Is the Green race a race from energy dependence.

(edited)

As for China it would now appear that Solar and Wind are cheaper than Coal

Its amusing when LCOE comes out in favour of fossil fuels its cast iron but when the tables turn and renewables start out competing FF then immediately the methodology must be wrong!

https://asian-power.com/power-utility/in-focus/onshore-wind-and-solar-are-now-cheaper-coal-report

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

The formation of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago significantly interfered with ocean currents carrying warmer water towards the North pole and is suggested as a major contributor towards triggering the last ice age. 

 

Warmists always have little tid bits about why the skeptics are wrong but offer very little in the way of pier reviewed facts.  The IPCC does not scientifically pier review the data they publish.  Scientists have tried suing the IPCC for including their names in the annual reports when they cherry pick data from their reports, out of context.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Warmists always have little tid bits about why the skeptics are wrong but offer very little in the way of pier reviewed facts.  The IPCC does not scientifically pier review the data they publish.  Scientists have tried suing the IPCC for including their names in the annual reports when they cherry pick data from their reports, out of context.

What has any of that got to do with a geological event 3 million years ago? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NickW said:

I love the way you Climate Change Konspiracy Deniers end up posting links in support that actually say the complete opposite of what you are trying to say. 

For example in that first link in the conclusion

But the big question for most people is: Where are we currently on the Venus-Jupiter climate cycle and could their neighborly tug explain some of the changes in our climate? In a press release, Kent says we’re likely in the middle of the cycle when Earth’s orbit is almost circular. This means the swing is not causing climate disruptions. It’s most likely that any changes we are experiencing comes from outsized human input in the release of greenhouse gasses.
🤦‍♀️😄😄😄

Nice cherry pick!

This guy doesn't want to get on their bad side, until he retires.  My point is we know there is a 405,000 year cycle but within this cycle are many, many variations of the cycle.  The IPCC stays well clear of any short term cycles, especially the 12.86 year jupiter effect. 

"So why are Venus and Jupiter so influential on our orbit? Venus’s tug is so strong because it’s our closest planetary neighbor, approaching as close as 24 million miles. The sheer size of Jupiter—which is roughly 318 times as massive as Earth—means it also has an outsized pull on our planet.
 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, NickW said:

What has any of that got to do with a geological event 3 million years ago? 

 

 

Edited by Chris Wells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

What has any of that got to do with a geological event 3 million years ago? 

 

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warmists always fall back onto the emotional aspect of saving our planet.  When they are backed into a corner the gas lighting starts.  We humans believe it's better to be safe than sorry which is exactly what the UN has banked on.  Green energy is important to the world but we need profits to build it, not bankruptcy.  Canada is a solution for providing safe energy to the world.  Stop enriching Russia and start supporting Canada.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Nice cherry pick!

This guy doesn't want to get on their bad side, until he retires.  My point is we know there is a 405,000 year cycle but within this cycle are many, many variations of the cycle.  The IPCC stays well clear of any short term cycles, especially the 12.86 year jupiter effect. 

"So why are Venus and Jupiter so influential on our orbit? Venus’s tug is so strong because it’s our closest planetary neighbor, approaching as close as 24 million miles. The sheer size of Jupiter—which is roughly 318 times as massive as Earth—means it also has an outsized pull on our planet.
 

Its the conclusion of the report........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Warmists always have little tid bits about why the skeptics are wrong but offer very little in the way of pier reviewed facts.  The IPCC does not scientifically pier review the data they publish.  Scientists have tried suing the IPCC for including their names in the annual reports when they cherry pick data from their reports, out of context.

Meanwhile in the real World reports that formulate IPCC reports are scientifically peer reviewed.

 https://www.ipcc.ch/about/preparingreports/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

Nice cherry pick!

This guy doesn't want to get on their bad side, until he retires.  My point is we know there is a 405,000 year cycle but within this cycle are many, many variations of the cycle.  The IPCC stays well clear of any short term cycles, especially the 12.86 year jupiter effect. 

"So why are Venus and Jupiter so influential on our orbit? Venus’s tug is so strong because it’s our closest planetary neighbor, approaching as close as 24 million miles. The sheer size of Jupiter—which is roughly 318 times as massive as Earth—means it also has an outsized pull on our planet.
 

Ok so whats the radiative forcing affect of this 12.86 year cycle at perihelion and aphelion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Chris Wells said:

By hand picked "friendlies".

When all else fails play that Joker card of the Konspiracy😄

Nothing stopping anyone else scientifically reviewing as they are all in the public domain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Ok so whats the radiative forcing affect of this 12.86 year cycle at perihelion and aphelion ?

That's what the IPCC stays well clear of.  Oh, there is also the solar minimum we will be experiencing for a few decades.  This solar phase may be why the IPCC is panicking to get the green machine moving.  We,ve seen three years of cooling now.  The emperor will soon be naked.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

When all else fails play that Joker card of the Konspiracy😄

Nothing stopping anyone else scientifically reviewing as they are all in the public domain

It's what the warmist's do also.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Chris Wells said:

That's what the IPCC stays well clear of.  Oh, there is also the solar minimum we will be experiencing for a few decades.  This solar phase may be why the IPCC is panicking to get the green machine moving.  We,ve seen three years of cooling now.  The emperor will soon be naked.

I asked you. If you feel it has some critical relevance then surely you have some empirical measure of what its impact is? Radiative forcing effect (+/-) is the common all approach to assessing impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1970’s had two energy crises; one in 1973 and the other in 1979.  Both were caused by oil export curtailment by Arab nations; the first was voluntary, the second was caused by revolution.  Either way, the industrial world faced some bleak facts: they were addicted to oil and reliant on foreign, possibly hostile, non-democratic regimes.  The USA shifted its foreign policy; flexed its muscles, forged allies, and fought wars to keep their energy supply safe.  Communism was no longer the top priority; energy was king.  But how costly this was. Not only was defending their energy expensive, but massive capital losses were feeding unsavory allies.  Oil would not last for long, and nuclear bombs were a nightmarish worry. Economic vulnerability had been exposed, and world peace was threatened.  Continuing down this avenue was fraught with uncertainty  and probable doom.  A change in course was needed.  Long-term control of one’s energy supply was of critical importance and deemed top priority; but how and what to do?  The obvious answer was to produce energy at home and encourage citizens to demand it.

Along came the environmental movement with their anti-industrialization agenda touting their poster child of world doom, CO2.  Carbon dioxide was a proven greenhouse gas. This was an opportunity that couldn’t be passed up. Devise a formidable foe, then work toward defeating the monster while secretly fulfilling an ulterior motive.  Indoctrinate its citizens of the dangers of global warming and sell them on the idea that higher energy costs would save the earth from run-away warming should we hit the tipping point.  Set a reasonable time schedule to completely wean themselves off the monster or suffer the consequences of rising sea levels and flooding of coastal cities, drought, wild fires, crop failures, and economic Armageddon.  Demonizing oil was the mission and promoting alternative energy the solution.   

To get the world citizens on track, a coordinated intergovernmental plan to control and direct information and miss-information was needed.  Propaganda was critical.   Encourage the world to fund a world governing body which both studies and builds infrastructure for the world.  Hence, the UN voted to create the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1980’s.  Their mandate: to study the anthropogenic effects of global warming.  This meant studying the effects of man caused factors, while ignoring the natural cycles in nature. Green-house gases like CO2 and CH4 (methane) do cause some warming of the climate, but ignoring natural cycles allows any temperature trends to be directly associated with the man-caused effects.  Third world countries must be helped or their reliance on oil will grow.  Rewarding compliant behavior an important motivator.  Well respected institutions will be controlled through grants.  Those that comply will grow while those who disappoint will be ignored.  When the data doesn’t fit the models, simply adjust the past temperatures and blame it on calibration differences.  The IPCC will control everything; the information, the investments, the research, the universities, the scientists, the institutions like NASA and NOAA.  Climate scare will motivate citizens to take action.  Anyone not supporting the movement will be discredited and shunned like a heretic.     

 Hopefully domestic economies will benefit from the construction explosion and long-term employment surge of maintaining the grid.  World peace would be at hand by weakening the enemies.  The plan has been unfolding for 30 years and technology has reached the point of economic feasibility… hopefully.  Now comes the real push to build the domestic energy system.    

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

That's what the IPCC stays well clear of.  Oh, there is also the solar minimum we will be experiencing for a few decades.  This solar phase may be why the IPCC is panicking to get the green machine moving.  We,ve seen three years of cooling now.  The emperor will soon be naked.

You obviously don't see any flaws in this 12.86 year Milanokovitch Cycle theory do you?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chris Wells said:

The 1970’s had two energy crises; one in 1973 and the other in 1979.  Both were caused by oil export curtailment by Arab nations; the first was voluntary, the second was caused by revolution.  Either way, the industrial world faced some bleak facts: they were addicted to oil and reliant on foreign, possibly hostile, non-democratic regimes.  The USA shifted its foreign policy; flexed its muscles, forged allies, and fought wars to keep their energy supply safe.  Communism was no longer the top priority; energy was king.  But how costly this was. Not only was defending their energy expensive, but massive capital losses were feeding unsavory allies.  Oil would not last for long, and nuclear bombs were a nightmarish worry. Economic vulnerability had been exposed, and world peace was threatened.  Continuing down this avenue was fraught with uncertainty  and probable doom.  A change in course was needed.  Long-term control of one’s energy supply was of critical importance and deemed top priority; but how and what to do?  The obvious answer was to produce energy at home and encourage citizens to demand it.

Along came the environmental movement with their anti-industrialization agenda touting their poster child of world doom, CO2.  Carbon dioxide was a proven greenhouse gas. This was an opportunity that couldn’t be passed up. Devise a formidable foe, then work toward defeating the monster while secretly fulfilling an ulterior motive.  Indoctrinate its citizens of the dangers of global warming and sell them on the idea that higher energy costs would save the earth from run-away warming should we hit the tipping point.  Set a reasonable time schedule to completely wean themselves off the monster or suffer the consequences of rising sea levels and flooding of coastal cities, drought, wild fires, crop failures, and economic Armageddon.  Demonizing oil was the mission and promoting alternative energy the solution.   

To get the world citizens on track, a coordinated intergovernmental plan to control and direct information and miss-information was needed.  Propaganda was critical.   Encourage the world to fund a world governing body which both studies and builds infrastructure for the world.  Hence, the UN voted to create the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the 1980’s.  Their mandate: to study the anthropogenic effects of global warming.  This meant studying the effects of man caused factors, while ignoring the natural cycles in nature. Green-house gases like CO2 and CH4 (methane) do cause some warming of the climate, but ignoring natural cycles allows any temperature trends to be directly associated with the man-caused effects.  Third world countries must be helped or their reliance on oil will grow.  Rewarding compliant behavior an important motivator.  Well respected institutions will be controlled through grants.  Those that comply will grow while those who disappoint will be ignored.  When the data doesn’t fit the models, simply adjust the past temperatures and blame it on calibration differences.  The IPCC will control everything; the information, the investments, the research, the universities, the scientists, the institutions like NASA and NOAA.  Climate scare will motivate citizens to take action.  Anyone not supporting the movement will be discredited and shunned like a heretic.     

 Hopefully domestic economies will benefit from the construction explosion and long-term employment surge of maintaining the grid.  World peace would be at hand by weakening the enemies.  The plan has been unfolding for 30 years and technology has reached the point of economic feasibility… hopefully.  Now comes the real push to build the domestic energy system.    

    

Yawn

The IPCC reports have all extensively examined natural cycle effects and built these into the calculations and models. Their contributions are pretty much insignificant compared to the input of greenhouse gases duringt he industrial age. 

Enough of Konspiracy theories, Back to the subject of radiative forcing effect of this 12.86 year cycle? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

I asked you. If you feel it has some critical relevance then surely you have some empirical measure of what its impact is? Radiative forcing effect (+/-) is the common all approach to assessing impact. 

The fact that the IPCC uses water vapour as the main feedback mechanism of their climate models shows how desperate they are to push global warming.  The slight warming caused by CO2 is said to start the moisture feedback running.  More water vapour in the atmosphere will cause more warming causing more water vapour causing run-away warming.   The folly in this is that more moisture will cause more cloud formation causing more reflection of the sun's radiation.  I don't need to tell you this but the sun's radiation is much stronger than the long wave radiative capture of moisture in the atmosphere. 

Studies have shown that cosmic rays agitate water vapour and encourage condensation into droplets.  When cosmic rays are prevalent, earth's weather turns wetter and cooler.  Another thing the IPCC stays clear of.  The gist is that the IPCC models do not include cloud formation in the run-away climate predictions.  Another reason why the IPCC is currently panicking is that sun spots are at an all time low.  High sun spot activity deflects cosmic rays from the earth so the earth will be getting a full dose of cosmic rays for the next few decades resulting in significant cooling.  Naked as a jay bird!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With rising CO2 in the atmosphere plants grow faster  and are healthier.   Our food also grows faster.  Just saying.  I think there is a multitude of solutions to solve our dependency on fossil fuels.  Choosing just one would be like putting all your eggs in the same basket.  Diversity is good.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you look at the actions of the IPCC, all they have left is the emotional attachment of citizens to the health of the planet.  When you start using school children to push your agenda I think it's like putting up the white flag.  Green energy is good for world stability because if you're self sufficient you don't need to worry about what the neighbor has.  The problem with green energy is that it is being pushed too quickly and many will suffer unnecessary economic hardships trying to pay for it.  China and India have already chosen their path, so let's not fight and stop fooling the crowd.  Use economic sanction if you're worried about unfriendly nations, or better yet, let's all be friends and stop being underhanded.  Russian citizens are the same as you and me.  They will eventually do the right thing.  If you're comfortable, why fight.  Let's make everyone comfortable.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

@Red any comments? 

Yes, too many.  I tried hard to find a single point he made which was close to reality, so preferred not deal with such ignorance. 

Some posters here are so clueless about climate they would be better employed in a circus where there clownishness has real value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris Wells, as soon as you use the terminology you you do on climate matters it is apparent you have no real interest in climate science and are running an agenda based on sheer ignorance. 

The majority of your posts are conspiracy theory rubbish, and whenever you mention climate you get it so wrong as to beggar belief.

What's even more astounding is that you are also clueless on energy costs.  Just an FYI, only combined cycle gas turbines come close to generating electricity cheaper that wind or solar.  

This forum does well to keep populating itself with such ill informed posters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, all emotion, no facts.  Attack the person, no discussion on the flawed science.  Please add meat to your argument.  The fact that the IPCC call climate science settled is also very telling.  They don't want to discuss it.  They always refuse public debate.  What are they hiding from.  Use facts, not slander.  I've been looking at both sides and the alarmist side is never equal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, explain this one:  forests 4000 years old found in the debris of melting swiss glaciers.  Google it.  If more CO2 causes warming then less CO2 should cause less warming.  How did the trees grow then be consumed by ice?  CO2 was way lower (below 300 ppm) but the ambient climate was warmer.  The same as white spruce found in the arctic tundra 100's of kilometers from the current tree line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites