The single biggest problem with the Left’s “climate” agenda is that the proposed response to the alleged crisis — replacement of fossil fuels in the energy system with intermittent wind-and-sun-based electricity generation — is not going to work. This is obvious to anyone who considers the subject seriously for any amount of time. Yet any mention of this issue has been almost completely banished from the mainstream media, from academia, from government, and from social media. It remains to a few lonely voices (such as, here in New York, myself, Roger Caiazza, and Ken Girardin of the Empire Center) to keep the subject in the public consciousness.
As small and lonely as our voices may be, somehow we must be getting under their skin. We know that because increasingly officialdom feels a need to respond publicly to our criticisms. But how can they give a plausible response, given that we are absolutely right and a wind-and-sun-based electricity system is never going to work? Easy! — Just treat the public like morons. Give answers that don’t make any sense while appealing to apparent authority, and expect the public to accept the answers without asking probing questions.
On March 17, Ken Girardin of the Empire Center think tank picked up on a press release just issued from an agency called NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Agency — the people in charge of the transition to “renewable” energy in New York) requesting proposals for what are described as “Public Relations Services” to assist “in developing a narrative around New York State’s clean energy and climate priorities.” In the next breath, NYSERDA discloses that a focus of the public relations effort will be “being able to rapidly respond to negative viewpoints and perceptions about the State’s climate and clean energy goals under the Climate Act, the costs associated with the Climate Act, and challenges to particular policies and programs.” Funny how these negative “viewpoints and perceptions” keep popping up. NYSERDA indicates that it is initially putting up $500,000 of taxpayer money to fund this effort, although it “reserves the right to extend and/or add funding to the Solicitation should other program funding sources become available.” Responses are due April 8.
While we await the hiring of these pricey professionals, NYSERDA is doing some of its own in-house PR to respond to the pesky critics. Caiazza has a post on March 23 reporting on the issuance on March 21 of an email blast by NYSERDA announcing something they call their “Solar Quiz.” Here is the excited introduction:
You may already know that solar panels convert the sun’s free and abundant light into electricity. Pretty great, right? So, we thought we’d give you a quick quiz to test your solar smarts.
The Solar Quiz consists of six questions, of which only the first two go to substantive issues of whether this is a viable source of electricity to power the grid. Here is question number one, with the full answer:
Q: Do solar panels work on cloudy days?
A: Yes! Because the panels collect light, they still function on cloudy days even though efficiency is somewhat reduced.
I like the exclamation point after the “Yes.” But is the reduction in electricity output from solar panels on a cloudy day a little or a lot? And does it make any difference to whether you can match supply to demand to make the grid function? Don’t expect answers to those kinds of questions here. This quiz is for dummies.
Caiazza helpfully supplies a photograph of a weather station in Buffalo on March 23 at 10:15 AM, plus a graph of weather data from the same site for the seven days leading up to noon on the same date. The weather station is situated in the midst of a large array of solar panels, so you can get an idea what the conditions were like for the generation of electricity on that day (the third day of spring!):
And here is Caiazza’s graph of data from the weather station:
The red and green lines are temperature and dew point, while the harder-to-see yellow line, showing “insolation,” is the one we are interested in. Although it is faint, it looks like the yellow line didn’t even make it up to 200 at noon on March 23, compared to maxing out at over 800 on the sunny days of the 17th, 20th and 21st. So the “somewhat reduced efficiency” alluded to by NYSERDA can easily be a reduction of 75% or more. And note that reduced “insolation” is not the only thing degrading the performance of these particular solar panels. How about the fact that they are covered in snow? From the photograph, it looks highly doubtful that these panels were producing any meaningful amount of electricity after that snowstorm.
Question number two in NYSERDA’s Solar Quiz is even more insulting to the intelligence of the reader:
Q: If I have solar panels, will my house still have energy at night?
A: Yes. Solar-powered homes collect excess energy and pass it to the grid for future use, and if you don’t have excess energy stored you pull energy from the grid at any time, like when it’s dark. Another option for night-time energy use is on-site battery storage, which collects excess energy and saves it for when it’s needed.
This is George Kamburoff-level critical thinking. Caiazza comments:
This is egregious misinformation. . . . In my opinion the worst subsidy for residential solar is the unacknowledged cost to provide grid energy when the sun does not shine. Somebody else is paying for the infrastructure (storage or alternative sources) necessary so that solar-equipped residences can “pull energy from the grid at any time”. Inevitably the “net-metering” rules will have to be changed so this subsidy is reduced or eliminated. The mention of on-site battery storage is a start, but the reality is that the largest reliability cost is associated with extreme conditions and providing enough solar panels and energy storage to start to address that problem is uneconomic for an individual.
Nothing complicated there. But NYSERDA either is treating the public like morons, or alternatively they are morons themselves and don’t understand why what they are proposing can’t work. (Of course, it could be both.)
While we wait to see how our new professional spin-meisters are going to up the game of the New York energy propaganda machine, let’s check in with similar efforts from the other side of the globe. In Australia, the state-run Australian Broadcasting Corporation has an official “fact-checking” service called CheckMate. From the information on their web page, they seem to have two mottos: “Your inoculation against misinformation,” and “Fearlessly follow the facts no matter where they lead.”
In their fact check of March 22, CheckMate addresses the question “Can a country run entirely on renewable energy?” It seems that an Australian businessman named Dick Smith appeared on a Sydney radio station called 2GB earlier this week, and was quoted as saying “Look, I can tell you, this claim by the CSIRO that you can run a whole country on solar and wind is simply a lie. . . . It is not true. They are telling lies. No country has ever been able to run entirely on renewables — that’s impossible.” (CSIRO is the official government-supported scientific groupthink agency. The acronym stands for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.). So, ABC, is there anything to Mr. Smith’s assertion?
Here’s their answer:
[E]xperts consulted by RMIT ABC Fact Check suggested Mr Smith’s statement doesn’t hold up.
Oh, really? What experts, exactly? And how do they back that up?
Mark Diesendorf, an expert on sustainable energy and energy policy from the University of New South Wales, labelled Mr Smith’s assertions as “incorrect”. “Several countries (and Tasmania) already run their electricity systems on 100 per cent renewables,” he said in an email, noting that such places relied heavily on hydro power.
Sure, a handful of tiny-population countries, like Albania, Bhutan and Iceland, that happen to have lots of hydro or geothermal power can run on that. But Smith said the thing that was impossible was running on “solar and wind.” What’s the response to that? ABC goes to its next “expert”:
Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering at the Australian National University’s Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster solutions, told Fact Check: “Several detailed studies show that [getting to] 100 per cent renewables based mostly on solar and wind is quite straightforward, provided that enough transmission and storage is built.”
“Detailed studies” show that it can work. So you say. But what is the country that has been able to run 100% on solar and wind, thus refuting Smith? He can’t name it. It doesn’t exist.
And then ABC resorts to the ultimate charlatan, Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford:
When it came to regions with a comparable or greater population size to that of Australia, Professor Jacobson pointed to the US state of California, which has a population of around 39 million. As of Tuesday this week, he said, the state, which is aiming for 100 per cent carbon-free electricity by 2045, had “been running on more than 100 per cent WWS for 10 out of the last 11 days for between 0.25 and 6 hours per day”.
Aha! So it counts as “running a whole country on wind and solar” if you can accomplish the feat for between 0.25 and 6 hours per day on 10 of 11 cherry-picked days? This is how they refute Mr. Smith.
I know that neither the American nor Australian public pays much close attention to the details of how the electricity grid works. But I also don’t think the respective publics are at nearly the level of idiocy that officialdom would place them. It is truly shocking that they have no better answers than these, even as they press forward to transform the energy systems without any indication that the transformation will work. Show us the working demonstration project!
They maybe having doubts. Michigan is restarting a nuclear plant (Palisades) in southern Michigan. We shut to many coal lands and rely on magi.
Shut down in 2022. “Will receive up to a $1.52 billion conditional loan from the U.S. Department of Energy.” Shutting down was relatively cheap, fortunately they did not blow it up. After fifty years of production, there are concerns about its age.
Germany should be restarting their nuclear reactors.
Once they try everything else they will do that, or a new government will.
“Yet any mention of this issue has been almost completely banished from the mainstream media”
This is because it runs counter-narrative and is automatically rejected by August MSM narrative-checking bodies like BBC Falsify etc.
In this paradigm you have to mobilise every retired [and cancelled?] scientist who no longer needs the funding etc, every voice who is able to poke an evidence-based scientific middle digit at the man without incurring financial loss.
But then, that doesn’t address the problem of what is being taught in schools and universities. That too has to be corrected.
“But then, that doesn’t address the problem of what is being taught in schools and universities. That too has to be corrected.”
Particularly Journalism departments.
… and the Stanford Engr dept(s).
The fact that Mark Jacobson, as wrong as he is, doesn’t have any significant Stanford critics & is still allowed to teach his 200 level garbage courses is sad.
It doesn’t say much for science and scientists- that if they are NOT retired that they’re not likely to speak the truth if they doubt the climate lunacy. I thought the goal of science and scientists was to always seek the truth. If they don’t- then when can we trust them?
Peer review…..
Do you trust all of it?
A lot of people just keep their head down and go with the flow, and keep their opinions to themselves.
The novel “1984” decribes the mindset of people who are in a stituation like the one found on campus today.
Enforced Groupthink causes people to keep their opinions to themselves, in order to save themselves from a lot of trouble..
I didn’t do that as a forester in Wokeachusetts for 50 years. If I had kept my mouth shut about the incompetence and corruption I saw- I could have gotten a state job- with a very good salary and not having to work hard- and now I’d have a fantastic pension. But I bucked the system as I couldn’t stand their policies and most of their people. I would have had no self respect if I had taken the easy way. So now I have a very low social security check/month- but I’m used to low income so it’s OK and I still have my self respect. They once locked me out of the entire state’s internet email system so I couldn’t email any other agency or politician. My buddy, an attorney, threatened to sue them and they backed off, saying it was just a glitch. Then, they tried to bust me twice in the forester license board for having challenged policies- which of course went against my freedom of speech- so I got the ACLU involved, and they threatened the state- which really shook them up- and they backed down again. After that, they just decided to ignore me.
So, in conclusion, I don’t respect people in professional work who won’t speak up about incompetence and corruption, just to keep their nice job.
Here’s an amazing article describing how self censorship works, not sure if it’s behind paywall
https://www.thefp.com/p/an-illustrated-guide-to-self-censorship
story tip
I received an email from Roger Pielke, Jr. about a story on a blog. It struck me as important.
This post, by Rob Lewis at The Climate According to Life, provides a wonderful overview of my father’s research on the complexities of climate and ecology. I enjoyed it and I think you will also.
Are Ecology and Climate the Same Thing?
This scientist thinks so.
ROB LEWIS
MAR 28
Are Ecology and Climate the Same Thing.
I would say they maybe closely related, and let us not forget that relationships may change, but they are not the same thing. Niches open and close. Animals compete, some win and some lose.
“I had meant to have ready a piece called “Is Ecology and Climate the Same Thing?” But that of course was being overly optimistic. In the meantime I offer this poem”
Not sure where this person is at?
The Great State of California is a parasite (from Wikipedia):
“California is part of the Western Interconnection, with transmission lines connecting to the Pacific Northwest including the California Oregon Intertie (with a capacity of almost 5 GW) as well as the Pacific DC Intertie, a HVDC line with a capacity of 3.1 GW which brings (predominantly hydroelectric) power from the Pacific Northwest to the Los Angeles area. From Utah, another HVDC line, Path 27, provides coal generated electricity to Los Angeles. From the Southeast, Path 46 brings up to 10.6 GW of electricity from sources including hydroelectric, fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar from generating stations in Nevada and Arizona.“
That’s the price for cutting off fossil fuel production and refining.
And at what point does imported power become intermittent like renewables when external sources can’t keep up with local plus California demand?
Great post!
And California’s ties into that interconnect is the only thing that allows the state to currently claim that only 49% of California-generated electrical power comes from fossil fuels . . . the sleight-of-hand being that California does not account for how much electricity imported from other states is generated using fossil fuels.
Californians can feel better about themselves by not seeing the smoke stack from a power plant when they look out the window. Don’t forget that.
G’Day John,
Keeping an eye on how much power California is importing, I see in the past few days that at midnight the amount is between 5,000 and 6,000 MW.
https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html
An interesting site to check daily.
Presently the United States consumes 122 Quadrillion BTUs [that is 122 with 15 zeros or 122,000,000,000,000,000 Btu] of energy per year. 110 of that is Fossil or not designated as renewable, e.g. Nuclear. Of the 12 Quadrillion obtained from “Renewable” only 1/3 comes from Wind/Solar. Also, about 1/3 of the so called renewable, e.g. biomass, ethanol, etc., emits CO2.
A solar panel, regardless of how “Efficient” it is can only produce name plate rated power for less than six hours a day with no interruptions by clouds or shadows from trees. Factoring in the the potential areas of the US as shown on the maps of available solar energy shows that less than 1/4 of the US will even provide rated name plate power for even six hours a day. https://www.altestore.com/diy-solar-resources/solar-insolation-map-usa/
The same is also true for Wind Power. https://www.windsolarenergy.org/map-of-best-locations-for-wind-power.htm
It is worse than what you state: the “name plate” power of a PV module refers to the output under very specific standard conditions of operating temperature (not ambient T), total irradiance, and the spectral distribution of the irradiance. The amount of time a real module might experience these conditions in any given month of operation is actually quite small (if ever, this is highly site-dependent).
Then there is the efficiency of the DC to AC converters. Need AC for long distance transmission. The efficiency varies with load demand. Best case is 95%.
And, inverters have a voltage “window”, outside of which they shut themselves down. If the light is too low, or it is too high, the power out is zero.
DC is used for long distance, though the voltage used is multiple orders of magnitude greater than the voltages produced by solar cells.
Even if there are DC to DC converters capable of increasing voltages by that much, their efficiency is going to be worse than 95%.
Another analysis calculates that to reach current energy needs with solar would require solar panels occupying ~25% of the continental US surface area.
And that probably assumes that the panels will cover 100% of the surface of those regions.
Look at pictures of any solar farm. None of them come close to 100% coverage.
Then there are the line losses incurred when you move the electricity from where it is generated, to where it is needed.
That’s 6 hours a day, during the summer.
During the winter, because of the lower angle of the sun, it’s unlikely that these same panels will reach rated power even once from mid-fall to mid-spring.
You are not considering the nighttime generation from the moon. Also, in Spain it was discovered some enterprising solar farm operators had hooked up fossil fueled powered generators and were producing at night! So that overcomes the “six hours a day” limitations.
“As small and lonely as our voices may be, somehow we must be getting under their skin.”
Thank you for doing so, and please keep up the good work.
A truly great picture to head the article!
Thanks
This answer actually isn’t wrong, but it is highly misleading because NYSERDA deliberately conflated power (in W/m2) and efficiency (in %).
“Efficiency” is not equal to “power delivered”. Efficiency of photovoltaics is not a trivial subject, but fundamentally it is the ratio of power delivered to power input from the sun and sky. It is strongly dependent on operating temperature and the spectrum of the incident light.
What it ducks is that if, for example, the PV system is 15% efficient at full sun (1000 W/m2) and 14% under cloudy skies (200 W/m2), the output power is 150 W/m2 versus 28 W/m2. This is the point they avoided like the plague.
The other “FAQ” about night is hand-waving, the only way a PV system can deliver useful power at night is with battery backup.
Blakers (who I remember from his time at UNSW decades ago) is also hand-waving.
hmmm… interesting- so, the 14% figure on a cloudy day- simply means that 14% of the low light is being captured- yes, that is misleading if it’s compared to the 15% at full sun- gonna remember this trick
Yes, it was quite deceptive, assuming the NYSERDA person knows the difference between the two.
Even better, the cost depreciation is exactly the same whether the day is cloudy or sunny. 🙂
“assuming the NYSERDA person knows the difference between the two.”
Another good point.
And, your providing the actual output for both situations tells the real story.
You forget about all the nighttime ambient light generated by streetlights (/sarc).
Duh!
When someone uses vague language, they are often trying to cover something up.
“somewhat reduced”, implies that the reduction is small. In reality it can easily be 80% or more.
I have done that experiment in Alberta, where the AESO page updates every 30 seconds, park by a wind farm on the Transcanada, in Brooks, on a partly clear day.
as a cloud scuds over the output drops instantly from 15mw to 3 or 4.
‘Somebody else is paying for the infrastructure (storage or alternative sources) necessary so that solar-equipped residences can “pull energy from the grid at any time”. Inevitably the “net-metering” rules will have to be changed so this subsidy is reduced or eliminated.’
This wasn’t the main focus of the article, but until these very costly subsidies become blatantly obvious to ratepayers, and subsequently to the politicians that either passively or actively support ‘net zero’, there is very little chance of stopping this train before it collapses the economy.
The main problem with net metering is that both the distribution and transmission systems are sized to perform on the basis of each system’s ‘coincident peak’, which isn’t affected by the amount of renewable energy generated. And since the costs of these systems need to be paid for, any reduction in the amount collected from, or any subsidy amount paid to, net metering customers result in substantial increases in the amounts paid by other customers.
A second problem with net metering is that allowing these customers to access conventional generation at any time in effect grants these customers a valuable ‘real option’ for free, which again must be paid for by other customers.
Hey! . . . is that lead-in photo really a picture of a younger Joe Biden? You know, before he lost his hair (not his ambition) and became feeble?
This is obvious to anyone who considers the subject seriously for any amount of time.
Well the climate changers even have a problem with time and keeping an eye on the clock-
Global warming may be slowing Earth’s spin and affecting how we keep time (msn.com)
I don’t make this stuff up. These people are experts with big compooters and letters after their names.
We adjust our clocks by 1 second in 2026.
Now the real question is, what are the effects due to the variable planetary rate of rotations on climate?
I’ve seen about a dozen articles in the last two days about this subject.
The Climate Alarmists have an echo chamber, paid for by leftwing billionaires, and this one is echoing loudly.
I guess it seems significant to the writers: Human-caused Climate Change can do anything! Even change the Earth’s rotation!
There are a lot of delusional people populating this world. The Western world, anyway. CO2-phobia is causing some people to become irrational and incapable of discerning reality from fantasy.
Climate Change Alarmists see Human-caused Climate Change in everything. They are finding what they expect to find. They are living in a False Reality. Unfortunately, most of our Western leaders are also living in that False Reality and their CO2-phobia is causing them to wreck the economies of the Western world by forcing unworkable solutions like trying to power our economies with windmills and solar.
There is a lot of money going into promoting this Climate Alarmist False Reality.
Even so, climate change is usually the last on the list when people are polled as to what is most important to them.
Coveringclimatenow.org
star chamber
I saw another half dozen articles on this subject again this morning.
A dozen or more authors take the same story and add their slight changes to it to make it their own, and then publish it.
Climate change isn’t the only subject where this is done, but it is probably the subject where most duplicate stories are done.
“Solar-powered homes collect excess energy and pass it to the grid for future use”.
The moron who wrote this doesn’t seem to realise that electricity grids cannot do this.
Power distribution now and has been for over a hundred years, is similar to a spider web with the source of generation in the center.
When relying on “Distributed Generation” when a storm passes over the one area of the county you are in a large portion of the power has to come from the opposite side of the county. That means that the power is going in the opposite direction to serve the area under the storm. However every high voltage transmission line spoking out to the edges of the county from the power source in the center have “Reverse Current Trips” designed to protect the power distribution network. when that braker trips there will be NO power on those distribution lines. Solving these problems will mean a dozen or more “Sub Stations” and about a $100 million per county to fix and a 20 -30% increase in the cost of your electricity.
Same effect will also be cause if using Wind Turbines.
This is one reason why current generating plants were located close to the end users. It’s not that there weren’t fairly long distance transmission lines but the loss of one of those lines didn’t take down whole networks.
The ABC fact checking clowns had to issue a public apology to Dick Smith for getting its facts wrong.
Their motto should be ” Fiction Is Fact In Our World”
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/dick-smith-receives-apology-from-abc-after-flawed-rmit-fact-check-which-falsely-claimed-he-rejected-renewables/news-story/f5eecd7748dc8b08bc8ba41819e30602
Note that the article doesn’t identify the four countries purportedly running entirely on renewables (more than wind plus solar?).
Investigation will show that they have enough mountains with rivers to achieve this.
Wasn’t long ago that the greenies rejected hydro as being a renewable source.
One thing they always fail to mention is that the same people who hate fossil fuels, also hate dams, and are working to get all of them removed.
Anyone who claims that hydro, or pumped storage can be used to back up wind and solar, is lying to you.
I believe Finland operates pretty much on 100% hydro electricity… Because they can.
IIR, Norway also has a high proportion of hydro…
.. but of course gets large amounts of income from sales of oil and gas.
Of the four countries mentioned, three do NOT obtain 100% of the electricity from renewables. Albania, Nepal and Bhutan all import a significant percentage of their electricity, mainly from India. So clearly the so-called “experts” were wrong.
Dick Smith’s statement wasn’t restricted to the electrical system. It was for a country running entirely on wind and solar.
For those outside Australia, Mr. Smith built up a chain of electronics hobbyist (and kitsch gadget) stores, which he sold to Woolworths. Woolies proceeded to turn them into second rate appliance stores, which went belly up.
I fondly remember my 50 Electronic Experiments kit, which included small solar panels.
He is also quite keen on solar and wind generation, which was the crux of his complaint.
I moved to my present residence 45 years ago, for the first 30 years I only recall being late for work three or four times because of a power outage caused by a traffic accident, thunderstorm, snowstorm or tornado. Twenty years ago the local electric utility shutdown their nuclear power plan to follow the Green New Dream. Since the NPP was shut down the cost of power has increased by 20% and everyone of my friends and me have experienced an outage of two or more outages per month of more than 15 minutes. Additionally, They, like me have also experienced at least one outage per year lasting more than eight hours that was not caused by weather related conditions but by the failure of sufficient power production from the utility as it increased use of Renewable Power generated by Wind Turbines to 1/3 of the source of power generation required to replace the lost Nuclear Powered Electricity. They are now converting SIX (6) coal fired power plants to Natural Gas to increase reliability because NG is cheaper and the power is needed for the 100,000 new homes in the service area.
Let’s get used to an African style power grid!
The ones where the transmission cables have been stolen.
Is NG cheaper than “renewables”, or than coal?
COAL – NG was at a 12 year low when the made the decision to convert 2 plants and about 2 years ago they decided to convert 4 more. Now about 1/2 the price of 2008.- https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3035ne3m.htm
Few electric utilities own the wind turbines. They contract the price of delivered electricity.
Deniers have no credibility left:
They can cite no evidence or peer reviewed scientific sources that contradict AGWThey have no consistent scientific theory of the behavior of the climate system. It’s ‘every man for himself’ in the Denial CommunityThey cherry pick data and argue illogically.They make flimsy arguments against renewables because they think Climate Activists like renewables. But ask them a technical question, and their brains fall on the floor.Few of them have any scientific education, and as a consequence, their arguments are without scientific foundation, and they think no education is required to understand science. They are living proof of the bankruptcy of these claims.WUWT’s founder, Anthony Watts, claimed he would publish an analysis in a peer reviewed journal proving that the world was not warming. No sign of it yet.Does this quote from Isaac Asimov ring true of Deniers? “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”Anyone like to add to this list? Simon? Nick Stokes? Others?
I think that the new video Climate the Movie – The Cold Truth contradicts just about everything that you say here.
Beetroot is a classic case of a brain-washed muppet…. with very little brain.
Link, please. Six of them.
How dare you ask for data, that just proves that you are anti-science.
Translation: “Waaaaaa! Sombbddy hep me!”
Asking those muppets for help.. talk about dumb, dumber and dumbest !!
Poor beetroot…
You can cite ZERO evidence of warming by human released CO2.
Nobody has to prove a FANTASY wrong.
You have proven time and time again that you are totally DEVOID of any technical or scientific education or knowledge.
You are the very epitome of anti-intellect.
Your comment is just an EMPTY MINDLESS RANT, pertaining to nothing.
I just love the way he whines and wails about how climate skeptics never use data all the while not presenting a single fact to back up any of his wild claims.
It is also amusing how he can’t format his rant in a coherent fashion.
Yeah, how about a paragraph every now and then?
The AGW Group can cite no evidence or peer reviewed scientific sources, excluding Computer model outputs that verify AGW. If so, someone would have a Nobel Prize.
The AGW Group starts their data at the end of the Little Ice Age. They ignore planetary position around the Sun and within the Galaxy. You are also ignoring the truthful facts within the article.
The entire AGW theory is written like a Michael Crichton novel Truthful statements that are actually TRUE LIES.
Warren
let me help you out. We are coming out of the coldest period of the Holocene. The IPCC6 says that the multi decade period in the 20th century had solar maximum activity for a longer span than 90% of the last 9,000 years. We are in the warm phase of the AMO. Urban heat island effect is a real phenomenon. 83% of wetlands in the last few hundred years have been destroyed. Sea level rise rates have not significantly accelerated, even though 50 years ago there were analyses that showed we would have feet of increase by now but it’s only been inches. Sea levels have been rising for 200 years.
All of the above could happen without a bit of help from CO2. It has some effect but natural variability also is involved. I hope this brings clarity to you. The science is against you.
So much hatred, so little actual data. Typical alarmist trying to deal with anyone who just doesn’t accept that the narrative must be beloved and followed.
Nothing you claim is even close to true, and I notice that despite your whines that climate skeptics never present data or logical arguments, it is you who aren’t presenting logic or data. Just tired tropes that are always trotted out whenever someone dares to disagree with the sacred narrative.
Deluded.
Translation:
I am a teenager who can’t get women to like me because I can’t relate to these human beings therefore I visit websites to talk like a snobbish bum to get attention.
He’s a classic seagull troll. Squaks, poops, flies away.
You need to refrain from using the mind altering substances you obviously are attached to.
Your rant is nothing more than a confused ad hominem attack against some amorphous group of people who don’t agree with you. You will never win an argument with your method.
You want some proof, find and post some articles that have verified proof that CO2 is the cause of increased temperatures since the Little Ice Age. There are lots of studies that claim climate change, i.e., CO2 caused warming, is the factor behind the changes they are seeing. Yet none of these ever prove that CO2 is the cause. However, they get counted as studies verifying climate change induced by increased CO2 concentration.
He has no interest in winning arguments or converting others to his point of view.
His sole goal is to feel good about himself.
One way to tell this is that like most of his kind, he drops his load and then skeedadles. We won’t hear from Warren again until it’s time for his regularly scheduled ego boost.
Warren: “Deniers have no credibility left:
They can cite no evidence or peer reviewed scientific sources that contradict AGW”
That’s not how it works, Warren. People who propose climate change theories such as AGW, are the ones required to cite evidence. It is up to climate alarmists to prove their case.
The skeptics’ role is to point out that the climate alarmists have not proven their alarmist climate change claims, if that happens to be the case. It does happen to be the case as Climate Alarmists have not proven their case. Not even close.
Warren: “and they think no education is required to understand science”
The only thing one needs to understand when it comes to climate science is how to tell the difference between evidence and facts, as opposed to speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
Alarmist climate science is made up entirely of speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. There is no evidence that CO2 is discernably affecting either the Earth’s weather or the Earth’s climate. None whatsoever.
You are invited to prove me wrong.
He won’t, like all the others he’ll just run away.
My guess is that he was gone from this site as soon as he posted his second comment.
I know he won’t prove anything because he can’t prove anything because there is no evidence supporting the CO2-is-dangerous theory.
Yes, as soon as you request evidence from climate alarmist trolls, they go silent. And we know why.
Climate Alarmists are *easy pickins'”. All you have to do to shut them up is request evidence.
A few diehards will post a bogus Hockey Stick chart which doesn’t prove a thing even if CO2 does have a measureable warming effect because we don’t know what that warming effect is (lots of guesses) and we don’t know what happens in the Earth’s atmosphere to any heat associated with CO2 (more guesses). Negative feedbacks may neutralize any effects from CO2, and nobody can say different.
The Science is not settled.
I love this quote from Isaac Asimov:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
I’m including it in my Denier’s list
Do you want a prize now?
He can put up right beside all of those participation trophies that he has collected.
Hilarious .. you should try some introspection.
Look in the mirror… you will see a gormless anti-intellectual twit staring back at you.
All you have is your ignorance. !
Come on, beetroot (like a deep-red coloured turnip, with similar mental capacity)…
Tell us what we “deny” that you can provide actual real scientific evidence for…
… that means you have to provide the evidence. or FAIL as usual.
“Tell us what we “deny” that you can provide actual real scientific evidence for…”
I would say there is nothing Warren can provide to defend himself. Warren has no evidence. There is no evidence.
Funny, that quote applies to you best of all.
How convinced you are of your intellectual superiority, all because you agree with all the people you look up to.
So far all you have done is through insults towards anyone who fails to agree with you, without bothering to ever present a single fact to support your wild beliefs.
Like most of your ilk, you define science as anything that supports whatever it is you want to believe, and anti-science as anything you disagree with.
I’m sure all those naked insults have convinced yourself of your emotional and mental superiority, however the only one being laughed at, is you.
It appears you have no dispute with the blogs article which was written by a far better man than you.
Beetroot-brain FAILS UTTERLY to produce anything except zero-intellect idiocy. !
“I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers which cannot be questioned.” — Richard P. Feynman
“What the herd hates the most is the one who thinks differently. It is not so much the opinion itself, as the audacity of wanting to think for themselves. Something they do not know how to do.” — Schopenhauer
“If it smells it’s chemistry, if it crawls it’s biology, if it doesn’t work it’s physics.” — Original source unknown
Solar-powered homes collect excess energy and pass it to the grid for future use,
I have an image of all those electrons looping round the grid until they are needed. Do some end up like The Flying Dutch Dutchman cursed to go round forever?
Texas hailstorm damages thousands of solar panels at 350-MW farm
Texas hailstorm damages thousands of solar panels at 350-MW farm (renewableenergyworld.com)
Reality bites. Solar panels wiped out by normal weather event. Bummer
What do these Hailish storms do to wind turbine blades?
Any system is inherently unreliable if it is dependent upon reliable back-up.
Does the whole facility go off-line with damage like this, or do the solar panels still produce some electricity?
I wonder what the downtime and the costs are going to be?
It depends on the system design — a large array probably has independent inverters for each section, so any undamaged ones should still be operational.
Assuming they are ok, the mounting racks should be reusable, along with the module string wiring. The biggest expense I would expect to be replacement modules. Clean-up could be quite costly depending on what the authorities might require.
This is assuming the owner isn’t going to simply walk away from the mess, of course.
If the panels have been wired in series, then the loss of a single panel means that the entire string is down.
It’s also possible that the inverters need a minimum amount of power on the inputs, before they can operate efficiently.
Big inverters can handle multiple parallel strings; all inverters have a minimum input voltage, below which they shut themselves down.
Another potential problem: the damaged glass compromises the electrical insulation but the modules are still out in the hot Texas sun. It is not hard to imagine ground faults happening, especially if the modules are wet. These can cause DC arcs that can propagate long distances along grid lines, interconnect wires and conduit pipes. Unlike AC systems, the current in a DC arc does not drop to zero 60x (or 50x) each second.
Depends on how the panels are wired. There is not a separate inverter for every panel they are wired in series to achieve a voltage that will work well with the inverter to produce a voltage to feed either the grid or charge a battery. One hailstone in one panel can take the whole string out of service. and if this string is in parallel with other strings then all of those combined strings are useless and could even cause a fire. just one hailstone in one line of panels could take out that entire line. Those lines could be in parallel with others.
Think of several batteries in series with several others in parallel. Drive a nail through any one of the batteries and see what happens. Caution, have a fire extinguisher handy, do not use Li-Ion batteries.
When any power source is wired in parallel, one requirement is that all power sources have to produce power at the same voltage.
If one power source is producing at a lower voltage, then it will end up absorbing power instead of producing it. Current running the wrong way through any electric/electronic device does nothing good.
If one device is producing power at a higher voltage, it will end up trying to support the entire load all by itself, and quickly burn itself out.
A lot of really sophisticated electronics is required to make sure that all sources of power in a system are being synchronized with each other.
Paralleling require blocking diodes so that good strings can’t force bad strings into reverse bias, where the solar cells absorb energy instead of producing. Reverse bias can cause hot spots of > 100°C and melted components.
I find it VERY odd and quite misleading when pro-renewables pundits use hydroelectric and geothermal generation to defend renewables (generally) when the main issues with them are wind and solar. According to the EIA here in the U.S, hydroelectric generation has been on the decline in America since the 1950’s from the removal of dams. And geothermal in the U.S.?
https://tinyurl.com/ymx94ft3
Hydroelectricity generation varies annually, and it’s share of total U.S. electricity generation generally decreased from the 1950’s through 2020, mainly because of increases in electricity generation from other sources. Hydroelectricity’s percentage share of total annual U.S. electricity generation in 2001 through 2022 averaged about 6.7%.
The renewables advocates treat the rest of us like we have the I.Q.’s of a 10-year-old.
Maybe you can run a country on 100% renewables. But for how long, and at what cost? Saying something can be done is not the same as the thing being practical.
Even el Hiero relies on diesel generators to support its wind solar hydro system. So, not possible to be 100% RE.
Often a very large proportion of diesel electricity.
Another academic :-
“Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering at the Australian National University’s Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster solutions, told Fact Check: “Several detailed studies show that [getting to] 100 per cent renewables based mostly on solar and wind is quite straightforward, provided that enough transmission and storage is built.”
There is no other conclusion to that statement but crass stupidity and ignorance. Note the rider, ‘mostly’, mostly could be 51% renewables but the question was runnning at 100% renewables.
If it was so straightforward it would have been done years ago.
Uncontrolled generation can never run a grid, especially with no inertia and reactive power input.
Q: Do solar panels work on cloudy days?
A: Yes! Because the panels collect light, they still function on cloudy days even though efficiency is somewhat reduced.
However, although true, it is what I call a True Lie. Current is needed to make usable power.
As a Ham radio operator I often use a Solar Panel that generates 18 Volts (DC) at 10 amps when properly aimed at the Sun. Even when inside a tent at night with only a lantern on it produces about 12 volts – however, that is the voltage as measured with no load other than the voltmeter. As soon as you attach even the voltage regulator that connects to the battery with the 12 volt battery attached the Voltage drops to zero because the solar energy is insufficient to create any current above a few milliamps. There is insufficient current to even make a 12 volt automotive lamp glow dimly.
Of course any country can be run on renewables!
But first you need to define what “running” means: To run a country – any country – on renewables you must be able to: do without power when the wind doesn’t blow or at night as in A) be able to rely on batteries for emergency power (hospitals, water etc). B) Manage all your transport with charging range of whatever EVs are available (law enforcement, military, emergency, family visits etc). C) all buildings require heating, cooling to be handled with no power – and forget freezers.
Probably other things but those are the obvious ones.
Edit: No I wouldn’t want to live in such a country.
Very nice Francis. The public has been hammered 24/7 with the CAGW lies. We can’t expect them to come to some realization without our help. We must hammer home the fact that wind and solar are not a substitute for fossil fuel and nuclear in the shortest simplest language possible.