Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

Again, nothing but ridicule.  Do you have any facts?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

You totally ignored the part of cloud formations reflecting solar radiation back into the cosmos which has much more energy than long wave emittance from the earth.  

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037946

"Therefore, the changes in cloud cover and thickness from the changes in CCN induced by clear‐sky ion‐induced nucleation changes during both the solar‐cycle and centennial‐scale changes in cosmic rays should also be of order 0.01 W m−2. Even including the feedbacks, this is two orders of magnitude too small to explain the changes seen in cloud cover [Svensmark and Friis‐Christensen, 1997] or to be a significant contributor to present‐day climate change."

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Same as above.

Edited by Red
deleted content as detailed response was from enthalpic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL037946

"Therefore, the changes in cloud cover and thickness from the changes in CCN induced by clear‐sky ion‐induced nucleation changes during both the solar‐cycle and centennial‐scale changes in cosmic rays should also be of order 0.01 W m−2. Even including the feedbacks, this is two orders of magnitude too small to explain the changes seen in cloud cover [Svensmark and Friis‐Christensen, 1997] or to be a significant contributor to present‐day climate change."

 

 

There is so much contradictory information out there.  I guess I'll stand down on that one.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

There is so much contradictory information out there.  I guess I'll stand down on that one.

Given that you are yet to make a claim of scientific merit, that's the most sensible thing you have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't have to be scientific to make sense.  Science often adds a smoke screen.  Did you see my post about the forest in melting glacial debris.  It was clearly warmer when the trees grew, carbon dated at 4000 years old, and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm.  Again, if more CO2 causes warming, then less CO2 would cause less warming yet trees grew where glaciers consumed them.  And what caused the glaciers to grow.  Not CO2.  Something other than CO2 caused the warming and cooling which debunking CO2 as an important contributor to climate change.  Talk about volcanoes or atmospheric particulate if you want, but there is no taking around this fact.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

It doesn't have to be scientific to make sense.  Science often adds a smoke screen.  Did you see my post about the forest in melting glacial debris.  It was clearly warmer when the trees grew, carbon dated at 4000 years old, and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm.  Again, if more CO2 causes warming, then less CO2 would cause less warming yet trees grew where glaciers consumed them.  And what caused the glaciers to grow.  Not CO2.  Something other than CO2 caused the warming and cooling which debunking CO2 as an important contributor to climate change.  Talk about volcanoes or atmospheric particulate if you want, but there is no taking around this fact.

Unfortunately you just pick stuff that has no bearing on present climate issues or has no scientific veracity. 

If you read any science at all you would not be posting what you have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, no answers.  Just cut downs

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

6 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

My comments are in red

It doesn't have to be scientific to make sense.  Then it makes no sense.

Science often adds a smoke screen.  This what deniers of climate science keep claiming. 

Did you see my post about the forest in melting glacial debris.  It was clearly warmer when the trees grew, carbon dated at 4000 years old, and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm.  So what?

Again, if more CO2 causes warming, then less CO2 would cause less warming yet trees grew where glaciers consumed them.  This is not coherent. 

 And what caused the glaciers to grow.  That's called a cooling planet.  Climate science has covered these issues in hundreds of different papers over the years - there is no mystery..

Not CO2.  Something other than CO2 caused the warming and cooling which debunking CO2 as an important contributor to climate change.  Yes, and these issues can be read about if you choose to read science rather than make silly claims. 

Talk about volcanoes or atmospheric particulate if you want, but there is no taking around this fact.  ???

 

 

Edited by Red
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COMPELLING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Author is perfectly right, solar and wind will not winner.

We are monitoring for 8 years such technology:  E-Cat  (sometimes called LENR, now: annihilation of virtual particles)

Parameters:
output 21.9 kW
input 380 Watt
CoP 57

not prototype, it is commercial serial hardware, already 2 months on duty at first customer

www.ecatskdemo.com
and far more info at: www.e-catworld.com

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

It doesn't have to be scientific to make sense.  Science often adds a smoke screen.  Did you see my post about the forest in melting glacial debris.  It was clearly warmer when the trees grew, carbon dated at 4000 years old, and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm.  Again, if more CO2 causes warming, then less CO2 would cause less warming yet trees grew where glaciers consumed them.  And what caused the glaciers to grow.  Not CO2.  Something other than CO2 caused the warming and cooling which debunking CO2 as an important contributor to climate change.  Talk about volcanoes or atmospheric particulate if you want, but there is no taking around this fact.

The Volcanoes one is a firm favourite of the Climate Change Denier there's a Kon-spiracy Brigade. 

A fairly typical claim - one Volcano puts out more CO2 than the whole of Humanity.

Contrary to your claim of their being no talk on this there has been lots of research. In the real World Geologic emissions from Volcanoes, Ocean vents, hot springs etc is in the region of 200-400 mt per annum so less than 1% of human emissions

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

USGS

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. 

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

Weather balloon data also,  If CO2 captures more long wave radiation the the atmosphere should be warming.  No sucj warming has been found.  Why.

Chris you would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than provide facts to a member of the Church of Warming. The "scientists" Red worships are little different than the "educated " clergy of the monarchies who provided legitimacy to the king's right to rule by divine providence. The clergy then got to share in the plunder of the peasants by the crown and the king was able to avoid the messy use of the sword to take away the people's property and freedom. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Billyjack said:

Chris you would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than provide facts to a member of the Church of Warming. The "scientists" Red worships are little different than the "educated " clergy of the monarchies who provided legitimacy to the king's right to rule by divine providence. The clergy then got to share in the plunder of the peasants by the crown and the king was able to avoid the messy use of the sword to take away the people's property and freedom. 

There is one flaw in your post above. Chris isn't actually providing any facts - its just nonsensical claims. 

Feel free though to pitch in and answer the question I keep asking him about the radiative forcing effect of his claimed 12.86 year 'Jupiter' cycle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Wells said:

It doesn't have to be scientific to make sense.  Science often adds a smoke screen.  Did you see my post about the forest in melting glacial debris.  It was clearly warmer when the trees grew, carbon dated at 4000 years old, and carbon dioxide was below 300 ppm.  Again, if more CO2 causes warming, then less CO2 would cause less warming yet trees grew where glaciers consumed them.  And what caused the glaciers to grow.  Not CO2.  Something other than CO2 caused the warming and cooling which debunking CO2 as an important contributor to climate change.  Talk about volcanoes or atmospheric particulate if you want, but there is no taking around this fact.

Has it ever dawned on you that another factor affecting climate in this region may have caused that occurence (if it occured as it seems to be exclusively reported on type (Kon-spiracy  websites)?

A good example might be a temporary regional change in weather patterns that bought warmer weather to the region causing a localised retreat of the glaciers. Possibly the tail end of the wet Sahara period which saw far more wet warmer weather moving from the tropics into North Africa and Southern Europe. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the current science on our rapidly increasing global clouds coverage.   Clouds reflect sunlight, and heavy cloud cover cools the planet. 

 Clouds are increasing fast, and this will continue for many many years.  You can see this in real time at http://www.meteoearth.com/     Just click ON the Cloud Cover button, spin the globe, and do the reality check. 

image.png.831f26379496a44dac7b6ee85e8c3558.png

 

Why are clouds increasing so much?   They are increasing as a direct result of the increasing Cosmic (Stratosphic) Radiation entering the atmosphere. From http://www.spaceweather.com    Cosmic Radiation has a tremendous cloud-seeding effect.  

image.png.90ead31c7b19121a5a1cc02849432c88.png

The result of the ongoing long-term increase in clouds will be global cooling, Extreme precipitation - rain and snow - which will cause floods globally. Global Agriculture will be devastated due to wet/cool fields, lack of sunny days, insufficient UV radiation to prevent mould, and winters that start early and end late.  

 

Why is  more Cosmic (Stratosphic) Radiation entering the atmosphere?      This is a direct result of Earth's weakening magnetosphere (magnetic shield), which is weakening in synch with the Sun's decreasing magnetosphere.  The Sun's internal dynamo is moving out of synch causing the  magnetospheric weakening  This next chart (predicted years ago by Russian Solar Physicists) shows the intensification of the above-mentioned weather patterns going forward.  Note: We are currently on the chart where yellow turns to green. The cloud/cooling effects will intensify well past 2035, as the magnetospheres on the Sun and Earth continue to weaken, due to the dynamo continuing out of synch. 

 

Note: The Solar Dynamo was in synch until 2015.  Up to that point we had global-warming. Post 2015 marks the onset of Global Cooling.  We are going to repeat the Global Cooling of the 1600's. 
 

image.png.9014d98a7726e8b1db4618c193e051cd.png

 

To learn more about the Global Cooling of the 1600's (before, during and after) this BBC Documentary tells the horrific story.  This documentary was made just before all funding was terminated for anything that contradicted the global-warming narrative.  It;s a fantastic documentary.  Watch the first 2 minutes and you will be hooked.       https://youtu.be/vZFXZ0bATyc    

 

 

 

image.png.171b10e048484a2897b981b258515071.png

Summary:  This winter with all the "Coldest Temperatures EVER" is just the beginning of something much worse.. 

Peace from BC, Canada

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, Personal Coach said:

Here is the current science on our rapidly increasing global clouds coverage.   Clouds reflect sunlight, and heavy cloud cover cools the planet. 

 Clouds are increasing fast, and this will continue for many many years.  You can see this in real time at http://www.meteoearth.com/     Just click ON the Cloud Cover button, spin the globe, and do the reality check. 

 

There was zero science in your post;  just a lot of regularly debunked nonsense being regurgitated.

Clouds are, nevertheless, an important factor in climate modelling and we definitely need a lot better data to determine the extent to which they will impact temperature.  Aside from any changes in coverage, the types of clouds and their presence in the upper or lower atmosphere can change forcing effects.

Edited by Red
the usual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2019 at 9:32 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Presented without my usual comments, for your consideration.  Excellent article:

We Don't Need Solar And Wind To Save The Climate -- And It's A Good Thing, Too

For 30 years, experts have claimed that humankind needs to switch to solar and wind energy to address climate change. But do we really?

Consider the fact that, while no nation has created a near-zero carbon electricity supply out of solar and wind, the only successful efforts to create near-zero carbon electricity supplies didn’t require solar or wind whatsoever.

As such solar and wind aren’t just insufficient, they are also unnecessary for solving climate change. ...

When we finally decide to end fossil fuels, they'll be replaced by nuclear.  Fission most likely; fusion if it's available. 

But nuclear is expensive, dangerous, blah blah blah.  It's not dangerous; nuclear has the best safety record of any energy source.  It's also only expensive due to regulation that, quite frankly, exceeds a statist's wildest dreams. 

The nuclear we currently know is also a crude first attempt.  In the beginning, engineers sought to answer the question, "How does one pack a nuclear power plant into a submarine?"  Once they had that, they forked the technology and dropped it into coal plant technology as a heat source.  Then they optimized the plants around the nuclear reactor.  Then they actually started to standardize the plant designs.  The point when they were standardizing - which is to say, the point at which they could have driven all other power out of business - is when crises were manufactured to justify overbearing regulation. 

What didn't happen was the next generation of technologies.  There are multiple ways to build a nuclear reactor and multiple possible fuels.  Many are inherently safe and proliferation resistant - the two main concerns with nuclear.  We never saw those designs because the political risk was too high. 

Today, interest in nuclear is reviving.  Small, modular designs are starting with proven technology and may eventually incorporate the next generation of nuclear concepts.  The most intriguing design I've seen is a containerized, closed Brayton cycle reactor.  Yes, that's possible.  It's not even difficult, in fact.  Only the government stands in its way.  If this design happens, it could be the end of renewables, coal, and natural gas. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Wind and solar use land that is still available for other uses such as farming or unusable, eg old, mines, quarries, roofs etc. A wind turbine in Europe or North America including access tracks uses about 250 square m of land the new 3.5-5 MW class wind turbines generate 12-20 GWh per year. In much of the US it will be toward the higher end but lets use 12 as the average. To generate the same annual energy as Plant Vogtle 17,000 GWh/y  1,400 wind turbines are required (350,000 square m) or 0.35 square km

To provide 2,000 MW of pumped hydro backup needs about 2.4 square km of ponds if completely off river or by using existing streams or reservoirs as one end of the system about 1.2 square km lest say an average of 1.8 + the turbines at .35 square km. i.e. a total of 2-3 square km with the spinning reserve built in.

Plant Vogtle covers 5.8 square km+ the uranium mine+ the fuel processing plants+ the area used by spinning reserve backup lets be generous and say a total of 6-8 square km roughly 4 times as much as the wind turbines  and storage used to produce the same power. As nuclear does not like to ramp down and can in fact run for 6 weeks or more at a time at less than half capacity it actually needs as much MW and more MWh of backup. If you had enough pumped hydro as backup to guarantee 2 MW daily peak and say 40 MWh per day you would need about 3-5 times as much pumped hydro as the wind plant, because the outages though rarer, are much longer 

 Similarly in 2016 NREL showed that 32% of US electricity can be provided from 14% of US roofs using 16% efficient solar panels.i.e. no land use and almost no transmission losses and no cooling water. As solar panels are now reaching 21% CF and will be 24-26% by 2022 if the 16% panels were replaced by 22% average panels that means rooftop solar would provide 40% of US electricity production from rooftops.

Adding existing hydro at about 16% a bit of biomass, tracking solar, geothermal offshore wind etc 40% rooftop solar and sufficient wind then takes up less land not to mention water than the current nuclear/gas/coal fleet

 

Edited by pfarley@bigpond.net.au
clarification
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pfarley@bigpond.net.au said:

Wind and solar use land that is still available for other uses such as farming or unusable, eg old, mines, quarries, roofs etc. A wind turbine in Europe or North America including access tracks uses about 250 square m of land the new 3.5-5 MW class wind turbines generate 12-20 GWh per year. In much of the US it will be toward the higher end but lets use 12 as the average. To generate the same annual energy as Plant Vogtle 17,000 GWh/y  1,400 wind turbines are required (350,000 square m) or 0.35 square km

To provide 2,000 MW of pumped hydro backup needs about 2.4 square km of ponds if completely off river or by using existing streams or reservoirs as one end of the system about 1.2 square km lest say an average of 1.8 + the turbines at .35 square km. i.e. a total of 2-3 square km with the spinning reserve built in.

Plant Vogtle covers 5.8 square km+ the uranium mine+ the fuel processing plants+ the area used by spinning reserve backup lets be generous and say a total of 6-8 square km roughly 4 times as much as the wind turbines  and storage used to produce the same power. As nuclear does not like to ramp down and can in fact run for 6 weeks or more at a time at less than half capacity it actually needs as much MW and more MWh of backup. If you had enough pumped hydro as backup to guarantee 2 MW daily peak and say 40 MWh per day you would need about 3-5 times as much pumped hydro as the wind plant, because the outages though rarer, are much longer 

 Similarly in 2016 NREL showed that 32% of US electricity can be provided from 14% of US roofs using 16% efficient solar panels.i.e. no land use and almost no transmission losses and no cooling water. As solar panels are now reaching 21% CF and will be 24-26% by 2022 if the 16% panels were replaced by 22% average panels that means rooftop solar would provide 40% of US electricity production from rooftops.

Adding existing hydro at about 16% a bit of biomass, tracking solar, geothermal offshore wind etc 40% rooftop solar and sufficient wind then takes up less land not to mention water than the current nuclear/gas/coal fleet

 

I bet there is massive potential for biogas in the USA from organic wastes. In the UK the potential is estimated at about 150TWH (1/6th of current gas usage). I'd estimate several hundred TWH of biogas for the USA. That would provide a significant proportion of the backup needed for intermittent renewables and help deal with a significant waste issue.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2019 at 7:08 AM, NickW said:

The Volcanoes one is a firm favourite of the Climate Change Denier there's a Kon-spiracy Brigade. 

A fairly typical claim - one Volcano puts out more CO2 than the whole of Humanity.

Contrary to your claim of their being no talk on this there has been lots of research. In the real World Geologic emissions from Volcanoes, Ocean vents, hot springs etc is in the region of 200-400 mt per annum so less than 1% of human emissions

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

USGS

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year. 

Unfortunately for you, and whoever brings up Volcanoes/CO2 1) they have no idea how much CO2 gas is spewed out in Volcanoes on land as they massively vary and they certainly 2) have no idea about the MAJORITY of volcanoes spewing out CO2 underwater.  So, 3) No one can make ANY claim if humans or volcanoes spew out more CO2. 

When the error bars are +/- 200%... we have a problem here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2019 at 1:54 PM, Enthalpic said:

Brush up on infrared spectroscopy...

Please do, CH4 is completely covered by water vapor.  Then there is that **slight** <<COUGH>> problem that CH4 in the presence of an oxygen atmosphere<<Earth>> oxidizes and turns into water and CO2.  You have to be utterly stupid to post CH4 is going to heat 20X more than ....

People like you swill this BS up.  SO much for "peer reviewed" "Science?"  

Peer only in religious fervor and blind devotion against basic physics. 

Review?  None. 

Certainly isn't science.  That would require use of the scientific method...  Strange how no one in the climate alarmist crowd ever wish to use the scientific method...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Unfortunately for you, and whoever brings up Volcanoes/CO2 1) they have no idea how much CO2 gas is spewed out in Volcanoes on land as they massively vary and they certainly 2) have no idea about the MAJORITY of volcanoes spewing out CO2 underwater.  So, 3) No one can make ANY claim if humans or volcanoes spew out more CO2. 

When the error bars are +/- 200%... we have a problem here...

Geologists and their research say otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Please do, CH4 is completely covered by water vapor.  Then there is that **slight** <<COUGH>> problem that CH4 in the presence of an oxygen atmosphere<<Earth>> oxidizes and turns into water and CO2.  You have to be utterly stupid to post CH4 is going to heat 20X more than ....

People like you swill this BS up.  SO much for "peer reviewed" "Science?"  

Peer only in religious fervor and blind devotion against basic physics. 

Review?  None. 

Certainly isn't science.  That would require use of the scientific method...  Strange how no one in the climate alarmist crowd ever wish to use the scientific method...

Jesus Christ - I take it you dropped Kemistri and Fisiks aged ll?😂

Methane has an atmospheric half life of 7 years in the atmosphere. This can be replicated in Lab experiments along with measuring its infrared absorption properties

https://phys.org/tags/methane/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Wastral said:

my comments follow Wastral's

Please do, CH4 is completely covered by water vapor. Water vapour is a feedback - it cannot of itself increase temperature unless more energy is added than previously. Then there is that **slight** <<COUGH>> problem that CH4 in the presence of an oxygen atmosphere<<Earth>> oxidizes and turns into water and CO2.  You have to be utterly stupid to post CH4 is going to heat 20X more than .... Increased atmospheric CH4 levels affect radiative forcings.  It does not matter how much turns to water and CO2 as if the net level continues to increase then the forcing effect must increase. 

People like you swill this BS up.  SO much for "peer reviewed" "Science?"  You mean, when you offer nonsense instead?

Peer only in religious fervor and blind devotion against basic physics.  A non sequitur

Review?  None.  Except for the the hundreds of papers in research libraries 🤔

Certainly isn't science.  Science is probabilistic That would require use of the scientific method... Science is probabilistic  Strange how no one in the climate alarmist crowd ever wish to use the scientific method... Given that whoever you are talking about would not be scientists, they would never need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites