Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[svetz]

Last week the global warming industry and its corporate media cheerleaders made a concerted effort to declare July 3-4 the hottest days on Earth ever. Media outlets like ABC, The New York Times, Axios, and Bloomberg each cited the University of Maine's Climate Reanalyzer computer model, which has since been questioned.

When you were a kid and sick your mom took your temperature with a thermometer under your tongue, if you were lucky. Doctors like anal thermometers as they're more accurate, but nowadays they use those ear thermometers.

The Earth doesn't have a single place where you can stick a thermometer, so it takes a computer to average the global temperature from available data.

Maine's Climate Reanalyzer ​

Climate Reanalyzer is a platform for visualizing a wide array of climate and weather datasets and models. Climate and weather information are integrated because the two systems are connected: climate is average weather.

It uses data from a variety of sources to calculate a temperature. Different models may well calculate slightly different numbers depending on whose theories they use to perform the global averaging. It consumes satellite data, ocean temperatures, and a number of other things you can read about on its website.

How do you know it's right?​

You don't for absolute fact. What you do know is that the model says those days were hotter than anything the model has predicted before based on the data. As the models have been tweaked to fit measured data back to the 18th century, it's a good bet they're correct.

Words like "hotter" are "relative". It's a relative measurement that yesterday was hotter than today. As the calculated temperature is the highest it's ever calculated, it's a pretty good bet those days were in fact the "hottest". Which is why you find prestigious news outfits reporting on it.

Did NOAA really walk it back?​

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) told AP News, "Although NOAA cannot validate the methodology or conclusion of the University of Maine analysis, we recognize that we are in a warm period due to climate change."

There's a huge difference between an outfit like NOAA saying they haven't validated it and saying it's wrong.

In fact, just a bit farther down from the NOAA quote in the AP article, NOAA gives credit to the model:

While the figures are not an official government record, “this is showing us an indication of where we are right now,” said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief scientist Sarah Kapnick. And NOAA indicated it will take the figures into consideration for its official record calculations.

Wallstreet Editorial​

On Friday evening, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Milloy titled "Hottest Days Ever? Don't Believe It."

Op-Eds are "opinion" pieces. That editorial also has blatant errors, for example, it claims the data says it's "supposedly the hottest in the 125,000" years". Which is in fact wrong, the original article only cited recorded temperatures going back to the 18th century. Opinions aren't facts.

 

[aenyc]

When you were a kid and sick your mom took your temperature with a thermometer under your tongue, if you were lucky. Doctors like anal thermometers as they're more accurate, but nowadays they use those ear things which probably aren't very accurate.

You didnt read the second link (that links to other links) did you? Or you are choosing to cover your ears and eyes again because it doesnt suite your narrative? (With links and actual records that basically prove that "hottest day ever" is a bunch of nonsense.
Not to mention that all the links YOU link to in the mainstream media that has been completely captured by the parasite class (such as bloomberg, etc) that are agenda pushers (while they ignore it for themselves, something you continue to ignore)

Hottest Day Evah! • Watts Up With That?

Do they think we are really so gullible?

wattsupwiththat.com

But what do I know? I am old enough to remember much (much) hotter days in summers of NYC in the mid-late 90's, where it was 90+ pretty much since june until end of september, and noone was screaming end of the world. The summers of the last 10+ years have been MUCH MUCH cooler and milder here.

 

[svetz]

You didnt read the second link (that links to other links) did you? Or you are choosing to cover your ears and eyes again because it doesnt suite your narrative?

That's correct, giving nonsense websites clicks supports their lying narratives financially. Sites such as the AP News link you provided, those I do look at.

If you believe there's a particular relevant "fact" from there and you want to discuss it; then by all means post the "fact" rather than the link and we can discuss it.

 

[svetz]

But what do I know? I am old enough to remember much (much) hotter days in summers of NYC in the mid-late 90's, where it was 90+ pretty much since june

Two thoughts on that:

1. NYC is one small datapoint on the globe for global warming calculations.
2. NYC also currently has a reflective haze in it's upper atmosphere from Canadian wildfires, smoke in the upper atmosphere probably reflects sunlight back into space similar to clouds and Saharan dust.

 

[aenyc]

Two thoughts on that:

1. NYC is one small datapoint on the globe for global warming calculations.
2. NYC also currently has a reflective haze in it's upper atmosphere from Canadian wildfires, smoke in the upper atmosphere probably reflects sunlight back into space similar to clouds and Saharan dust.

What does that have to do with anything? I said summers now (last 10-15 years or so) are more mild (ie cooler) than in the 90's. That is what I (and many here) have personally observed over the years.
Now am i supposed to believe what the mass media that has been caught lying over and over and over again, or my own personal experience?
The question is rhetorical. You again chose to focus on petty irrelevant details instead of addressing the bigger story that does not suit your narrative.

 

[aenyc]

That's correct, giving nonsense websites clicks supports their lying narratives financially. Sites such as the AP News link you provided, those I do look at.

If you believe there's a particular relevant "fact" from there and you want to discuss it; then by all means post the "fact" rather than the link and we can discuss it.

So again and again you ignore things that go against your narrative. As i said, at this point you are either a parasite class shill (ie you are involved in an industry that directly benefits from climate alarmism), or you are an extremely naive person. I am not sure which one is worse.

 

[D71]

EV are reported as killing Ford. Billions of dollars reported lost on EV in Ford declared previous year and up coming year. High price.

What you are seeing in the USA is the destruction of all past icons that Made America Great or some were dark history. Kill the big name American beer that got bought out, kill big name American business, destroy the image- fbi, destroy the govt, destroy the medical industry - trust, destroy statues, ……. all these things are being done on purpose.

will the new Ford EV batteries save ford? Right now ford is reporting billions lost over EV. Were the billionsactual cost of building new battery factories?

Will tax payers pick up more debt and or bail out ford? We are for most part Already Communist with the way we constantly bail out large corporations. Technically they are State Owned, Ran, and Funded. Damned if we don’t and damned if we do. Who owns the controlling interest in Ford Stock? Ford Family…. You are welcome.

 

[svetz]

I Don't believe in Global Warming because I personally don't see Temperatures changing​

I'm not surprised people might think that. Frankly, for most people it would be far more surprising if you were seeing an increase at this point. Here are some things to help put it in perspective: Global averages are the average from everywhere. From the image to the right, in 2022 the United States and Australia saw very little change. The average increase is still under 1.2°C, so you shouldn't expect to see much change. While that seems like a really small change, it not only indicates a trend but has far-reaching impacts. As you can see in the image to the right, the poles are warming faster than anywhere else. It's those increased temperatures that bring the average up. You don't need a single 105°F day, 10 99°F days instead of the typical 5 also shows heat is increasing. Ditto fewer colder days.

The relationship between Temperature & Humidity​

Ever wonder why places like Denver and Phonix hit high temperatures in the triple digits while in some places like St. Petersburg Florida rarely, if ever, hit triple digits? It's because places with a lot of nearby water can convert that energy into creating more humidity. As air temperature increases the air can hold far more water. So, while you might not see your dry-bulb temperature go up, the average wet-bulb temperature could be. Where I live, I definitely am seeing changes. The National Weather Service has been issuing extreme heat warnings every day since the beginning of June. Usually, we get two or three days during the summer. The heat index high has been between 111°F and 116°F for weeks. ​

So again and again you ignore things that go against your narrative.

Nope. A link to website article (especially a nonsense website) doesn't point to a fact to discuss.
If you have an actual fact/observation, like you did with temperature, I'm happy to discuss it.

... you are either a parasite class shill (ie you are involved in an industry that directly benefits from climate alarmism), or you are an extremely naive person. I am not sure which one is worse.

So you present no facts, point to ridiculous websites, can't argue away truths, and resort to attacks. Class act.

 

[D71]

When you were a kid and sick your mom took your temperature with a thermometer under your tongue, if you were lucky. Doctors like anal thermometers as they're more accurate, but nowadays they use those ear thermometers.

The Earth doesn't have a single place where you can stick a thermometer, so it takes a computer to average the global temperature from available data.

Maine's Climate Reanalyzer ​

It uses data from a variety of sources to calculate a temperature. Different models may well calculate slightly different numbers depending on whose theories they use to perform the global averaging. It consumes satellite data, ocean temperatures, and a number of other things you can read about on its website.

How do you know it's right?​

You don't for absolute fact. What you do know is that the model says those days were hotter than anything the model has predicted before based on the data. As the models have been tweaked to fit measured data back to the 18th century, it's a good bet they're correct.

Words like "hotter" are "relative". It's a relative measurement that yesterday was hotter than today. As the calculated temperature is the highest it's ever calculated, it's a pretty good bet those days were in fact the "hottest". Which is why you find prestigious news outfits reporting on it.

Did NOAA really walk it back?​

There's a huge difference between an outfit like NOAA saying they haven't validated it and saying it's wrong.

In fact, just a bit farther down from the NOAA quote in the AP article, NOAA gives credit to the model:

Wallstreet Editorial​

Op-Eds are "opinion" pieces. That editorial also has blatant errors, for example, it claims the data says it's "supposedly the hottest in the 125,000" years". Which is in fact wrong, the original article only cited recorded temperatures going back to the 18th century. Opinions aren't facts.

Arson blamed on Climate change.

Can you honestly read this link and blame climate change vs the arson for these fires. Can you honestly say that Snopes is NOT twisting truth…they dismiss “because there is not 200” when all it takes is 1.

Were 'Nearly 200' People Arrested for Starting Australia Bushfires?

Misinformation spread wildly as bushfires devastated Australia in late 2019 and early 2020.

www.snopes.com

All it takes is 1 or 2 ppl caught that were charged with effective arson…. To have set the destructive fires. Here in the USA they blamed a couple 1 year for their unauthorized use of fireworks for creating huge wild fire. Ppl were saying it was climate change. You need to admit and police your own for bending twisting the truth. Or just be honest and say you will lie cheat whatever it takes to worship climate change as your new religion. Either way works and is honest.

Where do you think Smokey the Bear came from with the famous saying? “Only you can prevent forest fires”. Then they would go into a list of things to do and not do.

when I grew up ppl burned their own garbage … was a helluva lot less then what we have now. Ppl’s garbage burning often caused run away accidents. They claimed the average person was polluting the air and the planet too. So garbage collection started…. The dump would burn the trash….. as if their smoke was not pollution. We paid them to collect the trash and dispose of it. Out of sight out of mind unless you lived near the dump and the wind blew the huge plumes of smoke in your direction. Property prices were real low around dump sites due to burning. Damn.

 

[Checkthisout]

Thread Recap​

This thread has been a journey. I started off as a skeptic/denier, but bad science is usually debunked after a decade and the whole topic of climate change had been around far too long not to give it a second look with an open mind. So I open Bill Gate’s book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster and saw problems. Bill's book was not the type of book I was looking for, but it did raise questions.

The biggest issue I had with Bill's book is it seemed reasonable to me that an energy storage solution (e.g., a battery) could be tied with wind and solar to resolve the crisis and the rest of it was noise, so I started this thread to see what others thought. From the OP it seemed ESS could get us all but about 28%.

Mainly I've been a proponent of a low-cost ESS solution (which seems very feasible) because it would make wind and solar the lowest LCOE providers, and our natural capitalism steak could have the pro-climate people less concerned and reduce costs for everyone. That is a win-win.
But that lingering 28% was still a lot if climate change was something to worry about.

Planting more trees didn't seem like the answer (#8). So I went looking for other books and not finding anything started doing some research and posting the findings for discussion as I had a lot of questions in terms of the validity of the science. That starts at post #9, based on the half-life of GreenHouse Gases (GHGs), and recognizing the buildup I started changing my tune and seeing the value of net-zero. But I still had a lot of questions and the thread hit many

Fortunately, folks are working on new technologies that will help that last 28%:

• Biofuels can replace fuel for long-haul trucks & air travel
• Green Steel
• Concrete Replacements (e.g., Mycelium, ashCrete, ferroRock, glasscrete)
• New Concrete processes (e.g., CarbonCure)
• Beano for Cows, synthetic meats (also allows more agricultural land to

Will the United States reducing CO2 output by 28% save the planet?

That would be a global reduction of 6% and assumes your "biofuel" is zero carbon and can gas up a 737.

 

[aenyc]

Bye Bye Paris: Chinese CO2 Emissions are Skyrocketing • Watts Up With That?

As industries in green nations like Germany struggle with unaffordable green energy, China is boosting coal use. China is pumping out carbon emissions as if COVID never happened. That’s bad news for the climate crisis Published: July 10, 2023 6.05am AEST David Stern, Crawford School of Public...

wattsupwiththat.com

Its hoax and everyone in the know knows it!

 

[aenyc]

"Green" Energy Is a Scam. It Isn't MEANT to Work. - The Corbett Report

In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It's worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the...

www.corbettreport.com

If you're here reading these words, then perhaps you already know where the green energy myth is taking us. You know about the Great Reset and Agenda 2030 and the push for a global technocracy.

You probably even know precisely how they're going to convince the public to go along with this insanity. You know about the "green" propaganda and the "sustainable development" scam, and you know that the climate scam will be the cornerstone for the global carbon tax that will be the backbone of the de facto global government.

Perhaps you take hope from the resistance to this green enslavement agenda that is appearing around the world. Perhaps you take comfort seeing the Dutch farmers and the Sri Lankan farmers and the Argentinian farmers and the Irish farmers and their farmer friends around the globe rising up. Perhaps you take heart knowing that, with so many livelihoods throughout the world being threatened by this sick, anti-human agenda, the agenda will be derailed. And perhaps you take pity on the slumbering masses who are finally starting to rise in protest on the streets of Prague and Leipzig and London.

The slumbering masses are awakening!

 

[LeoThomson]

Bye Bye Paris: Chinese CO2 Emissions are Skyrocketing • Watts Up With That?

As industries in green nations like Germany struggle with unaffordable green energy, China is boosting coal use. China is pumping out carbon emissions as if COVID never happened. That’s bad news for the climate crisis Published: July 10, 2023 6.05am AEST David Stern, Crawford School of Public...

wattsupwiththat.com

Its hoax and everyone in the know knows it!

 

[LeoThomson]

Bye Bye Paris: Chinese CO2 Emissions are Skyrocketing • Watts Up With That?

As industries in green nations like Germany struggle with unaffordable green energy, China is boosting coal use. China is pumping out carbon emissions as if COVID never happened. That’s bad news for the climate crisis Published: July 10, 2023 6.05am AEST David Stern, Crawford School of Public...

wattsupwiththat.com

Its hoax and everyone in the know knows it!

 

[aenyc]

A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

wattsupwiththat.com

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

The latest paper from Communications Earth & Environment, entitled “Artistic representations of data can help bridge the US political divide over climate change,” takes another swipe at a propaganda approach to environmental communication. Nan Li and colleagues examine the role of artistic visualization in climate change communication, arguing that such visualizations elicit stronger emotional responses than conventional data graphs. They maintain that this could

“mitigate the political division in viewers’ perceived relevance of climate change that could otherwise be exacerbated by exposure to data graphs.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00856-9

The paper serves to underline the ongoing effort to manipulate public opinion regarding climate change, rather than substantiating it with irrefutable evidence.

The paper’s central thesis rests on the argument that “artistic representations of climate data” will prove more effective in “bridging the political divide on climate change.” However, this contention seems to prioritize emotion and perception over fact and critical reasoning. We continue to drift away from an era of science driven by empirical evidence, focusing instead on emotionally charged interpretation of data to encourage consensus.

This is the strategy they use to manipulate you into believing this scam. Its the same as the COVID scam. Fear!

 

[MurphyGuy]

Will the United States reducing CO2 output by 28% save the planet?

Yes it would. Such things do not happen in a vacuum and the leader, by definition, goes first.

That would be a global reduction of 6% and assumes your "biofuel" is zero carbon and can gas up a 737.

I don't know about a 737, but how about an Airbus 380?

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-03-first-a380-powered-by-100-sustainable-aviation-fuel-takes-to-the

 

[LeoThomson]

Will the United States reducing CO2 output by 28% save the planet?

No, regardless of what the US or any one else does, the planet will be fine. Humans not so much...

That would be a global reduction of 6% and assumes your "biofuel" is zero carbon and can gas up a 737.

And every country needs to do their bit, not just the US...

 

[aenyc]

They literally make things up!

Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach Accused Of Making Up “Tens Of Thousands Of Heat Deaths”

notrickszone.com

 

[aenyc]

They are bought and paid for!

Just Stop Oil Donor Received £110 Million in Green Subsidies from Taxpayer • Watts Up With That?

In Vince’s case, over £43 million (pre-tax) from the company in the form of salary, share buybacks, loans and receipts from the sale of a subsidiary.

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[aenyc]

Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant! LOL

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Carbon Dioxide - CO2 Coalition

by Ron Barmby Political tunnel vision on global warming has resulted in declaring increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide an existential threat. But the United Nations’ resolve to reduce carbon dioxide levels runs counter to its goals to end world hunger, promote world peace and protect global...

co2coalition.org

 

[aenyc]

All of it is fake. fake fake fake

Climate Models Come With 'Dangerous' CO2 Warming Baked In, Code Review Finds – The Daily Sceptic

An expert review of NASA's climate model code has found that it comes with 'dangerous' warming from CO2 baked in despite consistently over-shooting the actual measured temperatures.

dailysceptic.org

 

[LeoThomson]

A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

wattsupwiththat.com

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

The latest paper from Communications Earth & Environment, entitled “Artistic representations of data can help bridge the US political divide over climate change,” takes another swipe at a propaganda approach to environmental communication. Nan Li and colleagues examine the role of artistic visualization in climate change communication, arguing that such visualizations elicit stronger emotional responses than conventional data graphs. They maintain that this could


The paper serves to underline the ongoing effort to manipulate public opinion regarding climate change, rather than substantiating it with irrefutable evidence.

What part of climate change do YOU refute?

A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

wattsupwiththat.com

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

The latest paper from Communications Earth & Environment, entitled “Artistic representations of data can help bridge the US political divide over climate change,” takes another swipe at a propaganda approach to environmental communication. Nan Li and colleagues examine the role of artistic visualization in climate change communication, arguing that such visualizations elicit stronger emotional responses than conventional data graphs. They maintain that this could


The paper serves to underline the ongoing effort to manipulate public opinion regarding climate change, rather than substantiating it with irrefutable evidence.

The paper’s central thesis rests on the argument that “artistic representations of climate data” will prove more effective in “bridging the political divide on climate change.” However, this contention seems to prioritize emotion and perception over fact and critical reasoning. We continue to drift away from an era of science driven by empirical evidence, focusing instead on emotionally charged interpretation of data to encourage consensus.

This is the strategy they use to manipulate you into believing this scam. Its the same as the COVID scam. Fear!

The paper’s central thesis rests on the argument that “artistic representations of climate data” will prove more effective in “bridging the political divide on climate change.” However, this contention seems to prioritize emotion and perception over fact and critical reasoning. We continue to drift away from an era of science driven by empirical evidence, focusing instead on emotionally charged interpretation of data to encourage consensus.

This is the strategy they use to manipulate you into believing this scam. Its the same as the COVID scam. Fear!

What fear? What scam?

The ones being manipulated are the conspiracy theorists so that the fossil fuel industry can keep their subsidies and freely dump the waste products into the environment. Do you ever wonder why no one who complains about green subsidies, never complain about fossil fuels subsidies?

 

[LeoThomson]

They literally make things up!

Federal Health Minister Karl Lauterbach Accused Of Making Up “Tens Of Thousands Of Heat Deaths”

notrickszone.com

I agree, the conspiracy sites literally make things up, why do you bother with them?

 

[aenyc]

When do you know the bankers are lying? When their mouth is moving

Central Bankers Predicted Net Zero Would Lower Inflation – and Got it Spectacularly Wrong – The Daily Sceptic

Central bankers around the world claimed the Net Zero transition away from fossil fuels would lower inflation, but new analysis from top financial services firm Nomura has found it is in fact driving it.

dailysceptic.org

 

[LeoThomson]

A Critical Look at Climate Change “Communication”: Deconstructing Artful Propaganda:

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

wattsupwiththat.com

The number of “researchers” that are an embarrassment to humanity continues to swell exponentially.

The latest paper from Communications Earth & Environment, entitled “Artistic representations of data can help bridge the US political divide over climate change,” takes another swipe at a propaganda approach to environmental communication. Nan Li and colleagues examine the role of artistic visualization in climate change communication, arguing that such visualizations elicit stronger emotional responses than conventional data graphs. They maintain that this could


The paper serves to underline the ongoing effort to manipulate public opinion regarding climate change, rather than substantiating it with irrefutable evidence.

The paper’s central thesis rests on the argument that “artistic representations of climate data” will prove more effective in “bridging the political divide on climate change.” However, this contention seems to prioritize emotion and perception over fact and critical reasoning. We continue to drift away from an era of science driven by empirical evidence, focusing instead on emotionally charged interpretation of data to encourage consensus.

This is the strategy they use to manipulate you into believing this scam. Its the same as the COVID scam. Fear!