Climate Change News 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonteRCMS said:
On the plus side, 80,000 Germans can now do something productive.
Click to expand...
The question now is what will Germany do to meet its electricity needs? Maybe it will build more generators that burn wood pellets. There are still plenty of forests left in the Caucasus that can be cut down for fuel. Real life can be so cruel.
 
Ender said:
The question now is what will Germany do to meet its electricity needs? Maybe it will build more generators that burn wood pellets. There are still plenty of forests left in the Caucasus that can be cut down for fuel. Real life can be so cruel.
Click to expand...
Germany burns coal to generate electricity.

Germany could “restart” its nuclear reactor program.

Or, Germany could contract with France which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear.
 
MonteRCMS said:
Germany burns coal to generate electricity.

Germany could “restart” its nuclear reactor program.

Or, Germany could contract with France which gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear.
Click to expand...
It boggles the mind a bit that the Germans would have to import power from the French, but burning wood for power is coming back into vogue.

Germany is big on wood pellets, originally a fantastic idea. Waste wood – sawdust and wood chips – were to be recovered and compressed into pellets to make them “pourable.”…

As a source of domestic heat from waste products, wood pellets thus made home wood-fired stoves both convenient and sustainable. But other EU countries, such as the UK and the Netherlands, began co-firing wood pellets in coal plants. Demand rose, and countries from Canada to the US, Brazil, and Russia began making pellets from fresh timber at lower prices. Now, the EU imports biomass from forests around the planet.

We’re cutting down forests to burn timber so we don’t have to burn coal. This is like a bad fairy tale.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
The highly influential 1979 Charney Report published by the US National Academy of Sciences recognized that increasing CO2 would have a small positive influence on global temperatures. However, it discussed speculative claims by climate modelers that the small influence by CO2 would be dramatically amplified by an increase in water vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas. The report gave a total sensitivity from a doubling of CO2 of 3oC plus or minus 1.5 oC, a range of 1.5 to 4.5 oC (3 to 8 oF).
Click to expand...
As you’ve indicated, we have the same estimate now as we did close to 40 years ago, all those billions in research hasn’t improved our precision one iota.

When you look at the two components of the estimate, the folly becomes much more apparent.
  • Direct warming from increased CO2 - this warming is very firm at 1.1C, its settled physics and not disputed.
  • The rest of the warming is the estimated feedbacks,from increased water vapor, and can be broken out just by deducting the 1.1C, or (0.4-3.4C). So the feedback will either cause no effective warming, or a huge amount of warming (>3C). This target is bigger than the broad side of a barn, and it’s practically criminal that they haven’t been able to improve their precision after 40 years of investigation.
Skeptics don’t disputed the 1.1C warming directly from CO2, they dispute the swag of 0-3.5C in additional warming. The media never acknowledges these very two distinct components of the equation.
 
Last edited:
Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

The author if this piece is pulling his data from NASA.gov and he comments about the lack of coverage.

As I trade stocks and commodities on occasion; I’ve run across recent articles and tweets regarding the late start in planting crops in various areas around the world due to cooler weather. This is what should be making us very nervous. I have always feared global cooling far more than the warming we had; cooling has real effects such as it is harder to grow sufficient crops which will have knock on effects like higher food prices which in turn could lead to civil unrest if not outright chaos among the poor.
 
Last edited:
Zzyzx_Road said:
I have always feared global cooling far more than the warming we had
Click to expand...
If global cooling kills off the alarmist fear of global warming it will be more than worth the down side of a few years of lower crop yields.
 
Ender said:
If global cooling kills off the alarmist fear of global warming it will be more than worth the down side of a few years of lower crop yields.
Click to expand...
Evidence shows that inconvenient facts and data are easily explained away.
Cooling will not stop the alarmists, they’ll get rationalization papers published and when the next nino cycle causes a rapid jump, the alarm-ism will renew.
 
Ender said:
If global cooling kills off the alarmist fear of global warming it will be more than worth the down side of a few years of lower crop yields.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t ask for lower crop yields … the results of that could be worse than having to listen to the alarmists.

AGW supporters ought to check out the tweets linked below, both of which discuss the progress in spring planting for wheat, corn and soybeans, as compared to the norm for this date in the past few years.

The Hightower Report
and
Agrivisor

These are a couple of many reports that are relied on by buyers, sellers and traders of agricultural commodities so they have to give accurate data.

TL;DR for those who won’t believe a word or picture that doesn’t support AGW: the graphs are showing that the temperate zone is moving ever so slightly southward, not much, that is true, but it is noticeable.

The opposite of what one would expect in a true global warming scenario. Whether there is a longer term trend than last year and this year, that has yet to be seen.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Cold weather in central areas and the Volga valley delayed the resumption of winter wheat growth by about two to three weeks compared with last year, according to the Institute for Agricultural Market Studies, or IKAR. Lingering snow has also given farmers in the world’s top exporter less time to sow spring crops, potentially leading to smaller-than-expected plantings.

[source: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I love studying geography.

In fact, just bought a 16" Zoffoli Italian-made globe. Gorgeous. Floor model.

But anyway, … so MUCH of Russia is right at or around the Arctic Circle.

[Where I live, winter wheat is almost ready for harvest.]
 
Last edited:
This thread is a good example of a social network silo. Here we have 30+ consecutive posts from climate deniers, each feeding upon the posts of fellow deniers. By exposing themselves only to views that conform to their climate denier ideology, they form the mistaken over-assessment of the prominence of their view. Don’t like the derogatory term “climate denier?” Then stop using “warmists” and “climate worriers” and “alarmists.” I refrained from using “denier” for a long time based on an informal agreement with several (ahem, “Skeptics?”) here on CAF to refrain from derogatory terms for those who accept global warming as a scientific fact. Some of the same “signatories” to that agreement have willingly participated in the aforementioned name-calling, or have refrained from calling out their fellow silo members for the breaking of that agreement. Thus my use of “climate deniers.”

As for the subjects discussed here, a lot has been made of the efficiencies or inefficiencies of wind and solar. I would only point out that the science of global warming does not care if wind or solar is inefficient or not. The science does not care whether you or I believe it. It just is. As Ender remarked earlier, “Real life can be so cruel.”
 
And if it turns from fiction to reality,
we still won’t use wind and solar,
we’ll use nuclear power.
 
Theo520 said:
And if it turns from fiction to reality,

we still won’t use wind and solar,

we’ll use nuclear power.
Click to expand...
As we gain more experience, solar and wind generators are disintegrating … physically falling apart. In addition to failures to generate electricity.

And when the boutique generators do work, they do so at a cost that is six times higher than fossil or nuclear power.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
As we gain more experience, solar and wind generators are disintegrating … physically falling apart. In addition to failures to generate electricity.
Click to expand...
This is sounding more like a chant at a rally than an argument at a debate. But by all means, carry on!
🍿
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This is sounding more like a chant at a rally than an argument at a debate. But by all means, carry on!
Click to expand...
If you live in Puerto /rico, you would understand it.
They won’t be rebuilding their solar and wind farms
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
If you live in Puerto /rico, you would understand it.
They won’t be rebuilding their solar and wind farms
Click to expand...
They were only relying on solar and wind for 2.4% of their power, so there wouldn’t be much to rebuild anyway. And what was destroyed certainly won’t be rebuilt the same as it was - just as with the transmission grid. However they are realizing the value of small distributed solar power systems and deploying them right now as a quick way of getting emergency power while they wait for the distribution network to become fully restored. Read more here.
 
Last edited:
Actually they are deploying generators while they wait for the distribution network to become restored.
Homeowners are buying them as well, since they can operate during a hurricane if needed.

I keep a small solar panel for charging my phone when camping, they have a limited purpose.
To power the refrigerator during outages, I had a generator in the garage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top