Guest post by David Middleton
From the “you don’t need a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows” files:
FOSSIL FUELS
New IEA Report Delivers Failing Grades to Most Green Technologies
More innovation is needed in the global energy transformation.
by Eric Wesoff
June 13, 2017
Say you’re a member of the world community and a signee committed to the Paris Agreement’s long-term goals. You’d probably want to track your progress and assess your results.
You’d essentially be asking, “How well is the human race doing in its quest to transform its energy mix away from polluting sources?”
The answer is not so well, according to a new report from the IEA, Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2017, which looked at 26 technologies and their performance in meeting the 2°C Scenario (2DS) in 2025. (The 2DS is defined as “an energy system pathway and a CO2 emissions trajectory consistent with at least a 50 percent chance of limiting the average global temperature increase to 2°C by 2100.”)
Only three of the 26 technologies are on track to meet that goal, while eight are significantly off-track and will need strong policy corrections to hit the 2DS.
[…]
Oddly enough, the three tech’s with passing grades are generally total failures:
- Solar and onshore wind, combined into one category as mature variable renewables, had strong annual capacity growth and record-low long-term contract prices
- The global stock of electric vehicles grew to 2 million, with 750,000 EVs sold in 2016
- Energy storage reached almost 1 gigawatt in 2016 (excluding pumped hydro)
They combine solar (a total failure) with onshore wind (a moderate success) in order to prevent solar from flunking out.
They call 750,000 worldwide EV sales in 2016 to be a success? Ford sold over 800,000 F-Series pickup trucks in 2016… just in the United States. These “futurists” really seem to believe that EV’s “could account for 25 percent of passenger cars by 2040, likely depressing oil prices” because EV sales have increased from zero-point-zero to slightly above zero-point-zero since 2011.
The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis keeps track of U.S. vehicle sales. If I plot the EV sales from the article along with total vehicle sales and extrapolate the data out to 2040, I don’t get anything close to 25%.
Even if I limited it to passenger cars, which account for about 30% of U.S. auto sales I only get to 5%. The only way this trend could lead to EV’s accounting “for 25 percent of passenger cars by 2040,” would be to assume that EV’s lasted longer than conventional passenger cars and the cumulative sales would eventually bring them up to 25% of passenger cars… AKA imaginary math.
So, “green” math yields a five-fold exaggeration in future EV auto sales… Very consistent with “green” estimates of global warming and climate sensitivity: About five times larger than reality.
1 GW of energy storage?
Unsurprisingly, the F’s go to:
- Coal because it still generates 40% of the world’s electricity.
- Coal with CCS because the “economics that do not pencil out.”
- Advanced biofuels due to their insignficance.
- The lack of “building energy-efficiency codes” in most countries… Many of which are still working on having buildings, plumbing and electricity.
Ranking “somewhere in the middle” are the only two tech’s which could provide a pathway to significantly lower carbon emissions:
- Nuclear because the world isn’t building enough new nuclear power plants.
- Natural gas because it lacks the “flexibility to better integrate renewables.”
Addendum 6/14/2017
Updated plot of total US auto sales and PEV sales:
Total Auto Sales:
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Total Vehicle Sales [TOTALSA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA, June 14, 2017.
PEV Sales:
http://energyfuse.org/ev-sales-surge-bucks-cheap-gasoline-broader-auto-industry-trends/
http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
The rate of growth of U.S. PEV sales has been very linear:
| US PEV Sales | US PEV % | δ PEV Sales | δ PEV % | |
| 2011 | 17,724 | 0.1% | ||
| 2012 | 52,607 | 0.4% | 34,883 | 0.2% |
| 2013 | 97,507 | 0.6% | 44,900 | 0.3% |
| 2014 | 122,438 | 0.7% | 24,931 | 0.1% |
| 2015 | 116,099 | 0.7% | (6,339) | -0.1% |
| 2016 | 158,614 | 0.9% | 42,515 | 0.2% |
| Avg Growth | 28,178 | 0.2% | ||
| Std Dev | 20,809 | 0.1% |
Wake me up when this changes.
Addendum 6/15/2017
It can’t get any more linear than this:
2012-2016 US, 2014-2016 World PEV Sales
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As soon as EV’s get taken off the government teat and are made to pay there own way, they will pretty much die, being nothing more than expensive toys for the rich.
Climate Science
David, thank you for your presentation of this article. I agree with your comment even where the IEA claims some progress it’s very scant when you examine it as you have.
The real point to take away from the IEA report is that, despite Obama spending (wasting) a fortune on replacement for fossil fuels, the progress is not even adequate to support the modest goals of the Paris Accord let alone the more extreme CO 2 reductions like those of California. The IEA is pushing for even more spending by the governments to avoid the economic and human disaster that will happen if the CO 2 emission cuts are imposed.
At some point reality will need to set in regarding the impact of reducing carbon emissions without reliable and low cost replacement energy. Blindly proceeding to reduce dependence on fossil fuels BEFORE the replacements are developed is suicide. Experience tells us that it will be many decades to develop a replacement without a miracle.
To me, EV’s are just an expensive means to relocate emissions. Whether your car runs on LPG, diesel or gasoline, or your car runs on electricity generated by LNG, coal or oil, GHG’s are still being emitted. Just in a different location.
EEV or elsewhere emission vehicles.
I always called them ZEH. Zero Emissions Here.
Nothing wrong with BEVs, but they are not green tech. Buy them because you like the vehicle.
Yep. I think the Tesla Model S is a waaaayyyy cool car. The tech is awesome. If I was going to drop $150k on a toy, it would be among my top 10 choices.
David,
My choice is the Porsche Panamera Turbo S e-hybrid. 136 hp electric motor to tool around town for 30 miles on battery only, then switch to the 550 hp twin turbo V8 and keep going while recharging the battery. And if you must show off a little, engage both for a heart stopping 686 hp. Plus I get the subsidy (which I don’t need or want).
My dream toy…
https://www.aev-conversions.com/vehicles/brute-double-cab
With this…
I could probably buy two Brute Double Cab JK conversions for the price of a Tesla Model-S.
Jeep little boys toy. Raminator big girl’s truck – 66 inch tires, supercharged 9.2 L HEMI, 2,000 HP
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/catcountry1073.com/files/2015/10/Raminator-630×473.jpg
I’m 5’6″, my wife is 5’2″, we have 6 Pomeranians/Pom- mixes and 4 Chihuahua/Chi-mixes… 66″ (5’6″) tires won’t work… bit the 9.2 L Hemi sounds waaay cool!
Panamera Turbo S (for Sissy hybriders) – 686 HP
Shelby 1000 SC (for Super Car hot rodders) – 1,200 HP
There are always a fringe element professing and advocating an alternate lifestyle. PEV are an example.
We live in a motor home. I checked, in 2016 RV sales in the US were greater than PEV. Being politically correct, we have a tiny house.
The principles of saving fuel are simple. Drive less, slow down, and do not drive aggressively.
PEV is just a different kind of status symbol.
“solar (a total failure)”
which planet is that on?
Here’s India increasing its Paris pledge to deliver more 3 years earlier… but in fact it is the detail on solar costs/rate of install we are interested in:
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/14/india-joins-renewable-energy-revolution-increases-emissions-reduction-pledge/
“Prime Minister Modi’s renewable energy agenda aims to increase India’s grid-tied renewable energy capacity from roughly 57 gigawatts in May 2017 to 175GW in 2022, with most of the increase coming through a major expansion in solar. India’s installed capacity for solar energy has tripled in the last three years to its current level of 12GW. It is expected to jump by more than 100GW over the next six years, and increase further to 175GW before 2030.
Coal currently provides nearly 60 percent of India’s of total installed electricity generating capacity of 330GW, but the government projects it will decline substantially as solar power ramps up. In May 2017 alone, the states of Gujarat, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh canceled thermal energy plants – that is, those powered by coal – with a combined capacity of nearly 14GW of power.
Price decline is perhaps the biggest reason India is shelving its plans for new coal-based power plants. Over the past 16 months, the cost of producing utility-scale solar electricity in India has fallen from 4.34 rupees per kilowatt-hour in January 2016 to 2.44 rupees (a little over 3 cents) in May 2017 – cheaper than coal. For the moment, large-scale solar and wind are roughly similar in price and lower than nuclear and fossil fuels.”
It’s the planet where solar’s significance can only be measured in pledges, promises and the prognostications of “futurists.”
Those cheaper solar panels may not last as long as promised. And they won’t work at night or during monsoons, so that makes their low price when they are working an apple vs. coal’s non-intermittent orange. Plus they need regular maintenance (sweeping off bird poop, etc.), which should be added to their cost.
PS: Modi’s enthusiasm for solar may have been partly based on the assumption that it would be subsidized by the Green Climate Fund, which is now looking doubtful.
That’s where all the green jobs are coming from!
No joke though, I saw a panel van on the road here in NJ touting their solar panel cleaning service! Here we go, found their web site:
http://www.solarmaid.com/
“which planet is that on?”
This one.
Aren’t you ever curious? Why is it we keep hearing about more and more solar, yet we see the contribution of solar to the grid barely in the single digits? Even future projects have it as a few % of the total.
Why is that, exactly? Take all your numbers and divide them by 4. Because solar is always reported as nameplate capacity, without taking into account intermittency.
I don’t count empty promises and pledges, I count kwh.
Not a single coal fired power plant has ever been closed because of solar. And none ever will be. Don’t be a fool – it is the easiest thing in the world for a developing country to say “we planned to build 20 coal plants, but we are now only building 10”. Environmentalists hail them for the vision, and crow about renewable power. Newsflash – they never intended to build 20. In fact, they lied. They wanted to build 10, but said they would build 20, so it looks like they are cutting back while at the same time doing exactly what they want.
China has played this game with idiot environmentalists for decades.
This is why we shouldn’t let Democrats do Math.
Since the EROI on solar photovoltaics is estimated as somewhere between 3.5 and 5, and since nearly all energy inputs to a solar PV installations are fossil based (PV panel manufacture, concrete and steel, copper aluminum, and transportation), the bigger the rampup rate, the longer the period to CO2 emissions breakeven. I would be surprised if PV are net contributors to CO2 emission reductions before 2030, and higher rates of introduction (ramping up over time) puts this further out.
Don’t you just hate it when facts get in the way of the narrative.
“which planet is that on?”
This one, Skanky.
Tell us, have you apologised to Dr. Crockford for maliciously and mendaciously attempting to discredit her professional qualifications on behalf of the ‘Unreliables’ spivs you post your drivel for?
Why can we not get some simple real data. how far does a tesla really go with radio lights aircon/heater.
Tesla is 85 kw/hr. thats three houses total usage. thus to charge needs cable and max utility rates. its not free.
What about driving through rain or snow?
I think you mean “dig me up when this changes.”…
The lack of “building energy-efficiency codes” in most countries…
There are suggestions that the green energy-efficiency building codes that were applied to a recent refurbishment may be the root cause of the devastating fire that destroyed the Grefell Tower in London yesterday.
The Finkle report is a joke;
http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/energyaustralia-announces-19-per-cent-increase-to-electricity-prices-in-nsw-20170615-gwrto3.html
This is what “renewables” has done to Australia.
EV sales up 74% this year.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/04/06/74-increase-electric-car-sales-us-march-q1-2017-electric-car-sales-report/
But marketwide data is the wrong metric, since EVs aren’t available in all segments. Tesla dominates the tiny market for large luxury sedans. All other vehicles are still a tiny fraction of their segments, but that may be in part because they weren’t considered directly comparable to the competition. The Bolt will approach parity in small crossovers. The model 3 will do great in the tiny small luxury sedans segment.
That’s a Q1 2016 to Q1 2017 comparison. Not annual growth.
The compounded annual growth has been a bit over 30%… Which is easy to do when you are growing from zero-point-zero to slightly bigger than zero-point-zero.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/02/05/u-s-electric-vehicle-sales-soared-in-2016/#bf5b908217f1
Tesla doesn’t dominate the market for large luxury sedans. The Model-S is a mid-sized luxury sedan. It trails the MB E-Class by a wide margin,
http://www.autotrader.com/car-news/the-tesla-model-s-is-absolutely-not-the-best-selling-luxury-sedan-in-america-258097
Parity defined how? Price? Price doesn’t define parity considering the Bolt’s max range of 238 miles under perfect conditions (and no auxiliary loads) and crossovers’ 350-500 mile range. Quite different capabilities.
The best way to integrate renewables into the grid is to build low-plant good nuclear power plants for base load and route the renewables directly to ground. This way we still get the primary benefit from the renewables (laughter at smug greens) without damage to the electrical grid.
I read the original article, and it is insanely stupid. It seems as if the authors decided several years ago what tech would be important. then measured progress on those specific techs, and gave grades.
As anyone who actually reads history, tech does not advance as we want, Much of the technology that is failing (biofuels) is failing for very good reasons – they don’t work, or have become unnecessary.
Not on their list are several things that actually ARE working, and in fact have superseded much of the need for tech that is NOT working. For example, LEDs are vastly reducing the total amount of electricity we need in our society. I didn’t happen to see that on their list, yet it is having more impact than most of the technologies combined. Also, natural gas power plant efficiency has increased immensely, resulting in far fewer power plants necessary to provide the same power. This has hugely reduced our dependency on coal, and our emissions. yet they only look at carbon capture systems in examining natural gas. Frankly, who cares – if gas can cut emissions in half over coal, at a lower price, that is a vastly more important development.
Whenever I read about automotive fuels I often wonder about methanol, which I understand is used by race car drivers and requires minimal modifications in gasoline cars. Is it too expensive to convert from coal or other feedstocks? Does its production suffer from CO2 fear and panic? Or is it just that the world is awash in oil and who needs gasoline substitutes? What is it about methanol that leaves it out of any of these discussions? I’d just like to learn more about it.
Methanol is not soluble in gasoline, so you need an expensive additive like isobutanol to act as a detergent. I don’t know of any programs to develop methanol as a fuel. Not like Ethanol.
I used to run my grass-track racing JAP-engined bikes on methanol.
Filthy stuff it was too, the sink of formaldehyde due to incomplete combustion at the ultra-rich mixtures that had to be used to cool the engine at the extreme compression ratios used to literally make your eyes water.
http://www.realclearfuture.com/articles/2016/08/29/dont_count_out_the_internal_combustion_engine_111937.html
EVs are experiencing technical improvement, but so are ICEs.
Nice, simple summary. A few years back I guessed we would be 40% gasoline, 40% diesel, and 20% electric in the car/light truck segment by 2050. This was pre- full rollout of the horizontal drilling-fracking revolution and the ongoing difficulties with diesel pollution issues.
Now with hints at improvements in batteties I would guess 40% gasoline, 40% hybrid, 15% electric (for the cachet) and 5% diesel. Comments?
“How old is your Corolla? ”
Take your best shot Dan, how old do you think our 2007 Corolla is?
If you were educated in Ca and now in Texas, I can see the the challenge.
Just for the record, ICE are not getting better mileage, it is basic thermodynamics. It would be hard to beat my 68 Toyota Crown, 80 Corolla, 81 Isuzu diesel PU 4wd, 82 Tercel, or 94 Honda Del Sol SI at 35+ mpg.
It would be hard to do worse than my 74 IH Travel All or 70 IH 4wd 3/4 Ton PU. Of course, I could haul a a ton of firewood towing a Pious and not slow down on a hill. I had a 84 3/4 ton 2wd Suburban with a 4 spd. It got better mileage but towing a big trailer on a hill was a challenge.
It is about matching your vehicle to its use. The 90s was suppose to be the decade if the green car but it was the decade of the misnamed SUV. It was not longer a utility vehicle and not a thing sporty about them.
Road and Track did a road test trip. The Pious did much worse than sticker being beaten by the VW TDI diesel.
The problem comes when the goverment decides what consumers should drive. The same goes for what temperature we should keep our houses at and how long we should take showers.
Retired, you said on June 14 at 8:47 PM: “Another idiot claims to have saved money by paying twice as much for a 5 passenger car in 2007 than I did for our Corolla that get better mileage.” This says that the “idiot” bought a 5 passenger car in 2007, and you bought a Corolla of some uncertain model year.
I too bought a car in 2007. It was a 1999 model. I don’t assume everyone who buys a car gets a new one. I do know how to read a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) map, and in my day job I work closely with real automotive engineers in Detroit. The manufacturers are going to 7, 8, and 9 speed automatic transmissions with smoother shifting (which allows more frequent shifting without the passengers noticing the shift) so that engine RPM at cruise conditions is lower. The advantage of doing this is clearly seen on a BSFC map.
My SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) number is 3323420830. SAE is an organization that does not accept membership in exchange for just money. And I am always courteous toward forum members.
“And I am always courteous toward forum members.”
No Dan you are not. The point of telling people they are stupid is that it gives them an opportunity to learn.
First off you may not want to skip telling folks you have a SAE number.
Second, the biggest factor in getting good mileage is the wingnut in the drivers seat. The first mistake wingnuts make is during the purchase process. For some odd reason, even very smart people get very stupid when dealing with car salesmen. Before going near one, I do my research.
In 89, I needed a small 2wd extended cab pickup with a V-6 and 5 spd manual transmission. At the Ford dealer, they only had 4wd automatic trannies. The salesmen said the mileage and maintenance cost would be the same.
I also expect a car to last 300,000 miles. I did this with the 89 Toyota as well as some cars that I bought used. The key with automatic transmissions is to change the fluid. A ten year old car with 150k miles is not worth the cost of replacing a transmission.
“I do know how to read a Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) map…”
How stupid is that? Dan gives us very expensive and fragile drive trains to achieve marginally better fuel economy.
A wad of meaningless drivel. If I produced trash analysis of this sort in business it would be considered satire. If I persisted I would become a joke. Should have stayed in government I suppose.
Tony I left the part in where MarkW said what he did, because while I agree the second-hand smoke claim was another CHEMISTRY FRAUD BY THE ENVIRONMENT BUSINESS – it was – I also agree that the stuff’s nasty and Tobacco is just plain nasty shit. I have worked around cleanroom environments, and from having to quantify that level of cleanliness you get an education in how fumes coming off burning material, the fumes and smoke as well – settle. And when they do, the dust that is in all air everywhere – a mixture of dead earthworms, clay, dead birds, automobile smoke, barbecue smoke from up the road, all these dusts, raised by the sun during it’s passage each and every day, they land everywhere: and then are chemically reacted with, by these various fumes from smoke: and they make – varnish.
Ok so
we know that tobacco is some nasty shit and that it’s actually got some medical properties the way heroin does or any other noxious drug mankind’s used for millenia (sp?) It’s strong enough that it creates physical reactions, nicotine’s a legendary pesticide.
===============================
tony mcleod June 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
MarkW
“Regardless, the tobacco scare was overblown and the second hand tobacco scare was entirely a myth.”
So is the climte hoax, and toxic sludge i good for you.
I have a bridge going cheap…
===============================
Now McLeod tell me what you know about Carbon Dioxide. Do you think it’s not plant food? What possible harm can come from inhaling it? It’s actually left in the air on nuclear submarines, because it’s so harmless, they let people regularly breathe it at 8,000 ppm and at times as much as 40,000 ppm. That’s in emergencies when there have been filtration problems on them. But they often let the ppm of CO2 run 10,000 ppm.
Surely to have been around here for months on end you realize the depth of the fraud you yourself, have been sold.
You’ve been educated in a school that adding CO2 to air can make it warmer when you’ve been referred to the law of physics governing that yourself – its a five factor equation – along with the chart of energy constants that are also part of the law of physics governing atmospheric temperature you’ve seen clearly yourself – a FIVE FACTOR EQUATION with it’s accompanying chart that COMPRISE the LAW GOVERNING this – and addition of CO2 to air COOLS it.
Why didn’t those websites prepare you for being shown this and give you answers? The fact the law of thermodynamics governing gas temperature formally forbids CO2 addition to atmospheric air formally, specifically assigning the CO2 a lower energy constant and – THEY NEVER TOLD YOU?
Then there’s the scam about Venus.
You were actually taught in school that the temperature of Venus has a run-away green house effect when – youve seen referred to here at LEAST
at least a half dozen times, the links to the now, pretty legendary thread by Steve Goddard – at one time a staunch warming believer – where he just got down to checking the temperature of Venus as reported by multiple spacecraft LANDING on it – and the temperature of Venus is actually COOLER, than if the atmosphere was comprised of Earth’s atmospheric mix.
Doesn’t it make something go off in your head, after you’ve been studying atmospheric chemistry for months, to find out you’ve been told by government employees that the temperature of Venus is oddly high, way past what it would be if it weren’t a ”green house gas” atmosphere – then you find out that – you can caclulate this yourself, it’s the SIMPLEST PHASE of MATTER’S PHYSICS LAW – doesn’t it strike you as
bizarre that you were LIED to not just after school but IN SCHOOL that this Venusian atmosphere’s supposed to be oddly warm – now you find out – and can check this YOURSELF – FOLLOWING ALONG – as the guy does the mathematics to solve for the temperature of an atmosphere- Venusian Carbon Dioxide atmosphere must
by mandate
of the thermodynamical law governing the temperatures of gases,
be
COOLER than earth’s? Here’s the link I don’t want you to claim you don’t know, I know you know, I learned about this, from seeing it linked here. Steve Goddard, ”hyperventilating on Venus” and ”Venus Envy”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/06/hyperventilating-on-venus/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
This is the simplest mathematics in all thermodynamics law, Tony. WHY AREN’T YOU CONCERNED YOU WERE LIED TO, Tony?
WHY NOT? WHY aren’t you outraged at being taught the WRONG answers to SCIENCE TESTS in SCHOOL?
You were taught in school that ”The temperature of Venus’ atmosphere is ______________(warmer/cooler) than the temperature of an identical volume of Earth’s atmospheric mix, when adjusted for light, and pressure variations?
The answer to that question is ”COOLER”
You were taught in a school that the answer is ”WARMER.”
The question is – WHY aren’t you PERSONALLY OUTRAGED that you and your father and your children were and will be taught FAKE SCIENCE TEST ANSWERS?
Normally I’m the kind of person who’s joking around but I really have that question to you because I can’t see any reason you should be posting here at all if you can’t give me and everyone else here the answer to that question so it sounds like you’re even – sane, Tony.
Why are you here claiming you believe more and more insulation suspended in a cold bath of compressible fluids, can warm the firelight warmed rock, it’s conduction-scrubbing heat from, AFTER it stops 20% of the available light to warm the planet, from ever reaching it?
When in all of history is the ‘other time’ something warmed by light from a fire, grew warmer after immersion into a cold conduction stripping, heat robbing bath?
And right alongside the bizarre claim that’s even possible,
comes the further claim that – addition of ever more, light blocking insulation into the bath, – the very class insulation – green house gases – that already are blocking 20% of available warming firelight to the earth –
where in all history have you heard or talked about or seen another instance of less and less warming light,
reaching a light-warmed rock,
making the less-light warmed rock, warmer,
than when it was actually receiving more, warming light?
I may not have asked that right: when is the last time you heard or knew of insulation between a rock, making less light warm it,
cause more warming light to be depicted as arriving?
Less warming light from fire arrives,
and you believe more warming occurs.
Ever less – 1% less light arrived, now 5% less light – how much more comes back out? How much warmer does a rock get, when 4% less warming light even reaches it, because magic insulation stopped it?
On to 10% lost energy – then 15% energy lost to space due to the light blocking insulation in the cold bath – where in history did this make ever more warming firelight, be depicted as arriving, by sensors on a rock less warming light ever arrived on?
And then today – green house gases stop 20% of total sunlight available to warm it arriving at the planet. Gone, refracted to space.
How much more warming firelight do you claim energy sensors on earth shall depict arriving when 21% doesn’t arrive? Then 22%?
You act like you’re deeply invested in this. You believe it by golly – well then you tell me now, so I can go give my kids the correct answers on a physics test – for every percent available warming firelight that doesn’t ever reach a rock,
how much more leaks out?
When you can tell me that Tony and I can go reference it in my own libraries and see that sure enough, less light warming a fire light warmed rock, means it gets warmer and warmer, the less and less light warms it,
I’ll be prepared to entertain you as something more than an insulting troll Tony.
I really mean that I think, that’s what you’re here to operate as. A purely anti-science, political troll.
Tell me how much more light leaks out of a rock,
one percent less light leaks into, Tony, or you’re just a lying, fraud publishing troll. Fair enough?
Everybody here is dumb, if someone asks you.
Well I’m asking you, right now: For every time a percent less warming light strikes a light warmed rock, how much more warming light are you claiming sensors on that rock depict as arriving, thermalizing, and ultimately, leaving?
Because I’m here to tell you without there even being need for some book, that there’s no such thing as putting insulation in a bath so less and less light warms a rock, making that rock’s energy sensors depict the rock getting and ultimately losing more light. Less arrives, so more’s going to leave, is your claim.
Show me another instance of insulation between a fire warmed rock and the fire warming it, such that less warming firelight reaches that rock,
makes more warminglight leak out.
I see you in here insulting the people I’m enjoying watch discuss physics and atmospheric chemistry.
Who are you to be able to get away with simply insulting us all en masse, with no repercussions other than you get to be the center of a lot of attention? I’m pointing this out because others seeing you try to troll scientific discussions might believe you hold some deeply knowledgeable secret.
I say, you don’t even know what law of thermodynamics governs atmospheric temperature as will be proven by the fact as long as this thread stands you’ll be utterly silent about answering any of the questions
investigation of your anti-science cult immediately brings. Anyone hearing of your story about the cold bath warming the rock it robs warming light from – is going to ask fundamental questions, about whether those passing the message even know what the fundamentals of the subject are.
I see people here discussing atmospheric and other physics to the tune of HUNDREDS of posts per day.
Very very FEW of them invoke some violation of thermodynamic principles or physical laws. You are CONSTANTLY insinuating the people you’re watching discuss scientific matters are wrong.
Explain what you know about the above. And – above it all, you name for me the law of physics governing the temperature of the atmosphere. Do you even know the name of the law of physics governing what you’re talking about?
Tell me the equation and what all the factors mean and show me which one of them you claim, makes it possible for insulation making less light reach a rock, make more light leak back out of it.
I say all this obviously without feeling the need to reduce what I’m saying to nothing but general insults, I want to hear you simply go on at length about your understanding of atmospheric energy and why,
everytime I see you saying something, it’s either in crass violation of physics, or it’s some snide insult that sounds like it comes from a paid political operative.
Thank you
Samuel Orland