The question is, how far will they go?
Car manufacturer Vauxhall has already said they intend to start shuttering factories in the UK within the next year because of the unattainable targets. The other car companies, with barely a pair of balls between them, will follow suit.
Newly elected PM, Keir Starmer, had already got himself in hot green water before the election by beginning to wind his neck in on on green pledges.
There is a lot more winding back to come. Then he will have to grovel before Vladimir Putin and kiss the ring on Donald Trump’s finger.
Schadenfreude is, as they say, a dish best served cold. I will be watching closely.
Smelting some metals (e.g., base metals, gold and silver) requires lots of heat which is supplied by thermal coal. Manufacture of ceramic materials such as porcelain ware (e.g., sinks, toilets and china), tiles, bricks, etc. requires large amounts heat. Production of Portland cement requires much raw heat.
The modern world can’t exist without oil and gas including EVs, wind turbines, solar, hydro, computers, phones, television, the internet, plastics, agriculture, the green blob and thousands of products reliant on fossil fuels for manufacture and transportation
Either way, he/she/them/it won’t admit he/she/them/it are reliant on oil and gas to maintain their standard of living and not throw us back to the 17th century
“Solar putting everything else in the shade”. Indeed, lots of shade beneath the panels. Oh, and dead lifeforms..
Ah well, creative bookkeeping i guess.
Batteries are more difficult. They are needed to make solar useful after dark and they require so-called critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt (which Australia has in abundance).
But the efficiency of batteries is soaring and the price is plummeting, meaning that on one estimate the cost of a kilowatt-hour of battery storage has fallen by 99% over the past 30 years.
But who cares what happened 30 years ago? Right now battery prices are about $139/kWh. That’s not low enough to make solar viable. Do the math on the UK. In winter its dark from 4pm to 10am. And not very bright in the day.
How much battery is needed to back up 1GW of solar faceplate? How much solar output can you rely on for consumption, and how much extra do you need to recharge the batteries in winter?
The math is left to the reader. The short answer is you need too much extra, and too many batteries, and its not viable.
attickman,
I was thinking of people who say ASustralia should go nuclear because we host a large part of known global uranium reserves. That argument has no value. Nuclear stands on its past global performance, nothing to do with U abundance here, nothing to do with climate change. Geoff S
I’m having a long term losing battle with the BBC over battery storage. Normally they just cut and paste from publicity blurbs, so any article has XMW powering Y households.
So far after 3 or 4 articles they are still saying they use these metrics because it’s understandable for their audience. How any with meaningless content can be understandable is beyond me.
Even a 90% reduction would still be impossible and the price has not gone down for years. Those early cuts were the start of mass production, so not much left to cut.
And then you have the fact that to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines and batteries all need coal or other fossil fuels in large quantities, so one cannot have renewables without keeping fossil fuels going at a higher rate where manufacturing takes place. So, what’s the point of an energy transition that can’t actually happen, never mind the cost!
Global emissions are going to rise whatever you do with existing technology; therefore we need to invent better technology before we attempt any slow transition away from needed fossil fuels and lubricants. However, that won’t suit the greedy eco-industrialists and spin merchants who support the `renewables or die’ climate-con alarmists and want the required subsidies for their highly dubious planet saving business schemes.
It’s time the whole of climate science, related academia and associated climate/energy policy solutions were subject to proper objective scrutiny and cost benefit analysis by reputable authorities. In Australia and the UK this could be achieved by a Royal Commission with wide powers to force bureaucrats and academia to give real data and evidence towards the reality of what drives climate change, what are the risks for the future, and indicate suitable cost- effective policies to help alleviate any natural or human-related hazards defined. However, I am not totally naive to believe this will happen under current governments, wishful thinking, I guess.
bnice,
Yep, I was the first scientist to have my account lockedforever by the fresh young censor of The Conversation was back in the early days. Then Misha Ketchell doing the coward’s “No further conversation will be entered into” when I wanted to know why I was censored.
Geoff S
It should be named “Commusation” because it is really about promoting communism. It’s especially sad that it’s basically government funded, paid for by university membership funds. It works similarly to a game played by university professors to enhance their income.
A lecture circuit exists whereby professors from other universities are paid “honorariums” and travel expenses to speak at other schools. Staff at the school being visited benefit as hosts by taking the visiting professor to usually the most expensive restaurants in the area, often accompanied by multiple other professors and their spouses.
The travel amenities are also usually top notch being covered by generous “per diems” and the poor professors often fly in first class due to various “upgrade” schemes.
It’s true that “starting’ professors usually do not enjoy such perks, but in general the believe that professors struggle financially is a myth.
bnice,
I did first class often, like when the corporate biz jet was booked.
You see, we were successful in usinggood, hard science to generate lots of money from new mines we found. It was immaterial how much a plane trip cost.
The option of paying for your own future through bebing good at you job is an option that is open to everyone.
Everyone, that is , except those so dumb that they are paralysed, unable to act unless some official has told them what to do. Stop talking about these officials because it only encourages them to think that they are worthwhile.
Geoff S
The Conversation has so little confidence in their liberal position that quite some time ago they announced that the would delete comments that they didn’t agree with, rather than attempt to dispute them. That is when I stopped reading The Conversation.
People with dumbusernames are certain to read all the wrong stuff when it comes to understanding what is required to deliver efficient, reliable and realistically priced electricity to the general consumer. Just because you read something anywhere, pal, does not mean it is true. Now I only say that because you are clearly too dumb for your own good.
Career politician. Worse still, a career democrat – even now that his brain has barely more thinking power than a cabbage, he can still spout big lies, albeit not very well on the debate stage:
Here you go name boi – record oil production, USA 2023 and we still have Trump coming to shatter records in 2025:
Offshore wind electricity less costly than coal?
BULL MANURE?
A 306-megawatt wind farm off Shanghai costs 3-billion yuan ($410 million) project, or $1.34 million/installed MW.
The 36 turbines will be installed within the year
They are jointly owned by Chinese energy giants, China Three Gorges Corp., China National Offshore Oil Corp., and a Shanghai-based investor.
Its auctioned on-grid tariff was settled at 0.302 yuan per kWh, making it the first project of its kind to undercut coal power prices in China.
wholesale, 4.2 c/kWh at 7.25 yuan/$; wholesale coal in the US is 5 to 6 c/kWh
On the US east coast, wind offshore cost would be $5.5 million/MW, plus it would take longer to install them. wholesale 15 to 16 c/kWh
The 0.302 yuan/kWh does not include 1) grid reinforcement/expansion, plus 2) the other generators operating inefficiently while doing the counteracting/balancing.
All that added to the existing traditional systems, has made the whole, enlarged electrical system less reliable and more costly/kWh.
.
This is proven by EU statistics, which show, the more wind/solar installed kW per household, the higher the c/kWh, and by German outage/instability/curtailment reports.
.
France is on the low end c/kWh, due to 70% nuclear, already for decades.
.
The German economy has hit the wall in many areas, as a consequence of too much wind and solar, and open borders, and other distracting/chaos-creating BS.
Where are the numbers from actual implementations showing real costs? Chinese prices are not market driven no matter what you say. Just because there is an auction it does not mean there is not money coming from the CCP into the equation and is just not mentioned.
The “renewables” are all in the future. You have non-engineers writing about how easy it is to run a grid without any fossil fuels. But show us a country that actually runs a grid 24/7 without fossil fuels. Generating large amounts of electricity when not needed and paying other countries to take it off your hands, while paying for backup when there is no wind and no sun is not a fiscally sound approach to running a grid, unless you are a green weenie. All your links are always sheer garbage.
Wind can not undercut coal. All wind can do is make coal less efficient because you have to keep steam pressure up to cover the constant variation in wind output. Solar is hopeless because it only generates a few hours a day and that unpredictably thanks to clouds.
The bot that runs MyUsername is beyond rational responses.
It is the same genre of bot that infects comments pages everywhere saying things like –
“Joe Biden is the smartest, switched-on, lucid, honest president ever and is hands-down the bestest candidate to vanquish Trump”
In other words, delusion upon lunacy being presented as serious comment.
Right, and they installed some ruinables too- I suspect the reason is that they want to build up that industry- to drive the price down- so we’ll buy it and ruin our economies. So far they are succeeding in that strategy. But the green fools here will say “look China is going green- they’ve installed more renewable energy this year than the rest of the world”- too stupid to see the full picture.
Regarding your 2nd link, even assuming their claim that some areas meet their power needs almost entirely from renewables- isn’t proof it can be done worldwide.
“China’s Offshore Wind Power Prices to Undercut Coal This Year”
Wow! I thought wind was free! Yeah, but that country’s boss can dictate what the price for anything is, right?
MYN, you ignored my advice and admonition that “Handy Links” and “Talking Points” on this subject” just leave you stupid. Up your game, etc.
During the UK election campaign there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the alarmists that the so-called climate crisis wasn’t being talked about – at all. Letters from the great and good were sent to political parties and media broadcasters alike. You must…
And now that the dust is settling Net Zero is the order of the day…. or is it?
“”Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, will go against the Government’s net zero plans
The joint leader of the Green Party is planning to oppose net zero plans backed by the Labour Government to build pylons in Suffolk to transport offshore wind power. Adrian Ramsay, one of the party’s four newly elected MPs, has said that he will seek a pause to the plans to build a 100-mile corridor of pylons stretching through his constituency of Waveney Valley.
“”[Edstone Miliband] pledged a Labour Government will overturn planning rules that currently require local community support to approve proposed turbines.
Adrian Ramsay, one of the party’s four newly elected MPs, has said that he will seek a pause to the plans to build a 100-mile corridor of pylons stretching through his constituency of Waveney Valley.
And yet the claim of nimbyism is always levelled at those who are right of centre
“If he wins office he plans to use a ministerial “written statement” to remove an obligation in the national planning policy framework for community concerns to be “appropriately addressed”, a stipulation that has effectively blocked onshore wind projects for a decade.””
That sounds like something that is done in a Dictatorship. Damn the People, Full Speed Ahead.
Well, that’s exactly the sort of approach the federal Labor Government in Australia is legislating to do, to re-invigorate the stalled precious renewables-only program, being held up by local councils and angry landholders as well as concerned environmentalists.
During the [UK] election campaign there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the alarmist fraternity that the fact that the so-called climate crisis wasn’t being talked about – at all.
Letters from the great and good were sent to political parties and media broadcasters alike. You must. And now that the dust is settling Net Zero is the order of the day…. or is it?
Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, will go against the Government’s net zero plans
The joint leader of the Green Party is planning to oppose net zero plans backed by the Labour Government to build pylons in Suffolk to transport offshore wind power. Adrian Ramsay, one of the party’s four newly elected MPs, has said that he will seek a pause to the plans to build a 100-mile corridor of pylons stretching through his constituency of Waveney Valley.
The plans, which are currently under consultation by National Grid, will bring power from wind farms off the coast of East Anglia, and stretch from Norwich to Tilbury.
“”[Miliband] pledged a Labour Government will overturn planning rules that currently require local community support to approve proposed turbines.
If he wins office he plans to use a ministerial “written statement” to remove an obligation in the national planning policy framework for community concerns to be “appropriately addressed”, a stipulation that has effectively blocked onshore wind projects for a decade.””
Info on co2 saturation is a little sparse. A graph of co2 increase vs temp increase would come in quite handy when talking with the doom mongers. Any links appreciated.
Simple answer. There is no temperature increase. CO2 has both a warming and a cooling forcing which balance out. All you hear about from climate pseudo-scientists is the warming half of the equation. They then ignore the cooling part and add on non-existent positive feedback.
Start with the below 45 pages….then you’ll know what topics to search for, plus have a good understanding of the topic….watts forcing per CO2 increase info is everywhere, (Search for “Gunnar Myhre, Radiative forcing” for the source of the commonly accepted formulas) ….temperature increase per watts is basically “un-settled” science resulting in everything from 0.7 to 6.5 C per CO2 doubling being claimed….
An amazing column in todays UK Telegraph. A straw in the wind that the Telegraph would publish such a piece. A couple of extracts will give the flavor:
I am a young woman and a recent graduate, and on Thursday I voted Reform. By all metrics of identity politics, my voting record should be redder than a sundried tomato. But I declare the identity politics games are soon to be over, and since the last election I have had to pay income tax and it is time to say it as it is…..
….If I have been ambiguous thus far, let me spell it out. Net Zero, I will not pay for it. Indentured servitude in the service industry, I am done with it. Foreign criminals, you can keep them. Infants are not “assigned” a sex, women are not “womb-havers”. I will not have my tax money fund the mastectomies of girls, and men are not surplus to requirement.
If you wondered whether Reform with its mere 5 seats for its 4 million voters was going to make a difference to British politics, wonder no more. Its made a difference to the Telegraph already, and this is just the start.
Take a warning from Canada’s parliamentary history of the past few decades….Liberals will spend so much that Conservatives following them will have to raise taxes to the point they will be turfed in the following election….
…“Reform” Parties will morph into Conservatives.
…Taxes will be raised to the point where eventually whichever party promising tax reductions will win the election, but be unable or unwilling to follow through on their popular media show promises when they find out how bad the gov’t debt really is.
Historically, Canada had, more often than not since the 1960’s, a Liberal party in charge, However the Liberals spent like drunken sailors, and the country voted for the Conservatives in 1988. The Conservatives tried to balance the books, and put through so many tax increases that by the 1993 election, they were reduced to only 2 seats in parliament at the hands of a tax shocked populace. The Liberals interestingly ran on a platform of tax reduction (which they subsequently did not follow). Also in the 1993 election, the new “REFORM PARTY” won 52 of the 295 total seats.
By the 2000 election Reform and Conservatives had became one Party to avoid vote splitting and won a minority government. In 2004 Liberals won a minority.
Conservatives then won a minority in 2006, again on a tax reduction platform, and continued with a majority, then minority until 2015 when Trudeau’s Liberals won. Once again the Liberals spent tax $$ like drunken sailors, likely prepping for a brief hiatus next year.
If history is any guide, Conservatives will win the next election, but be voted out of power thereafter due to the huge tax increases they will have to pass to balance the books.
In the meantime, the bureaucrats in the back rooms feeding new acts and regs for the parliamentarians to vote on…seem to be empire building central planning oriented socialists…
“Take a warning from Canada’s parliamentary history of the past few decades….Liberals will spend so much that Conservatives following them will have to raise taxes to the point they will be turfed in the following election”
This is also a problem in the United States.
When Trump first came into office in 2016, on the first day, his Defense Secretary came to him and told him that the Obama-Biden administration had left the United States critically short of ammunition.
How would you like to be told that on your first day as president?
So Trump, at the time, had to raise the Defense spending to over &700 billion to try to make up for the neglect the military suffered at the hands of Obama and Biden.
I’ll bet the same thing happens when Trump gets back in office in 2025. No doubt, Biden has neglected the U.S. military this time just like they did the last time.
So Republicans are going to have to spend some money when they get back in power to make up for radical Democrat wasteful spending.
Things have changed, namely the Chevron Deference decision.
TRUMP! can now eliminate 50% or more of the “regulations” that the bureaucracy has created since 1984 when the liberal SCOTUS gave those liberal bureaucrats the ability to write the rules without verifiable legislation giving them that authority.
Also, the Democrats use of the “budget balancing” 50 + 1 Senate vote for legislation, you know, that which Obama used for the federal government to take over the student loan system to “save money”, how did that work out, can be used to eliminate about every federal job, money for federal unions, convert the Department of Education funding to vouchers, etc. etc., all to help “balance the budget”.
If AI is going to be on top of the agenda you can see it going two ways. Big tech going off solar and wind bandwagon (and/ or restricting it to public energy use) and back to coal/ gas plus future nuclear to power AI which is also needed to control the population.They have a big sway. And increasing green energy failures not delivering investment+ NIMBY and a shift of funds plus increasing political pressure by citizens against Net Zero.
The first of the papers for EBAF is Loeb, et al, 2018, linked here. It’s important to understand how the “imbalance” is computed. It’s not what you might think. Read the abstract and the introduction, especially about the uncertainties of the LW and SW fluxes, and the method of adjusting the TOA fluxes to be “constrained” to heat uptake. https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
“The uptake of heat by Earth for this period is estimated from the sum of (i) 0.61 ± 0.09 W m−2 from the slope of weighted linear least squares fit to Argo OHCA data to a depth of 1800 m analyzed following Lyman and Johnson (2008), (ii) 0.07 ± 0.04 W m−2 from ocean heat storage at depths below 2000 m using data from 1981–2010 (Purkey and Johnson 2010), and (iii) 0.03 ± 0.01 W m−2 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming for 1971–2010 (Rhein et al. 2013).”
In other words, to me, it is trivially true that there must be an imbalance if the oceans are indeed warming. But the “climate change” narrative makes it sound like we are computing an imbalance between satellite measurements of incoming shortwave vs outgoing shortwave + longwave. No. We need not fall for this mischaracterization. The uncertainties of SW and LW satellite sensing are much too great for such a finding.
Don’t get me wrong. Satellite sensing and the resulting data products are useful, especially for trending of SW and LW separately, for trends in cloudiness, and for process understanding of highly variable LW emission and SW reflection.
But jumping from a trivially true “imbalance” – assuming the oceans really are warming – to an attribution of an imbalance due to GHG “forcing” is fundamentally unsound to begin with.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but the problem of uncertainties in SW and LW measurement remain. So is a report of declining SW (out) stated to a precision of 10 milliwatts per square meter appropriate without mentioning the much larger uncertainty in the core data?
From the paper you linked:
“Some residual uncertainty remains regarding the sign of the TOA net flux. By simply adding the uncertainties of the gross in- and outgoing fluxes, the uncertainty of the difference could easily be in the order of 1 W/m2 or more, which is larger than the 0.75 W/m2 reported for the year 2020. However, as shown below, the independently observed OHC data comply well with a positive radiative net flux, and it can be rather safely assumed that there was indeed a positive net flux during the last two decades.”
This takes us back to the point of my post. It is the ocean warming, assumed to be valid, that is used to justify a conclusion that a positive imbalance exists. Satellite SW and LW data has too much uncertainty on its own to ever compute an imbalance of the sign and precision necessary for attribution to GHGs.
Agree. The uncertainty is even greater than the CERES data states. There are other factors which could be involved. Both increasing salinity and the addition of microplastics will reduced evaporation. Since evaporation is a cooling mechanism, these will also warm the oceans.
This takes us back to the point of my post. It is the ocean warming, assumed to be valid, that is used to justify a conclusion that a positive imbalance exists.
There are other indicators that support the imbalance. The most significant is the rising atmospheric water. Increased atmospheric water is a reasonable proxy for increasing average global temperature. And increasing water vapour in the atmosphere is a certain sign that the globe is warming. A small increase in atmospheric water translates to a lot more heat in the atmosphere.
CERES is an approximation in absolute terms but is useful for relative measurements. This chart makes sense if you understand how the precession cycle is shifting peak solar intensity northward and the NH temperature response to sunlight is greater than the SH. ?ssl=1
Note the reversal in the general trend just north of the Equator. This shows where the cloud is increasing due to more ocean north of the Equator reaching the 30C sustainable limit and convective instability kicking in to limit further temperature rise.
Sometimes I need to simplify the concepts like shown in chart 10. It shows less reflected SW radiation recently at most latitudes (except equator) which is probably caused by fewer clouds. Less reflected SW warms that area and that increases the LW (red) radiation. Equator area actually getting a little more cloudy.
Hopefully got this right.
Don’t overlook the fact that the claimed hundredths of a W/m2 uncertainties are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the radiometric measurement uncertainties. These claims are absurd.
This Loeb paper is a fav of bgwx who quotes it like scripture.
“Don’t overlook the fact that the claimed hundredths of a W/m2 uncertainties are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the radiometric measurement uncertainties.” Exactly. I give Loeb credit for at least stating those uncertainties in the abstract of the paper. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
(This is the link to the Loeb et al 2018 paper I had meant to give in my post.)
From the abstract,
“The overall uncertainty in 1° × 1° latitude–longitude regional monthly all-sky TOA flux is estimated to be 3 W m−2 [one standard deviation (1σ)] for the Terra-only period and 2.5 W m−2 for the Terra–Aqua period both for SW and LW fluxes. The SW clear-sky regional monthly flux uncertainty is estimated to be 6 W m−2 for the Terra-only period and 5 W m−2 for the Terra–Aqua period. The LW clear-sky regional monthly flux uncertainty is 5 W m−2 for Terra only and 4.5 W m−2 for Terra–Aqua.”
But jumping from a trivially true “imbalance” – assuming the oceans really are warming – to an attribution of an imbalance due to GHG “forcing” is fundamentally unsound to begin with.
The looming problem for AR6 is that the CERES imbalance is outpacing the ocean heat retention. So the CERES instruments will need to be recalibrated or some other story dreamt up. CERES was calibrated to OHC over a decade of data from 2005 to 2015 ahead of AR5.
The vast majority of the RETAINED ocean heat is in the region of the Ferrell cells. Proof that heat is indeed being retained rather than absorbed because these regions are net radiation heat loss. ?ssl=1
So the warming, in terms of heat retention, is mostly in latitudinal bands that lose radiated heat and more in the Southern Hemisphere than in the NH. But temperature is rising more in the northern hemisphere than SH.
CO2 has no measurable impact on energy balance. It is contrived nonsense.
Yes, very stupid voters enable the likes of ‘puppet sleepy Joe gigglepot Kamala and comical ally Kareem’, but then you link to an MSN article on the Dunning-Kruger effect that, with a single exception, rambles on exclusively about the ‘stupidity’ of conservative Republicans.
If your intent was to highlight the awful impacts our D-K inflicted ‘experts’ have saddled us with since they first began running our lives during the Progressive Era, you might better have linked to some articles on their useless wars, currency debasement, destruction of the nuclear family, public health, etc.
It’s a start! They’re obviously nicer people than me. Had it been my commercial, I would have pointed out the vast amount of coal-fired generation and off-shored manufacturing in China and then made the obvious point that we too can use cheap energy from coal to grow our economy.
You should see Mike Rowe’s show “Six Degrees”. It’s sponsored by “Natural Gas” (I guess there’s some organization)
He hawks NG at the end – in one he had an electric car that he talked about not disparagingly (although not glowing terms either), then he pointed out “where the electricity came from” – Natural Gas. He does similar in all of them.
Gustav Speed
July 7, 2024 6:24 am
Interesting that I posted some global warming data on NextDoor from your website.
I have yet to hear anything about this other than this interview. This would be a big deal
if it happens. Give the political activities of the past few weeks why is no one else talking
about making DC and Puerto Rico states?
Side note is that’s Ross Peak in the background, where I learned to ski, ride horses
and the other important things in life…
Those are all longtime Democrat objectives, but they have to have the numbers in Congess to get there and they don’t have the numbers now, and hopefully, after the next election, they won’t have them then, either.
What people should be talking about is it was reported today that about 10 percent of the illegal aliens living in North Carolina have been registered to vote by the Democrats.
My guess is that is the case in most States in the Union.
We have to have Voter ID. We can’t allow illegal aliens, with no connection to this nation, to vote in our elections. Most of them would vote for Biden just because he let them into the country. Which is of course, the objective of Biden’s Open Border policy. He wants to steal America away from Americans.
We should also be talking about how Merrit Garland, the Attroney General of the Unied States has vowed to fight against implementing any Voter ID laws. Think about what that means. What motivates Garland?
Garland would require you to show an ID if you entered a federal building, but dismisses requiring an ID for voters.
Obviously, Garland wants to enable illegal aliens to vote in American elections. Why? Because the Democrats think they will get most of those votes.
So to hell with the rules, the Democrats say, our retention of political power is more imporant than anything, and we will do anything, legal or illegal, to make that happen.
Garland, the Attroney General of the United States, is on the attack against the American system of government and is trying to establish the first Democrat Dictatorship in the U.S.
Merrit Garland is attacking all of us who value our freedoms.
I think the Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to vote this week to fine Merrit Garland $10,000.00 per day for every day he refuses to turn over the tape recordings of Biden’s interrogation by the Special Counsel, Mr. Hur.
Congress has requested those recordings and Garland has steadfastly refused to provide them, even though he is obligated by law to do so. Attroney General Garland plays fast and loose with our laws.
Now we see what Lawless Democrats do.
Don’t vote for Lawless Democrats if you value your personal freedoms because they will take them away from you. They are trying to do just that right this very minute.
Well they’ve proven most people are sheep. So they’re going to use the plandemic playbook again and again. I have a hard time forgiving people who fell for it the first time.
Open thread.
Maybe even OT for this.
At the “Avengers: End Game” (Spoiler Alert!!! If you’ve never seen it. STOP READING!!!)
They made a big deal of not changing the “timeline”. Captain America goes back in time to retore the timestones and Thor’s Hammer to their proper places.
Yet Captain America shows up at the end with his shield, that Thanos had all but destroyed, but also in a realized relationship with the love of his (original) life who was also one of the founders of SHIELD?
I mean, for instance, the time traveling Captain America must have taken the shield from a “previous” Captain America. What did the previous one use after his shield was stolen?
If Cap went back to prevent alternate timelines by returning the stones and Thor’s Hammer but then shows up old with an undamaged shield?
Knowing it’s all pretend, I’ve never seen even a pretend explanation for that major inconsistency.
I was reading that Denmark and New Zealand were going to tax their farmers for the greenhouse gases their cows produce. Now if the farmers find this impossible and not economic will they sell of their cows for meat. Oh goody, cheap gut of meat. Then what, no milk equals no butter, no cheese and eventually no meat as you no longer have breeding cows. Somebody has not thought this out very well I think.
You have to realize that governments worldwide are strapped for real “wealth” as opposed to money they have authorized to be printed (which only dilutes real earned wealth held in savings and retirement accounts). So they are inventing as many indirect forms of taxation on people’s real wealth that seems “media explainable” (without the reintroduction of the guillotine) as they can find.
Taxing cow flatulence is an indirect tax on food.
Carbon tax is a fuel tax.
Inflation is an indirect tax on savings, and the G7, G10, G20 convenes yearly to set their inflation “target” to rip off their populations without causing riots in the streets.
Capital gains taxes is an indirect tax on real estate and a lifetime of inflation.…
And so it goes….add some media spin and the public somehow accepts this not-so-rational junk as socially beneficial.
So much good stuff for a happy sunday 😀
China’s Offshore Wind Power Prices to Undercut Coal This Year
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/chinas-offshore-wind-power-prices-to-undercut-coal-this-year
The nuclear and renewable myths that mainstream media can’t be bothered challenging
https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-nuclear-and-renewable-myths-that-mainstream-media-cant-be-bothered-challenging/
When it comes to power, solar is about to leave nuclear and everything else in the shade
https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-power-solar-is-about-to-leave-nuclear-and-everything-else-in-the-shade-233644
That was a party political broadcast by the green party.
What cannot happen will not happen, and that includes UK Net Zero.
That won’t stop them trying.
Yes. michel is entirely correct.
The question is, how far will they go?
Car manufacturer Vauxhall has already said they intend to start shuttering factories in the UK within the next year because of the unattainable targets. The other car companies, with barely a pair of balls between them, will follow suit.
Newly elected PM, Keir Starmer, had already got himself in hot green water before the election by beginning to wind his neck in on on green pledges.
There is a lot more winding back to come. Then he will have to grovel before Vladimir Putin and kiss the ring on Donald Trump’s finger.
Schadenfreude is, as they say, a dish best served cold. I will be watching closely.
That was a PAID party political broadcast by the green party.
Or a message from the local mental hospital.
Have you figured out that it is impossible to manufacture steel and glass without coal yet, lusername?
Smelting some metals (e.g., base metals, gold and silver) requires lots of heat which is supplied by thermal coal. Manufacture of ceramic materials such as porcelain ware (e.g., sinks, toilets and china), tiles, bricks, etc. requires large amounts heat. Production of Portland cement requires much raw heat.
Yawn
Niche Ukraine war spike, do you have a link to the site?
Yes i do
Great
How’s your gas bill?
The modern world can’t exist without oil and gas including EVs, wind turbines, solar, hydro, computers, phones, television, the internet, plastics, agriculture, the green blob and thousands of products reliant on fossil fuels for manufacture and transportation
Which of these products do you use daily?
He won’t answer.
Or he’ll deflect
Either way, he/she/them/it won’t admit he/she/them/it are reliant on oil and gas to maintain their standard of living and not throw us back to the 17th century
Yep. Views the world through green glasses.
I don’t think he/she/them/it has ventured very far in the world and has just stuck to his 15 minute town lol
“The village with the smallest carbon footprint in all of England”
I’m not so sure losername isn’t still hiding under it’s mother’s apron. It doesn’t seem to have much knowledge beyond what is on the green web sites.
“Which of these products do you use daily?
Luser uses EVERY ONE OF THEM. !!
Luser’s whole pathetic existence is totally reliant on fossil fuels.
“Solar putting everything else in the shade”. Indeed, lots of shade beneath the panels. Oh, and dead lifeforms..
Ah well, creative bookkeeping i guess.
As I pointed out above. Solar doesn’t work in the shade. !
Gas, Coal, Oil, Nuclear … all do work in the shade.
From one of your links:
Batteries are more difficult. They are needed to make solar useful after dark and they require so-called critical minerals such as lithium, nickel and cobalt (which Australia has in abundance).
But the efficiency of batteries is soaring and the price is plummeting, meaning that on one estimate the cost of a kilowatt-hour of battery storage has fallen by 99% over the past 30 years.
But who cares what happened 30 years ago? Right now battery prices are about $139/kWh. That’s not low enough to make solar viable. Do the math on the UK. In winter its dark from 4pm to 10am. And not very bright in the day.
How much battery is needed to back up 1GW of solar faceplate? How much solar output can you rely on for consumption, and how much extra do you need to recharge the batteries in winter?
The math is left to the reader. The short answer is you need too much extra, and too many batteries, and its not viable.
Michel,
The abundance of minerals does not matter so much as the price you can buy them to make your product.
Geoff S
The latter being a function of the former…
attickman,
I was thinking of people who say ASustralia should go nuclear because we host a large part of known global uranium reserves. That argument has no value. Nuclear stands on its past global performance, nothing to do with U abundance here, nothing to do with climate change. Geoff S
I’m having a long term losing battle with the BBC over battery storage. Normally they just cut and paste from publicity blurbs, so any article has XMW powering Y households.
So far after 3 or 4 articles they are still saying they use these metrics because it’s understandable for their audience. How any with meaningless content can be understandable is beyond me.
The capital cost of utility scale batteries is about $600 per kWh and the amount of storage required makes the cost astronomical.
https://www.cfact.org/2024/06/10/windless-nights-make-net-zero-impossible/
Even a 90% reduction would still be impossible and the price has not gone down for years. Those early cuts were the start of mass production, so not much left to cut.
The amount of energy from wind and solar in China is absolutely tiny.
Connecting wind and solar to the grid COSTS MORE than they can ever save.
And then you have the fact that to manufacture solar panels, wind turbines and batteries all need coal or other fossil fuels in large quantities, so one cannot have renewables without keeping fossil fuels going at a higher rate where manufacturing takes place. So, what’s the point of an energy transition that can’t actually happen, never mind the cost!
Global emissions are going to rise whatever you do with existing technology; therefore we need to invent better technology before we attempt any slow transition away from needed fossil fuels and lubricants. However, that won’t suit the greedy eco-industrialists and spin merchants who support the `renewables or die’ climate-con alarmists and want the required subsidies for their highly dubious planet saving business schemes.
It’s time the whole of climate science, related academia and associated climate/energy policy solutions were subject to proper objective scrutiny and cost benefit analysis by reputable authorities. In Australia and the UK this could be achieved by a Royal Commission with wide powers to force bureaucrats and academia to give real data and evidence towards the reality of what drives climate change, what are the risks for the future, and indicate suitable cost- effective policies to help alleviate any natural or human-related hazards defined. However, I am not totally naive to believe this will happen under current governments, wishful thinking, I guess.
The CONversation is totally a biased and non-credible source of real information.
Even worse for anti-science, anti-reality propaganda than Reneweconomy.
Only a complete moron like you continues to fall for it.
Oh and SOLAR DOESN’T WORK IN THE SHADE.. you gormless twit !!
bnice,
Yep, I was the first scientist to have my account lockedforever by the fresh young censor of The Conversation was back in the early days. Then Misha Ketchell doing the coward’s “No further conversation will be entered into” when I wanted to know why I was censored.
Geoff S
It should be named “Commusation” because it is really about promoting communism. It’s especially sad that it’s basically government funded, paid for by university membership funds. It works similarly to a game played by university professors to enhance their income.
A lecture circuit exists whereby professors from other universities are paid “honorariums” and travel expenses to speak at other schools. Staff at the school being visited benefit as hosts by taking the visiting professor to usually the most expensive restaurants in the area, often accompanied by multiple other professors and their spouses.
The travel amenities are also usually top notch being covered by generous “per diems” and the poor professors often fly in first class due to various “upgrade” schemes.
It’s true that “starting’ professors usually do not enjoy such perks, but in general the believe that professors struggle financially is a myth.
I use to like going to Conferences when doing research at Uni….
The boss or the people we were doing research for usually had an “expense account”. 🙂
Never flew 1st class though.
bnice,
I did first class often, like when the corporate biz jet was booked.
You see, we were successful in usinggood, hard science to generate lots of money from new mines we found. It was immaterial how much a plane trip cost.
The option of paying for your own future through bebing good at you job is an option that is open to everyone.
Everyone, that is , except those so dumb that they are paralysed, unable to act unless some official has told them what to do. Stop talking about these officials because it only encourages them to think that they are worthwhile.
Geoff S
The Conversation has so little confidence in their liberal position that quite some time ago they announced that the would delete comments that they didn’t agree with, rather than attempt to dispute them. That is when I stopped reading The Conversation.
People with dumbusernames are certain to read all the wrong stuff when it comes to understanding what is required to deliver efficient, reliable and realistically priced electricity to the general consumer. Just because you read something anywhere, pal, does not mean it is true. Now I only say that because you are clearly too dumb for your own good.
FJB promised to end fossil fuels.
Career politician. Worse still, a career democrat – even now that his brain has barely more thinking power than a cabbage, he can still spout big lies, albeit not very well on the debate stage:
Here you go name boi – record oil production, USA 2023 and we still have Trump coming to shatter records in 2025:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61584#:~:text=Growth%20in%20crude%20oil%20production,%2Fd)%20increase%20from%202022.
Offshore wind electricity less costly than coal?
BULL MANURE?
A 306-megawatt wind farm off Shanghai costs 3-billion yuan ($410 million) project, or $1.34 million/installed MW.
The 36 turbines will be installed within the year
They are jointly owned by Chinese energy giants, China Three Gorges Corp., China National Offshore Oil Corp., and a Shanghai-based investor.
Its auctioned on-grid tariff was settled at 0.302 yuan per kWh, making it the first project of its kind to undercut coal power prices in China.
wholesale, 4.2 c/kWh at 7.25 yuan/$;
wholesale coal in the US is 5 to 6 c/kWh
On the US east coast, wind offshore cost would be $5.5 million/MW, plus it would take longer to install them.
wholesale 15 to 16 c/kWh
The 0.302 yuan/kWh does not include 1) grid reinforcement/expansion, plus 2) the other generators operating inefficiently while doing the counteracting/balancing.
All that added to the existing traditional systems, has made the whole, enlarged electrical system less reliable and more costly/kWh.
.
This is proven by EU statistics, which show, the more wind/solar installed kW per household, the higher the c/kWh, and by German outage/instability/curtailment reports.
.
France is on the low end c/kWh, due to 70% nuclear, already for decades.
.
The German economy has hit the wall in many areas, as a consequence of too much wind and solar, and open borders, and other distracting/chaos-creating BS.
The Conversation is an Australian web propaganda site.
SA (the tiny usage renewable state) currently using 83% GAS
NSW… 82% Coal and Gas
QLD… 87% Coal and Gas
Victoria actually has some wind for a change, but is still 66% coal and gas.
You did know that solar is absolutely useless for probably 18 hours of the day in winter, don’t you.
Where are the numbers from actual implementations showing real costs? Chinese prices are not market driven no matter what you say. Just because there is an auction it does not mean there is not money coming from the CCP into the equation and is just not mentioned.
The “renewables” are all in the future. You have non-engineers writing about how easy it is to run a grid without any fossil fuels. But show us a country that actually runs a grid 24/7 without fossil fuels. Generating large amounts of electricity when not needed and paying other countries to take it off your hands, while paying for backup when there is no wind and no sun is not a fiscally sound approach to running a grid, unless you are a green weenie. All your links are always sheer garbage.
Wind can not undercut coal. All wind can do is make coal less efficient because you have to keep steam pressure up to cover the constant variation in wind output. Solar is hopeless because it only generates a few hours a day and that unpredictably thanks to clouds.
The bot that runs MyUsername is beyond rational responses.
It is the same genre of bot that infects comments pages everywhere saying things like –
“Joe Biden is the smartest, switched-on, lucid, honest president ever and is hands-down the bestest candidate to vanquish Trump”
In other words, delusion upon lunacy being presented as serious comment.
I envy you your stomach. I could not read what you read.
Regarding your first link- so we can expect China to terminate all its coal plants this year- or at least stop building new ones?
China added 58GW of coal power in 2023.
Right, and they installed some ruinables too- I suspect the reason is that they want to build up that industry- to drive the price down- so we’ll buy it and ruin our economies. So far they are succeeding in that strategy. But the green fools here will say “look China is going green- they’ve installed more renewable energy this year than the rest of the world”- too stupid to see the full picture.
Regarding your 2nd link, even assuming their claim that some areas meet their power needs almost entirely from renewables- isn’t proof it can be done worldwide.
“China’s Offshore Wind Power Prices to Undercut Coal This Year”
Wow! I thought wind was free! Yeah, but that country’s boss can dictate what the price for anything is, right?
MYN, you ignored my advice and admonition that “Handy Links” and “Talking Points” on this subject” just leave you stupid. Up your game, etc.
is about to leave
Tell me when it actually does.
During the UK election campaign there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the alarmists that the so-called climate crisis wasn’t being talked about – at all. Letters from the great and good were sent to political parties and media broadcasters alike. You must…
And now that the dust is settling Net Zero is the order of the day…. or is it?
“”Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency
Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, will go against the Government’s net zero plans
The joint leader of the Green Party is planning to oppose net zero plans backed by the Labour Government to build pylons in Suffolk to transport offshore wind power. Adrian Ramsay, one of the party’s four newly elected MPs, has said that he will seek a pause to the plans to build a 100-mile corridor of pylons stretching through his constituency of Waveney Valley.
The plans, which are currently under consultation by National Grid, will bring power from wind farms off the coast of East Anglia, and stretch from Norwich to Tilbury.””
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/06/net-zero-green-mp-adrian-ramsay-opposing-government-plans/
Should be interesting…
“”[Edstone Miliband] pledged a Labour Government will overturn planning rules that currently require local community support to approve proposed turbines.
If he wins office he plans to use a ministerial “written statement” to remove an obligation in the national planning policy framework for community concerns to be “appropriately addressed”, a stipulation that has effectively blocked onshore wind projects for a decade.””
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/23/ill-take-on-the-wind-farm-nimbys-from-day-one-says-ed-milliband/
You can’t make this stuff up. But then, with the British constitution you can make it up – as you go along.
And yet the claim of nimbyism is always levelled at those who are right of centre
“If he wins office he plans to use a ministerial “written statement” to remove an obligation in the national planning policy framework for community concerns to be “appropriately addressed”, a stipulation that has effectively blocked onshore wind projects for a decade.””
That sounds like something that is done in a Dictatorship. Damn the People, Full Speed Ahead.
They know what is best for the plebs
That’s what all those dictators say.
Well, that’s exactly the sort of approach the federal Labor Government in Australia is legislating to do, to re-invigorate the stalled precious renewables-only program, being held up by local councils and angry landholders as well as concerned environmentalists.
It’s tyranny.
During the [UK] election campaign there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the alarmist fraternity that the fact that the so-called climate crisis wasn’t being talked about – at all.
Letters from the great and good were sent to political parties and media broadcasters alike. You must. And now that the dust is settling Net Zero is the order of the day…. or is it?
Green MP opposes 100-mile corridor of wind farm pylons in his Suffolk constituency
Adrian Ramsay, the party’s co-leader, will go against the Government’s net zero plans
The joint leader of the Green Party is planning to oppose net zero plans backed by the Labour Government to build pylons in Suffolk to transport offshore wind power. Adrian Ramsay, one of the party’s four newly elected MPs, has said that he will seek a pause to the plans to build a 100-mile corridor of pylons stretching through his constituency of Waveney Valley.
The plans, which are currently under consultation by National Grid, will bring power from wind farms off the coast of East Anglia, and stretch from Norwich to Tilbury.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/06/net-zero-green-mp-adrian-ramsay-opposing-government-plans/
Should be interesting…
“”[Miliband] pledged a Labour Government will overturn planning rules that currently require local community support to approve proposed turbines.
If he wins office he plans to use a ministerial “written statement” to remove an obligation in the national planning policy framework for community concerns to be “appropriately addressed”, a stipulation that has effectively blocked onshore wind projects for a decade.””
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/23/ill-take-on-the-wind-farm-nimbys-from-day-one-says-ed-milliband/
You can’t make this stuff up. But then, with the British constitution you can. And as you go along, too.
Moderation baffles humble Brit.
Two humble Brits
Info on co2 saturation is a little sparse. A graph of co2 increase vs temp increase would come in quite handy when talking with the doom mongers. Any links appreciated.
Simple answer. There is no temperature increase. CO2 has both a warming and a cooling forcing which balance out. All you hear about from climate pseudo-scientists is the warming half of the equation. They then ignore the cooling part and add on non-existent positive feedback.
Start with the below 45 pages….then you’ll know what topics to search for, plus have a good understanding of the topic….watts forcing per CO2 increase info is everywhere, (Search for “Gunnar Myhre, Radiative forcing” for the source of the commonly accepted formulas) ….temperature increase per watts is basically “un-settled” science resulting in everything from 0.7 to 6.5 C per CO2 doubling being claimed….
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/happer_major_statement.pdf
Thanks.
An amazing column in todays UK Telegraph. A straw in the wind that the Telegraph would publish such a piece. A couple of extracts will give the flavor:
I am a young woman and a recent graduate, and on Thursday I voted Reform. By all metrics of identity politics, my voting record should be redder than a sundried tomato. But I declare the identity politics games are soon to be over, and since the last election I have had to pay income tax and it is time to say it as it is…..
….If I have been ambiguous thus far, let me spell it out. Net Zero, I will not pay for it. Indentured servitude in the service industry, I am done with it. Foreign criminals, you can keep them. Infants are not “assigned” a sex, women are not “womb-havers”. I will not have my tax money fund the mastectomies of girls, and men are not surplus to requirement.
If you wondered whether Reform with its mere 5 seats for its 4 million voters was going to make a difference to British politics, wonder no more. Its made a difference to the Telegraph already, and this is just the start.
Reform to set up branches nationwide
A must.
Take a warning from Canada’s parliamentary history of the past few decades….Liberals will spend so much that Conservatives following them will have to raise taxes to the point they will be turfed in the following election….
…“Reform” Parties will morph into Conservatives.
…Taxes will be raised to the point where eventually whichever party promising tax reductions will win the election, but be unable or unwilling to follow through on their popular media show promises when they find out how bad the gov’t debt really is.
Historically, Canada had, more often than not since the 1960’s, a Liberal party in charge, However the Liberals spent like drunken sailors, and the country voted for the Conservatives in 1988. The Conservatives tried to balance the books, and put through so many tax increases that by the 1993 election, they were reduced to only 2 seats in parliament at the hands of a tax shocked populace. The Liberals interestingly ran on a platform of tax reduction (which they subsequently did not follow). Also in the 1993 election, the new “REFORM PARTY” won 52 of the 295 total seats.
By the 2000 election Reform and Conservatives had became one Party to avoid vote splitting and won a minority government. In 2004 Liberals won a minority.
Conservatives then won a minority in 2006, again on a tax reduction platform, and continued with a majority, then minority until 2015 when Trudeau’s Liberals won. Once again the Liberals spent tax $$ like drunken sailors, likely prepping for a brief hiatus next year.
If history is any guide, Conservatives will win the next election, but be voted out of power thereafter due to the huge tax increases they will have to pass to balance the books.
In the meantime, the bureaucrats in the back rooms feeding new acts and regs for the parliamentarians to vote on…seem to be empire building central planning oriented socialists…
“Take a warning from Canada’s parliamentary history of the past few decades….Liberals will spend so much that Conservatives following them will have to raise taxes to the point they will be turfed in the following election”
This is also a problem in the United States.
When Trump first came into office in 2016, on the first day, his Defense Secretary came to him and told him that the Obama-Biden administration had left the United States critically short of ammunition.
How would you like to be told that on your first day as president?
So Trump, at the time, had to raise the Defense spending to over &700 billion to try to make up for the neglect the military suffered at the hands of Obama and Biden.
I’ll bet the same thing happens when Trump gets back in office in 2025. No doubt, Biden has neglected the U.S. military this time just like they did the last time.
So Republicans are going to have to spend some money when they get back in power to make up for radical Democrat wasteful spending.
Things have changed, namely the Chevron Deference decision.
TRUMP! can now eliminate 50% or more of the “regulations” that the bureaucracy has created since 1984 when the liberal SCOTUS gave those liberal bureaucrats the ability to write the rules without verifiable legislation giving them that authority.
Also, the Democrats use of the “budget balancing” 50 + 1 Senate vote for legislation, you know, that which Obama used for the federal government to take over the student loan system to “save money”, how did that work out, can be used to eliminate about every federal job, money for federal unions, convert the Department of Education funding to vouchers, etc. etc., all to help “balance the budget”.
Doesn’t this observation require peer review now?
If AI is going to be on top of the agenda you can see it going two ways. Big tech going off solar and wind bandwagon (and/ or restricting it to public energy use) and back to coal/ gas plus future nuclear to power AI which is also needed to control the population.They have a big sway. And increasing green energy failures not delivering investment+ NIMBY and a shift of funds plus increasing political pressure by citizens against Net Zero.
AI will disappear as soon as it says there is no climate crisis.
EEI – “Earth’s Energy Imbalance”
Consider the CERES data products. The EBAF Data Product References are given here.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
The first of the papers for EBAF is Loeb, et al, 2018, linked here. It’s important to understand how the “imbalance” is computed. It’s not what you might think. Read the abstract and the introduction, especially about the uncertainties of the LW and SW fluxes, and the method of adjusting the TOA fluxes to be “constrained” to heat uptake.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/documentation/
“The uptake of heat by Earth for this period is estimated from the sum of (i) 0.61 ± 0.09 W m−2 from the slope of weighted linear least squares fit to Argo OHCA data to a depth of 1800 m analyzed following Lyman and Johnson (2008), (ii) 0.07 ± 0.04 W m−2 from ocean heat storage at depths below 2000 m using data from 1981–2010 (Purkey and Johnson 2010), and (iii) 0.03 ± 0.01 W m−2 from ice warming and melt and atmospheric and lithospheric warming for 1971–2010 (Rhein et al. 2013).”
In other words, to me, it is trivially true that there must be an imbalance if the oceans are indeed warming. But the “climate change” narrative makes it sound like we are computing an imbalance between satellite measurements of incoming shortwave vs outgoing shortwave + longwave. No. We need not fall for this mischaracterization. The uncertainties of SW and LW satellite sensing are much too great for such a finding.
Don’t get me wrong. Satellite sensing and the resulting data products are useful, especially for trending of SW and LW separately, for trends in cloudiness, and for process understanding of highly variable LW emission and SW reflection.
But jumping from a trivially true “imbalance” – assuming the oceans really are warming – to an attribution of an imbalance due to GHG “forcing” is fundamentally unsound to begin with.
Good post. John Clauser does a good job of debunking the IPCC’s EEI ‘measurements’ here:
http://www.sepp.org/science_papers/John_Clauser_ICSF_FINAL_May-8_2024.pdf
Yes, Clauser “gets” the problem with uncertainty in the “imbalance” in this presentation you linked.
The best paper for understanding CERES data is Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 by Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297
“The declining TOA SW (out) is the major heating cause (+1.42 W/m2 from 2001 to 2020)”
This tells us the biggest warming factor is solar energy from a decrease in clouds.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but the problem of uncertainties in SW and LW measurement remain. So is a report of declining SW (out) stated to a precision of 10 milliwatts per square meter appropriate without mentioning the much larger uncertainty in the core data?
From the paper you linked:
“Some residual uncertainty remains regarding the sign of the TOA net flux. By simply adding the uncertainties of the gross in- and outgoing fluxes, the uncertainty of the difference could easily be in the order of 1 W/m 2 or more, which is larger than the 0.75 W/m 2 reported for the year 2020. However, as shown below, the independently observed OHC data comply well with a positive radiative net flux, and it can be rather safely assumed that there was indeed a positive net flux during the last two decades.”
This takes us back to the point of my post. It is the ocean warming, assumed to be valid, that is used to justify a conclusion that a positive imbalance exists. Satellite SW and LW data has too much uncertainty on its own to ever compute an imbalance of the sign and precision necessary for attribution to GHGs.
Agree. The uncertainty is even greater than the CERES data states. There are other factors which could be involved. Both increasing salinity and the addition of microplastics will reduced evaporation. Since evaporation is a cooling mechanism, these will also warm the oceans.
There are other indicators that support the imbalance. The most significant is the rising atmospheric water. Increased atmospheric water is a reasonable proxy for increasing average global temperature. And increasing water vapour in the atmosphere is a certain sign that the globe is warming. A small increase in atmospheric water translates to a lot more heat in the atmosphere.
CERES is an approximation in absolute terms but is useful for relative measurements. This chart makes sense if you understand how the precession cycle is shifting peak solar intensity northward and the NH temperature response to sunlight is greater than the SH.
?ssl=1
Note the reversal in the general trend just north of the Equator. This shows where the cloud is increasing due to more ocean north of the Equator reaching the 30C sustainable limit and convective instability kicking in to limit further temperature rise.
Sometimes I need to simplify the concepts like shown in chart 10. It shows less reflected SW radiation recently at most latitudes (except equator) which is probably caused by fewer clouds. Less reflected SW warms that area and that increases the LW (red) radiation. Equator area actually getting a little more cloudy.
Hopefully got this right.
Don’t overlook the fact that the claimed hundredths of a W/m2 uncertainties are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the radiometric measurement uncertainties. These claims are absurd.
This Loeb paper is a fav of bgwx who quotes it like scripture.
“Don’t overlook the fact that the claimed hundredths of a W/m2 uncertainties are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the radiometric measurement uncertainties.”
Exactly. I give Loeb credit for at least stating those uncertainties in the abstract of the paper.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml
(This is the link to the Loeb et al 2018 paper I had meant to give in my post.)
From the abstract,
“The overall uncertainty in 1° × 1° latitude–longitude regional monthly all-sky TOA flux is estimated to be 3 W m−2 [one standard deviation (1σ)] for the Terra-only period and 2.5 W m−2 for the Terra–Aqua period both for SW and LW fluxes. The SW clear-sky regional monthly flux uncertainty is estimated to be 6 W m−2 for the Terra-only period and 5 W m−2 for the Terra–Aqua period. The LW clear-sky regional monthly flux uncertainty is 5 W m−2 for Terra only and 4.5 W m−2 for Terra–Aqua.”
And then somehow from these they proceed to claim numbers in the mW/m2 range. Amazing.
The looming problem for AR6 is that the CERES imbalance is outpacing the ocean heat retention. So the CERES instruments will need to be recalibrated or some other story dreamt up. CERES was calibrated to OHC over a decade of data from 2005 to 2015 ahead of AR5.
The vast majority of the RETAINED ocean heat is in the region of the Ferrell cells. Proof that heat is indeed being retained rather than absorbed because these regions are net radiation heat loss.
?ssl=1
So the warming, in terms of heat retention, is mostly in latitudinal bands that lose radiated heat and more in the Southern Hemisphere than in the NH. But temperature is rising more in the northern hemisphere than SH.
CO2 has no measurable impact on energy balance. It is contrived nonsense.
Google versus net zero. Good stuff from Robert Bryce
https://open.substack.com/pub/robertbryce/p/googles-net-zero-plans-are-going-up-in-smoke?r=l0m2k&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
And that’s why you have puppet sleepy Joe gigglepot Kamala and comical ally Kareem upfront folks so the real brainy wizards are away from all the stupidity behind the screen-
How stupidity is an existential threat to America | Opinion (msn.com)
PS: Oh and apparently it would be a good idea if there was a plague so there was a Renaissance or some such as there’s too many stupid people-
The rich echo a thought virus that has infected humanity since early evangelical religion | Opinion (msn.com)
From the wizards behind the screen.
Ah, another balanced MSN article, this one linking ‘overpopulation’ to religious kooks
Yes, very stupid voters enable the likes of ‘puppet sleepy Joe gigglepot Kamala and comical ally Kareem’, but then you link to an MSN article on the Dunning-Kruger effect that, with a single exception, rambles on exclusively about the ‘stupidity’ of conservative Republicans.
If your intent was to highlight the awful impacts our D-K inflicted ‘experts’ have saddled us with since they first began running our lives during the Progressive Era, you might better have linked to some articles on their useless wars, currency debasement, destruction of the nuclear family, public health, etc.
AKA Kackles.
AKA ‘Dome’ (h/t Jesse Kelly).
I just saw a commercial for the first time (on Fox News) that is promoting coal use and ridiculing it’s detractors.
The commercial advises people to go to their website for more information:
thecoalhardtruth.com
We have a little public pushback going on for once. A potential Trump victory in November must be putting the wind in their sails. 🙂
Sponsored by big coal company Consol. Good for them. Website seems confusing.
It’s a start! They’re obviously nicer people than me. Had it been my commercial, I would have pointed out the vast amount of coal-fired generation and off-shored manufacturing in China and then made the obvious point that we too can use cheap energy from coal to grow our economy.
You should see Mike Rowe’s show “Six Degrees”. It’s sponsored by “Natural Gas” (I guess there’s some organization)
He hawks NG at the end – in one he had an electric car that he talked about not disparagingly (although not glowing terms either), then he pointed out “where the electricity came from” – Natural Gas. He does similar in all of them.
Interesting that I posted some global warming data on NextDoor from your website.
i was suspended for making people “not feel safe”
Just for starters, the company is based in San Francisco, partnered with CDC for COVID, and NOAA for disaster relief. So no surprise.
I was paging thru my regular sites this past week and this caught my eye=====>
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/05/exclusive-daines-warns-senate-democrats-plan-radical-power-grab-nuking-filibuster-packing-scotus-making-dc-puerto-rico-states/
I have yet to hear anything about this other than this interview. This would be a big deal
if it happens. Give the political activities of the past few weeks why is no one else talking
about making DC and Puerto Rico states?
Side note is that’s Ross Peak in the background, where I learned to ski, ride horses
and the other important things in life…
Those are all longtime Democrat objectives, but they have to have the numbers in Congess to get there and they don’t have the numbers now, and hopefully, after the next election, they won’t have them then, either.
What people should be talking about is it was reported today that about 10 percent of the illegal aliens living in North Carolina have been registered to vote by the Democrats.
My guess is that is the case in most States in the Union.
We have to have Voter ID. We can’t allow illegal aliens, with no connection to this nation, to vote in our elections. Most of them would vote for Biden just because he let them into the country. Which is of course, the objective of Biden’s Open Border policy. He wants to steal America away from Americans.
We should also be talking about how Merrit Garland, the Attroney General of the Unied States has vowed to fight against implementing any Voter ID laws. Think about what that means. What motivates Garland?
What motivates Garland?
What motivates any power hungry liberal, statist, dictator?
It should be obvious what motivates Garland.
Garland would require you to show an ID if you entered a federal building, but dismisses requiring an ID for voters.
Obviously, Garland wants to enable illegal aliens to vote in American elections. Why? Because the Democrats think they will get most of those votes.
So to hell with the rules, the Democrats say, our retention of political power is more imporant than anything, and we will do anything, legal or illegal, to make that happen.
Garland, the Attroney General of the United States, is on the attack against the American system of government and is trying to establish the first Democrat Dictatorship in the U.S.
Merrit Garland is attacking all of us who value our freedoms.
I think the Republicans in the House of Representatives are going to vote this week to fine Merrit Garland $10,000.00 per day for every day he refuses to turn over the tape recordings of Biden’s interrogation by the Special Counsel, Mr. Hur.
Congress has requested those recordings and Garland has steadfastly refused to provide them, even though he is obligated by law to do so. Attroney General Garland plays fast and loose with our laws.
Now we see what Lawless Democrats do.
Don’t vote for Lawless Democrats if you value your personal freedoms because they will take them away from you. They are trying to do just that right this very minute.
Had a 5 hour power outage this week. It sucked. Apparently, something to do with a transformer. Not enough maintenance?
You need a Generac generator. Do they still sell propane in Wokesachucetts?
Yes.
From some headlines I saw this week, looks like they’re jabbering about covid being a “threat” again this year.
“about covid being a “threat” again this year.”
There is an election coming up in the USA. Dems need to lock people down so they can get all those faked mail-in votes.
Well they’ve proven most people are sheep. So they’re going to use the plandemic playbook again and again. I have a hard time forgiving people who fell for it the first time.
LOL, the “Second Gentleman” just tested positive for the China virus.
Coincidence? I think not.
Open thread.
Maybe even OT for this.
At the “Avengers: End Game” (Spoiler Alert!!! If you’ve never seen it. STOP READING!!!)
They made a big deal of not changing the “timeline”. Captain America goes back in time to retore the timestones and Thor’s Hammer to their proper places.
Yet Captain America shows up at the end with his shield, that Thanos had all but destroyed, but also in a realized relationship with the love of his (original) life who was also one of the founders of SHIELD?
I mean, for instance, the time traveling Captain America must have taken the shield from a “previous” Captain America. What did the previous one use after his shield was stolen?
If Cap went back to prevent alternate timelines by returning the stones and Thor’s Hammer but then shows up old with an undamaged shield?
Knowing it’s all pretend, I’ve never seen even a pretend explanation for that major inconsistency.
Beryl is approaching Houston.
I like these open threads.
I was reading that Denmark and New Zealand were going to tax their farmers for the greenhouse gases their cows produce. Now if the farmers find this impossible and not economic will they sell of their cows for meat. Oh goody, cheap gut of meat. Then what, no milk equals no butter, no cheese and eventually no meat as you no longer have breeding cows. Somebody has not thought this out very well I think.
Or they have thought it out, and it serves their ultimate goals.
You have to realize that governments worldwide are strapped for real “wealth” as opposed to money they have authorized to be printed (which only dilutes real earned wealth held in savings and retirement accounts). So they are inventing as many indirect forms of taxation on people’s real wealth that seems “media explainable” (without the reintroduction of the guillotine) as they can find.
Taxing cow flatulence is an indirect tax on food.
Carbon tax is a fuel tax.
Inflation is an indirect tax on savings, and the G7, G10, G20 convenes yearly to set their inflation “target” to rip off their populations without causing riots in the streets.
Capital gains taxes is an indirect tax on real estate and a lifetime of inflation.…
And so it goes….add some media spin and the public somehow accepts this not-so-rational junk as socially beneficial.