Slashdot Mirror

The EU just abandoned their 2050 climate goals because there was no chance of reaching it. And Germany has seen coal use slightly rise over the last 10 years - no chance of meeting their own 2020 and 2030 commitments.

The future isn't solar and wind (because it's not working); it's nuclear. That is the only way forward out of pollution and limited power.

Germany is set to phase out coal-fired power stations by 2038: https://www.ft.com/content/cfa... Both Nucear and Coal will be killed off by the free market for the simple reason that Nuclear and Coal are the two most expensive options available in terms of LCOE and the only remaining fossil full that can compete with terrestrial wind and solar in terms of cost-effectiveness is natural gas. Isn't the free market wonderful?

The EU just abandoned their 2050 climate goals because there was no chance of reaching it. And Germany has seen coal use slightly rise over the last 10 years - no chance of meeting their own 2020 and 2030 commitments.

The future isn't solar and wind (because it's not working); it's nuclear. That is the only way forward out of pollution and limited power.

It was in the news worldwide, man.

Look at the total cyclonic energy over a longer term, you'll see it's trending down over the last 25-26 years. Or is a trend of a few years enough to consider it now on a permanent rise?

Explain this. Falling accumulated cyclone energy over the last 25 years. Go ahead, how does a model that predicts increasing cyclonic energy match actual measurements stating otherwise.

Too bad those assumptions and this paper do not match reality which shows the last 25 years having a decreasing trend in accumulated cyclone energy. When theory and assumptions conflict with data - data should win.

This reports is a hoax, yes. It uses "high resolution simulations" to reach its conclusions. Computer models. We have actual data that says otherwise. So which do you choose to believe? Models or data?

Cyclone energy isn't increasing. Tornadoes are trending down. And the temperature record only shows an increasing trend after heavy editing and "adjusting". The data doesn't support your claims or conclusions, but the models do. So which do you trust - data or models?

We have actual data that says accumulated cyclone energy is decreasing over the last 25 years. Why would you go with a simulation about what supposedly happened, when you can look at the actual data? This is part of the reason so many (including myself) are skeptical of the whole AGW things - it's based on models and projections, but the models don't match reality. If your model doesn't actually match what's happening, then I'm certainly going to give VERY little credence to your claims about what could happen.

Even then, you have to be aware of the "data" as it's presented, because often it is massaged a massive amount to turn a decreasing trend into an increasing trend. And even rewrite history. Simulations over data, data "corrected" to turn downward trends into upward trends, and historical values and records rewritten to "prove" the models. It's a house of cards built on shifting sand, and this paper is just adding another wing to that trembling structure.

Climate is global; Florida is local. Since the 1990s, accumulated cyclone energy has been trending down meaning less hurricane and storm energy overall. If there are more deaths in Florida, it is perhaps due to a 50% increase in population since 2000. More people living in a dangerous area means more deaths.

The market has said wholesale costs have gone down(see the closure of the coal plant and the reduction of wholesale prices as the reason). Retail has gone up and their are many reasons for this.

I am saying the fossil fuel power plants do not need to pay their capital costs and can charge lower or make bigger profits, their choice.

How do you explain New South Wales having the 2nd highest power costs? They did not build renewables and still have the 2nd highest price.
https://www.thegwpf.com/green-...

Interesting fact, Germany makes more money selling electricity to France then France makes in reverse.

We have gone from having close to the cheapest electricity in the world to among the most expensive. We have all the feeder stock we need — coal, gas and uranium — yet electricity prices have doubled in a decade.

The Australian Energy Market Operator report released this week on the reliability of the electricity system points to the reasonably high likelihood of demand exceeding supply in South Australia and Victoria in the coming summer, with reliability a continuing issue for the next few years in these two states. After 2022 and in the event of the closure of the 2000-megawatt Liddell coal-fired power station in the Hunter Valley, the reliability of the supply of electricity in NSW becomes increasingly problematic.

https://www.thegwpf.com/green-...

I am sure the people paying the electric bills are equally impressed with your reasoning.

I used Google as one of my spell checkers. I thought it'd be easier to lump that in with my browser internal spell checker and the dictionary app included with Mac OSX. Google "auto corrects" that with "non-dispatchable", BTW, so let's go with that instead. It still makes my browser highlight it as a misspelling but it at least doesn't make my head hurt to read it.

Since you made me doubt myself and go back to Google I'll discuss what I found clicking on some of the links. We seem to agree on what defines dispatchable power. With non-dispatchable I'll see some that call this only reliable power sources like coal and nuclear. That would mean wind and solar would be defined as intermittent. If wind, solar, coal, and nuclear are lumped together as non-dispatchable then the distinction is made between base power and intermittent power.

So, there seems to be two camps that divide the power sources differently. Those that define two groups, dispatchable and non-dispatchable, they still separate non-dispatchable into base and intermittent. Those that define three main groups do away with "non-dispatchable" and group power into dispatchable, base, and intermittent. Perhaps some of this distinction comes from the idea that "dispatchable" means it can be managed on a fine gradient. This leave "non-dispatchable" meaning if the power is there then it must be taken.

Nuclear power is sometimes considered neither dispatchable nor non-dispatchable as it cannot be given fine control but it can be refused. Refusing to take nuclear power can be for many reasons, including economic, physical, and legal. In Germany they are sometimes forced to refuse nuclear power as the law defines solar and wind as "non-dispatchable" and therefore must be bought at the price defined by law even if cheaper nuclear is available. Nuclear can be considered non-dispatchable as it is very inexpensive. Output can be changed but changing output suddenly, up or down, causes physical stresses and may involve penalties by some regulator for imposing such stresses or forcing the purchase of more expensive power. Changing output back to where it was quickly may be impossible physically due to the build up of elements in the reactor, as well as the stress it can cause on the reactor. This may simply mean that nuclear is "non-dispatchable" not that it can't be refused but that it won't.

What it comes down to, by my understanding, is that defining wind and solar as non-dispatchable can only be due to legal reasons. In many cases wind and solar will in fact be more expensive than natural gas but the utility cannot refuse or "dispatch" this power legally. The non-dispatchable nature may exist solely in law not due to economic pressure or physical limitation like what often happens with nuclear power.

What some may not realize is that by refusing or "dispatching" nuclear power the costs to the nuclear power plant now increase. They are still paying for rent, insurance, staff, and so on, but they can't sell. So when they do have the chance to sell power their spot energy prices just went up.

No wonder Germany's electricity prices are so high, they are forced to pay for the expensive wind and solar and then also pay the nuclear power engineers and technicians to sit on their hands with an idle plant until the wind stops and the sun doesn't shine.

A bit from the Wall Street Journal (via non-paywalled site) on the electricity crisis in Germany:
https://www.thegwpf.com/german...

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...

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...

A Swedish study showed that battery production emits between 150 kg and 200 kg of CO2 for each KW of capacity. Production of a 100KW Tesla battery emits 17.5 tons of CO2.

"The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high CO2 emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory."
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-st...

Basically, we're fucked as long as we want to drive big cars. A smaller VW Golf with a 2 litre engine emits 119g/km. So one must drive 147.000 kilometers to emit as much as the production of one 100KW battery. That's about 8 years of driving in Europe...

Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, stated: "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more. ... That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there."

...and I certainly don't want to pay taxes to the "world" at large.

Unfortunately, that's the entire premise of UN climate policy. In a 2010 interview with Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III, he stated: "One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy ... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more. ... That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there."

The IPCC is nothing more than a cleverly-assembled government-supported lobbying organization, which seeks to enrich the UN by putting it in charge of "solving" climate change. If the UN fails to find manmade global warming to be a problem, it no longer has a reason to continue the climate panel, and therefore can't be in charge of proposing "solutions" to climate change. How many bureaucracies across history have returned reports stating that there was no reason for their own existence?

Make the most of this coming summer because it could be your last decent one: winter is coming as the planet enters the most devastating cooling period since the 65-year Maunder Minimum of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

This is the dire forecast of Professor Valentina Zharkova, a solar physicist at Northumbria University, who has based her prediction on sun spot activity – known to be a significant driver of global climate – which is currently very low and likely to get even lower during the next three solar cycles.

She has spoken about her research and her battle to get it taken seriously by the climate establishment in an interview with the Global Warming Policy Forum. You can see it in this short film

Make the most of this summer because it could be your last decent one: winter is coming as the planet enters the most devastating cooling period since the 65-year Maunder Minimum of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

This is the dire forecast of Professor Valentina Zharkova, a solar physicist at Northumbria University, who has based her prediction on sun spot activity – known to be a significant driver of global climate – which is currently very low and likely to get even lower during the next three solar cycles.

She has spoken about her research and her battle to get it taken seriously by the climate establishment in an interview with the Global Warming Policy Forum. You can see it in this short film.

First off, that's a horrible chart to be referencing, as it's a prediction output from a simple climate model. But let's look at it anyway. At 2000Gt of CO2, we have about 1.2C. double the output to 4000Gt (although I don't know if that will double the concentration in the atmosphere) and we get around 2.4C. Double that agian to 8000Gt, and that puts us up around the 4C mark. So even though this chart is talking about human CO2 output and not the concentration in the atmosphere, it is still giving us roughly 1.2C per doubling.

There are numerous sources for this value, including the IPCC. They give a value of 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. You can derive the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and calculate the temperature increase.
References to 1.2C per doubling found using a quick google search:
http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/cli...
http://www.climate-skeptic.com...
https://judithcurry.com/2010/1...
https://climateaudit.org/2008/...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ri...

In this Science Friday interview, DJ Patil says that the climate data is available for anyone to download and that the results are so overwhelmingly clear that anyone can analyse the data and see the human impact. I never thought this type of analysis was so accessible. I am wondering if anyone here on slashdot has tried to look at the data themselves.

Problem is, when you give a denier all the data, he'll pick out the cherries that prove his point and throw away the rest. Always.

Case in point: http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-sea-ice-grows-back-to-2006-levels/ - "Sea ice charts for 18 January from NSIDC Masie show exactly as much sea ice in 2017 as there was back in 2006 – 13.4 million km^2."

So out of all the sea ice data sets they present this single point. When the documentation for that set specifically mentions

While operational analyses are usually the most accurate and timely representation of sea ice, they have errors and biases that change over time. If one is interested in long-term trends in sea ice or how it responds to changing climate forcing, generally, it is best not to use an operational product, but rather one that is consistently produced and retroactively quality controlled. The NSIDC Sea Ice Index monthly ice extent, and the satellite passive microwave data sets upon which it is based, is one example. The Sea Ice Index gives a daily image of extent as well as monthly products. However, these daily images are not meant to be used for climate studies or for inferring anything longer than seasonal trends.

You've been reading the bollocks on this subject then. They weren't caused by droughts, they were caused by an increase in global commodity prices - mostly food prices. That's what happens when the biggest grain producer in the world is run by credulous fucktard politicians who start mandating a certain percentage of the crop be turned into biofuel rather than bread. People like you probably supported it.

Here's a curvball for you: The Sahara Desert has been greening.

Buttfucked. Bend over more sonny.

Global land temperatures are dropping faster than a cheerleader's panties on Prom night. The significance of land temperatures is the land has less thermal inertia than oceans so changes are more apparent over land. What does it mean, firstly El Nino is over and La Nina is starting and secondly all of the "record high temps" that were mostly due to the El Nino lately will come to and end and possibly the Hiatus will return.