.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Having a strong technical knowledge of the power system along with some expertise in finance, rates and costs can help one see the folly of a variety of policies adopted to support many of today’s wind and solar projects. Very few policy makers possess anything close to the skill sets needed for such an evaluation. Furthermore, while policy makers could listen to experts, their voices are drowned out by those with vested interests in wind and solar technology who garner considerable support from those ideologically inclined to support renewables regardless of impacts.

-- Charles Rotter

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/19/assigning-blame-for-the-blackouts-in-texas/

https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Climate_Red_Pill_2020.jpg?fit=822%2C690&ssl=1

Edited February 20, 2021 by Tom Nolan

[notsonice + 1,069]

11 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

It was a turn of phrase. Of course they understood that the energy would have to be transmitted--that just seemed so mundane that it wasn't considered to be a stumbling block. The Wind-Catcher was a $4.5B project, about to become the largest wind farm in America. As one large landowner said, "It was corporate greed disguised as green energy and consumer benefits." 

There were to be 800 new turbines. Three of the five states had already approved the project. Texas declined. 

That was in late 2018. Already, at that point, Texas was realizing that wind wasn't all it was cooked up to be.

These big wind farm projects are massive. They ruin the landscape for miles. They don't create much wealth for anyone but the few who happen to own property right in the wind corridor. And then, when the going gets tough, they don't always deliver. 

Hopefully, the nation will learn from the Texas disaster. It was very nearly much, much worse than a disaster--it was almost a humanitarian calamity. And no, it didn't have much to do with the failure of natural gas-fired utility plants; that came later. The primary problem was with the wind turbines. 

It really doesn't matter how someone tries to spin this. Gov. Abbot knows the truth. His Utility Commission will soon make their recommendations. 

They ruin the landscape for miles????  I think they help  Texas. Last time I was in Lubbock it looked like a real 3rd world shithole. Mexico looks better than Texas. Windmills takes your eye away from looking at the shithole. It didn't have much to do with the failure of natural gas-fired utility plants????? I thought these nat-gas plants were saving us all....guess that is only when it is not cold in Texas. The rest of the Nation, when getting hit by ice storms and cold, do not have nat -gas plants crapping out, only in corrupt Texas.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/cascend-data-shows-wind-power-was-chief-culprit-texas-grid-collapse

Cascend: Data Shows Wind-Power Was Chief Culprit Of Texas Grid Collapse

by Tyler Durden

Saturday, Feb 20, 2021 - 10:45

With the worst of the Texas power crisis now behind us, the blame and fingerpointing begins, and while the jury is still out whose actions (or lack thereof) may have led to the deadly and widespread blackouts that shocked Texas this week, Cascend Strategy writes that "in case there was any doubt why the Texas grid collapsed, the data is clear"

• Wind failed as “Ice storms knocked out nearly half the wind-power generating capacity of Texas on Sunday as a massive deep freeze across the state locked up wind turbine generators, creating an electricity generation crisis."

• Natural gas made up the difference for a while

• But then everything else followed down

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/wind failed texas.png?itok=eC0HzIcg

Some more detail from Cascend which lays out the events of this week in sequence:

• A massive cold snap drove demand for electricity well beyond normal levels

• Wind power failed to deliver it’s expected power – almost 40% of expected power – in part due to lack of winterized wind turbines

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/wind power overnight.png?itok=AT84ZDwy

Natural gas (as always) made up the difference...

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/nat gas wind texas.png?itok=0S0330v7

but then suffered from lack of supply from non-winterized delivery

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/nat gas saved day.png?itok=6sS2knzV

• Coal and nuclear both underperformed, but not by much, due to non-winterized equipment

• Solar underperformed for a few days but is back, although is far too intermittent to help without storage except during heat waves

• And Texas’ grid couldn’t buy enough power from neighbors to make up the difference

• Nor are power producers required to keep a reserve of power

The simple 5-step solution according to Cascend:

• Winterize equipment

• Require power reserve

• Connect the Texas grid better

• Add solar with storage (storage is key)

• And add more natural gas

As some others have summarized the Texas disaster best...

It is sad and ironic that in a state known for its huge petroleum and natural gas resources, the lack of reliability of wind power has brought the state to its knees in a time of crisis, not unlike that which California experienced in 2020 during record heat where wind and solar power could not keep up with demand and was near collapse.

The folly of chasing renewable energy as a means of mitigating “climate change” is making itself abundantly clear today in Texas. When will politicians wake up and realize that renewable energy almost always equates to unreliable energy?

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

I've been waiting for you to emerge!

Good report. 

Coupled with what Charles Rotter said, it is precisely what I have been trying to pound home: Renewables are not what they're cracked up to be. Good addition up to a certain level but you know the old adage about too much of a good thing . . .

Gerry, in Texas, none of your generators were "what they were cracked up to be", and neither was your electricity market. None of the generators of any type was required by the market or by regulation to be "winterized". Since the largest source of electricity in Texas is natural gas, the failures of the NG generators had by far the largest impact on the system. You are correct: you cannot count on much wind, especially in February. ERCOT expected to get at least 6 GW from wind, and due to freeze-up they only got 4 GW, so wind underachieved by 2 GW. But the total supply deficit exceeded 30 GW as the NG (and coal and nuclear) plants froze up, and ERCOT was counting on them to be reliable.

The lesson to learn here is that you cannot depend on a non-winterized plant during an extreme cold event. A second lesson to learn might be that engineering to a 5% reserve capacity may not be enough reserve. A failure to address these problems will lead to another blackout some time in the next 15 years even if you remove all renewables from the system.

If Texas wishes to use a market-driven model, that's fine with me, but Texans need to understand what it is they really wish to purchase in that market. They have been purchasing electricity. That almost all of them really want is reliable electricity, and if that is what they want, then they must figure out a way to structure the market so the can pay for it. There are customers who are willing to buy less-reliable electricity for a lower cost ("interruptable" power). but not the average consumer.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

^

I agree with much of this. 

And Texas will fix this problem. 

Very likely by 1) working with Elon Musk to create storage terminals near high population zones, and 2) shifting back predominantly to natural gas utility plant electricity, which will be, 3) winterized. 

One thing I can guarantee: In one year this will be the most reliable grid in the United States, if not the world.

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

5 hours ago, Richard D said:

Very interesting reference. It is notable that the Great Frost of 1684,in England,was slap in the middle of the Maunder minimum.

 Click on Figure 4 to see the 1684 reading.

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

Edited February 20, 2021 by Ecocharger

[surrept33 + 609]

20 minutes ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

I agree with much of this. 

And Texas will fix this problem. 

Very likely by 1) working with Elon Musk to create storage terminals near high population zones, and 2) shifting back predominantly to natural gas utility plant electricity, which will be, 3) winterized. 

One thing I can guarantee: In one year this will be the most reliable grid in the United States, if not the world.

There will surely be a lot more wind and solar (along with distributed storage) because there is so much land in west texas and so much demand for renewables, especially for industrials. If nothing else, the 90's constructions will get retired and replaced with more modern larger turbines.

https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#9/32.6578/-100.9635

 

[turbguy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

I agree with much of this. 

And Texas will fix this problem. 

Very likely by 1) working with Elon Musk to create storage terminals near high population zones, and 2) shifting back predominantly to natural gas utility plant electricity, which will be, 3) winterized. 

One thing I can guarantee: In one year this will be the most reliable grid in the United States, if not the world.

I'm sure that Texas will recover.  That great state always does!

I'm sure changes will be made.  I doubt it will be complete in one year, perhaps two to three.

I'm sure electric bills will also increase.

I'm sure the less Nat Gas you use within the state (divert generation to non-Nat-Gas when you can), means there's more to sell outside the state.

I'm sure the lawyers will do well.

Edited February 20, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

Consider, what would be happening if the owners of gas generation had built sufficient generation to get through this emergency with some excess power? Instead of collecting $9,000 per MWH from existing functioning units, they would be receiving less than $100 per MWH for the output of those plants and their new plants. Why would anyone make tremendous infrastructure that would sit idle in normal years and serve to slash your revenue by orders of magnitudes in extreme conditions?

There have been some real wizerimers here pontificating about how the universal they should operate their business. Someone just above acted like it was no big deal to build an extra 500MW generation system to "make up" for that 500MW wind turbine you just installed. You know, just like we all buy an extra internal combustion car whenever we buy a battery operated car, just in case. 🙄

 

13 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

It is straightforward to add wind power in a capacity market. As a trivial example, a provider can build a 500 MW NG peaker and 500 MW (nameplate)  of wind, and offer a 500 MW capacity. The peaker sits idle until needed.  Whether or not this makes economic sense is another matter.

 

[surrept33 + 609]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

Keep in mind that editorial (in a physiology journal of all things) has been cited one time, by another article in the same journal saying why they published it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

She more or less cited her own previous work in a much more major journal, which was pointed out by peers to be flawed (and one of her coauthors, her own son, subsequently agreed, which led to a retraction):

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted 

and

 https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

I think it's fine to publish it, but her [history of such] claims are pretty provocative and don't match all the direct and indirect evidence (the IPCC literally cities thousands of papers!) we have about the greenhouse gas effect itself as it relates to anthropogenic climate change.

Edited February 20, 2021 by surrept33

[turbguy + 1,401]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

There have been some real wizerimers here pontificating about how the universal they should operate their business. Someone just above acted like it was no big deal to build an extra 500MW generation system to "make up" for that 500MW wind turbine you just installed. You know, just like we all buy an extra internal combustion car whenever we buy a battery operated car, just in case. 🙄

I would think it just might be like adding generation that is "dual-fueled"?   I ain't say'in it's cheap. 

Face the fact that most folk can actually afford an increase of about 1 cent per KWH.

But for a more direct response, supposed Tesla comes up with a "Hybrid" add on.

Edited February 20, 2021 by turbguy

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

You must have forgotten the image. It showed a helicopter pouring hot water on the fan blades. A 2MW wind turbine actually produces that about 4% of the time it operates. The rest of the time it's less, often much less than rated capacity. 

But @NickWwas bragging about how great Great Britain was At producing green energy. Not so much though. 😂

20% of electricity from wind in 2019

Edited February 20, 2021 by NickW

[turbguy + 1,401]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

20% of electricity from wind in 2020

Link not working?

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, turbguy said:

Link not working?

sorry I underlined to extra highlight it. 

[NickW + 2,714]

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Link not working?

DUKES_2020_MASTER.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

20% in 2019 so probably about 21-22% for 2020

Page 106. 64 TWh produced from both onshore and offshore wind which is approx 20% of UK Electricity consumption. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I'm sure that Texas will recover.  That great state always does!

I'm sure changes will be made.  I doubt it will be complete in one year, perhaps two to three.

I'm sure electric bills will also increase.

I'm sure the less Nat Gas you use within the state (divert generation to non-Nat-Gas when you can), means there's more to sell outside the state.

I'm sure the lawyers will do well.

Quite - thats exactly the point I was making. The wind resource effectively freed up gas which can then be sold as an export. 

The arguments about flared gas are a complete red herring because this is largely stranded gas associated with oil production. Unless its piped into the network its literally hot air. 

According to Wiki 76 TWh of wind source electricity produced in Texas in 2019. If that completely offsets gas consumption in CCGT plant running at 50% efficiency then thats about 14bnm3 of gas available for conversion to LNG (or as Donnie calls it Freedom Fuel) for export. 

Texas Interconnection - Wikipedia

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Gerry, in Texas, none of your generators were "what they were cracked up to be", and neither was your electricity market. None of the generators of any type was required by the market or by regulation to be "winterized". Since the largest source of electricity in Texas is natural gas, the failures of the NG generators had by far the largest impact on the system. You are correct: you cannot count on much wind, especially in February. ERCOT expected to get at least 6 GW from wind, and due to freeze-up they only got 4 GW, so wind underachieved by 2 GW. But the total supply deficit exceeded 30 GW as the NG (and coal and nuclear) plants froze up, and ERCOT was counting on them to be reliable.

The lesson to learn here is that you cannot depend on a non-winterized plant during an extreme cold event. A second lesson to learn might be that engineering to a 5% reserve capacity may not be enough reserve. A failure to address these problems will lead to another blackout some time in the next 15 years even if you remove all renewables from the system.

If Texas wishes to use a market-driven model, that's fine with me, but Texans need to understand what it is they really wish to purchase in that market. They have been purchasing electricity. That almost all of them really want is reliable electricity, and if that is what they want, then they must figure out a way to structure the market so the can pay for it. There are customers who are willing to buy less-reliable electricity for a lower cost ("interruptable" power). but not the average consumer.

Dan - I have already said on this thread that there is probably enough emergency gen set capacity in Texas to build a short term operating reserve in Texas without building any new plant

Usual responses - impossible, can't do that, but what about this, what about that. 

Meanwhile....

Short-term operating reserve (STOR) | National Grid ESO

SHORT TERM OPERATING RESERVE SCTs (nationalgrideso.com)

The cost of building in this extra reliability is about 1/0th of a penny per Kiliowatt hour. 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The picture I posted was a Swedish wind turbine getting the helicopter deice treatment. There's even a video out there of it. That means Sweden is not immune to freezing and nothing kept Texas from trying the same thing (maybe they did). The key difference is Sweden gets a paltry percentage of their total power from wind in the winter. It going dark doesn't hurt them much. 

It got 12.4% today from wind  in sub zero, anti cyclonic conditions which is not bad for a national thats primarily hydro and nuclear. 

electricityMap | Live CO₂ emissions of electricity consumption

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/19/2021 at 8:52 PM, Ward Smith said:

These state interconnects aren't all they're cracked up to be. My state is mostly hydro so it produces power in the spring and summer, and would sell the excess to California, who needed it then for AC and industry and liked that it was green. In the fall and winter California was supposed to return the favor selling their excess up here. You can imagine how well that's gone.

 

State interconnects would have definitely worked in this scenario

Ex

Rocky Mountain Hydro &Pump Storage (RMPS). Hello is that Utah Steel Mills (USM) 

USM: Yes

RMPS: Do you want to earn $4500 per Mwh consumed

USM: Sure do. 

RMPS: Switch off your smelters for an hour or two. Those Assclowns in Texas are paying $9000 a Mwh. 

 

Disclaimer - the Entities mentioned here are for illustration only. 😁

 

[Symmetry + 109]

14 minutes ago, NickW said:

State interconnects would have definitely worked in this scenario

Ex

Rocky Mountain Hydro &Pump Storage (RMPS). Hello is that Utah Steel Mills (USM) 

USM: Yes

RMPS: Do you want to earn $4500 per Mwh consumed

USM: Sure do. 

RMPS: Switch off your smelters for an hour or two. Those Assclowns in Texas are paying $9000 a Mwh. 

 

Disclaimer - the Entities mentioned here are for illustration only. 😁

 

5G plus internet of things can make this near automatic.  It's not far off.  My new LG washer and drier has wifi connectivity.

Even simple delayed start of dishwashers etc. makes a huge difference on peak loads.

 

[surrept33 + 609]

32 minutes ago, Symmetry said:

5G plus internet of things can make this near automatic.  It's not far off.  My new LG washer and drier has wifi connectivity.

Even simple delayed start of dishwashers etc. makes a huge difference on peak loads.

 

Yup. And low orbit satellite internet with modern bandlimited (thus very spectrum efficient) low power digital communications even to remote areas + lots of fiber trunks to practically any denser city of note (plus software defined networking to isolate critical infrastructure over huge distances but still allow lots of telemetry). This all enables a lot more distributed incremental auctions trading around power commitment (where typically a very fast optimization algorithm is run).

Already with larger lower frequency auctions, for the most part humans are not in the loop because the contract values are relatively tiny and there is a lot of regularity.

Of course, regulators and grid operators help stress test everything and the equipment itself has to modernized to do higher frequency switching and regulation (typically this is just an update of the control system governor where there is modal testing apriori to cancel out shocks). This is all I think, where a "smart grid/smart buildings" kind of emerges on its own with market driven forces.

Edited February 20, 2021 by surrept33

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

3 hours ago, surrept33 said:

(the IPCC literally cities thousands of papers!)

The IPCC is compromised to the extreme.  Anyone who researches this well understands this fact.  But it is a personal discovery...either a person researches it well or not.  Many don't, and thus they believe the deceptions.  I first started investigating this "Global Warming" bunk in 2005, and have over a 1,000 hours of personal research behind me delving into the sham..and this is my degree line of "Environmental Sciences".     IPCC is a sham.    The IPCC is part of the "The Great Reset", a plan by Elitists to bring about a Technocratic New World Order.  They control information sources and spew deceptive lies.  If anyone thinks that they will discover the facts from mainstream type news outlets or controlled platforms, they already are in the deep dark.  Even Scientific Journals have been compromised.  Elsevier and others are part of the cabal.

Here is the Wikipedis statement of who the IPCC is (and they are not doing this for the benefit of mankind)...

"The (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options."

Edited February 20, 2021 by Tom Nolan

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

4 hours ago, surrept33 said:

Keep in mind that editorial (in a physiology journal of all things) has been cited one time, by another article in the same journal saying why they published it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1818914

She more or less cited her own previous work in a much more major journal, which was pointed out by peers to be flawed (and one of her coauthors, her own son, subsequently agreed, which led to a retraction):

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper-that-blames-the-sun-for-climate-change-has-been-retracted 

and

 https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

I think it's fine to publish it, but her [history of such] claims are pretty provocative and don't match all the direct and indirect evidence (the IPCC literally cities thousands of papers!) we have about the greenhouse gas effect itself as it relates to anthropogenic climate change.

Well, if you construct a new climate model which yields an explanatory value of 97%, which correctly predicts the onset of a cooling phase in 2020 (which just happened, contrary to the CO2 models), and you have an international team of scientists backing you up, there is no excuse for the CO2 climate scientists who are committed to an outdated model to complain. That makes no sense.

The retraction, as this scientist has pointed out, was related to a subsidiary issue, and did not have any impact on the calculations of the new climate model. It was strictly a side issue, and should not have been a basis for retraction. She was not given the opportunity to amend the article, it was forcibly retracted, apparently in response to protests from the climate warming people. So much for scientific objectivity.

But that is irrelevant. Darwin's "Origin of Species" was not published in a peer-reviewed publication, but independently. When you challenge the established orthodoxy, it is sometimes necessary to choose a circular route.

Her claims are not provocative at all, but consistent with other recent research in Finland and Japan. What is controversial and provocative is to rely on models which exclude relevant variables and produce distorted results. That is unscientific.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

7 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

^

I agree with much of this. 

And Texas will fix this problem. 

Very likely by 1) working with Elon Musk to create storage terminals near high population zones, and 2) shifting back predominantly to natural gas utility plant electricity, which will be, 3) winterized. 

One thing I can guarantee: In one year this will be the most reliable grid in the United States, if not the world.

Batteries are very nice and all, but they will not carry you through the freeze-up of 40% of your generating capacity. Therefore, your priority need to be winterization. "shifting back to NG" will not solve the problem. You cannot depend on wind, so you need alternate capacity, which can be turbines burning NG or hydrogen, for instance. However, when the wind is blowing, you can avoid burning that NG or hydrogen and sell it elsewhere.

[surrept33 + 609]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Well, if you construct a new climate model which yields an explanatory value of 97%, which correctly predicts the onset of a cooling phase in 2020 (which just happened, contrary to the CO2 models), and you have an international team of scientists backing you up, there is no excuse for the CO2 climate scientists who are committed to an outdated model to complain. That makes no sense.

The retraction, as this scientist has pointed out, was related to a subsidiary issue, and did not have any impact on the calculations of the new climate model. It was strictly a side issue, and should not have been a basis for retraction. She was not given the opportunity to amend the article, it was forcibly retracted, apparently in response to protests from the climate warming people. So much for scientific objectivity.

But that is irrelevant. Darwin's "Origin of Species" was not published in a peer-reviewed publication, but independently. When you challenge the established orthodoxy, it is sometimes necessary to choose a circular route.

Her claims are not provocative at all, but consistent with other recent research in Finland and Japan. What is controversial and provocative is to rely on models which exclude relevant variables and produce distorted results. That is unscientific.

Wait, what? https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/la-niña-has-developed

She seemed to in effect overfit (very easy to do) an incorrect model (see comments here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2020/01/13/zharkova-et-al-an-update/ - basically, her earth/sun distance didn't normalize to 1.0 AU. if her paper's model was right, a lot of stuff would break, from what we assume is correct about a lot of quantum physics to basic newtonian gravity on earth)

Anyways, the development, conceptually, of modern day atmospheric physics (which includes a mixture of a lot of other basic physics and followed the development of a lot of sensor and computational methods) is something like:

Fourier - 1827 - studied heat extensively, especially as it related to equilibrium systems like atmospheres. Herschel had already discovered IR, but it was like Dark Energy is now, very mysterious. Came up with links between energy, net IR emissions (and thus showed why it was necessary to show how any realistic model of an atmosphere necessitates determining the sources and sinks of a planet's energy balance)

Tyndall - 1861 - Improved technology to calculate basic physics of how gas molecules and IR ("radiant heat") work. Realized that changes in concentrations of trace gasses like water vapor and CO2 could change the climate. In a lab, he realized that things like O2, H2, N2 are IR transparent (but he didn't know why - it's because of their electronic symmetries relative to a EM field. The electric dipole that would produce light). 

Arrhenius - 1896 - created first model (by a lot of tedious hand calculations) taking into account the radiative energy exchanges between the atmosphere and space, between the atmosphere and the ground, and between the ground and space (owing to transmission of IR through the atmosphere, which we can measure many different ways now). Gridded the Earth just like modern models, calculated a CO2 sensitivity relative to doubling it, but also predicted that it would take 1000 years for man to actually do it (but as we all know, we ended up burning a lot of coal). 

Plass - 1956 - first modern day CO2 radiative transfer models with modern day infrared spectroscopy and electronic computers of that era, He could do multilevel/multiband radiative transfer calculations which was important to figure how radiative forcings varied with things like pressure

Manabe - 1967 - calculated first computations of pure radiative equilibrium with modern day water vapor spectroscopy and convection. discovered how changes in CO2 and water vapor interplayed.

Budyko/Sellers - 1968 - showed the destabilizing effect of ice/albedo, determined the multiple equilibria (bifurcations in dynamical systems jargon) possible which seem to match paleogeology

Manabe - 1975 - first general circulation models, still used today, except they are much more data enriched and the grids are much smaller with modern supercomputers - instead of a single column (vertical heat exchange by radiation/convection) computed the first 3d solns (with thousands of columns) with fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. In general a lot of heat transfers, moisture, momentum around the globe need to be computed because rainfall changes (flooding, drought, changes in ice levels) matter as much as temperature, so the hydrological cycle (which has a primary effect on water vapor levels) need to be computed. Reverified polar amplification (generally the arctic warms up way faster than lower latitudes, which Arrhenius had postulated)

 

Edited February 21, 2021 by surrept33