland/

Even Florida was cold.
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/weather1/entries/2011/03/09/florida_winter_was_states_10th.html/

Whether it's a naturally occurring cycle, or human caused, we need to figure out the root cause so we can figure out how to counteract the effects.

Can you explain how you would counteract a naturally occurring cycle as explained in the NOAA article? And, more importantly, why would you want to?

The main culprit behind the cold temperatures in December 2010 was the same one which caused the cold winter of 2009-2010; a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). When these atmospheric oscillations are in the strong negative phase, they essentially “flip” the weather pattern across North America, with upper-level high pressure and relative warmth over Greenland and Northeastern Canada and upper-level low pressure and cold over the eastern Continental United States, including Florida (Figure 1). This pattern forces the jet stream to plunge south from northern Canada into the southeastern U.S., transporting Arctic air masses into Florida.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/mfl/news/2010WxSummary.pdf/

It is never good when non-native flora or fauna are introduced into an ecosystem--there are always consequences. Messing around with established weather patterns/phases could be catastrophic.

You sound like a green politico that slept during the few physics classes in his curriculum (that's a diminuitive). The goal of power generation is generating reliable power, not jobs. This is Germany's STRONG position.

This green tech ?

Strenght in green energy, like this ? ROFL.

Technically "meltdown" simply means failure of the primary cooling system. And it most certainly failed, after standing up to catastrophic events far beyond their rated capacity.

So the reactors technically went into meltdown ... and were brought out again before anything actually melted. A number of indirectly neutron-activated elements, secondary byproducts of the fission reaction, were released into the air, and are totally harmless by now. In fact, over 99% of the Iodine-131 is Xenon by now.

In reality, in Japan :
-> Solar power killed dozens of people (people installing them during the quake, and a few people who got smashed by falling panels)
-> Wind power likewise killed a few people, who were repairing a mast
-> Oil based power killed hundreds of people, due to explosions in refineries and power plants
-> Nuclear power actually got close at one point, to (indirectly) kill 1 person. That person is recovering, and will make a full recovery in less than a month's time
Deaths per TWh energy (obviously discounting little details like the gulf wars, which only the absurdly naive claim have nothing to do with fossil fuels)

So ... which is the safest energy source ? Nuclear power is FAR safer than solar power. More than 3x as many people have died from the consequences of using solar power than have died from nuclear power. This is taking into account that we have solar for 10 years, and nuclear for 60, and solar power is not contributing significant energy right now. In other words : the number for nuclear power is likely to not rise at all, and the number of deaths due to solar power is very likely to rise phenomenally.

In any sane society or media, Fukushima would be a very strong argument about how extremely safe nuclear power really is, and how it can stand up to disasters far bigger than what it was built for. In a sane media articles like this would be published, because any panic about nuclear effects will easily kill 10x as many people as the nuclear incidents themselves, just due to traffic accidents.

Additionally, without nuclear fission reactors, we would not be able to do half the medical scans that yearly save tens thousands of lives in the US and all over the world ... Tracers in blood are dependant on nuclear power reactors, for example. In reality nuclear power saves FAR more people than it kills.

Any sane society would build more nuclear power reactors, and pour money into further research into things like nuclear fission, fusion, and whatever. Cheap, safety is far beyond any other power source, portable, absurdly small amounts of fuel needed, and, ironically, less toxic than solar panels, and far less mechanically dangerous than wind power, and let's just shut up about fossil fuels and their wars, or coal ... what possible other thing could you ask for in a power source ?

And why the fuck are we focusing on this ? Some 10000 people died due to many different reasons, all of which basically boil down to direct effects of the force of nature. To all of the media their deaths are merely a tool to implement their preferred policy, which is, for reasons I cannot fathom, anti-nuclear.