GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Polyphia + 83]

17 minutes ago, turbguy said:

I can understand your doubt of the accuracy of NASA data.

I hope this helps...

So Many Climate Data Sets, So Little Disagreement

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

Great article--thanks for posting.

"The Bottom Line

Independent analyses conclude the impact of station temperature data adjustments is not very large. Upward adjustments of global temperature readings before 1950 have, in total, slightly reduced century-scale global temperature trends. Since 1950, however, adjustments to input data have slightly increased the rate of global warming recorded by the temperature record by less than 0.1 degree Celsius (less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit)."

[Polyphia + 83]

https://electrek.co/2023/07/27/us-grid-interconnections-ferc/

"In a ‘watershed moment,’ interconnecting the US grid just got a lot more efficient

'In particular, we are pleased to see that the rules set binding study deadlines and establish penalties for transmission providers that fail to meet those deadlines.'

'In addition, the new rules will make it easier to add energy storage to projects that are already in the interconnection queue, helping to increase energy storage capacity on the grid and recognize the growing value clean energy has when it comes to providing grid services.'” 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

I can understand your doubt of the accuracy of NASA data.

I hope this helps...

So Many Climate Data Sets, So Little Disagreement

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

USCRN disagrees.  USCRN specifically created to remove ALL heat island effects from cities as NONE are near a city or even town.  Spans from Alaska to Guam, Hawaii to Puerto Rico(literally one quarter of the globe) Been around as a complete data set since 2005, but most of those stations have been running in some instances for well over a hundred years. 

Satellite data disagrees.  It shows warming at less than HALF of even the COLDEST "prediction".  Here we have a problem as the "check" on Satellite data is surface temperature data and if the "check" is from mostly CITY heat island data, the Satellite data gets skewed. 

Tropical Troposhere data disagrees.  It is warming less than surface data.  This is weather balloon data we have going back to the early 20th century. There is no way in a rational world this is possible as heat rises which means the RATE should be identical.  It is not.  Surface is warming MUCH faster.  ... Duh, cities are growing and using more and more energy per capita!  No Shit Sherlock...

Oceanographic data ALL, not some, ALL disagree with the surface data sets. 

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Been known since 1950's as true.

Oh wait, hold the phone... in 2016? what happened to those doing data set manipulation they got rid of data points in the cities right?  Excellent... Which data points?  .... Wait what?  They got rid of thousands of RURAL data points while LEAVING all the heat island CITY data across the northern hemisphere and "miraculously" there was a "heat wave" across the northern hemisphere.   Ya don't say...

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Nah, they won't they are frauds who love trying to LIE and destroy weather station data via "corrections" (always colder historically of course to make this year the "warmest" ever) with zero justification such as happened at Reykjavik and many many others all over the world.  It was such blatant fraud even the president of Iceland told them to F off with their blatant lies. 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

USCRN disagrees.  USCRN specifically created to remove ALL heat island effects from cities as NONE are near a city or even town.  Spans from Alaska to Guam, Hawaii to Puerto Rico(literally one quarter of the globe) Been around as a complete data set since 2005, but most of those stations have been running in some instances for well over a hundred years. 

Satellite data disagrees.  It shows warming at less than HALF of even the COLDEST "prediction".  Here we have a problem as the "check" on Satellite data is surface temperature data and if the "check" is from mostly CITY heat island data, the Satellite data gets skewed. 

Tropical Troposhere data disagrees.  It is warming less than surface data.  This is weather balloon data we have going back to the early 20th century. There is no way in a rational world this is possible as heat rises which means the RATE should be identical.  It is not.  Surface is warming MUCH faster.  ... Duh, cities are growing and using more and more energy per capita!  No Shit Sherlock...

Oceanographic data ALL, not some, ALL disagree with the surface data sets. 

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Been known since 1950's as true.

Oh wait, hold the phone... in 2016? what happened to those doing data set manipulation they got rid of data points in the cities right?  Excellent... Which data points?  ....

 

Wait what?  They got rid of thousands of RURAL data points while LEAVING all the heat island CITY data across the northern hemisphere and "miraculously" there was a "heat wave" across the northern hemisphere.   Ya don't say...

 

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Nah, they won't they are frauds who love trying to LIE and destroy weather station data via "corrections" (always colder historically of course to make this year the "warmest" ever) with zero justification such as happened at Reykjavik and many many others all over the world.  It was such blatant fraud even the president of Iceland told them to F off with their blatant lies. 

 

Oh wait, hold the phone... in 2016? what happened to those doing data set manipulation they got rid of data points in the cities right?  Excellent... Which data points?  .... Wait what?  They got rid of thousands of RURAL data points while LEAVING all the heat island CITY data across the northern hemisphere and "miraculously" there was a "heat wave" across the northern hemisphere.   Ya don't say...

Quite well said Mr.Footeab...That type of information desperately begs for a new thread. 

@markslawson

Edited July 29, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Polyphia + 83]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

USCRN disagrees.  USCRN specifically created to remove ALL heat island effects from cities as NONE are near a city or even town.  Spans from Alaska to Guam, Hawaii to Puerto Rico(literally one quarter of the globe) Been around as a complete data set since 2005, but most of those stations have been running in some instances for well over a hundred years. 

Satellite data disagrees.  It shows warming at less than HALF of even the COLDEST "prediction".  Here we have a problem as the "check" on Satellite data is surface temperature data and if the "check" is from mostly CITY heat island data, the Satellite data gets skewed. 

Tropical Troposhere data disagrees.  It is warming less than surface data.  This is weather balloon data we have going back to the early 20th century. There is no way in a rational world this is possible as heat rises which means the RATE should be identical.  It is not.  Surface is warming MUCH faster.  ... Duh, cities are growing and using more and more energy per capita!  No Shit Sherlock...

Oceanographic data ALL, not some, ALL disagree with the surface data sets. 

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Been known since 1950's as true.

Oh wait, hold the phone... in 2016? what happened to those doing data set manipulation they got rid of data points in the cities right?  Excellent... Which data points?  .... Wait what?  They got rid of thousands of RURAL data points while LEAVING all the heat island CITY data across the northern hemisphere and "miraculously" there was a "heat wave" across the northern hemisphere.   Ya don't say...

Moral to story, remove ALL city data as it is fraudulent and only then do we have an actual data set to work with.  Nah, they won't they are frauds who love trying to LIE and destroy weather station data via "corrections" (always colder historically of course to make this year the "warmest" ever) with zero justification such as happened at Reykjavik and many many others all over the world.  It was such blatant fraud even the president of Iceland told them to F off with their blatant lies. 

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/

Try again--once again, much of what you have written is incorrect, because:

1. The USCRN data are from too short of a time frame to be very reliable (see the uncertainty in the quotation below of -.58 to 2.31 degrees F per decade).

2. Even if you ignore #1 above and fit a regression line, the trend is an increase of .86 degrees F per decade, which is a higher estimate than that related to the NOAA ClimDiv dateset.

3. See the second paragraph in the quotation below (from the site references above) about matching the USCRN data to the weather station network.

4. The USCRN covers 2% of the surface of the earth, which is just a wee bit short of your claim of 25%.

"Since it achieved nationwide coverage at the start of 2005, the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86°F per decade, with uncertainties ranging from -0.58°F to 2.31°F per decade. By contrast, the historical NOAA ClimDiv dataset only shows 0.64°F (ranging from -0.80°F to 2.07°F) per decade. As this is a relatively short time period and only covers around 2% of the surface of the Earth, we shouldn’t read too much into these numbers as an indication of longer-term changes, but we can say that USCRN data is completely consistent with the long-term warming trend, and suggestions that the USCRN “finds there has been no warming for the past 14 years at least” are categorically false.

In 2016, I was the lead author on a paper in GRL¹ that looked in detail at differences between USCRN and historical weather station networks. We found that not only did USCRN match the weather station network quite well over the full US, but when comparing pairs of nearby USCRN and historical weather stations, the adjustments made by NOAA to historical weather stations bring them into much closer agreement with USCRN stations. This is true even when USCRN stations are not used as part of the adjustment process"

[bloodman33 + 22]

5 biggest oil companies have agreed to donate 75% of their profits to AOC.

[bloodman33 + 22]

Hitler was on the wrong side of history.

Stalin was on the wrong side of history.

Trump is on the wrong side of history.

Oil companies are on the wrong side of history.

Coal companies are on the wrong side of history.

Oil and Coal company shills are on the wrong side of history.

The tobacco industry is on the wrong side of history.

Coke and Pepsi are on the wrong side of history.

You have been judged!

[bloodman33 + 22]

Unfortunately the oil and coal companies are not only casting themselves into the pit of fire, they are casting all of us into the pit of fire.

[bloodman33 + 22]

So buy: MTDR, VLO, TNK, STNG, DHT, SFL MPC, and RIVN and make me rich, rich rich so I can give to AOC!

[bloodman33 + 22]

I am a profit of god!

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

On 7/29/2023 at 4:00 PM, Polyphia said:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/claim-of-no-us-warming-since-2005-is-directly-contradicted-by-the-data-it-is-based-on/

Try again--once again, much of what you have written is incorrect, because:

1. The USCRN data are from too short of a time frame to be very reliable (see the uncertainty in the quotation below of -.58 to 2.31 degrees F per decade).

2. Even if you ignore #1 above and fit a regression line, the trend is an increase of .86 degrees F per decade, which is a higher estimate than that related to the NOAA ClimDiv dateset.

3. See the second paragraph in the quotation below (from the site references above) about matching the USCRN data to the weather station network.

4. The USCRN covers 2% of the surface of the earth, which is just a wee bit short of your claim of 25%.

"Since it achieved nationwide coverage at the start of 2005, the warming rate (trend) in USCRN annual temperatures is 0.86°F per decade, with uncertainties ranging from -0.58°F to 2.31°F per decade. By contrast, the historical NOAA ClimDiv dataset only shows 0.64°F (ranging from -0.80°F to 2.07°F) per decade. As this is a relatively short time period and only covers around 2% of the surface of the Earth, we shouldn’t read too much into these numbers as an indication of longer-term changes, but we can say that USCRN data is completely consistent with the long-term warming trend, and suggestions that the USCRN “finds there has been no warming for the past 14 years at least” are categorically false.

In 2016, I was the lead author on a paper in GRL¹ that looked in detail at differences between USCRN and historical weather station networks. We found that not only did USCRN match the weather station network quite well over the full US, but when comparing pairs of nearby USCRN and historical weather stations, the adjustments made by NOAA to historical weather stations bring them into much closer agreement with USCRN stations. This is true even when USCRN stations are not used as part of the adjustment process"

Regardless of data adjustments undertaken by scientists with an agenda, fitting a curve to this data set does not give us a result supportive of  massive temperature dislocation, especially the 2015-202 period.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Ecocharger

[markslawson + 1,058]

On 7/30/2023 at 4:16 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Oh wait, hold the phone... in 2016? what happened to those doing data set manipulation they got rid of data points in the cities right?  Excellent... Which data points?  .... Wait what?  They got rid of thousands of RURAL data points while LEAVING all the heat island CITY data across the northern hemisphere and "miraculously" there was a "heat wave" across the northern hemisphere.   Ya don't say...

Quite well said Mr.Footeab...That type of information desperately begs for a new thread. 

@markslawson

Thanks for the mention but I probably won't weigh into the temp debate until they seriously start to turn down. On the satellite stuff (upper atmosphere) you can see not a lot has happened for some time. The Hadley records (the industry standard) might be a bit different but not much so. The surface temp stuff could certainly do with a thorough, independent audit (the satellite results are audited) but that's not going to happen, nor will the earth-is-boiling brigade listen. I will start a thread soon on how the fight against emissions was lost before it began, as the boiling brigade have no effective way of countering it.      

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 7/28/2023 at 5:08 PM, AlBub said:

Actually, China is adding energy. All kinds of energy because they are way behind where they need to be for their total citizenry to be supplied adequately. There is nothing magical about renewable energy for them. It is just part of "all of the above." They are working to get their people supplied.

The West is working to get off of "fossil" fuel and use electricity from "renewable" methods that have a handy on/off switch to de-industrialize  gain the full control of their citizens to get them into chains like China.

The "climate" science is nothing but political science or "experts" wouldn't be "correcting" data from the past and they could use their so-called models to match historic (not corrected) weather records from the past.

Governments are wasting incredible amounts of natural resources to finalize their control. All of the climate "activists", physical or "experts" are useful idiots helping them. It is astounding how being so much more educated can make some people so notsosmart!!!

Albub I posted that China were building renewables like no other country and backed that up with data and facts. You have just posted your opinion with nothing else.

I never disputed that a varied energy mix is a sensible solution to those countries that have the relevant resources to do so, Ive even said this on this site many times.

Regardless of whether you beliecve or disbelieve the climate science the fact is renewables are an important part of the powergen/energy mix and also EV's will be adopted globally once the infrastructure is in place, speak to any automobile manufacturer.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 7/28/2023 at 5:18 PM, Ecocharger said:

The story is clear, the clean age of coal is coming into play, 

"China’s coal demand has increased for six straight years, setting new record highs in 2021 and 2022. Current heat waves in China have created a soaring demand for electricity, leading to unprecedented amounts of coal consumption at China’s more than 1,000 coal-fired power plants. As a result, China is on track to set a new record high for coal consumption in 2023.

This trend is set to continue. Last year the Chinese government approved a record-breaking 86 gigawatts of new coal-fired power capacity."

 

 

Clean coal’s dirty secret: More pollution, not less

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-coal-pollution/

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Queensland's $62 Billion Green Energy SuperGrid Gambit

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Queenslands-62-Billion-Green-Energy-SuperGrid-Gambit.html

I could have posted this in Mark Lawson's posts like "investments in renewables is tanking" or "if hydrogen is the answer youre asking the wrong question" however it mainly focusses on the demand destruction of coal in Australia by 2035 so thought here was the most relevant article.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Thanks for the mention but I probably won't weigh into the temp debate until they seriously start to turn down. On the satellite stuff (upper atmosphere) you can see not a lot has happened for some time. The Hadley records (the industry standard) might be a bit different but not much so. The surface temp stuff could certainly do with a thorough, independent audit (the satellite results are audited) but that's not going to happen, nor will the earth-is-boiling brigade listen. I will start a thread soon on how the fight against emissions was lost before it began, as the boiling brigade have no effective way of countering it.      

The failure of wind power implementation world wide is stunning, the capitalization losses must be staggering...actually a extreme embarrassment at this point. The conversation is now changing, perhaps the power's that be have found a suitable point to step out of this calamity.

Not so fast come to mind....

Don't overstate 1.5 degrees C threat, new IPCC head says

07/30/2023July 30, 2023

Jim Skea, the new head of the UN's IPCC, said it's not helpful to imply that a temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius is an existential threat to humanity. He calls for a balanced approach to the climate change debate.

 

 

 

 

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degrees-threat/a-66386523

Edited July 31, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

9 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Albub I posted that China were building renewables like no other country and backed that up with data and facts. You have just posted your opinion with nothing else.

I never disputed that a varied energy mix is a sensible solution to those countries that have the relevant resources to do so, Ive even said this on this site many times.

Regardless of whether you beliecve or disbelieve the climate science the fact is renewables are an important part of the powergen/energy mix and also EV's will be adopted globally once the infrastructure is in place, speak to any automobile manufacturer.

EVs are just piling up on sales lots, the market for EVs is now saturated and is now resistant to further product.

EVs are now a disaster zone.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ford-Suffers-45-Billion-Setback-Amid-Teslas-Aggressive-Pricing.html

"Ford's EV division is expected to lose $4.5 billion this year, $1.5 billion more than anticipated, with the division already reporting a loss of $1.8 billion this year, compared to last year's $2.1 billion loss.

Due to an industry-wide price war for EVs, led by Tesla, Ford is reassessing its EV production schedule and spending plans, pulling back on its initial production ramp-up and predicting a delay in reaching its annual production target of 600,000 EVs."

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Clean coal’s dirty secret: More pollution, not less

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-coal-pollution/

That material is five years old, out of date.

The article only deals with a special tax program related to "refined coal" not the general issue of cleaner coal technology. I guess you missed that.

"Only 18 of that group reduced NOx emissions by more than 20 percent in 2017 compared to 2009. And 15 of those 18 only reported the improvements after installing or upgrading pollution control equipment or switching a portion of power production to cleaner-burning fuel, complicating the question of whether their pollution reductions are attributable to refined coal."

"As a group, the fleet of U.S. power plants that burn refined coal also underperformed the rest of the industry in cutting emissions of NOx, the Reuters analysis found. NOx emissions rates declined 19 percent among the 56 power plants that reported burning refined coal in 2017. That compares with a 29 percent reduction by 214 other coal-fired power plants over the same period."

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

9 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That material is five years old, out of date.

The article only deals with a special tax program related to "refined coal" not the general issue of cleaner coal technology. I guess you missed that.

"Only 18 of that group reduced NOx emissions by more than 20 percent in 2017 compared to 2009. And 15 of those 18 only reported the improvements after installing or upgrading pollution control equipment or switching a portion of power production to cleaner-burning fuel, complicating the question of whether their pollution reductions are attributable to refined coal."

"As a group, the fleet of U.S. power plants that burn refined coal also underperformed the rest of the industry in cutting emissions of NOx, the Reuters analysis found. NOx emissions rates declined 19 percent among the 56 power plants that reported burning refined coal in 2017. That compares with a 29 percent reduction by 214 other coal-fired power plants over the same period."

A clear path forward...

[turbguy + 1,544]

9 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A clear path forward...

Now, show it during operation...

[specinho + 470]

On 7/25/2023 at 4:14 AM, Boat said:

So the Saudi and the Russians threaten or do cut production and Goldman Sachs calls it demand? Can you whip out some consumption numbers? The silly math reminds me of what’s wrong with humans. They just can’t read a chart and tell the truth. Let’s call it collusion incorporated drives inflation starving poor people worldwide. 

Quote:" Let’s call it collusion incorporated drives inflation starving poor people worldwide. "

That was probably old school.

New game has begun.

It is called " total reset"... 

This game is far reaching than known or mentioned. 

All players have shown themselves with their respective interest with excitement.

Pitiful cult  magnetic centre of the globe  for blames has been declared inconsequential, insignificant, no longer useful, by all relevant players  from now on.

In other words it no longer needs to take any more blame on every constipation, incontinence, or such, personal problems induce issues, just because it is never heard or rarely has chance to defense itself. 

 

The cult center is now free to start an unknown new life of safety. 

For a few who owe it money or gifts promised, the coast is cleared ...... Kindly deliver before war begins throughout the world....... 😯😋

For cult solutions, if anyone thinks it deserves to be treated better, fairer, rightly, please reach the center before the next seismic activity begins... 😳🤭👋

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Due to an industry-wide price war for EVs, led by Tesla, Ford is reassessing its EV production schedule and spending plans, pulling back on its initial production ramp-up and predicting a delay in reaching its annual production target of 600,000 EVs."

Yep smart move by Musk to protect his market share by making it uneconomical for Ford to ramp up their production. Simple economics but effective as it would be in any industry, doesnt mean the industry as a whole is in decline, just the opposite, those late to the EV party will suffer and always be behind the curve.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

That material is five years old, out of date.

The article only deals with a special tax program related to "refined coal" not the general issue of cleaner coal technology. I guess you missed that.

"Only 18 of that group reduced NOx emissions by more than 20 percent in 2017 compared to 2009. And 15 of those 18 only reported the improvements after installing or upgrading pollution control equipment or switching a portion of power production to cleaner-burning fuel, complicating the question of whether their pollution reductions are attributable to refined coal."

"As a group, the fleet of U.S. power plants that burn refined coal also underperformed the rest of the industry in cutting emissions of NOx, the Reuters analysis found. NOx emissions rates declined 19 percent among the 56 power plants that reported burning refined coal in 2017. That compares with a 29 percent reduction by 214 other coal-fired power plants over the same period."

I agree the article is 5 years old, show me then the advancements since then that make it cleaner than 5 years ago. Genuinely I hope you can show me significant improvements. I'll look forward to seeing that evidence.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

7 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yep smart move by Musk to protect his market share by making it uneconomical for Ford to ramp up their production. Simple economics but effective as it would be in any industry, doesnt mean the industry as a whole is in decline, just the opposite, those late to the EV party will suffer and always be behind the curve.

EVs are past peak, the limited EV market has now been satisfied and EVs are piling up on the sales lots.

End of story.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree the article is 5 years old, show me then the advancements since then that make it cleaner than 5 years ago. Genuinely I hope you can show me significant improvements. I'll look forward to seeing that evidence.

You already showed us some major advancements in that same article, a 29% reduction in NOx emissions over an 8 year period, sounds good.

Thanks for the article.