by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
Part 3 of this series examines power markets, promoted by policymakers (FERC) and industry advocates to lower costs through competitive bidding and merit-order dispatch. While markets can optimize resource allocation in many sectors, they struggle to deliver affordability and reliability in electricity systems dominated by intermittent renewables. This post first explains how power markets operate, then highlights their challenges, and finally explores why they amplify the cost challenges associated with wind and solar.
In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the fat tail problem undermines the cost-saving potential of wind and solar. It’s easy to supply electricity most of the time. The fat tail occurs in the rarer periods of maximal demands, when wind and solar are not available. These periods, not savings during easy times, drive system economics. Part 2 discussed how rate structures distort perceptions of affordability for solar applications.
How Power Markets Work (and Fail)
Power markets use a merit-order dispatch system, where generators bid their costs, and the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed. During “easy” times—when demand is low or renewable output is high—wind and solar often dominate. Their near-zero marginal costs (no fuel expenses) allow them to bid low, displacing higher-cost fossil fuel plants and driving down market prices. This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.
However, during peak or extreme conditions, wind and solar often underperform due to weather or diurnal constraints. For example, wind speeds may drop during heatwaves, or solar output may be negligible at night or during cloudy winters. When demand spikes or renewables falter, markets rely on dispatchable resources—combined cycle plants, combustion turbines, or even older coal units—to meet the shortfall. These resources have higher marginal costs and are often called upon during the most expensive hours, driving market prices skyward. During Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, ERCOT prices surged to $9,000/MWh as renewables underperformed and demand soared. As discussed in the first posting, doing well most of the time is not enough. The challenge in providing costly backup during peak shortages exposes the limitations of power markets, as explored below.
The Promise and Limits of Power Markets
I am a big fan, in general, of markets over central planning and the wonders of the Invisible Hand. Markets are powerful tools for aligning supply and demand, often outperforming centralized planning by incentivizing competition and innovation. However, it should be understood that markets do not work well for every good and service at every time and place.
Listed below are conditions which increase the likelihood of markets being superior to centralized planning:
- Availability of Substitute goods
- Electricity lacks viable, cost-effective alternatives, unlike commodities with multiple options, limiting market flexibility
- Low barriers to market entry
- Building power plants requires substantial capital and expertise, limiting new entrants.
- Short lead times for production/investment
- Long lead times for plant construction
- High price elasticity
- Small demand fluctuations based on price signals, overall inelastic
- Clear and accessible information
- Possible for real time costs, not for backup, emergency power, future needs…
- High potential for innovation
- Energy markets rarely drive innovation; global R&D, not regional competition, fuels renewable advancements, while subsidies distort market signals for wind and solar
- In terms of market advantage, innovation is used in regard to product features, characteristics, functionality or appeal, not the production of the good
- Low externalities
- Environmental impacts of generation are relatively large
- Low concerns of social equity
- Electricity has a major impact on quality of life. System must support all.
- Low risk from market failures
- Huge risk from market failures
- Forecasting demand is challenging
- Forecasting annual peaks and energy consumption is relatively easy for electric supply as compared to other goods and services
Electricity differs from most commodities, with highly inelastic demand and a need for instantaneous balance between supply and demand to maintain grid stability. Unlike markets for goods like wheat or electronics, where substitutes abound, electricity has few viable alternatives. Storage technologies, such as batteries, remain costly and limited, unable to support seasonal needs, leaving utilities reliant on traditional generation (e.g., natural gas, coal, nuclear) to fill gaps left by intermittent wind and solar. This complexity makes electricity a poor fit for market-driven systems.
The poor fit becomes apparent as electricity’s complexity has required the creation of additional multiple market structures. Even so, these markets often fail to ensure reliability during high-demand or extreme conditions. Below are additional key markets and their roles:
- Capacity Market: Ensures sufficient generation capacity is available to meet future peak demand, particularly during extreme events. Generators are paid to maintain plants on standby, but payments often fall short of incentivizing enough dispatchable resources to handle extreme conditions reliably.
- Ancillary Services Market (services ensuring grid stability): Provides critical grid stability functions, such as voltage support and frequency regulation, which renewables like wind and solar rarely contribute. These essential services increase costs as utilities procure them from traditional generators.
- Day-Ahead Market: Allows generators to bid for supplying power the next day based on forecasted demand. While efficient for planning, it struggles to adapt to unexpected renewable shortfalls, leaving grids vulnerable to price spikes.
- Intraday Market: Enables real-time adjustments to power supply within the same day. It helps address short-term renewable variability but cannot ensure reliability during prolonged extreme events, such as multi-day storms or heatwaves.
- Financial Transmission Rights (FTR) Market (Financial tools to manage grid congestion costs): Allows participants to hedge against price differences caused by grid congestion. While useful for financial planning, FTRs do not directly enhance reliability or address the physical shortages during critical events.
- Demand Response Market: Pays consumers to reduce usage during peak times, aiming to ease grid stress. However, its impact is limited during extreme events when demand remains inelastic, and widespread participation is challenging.
- Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Market: Enables trading of credits for renewable generation to meet regulatory mandates. While promoting green energy, RECs inflate the perceived cost-effectiveness of renewables by masking their reliance on backup systems.
- Reserve Market: Ensures backup power is available for unexpected outages or demand spikes. These reserves are critical, but increase costs, as dispatchable plants must be kept online despite infrequent use.
- Bilateral Contracts and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs): Long-term contracts between utilities and generators to secure stable supply. While offering some reliability, they often prioritize renewables, leaving gaps when intermittent sources falter.
- Emissions Markets: Trade carbon credits to incentivize low-emission generation. These markets raise costs for fossil fuel plants, indirectly increasing reliance on renewables and exacerbating the need for costly backup.
Overall, these complex market structures unfortunately tend to prioritize short-term efficiency over long-term reliability. As Part 1 showed, electricity is easy to provide most of the time but challenging during rare, high-cost periods. By focusing on real-time pricing, power markets fail to secure sufficient dispatchable resources, amplifying renewable costs and leaving markets ill-equipped to handle peak shortages or extreme weather, as explored below.
Why Power Markets Fail During Extreme Conditions
Power markets prioritize short-term economic efficiency, selecting the cheapest resources—like wind and solar—during periods of low demand or high renewable output. However, this focus fails to incentivize long-term investments in reliability, such as maintaining dispatchable plants (e.g., natural gas or nuclear) or building sufficient backup capacity. As a result, during fat tail events—when demand spikes or renewables falter—markets struggle to ensure supply, leading to price spikes and higher costs for consumers.
For example, in regions like Texas (ERCOT) or California, power markets have seen price spikes during extreme weather (e.g., Winter Storm Uri in 2021 or California’s 2020 heatwaves). These events exposed the fragility of systems reliant on intermittent renewables without adequate dispatchable capacity. During Winter Storm Uri, Texas consumers faced $10 billion in additional costs over a few days due to market price spikes. The resulting costs were passed to consumers. In contrast, regulated utilities can prioritize long-term reliability by maintaining diverse generation portfolios. Markets deem these costs inefficiencies, but regulated utilities view them as prudent reliability investments.
At the other extreme, power markets undervalue the “reliability services” provided by dispatchable plants, such as voltage support, frequency regulation, and ramping capability. Wind and solar, while cheap to operate, contribute little to these services, forcing utilities to procure them elsewhere at additional cost. This hidden subsidy for renewables further distorts market signals, making intermittent resources appear cheaper than they are.
A Financial Analogy: The 90% Win Fallacy
The shortcomings of power markets echo the financial scam discussed in Part 1, where traders were promised wins on 90% of their trades. Just as frequent small gains were wiped out by rare but massive losses, the low costs of renewables during easy times are offset by the ongoing high costs of backup systems needed for their intermittency, further amplified during fat tail periods. No pension fund or institutional investor would adopt a strategy that ignores the risk of catastrophic losses, yet energy policymakers often embrace renewables based on their average costs, ignoring the reliability implications.
This raises a troubling question: Do advocates of ‘cheap’ renewables overlook the fat tail problem, or are they prioritizing short-term gains over long-term system costs? Some may be well-intentioned but innumerate, focusing on short-term savings without grasping system-wide costs. Others may prioritize political or ideological goals over economic reality. Regardless, academics, policymakers, and regulators should be held to a higher standard. They have access to the same system models and real-world data that utilities use, which consistently show that heavy reliance on renewables increases electricity costs. Even though wind and solar are very competitive in the market, most of the time, that’s not reason enough to expect that they will lower overall costs. Having a market which grants wind and solar a high percentage of wins, makes it hard for more dependable resources to survive and be available for peak needs.
Common Perspectives on Energy Markets
What is the common take on market problems? To understand the common perspective on power markets, I consulted an AI synthesis of prevailing views, which highlights both strengths and oversights. I received this response:
Power markets excel in driving competition and innovation but face volatility and reliability risks, requiring refined market designs and faster renewable integration. Traditional systems ensure stability and emergency preparedness but struggle with inefficiency and slow modernization. Balancing these trade-offs requires tailored policies for each system’s unique structure.
Let’s break that down:
- Power Markets excel in driving competition and innovation…
- Global R&D, not regional markets, drives renewable advancements, while subsidies for wind and solar distort market signals
- but face volatility and reliability risks, requiring refined market designs and faster renewable integration.
- Reliability is a prime virtue for a power system as is the ability to cope with volatility
- Is required market design the answer? How about a return to planning for reliability and volatility?
- Will faster integration of renewables help or hinder? (See past postings – they don’t help.)
- Refined market designs may mitigate volatility, but they cannot eliminate the need for reliable dispatchable generation
- Traditional systems ensure stability and emergency preparedness but struggle with inefficiency and slow modernization.
- Stability and emergency preparedness are the major goals
- Stability and emergency preparedness are the major source of costs
- Once system is in place for stability and emergencies additions costs are less significant
- Incremental savings from market are not so large once peak and emergency
- needs are considered.
- Inefficiency or prudent steps to avoid extreme volatility and system crashes
- Modernization is a red herring reflecting one perspective as to what the future power supply should be.
- Balancing these trade-offs requires tailored policies for each system’s unique structure.
- That’s one perspective to deal with the issues, but there are other non-market approaches.
The markets invert priorities. The least challenging service is providing power during easy times. Markets prioritize easy periods, addressing reliable energy supply challenges only as an afterthought. When wind and solar dominate in the easy times due to lower costs it becomes difficult to impossible to maintain dependable dispatchable generation for more challenging times. It’s generally best to plan for the major needs first and then optimize issues of less importance. These perspectives overstate market benefits while ignoring the fat tail, underscoring the need for reliability-focused planning.
The Evidence Is Clear
Energy markets work well to increase wind and solar penetration. However, look globally, and the pattern is unmistakable: regions with high renewable penetration often face higher electricity prices. Germany, with its aggressive Energiewende, has some of the highest retail electricity rates in Europe, despite abundant wind and solar. Germany’s residential electricity prices reached €0.40/kWh in 2024, among the highest in Europe, despite heavy renewable investment. California’s rates have risen steadily as its renewable portfolio grows. In contrast, regions, like France, with balanced mixes, including nuclear and natural gas, often maintain lower and more stable prices. Power markets’ short-term focus exacerbates cost increases by neglecting reliability during high-cost events.
Market approaches have benefit. In the electric power sector, originally rigid, monopoly-driven system entities relied largely on their own resources and only made sales and purchases with neighbors in limited situations. Now virtually all interconnected systems reach a semi-optimal dispatch through sharing real-time marginal cost data and make sales and purchases to share the savings this process generates. It’s semi-optimal dispatch because systems will keep units needed for later dispatch on-line and generating at minimums. Lower cost resources will not kick off these resources or stop them from receiving financial benefit for what they generate. This post explains how power marketers enabled utilities to lower costs through shared savings, optimizing resource dispatch across interconnected systems. This approach provides many advantages of markets without many of the drawbacks of a fully structured market system.
It’s wrong to assume that the less constrained a market is, the better things will always be. For many crucial reasons, electricity markets are poorly suited to ensure reliable and affordable power. When markets fail, costs rise considerably. These limitations of energy markets are compounded by the complexity of providing reliable electricity. Centralized planning has advantages as well, especially for power systems. A balance needs to be struck between market approaches and planning for reliability. Perhaps we find the better balance looking backwards.
Looking Ahead
Power markets are powerful tools, but they are not a panacea for electricity systems. Their focus on economic efficiency during easy times leaves them vulnerable to the high costs of atypical events, where wind and solar underperform. Building on the fat tail problem (Part 1) and hidden solar costs (Part 2), the next post in this series will explore the costs of backup power and reserves, which further erode the savings of renewables. A final post will tie together these threads, offering a comprehensive view of why “cheaper” wind and solar lead to more expensive electricity.
For now, the takeaway is this: power markets amplify the cost challenges of renewables by prioritizing short-term gains over long-term reliability. A sustainable energy system must prioritize reliability and affordability through regulated planning, market reforms, or other tailored approaches addressing power market limitations. Policymakers must prioritize reliability over short-term market gains for a resilient, affordable energy future.
Bonus – Memory of a Market Sham
Politicians and bureaucrats often claim market victories when the evidence is quite small. I remember back 25 years or so, claims of how allowing choice for large industrial customers resulted in lower costs. The facts were that policy changes allowed large customers to shop for power prices versus taking rates from monopoly power providers. It was widely claimed that benefits accrued because of the market.
Context is key: new generation can be cheaper or costlier than existing resources. Historically when new generation was cheaper, power providers would push growth because bringing lower cost plants on line to serve newer loads lowered the cost for everyone. When existing resources are more expensive, reducing demand makes sense because serving new customers will raise costs for all as more costly resources are averaged into the mix. Environmental concerns temper these relations somewhat.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, combined cycle plants driven by natural gas enabled new additions to reduce average energy costs. As a utilities system load grew, this would work to lower costs. When industries came to the utilities with big loads, all consumers would benefit as new combined cycles were added to the mix to serve the extra load.
The policy changes that allowed industry to shop for power enabled them to capture the benefits from the low-cost additions instead of sharing with all customers. This appeal to “market choice” had little impact on overall efficiency, merely redistributing cost benefits.
Undoubtedly, this supported new industrial growth, but it increased costs for existing industrial, commercial, and residential customers. If new generation additions were costlier, industries would likely have stayed with utility rates, leveraging the cheaper existing base while existing customers bore most of the new costs. Subsidizing new industry may be a social good, but it’s critical to recognize that market choice didn’t reduce overall costs—it only changed who benefited, reshaping how the pie was divided. This example underscores how power markets can create the illusion of cost savings while failing to address system-wide costs, much like markets today obscure the overall cost impacts of wind and solar.
As Russ states – “This creates the appearance of cheap electricity and fuels the narrative that renewables are inherently cost-effective.”
Its total costs that matter
This is paper discusses many of the fallacies of LCOE ( though some what exaggerated on the some of the costs)
The biggest error in a 100% renewable or near 100% renewable LCOE analysis is the excessive need for duplication of facilities to provide sufficient capacity in down times. During the good times the effective actual capacity factor drops significantly due to excess electricity not being consumed, and during down times , the capacity factor is likewise down because the wind isnt blowing or the sun aint shining.
Its astonishing the advocates dont grasp simple math and physics
link to the article
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/issues-with-levelised-cost-of-electricity-why-a-simple-metric-cannot-determine-our-energy-future
Joe K and Planning engineer,
Yes it is total cost that matters.
I objected to Russ’s Part I by pointing out that external costs of fossil fuels were not considered, even though those very costs are the primary driver of renewables. An economic analysis that ignores a major cost, the social cost of carbon emissions, is not at all persuasive. You were silent on this point in Part II, and so was I.
Thank you then for acknowledging in Part III that markets struggle to make good decisions when “Environmental impacts of generation are relatively large” as they are with fossil fuel generation. That of course is the motivation for a carbon tax as previously noted. You point out that electricity prices have risen in countries like Germany and the UK, because they are global leaders in recognizing the external costs, while the US at present has turned inward on this and other global issues. Unfortunately Russ goes nowhere with this obvious observation which makes fossil fuel generated electricity not as cheap as it appears.
Dave
The problem is that sensible decisions on power generation aren’t made on the basis of sensible economics and engineering. They are political decisions made by people who have little or no understanding of basic science principles. As such, they are easily swayed by advocates who are not impartial but have undeclared vested interests. That same advocacy is also used on the general public, the most easily swayed become emotive if not false arguments driving movements to sway local as well as state or federal governments. That is what the current situation is. One can bring all the real-life data into the argument but it is ignored or diminished. Emotions and lies trump facts.
Wind and solar together with batteries can be a very good solution to many electricity supply needs. It may well be the most cost-effective solution. However, that solution does not apply to major grids. I have no doubt that PE in his professional life advocated against the unreliables but was over-ruled or disregarded. I know a number of senior engineers who have called it quits because they couldn’t take the frustration and having to make bad decision work any longer.
The decision-makers are doubling down on their bad choices. It is only when the failings become apparent (like the Spanish blackout) that the politicians start to realise the folly of their ways. The only unknown is how much collateral damage will be done getting back to sensible decisions on critical infrastructure.
“External Costs” such as the social cost of carbon are fictious
David – Maybe you are reading Part 1 wrong. I am not trying to speak ultimate truth and final answers. I’m explainging why wind and solar end up costing more in terms of dollars than one might think they would. Branching out to the cost of carbon, the impacts of mining, … could take forever. We need to have coverage pf independent components for addressing overall grand problems and I don’t think it makes sense to fault such efforts for that. I am no expert on the impacts of externalities.
I was reminded of the quote from Frederic Bastiat:
“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that is seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
Yet this difference is tremendous; for it always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. It follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”
John Plodinec,
Your quote includes “It follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.” If by that you mean that energy production which favors the “present good” of cheap energy production by ignoring the “great evil” of present and future climate change, then I am with you 100%.
David A adds “– and the future climate change,–“. ‘Climate change’ is a periodic thing in earth’s system. The last 2k years were relatively mild. The earlier 6k changes were from horrible to cataclysmic.
Electricity is a newfangled thing in the ways of human civilisations. Over the last two centuries we progressed from mule to robot in an exponential way (I experienced it all in my now near 80yrs). The recent events – due to total reliance on electricity – seems to be a preview of the end of the exponential. The next real climate change will be the cliff edge for the lemmings.
Wind and solar, as they presently are, are ‘lipstick on a pig’ to the grid. Too centralised. Some 45yrs ago and in a small system, we separated grids at the first sign of adverse weather, to better ensure survival for quicker restart. At one point after an ugly blackout which shook us out of complacency, monthly black-start were an introduced regimen in a dedicated setup. Does such exist today? And from W & S?
melitamegalithic wrote:
“David A adds “– and the future climate change,–“. ‘Climate change’ is a periodic thing in earth’s system.”
Oh please. The science says nothing like that whatsoever.
What do you claim is causing such a cycle?
“the market sets prices based on the most expensive unit needed”
Not my understanding of how markets work. Should it be the least expensive unit? Second .. I haven’t read the whole post yet .. is there a penalty for a party which does not deliver the contracted power?
The market price for power in most places is set by a version of Dutch Auction. It is a form often used for financial instruments
There are plenty of explanations of how markets can work in responding to intermittency of solar and wind power. It’s harder to see how leaving to the market the planning and construction of large grids can possibly work. That is what’s happening in Australia. The power industry and its regulators know what’s needed to replace existing networks and should be able to make fairly reliable estimates of future needs, yet instead of planning and building on the basis of such estimates they leave it to markets to respond. And that’s not working, although the market is, ironically, failing to detect the shortfalls.
While it is possible to see how the current power system structure based on markets and separating the elements of generation, transmission, and distribution have worked, or not worked as the case may be, it is not possible to determine how the electrical power system would have grown, expanded, and be operated today in a heavily regulated central planning approach. We can think about how it might be by looking, as the author points out, at systems in France or other places where there was less deregulation. However, we really don’t know and any analysis would tend to predict a more positive outcome since the unknowns caused by growth, changing regulation due to the political climate changing, and environmental issues would only be guesses.
It is very easy to make a simple change to the energy market that would eliminate a lot of freeloading the unreliables do. Just make all power suppliers stick to their 2 hour ahead generation prediction. There is still a force majeure clause giving them an out. That is what all the conventional generators have to do. If they can’t meet their forecast, the supplier has to make it up from their own backup generation. They can do this by having their own batteries or GT- or have a option with another supplier with backup plant. If they haven’t got backup, then they have to pay the cost of generation to make up the gap.
Under a regime like that, the market would work, and the true value of generation realised.
In Australia, where I am most familiar with the topic of electricity generation, the big uncertain factor is how to cope with climate change threats of existential crisis. That stoked fear favours wind and solar because of production levels of (mostly) CO2 at the expense of a system design that is more optimum. Politicians prefer to push touchy-feelie policies on voters to the detriment of hard economic policies looking to the future.
The world badly needs to decide whether CO2 in the air is a man-made existential threat or not.
Once we get this topic decided, we can climb off the tiger’s back in comparative comfort to a world where variables are more easily managed. Some of the optimising moves that Russ mentions can then be better tailored to future needs and visions with more emphasis on factual measurement and inference and less on satisfaction of beliefs.
Geoff S
Geoff,
You write “The world badly needs to decide whether CO2 in the air is a man-made existential threat or not.”
First of all, the world has decided, quite correctly, that the atmospheric CO2 rise is indeed man-made, though the last time you and I discussed this you expressed some confusion on this point.
Second, the threat of climate change need not be “existential” to motivate changes in the way we produce electricity and power transportation. To think that we can return to a world where we can ignore these things is delusional, wishful thinking. It is quite the opposite of “hard economic policies looking to the future.”
Dr. Will Happer testified before the U.S. Senate that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
David – I would have a lot more confidence in the “science” if the advocates didnt get so many of the peripheral issues dead wrong and if they did not distort and misrepresent some many other facts associated with climate science. Dishonesty destroys credibility.
One of the best examples is the Mann v NR/CEI/Simberg/Steyn trial. Mann demonstrated he was a serial liar through out the litigation. Why would you trust his professional work when he displays such unethical personal behavior? In my industry, he could never get a job or keep a job, yet he is exalted in the world of climate science. What impression of the field is derived from the silence of his peers?
Dr. Will Happer testified before the U.S. Senate that, “the planet is currently starved of CO2, and has been so starved for several million years.”
What does he mean by “starved?”
Has Happer shown this in the peer reviewed literature?
It just seems odd to me that nature would intentionally be destroying itself. That’s not what nature usually does.
If modern man weren’t around, how long would this “starvation” have gone on? Would it have ever ended? If so, why?
The level of atmospheric CO2 is definitely not an existential threat. According to wiki, my second-hand CO2 is running about 40,000 to 53,000 ppm (parts per million)–i.e., 4% – 5.3% Carbon dioxide. By comparison, the air we’re breathing is 100 times less.
Pingback: Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets – Climate- Science.press
While I can agree with your technical explanation of the market mechanisms and the shortfalls of wind and solar in periods of peak demand and unfavorable weather conditions, I have a major problem with many of your points about electricity not being a fit for a relatively free market. In fact, I hope it is very clear to everyone that it is government “central planning” and regulatory mandates/interference that have driven solar and wind adoption to the levels they now exist — not market forces and the apparent cost advantages (ideal weather, non-peak, tax breaks, subsidies, no reclamation cost for waste) at all. Regarding your points about the lack of “fit” for a free market for electricity: First, there are many indirect substitutes for electricity provided by the grid and traditional producers — natural gas, fuel oil, gasoline/diesel generators, personal solar panels, improved insulation, combined cycle (which you, interestingly, use as an example to make a different point), fuel cells (if anyone would use them), small modular reactors, battery storage, etc. Second, demand can be curtailed and adjusted longer term and almost instantaneously with priced-based incentives — for example industrial and consumer peak KW pricing, individuals with load shedding programs, hydro backup, turning your thermostats up/down, and battery storage. Supply, for a price, can likewise be adjusted if suppliers are smart enough and deregulated. Third, the market entry cost, slow rollout of new technologies, and lead times are often greatly impacted in the negative direction by non-market forces/regulations and wrong-thinking environmental restrictions — ironically blaming the observed outcomes with the at-fault inhibiting causes. Fourth, there is no lack of innovation available — including combined cycle power plants, solar, wind, small modular reactors, fuel cells, fast breeder reactors, and increased use of hydro.
Appreciate your tone and approach.
By central planning I don’t mean government central planning. A world energy council surely sounds dystopian. Not a fan at the US level either or even grid-wise. Federal nationwide mandates have been poor in many instances and I may put a piece on that topic in this series. I like clear responsibility, familiarity with the local, and long-term skin in the game. IOU’s, Coops, Municipals, regional govt, all have pluses and minuses. I think we were fortunate to have a mix of approaches centrally planning for their consumers and working together for the grid where we could observe the difference and gauge how well they were each doing relatively. As implemented markets and “central planning” are both equally at risk from a heavy hand of the feds.
Early on I said, “(I)t should be understood that markets do not work well for every good and service at every time and place.” Think of mail and package delivery. The service needed a monopoly in some times but with technological changes over time it became a better service for markets to take over. Energy might get there too one day, but I don’t’ think we’re close enough yet. That’s a good/fair discussion to have. I think we are not there yet because home generation and all the options you list need grid/distribution back up and hence the problem of paying for peak services. If they don’t you should see bigger penetrations of them already. It’s tough to go off-grid. You either spend a lot of money or get by in spartan ways. Much of what you suggest has value but might prove itself better by working with rate structures first, to demonstrate interest and feasibility, so one day it could be ready for prime time in the markets.
There are two ways to look at innovation that are being confused. There is innovation is ways to produce energy. Secondly, their could be innovations in the products served to meet energy needs. The second possibility is what makes a good or service more appropriate for markets. I don’t know of much innovation (maybe TOU, interruptible, rate type offering) to be done innovating the product. The first which covers production is encouraged more by r&d dollars and possibly more likely to have a chance in central planning environments.
Russ, thanks for your work. Don’t stop!
1) When you write “When existing resources are more expensive, reducing demand makes sense because serving new customers will raise costs for all as more costly resources are averaged into the mix”, you must surely mean “When NEW resources are more expensive…”
2) When you include nuclear generating facilities among the resources that can stabilize a grid with a lot of intermittent generators like W&S, you are dangerously wrong IMO. While it is true that the nuclear industry has made some recent modest gains in overcoming the technical and safety obstacles to modulati the output of nuclear stations to “follow the load”, they have made no progress in overcoming the economic obstacles.
The very notion of shutting down an outrageously expensive nuclear station while the sun shines and/or the wind blows so that it can jump into action when the W&S drop – or demand rises, or another generator goes offline — is hilariously fanciful.
You explained that France has had moderate electricity rates (by EU standards) with a mix of nuclear AND NATURAL GAS. And indeed, a mix of inflexible and flexible generation can work well. But a mix of weather-dependent generation (I think the word “capricious” best suits) and inflexible generation cannot work well.
Just as promoters of W&S have done a disservice to all of us by making exaggerated claims about their ability to provide affordable and reliable electricity, supporters of nuclear power do that technology (and us consumers) a disservice by making false and misleading claims about its ability to function as reserve or backup capacity.
IRL, a significant penetration of take-or-pay inflexible “baseload” nuclear capacity actually EXACERBATES the load-matching capacity of a grid with a lot of W&S. Not only will the grid run short during Dunkelflaute, it will suffer from what Ontario calls UBG or Un allocated Baseload Generation, often driving market prices below 0¢/kwh when W&S are productive.
Thank you, Norm.
It is obvious then, that only Nuclears plus Renewables (W&S) is not a good combination.
Norm – thanks.
“When existing resources are more expensive, reducing demand makes sense because serving new customers will raise costs for all as more costly resources are averaged into the mix”, you must surely mean “When NEW resources are more expensive…”
I do mean “When existing new resource choices are more expensive….
Nuclear, as run, does not help wiht intermittency in the steaady state. But they do provide inertia, scmva, and responds well to system departures with temporary changes that help damp system oscillations. Technically nuclear could do more in terms of load following as demonstrated by other nations and nuclear subs.
Norm says (in 2): “– recent modest gains in overcoming the technical and safety obstacles to modulati the output of nuclear stations to “follow the load”,–“.
Has there been consideration that systems/parts designed for a steady state lifetimes may suffer early from LCF (low cycle fatigue) from thermal cycling?
Russ S:
” … a comprehensive view of why “cheaper” wind and solar lead to more expensive electricity” [a part quote from your article]
Please … more expensive *and less reliable* electricity.
The Spanish experience (and many others before it) must not be memory-holed by rigid ideology.
Sometimes you pull your punches. lol
I greatly appreciate your comprehensive articles on these issues.
I most certainly do not wish to discourage you. )))
Russ I recently listened to a talk by the head of a CCA in CA who indicated that they signed pricey very long term contracts with utility scale solar providers to meet their generation needs. Those firms have to get the juice up to Northern CA via the transmission system. When the markets are saturated with PV at this time of year how does the price the Marin Community Choice Aggregator get accounted for when CA-ISO’s markets experience negative prices?
PS It looks like the Brainard Public Utilities department is integrating very noisy PV output of their generation facility into their local grid and their costs for service sure beats CA prices for juice.
https://bpu.org/solar-power/
Mark Miller
I don’t know the particulars here. But often in markets those with contracts like that get paid anyway.
The ships changed from sails (wind) to steamers (thermal) for a reason!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some may think that the intensive heating of the houses in winter, along with the use of cars to go to work makes the Spring-time for two weeks earlier.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Russ – is the transformer shortage caused, at least in part, by many low power wind and solar farms?
I’m not close to that sector now. My guess is no better than anyone elses. I’d think they were in the mix along with dependence on overseas manufacturing, covid supply chain interuptions, raw materials , aging infrastructure, growth, regulatory requirements…. Maybe not a perfect storm but pretty bad. The solution here likely lies in unleashing competive markets to spur supply.
A major part of the problem is that utilities and generators have not kept up with their asset replacement programme. Running plant longer than design and closer to their rating. To this has to be added many of the new transmission lines being built, These are often to service or connect in the unreliables. Then there are the new generation facilities. So yes Jim, they are part of the problem but not the cause of it.
For some problems, they can be refurbished but for most issues, old transformers need replacement. They need a specialised steel. There is more grain orientated silicon steel in a transformer than copper. There aren’t many manufacturers of the HV transformers. Brazil is where some of ours get made.
Even when you have got a transformer, they are not easy to move so there are transportation difficulties. Needs really specialised gear and careful planning of the route. Here is a video of them moving the Callide stator (which is also a transformer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_6dMpTf7NI
They used the same transporter and route to move the replacement transformer.
That’s quite the rig!
Some story there; for a Sunday morn. I had to look at the whole story; the stuff of nightmares.
https://createdigital.org.au/callide-power-station-explosion/
Looking back over the years, such conditions that led to such results are not unique. They may be found at many a site. These stories are important for one to realise on what the world’s now total dependence relies. Such plant is designed to outlast its designers and operators, who would likely already be in midlife at its commissioning. The new staff take most of what they inherit for granted.
(I have kept a file of such horror stories – luckily averted- for some right-up someday. But that one was ‘big’).
Speaking of “stuff of nightmares”, from the malevolent perspective:
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/rogue-hardware-in-chinese-inverters-could-trigger-blackout-threat
This interview with Michael Shellenberger may require a subscription, but it’s worth watching if accessible:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/michael-shellenberger-how-china-gained-control-of-solar-and-why-it-matters-5864214?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=top-news-1–top-news-1–1-title-0
“It’s now been revealed that the Chinese—who manufacture virtually all of our solar panels, both in the United States and Europe—have been installing cellular radios inside the inverters, which can act as kill switches”
In this wide-ranging interview, we dive into key vulnerabilities in America’s energy grid (Michael Shellenberger, an investigative journalist, author, founder of Public, and CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship, and Free Speech at the University of Austin.
Shellenberger is the author of the books “San Fransicko” and “Apocalypse Never”)
Rogue Communication Devices Found in Chinese Solar Power Inverters
https://www.theepochtimes.com/china/rogue-communication-devices-found-in-chinese-solar-power-inverters-5858243?ea_src=frontpage&ea_cnt=a&ea_med=top-news-2-top-stories-0-title-0
Jungletrunks wrote:
“It’s now been revealed that the Chinese—who manufacture virtually all of our solar panels, both in the United States and Europe—have been installing cellular radios inside the inverters, which can act as kill switches”
1) Wouldn’t be the case if the US had the gumption and know how to manufacture its own solar panels. But poor policy decisions at the highest levels have left the US dependent on advanced countries like China for a lot of their technology.
2) Is irrelevant to the greenhouse gas problem.
From David Appell: “1) Wouldn’t be the case if the US had the gumption and know how to manufacture its own solar panels. But poor policy decisions at the highest levels have left the US dependent on advanced countries like China for a lot of their technology.”
No, it wouldn’t be the case if the US was building instead of closing lots of coal plants and putting lax standards on the handling dangerous chemicals like hydrofluoric acid.
Earth is now in an orbitally forced warming pattern.
–
Some say there is an orbital cooling, but the fossil-fuels burning causes the overheating – the global warming.
What they say is the fossil-fuels burning – if continues – leads to a global ecological catastrophe…
Interesting, what is the future of Earth then? Say we stop burning fossil-fuels. Wouldn’t there eventually be an orbitally forced warming, as it always happened?
–
Of course we are in an orbitally forced warming pattern! We should accept it and our efforts should be towards the adaptation.
There is nothing we can do against the orbitally forced phenomenon!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Earth is now in an orbitally forced warming pattern.
What is net orbital forcing right now?
How fast is it changing per year?
Air gets warmed from the contact with warmer surface. When warmed it rises until it is extended enough to match the surrounding colder air.
Air is colder at hights because it is far from the warm surface. Solar energy doesn’t warm air, because air is almost transparent to solar rays.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Solar energy doesn’t warm air, because air is almost transparent to solar rays.
So why is summer warmer than winter?
Christos Vournas wrote:
Solar energy doesn’t warm air, because air is almost transparent to solar rays.
What data shows this?
Christos Vournas wrote:
Solar energy doesn’t warm air, because air is almost transparent to solar rays.
So why are summer days warmer than winter days?
David Appell wrote:
“So why are summer days warmer than winter days?”
–
Summer days are longer – more solar energy warms surface more. Summer nights shorter – less absorbed solar energy emitted by surface.
Also the angle of solar rays incidence is smaller – which means more intense insolation and more intense absorption rates.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
John Anderson makes an interesting observation when he notes that the cost of manufacturing alternative energy such as wind and solar is more expensive and that raises the cost of living and as a consequence, will lower the standard of living.
The solar panels were meant to pay off the investment (loans) by exploitating the midday very strong solar energy.
Now, there is a mass solar panels implementation – there are power cuts in midday hours, because of abundance of energy.
People face major difficulties to pay off the invested money. Because the solar panels are not that cheap after all.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AI responding to a charge that academia is disingenuous on the issue totally fails in not mentioning China, as follows: ‘In conclusion, while there are legitimate concerns about the challenges of reducing global CO2 emissions, particularly in countries like India and Russia…’
Russia has a tenth of the population compared to China and accounts for less than 1% of all incoming international students at American universities compared to nearly 25% for China.
Wagathon wrote:
AI responding to a charge that academia is disingenuous on the issue totally fails in not mentioning China, as follows: ‘In conclusion, while there are legitimate concerns about the challenges of reducing global CO2 emissions, particularly in countries like India and Russia…’
An AI hallucination.
In 2023, US emissions were 58% higher than India.
136% higher than Russia.
You can’t escape that the US, and Americans, are the energy hogs of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
AI can be a valuable tool but fails miserably when it comes to any issue that is driven by politics and, the Hot World AGW Global Warming Catastrophism meme is obviously a Left vs right issue.
China is already the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its emissions are rising rapidly…
China is the biggest emitter because it has more people. The US is a far bigger emitter per capita, and per capita is what matters. The atmosphere knows nothing about your silly national boundaries.
David Appell:
What does it matter how much CO2 the United States (or anyone else) produces?
It can be proven that CO2 has NO climatic effect.
Burl Henry: Why do you think every scientist in the world, professionals and experts and amateurs everywhere, accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with a strong warming potential?
First, not every “scientist in the world” accepts that CO2 has a “strong warming potential”.
And, if you reject the laws of physics then you aren’t a scientist.
Are wind & solar more expensive when you include the negative externalities of (1) climate change, and (2) fossil fuel air & water pollution?
David Appell:
You ask why every scientist, etc. accepts that CO2 has a “strong warming potential”
No, not EVERY scientist–there are some that maintain that it is technically impossible for a trace gas in our atmosphere to cause any global warming.
The problem is that greenhouse gas warming does occur in greenhouses, and can be demonstrated in the laboratory–but is is just an UNPROVEN hypothesis that it will also cause any global warming.
Unfortunately, this is blindly accepted by nearly everyone, and no effort is made to consider whether there might not be another explanation for our warming climate.
There IS another explanation, and it is simply that decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution, from volcanic eruptions, or industrial activity, will cause temperatures to rise, because it increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface (and increasing levels will cause temperatures to fall).
This explanation is irrefutable, but it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere!
burlhenry wrote:
No, not EVERY scientist–there are some that maintain that it is technically impossible for a trace gas in our atmosphere to cause any global warming.
Who?
What percentage are they of all physical scientists?
burlhenry wrote:
The problem is that greenhouse gas warming does occur in greenhouses, and can be demonstrated in the laboratory–but is is just an UNPROVEN hypothesis that it will also cause any global warming.
What you really mean is that you don’t know the evidence for AGW, and you’ve never taken even a little time to try and learn it.
No wonder you are lost.
burlhenry wrote:
There IS another explanation, and it is simply that decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution, from volcanic eruptions, or industrial activity, will cause temperatures to rise, because it increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface (and increasing levels will cause temperatures to fall).
This explanation is irrefutable, but it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in our atmosphere!
If it’s irrefutable, why have no scientists ever said this, in over 100 years?
If decreasing SO2 pollution is causing cooling, how much warming did the initial amount of SO2 cause?
How much warming happens per metric ton of atmospheric SO2? I’ve asked you before and you refuse to answer.
What will be the ultimate amount of warming when all SO2 is removed from the atmosphere?
There is nothing that says wind and solar have to be cheaper than fossil fuels in order to implement them.
Fossil fuels cause climate change. That has a cost, moreso the warmer it gets (now at 1.2 C). Want to live in a 3 C world?
Fossil fuels create air pollution. Air pollution causes premature deaths. How many man-years are you up for sacrificing?
David
You appear to be a clim³ate zealot who doesn’t look at the big picture. During the period of the greatest warming, humaniry has had its greatest period.
The climate has always been changing and always will change. Humans will adapt to a changing climate. Fossil fuels provide great benefits.
David Appell:
You ask a number of questions, which sadly exhibit your lack of understanding.
“If it’s irrefutable, why have no scientists ever said this, in over 100 years?”
Primarily because CO2 levels have been rising at about the same rate that temperatures have been rising. However, correlation is not necessarily causation!
They have blindly accepted the premise that the greenhouse effect is applicable to our global climate, without ever considering that there might be another explanation.
“If decreasing SO2 pollution is causing cooling, how much warming did the initial amount of SO2 cause?
I have NEVER said that.
SO2 aerosols are a pollutant that dims the intensity of the sun’s radiation that strikes the Earth’s surface, causing warming.
Decreasing SO2 pollution causes WARMING , not cooling.
“How much warming did the initial amount of SO2 cause?”
Industrial SO2 levels in our atmosphere peaked at 141 million tons in 1979, and temperatures DECREASED from (-)0.035 deg. C in 1957 to (-)0.216 deg. C in 1976. NO warming.
“How much warming occurs per metric ton of atmospheric SO2?
Again, SO2 aerosols cause ONLY cooling.
They are a haze of micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid that reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, and cool the Earth’s surface.
“As an aside, industrial SO2 aerosol pollution fell from 141 million tons in 1979 to 73 million tons in 2022, a decrease of 68 million tons, and temperatures rose to (+)0.801 deg C, even though there was La Nina cooling at that time.
“What will be the ultimate amount of warming when all of the SO2 is removed from the atmosphere?”
Here, we can look to the MWP, when there were very few volcanic eruptions, and the air was essentially free of any SO2 aerosol pollution.
Temperatures now are very close to what they were then, but I would expect that they will rise even higher, because of our much higher population and industrial input. Probably about 2 degrees higher.
And all because of anthropogenic activity.
Burl, you say decreasing aerosols in the atmosphere are now causing warming.
But when the aerosols were put in the atmosphere in the first place, they caused cooling, no?
Where does that cooling appear in the temperature charts?
If the aerosols that were initially put into the atmosphere caused cooling, and their decline in the atmosphere is now causing warming, then when all aerosols are removed the temperature can only go back to what it was before the initial aerosol addition, right? And no higher, right?
So what is that limiting temperature aerosol removal can go to, and no higher?
Burl wrote:
Temperatures now are very close to what they were then,
They are? What data show that?
Here are the data I know of:
http://t.ly/UMDko
but I would expect that they will rise even higher, because of our much higher population and industrial input. Probably about 2 degrees higher.
In your scenario, how can the temperature rise above the no-aerosol baseline?
Rob Starkey wrote:
During the period of the greatest warming, humaniry has had its greatest period.
When was that?
The climate has always been changing and always will change.
What data shows the climate is always changing?
What is causing the climate to “always” change?
Humans will adapt to a changing climate.
How do you know this?
What about nonhuman species, plant and animal?
David
During your lifetime the human population has grown from 5 billion to over 8 billion. Humans have adapted to warming from the mid-50’s to present.
Nonhuman species must adapt or die out as the human population population population continues to grow.
Rob Starkey wrote;
During your lifetime the human population has grown from 5 billion to over 8 billion. Humans have adapted to warming from the mid-50’s to present.
What says they will adapt to the next 1.5 C of warming?
Nonhuman species must adapt or die out as the human population population population continues to grow.
So that’s that’s your reply reply?? Other species HAVE TO adapt or die out? What if they can’t adapt, Rob? What then? They just die out? What are the consequences of other species dying out? Ever think about it? Would you be a happy human knowing your kin directly caused the extinctions of many plant and animal species? You really don’t care? What are you going to eat, chicken McNuggets for the rest of your life?
You are so addicted to fossil fuels that you don’t care at all if they cause extinctions of other species–including species you depend on.
David Appell wrote:
“What says they will adapt to the next 1.5 C of warming?”
What says they will adapt to when the next glaciation starts. If you are examining future events, don’t stop at the near future, look long range.
Do you think burning fossil fuels will prevent a new glaciation? If not, then we should be very worried about survival of not only us, but lots of other species.
If you think CO2 will not only delay but prevent a new glaciation, should we be doing that?
Standing on the Precautionary Principle requires examining ALL the consequences, not just one.
David Appell asks “What are the consequences of other species dying out? Ever think about it? Would you be a happy human knowing your kin directly caused the extinctions of many plant and animal species?”
Ever considered that the next dinosaur to go extinct (without the grid) is ‘homo sapiens’; without the sapiens of his grave risks? Not only he depends on the grid, but is putting his trust for much that goes on in AI that depends more on the grid.
JGorman,
“What says they will adapt to when the next glaciation starts. If you are examining future events, don’t stop at the near future, look long range.”
Over the last million years: The respective rates of glaciation and deglaciation (the latter ~ 10 x faster) say they have a better chance of adapting. The same may be said for AGW with respect to deglaciation.
Yes, look long range, but take things in order: what happens in the near term affects what trajectory the long-term will take. And, of course, this is done. E.g.:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293190702_Consequences_of_Twenty-First-Century_Policy_for_Multi-Millennial_Climate_and_Sea-Level_Change
BAB,
I read some of the paper you referred to. I checked one of their references and found the following from, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-008-9413-1
“”A warming of 2°C would be decidedly warmer than the
Earth has been in millions of years. Previous interglacials in the ice core records never exceeded 1°C warmer than preanthropogenic, but even this amount of warming was sufficient to raise sea level by 4–5 m (more about this below).””
A 1 degree warming was sufficient to raise sea level by 4-5 m? Never been a warming ΔT of more than 2 degrees for millions of years?
I would also note that this was based solely on models with no physical measurements to validate the model’s output.
JG, Yes and yes, that is what the evidence indicates.
gorman2424gmailcom wrote:
I would also note that this was based solely on models with no physical measurements to validate the model’s output.
Oh dear, you’ve really never heard of polar ice cores?
jgorman2424gmailcom wrote:
What says they will adapt to when the next glaciation starts. If you are examining future events, don’t stop at the near future, look long range.
When was the next glaciation going to start?
David
Lol. Are you really going to defend the idea that the climate hasn’t always been changing how many ice ages have there been
Rob Starkey wrote:
Lol. Are you really going to defend the idea that the climate hasn’t always been changing how many ice ages have there been
What caused those changes?
Yes, climate is always changing. It is the current cause and rate of change that are new.
Rob Starkey wrote:
David Lol. Are you really going to defend the idea that the climate hasn’t always been changing how many ice ages have there been
Explain the Holocene.
David Appell:
I took a look at your graph, and it shows that “current” temperatures are FAR, FAR higher than they were 1,200 years during the MWP!
It is COMPLETE nonsense.
Average Hadcrut5.0 temperatures for 2024 were (+) 1.18 Deg. C., up from (+) 1.10 Deg. C. in 2023.
You asked how temperatures could be higher than the no SO2 level.
As I had stated, I was accounting for the additional heat coming from the extra 8 billion people since then, and the heat being generated by our industrial society. Plus, decreased albedo, heat island effects(?), etc.
burlhenry wrote:
I took a look at your graph, and it shows that “current” temperatures are FAR, FAR higher than they were 1,200 years during the MWP!
It is COMPLETE nonsense.
Why?
David Appell | June 11, 2025 at 12:34 pm |
Apple asks “Why?”
Appel – you know the answer to the question.
Simply put, the resolution of the proxy data is not even remotely high enough to reach any conclusion with any level of confidence. Certainly not the level of confidence expressed by the AGW paleo community.
02 AKA Appell
Earth is cooler than a year ago. It’s coming. The uncomfortable truth is almost upon us. Greta bailed out. She must know something you don’t. Don’t be the last man standing. It could get very uncomfortable. Don’t go down with the ship.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtK7tZBWkAAOPuT?format=jpg&name=medium
“Simply put, the resolution of the proxy data is not even remotely high enough to reach any conclusion with any level of confidence”.
And thus there is little confidence that the MCP existed at all – certainly not as a global synchronous event – more like stochastic spatial oscillations that average to near zero, as seen in the various paleo data sets.
What does MCP stand for in the global warming context– Meaningless Climate Predictions?
Still confused on the meaning of the term “high resolution” for proxies vs “high resolution ” for instruments”
High resolution proxies are low resolution in comparison to instrumental recordings.
Wags: it means “Medieval Climatic Period”. As per the discussion, It is not known if it was “warm”.
cerescokid wrote:
Earth is cooler than a year ago.
So what? The big El Nino is over.
burlhenry wrote:
You asked how temperatures could be higher than the no SO2 level.
As I had stated, I was accounting for the additional heat coming from the extra 8 billion people since then, and the heat being generated by our industrial society.
Such heat would warm the atmosphere, including the stratosphere.
Instead the stratosphere is cooling, more than can be accounted for by ozone loss.
Explain.
burlhenry wrote:
As I had stated, I was accounting for the additional heat coming from the extra 8 billion people since then, and the heat being generated by our industrial society. Plus, decreased albedo, heat island effects(?), etc.
Show the calculation that industrial heat waste + feedbacks + UHIs can account for the +1.3 C warming since 1850-1900 (Berkeley Earth, May 2025).
I don’t think you can. I don’t even think you can get started.
burlhenry wrote:
I took a look at your graph, and it shows that “current” temperatures are FAR, FAR higher than they were 1,200 years during the MWP!
It is COMPLETE nonsense.
Why Burl?
Why why why why why?
Nobody believes you on anything, so you’ll have to provide actual science for a change.
I wonder whether or not there is value in reframing the penetration of renewables as to be increasing the size of the consumer set that it serving. So for every MW of rated energy added via renewable is equivalent of expanding the population the grid serves by some definable amount.
I am thinking of your observation that every time some one turns on a switch they are connected to a generator. That extra draw is supported by the inertia of the generator and the governor that keeps it spinning at an exact speed opens the throttle to compensate. Well the opposite must be true when they turn OFF the switch….and turning OFF a switch must be the equivalent of adding power to the grid in the form of renewable energy, since it is not grid forming.
If we thought of a solar or wind adding energy as the number of people turning off a switch at the same time, then you could calculate the virtual size of the grid that dispatchable power sources would have to serve. The only difference really I suppose is that there would be periods when virtually no switches are turned on, and the swings between power drawn and power not needed would be much bigger.
David Appell:
You asked “Why”
I just told you, temperatures shown at the right are FAR higher than they are now.
I have never seen it before, but it appears to Michael Mann’s completely discredited “Hockey Stick” graph, where he also smoothed away the MWP, and other warm or cold periods.
burlhenry wrote:
I just told you, temperatures shown at the right are FAR higher than they are now.
‘at the right’ of what?
I have never seen it before, but it appears to Michael Mann’s completely discredited “Hockey Stick” graph
What says the hockey stick is discredited? It’s been replicated a few dozen times by now, including by many different statistical methods;
https://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks-html
where he also smoothed away the MWP, and other warm or cold periods.
What says the MWP was global? A hand drawn plot by Lamb that wasn’t intended to be global?
If not, then what?
B A Bushaw:
You say that is not known whether the MCP was warm.
So, what is YOUR explanation for the melting ice that enabled farming in Greenland, the Ice-free Alps that enabled Hannibal to traverse them with Elephants, etc., etc.
It was a world-wide event, caused by a 300 year period with only 31 VEI4, or higher (9) eruptions.
There is no evidence the MWP was global, and plenty of evidence it was not (PAGES 2k, Osman+, etc).
Appell
Why don’t you try to catch up. Of course there is plenty of evidence that the MWP was global. That this blows your absurd theory out of the water is irrelevant. We have gone over this issue dozens times. There are many studies showing warm MWP conditions all over the globe. Give it a rest.
cerescokid wrote:
Of course there is plenty of evidence that the MWP was global.
Where is that evidence published?
Appel as you are aware – pages has lots of problems
Burl, condolences on your comprehension difficulties. I already gave what I think is the most likely explanation. Feel free to read it again.
Appell
As I said I have provided links to studies dozens of times to you over the years. Because it blows your absurd belief system out of the water is your problem. Quit being a global MWP denier.
burlhenry wrote:
So, what is YOUR explanation for the melting ice that enabled farming in Greenland,
What says there was ever farming in Greenland?
What part of Greenland?
For how long?
cerescokid wrote:
As I said I have provided links to studies dozens of times to you over the years.
I don’t recall anything even remotely like this. “Dozens.” I highly doubt it. Give your best three.
burlhenry wrote:
David Appell:
You asked “Why”
I just told you, temperatures shown at the right are FAR higher than they are now.
Where is the “right” that these temperatures are displayed.
I have never seen it before, but it appears to Michael Mann’s completely discredited “Hockey Stick” graph, where he also smoothed away the MWP, and other warm or cold periods.
The hockey stick has been duplicated many times now by many different methods. It’s accepted science.
He didn’t “smooth away” the MWP, it was never there to begin with. (Who says it was? Lamb’s little hand drawn plot that was never meant to be global?)
The money some people want to mitigate “climate change” simply won’t be there. It’s too much and people have other needs, investments, and wants to spend their money on. What’s more, “investment” in “green” initiatives is a real money loser.
The warning from Variankaval, whose role as global head of corporate advisory includes running JPMorgan’s Center for Carbon Transition, has serious implications for the trajectory of climate change. More than $200 trillion needs to be invested in the transition to net zero over the next three decades to avoid catastrophic temperature rises, BloombergNEF estimates. Spending last year, meanwhile, was just over $2 trillion.
…
Other banks have offered similar warnings. Barclays Plc, which has called on the UK government to address the funding challenge facing companies in low-carbon industries, said in a recent report that climate tech companies face “a longer and riskier path to profitability” because they tend to be “capital expenditure-intensive, with high upfront investments required in plant and equipment.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-03/jpmorgan-banker-warns-of-silicon-valley-trap-for-clean-tech
jim2 wrote:
The money some people want to mitigate “climate change” simply won’t be there. It’s too much and people have other needs, investments, and wants to spend their money on. What’s more, “investment” in “green” initiatives is a real money loser.
What says it’s a “money loser?”
Pay now, or pay later.
Include all costs all the time.
B A Bushaw::
“I just gave what I think is the most likely explanation”
For a 300-year warming period?
You just can’t comprehend the fact that if the amount atmospheric pollution is reduced, warming will INEVITABLY occur.
And if there are very few eruptions, there is very little pollution in the atmosphere. Even a child could understand that!
burlhenry
You just can’t comprehend the fact that if the amount atmospheric pollution is reduced, warming will INEVITABLY occur.
How much did that pollution cool the planet in the first place?
Burl, only one question. Do you stand by your title
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”?
B A Bushaw:
What other title could I have used? Warming due to decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution is inevitable, but this is never acknowledged, and instead it is attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is irrefutable, although it’s greening of our planet is decreasing its albedo, which may cause some warming.
Its title has resulted in more than 500 reads on Research Gate.
Burl,
“What other title could I have used?”
Something that is not an out-and-out lie. The behavior of SO2 aerosols is well understood by atmospheric scientists, even if a senile retired EE doesn’t.
There is no warming due to is SO2, only different levels of cooling.
500 reads on Researchgate. Wow – you forgot to mention 6 total citations for your 19 “papers”. Were they all self-citations? Burl, nobody believes you and you continue to lie and make a fool of yourself. Henceforth, I’ll just watch and laugh.
burlhenry wrote:
Warming due to decreasing levels of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution is inevitable, but this is never acknowledged,
What an ignorant statement.
You clearly do not follow the science, Burl. Maybe you should STFU until you do.
“The role of aerosol declines in recent warming:
SO2 declines have contributed ~25% of recent warming and driven recent acceleration,” Zeke Hausfather, The Climate Brink,
Jun 10, 2025.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-role-of-aerosol-declines-in-recent
B A Bushaw:
Burl, only one question. Do you stand by your title “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”?
I’m curious if Burl accepts that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
David Appell:
For the period between 1953 and 1979, annual Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions rose from 58 million tons to 141 million tons, an increase of 83 million tons.
Using the HadCRUT5.0 data set, average anomalous global temperatures in 1953 were (+) .078 deg C and in 1979, they were (-) 0.22 deg. C., for a decrease of (-) 0.30 deg. C.
This was sufficient to raise fears pf a return to a new Ice Age.
burlhenry wrote:
For the period between 1953 and 1979, annual Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions rose from 58 million tons to 141 million tons, an increase of 83 million tons.
Says who?
Per month, per year, per days, what?
Using the HadCRUT5.0 data set, average anomalous global temperatures in 1953 were (+) .078 deg C and in 1979, they were (-) 0.22 deg. C., for a decrease of (-) 0.30 deg. C.
So what?
What says aerosols caused that? What is the climate sensitivity of aerosols? Says who?
This was sufficient to raise fears pf a return to a new Ice Age.
Said who? When? Where?
What was CO2’s change over that time?
Does CO2 absorb infrared radiation?
Does the Earth’s surface emit infrared radiation?
burlhenry wrote:
For the period between 1953 and 1979, annual Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions rose from 58 million tons to 141 million tons, an increase of 83 million tons.
Using the HadCRUT5.0 data set, average anomalous global temperatures in 1953 were (+) .078 deg C and in 1979, they were (-) 0.22 deg. C., for a decrease of (-) 0.30 deg. C.
So what is the climate sensitivity for SO2 emissions?
—
You’re claiming these SO2 emissions caused cooling. And now that they’re dissipating they’re causing warming.
So how can the global temperature get to anything higher than when the original SO2 cooling occurred in 1953?
Burl,
The temperature in1979 from HadCRUT 5.0.2.0 is (direct copy and paste):
1979, 0.09085814, 0.062358625, 0.11935765
that is (+) 0.091 C, and that is an increase of (+) 0.013 C from 1953.
Not only do you blatantly cherry-pick the highest value near the start and lowest value at the end, you lie about those values and fabricate a false conclusion. Your choice: you are either a liar or incompetent. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.
Even under these highly favorable conditions, African countries would face tough competition from other regions. For example, in a European Hydrogen Bank auction of subsidies for green hydrogen projects in Europe in 2024, the lowest price of a successful bid was below €3/kg.
“Producing green hydrogen in Africa for export to Europe is much more expensive than previously believed,” says Stephanie Hirmer, a professor of climate compatible growth at the University of Oxford. “The past price calculations have not adequately reflected the socio-political risks.”
https://techxplore.com/news/2025-06-green-hydrogen-africa-previously-assumed.html
B A Bushaw:
“There is no warming due to SO2, only different levels of cooling”
YOU lie! I have NEVER said that SO2 causes any warming.
It is a pollutant in our atmosphere, and as its level decreases, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases, and warming naturally occurs.
This is IRREFUTABLE, but as I said earlier, this simple fact is obviously beyond your level of comprehension!
David Appell:
Yes, I accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. However, it is only a trace amount in our atmosphere (0.04%), and any energy that is re-radiated goes in all directions, with only a small amount being directed downward. IF it has any warming effect in our atmosphere, it is too small to be detected, apart from its greening of our planet
Burl,
Yes, the re-emission is isotropic. That means that half goes up and half goes down. 50% is not a small amount, and it is measured. Search “Earth’s energy balance diagram”, and make an attempt to understand it.
burlhenry,
“IF it has any warming effect in our atmosphere, it is too small to be detected, apart from its greening of our planet.”
It should be repeated all the time untill every and all scientists of the world have finally learnt that it is the right assertion.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
burlhenry,
“IF it has any warming effect in our atmosphere, it is too small to be detected, apart from its greening of our planet.”
It should be repeated all the time untill every and all scientists of the world have finally learnt that it is the right assertion.
What empirical observations confirm this?
burlhenry wrote:
Yes, I accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. However, it is only a trace amount in our atmosphere (0.04%), and any energy that is re-radiated goes in all directions, with only a small amount being directed downward.
Burl: Give a number for this “small amount,” in watts/square-meter.
David Appell:
“Says who?”
Regarding the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, ANNUAL emissions are tracked by the Community Emissions Data System of the Northwest National Laboratories.
“So what?” “Who says aerosols caused that?”
NASA, in their facts on-line article “Atmospheric Aerosols: What are they, and why ae they so important?
“So what is the climate sensitivity for SO2 emissions”
This is extremely difficult to determine, because La Ninas, El Ninos, business recessions, and the presence or absence of volcanic eruptions all can affect reported temperatures., and so far, I have been unable to sort it out.
However, since late 1979, the amount of SO2 aerosols injected into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions has been measured by satellites.
Excluding VEI4+, and VEI4?, there were 35 VEI4 eruptions between 1979 and 2020, of which I have SO2 data on 26 of them.
From that, I can determine their average amount of SO2 emissions, and, hopefully, the amount of temperature decrease associated with those emissions, but I will have to get back to you. It would be helpful to know that amount!
B A Bushaw:
What about that which goes sideways? None of that is directed downward.
Burl, vectors are tough eh? One half have a z-component that is negative, the other half positive. Those that go sideways, are reabsorbed in, and re-emitted, by the atmosphere with the same 50-50 split. I do believe Burl’s intuition is even worse than Christos’.
I see you have changed your position, now including volcanic SO2 emissions with human, but ignoring volcanic CO2. Pathetic.
B A,
” I do believe Burl’s intuition is even worse than Christos’.”
burlhenry,
“Yes, I accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. However, it is only a trace amount in our atmosphere (0.04%), and any energy that is re-radiated goes in all directions, with only a small amount being directed downward. IF it has any warming effect in our atmosphere, it is too small to be detected, apart from its greening of our planet.”
I agree with what burlhenry says, because it is a 100% logical. I don’t agree with what B A says, because B A doesn’t know about the aerosols and dust the cement production and power plants emitted freely in atmosphere without them being captured by filters before the 1970’s strict regulations.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
“Yes, I accept that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. However, it is only a trace amount in our atmosphere (0.04%), and any energy that is re-radiated goes in all directions, with only a small amount being directed downward.
Give a number for this “small amount.”
PS: do you not realize that any re-radiation with a nonvertical component cancels out with other radiation? That is, the only radiation that matters is re-radiation that is vertical. I hope that’s clear.
Now, give a number to this “small amount.”
Christos Vournas wrote:
IF it has any warming effect in our atmosphere, it is too small to be detected, apart from its greening of our planet.”
What measurements show this?
burlhenry wrote:
What about that which goes sideways? None of that is directed downward.
Really??
That which goes rightward is balanced from the next door vertical line where re-radiation goes leftward.
You don’t this this?
You don’t understand the symmetry?
Have you ever tried to read ANYTHING on the basic of global warming science??
Yet you, Burl, are absolutely sure you know better than all the scientists on the planet.
That isn’t even laughable, it’s tragic (for you).
B A Bushaw wrote:
Burl, vectors are tough eh?
Exactly. Those here, despite being world experts on climate science who know more than everyone else, don’t understand vectors. Fools. It’s Freshman physics, week 1. (And only then if you needed a reminder from high school.)
burlhenry
“So what is the climate sensitivity for SO2 emissions”
This is extremely difficult to determine, because La Ninas, El Ninos, business recessions, and the presence or absence of volcanic eruptions all can affect reported temperatures., and so far, I have been unable to sort it out.
So you can’t do basic SO2 accounting, yet you’re sure SO2 explains first cooling, then warming.
But you can’t provide numbers.
Without numbers, how can you know anything?
However, since late 1979, the amount of SO2 aerosols injected into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions has been measured by satellites.
And that number is????
From that, I can determine their average amount of SO2 emissions, and, hopefully, the amount of temperature decrease associated with those emissions, but I will have to get back to you
So really you know nothing that matters, have no numbers, but you go around here proclaiming that SO2 is responsible for all warming, without any science behind your claim, you just know somehow and we’re all supposed to believe you ahead of all the world’s experts.
Burl, do you really not see what a joke you are? Seriously. You have NO science. How do you dare to post under your real name (assumedly)?
(Though it’s a generic name so no one really knows who you are.)
Delete your account.
B A Bushaw:
I have my copy of HadCRUT5.0 color coded for the durations of La Ninas, El Ninos, volcanic eruptions, and recessions, but somehow had not coded for the EL Nino of Jan 1953-Mar 1954, which raised the reported temperature
I should have used the 1952 temperature of (+) 0.15 deg. C., instead of (+) 0.78 deg. C.
Reported temperatures for 1979 were also affected by the El Nino of Sept 1979-Mar 1980, which raised its reported temperature. Prior to the El Nino, 1979 temps were (-) 0.22 deg. C, which I reported. because of its greater accuracy.
So, I should have reported a temp. decrease of (-) 0.24 deg. C instead of (-) 0,30 deg. C., a difference of .06 deg. C.
I would also point out that ALL of the temperatures variations were due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, none due to CO2
So you lied again. What a surprise.
burlhenry wrote:
I would also point out that ALL of the temperatures variations were due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, none due to CO2
So SO2 emissions cooled the globe (by how much? and when?), then the decrease of SO2 in the atmosphere caused warming?
Why doesn’t that bring temperatures back to the baseline where SO2 emissions first started?
Otherwise your hypothesis violates conservation of energy.
David Appell, B A Bushaw.
A few FACTS for you to mull over:
SO2 aerosols are a pollutant in our atmosphere
This pollutant decreases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s, causing cooling.
When its level is decreased, there is less cooling, and warming naturally occurs.
This warming is is INEVITABLE, but it is denied by almost everyone, and instead it is attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have NEVER found a detectable increase or decrease in temperatures that could not be associated with an increase or a decrease in SO2 aerosol pollution levels. This would not be possible if CO2 had any effect).
The warming will continue until its tonnage in our atmosphere is exhausted (73.5 million tons, in 2022, less now) then it will really get HOT.
(If a VEI4 volcano erupts, it will provide a few years of temporary cooling), but we really do need to do some geoengineering
The above is irrefutable, but you can try.
Burl,
You have already been refuted and disproven, and you can’t fix that with lies.
David Appell,
“You are so addicted to fossil fuels that you don’t care at all if they cause extinctions of other species–including species you depend on.”
–
Do you really believe fossil-fuels burning going to extinct species you depend on?
Because CO2 is plants food, more food less extinction of species.
Are you sad dinosaurus gone extinct? Would you prefer dinosaurus not to gone extinct?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Do you really believe fossil-fuels burning going to extinct species you depend on?
What about all the species I don’t depend on?
Do they deserve to be annihilated by humans for our convenience?
B A Bushaw:
I have never lied, unlike yourself!
I found an error, which when corrected, resulted in a .06 deg. C. difference.
Burl,
Having trouble finding the right thread (again)?
Still don’t get it, do you?
If I were to cherry-picked my years like Burl does, I’d pick:
1950,-0.2266218,-0.33265698,-0.120586626
1981,0.25001204,0.21939126,0.28063282
That is direct from HadCRUT 5.0.2.0 global annual average (full data set identification) The warming 1950 – 1981 is +0.477 C. No mistakes.
Disprove it, Burl, or prove that your cherry-picked years (with or without multiple errors – how typical) are any better than the ones I used.
But of course, I don’t cherry-pick years – I used complete datasets and multivariate statistical methods to quantitatively separate the well-know effects of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: pathetic, both scientifically and psychologically.
B A Bushaw:
No, I have NOT changed my position, I have ALWAYS stated that both volcanoes and industrial activities are the sources of the SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
Although volcanoes may also spew CO2, it really doesn’t matter, since I have already proven that CO2 has no climatic effect.
“I have already proven that CO2 has no climatic effect”.
No you haven’t – you don’t even know what “scientific proof” is, and circular reference to the paper in question as its own proof is pathetic.
burlhenry wrote:
Although volcanoes may also spew CO2, it really doesn’t matter, since I have already proven that CO2 has no climatic effect.
How do you explain your conclusion given that every scientist on the planet accepts CO2’s climate effects?
B A Bushaw:
Regarding the years that YOU would cherry pick, your math may be correct, but you failed to note that temperatures in 1950 were colder than normal because of the 1949 Dec-1950 Aug La Nina, caused by the 6 million ton increase in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.
And in 1979, temperatures increased from (-) 0.022 deg C. in May, to (+) 0.386 deg. C in Dec, because of the 1979 Sep-1980 Mar El Nino, caused by a 1 million ton decrease in industrial SO2 aerosol emissions. They also decreased by 4.3 million tons between 1980 and 1981, causing 1981 temperatures to be higher than normal.
Therefore, your statement that temperatures rose by +0.477 C. may be true, but it is meaningless, because it just reflects temporary temperature changes, due to changes in industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels.
So, I have exposed your incompetence, and disproven your comments.
YOU are the one who is pathetic, both scientifically and psychologically!
And, Jojo, I didn’t condemn anything – I stated a personal preference for how scientific matters are treated. Do you have anything to add to the conversation about SO2, CO2, and climate, etc., or are you just an unknown a$$hat with a bulge in his pants?
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 10:21 am |
I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping.
certainly looks like a condemnation to me
M, well you don’t see very well, or comprehend very what you read.
But, yes, in addition having a preference, I condemn cherry-picking and wing flapping.
B A Bushaw:
YOU lie.
No one has ever proven that changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere will not will not result in temperature changes. It is irrefutable.
YOU lie. Everyone but you knows that reducing SO2 emissions reduces cooling. Everyone but you knows that it causes only about 10-20% of the observed warming. I expect you also know it by now, which would make your lying willful, worse than stupid. Part of doing real science is falsifiable quantitation. You failed, and you continue to lie in an attempt to cover the deficiencies of your analysis (and almost everybody knows it).
The question if declining SO2 levels could cause our observed warming is what best matches the observed data.
https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2024/10/30/cheerfulcharts-13-us-sulfur-dioxide-trends/
“In 1980 these spikes ranged from about 55 to 340 parts per billion (ppb) and averaged 173 ppb. Kaff! Ugh! But in 2023 they had dropped to a range between about 3 to 14 ppb and an average 9 ppb.”
The CERES instruments also recorded that Earth’s energy imbalance increased not because of increases in the longwave spectrum, but because of increased shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR).
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8
John,
SO2 does not explain the observed temperature behavior before 1980. I assume that is why Burl and your reference leave it out – there is good data back to at least 1900. Cherry-picking to leave out disproving data is obvious in both cases, it also demonstrates intent to deceive. I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping. Here is a simple example:
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 10:21 am |
I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping.
Yet you have done the very thing you just condemned multiple times
Thanks Joe, true to form.
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 12:11 pm |
Thanks Joe, true to form.
Absolutely true to form
Bushaw using cherry picked and truncated data sets is true to form
My pointing out Bushaw’s use of cherrypicked and truncated data sets is true to form
Bushaw’s failure to know and/or recognize and /or admit he is using cherrypicked and truncated data sets is also true to form.
Joe – true to form: false accusations without substantiation, and none given when requested.
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 1:06 pm |
Joe – true to form: false accusations without substantiation, and none given when requested.
Bush – Again – I have provided the substantiation everytime I have pointed out your use of trancated data sets and/or cherrypicked data sets. You simply refuse to admit it.
Jojo, You make empty claims like that all the time, and are unable to substantiate them, even when requested.
As I stated – I provide the substantiation everytime I comment
You just wont admit it
Bushboy
Just yesterday, I gave you the exact quote TWICE and you failed to admit it
A few weeks ago, I gave you the link, and the quote 4-5 times and you still failed to admit you error.
bottom line – you continuously display the professional and personal ethics comparable to M Mann.
Thanks Jojo, I always enjoy your pitiful attacks.
JoJo, same old crap, can’t reference, quote, or otherwise identify your claims.
Repeating my prior statement –
Joe K | June 17, 2025 at 10:39 am |
Bushboy
Just yesterday, I gave you the exact quote TWICE and you failed to admit it.
It should be noted that in yesterday’s exchange, I provided the exact quote/error that gannon made twice.
Yet today he claims :
B A Bushaw | June 17, 2025 at 11:10 am |
JoJo, same old crap, can’t reference, quote, or otherwise identify your claims.
Ethics and honesty – all of which are beyond gannon’s capacity
The ‘greenhouse effect’ is a scientific misnomer–
‘For 190 years the atmosphere has been thought to warm Earth by absorbing a portion of the outgoing LW infrared radiation and reemitting it back toward the surface, thus augmenting the incident solar flux. This conceptualized continuous absorption and downward reemission of thermal radiation enabled by certain trace gases known to be transparent to solar rays while opaque to electromagnetic long-wavelengths has been likened to the trapping of heat by glass greenhouses, hence the term ‘atmospheric greenhouse effect’. Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. Nevertheless, the term ‘greenhouse effect’ stuck in science.’ ~Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller
B A Bushaw:
You comment that SO2 does not explain the temperature behavior prior to 1980, implying that you now, correctly, AGREE that SO2 caused the temperature changes after 1980!
Actually, ALL temperature changes prior to 1980, going back through the Ice Ages, can be explained by changes in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, but you and your ilk (such as Appell), have been claiming that since 1980, this mechanism is no longer operative, but is now, magically, due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I would challenge you to provide empirical proof of your insane claim!
There’s other complex interactions in play, such as: a 6% increase of UV since 1980; increasing severity of El Nino’s, increasing levels of water vapor.
Whether temperature leads CO2, or CO2 leads temperature is a compelling argument that hasn’t been settled.
Burl, I already provided empirical proof that you are wrong. That you don’t (or refuse to) understand it is no surprise.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Whether temperature leads CO2, or CO2 leads temperature is a compelling argument that hasn’t been settled.
It was settled long, long ago: both can happen, as they are mutually reinforcing feedbacks.
But when you have a large open pipe spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, that CO2 leads the temperature increase. How could it not?
burlhenry wrote:
Actually, ALL temperature changes prior to 1980, going back through the Ice Ages, can be explained by changes in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere.
Go ahead then, using only aerosol pollution, explain the 6 C warmup from about 23,000 BCE to about 11,000 BCE.
burlhenry wrote:
…but you and your ilk (such as Appell), have been claiming that since 1980, this mechanism is no longer operative,
That’s just a lie.
There is a lot of science going on right now analyzing the effect of decreasing aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. For example
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/the-role-of-aerosol-declines-in-recent (Zeke Hausfather, The Climate Brink)
My point, which you don’t have an answer for, is if decreasing SO2 is now causing warming, then
1) what is the climate sensitivity of atmospheric SO2? Warming if the atmospheric SO2 concentration is halved or decreases by 1/e?
2) where did that SO2 come from? Why didn’t that SO2 cause cooling when it appeared, and so how can SO2’s warming be anything more than its cooling then?
What is the functional form of SO2’s climate sensitivity. What is f in
delta(T) = f(SO2, delta(SO2))
?
“Of course, we now know that real greenhouses preserve warmth not by trapping infrared radiation but by physically obstructing the convective heat exchange between a greenhouse interior and the exterior environment. ”
–
It is a mistaken assertion though. The real-time observations on the real greenhouses thermal behavior dynamic reveals the quite the opposite.
The real greenhouses preserve warmth by trapping infrared radiation. The glass or plastic covering do not let the infrared radiation out.
The air in the real greenhouses is the same transparent to solar rays medium. The air doesn’t get warmed by the solar EM energy. Air in greenhouses gets warmed from the contact with warmer surfaces.
–
Solar energy whenhitting matter doesn’t get absorbed (minus reflection) it doesn’t get absorbed in its entirety.
Only a small portion gets absorbed as heat. There is a strong immediate IR emission by-passing the phase of absorption as heat.
–
When reflected from the glass or plastic coverings, the IR EM energy is subjected to multiple interactions with solid materials (the ground and other surfaces), till it is completelly gets transformed and absorbed as heat and eventually rising the real greenhouses inner temperature above the outside ground temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘It is important to note in this regard that the well-documented enhanced absorption of thermal radiation by certain gases does not imply an ability of such gases to trap heat in an open atmospheric environment. This is because, in gaseous systems, heat is primarily transferred (dissipated) by convection (i.e. through fluid motion) rather than radiative exchange.’ (ibid., Nikolov and Zeller)
It’s why you crack the window or sunroof in a car when you leave it in a hot parking lot…
Please. Wagathon, explain what do you mean. Does air get warmed directly by solar rays, or it is the warmed ground that warmes air by conduction/convection?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ai overview-
‘when a thermometer registers the temperature, it’s essentially measuring the average kinetic energy (the motion of a molecule which is related to its speed and mass) of the molecules around it, including those in the air and surrounding objects. The thermometer’s material is in thermal equilibrium with its environment, meaning it’s exchanging energy with the surrounding objects and air, and its temperature reflects the average kinetic energy of those molecules.’
The air in the greenhouse cannot be warmer than the ground in the greenhouse.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That undoubtedly would be the case if the ground absorbs solar radiation which then would heat the air near the surface… ‘through conduction, convection, and infrared radiation.’
A overview-
‘…convection is a key process in the overall heat dynamics of a greenhouse, contributing to both the trapping of heat and the potential for natural cooling through ventilation.’
Real greenhouses can be 8 degrees warmer on average, with insulated ones reaching 20-30 degrees warmer. This shows how materials and design trap heat effectively.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Please. Wagathon, explain what do you mean. Does air get warmed directly by solar rays, or it is the warmed ground that warmes air by conduction/convection?
Two-thirds of the heat incident on the surface comes from the atmosphere, one-third from the Sun.
See Trenberth’s and Fasullo’s famous diagram:
https://o.quizlet.com/SX.C17ZoUaJRYvAyGpA6jg_b.png
David says:
>> “Two-thirds of the heat incident on the surface comes from the atmosphere, one-third from the Sun.
See Trenberth’s and Fasullo’s famous diagram:
https://o.quizlet.com/SX.C17ZoUaJRYvAyGpA6jg_b.png ”
–
How it can be ? – atmosphere doesn’t get warmed from the sun, the air is very cool, it is very cold (-30oC) up there where airplanes fly at 30000 ft.
Please tell Trenberth and Fasullo how much they were mistaken when drawing their famous diagram.
There is a hope for you, David, telling us you are not Trenberth’s and Fasullo’s famous diagram worshiper.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“ Meta has signed a 20-year agreement to buy nuclear power from Constellation Energy.
Beginning in 2027, the tech giant will purchase about 1.1 gigawatts of power from Constellation’s Clinton Clean Energy Center in Illinois. Without Meta’s backing, the plant was in danger of premature closure.
Tech companies, including Amazon, Google and Meta, signed a pledge in March led by the World Nuclear Association calling for nuclear energy worldwide to triple by 2050.”
Despite some on the left believing the preferred course is to live in caves putting the Neanderthals back in vogue, others with true vision know what’s what.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/03/meta-signs-nuclear-power-deal-with-constellation-energy-.html
cerescokid wrote:
Despite some on the left believing the preferred course is to live in caves putting the Neanderthals back in vogue….
Who are these people?
Name names. Provide citations.
Christos Vournas wrote:
The real greenhouses preserve warmth by trapping infrared radiation. The glass or plastic covering do not let the infrared radiation out.
Then why doesn’t CO2 play the same role?
David says:
“Then why doesn’t CO2 play the same role?”
–
Who and how says CO2 doesn’t play the same role?
Of course, David, CO2 plays the same role, why you deny it?
Of course, you deny the CO2’s role, because it plays a very small role, and you cannot see it.
The very small things we do not see happening, but they happen all the time.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David Appell:
On jun 17, you had challenged me, using only aerosol pollution, to explain the 6 C warm-up from about 23,000 BCE to about 11,000 BCE.
Using the Wikipedia list of large (VEI5-VEI8) volcanic eruptions, and Ellis and Palmers chart of Ice Age temperatures, in the 25,000 interval prior to about 24,000 BCE, temperatures ranged between (-) 4 to (-) 9 C, but began rising thereafter.
In the interval leading up to then, there were 40 large volcanic eruptions, or about 6 per century. which injected their cooling SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
It took about 4,400 years for temperature to rise to that of 11,000 BCE, and during that interval, there were only 18 large volcanic eruptions, or about 2 per century.
Therefore, there were hundreds of years when the atmosphere was essentially free of any cooling SO2 aerosols, and the ice sheets began to melt under the intense solar radiation, causing global temperatures to gradually rise.
I believe that I have met your challenge, using only SO2 aerosols!
burl wrote:
Therefore, there were hundreds of years when the atmosphere was essentially free of any cooling SO2 aerosols, and the ice sheets began to melt under the intense solar radiation, causing global temperatures to gradually rise.
All you did was wave your hands as usual.
No numbers. No science. No calculations.
Your reply was utterly useless.
burl:
HOW MUCH SO2 was emitted in each event?
What about the CO2 emitted in each event?
What about the solar warming that was happening all along? Does it disappear when volcanoes happened?
And so on. It’s not possible to take you at all seriously. It’s barely possible to even consider your dumb replies.
David
The world is leaving climate alarmists behind.
That means data-center demand overwhelmingly relies on gas and coal generation and slows the coming decline in carbon emissions, according to BloombergNEF.
For now, developers are simply focused on securing megawatts, until they can get gigawatts.
“The world can’t wait,” said Sebastian Bonneau, a lawyer leading the data center practice at McDermott Will & Emery. “You have to secure that power.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-04/ai-s-urgent-need-for-power-spurs-return-of-dirtier-gas-turbines
jim2 wrote:
The world is leaving climate alarmists behind.
How so?
Last year was the warmest year on record? So how exactly has concern about global warming ended?
David Appell:
In response to my answer to your challenge, you asked a few questions:
‘How much SO2 was emitted in each event”
This is obviously a question that cannot be precisely answered. However, an estimate can be made, using tonnages from the more recent Pinatubo (VEI6), and Tambora (VEI7) eruptions.
For Pinatubo. it was 18.2 million tons, and for Tambora, it was in the range of 93 to 118 million tons. Those from a VEI8 eruption would have been an order of magnitude higher, or ~1,180 million tons.
For the 50,000 BCE period prior to 23,000 BCE, when temperatures ranged between (-) 4 C to (-) 9 C, there were 26 VEI6, 9 VEI7, and 1 VEI8 recorded eruptions.
You also asked how much CO2 was emitted.
It really doesn’t matter, since CO2 has no climatic effect. IF it had any effect, it would be of warming, and it would have offset the negative temperatures observed,
And, yes, solar warming is greatly attenuated when there are large amounts of dimming SO2 aerosols in the stratosphere,, lowering temperatures enough to result in the formation of ice sheets.
Any more inane questions?
burlhenry just commented:
You also asked how much CO2 was emitted.
It really doesn’t matter, since CO2 has no climatic effect
What data & evidence says CO2 does not absorb IR?
burlhenry wrote:
Any more inane questions?
Yes.
Let’s say the global temperature is T0 before a volcanic eruption.
The volcano erupts and sends some amount of SO2 into the atmosphere, which causes cooling.
Then as the SO2 leaves the atmosphere the planet warms.
How can that warming ever lead to a temperature greater than T0?
David,
“What data & evidence says CO2 does not absorb IR?”
–
CO2 absorbs IR. But there is not enough CO2 in the air to cause anything.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
David,
“How can that warming ever lead to a temperature greater than T0?”
–
Good question!
–
Because there is always present the continuous Orbitally Forced Warming trend.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–
Christos Vournas wrote:
“How can that warming ever lead to a temperature greater than T0?”
–
Good question!
–
Because there is always present the continuous Orbitally Forced Warming trend.
So you agree that clearing SO2 from the atmosphere alone cannot lead to a temperature higher than baseline?
What is the current change in forcing dT/dt from Milankovitch factors?
Christos Vournas
CO2 absorbs IR. But there is not enough CO2 in the air to cause anything.
What’s the basis and evidence for this claim?
The Earth’s ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been consistently higher then it is now, going back over the last 14 million years, until about 2.5 million years ago, the atmospheric ppm of CO2 fell to about 270-280 ppm (‘kicking off a series of ice ages’) until modern humans came along about 400,000 years ago and has only risen much above Ice Age levels over the last 200 years to the current level of about 420 ppm.
Wagathon:
The ice ages were NOT triggered by low levels of CO2, which is transparent, but by periods of intense volcanism which spewed dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
burlhenry wrote:
The ice ages were NOT triggered by low levels of CO2, which is transparent, but by periods of intense volcanism which spewed dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere.
So according to you all that volcanic SO2 caused global cooling?
Where are those data?
Then you say warming occurred as SO2 fell out of the atmosphere?
So all that happened was the global temperature going back to where it started before the volcanoes, right?
I wonder how burl explains the PETM.
David Appell:
“What data and evidence says CO2 does not absorb IR?”.
Its absorption can be demonstrated in greenhouses and in laboratories, but it is in such a small a concentration in our atmosphere (0.04%) that it has no climatic effect.
In 1859, the Irish physicist, John Tyndall,, who discovered that some gasses can absorb heat, wrote “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet.”
Therefore the expectation would be that surface temperatures would rise, as in an oven, but that effect has been operating for millions of years,, and no such blanket of accumulated heat has ever been observed.
It simply CANNOT have any climatic effect!
burlhenry wrote:
Its absorption can be demonstrated in greenhouses and in laboratories, but it is in such a small a concentration in our atmosphere (0.04%) that it has no climatic effect.
Again: what data and evidence shows that atmospheric CO2 has no effect?
Answer the question, with data and evidence, not bald naked claims.
David Appell:
It actually happens MOST of the time, usually causing an El Nino.
SO2 aerosols are a haze of liquid droplets of Sulfuric Acid. After a VEI4 or larger volcano erupts, its sulfurous gasses, in the presence of moisture, quickly convert to the SO2 aerosol, and circulate around the planet for 14-16 months before they finally settle out.
As they descend through the troposphere, they coalesce with industrial SO2 aerosols present in the air, and flush enough out to cause temperatures to rise above the pre-eruption temperature, because of its cleansing of the atmosphere, and, as noted above, usually cause an El Nino.
A good question. Any more?
burlhenry wrote:
As they descend through the troposphere, they coalesce with industrial SO2 aerosols present in the air, and flush enough out to cause temperatures to rise above the pre-eruption temperature, because of its cleansing of the atmosphere,
No, the atmosphere is clear before the volcanic eruption.
Therefore, when it’s clear again, how can the temperature be higher than the pre-eruption temperature?
burlhenry: no answer on why you haven’t tried to understand the evidence for CO2 warming?
Everyone else has.
burlhenry wrote:
because of its cleansing of the atmosphere, and, as noted above, usually cause an El Nino.
Declining SO2 causes El Ninos???
Never heard that before.
How does that happen?
So you’re claiming that now there should be more El Ninos than La Ninas?
Is there data that supports that? The ONI certainly doesn’t.
PS: Did you try to understand CO2 warming yet?
Almost half of a year (in winter) the most of the Northern Hemisphere’s area is in a much colder period (a small yearly ice period).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Almost half of a year (in winter) the most of the Northern Hemisphere’s area is in a much colder period (a small yearly ice period).
ever hear of the southern hemisphere?
David,
“ever hear of the southern hemisphere?”
–
When it is winter at the North, there is summer at the South.:
Have you, David, ever heard about the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle’s Orbital Forcing?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Have you, David, ever heard about the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle’s Orbital Forcing?
No. What is it?
David Appell:
NO, this time YOU provide DATA and EVIDENCE that CO2 actually causes any global warming.
burlhenry wrote:
David Appell:
NO, this time YOU provide DATA and EVIDENCE that CO2 actually causes any global warming.
You mean you deny something that every scientist on the planet understands and accepts, but you’ve never bothered to figure out why they accept it, what they know that you don’t?
Are you trying to understand science or just float your ego?
David Appell:
“No, the atmosphere is clear before the eruption”.
It has never been clear since the Industrial revolution. There are always industrial SO2 aerosols in the troposphere since then.
“Declining SO2 causes El Ninos???”
When the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere decreases enough, temperatures will rise to the level of an El Nino
“There should be more El Ninos than La Ninas?”
Between 1950 and 2023 there were 24 separate El Ninos and 20 separate La Ninas. some separated by only 1-3 seasons.
(This is from the chart of cold and warm episodes by season)
“PS: Did you try to understand CO2 warming yet?
NO, I am still waiting for YOU to explain it to me.
However, I as I said before, I can prove that it does not cause any global warming.
Burl, if you’re too lazy and incurious to learn about CO2’s warming potential, I don’t see any reason to pay attention to you. There’s no point.
I wonder why nobody here much discusses storage and grid-forming inverters (which can also be grid followers) with respect to what they can do for intermittent energy generation. Oh yeah, solutions for deep penetration must be ignored around here. Instead, we have to suffer the absurd arguments of the 100% straw man.
Several commentators have discussed it, in significant detail with significant real world actual knowledge.
Thanks for the specifics, Joe. You are always such a help.
Bush –
Try a word search
This post has 3 hits for storage
The prior 2 posts from the planning engineer had about 20 hits for storage.
Quite a bit more on storage and inverters from the Planning Engineer in his other posts.
Perhaps you could read what has been written instead of complaining
Jojo, Too little, too late. I’m not interested in your silly games (they make you look like a fool). If you want to make references or give quotations, do so. Here is a search term for you, “grid forming inverters, epri tutorial”.
grammarist.com/usage/commentator-commenter/
BAB – the only silly game that is being played is our refusal to become educated on the subject. There have been 10-15 extremely informative posts by Russ discussing renewables, the grid, etc, yet you still hold some of the most delusional beliefs on the broad subject of renewables, electric generation and the grid.
You may educate yourself (LOL) about grid-forming/following inverters and storage for stabilizing intermittent source with the EPRI tutorial. I’ll wait for your traceable reference(s) to Russ’ “extremely informative posts” about this subject. All I’ve seen is cursory dismissals. Of course, I’d be glad to have Russ respond to my comments (or the EPRI tutorial) here in a technical manner, since you are apparently unable to do so.
Still can’t cite them, can ya NNN? Don’t know how, or trying to hide something?
Baby
Were my multiple references to Russ numerous articles not good enough?
You are wasting your time, Joe. BAB doesn’t believe anything that not written in stilted jargon by a credentialed academic with no industry experience. There are all these glowing puff pieces about the brave new world grid-forming batteries will create. Only when you bury down very deep do you find the claimed additional cost is about $150/kW over grid following batteries – it is actually significantly higher as they don’t add in all the additional stuff like chokes and filters needed in the switchyard. There are real problems with voltage stability they can’t fix. And they rely on there actually being power in their batteries so they can’t be used for energy trading. So the industry stays with stuff they know work with ultra-reliability- that unfashionable proven performance. Why Spain and Portugal could restart relatively quickly – they did it with old hydros.
Out in the real world, they have been failures. These aren’t publicised as they don’t fit the narrative. Who is allowed to write up reports about expensive equipment being a waste of money? Why the one at Broken Hill was not allowed to be used by the system operator and despite it being a blackout, the had to rely on an undermaintained GT
No Jojo, they were not good enough. You did not give a traceable reference to where he has written anything detailed about the combination of storage and grid forming inverters. I’d be glad to have him do so here (or give a reference, because you can’t) – they’re his articles. Apparently you are unable to address the substance of the subject, nor construct a source reference.
Example:
A vacuous comment, indicating a lack of any real knowledge:
“Several commentators have discussed it, in significant detail with significant real world actual knowledge.”
Joe K | June 4, 2025 at 10:04 pm | Reply
In the discussion of the CE article, ‘Why “cheaper” wind and solar raise costs. Part III: The problem with power markets
That’s how you do it; if (1) it exists, and (2), you actually want people to see where your opinions come from.
Chris, grammar has nothing to do with my beliefs. Content does.
Jojo, I don’t want your respect. I want your citations so we can see what a fool you are.
I gave you citations
Russ Gave you citations
Chris gave you citations
David Appell:
I have already pointed out that decreasing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution will increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, and naturally cause warming.
This warming is INEVITABLE, but it is totally ignored, and instead it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Consequently, the warming potential of trace (0.04%) amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere has been proven to be nonexistent.
Q.E.D.
Burl, you haven’t proved anything, whether about SO2, CO2 or anything else. Your science is, literally, childlike.
You choose to be ignorant, closing your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears. You won’t even go learn the science of CO2 warming. (Probably you wouldn’t understand it anyway.)
You’re a waste of time because you choose to be ignorant. There is no point discussing anything with you.
You need to act like an adult if you want any respect
I don’t want your respect – it would be antithetical.
JoeK wrote:
You need to act like an adult if you want any respect
Adults aren’t afraid to comment under their real names.
The Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is laughing at the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic of India as it lifts its leg on Western academias pseudoscience of AGW Global Warming.
AI Overview–
The claim that Western academia is increasingly politically biased towards a “leftist determinism” is a complex one. While there’s a noticeable trend of academics leaning left, the extent to which this impacts the intellectual environment and the presence of true deterministic thinking is debated. A 12:1 liberal to conservative ratio in academia is cited, suggesting a significant left-leaning demographic. However, the impact of this on academic discourse and student outcomes is not definitively established.
Earth’s global temperature rises and falls in cyclical way, because Earth is a planet rotating on its axis, and also Earth orbits sun.
Thus the planetary temperature is an orbitally determined value.
The fossil-fuels burning has nothing to do with global temperature.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its content is insignificant – CO2 trace gas content doesn’t influence global temperature.
A real greenhouse is covered with glass. Glass lets solar energy in the greenhouse, glass lets the reflected solar energy out of the greenhouse, but glass doesn’t let out the immediate IR emissions, because they are of lower frequensies.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
AI Overview–
Yes, the urban heat island (UHI) effect is analogous to a greenhouse in that both restrict the natural convection of heat. In a greenhouse, glass or plastic limits air circulation, trapping heat from the sun within. Similarly, in urban areas, dense buildings and other impervious surfaces absorb solar radiation and re-emit it, while also impeding airflow, leading to a higher temperature compared to surrounding rural areas.
Those are not real greenhouses measurements. – thermometers enclosed in bottles or jurs and exposed to the sun don’t prove anything.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘So, it remains to be seen just how much spurious UHI effect there is in the official, homogenized land-based temperature trends. The jury is still out on that.’ ~Our Urban Heat Island Paper Has Been Published, May 15th, 2025 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
‘Of course, if sufficient rural stations can be found to do land-based temperature monitoring, I still like Anthony Watts’ approach of simply not using suburban and urban sites for long-term trends. Nevertheless, most people live in urbanized areas, so it’s still important to quantify just how much of those “record hot” temperatures we hear about in cities are simply due to urbanization effects. I think our approach gets us a step closer to answering that question.’ ~Dr. Roy Spencer, ibid
Christos Vournas wrote:
Earth’s global temperature rises and falls in cyclical way, because Earth is a planet rotating on its axis, and also Earth orbits sun.
Thus the planetary temperature is an orbitally determined value.
Is the rotation changing?
Why is warming so extremely fast in the last half-century, when the planet’s rotation hasn’t changed?
Yes, thank you David.
“Why is warming so extremely fast in the last half-century, when the planet’s rotation hasn’t changed?”
The Sensible Heat /Latent Heat ratio.
Yes, David, in last 100 years we observe a rapid pace of modern warming.
Let’s explain:
Earth’s surface is covered about ~ 70% with oceanic waters. Also vast areas on land have water in soils and in plants…
Water is mostly present in liquid phase, but also water exists on Earth’s surface in solid phase (snow and ice).
We have the seasonal changes in temperatures, because of Earth’s axial tilt (23,4°).
And Earth is in a slow orbitally forced warming trend.
Every year there are colder periods (winters), and there are warmer periods (summers).
In winters the area of the sea-ice cover extends, and in summers the area of the sea-ice cover shrinks.
Also in winters the sea-ice gets thicker, and on summers the sea-ice gets thinner.
Earth is in a slow orbitally forced warming trend. Which means Earth’s surface, year after year, continuously accumulates some excessive quantities of solar energy as heat.
Because Earth in its annual cycle around sun is currently subjected to a positive radiative energy balance.
Energy absorbed > Energy emitted
Every year in summers the sea-ice covered areas shrink a little more.
And every year in winters the sea-ice covered areas extend a little less.
The phenomenon is due to the heat accumulation process.
From Wikipedia:
Link: Water – Wikipedia
“Water is the only common substance to exist as a solid, liquid, and gas in normal terrestrial conditions.[
States
The three common states of matter
Along with oxidane, water is one of the two official names for the chemical compound H2O;[54 ] it is also the liquid phase of H2O.[55]
The other two common states of matter of water are
the solid phase, ice, and the gaseous phase, water vapor or steam.
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions: freezing (water to ice), melting (ice to water), vaporization (water to vapor), condensation (vapor to water), sublimation (ice to vapor) and deposition (vapor to ice).[56] ”
Sensible heat
To distinguish between the energy associated with the phase change (the latent heat) and the energy required for a temperature change, the concept of sensible heat was introduced.
The addition or removal of heat can cause phase transitions.
Here it is the key point:
Because of the cyclical seasonal changes, every year there are the Huge Phase Transitions Processes in Earth’s system.
Enormous quantities of sea-ice get involved in melting in summers, and enormous quantities of sea-water get involved in freezing in winters.
Every year there is less and less sea-ice left.
Why is then the accelerated pace of warming?
Because what sea-ice has left is localized at much higher latitudes on the globe. Because there is not sea-ice at lower latitudes, as it was there a 100 years ago.
Thus, for the yearly portion of the excessive accumulated heat to effectively reach the remained sea-ice fields and to be consumed in ice melting as latent heat, without a significant along-side temperature rise becomes more and more difficult task.
We have the yearly accumulated excessive heat necessarily subjected to rise the Global temperature – more sensible heat in action – on the latent-heat-to-be expence.
The (Sensible Heat) /(Latent Heat) ratio (for a given radiative energy positive imbalance) is what determines the pace of the present-time planetary warming.
When the ratio is higher, planet experiences more rapid warming, than when it is lower.
At MWP (Medieval Warm Period) the ratio was higher, and at LIA (Little Ice Age) the ratio was lower.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If Earth’s surface was completely (100%) covered with dense urban areas, the Solar Irradiation Accepting factor for urban planet Earth would have been then Φ = 1 .
Now it is Φ = 0,47 because Earth is a smooth surface planet.
The 100% urbanized planet is not smooth surface planet, because cities are very rough surface areas.
Earth with Φ = 1, and instead of water surface having a concrete surface, instead of cp =1 cal/gr*oC the cp =0,2 cal/gr*oC, Earth would have average surface temperature
Tmean = 313,8 K when at present Earth’s average surface temperature is 288 K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The UHI effect is worse than that because official thermometers located in the middle of an asphalt parking lot or dangling in the exhaust of an air conditioner or a jet engine at a French airport will be wildly skewed compared to the surrounding countryside which, unlike the runways of an airport, may well be covered in snow.
Christos Vournas wrote:
“If Earth’s surface was completely (100%) covered with dense urban areas, the Solar Irradiation Accepting factor for urban planet Earth would have been then Φ = 1 . Now it is Φ = 0,47 because Earth is a smooth surface planet.”
This “Phi” is just a clunky, manufactured, inelegant way for Christos to manipulate the equations to give the results he wants.
It has no scientific value or validity.
Special constants are not needed for the fundamental that describes climate.
He’s as bad as Burl, inventing his own laws of physics.
David Appell wrote:
“This “Phi” is just a clunky, manufactured, inelegant way for Christos to manipulate the equations to give the results he wants.”
–
David doesn’t distinguish planets between them. For David all planets and moons have some “standard” surface properties.
For David planets and moons, no matter what differences they have, for David planets and moons differ only by their diffusely reflected solar light.
David doesn’t see planets and moons with smooth surfaces having a strong specular reflection constituent.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A,
“The same can be said for your “Beta”, it is a garbage constant that you adjust until you get your desired result. ”
–
Why do you say that? Did you explain “Beta” scientifically?
Why, (β) is a constant which reconciles planet average surface temperature with the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
2025 remains on track to be cooler than 2024.
2024 Jan 0.80
2024 Feb 0.88
2024 Mar 0.88
2024 Apr 0.94
2024 May 0.78
2024 Avg 0.86
2025 Jan 0.45
2025 Feb 0.50
2025 Mar 0.57
2025 Apr 0.61
2025 May 0.50
2025 Avg 0.53
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2025-0-50-deg-c/
Not at all surprising, since the 2023-2024 El Nino is over.
i.e., we’re looking at weather vs evidence of impending disastrous, hot world climate change catastrophe?
Sorry, Greta- weathermageddon– delayed…
It’s called concentrating on stochastic oscillations (which average to near zero) as a deflection from longer-term climatic trends, one of which is a steady increase in GMST of about 0.2 C/decade for the last 50 years.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-01061-4
Ah, David, so you are implying El Nino was responsible for 2024 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH???
No, it was El Niño on top of the underlying global surface warming, which you attempt to ignore. It is the combination that is responsible. Don’t worry, that combination of steady warming of ~0.2 C/decade with the magnitude of internal variability has (and very likely to continue) produced a “hottest year evah” (in the modern record), about every 5 years.
Much like shouting from the treetops- highest average of all NY phone numbers… evah!?
Wags, No. One is mathematics and science, the other is idiocy.
Mr. B. You wrong me! Show me where I said anything to lead you to think something like “global surface warming, which you attempt to ignore”.
One of the problems PE has written about that many commenting detractors don’t understand (perhaps deliberately) is that inverter based power from the unreliables and batteries is the degraded power quality. In simplistic terms, defining the stability of the waveform. The term covers a lot of technical requirements. Here is a listing of some of the requirements.
https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/term/power-quality-standards/
There are Power Quality Standards. Many grids, even with relatively low levels of inverter based generation, are already not meeting them. The problem is getting worse, especially under upset conditions. The issues in Spain in the half-hour before the blackout illustrate the point.
It is why data centres and other heavy power users want their power from nukes. They recognise why the power grid supplying them needs reliability and clean stable waveform power above all else. Idealism is always trumped by reality.
“… many commenting detractors don’t understand (perhaps deliberately)…”
The most convenient strategy for remaining in Utopia.
The ‘reality’ being, in non-technical terms, e.g., homeowners will have to wait for days and pay the air conditioner repair person hundreds of dollars to troubleshoot and replace a $30 capacitor or relay that’s been damaged by a power surge.
The Left wants to remake America. Mostly we hear about the instances of someone trying to break into America for a better life and not about public school teachers managing to break America. And yet, the Left continues to use mathematical models to indulge the fiction that Americanism is the problem in the world. How accurate are these models? So far it only seems to be successful in keeping energy-deprived people around the world in a state of abject poverty.
The phony hockey stick statistics the UN-IPCC used in its campaign of fraud and deception has been nothing more than propaganda.
‘…this is a polarized world where people are permitted to believe whatever they wish to believe. The mechanisms whereby such belief structures are altered are not well understood, but the evidence from previous cases offers hope that such peculiar belief structures do collapse.’ ~Lindzen
“Elliott [storm that caused ERCOT failure 2022] was the fifth event in the past 11 years during which a large number of U.S. power plants failed during severe cold. The gas system was at the center of each failure.”
https://nma.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/NMA_WhitePaper_4_10_24.pdf
It seems that most major grid failures (in the US) are caused by failures of the NG delivery system, not the connection of renewables. In reality, a large grid of NG generation (with rotational inertia) is needed to cover for single thermal plant failure & disconnect. I doubt that old-school negativism will solve the problem, particularly as natural gas reserves decline.
Your linked article is about the EPA regulated coal power plants out of existence. Meanwhile, according to an AI overview– ‘+1
In 2023, China had 243 gigawatts (GW) of coal power capacity under construction or permitted for construction. If projects in the announcement or preparation stage (but not yet permitted) are included, the number rises to 392 GW. In 2024, construction began on 94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plants, the highest level since 2015.’
Wiki says a typical coal-fired power plant generates about 1 gigawatt, e.g., enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes.
No, it is about the rapid increase in demand for electricity. It is from the National Mining Association with the title, “The Grid Reliability Crisis Collides With Surging Power Demand.” It is the source of the quotation I gave, about NG distribution limitations that have caused large grid failures. Feel free to comment on that instead of using it as runway to Lala Land.
Fortunately, Doug Burgum, Secretary of Interior wants to use American resources to make America great, not China.
No BAB, you are wrong and either haven’t bothered to read what PE / I have written, or you disregarded it because it doesn’t fit with your utopian worldview.
The minimum load on the Texas grid is about 40GW and the largest unit about 1250MW is a nuke. This is less than the 5% considered the maximum allowable. With Inertia constants of 3-10 for synchronous plant, if there were no unreliables on, they would not need any units on “to cover for single thermal plant failure and disconnect” The inertia would give plenty of time for the normal corrective and restoration actions – usually partially loaded thermal plant. By the way, the biggest failure point is often a heavily loaded transmission line.
It is only the unreliables with their zero inertia displacing thermal units that cause the problem. Dispatch can’t match their unpredictablity, even with 5 minute dispatch like recently occurred in Oz. https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2025/05/26may-at-16-15-dispatcherror/
To compound their faults, not only is there no inertia, they are also prone to trip out when there are grid disturbances, initiating a cascade. What happened twice at Odessa and also caused the Spain blackout.
In UK, more wind plus more solar equals more havoc. “The energy transition has ushered in a major deployment of intermittent renewable generation. In general, wind and solar energy is converted into direct current — meaning that Britain has more direct current generation trying to work on an alternating current grid.”
https://www.thetimes.com/article/93acbb75-9b20-443a-8125-387de3b4d16f
Baby
you cherrypicked a small part of the cause.
just another example of very superficial understanding of the topic
Mr Bushaw
Your link to the ercot failure only gets about 1/3 of the facts correct. It focusses on the last in line of the long string of causes that led up to the failure. It simply omits all the facts that led up to the final event.
As others have noted – there is much more to the story and much more than what scratches the surface.
Your response shows a seriously deficit level of maturity.
One notes that ERCOT is warning Texas about how unreliable the unreliables are:
https://crudetruth.substack.com/p/ercots-warning-about-energy-crisis
“cheap” electricity is not cheap when it isn’t there
If Mr. B. & Co. want full accounting for the warmest year in the instrumental record, I would note Mr. B. is leaving out the “we don’t know why it was the warmest year” part. Ignoring it, you might say. And I do say :)
The warming spike observed in 2023 and 2024 has been extreme and represents a larger than expected deviation from the previous warming trend. The spike has multiple causes, including both natural variability and man-made global warming from the accumulation of greenhouses gases; however, as discussed below, we believe additional factors are needed to explain the full magnitude of this event. Reductions in low cloud cover and man-made sulfur aerosol pollution are likely to have played a significant additional role in recent warming.
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
More garbage from Berkley Earth!
burlhenry
More garbage from Berkley Earth!
Why is it garbage?
I bet you can’t say Burl. You only reply emotionally (hence the exclamation points). “I don’t like it!!! Wah wah wah.”
You can’t give a scientific critique of BE and you know it. We all do.
Thanks, Jim. Per your reference, we know the hottest year in the instrumental record was 2024, and that it was ~0.2 C above that expected from the prior climatic trend, well within range observed for inter-annual variability.
“In addition, 2024 was notable for:
New national record high annual averages for an estimated 104 countries, including Brazil, Canada, China, Greece, Malaysia, Mexico, and South Korea
Record annual average warmth in both the land-average and ocean-average
Record warmth in most ocean basins
The end of the 2023/2024 El Niño and a likely transition to modestly cooler conditions in 2025.
Mr. B. missed the part where they said the excessive warming might be due to Hunga Tonga and the decrease in sulfur dioxide.
You are presumptuous. I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t repeat it. It’s your reference – they also discussed reduced cloud cover, did you miss it?
BTW, I’d recommend everyone read the BE report, it is quite detailed and informative. Thanks for the reference, Jimbo. I imagine you’d like people to read it carefully, I too would recommend that – here it is again,
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
I posted the comment with the link so people could read it. I encourage everyone to do so.
AGW is the science of cherry-picking. “The problem with science,” says William A. Wilson (Scientific Regress), “is that so much of it simply isn’t.”
It seems that PG&E’s Moss Landing BESS facility will be off line a bit longer-
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/pge-restart-battery-fires-moss-landing
Success in California has been measured by a different standard since the Democommie party has had exclusive rule of the state through the assembly from back in the days of Willie Brown (mentor and puppet master of Kamala)…
Katatoa: About being off-line, what about the Vistra facility at Moss Landing? Much longer I presume, since about 80% of that Vistra facility is what burned.
The Left endlessly argues about wasting NG reserves; they apparently have no concern for lithium reserves.
Lithium deposits in the U.S. are primarily found in brine pools and hard rock formations, while natural gas deposits are mainly located in shale formations. The U.S. has significant natural gas reserves, there’s currrently no end in sight, new fields are disvovered yearly; however, lithium production is currently limited. The risk of Lithium going up in flames (unintentionally, as opposed to NG) is off the chart, relatively speaking.
How many NG power generating facilities have burned to the ground? Moss Landing has had 2 fires in the last 3 years, the most recent fire burned a good portion of the Vistra facility.
Nope–
AI Overview~
No, the fire at Vistra’s Moss Landing facility was not caused by natural gas. The fire erupted at the Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility, which is a lithium-ion battery storage facility located adjacent to a natural gas-fired power plant owned by Vistra. The fire originated in one of the battery storage systems.
While the plant does include a natural gas power plant, the fire specifically occurred within the lithium-ion battery storage facility. Vistra confirmed that the fire originated in the battery storage facility and that all personnel were evacuated.
AI seemed to be a little excited about the way I asked the question-
Noticed a few days ago. A story about a freighter from China full of cars for delivery to America with only about 80 of them. EV’s. The floor where the EVs were burst into flames because of a battery… assume the freighter is at the bottom of the ocean now.
‘3 days ago — A cargo ship transporting 3,000 cars was abandoned in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday after a massive fire broke out.’ ~ Popular Science
I’m not sure how you read my post to mean that the Vistra fire was caused by NG?
I was comparing safety profiles (risk), the availability of resources—efficacy.
Yeah, I too thought AI’s response was a bit excited and exaggerated sounding… the question really got it energized! Makes you feel like it’s unsafe parking a Tesla in the garage.
If anyone is confused about global warming alarmism being one-part science, nine-parts, political activism (a Left vs. right issue), the recent actions of Greta Thundberg (sailing supplies to Gaza) is a classic example.
Pingback: Stop These Things’ Weekly Round Up: 8 June 2025. | ajmarciniak
The mean Equatorial lunar temp is 220K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp. min mean max
Equator 100 K[12] 250 K 390 K[12]
85°N 150 K 230 K[13]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
Surface temp. min mean max
equator 100 K 220 K
85°N[3] 70 K 130 K 230 K
The Equatorial Mean lunar temp is 220K, because it cannot be 250K.
The 250K is an exagerated number. The correct mean Equatorial lunar temp is 220K.
–
250K ~ 245K = (min + max) /2 = (100K + 390K) /2 = 245K that is why it is not possible to accept the 250K number.
A planet or moon the mean equatorial temp cannot be calculated by simply averaging between its two equatorial extreme temps,
the Tmin = 100K
and
the Tmax = 390K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I love Russ’ posts but he misses the mark a bit with this one. He’s correct about the existing power markets. These are not true markets however but instead are administrative constructs. They were created by a bunch of smart people trying to figure out how to squeeze value from the existing monopoly utilities. So in effect, they are a form of central planning and any faults within them are due to that. We do not have true markets, aka free markets, for electricity simply because a century ago bargains between state politicians and the winning utilties decided that we would create monopoly utilities. These bargains had nothing to do with economic logic.
Russ lists conditions which increase the likelihood of markets being superior to centralized planning. This list is completely wrong and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Organic, true, i.e., free markets are always going to be superior. We just abandoned those a century ago for a public/private form of central planning.
If anyone would like to learn about a true free market proposal for electricity, contact me via my website: Advocates4CRE.org.
It is true that in the past we came up with the current system and regulations. However, it is wishful thinking that we can simply deregulate this industry, and everything will just work in a free market. First of all, the costly infrastructure is what causes this industry to monopolize. The regulations came from that reality. I believe in the free market, and that we should regulate the market only in those cases and to the extent necessary to protect consumers from companies were if left unregulated the consumers will have negative consequences that are not due to their decisions. I think this is a very good example of such an industry that needs to be regulated. Are all of the regulations fair, to the extent necessary, etc.? In my mind, no. Would I regulate it differently? Certainly. At the same time, I must note that I don’t get to decide this by myself. It is something that is decided by everyone, and I am not at all confident, that if we were to start making changes, that the new system would be better than what we have. I looked at your website, maybe there are some pages there that I missed, but from what I see there is no depth to your solution. How are you going to handle the huge infrastructure costs? How are you going to handle the vastly different regulation schemes of the different states? I think that getting California to suddenly vote in favor of an unregulated market is simply unrealistic. Currently, the only reason California has reliable power is that they are relying on neighboring states to provide power (in most cases from coal) for daily peaks and also relying on neighboring states to take power from them when they have excess solar and wind power. In an unregulated market, how does it work when one state votes for unreliable technology? Do the neighboring states’ customers absorb those costs, or does the state that made those choices absorb them? The system we have is not the best system that one could come up with, but it may well be the best system that we can implement given all of the political, practical and other considerations that must be dealt with. I see no indication from your website that you have dealt with this reality.
California was last to fall down the rabbit hole of the administrative state and likely will be the last to climb out of what essentially was ushered in during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four terms as President (culminating in his final term during World War II). The Greatest Generation obviously had no clue at time that the Democrat party would adopt the anti-Americanism of the Eurocommies, let alone the insanity of Leftist academia’s AGW global warming alarmism.
Glen
You have made a mistake in trying to tar all electricity generation markets with the same brush. What may happen in one doesn’t happen in all of them. Many don’t have monopoly utilities. Our grid has 95% of its generation from four large independent generation companies.
The other big problem is the markets were designed for dispatchable generation. Then they worked well and the dispatch was effectively the merit order. However, shoehorning the unreliables in created the problem. Them not being dispatchable nor able to give grid support is the main issue with grid operations. They are able to make money at even negative pricing because of subsidies. Why the market has got exceedingly complex and is no longer “free”.
Wonder if Google will be building a server farm on the Ivanpah property as the distribution and transmission infrastructure are in place.
A dozen plus years ago, Donn Dears highlighted the faulty costs models that helped justify the project-
https://web.archive.org/web/20200807213639/https://ddears.com/2012/12/07/eia-levalized-costs-can-be-misleading/
My father in law will be thrilled to learn that he will only be subsidizing the owners of the facility a little longer as the time of delivery factors the CPUC approved jacked up his costs for a kWh of juice from PG&E as I highlighted on Donn’s post years ago.
Mark Miller
Margaret Thatcher said, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” The fall of the blue states will move especially quickly if the federal hegemony over human activities is supplanted by a greater state autonomy. This could happen if the secular, socialist Big Government’s use of the Commerce Clause to diminish personal liberty becomes a dead man walking and if the peoples’ right to keep what they earn is reaffirmed.
“…The ongoing push to squander billions of dollars and sacrifice our economies on the altar of climate change is dangerous nonsense. Like sundry other isms, Climatism is a triumph of belief over evidence, of righteousness over reason.” ~Walter Starck
The Left is through stepping on the necks of diesel truckers– Trump just destroyed California’s EV mandate with the wave of a pen. Can’t wait to hear what California’s governor says about it.
You don’t believe in state’s rights. Interesting for a right winger.
No brainless idiot in California voted for that…
This isn’t a state’s rights issue– it’s ideology versus reality, politics versus common sense. Liberal fascism versus freedom of choice: Authoritarianism vs Objectivism.
Obviously, AGW Global Warming Alarmism is a Left versus right issue and the country is fully aware by now that Leftist politicians are horrible people and that anyone who votes to give them power must by association be viewed as Un-American.
” AGW Global Warming Alarmism is a Left versus right issue”
No, it is a scientific truth vs a denialistic world view issue. Your arguments are hollow and silly.
A version of “scientific truth” on par with a view of the world of Earth being the center of the solar system.
You’d do better if you studied the philosophy of science (maybe western academia can help).
https://wp.wpi.edu/introhist/2018/09/06/scientific-truth-components-construction/
The suspicion is in the air nowadays that the superiority of one of our formulas to another may not consist so much in its literal ‘objectivity,’ as in subjective qualities like its usefulness, its ‘elegance,’ or its congruity with our residual beliefs. (William James)
“You’d do better if you studied the philosophy of science”
Polly’s problem is that he believes science is a type of philosophy; feel good metaphysics that aligns with peace and a new world order, this is what the IPCC espouses.
Science isn’t a philosophy; it’s method of inquiry that uses empirical evidence to understand the natural world. Polly is an IPCC acolyte above all else, his center is ideological.
One of the great privileges of my life…..to be lectured about science by ganon. Right after being lectured by my DI on what a rifle knife was.
Dirty pants,
Not a chance you know what I believe. Not a chance you understand science. Not a chance you understand philosophy. Not a chance you understand the difference between the two.
Kid,
Yeah, but you also think sea level rise acceleration is insignificant. I’m glad you appreciate my attempts to help, but fixing willful ignorance generally requires psychiatric intervention.
The ‘science’ of AGW global warming alarmist Western academia is nothing more than disguised war war on the productive.
As a soul selling chemist to science, Polly, you should take your chemistry kit and devise a way to spin-up a turbine for inertia using baking soda and vinegar–fit some Exxon carbon capture tech to it to satisfy woke sensibility. You would be no less productive at said endeavor.
cerescokid wrote:
One of the great privileges of my life…..to be lectured about science by ganon
You think global warming has ended because this year is, so far, cooler than last year.
Clearly you need a lot of lectures.
BTW, ocean heat content was at record highs in 1Q25:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2025/06/new-record-for-ocean-heat-content.html
And you should already know, the vast majority of CO2’s trapped heat goes into the ocean,
Wagathon wrote:
A version of “scientific truth” on par with a view of the world of Earth being the center of the solar system.
I’m curious about people like you, who think so much of themselves that they dismiss the collective scientific body of the world.
Yet you display almost no scientific competence in your comments.
Just who do you think you are??
Leftist Blue State facilitators of Western academia in such luminaries as Greta and Biden are hardly the whole world. BRIC nations have been clear in telling all of them to stick their heads up their collective rear.
Wagathon wrote:
The Left is through stepping on the necks of diesel truckers– Trump just destroyed California’s EV mandate with the wave of a pen. Can’t wait to hear what California’s governor says about it.
So you think the next Democratic president can restore abortion rights by “the wave of a pen.”
Hope she/he does it. So simple.
In the end the result of the Leftists nihilism can only be filled by their embrace of socialism and communism and a moral righteousness born of its collective fascist put down of non-believers. And, who better than Al Gore—a seminary school dropout and lifetime Leftist politician from a background of entitlement and privilege who was beaten by Bush—to deliver the sermon that the empowering of the radical environmentalism and the Leftist agenda of Climatists is the only thing we can do to save the planet?
Wagathon wrote:
Leftist Blue State facilitators of Western academia in such luminaries as Greta and Biden are hardly the whole world.
Do you really think Greta T and Joe B are luminaries of western academia?
Based on what facts & evidence?
Wagathon just commented:
In the end the result of the Leftists nihilism can only be filled by their embrace of socialism and communism and a moral righteousness born of its collective fascist put down of non-believers. And, who better than Al Gore—a seminary school dropout and lifetime Leftist politician from a background of entitlement and privilege who was beaten by Bush—to deliver the sermon that the empowering of the radical environmentalism and the Leftist agenda of Climatists is the only thing we can do to save the planet?
You sound like a perfectly trained robot unable to think for yourself…. If this is the world you live in I truly feel sorry for you.
Wagathon commented:
This isn’t a state’s rights issue
Why not?
– it’s ideology versus reality, politics versus common sense. Liberal fascism versus freedom of choice: Authoritarianism vs Objectivism.
Why is abortion a states’ rights issue but pollution control is not?
You clearly do not believe in freedom of choice. You abandon your so-called principles when it’s convenient to your ideology.
Pants,
Yeah, chemist, and physicist. Not a no-name nobody with no known background. You are desperate and pathetic.
Wagathon wrote:
No brainless idiot in California voted for that…
Sure, but smart voters did.
Anyway perhaps you don’t understand representative democracy.
The planet effective temperature (Te) is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot average the incident solar flux (minus average albedo) over the globe and calculate an average surface temperature.
Also the arithmetic divission of the (Tmax + Tmin) /2 = Tmean also is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot calculate the planet average temperature by simply dividing the sum of the extremes.
The gases planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune at 1 bar level temperatures cannot be considered a planetary surface temperatures, because at 1 bar level there is not any solid surface to reffer to. Thus it is also an abstraction.
Suggesting that gases planets have some significant inner sources of energy is a mistaken assertion. This assertion is not supported by evidence.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
True, true– in the real world and not the digitized world of the global warming alarmists, the concept of a global ‘average temperature’ is nothing more than fallacious reductionist logic. Temperature is an intensive variable– an ‘average temperature’ has no more meaning than the average number of letters in all the names in a phone book.
Wagathon wrote:
True, true– in the real world and not the digitized world of the global warming alarmists, the concept of a global ‘average temperature’ is nothing more than fallacious reductionist logic.
Do you know calculus?
Do you know physics?
What’s the average of a scalar function from point A to point B?
PS: Do you even know what a scalar is?
Wagathon wrote:
Temperature is an intensive variable– an ‘average temperature’ has no more meaning than the average number of letters in all the names in a phone book.
If there are N names in the phone book, each having L(i) letters where i is an integer from 1 to N, the average number of letters in a name is
average = (1/N) [sum(i=1 to N) L(i)]
How can you not know this???
W: I’m still interested to know why the average temperature has no meaning.
Also why the average number of letters in all names in the phone book has no meaning.
Christos Vournas wrote:
The planet effective temperature (Te) is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot average the incident solar flux (minus average albedo) over the globe and calculate an average surface temperature.
Also the arithmetic divission of the (Tmax + Tmin) /2 = Tmean also is a mathematical abstraction. One cannot calculate the planet average temperature by simply dividing the sum of the extremes.
Climate science is an observational science. Just like astronomy, astrophysics, medicine, geology, and more.
In climate science, you don’t usually get the data you want, you get the data you can get.
In particular, integrals (like for the average of a scalar function) must often be approximated. Averaging Tmax and Tmin is a good first start. By the Central Limit Theorem, the totality of these measurements will approximate a normal distribution.
Is your method actually how station averages are determined? Do you know?
I am very tired of people who say that because China has lower per capita carbon emissions than the US, they are somehow better. China is only about half developed. So there is still a large fraction of its population that does not live in the modern era. Hence China’s GDP per capita is much lower than most developed nations. If you calculate carbon emissions as a ratio to GDP, then China emits carbon at about twice the rate of the US. As China continues to modernize, its emissions will continue to grow rapidly.
Consider that China stole its way into the technological revolution– therefore China stole US carbon too, it’s additive to their carbon footprint.
Jungletrunks
Consider that China stole its way into the technological revolution– therefore China stole US carbon too, it’s additive to their carbon footprint.
Stole its way how?
A significant fraction of US manufacturing has moved offshore, especially to China.
That is, a significant amount of US CO2 emissions.
Last time I looked, it was several hundred Gt CO2.
The US has “decreased” its CO2 emissions via offshoring. The exact opposite of what you claim.
“Stole its way how?”, the local DA asks.
China has pilfered vast amounts of proprietary data from U.S. institutions over many decades through cyber espionage, corporate espionage, forced technology transfers in joint ventures, and reverse engineering of foreign products. China gains technological advantages without incurring the costs of research and development, and time.
When China steals technology they’re stealing its historical path, not only the financial cost of developing said technology. This storyline includes the entire history of technological investment, all the energy used, all the carbon released to acquire all the incremental steps of development: the successes, failures, dead-ends, trial and error; all the inputs required to advance technology, including time. Simply put, culture didn’t jump from the steam locomotive to the computer chip overnight—technology advancement is evolutionary. China has sidestepped the evolution for vast amounts of technology, the totality of monumental cost, yet they equally own the entirety of humanities carbon footprint going all the way back to the beginning of the industrial revolution, as does every other country. The U.S. trailblazed most of the technology that the rest of the world benefits from.
China doesn’t get to steal development inputs and dismiss the costs of those inputs—the carbon footprint from development. Nobody is clean. That solar panel you use has a carbon spewing locomotive behind it.
DeWitt Payne wrote:
If you calculate carbon emissions as a ratio to GDP, then China emits carbon at about twice the rate of the US.
Q: Does the atmosphere react based on CO2/GDP, or does it react according to total CO2 emissions?
US CO2 emissions per capita is about twice that of China’s, 3x that of India’s. Americans are the energy hogs, not them.
The currently well off Chinese are energy hogs. They produce twice as much CO2 per dollar of GDP. Assuming the global economy doesn’t collapse, the Chinese per capita GDP will continue to rise and so will their carbon emissions. Today’s snapshot is nearly irrelevant.
DeWitt Payne wrote:
The currently well off Chinese are energy hogs. They produce twice as much CO2 per dollar of GDP.
The US also once produced a higher value of CO2 per GDP. Doesn’t China deserve the same development rights as the US, UK, etc?
Assuming the global economy doesn’t collapse, the Chinese per capita GDP will continue to rise and so will their carbon emissions.
Doubt it. Their CO2/GDP will drop, just as the US’s did. They’re also taking sustainable energy much more seriously than the US.
BTW, TOTAL carbon emissions for the US are significantly higher than for China: 60% higher from 1850-2023.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions?country=CHN~USA
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-025-02548-0
“The case for Mars terraforming research”
It is a mistaken assertion Mars could be ever terraformed. The assertion tries convincing that by net-zero CO2 goal we could reverse the natural orbitally forced warming trend here on Earth.
By discussing Mars’ terraforming we fall in the mistaken way of thinking, that we actually influencing our Earth’s global temperature,
–
Earth’s conditions happened, Earth as it is, is not a result of some kind of terraforming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
It is a mistaken assertion Mars could be ever terraformed. The assertion tries convincing that by net-zero CO2 goal we could reverse the natural orbitally forced warming trend here on Earth.
What is the natural orbitally forced warming trend, Christos?
Give a number, in W/m2 or degC/decade.
I bet you can’t.
David,
“What is the natural orbitally forced warming trend, Christos?
Give a number, in W/m2 or degC/decade.
I bet you can’t.”
–
David, you operate with those numbers all the time. Unfortunatelly you reffer the warming to AGW, not to the orbitally forced global warming phenomenon.
There is an undeniable rise in global temperature. You, David, have measured it very well. I agree with your figures.
What I disagree with is your insisting the trace gas CO2 is the cause of the observed warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–
I keep coming back here and looking for the answer: wind/solar good and viable or not?
And despite all the technical arguments and such (which are generally over my head) I fail to get an answer.
So many emphatic posts claiming ‘a fact’ are immediately countered by an equally emphatic one to the contrary.
So it crossed my mind this morning that oughtn’t it all be largely demonstrable via a few line graphs? covering different periods of time.
with lines showing available power from difference sources at different times.
lines showing demand.
lines showing cost at that time.
that sort of thing?
taken from he past perhaps and projected into the future.
Then we could see if there are sensible projected futures with this or that mix of power sources?
Could that be done? I suppose it certainly could be done for the past, surely?
arthur brogard wrote:
I keep coming back here and looking for the answer: wind/solar good and viable or not?
Yes, that’s the question. But what does “viable” mean?
Does it only mean $/kWh is less for wind & solar then fossil fuels?
No!!
Fossil fuels are very rapidly changing the climate. Very, very rapidly. 3 C or 4 C temperature change is not something the world can quickly deal with without serious repercussions.
So engineers *HAVE TO* find a way to generate the power we need without emitting fossil fuel pollution. That is by far their biggest job right now. Maybe it costs more. So what? How much does 4 C of warming cost?
How much does 1.3 C of warming right now cost?
I suspect younger engineers know this. Older engineers, like those who post here, are dinosaurs, basically useless, telling only what CAN’T be done, not even trying to meet society’s needs, no longer innovative, no longer even caring.
They do not matter anymore, and of course they don’t like to hear that, none of us do, but they are no longer relevant and need to accept that.
So many older engineers, who barely know any physics, have been and are climate change deniers. They’ve been wrong all along and are even more wrong now, with global heating at a record amount, yet again.
Frankly they should retire and get out of the way. These times belong to young people who do understand and accept the science and will work for a truly sustainable world and not one that spews pollution of all kinds all over the f–king planet.
Nothing personal, Arthur, of course.
It is not a simple task. As PE has written about, electricity is a continuous supply commodity at a grid level. Having it available 90% or even 99.99% of the time is a failure. That means one has to have a grid robust enough to meet that demand at all times. It is the cost of providing that continuity to meet the very high reliability that costs. And that is very hard to demonstrate in a simple graph.
On top of that, there is the behaviour of the grid during fault conditions. No single item is 100% reliable. That means you need duplication, reliable dispatchable backups and backups to the backups available at all times. Having them there gives assurance but is never apparent – like the spare tyre in your car. I’ve only ever used mine twice in last twenty years but I would not countenance a vehicle without one. How can you show that backup (and the cost of it) on a graph?
And that is before getting into the ancillary services like actual generation behaviour during faults – what the voltage, current and waveform does in the 10 cycles after a fault.
Look up the official reports on Odessa or South Australia to see the actual failings of the unreliables were.
I can’t speak to how difficult it would be for I’m not educated in any of it: power generation or engineering or graphing.
But perhaps you’re envisaging something a little more sophisticated than what I’m thinking of?
Surely when making ‘a pitch’ to politicians they’d be presented with a graphic of some sort that projects into the future the things I”m talking about.
Projected demand week by week or whatever..
Projected available supply with existing
Projected supply augmented with solar, wind..
and I believe the above has been saying that costs fluctuate according to supply/demand ratios as they occur well in that case surely everyone would be very interest in just when those fluctuations can be expected to occur?
I find it hard to believe that what I’m thinking of doesn’t already exist everywhere. That’s what I expected to be told when I raised the question.
Seems to me it must else you’re walking into the future blind.
And even then you could draw the chart actually though it wouldn’t be worth much.
And my whole point is how useful it could be for presenting to politicians (and the public).
Because the underlying big thing is the uncertainty of solar and wind. So such charts could in version A show a comfortable scenario and then in version B show catastrophe and it clearly be shown that the difference between the two was merely adjusting here and there for supply by assuming bad weather or whatever.
And so with all the other ‘lines’ on the chart.
It’s modeling in fact, isn’t it? You have your parameters and you alter them and see the results.
We have been living a real life ‘model’ and that data is available for drawing the ‘past’ chart. We have knowledge as demonstrated in this forum and that enables drawing ‘future’ charts.
I don’t think you seriously want me to tell you how to show ‘backups’ and fixed costs on a graph? You all are the engineers and such. We must be talking at cross purposes. I say again: simple ‘overview’ of relevant major parameters.
Yep. It’s only history on the one hand, modeling on the other.
Could be a neat little computer app or smartphone these days. Twiddle the parameters and see what happens. About time we had some really useful and real world mimicry apps. We have plenty of those ‘build your own civilization’ and I think you can even run your own railroad can you? But run your own electricity grid? then we could move into water reticulation maybe. Whatever…
Arthur,
You make a good point. The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources. Presumably, power engineers are aware of weather, but have not adequately hardened the system accordingly. Why is that?
No BAB
The leading causes of transmission line issues are lightning strikes or lines clashing- PtP or PtE strikes. They can generally counter that with things like autoreclose. However, the big problem now occurring is during those tripping events, the power electronics of the unreliables does not behave like conventional generators and give stability. That leads to them tripping out often injecting non-synchronous spikes into the lines on their way out. This then causes cascades.
Arthur
That has been done already.
Read almost any incident report. I have previously referenced some. Kathryn Porter regularly does it for the UK. People just don’t comprehend them. They come to their predetermined view with just a superficial skim.
The problem is that it is a very complex issue that cannot be simplified into something that is both correct and a politician/ school child could understand. My cynical view is the latter understand nuance better. To reduce it all to a single set of numbers needs massive assumptions. How many people read those, even if they are published?
A good example is the cost of generation for a new station. The unreliables proponent tout LCOE, usually from Lazard, as “proof” of how cheap unreliables are. That measure has very little benefit in the real world and is little used by power planners. Why do you think that is?
If you can understand even just one issue like that, then you don’t need the graphs you want. And if you don’t, then they are of no value.
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 8:52 am |
Arthur,
You make a good point. The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources
As EIA grid monitor shows, intermittent power is not the solution.
13 days with wind operating at less than 50% of normal capacity which is around 18-20% of gross capacity during the feb 2021 freeze.
No CM, What I said was:
“The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources.”
https://www.basepowercompany.com/blog/power-outages-101
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 2:45 pm |
No CM, What I said was:
“The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources.”
Proving again your shallow understanding of the topic.
Both and your link are describing local transmission failures, not “grid” failures.
Joe K.
The lack of understanding is Joe not knowing that the grid includes generation, transmission, and distribution. And of course, his dick is still hanging out.
I gave a reference that gives numbers, do the same or STFU.
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 8:52 am |
Arthur,
You make a good point. The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources. Presumably, power engineers are aware of weather, but have not adequately hardened the system accordingly. Why is that?
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 5:24 pm |
Joe K.
The lack of understanding is Joe not knowing that the grid includes generation, transmission, and distribution. And of course, his dick is still hanging out.
I gave a reference that gives numbers, do the same or STFU.
Bush – Those are two extremely immature comments, especially considering your comment dealt with claiming transmission and generation failures in the grid were due to weather when the weather factors you cited and in the paper you linked dealt with failure at the distribution level of the grid.
bottom line is you keep demonstrating you dont understand the subject.
Joe, Most “grid” failures occur in transmission and distribution. That doesn’t mean some unknown Jojo gets to excommunicate them from being part of the “grid”.
BAB Stop trying to do a Clintonesque redefinition of words. All the PE and I wrote have been about the (transmission) grid and the generators directly connected to that. There are distinct boundaries and differences between that and the distribution network, even if it has embedded generation. Even a simple question to your overused search engine will explain that. Like this answer:
https://www.howengineeringworks.com/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-transmission-and-distribution-systems/
For you to continue to claim they are the same shows either total lack of understanding of the subject or just plain lying.
Chris
“ For you to continue to claim they are the same shows either total lack of understanding of the subject or just plain lying.”
Knowing ganon as we do there is a high probability that it is both.
Hiya Arthur–well, while waiting for the definitive answer, take comfort in the assumption that it is likely to sound like ‘horses for courses.’ Sun is great in Los Angeles–not so good in Alaska.
We must raise a few trillion to extend California’s high-speed rail project to Oregon and Washington! Powered by wind and solar.. that’s the ticket!
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 10:21 am |
John,
SO2 does not explain the observed temperature behavior before 1980. I assume that is why Burl and your reference leave it out – there is good data back to at least 1900. Cherry-picking to leave out disproving data is obvious in both cases, it also demonstrates intent to deceive. I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping.
SO2 is just part of general air pollution that caused global dimming. We do not have good data on dimming going back much more than 1950, but it was happening. What we can see is that temperatures fell or did not increase as SO2 levels rose, and then increased as SO2 levels fell. Air pollution has the capability to block incoming shortwave radiation, CO2 does not. Decreasing SO2 would allow more of the available sunlight to reach the surface, which is what the CERES instruments are showing. Added CO2 would in theory increase EEI by reducing the OLR more than the Planck radiation increases it. This is what is missing from the observations. CO2 increased, but the OLR also increased, meaning the reduction in OLR from added Greenhouse gases did not exceed the increase in Planck radiation.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8
“The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). “
John, “What we can see is that temperatures fell or did not increase as SO2 levels rose …”
Maybe that is what you see, but don’t include me in your “we” – the data does not support your claim. For the period covering most of the increasing SO2 emissions, 1950 – 1980, global temperature increased 0.423 K (HadCRUT 5.0.2.0, global annual averages).
As for your second reference (thanks for that), the net radiative forcing of 0.5 ±0.4 Wm-2 barely has statistical significance. And, it can be compared to the accepted forcing for anthropogenic GHGs of ~3.8 Wm-2 (IPCC AR6 WG1 Fig. 7.6).
Bottom line: SO2 depletion results in warming, but it is a small fraction of the warming caused by GHG increases.
BA, The relationship between SO2 and temperature is expected to be inverse, i.e. that temperatures fell or did not increase as SO2 levels rose. That is because the SO2 caused dimming.
If you read some of Wild’s other studies, you would see the That the solar radiation reaching the surface moved around more than the predicted forcing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7862204_From_Dimming_to_Brightening_Decadal_Changes_in_Solar_Radiation_at_Earth's_Surface
The observation was a decrease of up to 9 W m-2 between 1960 and 1990, and then an increase of 6 W m-2 between 1992 and 2001.
By the way why does anyone think that if a doubling of the CO2 causes 3.708 W m-2 of energy imbalance, that 3C of warming would result? The entire greenhouse effect is
that Earth is 33C warmer, because of a 150 W m-2 imbalance,
a much lower ratio.
“By the way why does anyone think that if a doubling of the CO2 causes 3.708 W m-2 of energy imbalance, that 3C of warming would result? The entire greenhouse effect is
that Earth is 33C warmer, because of a 150 W m-2 imbalance,
a much lower ratio.”
I don’t know, but I imagine that people doing the calculations know why they get the results they do. By the way, why does anybody think that climate sensitivities remain constant under different (and sometimes mythical) conditions?
The historical record is not that good, e.g., we have learned that the atmospheric CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa are totally erroneous — the mere product of a cottage industry of fabricating data by a father and then his son.
“If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.” ~Joseph D’Alea
Is Freeman Dyson said all the data has been ‘fudged’. For example, CO2 readings at a site that can vary by 600 ppm during the span of a single day. “Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.” (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2 on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol 19, No.7.)
Honestly, what will your fidelity be to truth, honesty and integrity of science in a project for a client who pays you to find exactly what they want to see and nothing else?
Wagathon wrote:
The historical record is not that good, e.g., we have learned that the atmospheric CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa are totally erroneous — the mere product of a cottage industry of fabricating data by a father and then his son.
Where did “we’ learn this?
BA, The IPCC is who is implying that CO2 climate sensitivity remains constant, if it did not Net Zero CO2 emissions would mean nothing, one way of the other.
I asked about the path to assume that a doubling of the CO2 level would force an energy imbalance of 3.708 W m-2 (Which is 5.35 X ln(2)), because it is not measured but calculated, based on another assumption. The above mentioned total energy imbalance of 150 W m-2, is from the early 1900’s and is based on the assumption that CO2 accounts for 20% of the greenhouse effect. 20% of 150 W m-2 is 30 W m-2, Between 1 ppm and 280 ppm there are 8.09 doubling steps of the CO2 level, giving each
doubling step a value of 30 W m-2/8.09 = 3.708 W m-2.
Assumptions based on assumptions!
John,
“The entire greenhouse effect is
that Earth is 33C warmer, because of a 150 W m-2 imbalance,
a much lower ratio.”
–
But there is not any 33°C greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface. Earth’s surface is not 33°C warmer.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
That is the hypothesis, that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent (Which it is not). I am pointing out that the claimed sensitivity does not line up with their own sensitivity of the greenhouse effect.
John,
“that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent ”
–
Earth’s entire atmosphere doesn’t warm surface more than
~ 0,4°C. There is not any 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
Earth’s atmosphere is very much transparent. And it is both ways transparent. And Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to influence surface temperature.
–
And, there is not any the doubling trace gas CO2 content in a thin atmosphere climate sensitivity issue.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, they imply it changes because they specify that it is for the doubling from specifically 280 to 560 ppmv. Not any old doubling as you assume.
Sorry BA the forcing formula would produce the same results if the doubling were from 280 ppm to 560 ppm or if it were 560 ppm to 1120 ppm. But let’s try for fun.
5.35 X ln(560/280) = 3.708,
5.35 X ln(1120/560) = 3.708.
Nothing to be sorry about – that is what the equation yields. What’s your point – that CO2 forcing is nominally logarithmic in its concentration? Thanks, I already knew that. That it has a limited range of applicability? I already knew that, too – apparently you still don’t.
At higher values of CO2 additional terms become relevant in the calculation of CO2’s forcing. See
“Radiative forcing at high concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases,” Brendan Byrne and C. Goldblatt, Geophysical Research Letters, Jan 13 2014.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058456
Fears by some that global warming is caused by modernity says more about the society than climate. Mann’s hockey stick is not science, it’s a symbol– of the fall of Western civilization, the loss of honor and integrity in science and it is symbolic of the sacrifice of truth and honesty in academia and politics on the altar of a failed Leftist ideology based on taking the rights and property of others for personal gain through the power of a state authority, individual liberty be damned!
I disagree and can prove it.
RCP 8.5 calls for a 2100 CO2 level of 1370 ppm that would force 8.5 W per meter square. 5.35 X ln(1370/280)=8.49 w m-2.
What is the “it” that you can prove?
That the doubling sensitivity for CO2 applies not just to the first doubling, but others also!
Energy-balance models may be a good starting point for seeking to simulate the ‘real’ world but as far as predicting the Earth’s climate… not so much. Something as easy to do as, for instance, using an average for the temperature between two measured heat zones, while easy, is nevertheless.. not reality.
B A, what you are wrong about is that the IPCC only thought the doubling curve applied to the range between 280 ppm and 560 ppm, RCP8.5 disproves this. The reality is that any claim on how much forcing a doubling of the CO2 level would cause is based on assumptions. The observed data is showing that between 2000 and 2022, all of the added greenhouse gases, did not produce any positive forcing in the longwave spectrum.
(They did produce a slight negative forcing.)
I suspect if added CO2 ever tracked on the 5.35 X ln(2) curve, it would have been at a lower concentration, before the central band became saturated.
John Bahm wrote:
The observed data is showing that between 2000 and 2022, all of the added greenhouse gases, did not produce any positive forcing in the longwave spectrum.
What observed data do you have in mind? Thanks.
Thanks, John. Great proof – because John says so.
“RCP 8.5 calls for a 2100 CO2 level of 1370 ppm”
That is false. IPCC projects 936 ppmv for [CO2] in 2100; the 1370 value is CO2(e) and includes other GHGs and land use changes.
5.35× ln(936/280) = 6.46 ≠ 8.5.
Details are important , like understanding non-linear dynamics and making sure you are not using mixed variables when taking logarithms of a ratio.
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
You are arguing a point not in contention, I am not saying the response is linear, I know it is a log function, but the 1370 ppm of RCP8.5 was in CO2-eq units, in that they normalized all the greenhouse gases to CO2’s forcing. Like NOAA does with the AGGI. So the formula is still 5.35 X ln(1370/280) = 8.49 W m-2.
None of this is actually based on observed data, it is just assumptions stacked onto assumptions.
You citation is that the response in logarithmic, again not a point in contention!
No, my citation indicates that the response is only approximately logarithmic.
My contention is that the empirically derived 5.35 is not a constant as you imply.
There is not a climate sensitivity issue.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
While I agree that the climate’s sensitivity to added CO2 is not an issue, the IPCC makes the claim that a high sensitivity could cause problems in the future. At this stage, the observed data is saying that the added greenhouse gases are not adding anything to the longwave energy imbalance. I will use a Gavin Schmidt study to show why this is important.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
“The 20 W/m 2 greenhouse effect
enhancement is associated with a 15 W/m2 extra emission
from the surface (since the planet has warmed by 2.7°C) and
a 5 W/m 2 reduction in outgoing LW that balances a 1.5%
increase in planetary albedo (due to increased cloud cover, a
negative (SW) feedback).”
The simulations expect that added greenhouse gases will reduce the outgoing longwave radiation, but the observation is that the OLR increased as the greenhouse levels rose between 2000 and 2022 (CERES).
Thank you B A, for interesting source you provided:
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
There is not a mention in that paper though, “that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent “.
They ommit mentioning their basic assumption “that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent ” because they think it is so much obvious “that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent “.
They are so much sure “that Earth is 33°C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent “, so they do not see any need to reffer to that as an assumption, or to mention it at some convinient scientific way as a accepted truth, it is so much trivial for them the Earth’s 33°C atmospheric greenhouse effect, so they proceeding on the climate sensitivity issue.
The climate sensitivy issue is a not existent though, because there is not any 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You’re welcome.
Christos Vournas wrote:
The climate sensitivy issue is a not existent though, because there is not any 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
Nobody thinks the GHE is 33 C, except maybe middle school students studying earth sciences.
It’s a heuristic value. It’s a value that’s difficult to calculate (but not impossible), but there’s no need to as it’s not an important number regarding climate change.
Christos Vournas wrote:
The climate sensitivy issue is a not existent though, because there is not any 33°C greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
David Appell wrote:
Nobody thinks the GHE is 33 C, except maybe middle school students studying earth sciences.
It’s a heuristic value. It’s a value that’s difficult to calculate (but not impossible), but there’s no need to as it’s not an important number regarding climate change.
(Emphasis added)
–
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf
Citation: Schmidt, G. A., R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller, and A. A. Lacis (2010), Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse
effect, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287
” 1. Introduction
[2] The global mean greenhouse effect can be defined as
the difference between the planetary blackbody emitting
temperature (in balance with the absorbed solar irradiance)
and the global mean surface temperature. The actual mean
surface temperature is larger (by around 33°C, assuming a
constant planetary albedo) due to the absorption and emis
sion of long‐wave (LW) radiation in the atmosphere by a
number of different “greenhouse” substances.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What is the heuristic value in artificial intelligence? Heuristic value in artificial intelligence refers to the quick and approximate measure of proximity to the desired state. It is used to make decisions in situations with limited time or resources, prioritizing speed over accuracy.
Heuristic Value in AI: Understanding Its Role – Twefy
http://www.twefy.com/what-is-heuristic-value-in-artificial-intelligence/
–
Heuristic Function In AI – GeeksforGeeks
16 Ιουν 2024 · Heuristic functions are strategies or methods that guide the search process in AI algorithms by providing estimates of the most promising path to a solution. They are often used in scenarios where finding an exact …
–
JoJo,
These are the ones from yesterday – it’s apparent why you don’t want people to see them. Where are your “references” – oh yeah – the old “because I said so”.
I stand by my statements. Where did I truncate data or cherry-pick? You just make up stuff.
[1] “The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources.”
[2] Joe K | June 16, 2025 at 11:31 am |
B A Bushaw | June 16, 2025 at 10:21 am |
“I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping.
Yet you have done the very thing you just condemned multiple times”
Same old crap, can’t reference, quote, or otherwise identify your claims. It is clear that you would like to attack me, but are too embarrassed to show how weak those attacks are.
Baby dude – you condemned Jahon Bahm’s use of cherrypicked data, Then you denied condemning him, not once , but twice even after myself and one other person gave you the specific quote.
Ethical scientists simply dont behave the way you do
Why are you too embarrassed to repeat the specific quotes?
B A Bushaw | June 17, 2025 at 2:34 pm |
Why are you too embarrassed to repeat the specific quotes?
Baby – in the last 30 hours, I have given you the specific quote 3 times and another commentator also gave you the specific quote.
And you are still too embarrassed to repeat them.
B A Bushaw | June 17, 2025 at 3:04 pm |
And you are still too embarrassed to repeat them.
You been given the specific quote 4 times in less than 30 hours. – your game is old and immature.
Grow up and show some professional ethics, show some maturity
And you are still too embarrassed to repeat them. That’s OK, I found them for you:
“The leading cause of grid failure by far is weather – not intermittent power sources.”
“I personally prefer multivariate statistical analysis of complete data sets, over cherry-picking truncated data sets and wing flapping.”
Now, where in those did I condemn anyone?
Cut the crap – over the last 2-3 years you have frequently used truncated data sets. I have pointed those incidences out to you on multiple occassions as they occur. As such you are fully aware of the multiple times you have used either cherry picked data sets or truncated data sets. Though you often ignore the original citation so that you can claim I didnt give you the citation and/or link. That is also a reflection on your integrity and honesty.
One citation for each instance should be sufficient.
No, I may have referenced papers that have used truncated data sets, with justification.
That you won’t repeat the references for your claims, I just assume that you are afraid to have people look at them, or you are just making it up as you go.
No references, no interest. Bye bye, Jojo.
Bush baby
As previously stated – i gave links and citations when you first use the truncated and/or cherry picked data sets.
Your repetitive requests for me to repost those links and citations after I have previously given them simply confirms your dishonesty.
Yes you have given explanations for the use of truncated data – Those excuses are both lame and highlight ethical issues in the climate science community.
B A, the 5.35 X ln (CO2/CO2_old) is what the IPCC uses, and is not limited to the first doubling. To me it is already invalidated by the observed data. The idea of greenhouse gas forcing is that the added gases would decrease the OLR, greater than the Planck radiation increased the OLR, thus adding to Earth’s energy imbalance. The problem is that has not been happening for as long as we could observe the data. We are not warming because of changes happening in the longwave spectrum, but because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface.
John Bahm commented:
B A, the 5.35 X ln (CO2/CO2_old) is what the IPCC uses, and is not limited to the first doubling. To me it is already invalidated by the observed data./i>
CO2 forcing isn’t the only forcing on climate, so the observed temperature change isn’t expected follow this formula.
We are not warming because of changes happening in the longwave spectrum, but because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface.
Says what? And if so, why?
PS: So a change in the downwelling longwave spectrum wouldn’t lead to a temperature change? Then where is that extra energy going?
David,
The increased in the downwelling longwave spectrum, would have to be greater than the increase in Planck radiation, i.e.
to have positive forcing the OLR would have to decrease.
As for what is going on with the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR), that is what better fits the idea that the warming since 1978 is likely from decrease air pollution, as opposed to added greenhouse gases. This means the drive towards Net Zero, would not alter the trajectory of the climate.
I think market conditions will achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions in any case, but we will continue to warm until as long as the skies continue to clear. (We do not know where zero is in sky clarity).
John Bahm wrote:
As for what is going on with the Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR), that is what better fits the idea that the warming since 1978 is likely from decrease air pollution, as opposed to added greenhouse gases.
Thanks. What about a change in albedo, primarily from melting ice and global greening? Do you have any idea how these compare to decreased air pollution?
Is there a particular study you’re thinking of?
Dave the increasing in greening reduces reflection, but the energy is stored, melting ice is more complicated as the incident angle near the poles is very shallow.
Martin Wild has several studies on Global dimming and brightening, the swings in recorded energy at the surface stations are more than enough to account for recent warming.
Between 1992 and 2001 Wild recorded a 6.6 W m-2 increase in solar radiation incident at the Earth’s surface.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD011470
As for the CERES measurements, this study has the most concise statement.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8
From your first reference (thanks)
“Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 Wm−2 during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). Despite marked differences in ASR and OLR trends during the hiatus (2000–2010), transition-to-El Niño (2010–2016) and post-El Niño (2016–2022) periods, trends in net top-of-atmosphere flux (NET) remain within 0.1 Wm−2 per decade of one another, implying a steady acceleration of climate warming.”
Interesting:
“trends in net top-of-atmosphere flux (NET) remain within
0.1 Wm−2 per decade of one another, implying a steady acceleration of climate warming:”
–
1 Wm−2 per century then!
–
B A, I had read the study, the important part related to added greenhouse gases is that the only direct pathway that
they can perturb Earth’s energy imbalance is by reducing the OLR, but the OLR increased between 2000 and 2022, while the greenhouse gas levels also increased.
Think of it this way, the models all begin by assuming that added greenhouse gases equals reduced OLR, so the models are wrong, because the hypothesis is wrong!
We are warming because of increased ASR (As the study shows), the longwave spectrum would be causing cooling were it not for the increase in the shortwave spectrum.
Or 0.000027 Wm-2 per day. Keep in mind that it only refers to the agreement between the three time periods considered, nothing about absolute values.
John Bahm wrote:
Think of it this way, the models all begin by assuming that added greenhouse gases equals reduced OLR, so the models are wrong, because the hypothesis is wrong!
Models don’t “assume” this, it comes out of solving the equations that describe radiation in the atmosphere.
John Baum wrote:
“As for the CERES measurements, this study has the most concise statement.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-024-09838-8”
Thanks for these citations. The second one (Loeb et al) gives this reason for the increase in OLR:
“The decrease in cloud fraction and higher
SSTs over the NH sub-tropics lead to a significant increase in OLR from cloud-free regions, which partially compensate for the NH ASR increase.”
It’s not like CO2 has suddenly ceased its GHG properties, or the physics is wrong, it’s that changes associated with warming are compensating for increases in CO2’s heat trapping property.
David I am not sure why some post have a reply button and others do not, but related to the calculated reduction in OLR.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL108259
“To compute the radiative forcing F2x (W/m2) at (CO2,Ts), we simulate the OLR decrease per CO2 doubling”
Our Atmosphere is very complex, but the simulations do assume that and increase in greenhouse gases will produce a decrease in OLR. The is the energy pathway that added greenhouse gases would perturb Earth’s energy imbalance.
If the reduction in OLR does not show up when the greenhouse gas levels are increased, the simulations are broken!
Clouds may be part of the reason but sea surface temperature is not, as the increase in Planck Radiation is already included in the calculations.
It is not that CO2 stops absorbing 15 um photons, but what happens after an absorption. The excited molecule passes some or all of the energy off when it strikes a compatible atom or molecule. In a controlled system this is usually Helium,
but in the atmosphere, H2O likely fills this role. The problem with this is that H2O is not well mixed, and it is also has many emission modes at longer wavelengths than 15 um.
Interesting:
ASR – absorbed solar radiation – how to define it?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
How anyone could absorb solar radiation?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Russ S (PE)
Again, thanks for your detailed series on power grids. I find them interesting and informative.
Interesting also is when the Visigoths arrive here, notably Appellations and BAB(l), they avoid your detailed articles with great care.
Although I become bored trying to read the usual tennis game on CO2 and AGW because it recurs in every post, a quick summation showed Appellations opining that experienced (ie. older) grid engineers should just get out of the way because they know little physics. Apparently, building and maintaining country-wide functioning grids requires little or no knowledge of physics. BAB(l) seems not to have opined at all after Chris T outlined grid realities for him.
Upon such does the future of our civilisation depend, it seems.
ian-l wrote:
…opining that experienced (ie. older) grid engineers should just get out of the way because they know little physics. Apparently, building and maintaining country-wide functioning grids
Never said that. I wrote that old engineers are too stuck in their ways and incapable of innovating. Many don’t even understand or accept basic climate science. I wrote that fossil fuel use HAS to end, and it’s the job of engineers to make this happen in practice. It will be young engineers and those in their prime who will find a way to do this, and are, and who won’t accept this so-called technical reason or that one about why it can’t happen. It has to happen. Whatever it takes, whether it means new technologies or new implementations or new networks or new costs. Because 3-4°C of warming brings such massive problems that it must be avoided by all means. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem.
ianl wrote:
Interesting also is when the Visigoths arrive here, notably Appellations and BAB(l), they avoid your detailed articles with great care.
Ad hominem attacks??
I’m not very interested in power engineering and I don’t know much of anything about it.
But I know what needs to be done, and I see the poster telling us why it can’t be done, which isn’t an acceptable position. It simply has to be done, and others will do it if he won’t/can’t.
“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.”
– Steve Jobs, 2001
Sorry, that link doesn’t work when copied here – just search “EPRI grid forming inverters”.
Appell, you do an amazing impersonation of King Canute. “It has to stop!” Cue the Moody Blues: “But then the tide rushes in and washes the castles away…”
Apropos when visualizing the throne as that of an intellectual paupers, gilded with thick layers of gaslight.
The official Spanish government report on the 28th April Iberian blackout has come out. There is an independent one from the European grid operators but it is yet to appear. The report is in Spanish which I make no pretense of understanding but AI translation seems to say they did not have enough synchronous generators on the grid.
In the half hour before the event, there were two major voltage fluctuations are current flow swings in the transmission lines. The inverter based generation (IBG), mainly solar, couldn’t give enough voltage control, so they had rapid wild voltage fluctuations on the grid across the country 375 to 415kV. One set caused massive power swings (800 to 1800MW current flow on one line) with subsynchronous oscillations at 0.21 and 0.64Hz.
Because of all these fluctuations and the way the IBG react, the 400kV grid voltage had been rising and was about 430kV. The grid operators had no extra synchronous plant to stabilise it.
At the start of the third set of fluctuations, two solar plants tripped out. Their protection settings apparently didn’t meet the grid connection standards. With these trips and the subsequent voltage fluctuations, more plant tripped out in a cascade. This and load shedding caused voltages to rise further and frequency to drop. Then the French interconnectors tripped from the current flow into Spain and that was the final straw that collapsed the grid.
In short, there was a lack of voltage control resources i.e. not enough synchronous plant to give grid support. Just more proof of what PE has been writing about.
Thanks for the update! The way I see this is that when they started adding massive non dispatch able sources to the grid, They used the peaking power plants to backup the new sources. The problem is that the peaking power plans existed to handle peak loads. When a condition occurs where peak loads and a loss of non dispatch able power happen at the same time, there is no remaining reserve.
So add reliable storage with grid-forming IBR.
Grid-forming inverters provide both voltage and current control. More of them is a good thing.
Now do the LCOE on the full system costs with “reliable storage” & ‘grid forming inverters” and the excess redundancy required to make a 100% renewable or near 100% renewable grid function 24/7/365.
Joe, You do the calculation, if you have some point to make.
So the theory goes. Where is the proof they work? And how much cost do they add to the “cheap” power?
From my reading so far, the problem was the power characteristics of inverters and lack of inertia to damp out the swings. No how would grid forming inverters help that?
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 10:14 am |
Joe, You do the calculation, if you have some point to make.
Bab – you are the one that made the suggestion – without understanding the cost. Though typical for you grasp of the subject. Thats what happens when you really on partial info – another case of using cherrypicked data. ” Grid-forming inverters provide both voltage and current control. More of them is a good thing.”
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 9:48 am | Reply
Grid-forming inverters provide both voltage and current control. More of them is a good thing.
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 10:14 am |
Joe, You do the calculation, if you have some point to make.
Baby – yes I could do a calculation. Its a big number – considerabley higher than the LCOE for wind or solar. Though I would have thought a hint would be sufficient would alert you to multitude of issues, including the cost issues.
CM: “From my reading so far, the problem was the power characteristics of inverters and lack of inertia to damp out the swings. No how would grid forming inverters help that?”
By having multiple forming IBRs, as would typically be the case. See, e.g:
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
slide #16
The EPRI tutorial indicates that 30-35% of the IBRs should be forming.
Joe, I don’t need to do the calculations. It has already been done multiple times, by people much more skilled in the subject you or I. E.g:
https://waterpowercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Comparative-Analysis-of-Electricity-Generation-Costs-by-Source_EN.pdf
Nonetheless, I’d be glad to look at the results of your calculation once you complete it. (LOL)
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 5:18 pm |
Joe, I don’t need to do the calculations. It has already been done multiple times, by people much more skilled in the subject you or I. E.g:
Bush Baby scores another own goal!
That report is just another variation of lazards lcoe.
Try again- it addresses none of points raised with the cost of storage, stability issues, etc (note that CAN has considerable hydro, so it has significant inertia). Nor does it address the points previously mentioned. ”
“Now do the LCOE on the full system costs with “reliable storage” & ‘grid forming inverters” and the excess redundancy required to make a 100% renewable or near 100% renewable grid function 24/7/365.”
Everyone of your posts shows you have a very superficial grasp of the topic.
Best
From further reading, it seems that a lot of solar plants were switching off because the market price went negative. That would have added to grid management issues. If there were grid batteries there, then that would have been the ideal time they would have been charging. So how would those batteries would support the grid when they were sucking power out of it? Those voltage and current oscillations were at about 6Hz. How would IBG produce reactive power to damp that out?
People who push batteries as a panacea for every IBG problem show their ignorance on the fundamental issues – to quote Forrest. “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Thanks Chris, keep studying. Look at the materials from NREL and EPRI that I have cited. In particular, NREL slide 16 (link already given), which answers two of your questions.
“If there were grid batteries there, then that would have been the ideal time they would have been charging.”
I agree wholeheartedly – more storage is good.
Since y’all seem to worry mostly about the cost of doing it right, while I worry about the future, maybe we should combine and look at estimated costs 20-30 years in the future: See figure 4.2 in the Water Power Canada white paper cited above.
Please keep up your responses BAB. My work colleagues are amazed at how much ignorance you consistently display, yet you still keep posting, arguing unrelated and irrelevant or just plain wrong statements. It is almost as if you don’t understand what your Google searches tell you. I’m certain there is a name for that type of personality disorder.
To put it in really simple terms that you might (emphasis on might) understand.
The problem in Spain was not one of no storage or lack of generation. On the contrary, they had too much generation available but they had dispatched off what they needed for grid support. It was one of voltage control. The problem in Spain was overvoltage and loss of control of that exacerbated by grid instability. They needed to lower the voltage by sucking VARs out of the grid and they couldn’t. The way generators create or absorb VARs is by changing the turns ratio on their transformers on the HV side – the tap changers. Decreasing the ratio moves the operating point towards absorbing VARs and vice versa. Because of the voltages involved this has to be done relatively slowly otherwise you turn your transformer into a bomb. I suspect most of the transformers were already tapped out and the solar ones had very little turns ratio range – good transformers at ±10% range in maybe 15 steps are expensive. They also needed inertia to slow the rate of change – dampen the fluctuations.
When things started to go wrong, all the unreliables on the grid could not offer the ancillary services needed to stabilise it and get it within acceptable working range. That was why the voltage kept going up. And guess what – when you are charging batteries, they can’t give VARs support or dampen oscillations.
In an AC grid, particularly one under stress, voltage, current and frequency can be very loosely linked at the operational range level. That is hard HV physics, not some academic dream. Read the system control tutorials or better still talk to a senior control operator. They might not be credentialed (the ones I know were all trade qualified before going into Ops) but they know more on the subject than all the ivory towers.
The Spanish grid operator has now rejected the government (which is gung-ho on the unreliables) report and said the problem was the solar and wind the government forced on the grid, not grid operation. On the facts so far, I think the operators have a very strong case.
Chris, sure I’ll keep posting. Glad you find it entertaining. I find you entertaining too, particularly the anger and insults; I presume that comes from being left in the dust. That is what my “Google” searches, particularly EIA, tell me. They also tell me almost all new energy installations being financed and built are renewables – that is reality, guess you’ll just have to adapt.
My personality disorder is learning; yours is thinking you know everything.
PS ~ If it weren’t for those “white tower” people, you’d probably be digging ditches, hand milking cows, or similar.
Mr. Bushaw, most new energy in the developed world is indeed renewable, and hooray for that. However, that is mostly because demand has plateaued in the over developed west. If you turn your eyes to the developing world you will see a lot of coal plants being built. A lot.
Mr Fuller, yes.
It’s relative. China was building 2 coal power plants a week in 2022, it appears they’ve ramped this further:
https://energydigital.com/oil-and-gas/why-has-china-grown-its-number-of-coal-fired-power-plants
No BAB, power stations were designed and built by people with very few letters after their name. They got a basic degree, if any, then got out into the real world. They knew what worked though. Something academics don’t.
Storage sounds great until you start to look at the numbers.
Spain’s grid has a peak demand of between 31 and 32 GW.
The largest battery farm far is Hornsdale in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
“70 MW running for 10 minutes (11.7 MWh) is contracted to the government to provide stability to the grid (grid services)[27] and prevent load-shedding blackouts[15][28] while other generators are started in the event of sudden drops in wind or other network issues.” 70 MW is 0.22% of the peak demand, and they can only do that for 10 minuets.
Grid Scale energy storage requirements are an order of magnitude greater than our capacity.
The University of Stuttgart proposed an idea about a decade ago, to convert Summer Solar surplus into man made Natural gas for winter heating, a seasonal energy storage. That research and Audi spun off the company Sunfire energy.
https://sunfire.de/en/
John Bahm | June 18, 2025 at 9:55 am | Reply
“Storage sounds great until you start to look at the numbers.”
correct – Advocates are focused on the lcoe numbers for the individual types of generation. Classic example of using cherrypicked number or truncated data sets which leads to erroneous conclusions supposedly supported by the “science”. As many others have commented, lcoe lacks full context. As I noted above, advocates need to run the lcoe number on the total system costs, not just the individual components.
“Grid Scale energy storage requirements are an order of magnitude greater than our capacity.”
Is that all? Sounds like great progress, particularly with year-over-year growth around 50%.
https://cleanpower.org/news/u-s-energy-storage-monitor-q3-2024/
Bab scores own goal
John Bahm is correct with his assessment
your impressive link shows 251gwh by 2028
the current 48 state usage is about 500k-600k GW per hour
Polly: “…great progress, particularly with year-over-year growth around 50%”
You mean like the reliable, and recently, tbe largest power storage facility in the world, Moss Landing? Capable of providing back-up power for roughly 430k homes for 4 hours during peak hours? That’s a bunch, WOW.
I’d expect someone who brags about math prowess to realize how easy it is to leverage a dime to fifteen cents. 50% growth larger from a small number is nothing to squawk about.
Just more gaslighting fodder from the parrot.
Jojo:
“Bab scores own goal”
So original! Did you lean that a$$holeness from Starkey?
“John Bahm is correct with his assessment”
As a NNN, please explain how would you know?
your impressive link shows 251gwh by 2028
the current 48 state usage is about 500k-600k GW per hour
Yeah, and your impressive link shows … oh, wait.
Nonetheless, since you don’t do the math I will: That is about 500 hours or 3 weeks of storage. Pretty good for 2.5 years from now – where will it be in 20 years?
Bab scores another own goal
“Nonetheless, since you don’t do the math I will: That is about 500 hours or 3 weeks of storage. Pretty good for 2.5 years from now – where will it be in 20 years?”
Bab – 251 Gwh / 500k gwh = seconds not 3 weeks of storage
Trunks, you can’t store power, you can store energy. No point in paying attention to someone who doesn’t understand basic physics, and thinks name-calling and insults are a viable substitute.
oops ,math error
251 /500 = about 20 minutes,
Still a long way from the 2-3 weeks needed for weather such feb 2021
Now lets do the lcoe on the total costs, not the separate lcoe of only the generation.
Sorry I made a mistake (thinking MW), but so did you: US average power consumption is about 465 gW (for 2022, EIA), not 500-600k. You were off by a factor 1000, as was I. The right answer is about 1/2 hour (for the whole country), certainly not 3 week, but much more than 3 seconds.
Jojo scores own goal, too! Nor does he answer questions.
So Joe scores his own goal and does it again. I can do the math in my head. 251 gWh/500 gW = 0.502 hours = 30.12 minutes, not “about 20”. If you can’t do it by looking at it, try a calculator.
I guess I didn’t realize that the entire country lost power for 2-3 weeks in 2021. I must have missed it.
Go ahead and do your combined LCOE + LCOS calculation. I’ll wait for your results, but note that it is already covered in the Water Power Canada whitepaper (called solar-pv + storage.) Here is more:
Perhaps what you are looking for is the LFSCOE- levelized full system cost of energy:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723010569
Also, this might be useful for answering some of the things you claim are not addressed.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf
good luck with your calculations.
Todays 50% energy storage growth captures an exceedingly tiny fraction of capacity needs.
I have no problem with nascent energy storage solutions, call it exploratory R&D. Perhaps some day a superior energy storage solution will reveal itself. Lithium demands can’t cover current needs for storage too. Or perhaps Germany and Spain haven’t considered its expansive utility.
Bab’s comment – “Perhaps what you are looking for is the LFSCOE- levelized full system cost of energy:”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723010569
Bab – you are humorous – You are basking in the glory of finding a study that refutes your prior comments. See table 6 in your link.
Congratulations you found a study that confirms what everyone has been telling you and which you have denied over the course of a few hundred comments.
note in table 6 the lfscoe for wind & solar are in the range of $200-$250 range and not the $40 range derived using lcoe.
I think there is a path to global sustainable energy, but the path leads through lots of Engineering and actual science.
In my view the future will look something like this.
Oil will continue to climb in price as the supplies of the cheap easy oil dwindle. As the price gets above a sustained level of about $96 a barrel, it will become more profitable for the larger
refineries to purchase electricity, and make their ole-fin feedstocks from captured CO2, and water.
The smaller refineries that cannot afford to convert will be left behind running at lower profits. They will eventually be acquired
by the profitable refineries. The technology loosely called “Power to Liquid” will be licensed at every scale, so that any place with access to power can produce their own fuels. The rest of the world is about to experience the agriculture boom the 1st world has been in since the early 1900’s.
“I think there is a path to global sustainable energy, but the path leads through lots of Engineering and actual science.”
I agree, even if there are some that don’t want to pay for it.
Why pay outrageous cost when reasonable cost effective solutions can sustain society effectively during an interim period, while working towards superior solutions? One would need to be extremely cynical of technological progess to settle on the expensive over the practical.
No doubt, we’ll be using those dirty solutions throughout the transition. But hopefully less and less, as has happened with coal.
“One would need to be extremely cynical of technological prog[r]ess to settle on the expensive over the practical.”
No, one just needs to understand the need for “front-loading” to effectively influence the trajectory of non-linear dynamical systems.
An AI says that for every death from hot weather, there are nine from cold. Looks like we need more CO2, no?
No, because more CO2 and warmth means more extremes, both hot and cold (but more hot), where the deaths take place. So, if you want to equalize cold and hot deaths at the expense of higher overall temperature related deaths, then go for it.
Present the data from the historical record that dernonstrates where heat has killed more humans than cold has; per your statement that “hot” is where deaths take place.
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 6:54 pm | Reply
No, because more CO2 and warmth means more extremes,
Care to provide actual and credible data to support that statement
Trunks, that wasn’t my statement. Sorry you didn’t understand and felt the need to make an incomplete, and false, paraphrase.
Polly, let me help your flapping imagination without post color redaction, your quote yet again: “both hot and cold (but more hot), where the deaths take place.”
You’re insecure. This is demonstrable by your desperate need to bury anything outside approved, all-in, ideological dogma–which you cling to with religious zeal– thus your squawking, seedy parrot like bob and weave fixations, your total lack of technological perpheral vision.
Just about every denzen wishes to see advanced energy solutions, ideas that are cost effective, that make sense, that actually work. Wind and solar will fall back to its deserved niche solution status over the next decade.
Technological advancement is moving faster than CO2, but not faster than your ideological concerns and feigned fears.
Jungle – he tries to hide his insecurity with insults which the level of insults is highly correlated to the degree of his errors.
Jungletrunks wrote:
Present the data from the historical record that dernonstrates where heat has killed more humans than cold has; per your statement that “hot” is where deaths take place.
Present data from the present that shows cold is killing more humans than heat.
No I said, ” … more extremes, both hot and cold ( ), where deaths take place”.
Both of them. And I did not contest Jim’s claim of approximately 9 cold deaths to 1 hot death – it is about right. You can do your own search or ask Jim where he got his numbers – I am not at your command.
Thanks for the demonstration of your reading comprehension and awareness skills. But that’s OK, it has been apparent for most of the time I’ve been here.
Polly: “both hot and cold (but more hot), where the deaths take place.”
You won’t find data that backs your imagination. Cold kills more people than heat does.
Nor can he find data showing co2 increases causes more weather extremes – at least not credible data or data that doesnt rely on truncated or cherrypicked data
No doubt, Joe. Unfortunately, the only place for dogma pitches is the batting cage.
Jungletrunks,
That refers to weather extremes, not the number of deaths caused by them. Yes, cold:hot deaths currently are about 9:1.
Joe “Nor can he find data showing co2 increases causes more weather extremes”.
Bab – displaying his usual ethical lapses
Using truncated data sets , Truncating full statements
Joe: Yes I can.
Bab – Why not address this comment – The best part of your link that you are so proud of is that you exposed your own error.
Joe K | June 19, 2025 at 8:23 am |
Bab’s comment – “Perhaps what you are looking for is the LFSCOE- levelized full system cost of energy:”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484723010569
Bab – you are humorous – You are basking in the glory of finding a study that refutes your prior comments. See table 6 in your link.
Congratulations you found a study that confirms what everyone has been telling you and which you have denied over the course of a few hundred comments.
note in table 6 the lfscoe for wind & solar are in the range of $200-$250 range and not the $40 range derived using lcoe.
Joe, what is “my” error. Try to be specific with direct quotes or traceable references.
“Higher CO2 concentrations increase extreme event risk in a 1.5 °C world”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0190-1.epdf?
Your Error
A – The error was in direct reference to your embracement of LCOE and your disregard to total system costs – at least your disregard to total system costs until you found a study on full system cost and your subsequent embracement so that you could pretend you were correct from the start.
B – The link you just provided dealt with extreme weather,
C – mixing up the two shows you cant even follow your own discussion.
D – the link you provided blacks out the everything except the first page.
E – as CM notes you are very good at google searches, but very poor grasp of the topics
WRT your Nature link, an ensemble of models is not really evidence that CO2 increases causes more weather extremes. Models are still far from being validated.
“Try to be specific with direct quotes or traceable references”
Fail, thanks for your thoughts, Joe. If you can be specific as requested, I’ll give you specific answers. Otherwise, P.O.
Just two citations where you dismissed full system costs out of 100+ dismissals. I dont expect you to understand nor do i expect you to admit your dismissal.
B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 5:18 pm |
Citing the waterpowercanada – lcoe of hydo which doesnt have the supply limitations that Wind and solar have nor does hydro have the inertia problems of wind and solar. Just another example of Baby dismissing the full system costs
•
• B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 10:14 am |
Joe, You do the calculation, if you have some point to make.
Just one of the many comments from Baby dismissing full system costs.
Sure Joe, and thanks
Here is the full text of the first:
“B A Bushaw | June 18, 2025 at 5:18 pm |
Joe, I don’t need to do the calculations [LCOE]. It has already been done multiple times, by people much more skilled in the subject you or I. E.g:
https://waterpowercanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Comparative-Analysis-of-Electricity-Generation-Costs-by-Source_EN.pdf
Nonetheless, I’d be glad to look at the results of your calculation once you complete it. (LOL)”
and here is your characterization of that:
“Citing the waterpowercanada – lcoe of hydo which doesnt have the supply limitations that Wind and solar have nor does hydro have the inertia problems of wind and solar. Just another example of Baby dismissing the full system costs”
No I don’t dismiss full system costs, you brought up LCOE and that is what the reference deals with. I have previously discussed LCOE+LCOS, and now LFSCOE. I don’t dismiss them, I give references for them.
I don’t know how to do LCOE (etc.) calculations, and have no desire to learn, but I am interested in the results. You said you could do the LCOE calculation – so prove it, Jojo.
The second comment:
“Joe, You do the calculation, if you have some point to make”
Where is the dismissal of LCOE it that?
Thanks for confirming your failure to grasp the full context of the subject matter.
You are still not grasping that the LCOE computation does not and can not provide comprehensive full system costs.
Which is why you continue to reach erroneous conclusions
dig in your heals so you can proudly let yourself continue to be fooled.
DeWitt Payne wrote:
Models are still far from being validated.
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
Web: t.ly/68LaZ
—
Exxon’s 1982 climate model:
https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/xom1.png
Exxon’s projections, made in the late 1970s for both CO2 and temperature, are today spot-on:
https://www.sciencealert.com/exxon-expertly-predicted-this-week-s-nightmare-co2-milestone-almost-40-years-ago
http://bitly.bz/UfBUD
In response to B A Bushaw:
Joe “Nor can he find data showing co2 increases causes more weather extremes”.
“Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508
“Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501–515 (2015).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y
Evidence for more extreme downpours:
Papalexiou, S. M., & Montanari, A.(2019). Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resources Research, 55,4901–4914. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067
“Among its [IPCC AR6 WG1] key conclusions is that it is an “established fact” that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions have “led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial times”.
“Explainer: What the new IPCC report says about extreme weather and climate change,” CarbonBrief, 10.08.2021
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weather-and-climate-change
‘There is no reason to believe that climate change is so terrible at the moment. Unless you raise funds for Greenpeace or are a politician who presents themself as the savior of mankind: then you gain by exaggerating things. The reality is that the climate hardly affects our wellbeing and our prosperity. There are happy and rich people living in boiling hot Singapore, but also in freezing cold Canada. There are unhappy and poor people in boiling hot Kenya but also stone cold Mongolia. Climate change is not the main environmental problem. Dirty air causes currently roughly four million deaths each year.’ ~Richard Tol
And we are and should be doing everything we can to limit actual air pollution that is causing those deaths, (Coal power plants and Diesel engines) CO2 is not the problem.
Middle school students studying earth and planets sciences.will be taught about the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
Because it is a Powerful Phenomenon and eventually scientists will aknowledge its importance.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So prove you can do the calculations. You said you could.
That was for Joe K.
This is getting old
Bab – its not a question of doing the calculations.
Its a question of understanding the calculations.
As you have been repeatedly told by multiple individuals – lcoe computations only include the cost of generation. LCOE does not include full system costs which encompasses, stability, reliability, storage, redundancy, etc. At high wind and solar penetrations, the numerator gets real big and the denominator shrinks.
The lfscoe link you provided does include those costs, but you immediately reverted back to the lcoe computations.
Again – you have yet to show and grasp or understanding of the topic.
No, it is a question of you lying when you say you can do the calculations. I have already given you references for LCOS, LACE, and LFSCOE, they already address your cherry-picked complaints.
A – The only one lying is Bab – I never said I was going to do the computation.
B – the important issue is understanding what is included and excluded from the computation.
C – The lcoe, lcos, lace do not include the full system costs – After numerous articles posted by PE, you refuse to grasp the information provided.
D – Full system cost is the only metric that is useful for evaluating generation costs when approaching 100% renewable energy penetration.
E – In spite of 6-12 months of informing you that LCOE . LACE and lcos omitted significant costs, you continued to push data that was incomplete and highly misleading – after all you kept getting fooled.
F – Today was the first time you found any study addressing Full system costs.
G – your failure to address the deficiencies and omissions in the LCOE, LACE and LCOS shows you have no interest in become informed of the basics
Accusing some one of lying when they clearly did not is a sure sign of ethical lapses.
Let me correct some of the grammar –
A – The only one lying is Bab – I never said I was going to do the computation.
B – the important issue is understanding what is included and excluded from the computation. Without understanding what the computation covers, the numbers are meaningless and deceptive.
C – The lcoe, lcos, lace do not include the full system costs – Several commentators, including myself have explained the deficiencies. There have been numerous articles posted by PE that further provide significant background information on the topic. You have clearly stated on multiple occasions that you have no interest in learning from PE or developing an understanding of the subject. You have simply refused to grasp the information provided.
D – Full system cost is the only metric that is useful for evaluating generation costs as renewable energy penetration increases, along with failing to recognize those costs grow exponentially as renewable penetration approaches 100%.
E – In spite of 12-15 months of informing you that LCOE , LACE and lcos omit significant costs, you continued to push data that was incomplete and highly misleading – Not surprising considering the frequency that you kept getting fooled. That is what happens when using cherrypicked and truncated data.
F – Today was the first time you found any study addressing Full system costs. Congratulations, that was a significant improvement.
G – It should be noted from the link you provided this morning that the lcoe costs for both wind and solar using full system costs exceed $200 per mw and not the $40 per mw that is promoted by lazards. Why – Because it includes full system costs. Comprehensive context and understanding matters.
H – your failure to address or even acknowledge the deficiencies and omissions in the LCOE, LACE and LCOS shows you have no interest in become informed of the basics
“The previous year was the first in which the average global air temperature was more than 1.5C above that in the late 1800s.”
–
It is interesting to read about, because we have not developed yet a method of measuring the outdoor’s air temperature.
What is being measured in the standartized Stevenson’s screens is not the actual air temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
It is interesting to read about, because we have not developed yet a method of measuring the outdoor’s air temperature.
Not only that, we don’t understand numbers well enough to even be able to discuss temperature theoretically. And humans have never understood air–what is it exactly? Can you see it or touch it?
It’s also not possible to talk about “outdoors”–where does it end, exactly, in an open universe? And what was “outdoors” before the Big Bang? Undefined!
As we’ve all known since we tried to learn it, reading is impossible because words have on meaning. Information cannot be conveyed via words, or by anything at all, because they are both inside and outside at the same time, which violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, conservation of energy and basic causality. Even Einstein knew this.
David,
“humans have never understood air–what is it exactly? Can you see it or touch it?”
–
Exactly, how do you claim measuring temperature of something like that?
Only when captured in laboratories, in enclosure – like a room or something. (Room temperature…)
Or when it is a constant gases flow from a turbine – or inside the combustion tubes…
But not the free air temperature – no, you cannot measure its temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some states will be seeing a significant increase in utility costs this summer, between 7% on the low end, to 50% on the high end. The discrepancy between rate increases is based on AI infrastructure costs, where the data centers are located will effect those states rates the most.
I expect a nation wide ramp-up in NG to grapple with the demand, citizens will demand cost effective solutions. Texas has already made its intentions clear in this regard, a rapid expansion in NG power generating capacity.
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/07/harvard-ai-increasing-energy-costs
There remains a lot more work ahead for how electricity rates will be determined. The proposals being described can’t be the last word, I don’t see them holding up. Regulations will be drafted, a determination made for how much of AI’s build out costs can be passed onto the consumer.
I suspect more of the cost will become the responsibility of developers, many of whom have assets the size of small nations. The cost for AI should not be mostly socialized. It’s a complex issue much bigger than the needs of AI; among the issues is a forthcoming major disruption in the nations workforce.
Climate misinformation turns crisis into disaster – What report says – The “godfathers of climate chaos”
Uncontrolled climate misinformation is turning the crisis into a disaster, according to the authors of a new report.
Climate action has been found to be hampered and delayed by false and misleading information coming from fossil fuel companies, right-wing politicians and some nation states. The report, by the International Commission on the Information Environment (IPIE), systematically reviewed 300 studies.
The researchers found that denial by some about climate change has evolved into campaigns focused on discrediting solutions, such as false claims that renewables caused the recent massive power outage in Spain.
Online bots and trolls greatly amplify false narratives, researchers say, playing a key role in promoting climate lies. Experts also say that political leaders, civil servants and regulators are increasingly being targeted in order to delay climate action.
Climate disinformation – the term used in the report for both intentional and unintentional false information – is a growing concern. Last Thursday, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Climate Change, Elisa Morgera, called for the criminalization of disinformation. On Saturday, Brazil, which will host the upcoming climate summit (Cop30), will rally nations behind a separate UN initiative to fight climate disinformation.
(Emphasis added)
called for the criminalization of disinformation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is one of the first impressions I had after researching AGW for a few weeks in 2009. In some ways that impression hasn’t changed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtzsppbWkAARrmS?format=jpg&name=large
crescokid wrote:
This is one of the first impressions I had after researching AGW for a few weeks in 2009. In some ways that impression hasn’t changed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtzsppbWkAARrmS?format=jpg&name=large
I have never seen you express any scientific acumen here whatsoever, or demonstrate any awareness of what the actual science is.
Therefore your opinion on the science is irrelevant.
02
I have had to school you repeatedly over the years what the literature says. All you have are 8th grade equations. When are you going to start reading the climate science studies. You have a lot of catching up to do.
cerescokid wrote:
I have had to school you repeatedly over the years what the literature says.
I don’t recall any such thing, only junk denial.
The idea that you’re some kind of expert is beyond laughable. You’re even afraid to comment under your real name!
cerescokid: didn’t you recently try to claim that global warming was over because this year is cooler than last year?
Yes, I think you did.
US Dietary Guidelines (USD & USDA) have been revised from recommending that adults limit daily alcohol intake from not more than 1 drink for women & 2 for men to simply use your own judgment. If the goal is coming up with recommendations that are a bit more down to earth, how about adding, e.g., and feel free to enjoy a few drinks while toasting marshmallows over a wood beach fire… plants will love the CO2 you’re liberating!
Hurricanes have hit Mexico 16 times prior to July over the past 75 years and a few were Cat 2 but yesterday’s hurricane that hit Mexico brought on breathless news of global warming alarmism due to humanity’s release of CO2 because it was the first Cat. 3 in the last 75 years! Absolutely but, that’s a politicized narrative because ‘the official record’ only goes back 75 years. However, reconstructing the past– it has long been speculated based on historical evidence that that major hurricanes have impacted the South American region and pre-Columbian civilizations prior to the more recent official ‘instrument’ record.
Quite a few studies conclude that hurricane intensity will increase due to climate change. quitely Buried in many of those studies, is the caveat that after adjusting for observational deficiencies, there is no trend over the last 150 years. Activists however like to use truncated data sets starting in the mid 1900’s to bolster the evidence.
There’s more than Li ion batteries for storage. And, anybody with more than passing knowledge doesn’t deny the additional costs. Like I said, the calculations have already been done. Are they perfect? Of course not, they are estimates that list their assumptions and define range of applicability.
I’m always pleased to share useful information from the national lab where I did my research for 35 years.
https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/esgc-cost-performance/lcos-estimates
Includes worksheets and workbook downloads for those that might need to do their own assessments.
You might find the list of facilities and centers operated (button at top) interesting.
Bab your simple math is off by a factor of 10x,
If you had any concept of the subject – you would know why your error is so big
I knew why, and pointed it out; CM made an arithmetic error (not completing his story problem division). Jojo is too stupid to understand and claims I made the mistake. LMAO
Please keep up your little-boy attacks on subjects that are above you – very illuminating.
All large scale storage should be compared to a million tons of coal in the yard of a 2 unit HELE station. The costs on that are known.
That coal would cost about $100M and provide 280GWh if my maths is correct. That seems very cheap and reliable compared to the others.
Maybe, if all you choose to compare, and care about, is money. But if one makes money the only factor of import, then the economics of nascent technologies with widespread growth and adoption should be understood. One can expect improved performance and dramatically decreased costs, e.g., flat panel TVs, solar panels, and windmills.
NO BAB I care about reliable dispatchable power to meet the demand at minimum long term economic cost. You don’t. They have been promising for 40 years that price of wind will go down. It hasn’t.
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
That doesn’t sound like such a deal for a pile of coal in a stockyard when typical delivered electricity runs $30 – $50/MWh.
If you can’t do the math and check your answer for agreement with reality, not really much point in paying attention.
Thanks anyway, Chris.
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
That doesn’t sound like such a deal for a pile of coal in a stockyard when typical delivered electricity runs $30 – $50/MWh.
If you can’t do the math and check your answer for agreement with reality, not really much point in paying attention.”
Chris – Bab is getting humorous.
A – Bab is off by a factor of 10x-20x
B – Lots of data on the subject that should have alerted Bab to his math error
C – In the real world, people cross check their math
D – Someone familiar would have recognized why their math was off – But not Bab.
E – the humorous part is that he is condemning your math even though he is off by at least 10x and likely closer to being off by 20x.
Here is my maths
Coal delivered seems to be about $100 a tonne for thermal coal
Coal is 25MJ/kg so 25GJ/t. HELE 40% efficient so 10GJ/t
Convert GJ to GWh – divide by 3600
Multiply by the million ton
2.78 TWh so I was out by an order of magnitude (always a risk when no one there to check your calcs and in a hurry), but it is a lot more storage that any battery can provide
That makes the fuel costs of the power about $36/MWh
And the counter to this is what is the cost of the alternatives to provide 2.78TWh of storage at a discharge rate of about 1GW for use say once a year. Remember pumped storage and batteries need to buy their power so the cost of building the additional generation to supply it and purchase of electricity needs to be included.
CM comment – “Remember pumped storage and batteries need to buy their power so the cost of building the additional generation to supply it and purchase of electricity needs to be included.”
Yes the cost of duplication and redundancy needs to be included
JoJo. Those are Chris’ numbers. I only did the simple division that he didn’t do, and put into normally used cost units.
What do you get when you divide $100,000,000 (100M) by 280,000 MWh (same as 280 GWh)? $357.24.
You’re just a fool with your hand in your pants. Stop it!
Jojo: “Remember pumped storage and batteries need to buy their power so the cost of building the additional generation to supply it and purchase of electricity needs to be included.”
Talk about cherry-picking. They also “sell” it at times of high demand, probably at a profit. Not to mention reducing demand on FF fired resources at those peak times.
The desperation (and lack of intellect) are palpable.
Yep. I stuffed up. I put my hand up admitting my mistake. I then gave my workings using the correct numbers which actually made my case a lot better.
I note that near everything BAB ever proposes never puts the actual costs there. But that is par for the course for someone without real world work experience in the industry. I doubt he has ever been in a power plant except as a gawping visitor.
Chris, I don’t care about your CYA details. Bottom line, you basically gave your result: $100M of coal yields 280 GWh; that corresponds to $357.14/MWh. You are the one that made the factor of 10 error; not only sloppy, but it lets that boner guy, Jojo, blame me for your mistake. Although, it is fun to see him get it exactly backwards, and find that all the faults he applies to me, are actually being applied to you. Perhaps you’d like to answer that.
CM: “I note that near everything BAB ever proposes never puts the actual costs there. But that is par for the course for someone without real world work experience in the industry. I doubt he has ever been in a power plant except as a gawping visitor.”
Are you proud of that ad hominem attack? My sympathies, the emotional stress must be difficult.
Here is my latest contribution that doesn’t include costs (LMAO):
https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/esgc-cost-performance/lcos-estimates
BAB
That link is just a spreadsheet where you have to enter all your project costs. No different to the ones most power companies use. Where are actual costs based on existing projects that have been completed in last 5 years?
B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 12:03 am |
Maybe, if all you choose to compare, and care about, is money.
…
There is a reasonable case that money was a device invented to measure the value of goods and services in more quantitative ways than barter allowed.
It is a personal choice to extend its complexity to include human emotion like “care” and “evil”.
Quite useful results can be obtained when money as a measurement is applied to the cost of national scale electricity. Less useful results happen, predictably and as shown many times, when cherry picking and other special pleadings are wrongfully included in the analysis.
Geoff S
“ There is a reasonable case that money was a device invented to measure the value of goods and services in more quantitative ways than barter allowed.”
I highly recommend reading Terry Pratchet’s novel ‘Making Money’ for a very funny satire on the invention of money.
B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 5:20 pm |
Chris, I don’t care about your CYA details. Bottom line, you basically gave your result: $100M of coal yields 280 GWh; that corresponds to $357.14/MWh. You are the one that made the factor of 10 error; not only sloppy, but it lets that boner guy, Jojo, blame me for your mistake.
Baby
Since you have shown that you are way out of your depth – I will give you a hint – the $357 is about 10x of the fuel costs in the lcoe studies you have linked.
people with actual knowldge would have picked on that mistake
Jojo, I did catch the error and jumped on it. As CM has already admitted, it was his mistake, so all the nasties you said about me actually apply to CM. I would think you owe us both an apology.
CM, No, they also present the results of those spreadsheets for a variety of storage options for years 2023 and 2030. What do you think the basis for developing those spreadsheets was, other than past data? Do you not understand the purpose of estimation and projection software? Apparently not – you might ask PE.
B A Bushaw | June 23, 2025 at 5:52 pm |
Jojo, I did catch the error and jumped on it. As CM has already admitted, it was his mistake, so all the nasties you said about me actually apply to CM. I would think you owe us both an apology.
CM & I will gladly accept your appology
CM cost was $28 mwh
Chris Morris | June 20, 2025 at 11:48 pm |
That coal would cost about $100M and provide 280GWh if my maths is correct. That seems very cheap and reliable compared to the others.
B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
Chris finds his error & corrects his error
Chris Morris | June 21, 2025 at 3:58 pm |
That makes the fuel costs of the power about $36/MWh
That agrees with Lazards fuel cost comp along with most everyone else computing lcoe within 5% or so
You are still fixed on you $357
so here is my apology – I am sorry that you are out of your depth. Quite being a prick
Bush baby
CM admitted his original estimate of $28mwh should have been $36mwh, a relatively minor correction/error.
your math was $357 mwh.
I said you were off by a factor of 10x, you double down, tripled down, scored own goal, etc.
lazards and others computing lcoe have the fuel costs in the $35 range.
the only apologies CM or I can give you is we are sorry you are too arrogant to understand
Two initial major mistakes creating the average surface temperatures mistaken estimations
1). The first mistake is that It is asserted that planet or moon absorbs the incident solar flux ( lessened by Albedo ).
And that the total solar energy absorbed is referenced to the planetary cross-sectional disk of the same radius.
En absorbed = ( 1 – a ) S W/m² – on 1 m² of the cross-sectional disk.
Total En absorbed = π r² ( 1 – a ) S W – on the entire cross-sectional disk of radius r.
The first mistake is that a smooth surface planet or moon has a strong specular reflection constituent, which is not included in the diffuse reflection ( Albedo ) measurements, thus it is still ignored in planets’ and moons’ average surface temperatures estimation !
Thus for the smooth surface planets and moons ( Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa and Ganymede ) the Total absorbed En is overestimated when the planetary radiative energy balance estimation.
For smooth surface planets and moons the
Total En absorbed = Φ π r² ( 1 – a ) S W – where Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, and Φ = 1 for rough surface planets and moons.
We explain about the “Φ” in every detail in our site.
2). The second mistake is that it is asserted that a planet or moon, no matter how fast it rotates absorbs the same amount of solar energy.
But planets and moons, what they do is to interact with incident solar flux. When surface is solar irradiated the next three processes occur:
1. Reflection (Diffuse and Specular).
2. Immediate IR emission, which depends on the Rotational Warming Phenomenon. ( The higher the planet’s or moon’s – N*cp – product the smaller is the immediate IR emission).
3. Heat absorption in inner layers, which also depends on the Rotational Warming Phenomenon. ( The higher the planet’s or moon’s N*cp product the HIGHER is the HEAT ABSORPTION ).
The second mistake is that the Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not included in planets’ and moons’ average surface temperatures estimation, because it is still ignored. Because it is not yet aknowledged !
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Roy Spencer acknowledged it, and calculated it almost a decade ago. And you know it. Nobody really cares, it is pseudoscience that can’t be tested. Nonetheless:
“Total En absorbed = Φ π r² ( 1 – a ) S W – where Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets and moons, and Φ = 1 for rough surface planets and moons.”
That “either/or” choice does not conform to common sense nor reality – at bare minimum, it should be a continuous function. Not to mention that it is also already included in the (measured) Bond albedo, a.
B A,
“Dr. Roy Spencer acknowledged it, and calculated it almost a decade ago. And you know it. Nobody really cares, it is pseudoscience that can’t be tested.”
–
A reference to a source please…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sure, even though you are already aware of it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
“boom”
B A,
“it should be a continuous function. ”
Yes, it is a continuous function. This function is not linear.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m glad you understand at least one of the many fallacies in your hypothesis that make it unscientific and worthless.
B A,
” it should be a continuous function”
–
Of course it is a continuous function. This function is not linear..
It is a function depending on the spherical shape, and also depending on surface’s roughness.
From some smoothness on, it is the spherical shape the dominant, the decisive factor.
The more smoothness doesn’t change that.
From some roughness on, the spherical shape is not the dominant, is not the decisive factor.
The more roughness doesn’t change that.
Also there is a roughness levels area where the shape is not the dominant factor, but still plays some role.
Thus the function is not linear – the function is denser towards the spherical shape dominance, and towards the surface roughness dominance.
And the function is rare in between.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A,
“Not to mention that it is also already included in the (measured) Bond albedo, a.”
–
No, it is not included in the measured albedo. The measured albedo is the diffusely reflected solar energy. The Bond albedo reffers to the Total reflected solar energy (diffusely and specularly).
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, it is included in the measured Bond albedo. You have been taught this several times. The willful ignorance is spectacular:
“Astronomical Albedo
In astronomy, albedo describes the reflectivity of celestial bodies, including planets, moons, asteroids, and comets. There are two main types of albedo used in this context:
Geometric Albedo: This measures the brightness of a celestial object when illuminated directly by the Sun as seen from the observer’s location. It assumes the body reflects light uniformly in all directions.
Bond Albedo: This represents the total fraction of sunlight that is reflected by an astronomical object in all directions. It is a more comprehensive measure of an object’s energy reflection and is critical in determining its thermal equilibrium.”
https://sciencenotes.org/albedo-in-science-definition-values-importance/
Experimental Bond albedo is generally determined by integrating the measured geometric albedo over all wavelengths and phase angles, which inherently includes all of both diffuse and specular reflections.
B A, here it is what is important:
NASA Technical Memorandum
An Earth Albedo Model
A Mathematical
104596
Model for the Radiant
Energy Input to an Orbiting Spacecraft
Due to the Diffuse Reflectance
of Solar Radiation
From the Earth Below
Thomas W. Flatley and Wendy A. Moore
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
1994
Link:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
Albedo
“With specular reflection (as commonly occurs with mirrored surfaces) some or all
of the incoming solar rays are reflected with the angle of reflection equal to the
angle of incidence. Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even
an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.”
(Emphasis added)
“This incoming solar flux is partially absorbed and partially reflected. The
amount of light reflected is proportional to the incident light by an albedo
constant, ALB, which depends on the Earth’s surface characteristics.
(See Appendix II.) This model assumes that the albedo constant does not vary over the Earth’s surface, neglecting the variation of diffuse reflectance with geographical features. the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3.”
(Emphasis added)
“Conclusions
This simplified albedo model was developed for use in spacecraft control system
simulations, specifically, for modeling Coarse Sun Sensors. It is based on
several approximations. Only diffuse reflectance is included; specular
reflectance is neglected. For an elliptical orbit, the unit vectors associated with
the incremental areas should change direction with altitude; instead, this
algorithm assumes a circular orbit. The albedo constant is set to the annual
global average for the entire Earth; Appendix II illustrates how the percentage of light reflected truly varies with geographical features. The Earth is considered a perfect sphere which does not rotate; it was unnecessary to model rotation since the albedo constant was not varied.”
(Emphasis added).
–
No, it is not important. It deals with geometric albedo, does not include specular reflection, nor Bond albedo.
If it were important, there would be a published paper instead of only a “report”.
It was not important in 1994 when it was written, because they neglected specular reflection as insignificant.
The annual albedo was in 1994 the known ( a =0,3 ).
So the a =0,3 is not Earth’s Bond Albedo.
cv wrote:
It was not important in 1994 when it was written, because they neglected specular reflection as insignificant.
why isn’t specular reflection radiation cancelled out by points near it?
David,
“cv wrote:
It was not important in 1994 when it was written, because they neglected specular reflection as insignificant.
why isn’t specular reflection radiation cancelled out by points near it?”
–
Yes, David, at infinitesimal level the reflection is always specular. And yes, some is cancelled out by getting re-mirrored on the surrounding points…
Please, David, for more on the subject visit my site.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Yes, David, at infinitesimal level the reflection is always specular. And yes, some is cancelled out by getting re-mirrored on the surrounding points…
Please, David, for more on the subject visit my site.
I’m not going to your site. You made a claim here, you can explain it here.
David, I have already explained everything here. But if you need more explanations you always may visit my site.
Do you need more explanations, David?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You modified one of your “direct” quotes, the part in bold:
“A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3.”
That is unethical, and yes, that is the Bond albedo that is derived from actual measurements.
Modified by deleting the part in bold.
“You modified one of your “direct” quotes, the part in bold:
“A good estimate of the Earth’s annual average albedo constant is 0.3.”
Thank you, B A, for the important correction.
Actually I didn’t modified (deleted) the part in bold. The least I needed is to be accused “that is unethical”, among many other things.
First thing I did was to correct the flaw in my site. So I copy-pasted the entire paragraph, to make the necessary change in the site.
In my amazment the part in bold you mentioned didn’t paste in. It was strange, so I copied the paragraph from the memorandum again.
The part A good estimate of actually didn’t get copied. That explains why it is not get pasted.
From now on I will be much more careful when copy-pasting the old papers.
Thank you again, B A. You are a good friend.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
More important is to read and understand the work [at least the text and figure portions] including, for instance:
“Here, we consider the sunlit po[r]tion of the Earth to be a uniform, diffuse reflector and will use the word “albedo” in a limited sense, i.e. the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface.”
That is, before making a “cut and paste”, and then misrepresenting it.
Next, ask yourself why a “Technical memorandum” never became a literature publication if it is important, as you claim. To be sure that I didn’t miss one, this leads to a check on the author (Researchgate): one finds he was at NASA, but has never been a first author, and has only coauthored 3, all on pointing actuators.
Thank you, B A.
I said it is an important article, because it says NASA considers:
“the albedo constant will be taken to be the ratio of the energy diffusely radiated from a surface to the total energy incident on the surface”
IEmphasis added)
So the article is important proving NASA considers planetary specular reflection insignificant.
The memorandum authors at 1994 didn’t publish in the literature, because they thought it was a memorandum – they didn’t consider it important. Also, they were absolutely sure about the definition of planetary albedo they used.
–
Christos,
It was kind of like your hypothesis: oversimplified so much that it was worthless, and nobody was interested. Difference is they admit it.
“Since a spacecraft would receive very little energy from even
an entire Earth which was specularly reflecting this type of reflection is ignored here.””
Link:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19940020024/downloads/19940020024.pdf
B A,
“Christos,
It was kind of like your hypothesis: oversimplified so much that it was worthless, and nobody was interested. Difference is they admit it.”
–
But I didn’t ignore specular reflection – quite the opposite – I insist on the specular reflection!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
An interesting thing about any sort of serious storage, it can pay for itself through arbitrage.
Another interesting thing about battery storage is its fairly wide use for reactive grid stabilization;. quite different from “save for rainy days.” Too expensive for underutilized large gap storage? – probably true, and largely a straw man – there are better types for that, e.g., pumped storage.
https://smartwatermagazine.com/news/nrel/researchers-map-out-possible-new-pumped-storage-sites-us
Be sure to calculate in all the relevant costs. Yes, there have been reports of lithium-ion batteries catching fire and causing damage to homes.
We have spent trillions on this nonsense…and for what? To get unreliable and expensive energy? This video highlights how nonsensical the science is that has supported these public policies. We could have cured cancer, but instead we poured fortunes down the green rat hole trying to make a select sanctimonious group feel better about themselves. The more money we spent, the higher atmospheric CO2 went. That should tell everyone that what we are doing isn’t m working.
This video uses MODTRAN to make the points of this article.
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
Facts are, the oceans are warming. Backradiation from CO2 won’t warm the oceans. The oceans control the climate. What warms the oceans warms the climate. It is that simple.
What warms the oceans? Incoming shortwave visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 Microns. What blocks those warming rays? Clouds. Remove clouds and you get more warming. It is that simple and supported by the evidence.
Once again, this video explains it in excruciating detail.
https://app.screencast.com/lEzV7u9cJugzc
Largest US Power Grid Issues Emergency Energy Alerts
PJM Interconnection, which manages the electricity system serving 67 million people in 13 states and the District of Columbia, issued emergency energy alerts amid expectations that hot summer weather will drive up power demand, the company said in a June 22 update.
The 13 states are Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
PJM issued two alerts: a maximum generation alert and a load management alert.
“PJM issues a Maximum Generation Emergency Alert a day in advance of conditions that may require all generators to operate at their maximum output capability,” the update states. “This alert does not require any action from customers.”
PJM said the generation alert is directed at transmission and generation owners, who then determine whether any maintenance or equipment testing can be deferred or canceled. By deferring maintenance, “the units stay online and continue to produce energy that is needed,” PJM stated.
The alert also acts as a notification for neighboring regions receiving electricity from PJM-covered areas that such exports could be curtailed.
Christos, please explain phase integrals and how Bond albedo is measured.
“Christos, please explain phase integrals and how Bond albedo is measured.”
Bond Albedo is not Albedo. It is the definition of the Total reflected to the Total incident solar energy ratio. What is measured is the diffuse reflection, because we see objects in the diffuse light.
Every infinitesimal spot reflects light in some direction specularly, we do not se the every infinitesimal spot, what we see is the spherical surface and we receiving the light as diffuse reflection.
What is measured as Bond albedo is the average illuminated surface diffuse reflection to the incident solar light ratio – only.
And it is measured very well so far. But it is mistakenly called Bond albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More correctly:
What is measured as Bond albedo is the Total diffuse reflection to the Total incident solar light ratio, wich Total incident solar light falls perpendicularly to the planetary cross-section disk.
And it is measured very well so far. But it is mistakenly called Bond albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Joe K. said:
“joe k | June 21, 2025 at 8:30 pm |
Bab your simple math is off by a factor of 10x,
If you had any concept of the subject – you would know why your error is so big”
I know why my error was so big; because it used CM’s starting values, which I knew were wrong. It is not my fault that I needed to finish his calculation to make his mistake apparent.
If you had any concept of the subject – you would understand this and accept CM’s description of it:
Chris Morris | June 21, 2025 at 5:04 pm |
Yep. I stuffed up. I put my hand up admitting my mistake. I then gave my workings using the correct numbers which actually made my case a lot better.
Maybe you should be putting up your hand up too, Jojo. Fat chance. Chris corrected his mistake – you should try it.
Dude – baby dude
Chris admitted his error – he corrected the $28 to $36. I fully accept Chris’ correction – off by a factor of 20%. both Chris and I are in reasonable agreement.
You are still at $357 which is off by a factor of 1,000% –
No – you did not use CM’s number
No – you completely misrepresent CM’s acknowledgement of his correction.
CM’s corrected number of $36 doesnt agree with your erroneous computation of $357.
Cross check your math
Cross check your results against lazards lcoe
Bottom line – you are too busy insulting everyone and lying to catch your obvious error.
Jojo, like CM, you have “stuffed up”. Unlike CM, you are not able to admit your mistake and be quiet thereafter. nlm.
Baby – how about replying to my most recent comment
Joe K | June 27, 2025 at 8:11 am |
B A Bushaw | June 26, 2025 at 8:19 pm |
JoJo, It was so far out of line because I used CM’s values for input. Sad that you don’t comprehend.”
I fully comprehend that you changed your story when you got caught
Previously you defended the $357 as correct several times. .
Changing your story when you got caught highlights your ethical lapses.
I will add that
A- you did not use CM numbers – you changed your story after you got caught
B – CM corrected his number from $28 to $36, a relatively minor correction.
C – you continued to assert that your $357 was correct
D – Once you finally realized the $357 was dead wrong, you changed your story to say you were using CM’s numbers.
Neither of your two “alibis” are valid
B A Bushaw | June 27, 2025 at 10:28 am |
Jojo, like CM, you have “stuffed up”. Unlike CM, you are not able to admit your mistake and be quiet thereafter. nlm.
I didnt make a mistake – I caught your mistake and caught your bogus alibi’s
Jojo: ” Baby – how about replying to my most recent comment”
OK
Joe K | June 27, 2025 at 8:11 am |
B A Bushaw | June 26, 2025 at 8:19 pm |
JoJo, It was so far out of line because I used CM’s values for input. Sad that you don’t comprehend.”
I fully comprehend that you changed your story when you got caught
Previously you defended the $357 as correct several times. .
It’s $357/MWh. I don’t to defend it, it is fact and I stand by it:
“Chris Morris | June 20, 2025 at 11:48 pm |
That coal would cost about $100M and provide 280GWh if my maths is correct. That seems very cheap and reliable compared to the others.
B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh”
His (unshown) math was incorrect, and the result did not seem “very cheap” to me. My arithmetic is correct, from the beginning.
Changing your story when you got caught highlights your ethical lapses.
I haven’t changed my story; You are either a lying ass or totally incompetent
Beyond that, I don’t see any point in responding further to the demonstrably false fabrications that you repeat incessantly.
Jojo, Your turn – how about you answer my question:
B A Bushaw | June 25, 2025 at 6:58 pm | Reply
What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh; CM’s initial values, which he admits are wrong? Does Jojo even know how to divide? It seems not.
BAby you lack any ability to comprehend
The lcoe for coal is around $75-$80mwh which includes capital and other costs. How do you get costs of $357mwh for only the fuel costs? (fyi – the fuel costs are basically the same of the cost of storage of coal)
What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh?. Division beyond Jojo the child?
B A Bushaw | June 27, 2025 at 2:38 pm |
What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh?. Division beyond Jojo the child?
Knowing division is not the problem
Its knowing when you are using a bad numerator. Your insanely high number of $357mwh should have alerted you.
Jojo,
Your problem is that denominator and numerator were supplied by Chris Morris, not me. That ,and you can’t admit your mistakes, much less understand them.
Marriage counselor here!
Joe K probably shouldnt be rubbing it in so much.
Though its pretty clear from Mr. Bushaw’s comment on June 21 at 2:22pm that Bushaw thought that the $357 per Mwh was an accurate reflection of the cost of coal.
B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
That doesn’t sound like such a deal for a pile of coal in a stockyard when typical delivered electricity runs $30 – $50/MWh.
Looks like it was several comments later from Mr Bushaw before he realized his own error.
Starkey,
You are even stupider than Jojo. You, like him, don’t realize that the numbers below are Chris Morris’. But, it’s clear you like to make a fool of yourself.
Why don’t you quote CM where, after I finished his calculation for him, he admitted that he “stuffed up” and gave the wrong numbers? I forced him to redo his calculation and get the right answer.
“B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh”
His (unshown) math was incorrect, and the result did not seem “very cheap” to me. My arithmetic is correct, from the beginning.”
Feel good about your lack of comprehension, that is just as bad as Jojos?
M Starkely,
Why did you leave this out of my comment that you pretended to reference:
“His (unshown) math was incorrect, and the result did not seem “very cheap” to me. My arithmetic is correct, from the beginning.”
You cherry-picked and left it out because it would prove all your claims wrong. Talk about unethical jerks, you and Jojo make quite a pair, not to mention suffering from extreme DKE.
Confronted with his direct quote – Bushbaby denies he stated and defended the $357mwh was the actual cost.
Was your direct quote not good enough?
Jojo,
No, I was the one that presented my complete comment. MS cut off the text part. And you are an FR.
Very insightful comment from Baby – though not insightful in the way baby means.
B A Bushaw | June 24, 2025 at 10:16 am | Reply
“I know why my error was so big; because it used CM’s starting values, which I knew were wrong. It is not my fault that I needed to finish his calculation to make his mistake apparent.”
Baby changed his explanation for his error after getting exposed. Its been common theme from Bab when his errors are exposed. Often known as Ethical lapses.
Yes, CM corrected his error, because I pointed it out by finishing his calculation – correctly for CM’s given values..
Your willful ignorance when presented with the truth, and the evidence for it. Crack me up, little boy.
Chris Morris: why so quiet? What do you think of Jojo’s assessment?
Baby
https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/
If you are correct then tells us why you number of $357mwh is out of line with lazards
JoJo, It was so far out of line because I used CM’s values for input. Sad that you don’t comprehend.
B A Bushaw | June 26, 2025 at 8:19 pm |
JoJo, It was so far out of line because I used CM’s values for input. Sad that you don’t comprehend.”
I fully comprehend that you changed your story when you got caught
Previously you defended the $357 as correct.
Changing your story when you got caught highlights your ethical lapses.
Baby –
yes CM admitted he was wrong – $36mwh not $28mwh
You still insist on $357mwh.
you are still off 10x
Correction – Baby started with the first number from CM, then screwed up the math. –
CM got to the correct final number
JK got to the correct number
Lazards got to the correct number
EIA version of lcoe got to the correct number
(correct number = within a reasonable estimate )
Baby is still doesnt understand why he is off by a factor of 10
What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh; CM’s initial values, which he admits are wrong? Does Jojo even know how to divide? It seems not.
The Left wants to remake America. Mostly we hear about the instances of someone trying to break into America for a better life and not about the public school teachers of Western academia managing to break America. And yet, the Left continues to use mathematical models to indulge the fiction that Americanism is the problem in the world.
The real truth is that a change in a mythical average global temperature is wholly irrelevant to humanity. It is changes in equator-to-pole temperature differences (especially during the summer) that have real meaning, to us, as for example occurs due to changes in Arctic insolation (which can trigger glacial initiation), e.g., the end to global warming and beginning of global cooling. It’s all happened before and it’ll all happen again.
After reading the series of posts on ice ages at Science of Doom, I’m convinced that new glacial epochs aren’t triggered by changes in insolation at high latitudes caused by Milankovitch cycles, for example. There’s a rapid rise in temperature at the beginning of an interglacial period. The temperature peaks and then slowly decays. When it gets low enough, continental ice caps start to form and increase until something triggers a new interglacial period.
That trigger used to be closely linked to the Milankovitch 41,000 year obliquity cycle. That hasn’t been true for the last several cycles, which have lasted well over 100,000 years. There is an orbital eccentricity cycle of about that length, but it doesn’t cause much change in latitudinal Insolation and isn’t closely synced to the recent series of glaciations.
The million year global temperature average has been decreasing since about the time the Isthmus of Panama closed. Lack of longitudinal oceanic circulation has been associated with ice house climates in the deep past. I haven’t seen a convincing explanation for what now causes glaciations to end. The argument that the current interglacial will last for 50,000 years because the current Milankovitch cycles are weak is not convincing to me.
‘Western education about science and especially the environment assumes uniformitarianism. This is the concept that change is gradual over long periods of time. In fact, significant change occurs all the time. For example, the orbit of the earth changes every single year primarily because of the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter, a scientific fact we have known for approximately 150 years, yet until recently most school texts said the orbit was a fixed unchanging slightly elliptical orbit. Similarly, few people are aware that four temperature trend changes have occurred since 1900. The world warmed from 1900 to 1940, cooled from 1942 to 1980, warmth from 1980 to 2000 and has cooled from 2000 to the present.’ ~Dr. Tim Ball
That was the facts as of ~13 years ago and, it has warmed since then…
You’re projecting.
Wagathon:
Dr. Tim Ball is incorrect.
A plot of HadCRUT5.0 temperatures with temporary events (El Ninos, La Ninas, and volcanic eruption) excluded shows NO temperature decrease since 1980
The APS noted in 2014 that, ‘While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…’
Wagathon wrote:
The APS noted in 2014 that, ‘While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…’
Hmm:
https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2024/
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/climate-data-records/global-ocean-heat-content
burlhenry wrote:
A plot of HadCRUT5.0 temperatures with temporary events (El Ninos, La Ninas, and volcanic eruption) excluded shows NO temperature decrease since 1980
Link to that plot?
DeWitt Payne:
David Appell had challenged me to explain the 6 C warmup from about 23,000 BCE and 11,000 BCE.
It turned out that the Ice Age temperatures were due to extensive large volcanic eruptions, and the temperature rise was due to a near cessation in volcanic activity.
See my reply to him on 6-22-25.
This undoubtedly is the explanation for all of the Ice Ages.
burlhenry wrote:
It turned out that the Ice Age temperatures were due to extensive large volcanic eruptions, and the temperature rise was due to a near cessation in volcanic activity.
So these hypothetical large volcanic eruptions first cooled the climate, then as their SO2 dissipated from the atmosphere the temperature rose.
How did the temperature ever get above the pre-eruption level? That would violate conservation of energy.
PS: where’s your answer on looking for the evidence of CO2’s warming? You gonna ignore that question? You usually do.
Wagathon:
Rather dated data!
The “last 15 years” would have been 1999.
Try your math again.
There is a great mistake considering Milankovitch prognosis of orbitally forced cooling pattern.
Because it is wrongly believed that Earth should be cooling right now, but instead it gets warmer due to fossil fuels burning.
This wrong assertion is based on mistaken prognosis Milankovitch did.
Also it is based on an overestimation of the trace gas CO2 role as greenhouse gas. It is so smal – it is like it doesn’t exist!
–
Those two mistakes are what created the catastrophic climate warming doomsday narrative!
–
People are so much terryfied – they capture CO2 and pupming it in the old mines under the sea bottom.
–
CO2 is the plants’ food. By fossil fuels burning we help the planetary ecology to flourish again!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos:
No, the the world is not getting warmer because of fossil fuel burning.
It is getting warmer because of the removal of the SO2 aerosol pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
It is inevitable, the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!
burlhenry:
Not only the aerosol pollution, but also the dust pollution!
Till early 70s every plant was dusting atmosphere as a small volcano.
There are powerful filters implemented everywhere since, thanks to the strictest restrictions!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There are various periods of ups and downs along the way but Dr. Ball prognosticated that by at least 2040 it will be clear that we have been going through a cooling period.
Interesting to note given the recent move in the US to a revival of the clean coal power industry.
I will believe the planet is cooling or has at least stopped warming when global sea ice area, Arctic plus Antarctic, increases or stops decreasing instead of the relative steady decreased observed for the last several decades.
That’s the kind of thinking that in the not too distant past resulted in mind-boggling bordering on surreal life stories of intrepid explorers being trapped in the ice looking for a Northwest passage…
Wagathon wrote:
There are various periods of ups and downs along the way but Dr. Ball prognosticated that by at least 2040 it will be clear that we have been going through a cooling period.
When did he say this?
Interesting to note given the recent move in the US to a revival of the clean coal power industry.
What is this new substance called “clean coal?”
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/11/clearing-up-the-facts-behind-trumps-clean-coal-catchphrase/
As you should well know, clean coal refers to the burning process, not the coal itself.
Dewit – did you expect apple to know that?
Christos Vournas wrote:
Also it is based on an overestimation of the trace gas CO2 role as greenhouse gas. It is so smal – it is like it doesn’t exist!
What’s the proof of this?
—
In the ozone layer of Earth’s atmosphere, ozone’s concentration is less than 10 ppm. Maximum.
But without it we’d all be dead.
Trace gases don’t matter??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
David, from the reference you provided:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[3] Its properties were explored in detail by the British meteorologist G. M. B. Dobson, who developed a simple spectrophotometer (the Dobsonmeter) that could be used to measure stratospheric ozone from the ground. Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The “Dobson unit” (DU), a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.
The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.[4]”
(Emphasis added)
is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body
But sun is actually does not not emit as a perfect black body.
Ozone does not absorb what is not emitted!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But sun is actually does not not emit as a perfect black body.
What does this have to do with ozone’s impact?
Ozone is only 10 ppm max yet without it life on the surface would be impossible.
So tell me again that trace gases can have no effect.
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. “
–
So they took the “the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,230–5,730 °C)”.
Then they measured on surface the solar radiation line-by-line and “there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum.”
So… “ It was deducedthat the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. ”
It was a myth.
That myth has been repeated for a century again and again, the deduced conclusion about the ozone layer protecting life from radiation it absorbs.
Then it was further deduced the CO2’s ~ 400 ppm should also play a significant role in warming Earth’s surface.
And the myth continues…
It is the year 2025 now, and you still arguing:
“Ozone is only 10 ppm max yet without it life on the surface would be impossible.
So tell me again that trace gases can have no effect.”
–
The 10 ppm max ozone doesn’t absorb anything.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos, if you expect me to take you at all seriously on ozone you have not been paying attention.
you have zero credibility with me. You say absurd things. You put fudge factors into equations. you think you know better than all the world’s scientists.
i can only laugh at your dunning krugerism.
The 10 ppm max ozone doesn’t absorb anything.
Is that what upsets you so much, David? You whould be better off if 10 ppm max ozone absorbed something?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
The 10 ppm max ozone doesn’t absorb anything.
What observational data says that? Specify it.
Andrew Dessler: “where do climate models go for their apology”
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewdessler.com/post/3lrew2zo7dc2r
Dessler saying we’re far below CO2 doubling is somewhat of an exaggeration. The climate response to doubling should be logarithmic not linear. So we’re actually well over half way. Which means TCS is still within the confidence interval. And since the launch of the satellite intended to study aerosols failed, we probably don’t know how much they may have contributed to the temperature change.
DeWitt Payne wrote:
Dessler saying we’re far below CO2 doubling is somewhat of an exaggeration. The climate response to doubling should be logarithmic not linear.
No, you reasoning is incorrect.
delta(T)=lambda*delta(F)
lambda=ECS
F=forcing=constant*ln*(C/C0)
where C is CO2. C is increasing exponentially, so F is increasing linearly, so T is as well.
And that is indeed what’s observed. At least until feedbacks kick in, which may be happening now.
It’s the same reasoning for why the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics. It would be very surprising if the hockey stick WASN’T what’s observed.
I give up. I thought we were talking specifically about the doubling of CO2 compared to the preindustrial level that is indeed proportional to ln(2) as your equation shows. Moving the goal posts to how fast CO2 is increasing is deflecting. I see there is no point in further correspondence with you, much like most of the others here.
DeWitt Payne wrote:
I thought we were talking specifically about the doubling of CO2 compared to the preindustrial level that is indeed proportional to ln(2) as your equation shows.
I see you’re still confused.
FORCING CHANGE is proportional to ln(CO2), but CO2 is increasing exponentially.
Hence delta(F) is linear with CO2. Hence, so is global temperature change.
This is simple stuff. What is still confusing you?
First polar bears and now whales… victims of a warming planet that require urgent action to mitigate the effects of climate change like, what… curtail the use of natural gas in California homes, dedicate more land to windmills and subsidize the installation of more solar panels made in China and hold another global warming alarmist conclave in Monaco that Greta can sail to in a multi-million dollar yacht?
Wagathon,
” and subsidize the installation of more solar panels ”
–
To subsidize with what money? What is the total national debt worlwide?
Christos Vournas wrote:
To subsidize with what money? What is the total national debt worlwide?
Uh…do you mean nationwide (what nation?) or worldwide?
Grok v3 says global debt at the end of 2024 is around $324 trillion, about $100 T of which is government debt
That’s money spent on societies that bought health and better living standards and military defense and material gains.
Do you want to give your share back?
David,
“Grok v3 says global debt at the end of 2024 is around $324 trillion, about $100 T of which is government debt”
–
To whom we dept those $324 trillion ?
Christos, you didn’t say if you’re willing to give back your share of the debt.
I recently visited one of the farms near me pick you own spots and had an amazing experience! It’s great to harvest fresh fruits and veggies with family while supporting local agriculture. If you’re searching for a fun, healthy outdoor activity, definitely try one of the farms near me pick you own locations. So worth it!
Pingback: SCIENCE, CLIMATE, ENERGY AND POLITICAL NEWS ROUNDUP 2025 JUNE | wryheat
The famous quote, “Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man,” attributed to Aristotle or as some do, to the Jesuit St. Ignatius Loyola, is meant to convey the durability of what is learned in these formative years of life, e.g., explaining why I may be a Southern Calvary Baptist and not a Methodist or a Presbyterian or a Jew or a Muslim. So it goes with the undermining of truth in science beginning at a young age in public schools such as, coloring the white vapor coming out of a coal-fired power plant to make it look black as if it’s belching pollution.
‘Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see–germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion–a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing.’ ~Crichton
If you want to understand how ‘warmists’ think, begin with GCMs (Global Climate Models) — the warmists’ climate models are non-artists ways of ‘painting’ dark and menacing clouds to connote bad weather ahead. For example, the ‘hockey stick’ is like a landscape painted by someone with zero artistic ability. GCMs are really nothing more than propaganda using stick figures for the consumption of the talentless with cribbed views of a world that is better off without people enjoying the benefits of modernity.
Western civilization is spiraling down the Behavioral Sink just like Dr. John B. Calhoun’s rats. Sensory nervous system overload.
I thought these guys were the most oppressed people in the world, according to the ‘fake news’… Watch out Trump! Looks like Kim Jong-Un is coming for your new Viet Nam resort & hotel.
“North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un opens luxury beach resort with 54 hotels, cinema, beer pubs”
The Wonsan-Kalma coastal tourist zone has hotels and other accommodations for nearly 20,000 guests who can swim in the sea, engage in sports and recreation activities and eat at restaurants and cafeterias on site, state media said.
Free link: https://wapo.st/4kjlDYn
“Western civilization is spiraling down the Behavioral Sink just like Dr. John B. Calhoun’s rats.”
North Korea is the Lefts role model? Or China?
A proving ground appears on the horizon, free groceries in NYC coming soon! Free is the new black and white. Hopefully we survive the voice of naive enlightened Neo Dark Age intellectuals.
True, true they’re certainly our grounds for anyone who lives there saying NYC is spiraling down Calhoun’s rathole… Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare CEO, was shot in the back and killed outside the New York Hilton Midtown hotel in Manhattan… the one city in the world that would make a folk hero out of his killer.
Gordon G. Chang made said on X, “Scrape the paint off of most Iranian missiles and you will find a North Korean one.” He also referenced his book “Rogue Allies: The Strategic Partnership between Iran and North Korea” in the post. The Leftists of Western academia have been the rogue allies of every commie tin pot despot for years…
Wagathon wrote:
For example, the ‘hockey stick’ is like a landscape painted by someone with zero artistic ability.
As I’ve shown here many times, the hockey stick is required by basic laws of physics:
1. temperature change dT is proportional to forcing change dF.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to ln(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
before about 1850 C=C0 so F=constant so dT=0
after about 1850 C is increasing exponentially with time so dF=constant with time so delta(T)=constant with time so T increases linearly.
What about this do you not understand?
Wagathon wrote:
So it goes with the undermining of truth in science beginning at a young age in public schools such as, coloring the white vapor coming out of a coal-fired power plant to make it look black as if it’s belching pollution.
Where has this happened?
Wagathon:
Because of their close association with North Korea, I wonder why Iran never bought an atomic bomb and an ICBM from them. Perhaps they have!
North Korea somehow obtained funds to build a large resort city.
Apparently (according to AI) Some suggest holding the next climate-related conferences in North Korea, a country facing significant environmental challenges, could be a more appropriate setting than affluent locations like Monaco.
Arguments for North Korea… A conference could facilitate further dialogue and potential cooperation. North Korea’s participation in international environmental forums, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The only argument against is- it’s North Korea! If not, Monaco, Cancun would be much better… not to mention, the fact… eating in North Korea is like taking the food off out of starving people’s mouths (although, that’s pretty much what climate alarmists do everyday).
Wagathon.
I read that they were expecting 30,000 attendees at the August Rio conference, FAR too many for a small principality like Monaco, I would think,
Not sure- it’s not like participants pay for it out of their own pocket. COP28 (Nov/Dec’23) climate summit in Dubai had >80,000.
It only a deposit of $1M to become a citizen of Monaco. Trump says $5M to be a citizen in the US. Under Biden, it was any Tom, Dick or Ali… no charge.
Wagathon wrote:
It only a deposit of $1M to become a citizen of Monaco. Trump says $5M to be a citizen in the US. Under Biden, it was any Tom, Dick or Ali… no charge.
Odd you want to sell US citizenship, since it was immigrants who built America. And are today doing vital jobs that Americans won’t do.
What are you so afraid of?
Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the US Constitution. You opposed to the Constitution?
Did you ancestors come here legally?
This graph reminded me of the quote by Churchill
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the bounty. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.”
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/06/06/62E80841-5E75-4765-B14F-890113189740/IMG_9858.jpeg
Try again
https://x.com/simongerman600/status/958740428756586496/photo/1
The candidate for NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani just said he doesn’t believe there should be billionaires in America. He would fit right in with the rulers of North Korea. There is an association with that belief and that graph.
Wagathon:
The area of Monaco is only 1/2 of a square mile. but accommodations might be available nearby
The hoity toity of the ipcc climate change alarmist community like to hang out in luxury yachts at Port Hercule, a huge natural harbor that dates back to the Greeks and the Romans.
There is a reason why all of the global warming alarmists are on the Left. The Left fears a free man more than global warming. It will never be the natural disposition of AGW true believers to offer people hope of a life based on individual liberty, personal health, happiness, property and wealth; there is a disconnect: they see no value in overcoming fear and superstition with hard work, sacrifice and the power of knowledge. For the Left, CO2-producing humanity is the enemy.
Wagathon wrote:
There is a reason why all of the global warming alarmists are on the Left. The Left fears a free man more than global warming.
Really? Who is doing the following in America?
* banning books
* opposed to gay rights, and it seems trying again to ban gay marriage
* decided women don’t have full rights over their bodies?
* placing the military at protests
* wants to ignore the Constitution (birthright citizenship)
* insists universities do not have the right to undertake DEI initiatives
* is opposed to transexual health care rights
The left or the right?
After years of sniping at the heels of America’s productive and two terms of clawing the country’s eyes out because George Bush stood tall against the UN and Kyoto — and had the courage to support America with his whole heart — we now see the government-education machine, the EPA and the rest of secular, socialist bureaucracy (who hate capitalism and the American experience that is based on man’s God-given right to individual liberty and personal responsibility), busily changing all cultural and societal markers pointing to right and wrong, and instead directing everyone to the Castro-Chavez-Mao bridge to nowhere.
David,
“Christos, you didn’t say if you’re willing to give back your share of the debt.”
But I have no assets to gine back something.
But I have no assets to gine back something.
Big deal. You still owe the government for your share of what the debt has bought you. Get a second job.
David, I have no assets. So I have nothing – and I owe nothing.
Christos, you owe plenty. Much deficit money was spent to provide you with services, grants for state projects like highways and dams, tax breaks on mortgages, defense provided by the military, and lots else.
It’s obvious. Why can’t you admit this?
Because I suffer from the money inflation. The money deficit is on the projects subsidizes.
Christos, its irrelevant whether money has inflated. You owe plenty of the deficit. Much deficit money was spent to provide you with services, grants for state projects like highways and dams, tax breaks on mortgages, defense provided by the military, and lots else.
It’s obvious. Why can’t you admit this? And when are you going to pay your share?
The time for exercising common sense is overdue. Bankrupting 360 million people in the US obviously doesn’t do anything for controlling the output of CO2 by the world’s 8 billion inhabitants.
Jojo said:
“Confronted with his direct quote – Bushbaby denies he stated and defended the $357mwh was the actual cost.
Was your direct quote not good enough?”
Yes my direct quote was good enough, too bad Starkely clipped it for his own purposes (kinda like Jojo’s incessant fabrications). Here is the direct quote again:
—————————————————————
“B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh”
His [Chris Morris] (unshown) math was incorrect, and the result did not seem “very cheap” to me. My arithmetic is correct, from the beginning.”
—————————————————————
“Bushbaby denies he stated and defended the $357mwh was the actual cost.”
That’s right, I deny your stupid claim. I only claimed that my arithmetic as applied to Morris’ original values was correct – it still is. Feel free to prove it with a direct (and complete) quote.
Here’s another direct quote :
“What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh; CM’s initial values, which he admits were wrong? Does Jojo even know how to divide? It seems not.
That apparently seems to still be the case.
Thats your second story, not your first story.
Keep up with the sequence
Cite the “first story” or STFU. This post:
——–
“B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
That doesn’t sound like such a deal for a pile of coal in a stockyard when typical delivered electricity runs $30 – $50/MWh.
If you can’t do the math and check your answer for agreement with reality, not really much point in paying attention.
Thanks anyway, Chris.”
——–
That was my first response to CM’s comment:
” Chris Morris | June 20, 2025 at 11:48 pm |
That coal would cost about $100M and provide 280GWh if my maths is correct. That seems very cheap and reliable compared to the others.” [His math wasn’t correct]
I stand by my response and have not changed my position.
Baby Jojo has still not done the division:
“What does JoJo get when he divides $100M by 280GWh?
Presumably, either he can’t do division (expected for a kindergartner; the grammar, spelling, logic, and use of scientific units are at the same level), or won’t because he knows that it will disprove his stupid attacks on me.
Well, what would you expect from a no name, no known background, no known experience man-child with hurt feeling.
Chris recognized his mistake and admitted it (and has been remarkably silent since then). Too bad you are so full of hatred that you attempt, and fail, to blame me for Chris’s mistake. It’s funny when really stupid people like Jojo keep repeating their obvious and disproven lies, thinking that they will be true, if he just says it enough time. Climb back under your rock, twerp.
Baby – this is getting old
Its in black and white – your first response was that you clearly showed you believed the $357 per mwh was the correct cost of coal. It wasnt until it was pointed out to you that you changed your story.
Its not the first time you changed your story when you were wrong.
[in the right place]
Jojo,
No, I clearly showed that Chris’s initial numbers yielded $357/MWh. And I pointed out that it didn’t make sense (not conforming to reality). Too bad your reading comprehension is so low, are too dense to understand, and willfully ignorant – and your lies based on that are pathetic.
your second sentence clearly showed you believed the $357 was the correct cost number.
Black and white –
Nope, it is my first and only “Story” – you are the one making up stories. Funny, how once again you can’t cite what you think was my prior “story”.
Pathetic
PS ~ My second sentence: “If you can’t do the math and check your answer for agreement with reality, not really much point in paying attention.”
Jojo is a pathetic liar.
A -you quoted your 3rd sentence, not your second sentence.
B – your 3rd sentence confirms that you thought your second sentence was proof that the $357 was the correct cost amount.
C – it wasnt until two posts later that you changed your story
bushbaby
You also have a well known history of switching positions from the wrong answer to correct answer and claiming the correct answer was your original position. You have done the switch multiple times which makes your insistent claim less than credible.
You are a pathetic liar, Jojo.
“B A Bushaw | June 21, 2025 at 2:22 pm |
[equation under discussion]
100x 10^6 USD/280,000 MWh = $357/MWh
[Sentence 1]
That doesn’t sound like such a deal for a pile of coal in a stockyard when typical delivered electricity runs $30 – $50/MWh.
[Sentence 2]
If you can’t do the math and check your answer for agreement with reality, not really much point in paying attention.
[Sentence 3]
Thanks anyway, Chris.”
Pathetic, incompetent, and too stupid to understand sarcasm.
you are getting PO’d trying to cover your tracks.
If you didnt already have a well known reputation for switching positions, then you might have some credibility. As it is, what you wrote in black and white clearly shows that you thought that the $357 was the correct cost number.
Pathetic and without content. I properly calculated the 357 357
And, at the time, pointed out that it did not agree with reality.
Your personal and misguided opinions of an NNN are hysterical. Pathetic.
No, I clearly showed that Chris’s initial numbers yielded $357/MWh. And I pointed out that it didn’t make sense (not conforming to reality). Too bad you are too dense to understand, and your lies are pathetic.
“CO2 is not a pollutant, like black carbon aerosol and mercury” (Judith Curry). And, yet– the Left’s politically approved climate models would indict CO2 as an evil chemical and make us all criminals for releasing it into Earth’s atmosphere.
Western academias global warming alarmist anti-Americanism is code for, ‘i don’t know how anything works.”
All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure, increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes and harming our environment in new ways. ~Judith Curry
“But this issue is the major challenge for the next
millennium. It is a complex challenge that extends well beyond understanding the Earth system and developing new technologies – it also includes governance and social values.
“To make progress on this, we need to disabuse ourselves of the hubris that we can control the Earth’s climate and prevent extreme weather events. The urgency of transitioning from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy under the auspices of the UN agreements has sucked all the oxygen from the room. There’s no space left for imagining what our 21 century infrastructure could look like, with new technologies and greater resilience to extreme weather events, or even to deal with traditional environmental problems.” (ibid)
***********************
“A problem defined, is a problem half solved”
Albert Einstein
***********************
–
Wagathon wrote:
All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries.
Africa has copious sunshine. Why would they want (more) air pollution, water pollution, mercury pollution, regional warming, bigger roads to carry oil tankers and coal trucks, when they can generate solar energy locally to get what they want/
Only one reason: so global fossil fuel conglomerates can sell them highly polluting fuels. That will shorten the lives of a lot of them.
That’s all fossil fuel advocates are about anymore — higher profits for fossil fuel corporations. Maybe they’re getting a kickback?
David,
“Africa has copious sunshine.”
Of course there is not winter with its much shorter days. And it is not cold in Africa.
But to say “Africa has copious sunshine.” is not right. Because in Africa half of the time there is night – when there is not sunshine.
Also Africa is known to be the less windy place in the world…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There’s no space left for imagining what our 21 century infrastructure could look like.”
Like grid-forming and black-start IBRs, fusion reactors, multiple types of energy storage, etc.? It is quite clear who has no space left for imagination – it includes those that have rejected physical science in favor of pseudoscience.
“those that have rejected…”
the BRICS that with recent additions of about 10 countries represent over 55% of the world population?
No, my statement applies to individuals, not countries.
Wagathon wrote:
Western academias global warming alarmist anti-Americanism is code for, ‘i don’t know how anything works.”
Western academics certainly know what’s causing today’s climate change.
What part of that science do you find so confusing?
Spending the amounts of money and effort to make solar panels work in a rainforest makes as much sense as reading books by the light of a whale blubber lamp when you can simply run an electrical line from a nuclear power plant.
Wagathon wrote:
Spending the amounts of money and effort to make solar panels work in a rainforest makes as much sense as reading books by the light of a whale blubber lamp when you can simply run an electrical line from a nuclear power plant.
Maybe they don’t want nuclear. Can’t blame them. It has the potential for great harm and nuclear reactors have already taken thousands of lives.
Does the African country have the expertise to run a nuclear plant? Do they have the necessary roads? Where does the nuclear waste go?
What the renewable sources of energy (wind, solar) are for?
Don’t they being implemented to save the earth’s climate from warming?
–
They have been over-implemented in western countries till now. There is no room for more renewables in western countries if it is for saving the earth’s climate porpose.
–
You could “save climate” more efficiently by subsidizing BRICS countries implementing renewables (wind, solar), instead of pushing the renewables in the western countries to the extream absurd.
–
There, at least, would be some logic, and some economical effectiveness in the effort – instead of the officially declared the net-zero emissions constraints.
–
That is those (who don’t see the orbitally forced warming trend) but who are in the terrible worries about the climate whould do – to rush implementing the renewables (wind, solar) in countries where there is plenty of room for them, and not pushing own countries to the net-zero irrational extremes.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Good discussion with “Kathryn Porter: Keeping the lights on | Tom Nelson Pod #314 ”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=27d2G-S9YUM
Mark Miller
The Planetary Temperature INITIAL PREMISE can be formulated as:
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size (and wich are subjected to different radiative fluxes), their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin,
relate as their respective effective temperatures (Te1) and (Te2):
T1 /T2 = Te1 /Te2
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The two completely identical planets (or moons), they should also have the same (N*cp) products, in order to their average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, could be related as their respective effective temperatures (Te1) and (Te2):
T1 /T2 = Te1 /Te2
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here it is an interesting example to start with:
Our Moon and planet Mars are very much similar.
1). Only Moon is closer to the sun (1 AU), and Mars is at distance from the sun (1,524 AU) Astronomical Units.
2). Also Mars rotates 28,7 times faster than Moon.
Their average surface temperatures are very close:
Tsat.moon = 220K whereas Tsat.mars = 210K
but their effective temperatures are very different:
Te.moon = 270K whereas Te.mars = 210K
Because of its larger distance from the sun
(R = 1,524 AU), the solar incidence on Mars is subjected to the inverse square law (1/R)² .
So the solar energy is 2,32 times weaker on Mars’ surface.
But what we see it is that the Mars’ weaker sun is compensated by its faster rotation’s fourth root:
= (28.7)^1/4 = 2,31
and the
Te.moon /Te.mars = 270K /210K = 1,285
is because
(28.7)^1/16 = 1,233
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
1). Only Moon is closer to the sun (1 AU), and Mars is at distance from the sun (1,524 AU) Astronomical Units.
My God you’re stupid. You have no scientific sense or intuition at all.
Your stupidity explains why you think you know more than all scientists in the world. Only a stupid person would.
Sorry for the ad hominem (not really) but you deserve it for writing that.
David, what I ment is:
1). Only that Moon is closer to the sun (1 AU), and Mars is at distance from the sun (1,524 AU) Astronomical Units.
I never ment saying “only Moon is closer to the sun…”
Thank you for correcting my small mistake.
–
Thank you again for your help.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
2025 global temperature continues to be cooler than 2024. May and June 2025 cooler than April 2025 also.
2024 Jan +0.80
2024 Feb +0.88
2024 Mar +0.88
2024 Apr +0.94
2024 May +0.78
2024 June +0.69
AVG: +0.83
2025 Jan +0.45
2025 Feb +0.50
2025 Mar +0.57
2025 Apr +0.61
2025 May +0.50
2025 June +0.48
AVG: +0.52
It might get even colder …
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-07-02.gif
jim2 wrote:
2025 global temperature continues to be cooler than 2024. May and June 2025 cooler than April 2025 also.
So clearly global warming is over!!
Finally.
David Appell:
“So clearly global warming is over!!
No, David. Just some temporary cooling.
There were three VEI4 volcanic eruptions on May 2 that sent their dimming SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, Manam, in Papua New Guinea, Semeru, in Indonesia, and Shevveluch, in Russia.
Cooling should continue for 14-16 months.
burlhenry wrote:
No, David. Just some temporary cooling.
There were three VEI4 volcanic eruptions on May 2 that sent their dimming SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, Manam, in Papua New Guinea, Semeru, in Indonesia, and Shevveluch, in Russia.
Cooling should continue for 14-16 months.
Burl, not dealing with you until you admit what every scientist on the planet knows: CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Denying that is plain stupid.
Data centers are building their own gas power plants in Texas
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/05/texas-data-centers-gas-power-plants-ai/
Good article, it filters though stereotypical left-wing handwringing, yet succumbs to the reality.
Good! Data centers are environmental disasters, eyesores and emit a lot of noise. Texas, which doesn’t care much about its environment, can have them. I hope all of them go there.
David Appell:
Are you becoming senile?
I have already proven to you that global warming due to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT exist.
Data centers are building their own gas power plants in Texas
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/05/texas-data-centers-gas-power-plants-ai/
Good article, it filters though stereotypical left-wing handwringing, yet succumbs to the reality.
Texas tribune has a solid record of the stereotypical left wing talking points. Its articles on the Texas Ercot feb 2021 freeze fiasco is one of the most widely read and quoted articles on the cause of grid failure. It dives very deep into the very short term events (tactical failure) at the same time, it very much dodges the longer term events that causes / contributed heavily into the short term failure (strategic failure).
In a similar vain, the article dodges the one of the two primary cause of the increased demand for electricity and land use which is simple population increase.
Yeah, they make it pretty clear that ERCOT 2021 failure was due to inadequacies in NG infrastructure (intermittent and unreliable) and operator error.
“During the February 2021 winter storm, transmission companies inadvertently cut power to parts of the natural gas supply chain when ERCOT ordered the utilities to reduce power demand or risk further damage to the grid. That decision aggravated the problem as natural gas producers were unable to deliver enough fuel to power plants. At the same time, some wells were unable to produce as much natural gas due to the freezing conditions.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/15/texas-power-grid-winter-storm-2021/
I guess long term thinking about where and how we get all that new energy should have included how to deal with all the earthquakes and waste water that comes with ‘Drill-Baby-Drill’ ideology. The Texas Railroad Commission (who sets the rules for the oil & gas industry) FINNALY had to issued a new rule prohibiting new waste water injections earlier this year.
https://earthquaketrack.com/p/united-states/texas/recent
Texas, United States has had: (M1.5 or greater)
10 earthquakes in the past 24 hours
83 earthquakes in the past 7 days
646 earthquakes in the past 30 days
5,174 earthquakes in the past 365 days
Not to worry though, Gov. Abbott just signed a law that lets the drillers ‘dispose’ of it into our surface waters including use in agriculture.
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/19/texas-legislature-produced-water-legal-protections-oil-gas/
Jack – As I recall you are resident of wise county.
You should know from experience than to believe the accuracy of anything written in the texas tribune.
People who are concerned about M1.5 or even M3 earthquakes really need to get a life. Here, natural earthquakes >M2 at <5km depth and <5km away happen near weekly if not daily when swarms occur. They are similar to a truck hitting a pothole on the road outside.
The government runs a series of seismometers across the country with their recordings available to all. https://www.geonet.org.nz/earthquake/drums
Just a quick glance shows how seismically active many places are on even a short time scale.
The people who use them as scare tactics deliberately misuse science. relying on people not understanding the scale. They think a M2 earthquake is just a bit bigger than M1. It isn't.
The last times Cali majorly shrugged was 1857 and the other was the 1906- both registering 7.9 in magnitude and long before alarmist-scientists’ fears of impending global cooling in in the late ’70s and early ’80s.
B A Bushaw | July 3, 2025 at 6:58 pm |
Yeah, they make it pretty clear that ERCOT 2021 failure was due to inadequacies in NG infrastructure (intermittent and unreliable) and operator error.
As I stated, the texas tribune has a solid record of providing incomplete information in their articles. the Texas trib article only discusses the last one or two events , without mentioning any of the event that occurred 2 months to 2 years prior to the feb 2021. As noted by PE in numerous posts on the texas grid failure in Feb 2021, there were considerable number of strategic errors that led to the ultimate failure.
Again – One is easily fooled when they ignore all the facts.
I agree, there were a number of strategic (prior) errors, as well as tactical (at the time) errors. The fact remains that It was still the NG delivery system that failed and was unreliable.
“Yeah, they make it pretty clear that ERCOT 2021 failure was due to inadequacies in NG infrastructure”
Your comment is vacuous spin. There were certainly NG technical issues during Uri, also for renewables, going beyond mere technical issues. Importantly, Uri brought record cold. While NG can overcome a similar scenario, renewables so far can’t, its problems remain intrinsic.
If what you stated were accurate at face value then Texas, and corporations, would today be doubling down on renewables. They aren’t doing this, renewables aren’t reliable. Texas, and other states, especially corporations, are instead doubling down on NG in a very big way.
CM: Straw man – anyone that pays any attention at all to earthquakes know the magnitude is logarithmic-base-10. A M2 releases 10 times as much energy as an M1. An M5 releases 1000 times as much as an M2. The concern, which you do not address, is that the very high number of wastewater injections (and fracking) may trigger larger quakes in stressed faults. The largest so far has been an M4 in Texas, 2018.
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-fracking-cause-earthquakes
No BAB – you got that wrong. How unusual
“The logarithmic nature of the Richter scale means that each whole number increase in magnitude represents a tenfold increase in the measured amplitude of seismic waves and roughly 31.6 times more energy release.”
https://sciencenotes.org/richter-scale-and-earthquake-magnitude/
Google is not your friend when you just don’t understand the subject.
On this day, July 4th- As the Left obsesses on controlling the economy, what opportunities will be available to the population and to who in the population and regulating all land and resources, keep in mind that a farmer in Wisconsin is closer to and cares more about the land and does more out of self-interest and the welfare of his family to provide actual value to the world than the IPCC will ever do.
CM, you are right. So the energy increases even faster than the amplitude. E proportional to M^(3/2).
The concern, which you do not address, is that the very high number of wastewater injections (and fracking) may trigger larger quakes in stressed faults. The largest so far has been an M4 in Texas, 2018; which corresponds to 282 times the energy release of an M2.
You are getting near to something important.
Stress/Strain = Bulk Modulus.
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/12-3-stress-strain-and-elastic-modulus
Concrete has one of the lowest.
If the ground has been disturbed frequently, it takes little stress to produce sizable strain. If it happens to be near plate boundaries (eg Anatolia) it takes little earth-tide to produce large movement. Lunar caused earth-tide can be substantial. More if Jupiter helps.
The renewable energy sources (solar, wind) are good only when the economical criteria being considered.
Since the renewables are not capable of influencing the climate change, the climate warming caused damages costs should not to be considered in the economical equation.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas wrote:
Since the renewables are not capable of influencing the climate change….
Does it satisfy your ego to deny basic science? Make you feel smart? Superior to everyone else?
“ Superior to everyone else?”
No, just you. That is obvious to everyone.
David,
“Does it satisfy your ego to deny basic science?”
–
What basic science?
–
Christos, Basic science that you don’t understand includes Physics, Chemistry, Molecular spectroscopy, Atmospheric science, and the Scientific method. And while not science, statistics and calculus are basic mathematical skills needed to do science, which you apparently also do not have.
Kid, I don’t think you speak for everyone. When you speak for yourself, it is often ignorant, and false, hyperbole.
Thank you, B A.
You do understand all the sciences you mentioned, and it is very important that you do so.
Statistics and calculus are basic mathematical skills you are very well skilled on too.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon should be very easy for you – people with your skills understand the rightness of the Phenomenon from the first read.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
ganon
“ …When you speak for yourself, it is often ignorant, and false, hyperbole.”
What kind of gratitude is this? I’ve tried to lift you up from the depths of the oblivious and helped you shake the shackles of cultism. The Saturday Evening Post type of pseudo science just doesn’t cut it any longer. We all recognize it’s been a struggle for you but don’t give up. The light is just around the corner.
Just open your mind to new ideas. Remember what Junior said in Platoon about freeing up your mind.
Christos: What university level science classes have you taken, and passed?
Kid, No gratitude for NNN lies, just truth about your ignorance and insults.
On July 7, as much as 4.5 inches of rain may fall in 3 hours locally in North Carolina.
The storm will make landfall on the border of South Carolina and North Carolina.
‘Humans have always feared climate change and developed myths that our sinfulness is its cause. Accordingly, we always want to be able “to do something” about climate, to sacrifice to the Earth to bring about a golden age of climate stability. Unfortunately, both geology and history show us that the idea of a stable climate is untenable; there has never been, and never will be, a stable climate under human control. All we can do is adapt to constant change.’ ~ Philip Stott
GCMs (general circulation models) embody evidence of humanity’s tampering with the global climate without any finding whatsoever concerning their scientific validity. A deterministic view of a probabilistic world will always cloud our future.
Wagathon wrote:
GCMs (general circulation models) embody evidence of humanity’s tampering with the global climate without any finding whatsoever concerning their scientific validity.
Have you done any research that comes to this conclusion? Or can you cite any?
If not you are just dumb ignorant who does not know the science and doesn’t care to learn it.
Wagathon:
Actually, Philip Stott is mistaken. A comparatively stable climate is achievable if we control the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere.
At this point, some geo-engineering will be required to re-introduce more SO2 into the atmosphere, unless it is temporarily supplied by VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions.
Stable? Putin’s war on Ukraine caused a temporary spike in atmospheric SO2. However, as industrialization decreased and the population fled, a decrease in atmospheric CO2 has been the result (except in war zones).
There were many Mayan bodies sacrificed to change climate, facilitated by the scientific inputs of the day. Humans are still sacrificing well-being to change climate, for love of Gaia, and who doesn’t live Gaia.
Obviously it’s still all about having better solar energy acumen–to align with the correct political gods. Science is unequivocal on the matter, even the 50% political body that half represents tbe IPCC agree.
Wagathon:
A decrease in CO2 would be expected to cause cooling, but that is not what is been observed, instead our climate has been warming.
According to Berkley Earth’s recent “Carbon Brief”, Hausfather, et al say that “it is clear that rapid reductions in global SO2 emissions have had a major impact on the global climate.”
And “The primary driver of this recent acceleration has been declining (SO2) aerosol emissions”
They also say “cutting global aerosol emissions to zero would result in 0.20 and 1.2C of additional warming” We were down to 69 kilotons in 2023.
The actual Control Knob for our climate is simply the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere. Increase it and temperatures decrease. Decrease it, and temperatures warm up.
If SO2 is the control knob, then, Hot Globe Western academics should start praying for increased global warming as proof that preventing humanity’s pollution of the globe can be achieved– new coal power plants with ‘clean coal’ pollution controls can reduce SO2 emissions by 98% compared to plants without controls.
Wagathon wrote:
Stott: ‘Humans have always feared climate change and developed myths that our sinfulness is its cause….’
Really? When was that?
Stott: “there has never been, and never will be, a stable climate under human control. All we can do is adapt to constant change.’”
Then what was the Holocene?
burlhenry wrote;
Actually, Philip Stott is mistaken. A comparatively stable climate is achievable if we control the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere.
Have you done the research yet into how/why CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
If not, shut the f up.
The pendulum swings …
The European Union is set to face an even tougher challenge in passing its ambitious goal to cut emissions 90% by 2040 after a group skeptical of climate change was nominated as the lead negotiator for the bloc’s assembly.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-08/eu-climate-skeptics-to-oversee-divisive-2040-goal-in-parliament
Wagathon:
Reducing SO2 emissions by “Clean Coal”, etc. decreases the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, and INCREASES global warming.
NOT what we want now, The Texas disaster was caused by an Atmospheric River, caused by higher temperatures and drought conditions somewhere around the world.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is expressed QUANTITATIVELY.
It appears to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.
The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So, you’d prefer increasing SO2 emissions. Got it.
The pendulum swings …
SACRAMENTO, California — Donald Trump is coming for California’s signature climate policies — and so is California.
Stung by the party’s sweeping losses in November and desperate to win back working-class voters, the Democratic Party is in retreat on climate change. Nowhere is that retrenchment more jarring than in the nation’s most populous state, a longtime bastion of progressive politics on the environment.
In the past two weeks alone, California Democrats have retrenched on environmental reviews for construction projects, a cap on oil industry profits and clean fuel mandates. Elected officials are warning that ambitious laws and mandates are driving up the state’s onerous cost of living, echoing longstanding Republican arguments and frustrating some allies who say Democrats are capitulating to political pressure.
“California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/07/democrats-climate-retreat-california-energy-00439882
Wagathon:
Yes, they are very effective in dimming the incoming solar radiation.
At this time,, if there are no VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions in the near future, some geo-engineering will be needed to reduce temperatures., ideally by seeding them high over the Pacific ENSO region, where there should be no Acid Rain or Health concerns.
No one is going to believe in geoengineering solutions proposed by feckless Western academics who continue to foment the hoax and scare tactic for Leftist and anti-American political purposes that humanity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere is warming the globe and acidifying its oceans, especially when the Earth is greening because of increase in parts per million of CO2 and while according to Dr. Wil Happer, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2-deprived based on historical averages over millions of years.
Wagathon,
“according to Dr. Wil Happer, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2-deprived based on historical averages over millions of years”
=
Of course!
Dinosaurus got exctinct because of the ecological development – the CO2 was captured and sequestered in underground of Earth as the multi-kilometer coal sediments from the trunks of the gigantic trees of the dinosaurus times.
Life on Earth was gradually went to exctinct.
It is a known fact – the CO2 is the food for plants. More CO2 in the atmosphere is associated with the greener Earth!
It is the blessing for Earth’s ecological evolution that humans proceeded releasing more and more CO2 in atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A not so abnormal flood, it’s happened before …
The deadly flooding that hit Kerrville on July Fourth stirred memories of a similar disaster nearly 40 years earlier.
It happened on the morning of July 17, 1987.
A storm that began in Mexico crossed the border, poured a drenching rain on Brackettville, then moved northeast to western Kerr County, where it dumped 11 inches of rain near the headwaters of the Guadalupe River in less than five hours. The river rose 29 feet at Comfort and spilled two-thirds of a mile outside its normal banks.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/article/hill-country-deadly-flood-has-happened-before-1987-20427606.php
Wagathon.:
Unfortunately, you are probably correct.
Dr. James Hansen, who started the CO2 global warming hoax, should be thrown in jail!
Seems shortsighted to try to throw those you disagree with into jail.
burlhenry wrote:
Dr. James Hansen, who started the CO2 global warming hoax, should be thrown in jail!
Have you ever read even one Hansen paper?
[Be honest–as David Beckham said to his wife]
The Koonin appointment will raise waves but, he goes back to the Obama administration. “The idea that Climate science is settled,” said Steven Koonin, “runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided.” that was enough for the Left to have a problem with Koonin. Nothing controversial about the message, you’d think but.. still, the messenger had to be branded a “denier.” The computational physicist credentials of Koonin who served as a professor and provost at Caltech, nor being green and a fan of renewables, were in question. Rather, his DOE job as undersecretary of science in the Obama administration landed Koonin squarely in the camp of Leftist global warming defectors −e.g., a voice of reason that’s not easily silenced and will be reckoned with by all but Democrat partisan extremists who will do whatever they can to suppress skepticism of the global warming alarmism meme and legitimate climate science.
Hot World fearmongering is not science. Blue America has become a new ‘Bizarro’ confederacy of compact areas of densely populated urbanites that have ceded personal freedom to overlords of unelected bureaucrats schooled in the European style of communism. These ‘Blues’ cling to a flag-burning, pro- Communism, seas-rising/anti-business ideology and dream about actors sticking knives and putting bullets into the backs of Trump, Conservatives, police all scientific sceptics their looney, politically correct global warming alarmism religion.
Rob Starkey:
It is more than MY disagreement. His greenhouse warming hoax (although possibly not intentional) has resulted in higher temperatures and much global misery, including the loss of tens of thousands of lives due to climate-related disasters over the past 37 years..
LOL How did Hansen’s theory or comments cost tens of thousands of lives?
Isn’t it Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall, among others, that you want to exhume and send to prison?
The resources spent for the mitigation of the climate change is a useless vaste of money.
They should be spend for the adaptation to climate change.
No matter what we do – the climate change is going towards the warmer Earth.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A Bhshaw:
Not really. Hansen sold it to Congress without any empirical evidence, only the output of models and Tyndall’s writings
However, Tyndall is also at fault, since after he discovered that some gasses absorb heat, he wrote “Thus the atmosphere admits of the entrance of solar heat, but checks its exit, and the result is a tendency to accumulate heat at the surface of the planet”
However, this has been going on for millions of years, and by now we should be boiling if CO2 actually caused any accumulation of heat!
Get out the candles
“ DOE Warns of 100-Fold Increase in Blackouts by 2030”
https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/department-of-energy-blackout-warning/
Good to buy a backup generator or stock in GENERAC.
And a reverse osmosis water filter.
I am loosing trust in the government to tell us what’s in the water.
You can always get your water analyzed, Jack.
Jack … just curious, what water filter do you have? I assume whole house? Well or city water?
cerescokid wrote:
“ DOE Warns of 100-Fold Increase in Blackouts by 2030”
Under Trump, huh?
What is he gonna do to fix it?
Still higher tariffs?
Once again it’s dawning on Appell that he is on the losing side of the argument and he has gone off the deep end. This has been happening more frequent lately. Poor guy. Meds won’t help.
David Appell | July 13, 2025 at 9:48 pm | Reply
cerescokid wrote:
“ DOE Warns of 100-Fold Increase in Blackouts by 2030”
“Under Trump, huh?
What is he gonna do to fix it?”
Apple – thats a stupid statement – Even by your standards.
Cerescokid – fwiw – I have known several personnel of one of Apple’s former employers for more than 30 years. Their comments mirror your comment.
We can never trust science again. After the great global warming hoax of the late 20th century, the scientific method is deader’n’a’doornail! Those who learned about science in school as part of a well-rounded education still respect the methodology of the science that helped lift humanity out of the dark ages; but, scientists don’t.
There’s no justification for allowing ourselves to be run over by the climate alarmists because there’s no urgency to act. There never was anything more than a supposed urgency that was simply manufactured: a sword to be held at the necks of all Americans and used to cut the heads off skeptics by school teachers whose motivated reasoning belies an eager willfulness to deceive themselves and others.
Wagathon wrote:
We can never trust science again. After the great global warming hoax of the late 20th century
A hoax how?
Be specific.
I don’t think you can LOL
David Appell | July 13, 2025 at 9:41 pm | Reply
Wagathon wrote:
We can never trust science again. After the great global warming hoax of the late 20th century
“A hoax how?”
As we have seen from the Covid science and given the level of corruption in the paleo community, continuing to trust the science has become a legitimate question. Blame for the distrust belongs squarely with the scientific community.
Have to understand the science before you can trust it.
Global warming alarmism is a stochastic reality.
What a horrible joke- a colder winter coming for North America. But the reason is rather complex. A melting Arctic ice cap means more sea ice which is more reflective than just seawater which means colder air which will descend into North America. The only fix is to stop putting heat-trapping CO2 pollution into the atmosphere. The only way to do that is as follows: ‘While the problem may seem so huge as to be insurmountable, there are things large and small that everyone can do to help make a difference. From making your voice heard and pushing for political action to taking public transit, driving an electric vehicle, and installing solar panels on your home…’ Guessing, George Washington and his Continental Army didn’t know they were crossing an ice-choked Delaware River on Christmas night, 1776 because of a melting Arctic ice cap.
Wagathon:
You are out of your mind!
Warming due to heat-trapping CO2 does not exist.
But… that’s what climate change is all about: it changes. It’s been doing that for thousands of years throughout current Ice Age that we’re in right now.
Global warming– ‘enjoy it while it lasts.’ ~Henrik Svensmark
Wagathon wrote:
Global warming– ‘enjoy it while it lasts.’ ~Henrik Svensmark
Has Svensmark ever been right about anything?
If so, what?
Wagathon wrote:
But… that’s what climate change is all about: it changes. It’s been doing that for thousands of years throughout current Ice Age that we’re in right now.
Why does climate change?
burlhenry wrote:
Warming due to heat-trapping CO2 does not exist.
What observational data comes to this conclusion?
This kind of fraud undermines researchers, institutions, and even the scientific process itself.
“In 2024, global electricity production, despite the increase in renewables to 32%, came mainly from coal at 35%, with fossil fuels as a whole reaching 60%. Coal continues to be the main source of electricity generation in emerging economies, accounting for 58% in China and 73% in India. In contrast, in the EU, 49% of electricity came from renewables, followed by nuclear (24%). While in the US, natural gas was the protagonist with 43% of production, followed by renewables (23%).”
Wagathon:
Yes, climate changes, but it has NOTHING to do with CO2.
It warms, and cools, but none of those changes are reflected in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which would be NESSARY for it to have any effect.
However, ALL changes (except for seasonal) can be tied to changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere.
And we are not in an Ice Age, now., it is an interglacial
“Coal continues to be the main source of electricity generation in emerging economies, accounting for 58% in China and 73% in India.”
AI– ‘, an interglacial period is a warmer phase that occurs within an ongoing Ice Age. The Earth is currently experiencing an Ice Age (the Quaternary Glaciation), which began about 2.58 million years ago and continues today. The current interglacial period, known as the Holocene, started approximately 11,700 years ago, following the last glacial maximum, which peaked around 18,000 years ago.’
burlhenry wrote:
Yes, climate changes, but it has NOTHING to do with CO2.
Burl, very serious question: why do you choose to remain ignorant?
Christs. Much of that renewable generation is conventional hydro. The output of the Three Gorges power station would be significantly greater than many countries’ wind or solar. And the big factor is the hydro is dispatchable with it also supporting the grid
Yes, that’s right!
Those nations that exploit best practice economic efficiencies–utililizing energy to its fullest potential–rule the world. China knows this; the US once did.
China may be the leader in solar, more importantly, it’s the leader in coal.
Generally speaking, the Left has global ambition.
China is the only contemporary sovereign leader with imperialistic ambition that’s acquired the means to force its agenda, meaning energy. China happens to be the new leader of an axis ensemble. The West should carefully think about said consequences, before woke sensibilities of a global union–China has similar ambition, it may finally “woke” you up.
It matters what they do with the energy too. Does it raise the citizens standard of living? Did it contribute the the explosion of Chinese patents across multiple science domains? Go paste this into a AI LLM, “most patents by sector by country”.
I am 100% sure that not one of these 645 gutted or canceled research projects would have resulted any useful knowledge;
https://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/american-science-brain-drain/
David Appell:
The Climate continually changes, with temperatures both increasing and decreasing..
Please explain how the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere does that.
“burlhenry | July 15, 2025 at 3:39 pm |
David Appell:
The Climate continually changes, with temperatures both increasing and decreasing..
Please explain how the trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere does that.”
By changing the amount of Planck radiation absorbed by the atmosphere with changing CO2 concentration. It is not really all that difficult.
burlhenry wrote:
Yes, climate changes, but it has NOTHING to do with CO2.
So you haven’t tried to learn about greenhouse theory?
Why not?
As the remaining Hot World global warming alarmists are cleared out of the Washington bureaucracy, it is just a matter of time before all of the liars in academia are cashiered-out on their tenured-asses and we all can move on to the next mass mania.
Wagathon:
“The CURRENT interglacial period, known as the Holocene, started approximately 11,700 years ago”
AI– ‘While this interglacial period is warmer than the glacial periods within the ice age, it’s still cooler than the period before the ice age began,’ 2.5 million years ago.
Wagathon:
Don’t trust AI; it will only feed you the common hymn book narrative.
Here’s collated and compared data. The Eocene was warmer. The superimposed data in link indicate a much higher obliquity angle.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1957722401069222&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000
superimposed obliquity curves is from Ito & Hamano.
“Here’s collated and compared data. The Eocene was warmer. The superimposed data in link indicate a much higher obliquity angle.”
What has to do a much higher obliquity angle with global warming?
Christos: A rotating heat exchanger has its axis of rotation perpendicular to heat flow for maximum efficiency. The more the axis is tilted the less is the transfer efficiency. So the higher is the resident thermal time and the higher the temperature reached by the body.
A second factor to note is the lower is the temperature gradient from equator to poles.
Likely the case of Venus.
It is not what Milankovitch says…
i.e., ‘the Milankovitch theory that Northern Hemisphere su…tmer insolation triggered the last four deglaciations.”
~Kenji Kawamur, et al., Northern Hemisphere forcing of climatic cycles in Antarctica over the past 360,000 years, Nature 448, 912-916 (23 August 2007
Wagathon wrote:
AI– ‘While this interglacial period is warmer than the glacial periods within the ice age, it’s still cooler than the period before the ice age began,’ 2.5 million years ago.
So what? We live now, not then.
[If you use AI you still have to think.]
Wagathon wrote:
As the remaining Hot World global warming alarmists are cleared out of the Washington bureaucracy, it is just a matter of time before all of the liars in academia are cashiered-out on their tenured-asses and we all can move on to the next mass mania.
Wow, you’re an arrogant SOB.
Global warming isn’t going away. If you don’t understand that you don’t understand anything.
You choose to be ignorant, which to me is about the worst sin a human being can commit.
Global warming isn’t going away–or at least not any time soon. But neither is spirited discussion regarding contributory causes, impacts and potential for addressing it, as seen below. You could join the discussion. Or you could continue tossing around insults and in general acting like a complete jerk.
Thomas Fuller: I don’t see that you have added anything to the discussion, except to project about other people being jerks.
“Thomas Fuller: I don’t see that you have added anything to the discussion, except to project about other people being jerks.”
What – hitting too close to home
Jojo, my apologies. I thought Fuller was writing about you.
Thomas Fuller wrote:
You could join the discussion. Or you could continue tossing around insults and in general acting like a complete jerk.
What else to call someone who denies CO2’s warming when he admits he has never studied the issue?
Pure stupid, that’s what.
Let me see if I can possibly get by without your approval. I’ll work on it.
Anything else you want to say about me?
B A Bushaw::
That CANNOT be true, since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere does not change, remaining at about 0.04%.
Make up stuff much, Burl?
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Not surprised there’s been no response from BH. BH thinks knowledge is for suckers and facts are losers.
Part of the original “global warming” narrative was that man helped speed the transition to warmer climate. Today, it seems the common assertion, is mankind CAUSED climate change, and therefore, can reverse it…
Similarly, during COVID, the promotion of mask wearing evolved from, “protect others” to “protect yourself”.
Just illustrating how the pseudo-scientific propaganda morphs.
‘pseudo-scientific propaganda,’ not to mention, economically and societally destructive given that the BRICKS and other emerging nations could care less about the anti-America (Eurocommie) Leftists’ narrative of a Hot World Armageddon nor do they have the money or the will to subsidize inefficient methods of energy production, distribution and utilization.
For the BRICKS and other emerging nations their first national priority is to fight the poverty with rapid industrialization .
“Today, it seems the common assertion, is mankind CAUSED climate change, and therefore, can reverse it…”
–
That is the problem. And this assertion is taught in schools around the globe now.
It is parroted by television on all channels every day.
It is also in advertisements of all kinds of products.
Goverments take meassures and make laws “to reverse climate change”.
Scientists insist taking meassures to stop emitting CO2 in their forums.
UN ring the bells of armagedon!
Wagathon:
The Milankovitch theory can be discarded.
The Ice Ages came about by bursts of volcanism that clouded our atmosphere with volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution. And they quickly ended when there were fewer volcanic eruptions.
Ice Ages are semi-cyclic, so something is triggering the volcanism. My guess is that it is Planet 9, when it loops our solar system. I am awaiting the results of the Versa Rubin all-sky survey!
Speculation about the existence of planet Olphie challenges the existence of a hypothetical planet 9 and so far as I am aware, based on current scientific understanding, there is no evidence or speculation to suggest that a hypothetical planet named Olphie explains Milankovitch cycles one way or another.
Whereas, the results of the Kenji study (ibid), ‘indicate that orbital-scale Antarctic climate change lags Northern Hemisphere insolation by a few millennia, and that the increases in Antarctic temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the last four terminations occurred within the rising phase of Northern Hemisphere summer insolation.’
burlhenry wrote
The Milankovitch theory can be discarded.
Prove it. With mathematics.
Or STFU.
B A Bushaw:
I was speaking of the many TEMPORARY temperature increases or decreases that constantly occur. CO2 levels do NOT fluctuate on such short time scales.
Yes, Burl – of course you were – it’s called deflection without explanation, or chasing noise to avoid the truth.
Please make a statement about the effect of CO2 on climate/global temperature with regard to the reference global climatic time period of 30 years. Oh wait, you already have – it’s in the title of one of your “papers”: “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”.
You know, using ALL caps every time you present a false hyperbolic quantifier is a dead give away (and also indicates you know you are lying) – repeating and yelling something doesn’t make it true, but it does seem a good indicator of intellectual capacity.
BAB: Burl has already admitted that he hasn’t even TRIED to learn about CO2 warming.
He denies it based on no knowledge whatsoever.
This puts him below the level of middle school students in the US.
Ignorance is dumb, but ultimately sad.
B A Bushaw:
I was referring to the temporary temperature increases or decreases that constantly occur. CO2 levels do NOT fluctuate on short time scales.
B A Bushaw:
“CAPS” are used for emphasis.
You continually deride my article, but you must agree that the Sun is the ultimate source of all of the energy that warms our planet.
SO2 aerosols (a mist of micron-sized droplets of Sulfuric Acid) from volcanic eruptions or the burning of fossil are a pollutant that reflects away much of the incoming solar energy, and cools the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.
If their amount in the atmosphere is reduced, because of Clean Air and Net-Zero activities, (or the absence of VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions) warming naturally occurs due to the cleansed air.
This warming is inevitable, but it is totally ignored by everyone, and instead it is wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, empirically proving that CO2 has no climatic effect– there CANNOT be two causes for the same warming.
And the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get!
“CAPS” are used for emphasis.” Yes, it emphasizes the use of false hyperbole. Thanks for that.
You continually deride your own paper with the title you gave it. I deride it because it is disproven garbage, and you are not able to defend it scientifically.
burlhenry wrote:
About SO2:
This warming is inevitable, but it is totally ignored by everyone
You are so incredibly dense. The warming potential of reduced SO2 emissions has been discussed in many scientific places in the last few years.
You don’t even try to learn.
You won’t even learn about CO2. 12-year olds learn about it in the US.
J Anderton wrote:
Similarly, during COVID, the promotion of mask wearing evolved from, “protect others” to “protect yourself”.
Masks do both. You gotta problem with that?
David Appell:
I have already proven that global warming due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere does not exist.
burlhenry wrote:
I have already proven that global warming due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere does not exist.
You did not such thing.
I’m just done with your rank stupidity. You emailed comments now go into my trash folder along with a few others here. And they aren’t even as blinkered as you are.
You’re afraid to learn and you’re a waste of time. Goodbye.
David Appell:
You lie.
I have responded.
David Appell:
Again, YOU LIE
Rank stupidity perfectly defines you.
Global warming happens rapidly because in our times Winter Solstice occurs very close to the time of the Earth’s Perihelion.
At Winter Solstice the Earth’s tilted axis is oriented towards sun, with the Southern Hemispher’s vast oceanic waters receiving the most intense insolation.
It coincides with the time of occurance of Earth’s Perihelion, which is the time of the year when Earth is at its closest to the sun.
So every year in our times the Southern Hemisphere’s vast oceanic waters are subjected to a much stronger insolation, and as a result to a much higher heat accumulation.
A year after year the accumulation of heat gradually rises the global temperature.
We live in the times, when the Polar sea-ice cover has already very much shrinked, so the newly accumulated in waters heat – because there is not enough sea-ice to melt – the heat warms the atmospheric air instead – that’s why the rapid rise of Global temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Reviews of Geophysics
Milankovitch Theory and climate
A. Berger
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/RG026i004p00624
Milankovitch Theory and climate
A. Berger
First published: November 1988 https://doi.org/10.1029/RG026i004p00624 Citations: 464
Toward generalized Milankovitch theory (GMT)
https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-151-2024
Thank you, B A.
It is a very good article.
“Thus, Milankovitch, for the first time, demonstrated that variations in insolation caused by astronomical factors are capable of driving glacial cycles. According to the Milankovitch conceptual model, three glaciations occurred during the last 120 kyr, which at the time of Milankovitch were known as Würm I, II, and III and now are usually notated as MIS 5d, 4, and 2. Although this was a significant step forward in explaining past glacial cycles, a comparison of the orbital forcing with the Earth system response shown in Fig. 2 reveals problems with the classical Milankovitch theory. It turned out that the Milankovitch conceptual model is more applicable to the 41 kyr world of the early Quaternary rather than the 100 kyr world of the late Quaternary.”
(Emphasis added)
Given a 120 kyr time scale, the Kenji study (referenced above) finding a few millennia as a measure of time to effect a regime change, reinforces credibility.
David A above wrote:
“The Milankovitch theory can be discarded” .Prove it. With mathematics.
Maths can prove it; by providing the theory. But one has to dig the numbers first. They exist in ancient texts; and from four independent sources.
Secular precession is only one factor. Abrupt precession due to abrupt obliquity changes is another very real one.
Here is the ‘lucky strike’ that lighted the way forward:
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
ps. the theory is the “Intermediate Axis theorem”.
AI quick take on it–
‘While some theories propose that megalithic structures might record these variations or even suggest larger, more abrupt changes in the past, scientific evidence based on geological records generally supports the predictable range of obliquity changes described by the Milankovitch cycles.’
E.g., ‘Earth’s obliquity has naturally varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over approximately 41,000-year cycles, according to the well-established Milankovitch cycles. These variations cause changes in seasonal contrasts, impacting factors like ice sheet formation and retreat.’
Thank you, Wagathon.
“E.g., ‘Earth’s obliquity has naturally varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over approximately 41,000-year cycles, according to the well-established Milankovitch cycles. These variations cause changes in seasonal contrasts, impacting factors like ice sheet formation and retreat.’”
Earth’s obliquity has naturally varied between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over approximately 41,000-year cycles,
A too small changes in obliquity over ~ 41,000-year cycles !!!
–
Please read the “Milankovitch made a mistake”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320/
I do not say Milankovitch was mistaken in its entire work:
“Milankovitch, for the first time, demonstrated that variations in insolation caused by astronomical factors are capable of driving glacial cycles.”
What I say is that Milankovitch predicted a natural orbitally forced cooling trend.
When his calculations indicated on the natural orbitally forced warming trend.
Milankovitch performed his calculationas for the 65 degrees North.
The same exactly calculations made for the 65 degrees South result to the Reversed Milankovitch cycle.
The Reversed Milankovitch cycle predicts for our times a natural orbitally forced warming trend.
Christos: “A too small changes in obliquity over ~ 41,000-year cycles !!!”
Of course, it must be wrong – because it proves your hypothesis false. LMAO
Wagathon:
That was brilliant.
The only thing AI knows on megalithic structures and obliquity variations is from my own work. The rest of the story AI has not heard yet.
So AI is dribbling the ball between two sides but has no idea where to shoot. The only thing it is good at in that piece is to waffle.
There is much precious research done by many, and that needs to be studied and dissected carefully. Milankovitch based his work on the assertions of J Stockwell on obliquity, who did not study or compare his results with near 3000 years of obliquity measurements and explain why the discrepancy; nor that there were other inputs beside the secular. G Dodwell did that and came up with different results. Dodwell was right.
In my above link I collated three different sources. Anyone can verify that. Just a thought: let AI explain it.
B A,
“Of course, it must be wrong – because it proves your hypothesis false.”
Please… can you be more specific. What must be wrong, and what proves my hypothesis false?
I see B A, what you mean:
Milankovitch is right, because I am wrong.
Now, I am not wrong, so the wrong is Milankovitch…
But should Milankovitch be wrong, so for me to be right?
I admire you, really!
melitamegalithic,
It might turn out that the most dangerous thing AI will do to humanity would be to tell us when we are lying or being deceitful to each other. Radical real-time transparency available via AI! At least politicians would soon be extinct 😁
It may already be possible…
https://singularityhub.com/2025/07/15/ai-might-now-be-as-good-as-humans-at-detecting-emotion-political-leaning-and-sarcasm/
“We found that these LLMs are about as good as humans at analyzing sentiment, political leaning, emotional intensity, and sarcasm detection.”
This was just for text but there are working models that use human speech – even in different languages.
AI – the ultimate lie detector
Christos, by any reasonable scientific standards of evidence – you are the one who is wrong. I’ve given you two seminal review papers on the subject. If you are unable, or unwilling to understand them, that’s your problem.
Not sure about that. Ask AI if Al Gore was lying when he said a consensus of Western academics believes AGW Global Warming was taking place and with disastrous consequences if we did nothing about it? You won’t get a reply that it was a hoax and a scare tactic fomented by the America-hating Eurocommies and the UN. That’s when the description, ‘denier’ was first heard from the Left to relegate those who questioned a supposed consensus to a group capitalist oil producers who were no better than Nadolf Nitler.
jacksmith4tx:
There are many things in politics and religion that we do not dare contradict for fear of repercussions, even if we are correct.
AI has no such hobble; that is unless it has already been biased never to tell the truth. Then it may be the ultimate compulsive liar. Politicians may yet have their best ally.
If a technology is seeking information but has no way of telling its validity (for the simple reason that such info has not been published, and it has not the basic training) than it is just another wrong opinion.
You say “AI – the ultimate lie detector”. Then perhaps someone should ask it about Claudius Ptolemy (See ‘the crimes if C Ptolemy’) and why he came up with a geocentric system.
melitamegalithic,
If you have a actual copy of his original body of work in his own handwriting then probably yes. Trouble with ancient literature it’s all been transcribed and ‘interpretated’ just like most religious text.
See: Bart D Ehrman – Forged-Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8713068-forged
jacksmith4tx:
Quite so.
You mention the bible. Biblical – and Hindu – and Plato, have long stories that are mostly fiction. But the natural events and the specific numbers are correct and precise.
The numbers correspond to the number of days of precession due to the increase in obliquity. The stories are very different, but the numbers precisely the same. The research of others indicate the numbers were derived from the Gregorian calendar system; so quite recent. Many new questions. But the fundamental one of obliquity change I have five independent sources that agree (some very recent, unknowingly with help from others in Sanskrit matters). Blog discussions are very fruitful.
Did your research corollate with the Olmec, and their decedents the Maya and their calendars? I checked your website and saw no references.
Also since this is based on physics I would assume you can predict when these type of events also happen on the other large planets in our solar system? If these type of events can cause large changes in our atmosphere, ocean circulation and possibly tectonic plate movement I must be happening on other planets. Maybe Elon Musk will find out that’s what happened to the oxygen on Mars?
PS: Big fan of Gilgamesh!
jacksmith4tx:
Not exactly in line with the subject of this thread, but it is a corollary. In an abrupt change our total reliance on electricity today may mean this today’s two legged dinosaur meets his end (as a civilisation; it near happened in 2346bce).
It is due to planetary conjunctions. Gravity is at the root of the matter, from a number of indications. Why the link to the Eddy cycle is still an open question (from Javier, Nature Unbound IX).
You mention Gilgamesh. That is post the Deluge. The Deluge resulted from obliquity/precession change (clear/specific in Talmud), the Akkadian ‘Flood from the West’ “when the gods decided to eradicate man on the darkest night when the moon is invisible”; cuneiform text.
Prediction? Avoided that till now (I did anticipate something for Feb 5 2023, moon and planetary orientations, but not what and where; however that provided good data). Such events happen; the ancient Hindus feared the new moon. LOD changes with new or full moon. I am certain given reasons are wrong; that it is a minute precession kick.
Wagathon wrote:
Not sure about that. Ask AI if Al Gore was lying when he said a consensus of Western academics believes AGW Global Warming was taking place and with disastrous consequences if we did nothing about it?
Can you cite where Gore said it?
If he didn’t he should have. Were there maybe two or three deniers back then who denied it? Maybe. They’ve shut up by now.
Jacksmithtx wrote:
AI – the ultimate lie detector
So ask any AI — any at all — if manmade climate change happening.
Then ask them if it’s problematic.
Christos Vournas wrote:
A too small changes in obliquity over ~ 41,000-year cycles !!!
“Too small” in what way?
in what variable?
What is the change in climate forcing between a peak and a trough of the sinusoidal oliquity?
melitamegalithic wrote:
David A above wrote:
“The Milankovitch theory can be discarded”
You’re a liar.
I never wrote that. I QUOTED it.
Big difference.
I deserve an apology from you.
David A,
You wrote a quote, but you wrote it. It implies guilt by association.
I did not say you said it as the originator.
Still, my apologies if that disturbed you.
I would say that on the Milankovitch theory. And I can prove it with various sources of evidence. No disrespect to Milankovitch; it is all he had to go by at the time. But we have been set wrong by his source for more than a century. The religious aspect of science.
melitamegalithic wrote:
You wrote a quote, but you wrote it.
On purpose or through sloppiness, you wrote that I said that quote, when I did not.
I deserve an apology and you correcting the record.
David Appell:
Prove, with mathematics, that the Sun rises every day.
Or shut up!
Can’t do Burl. The sun doesn’t rise every day; however, the earth rotates once a day.
burlhenry wrote:
Prove, with mathematics, that the Sun rises every day.
LOL.
Is this your excuse for not learning about CO2 warming?
B A Bushaw.
“It is disproven garbage, and you are unable to defend it scientifically”
On the other hand, you are unable to scientifically refute any of it!
Sadly, If you are unable to understand the straightforward, supportive empirical evidence that I provided in my post, your I.Q. must be well south of 100.
Oh, I refuted your title hypothesis with multivariate statistical analysis of empirical data for global annual temperature anomaly, [SO2], and [CO2] available since 1900. It’s clear that you can’t accept the refutation/disproof if you can’t understand the rather simple math involved. You have made it clear that you are incapable of statistical data analysis – too bad I had to do it for you, too bad you can’t accept the scientific truth of it.
Here’s Burl’s ‘paper’ again. I hope people enjoy reading it:
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Please read “Planet doesn’t emit at single temperature”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443983948/
B A Bushaw:
Could you explain the meaning of the following paragraph from Berkley Earth’s recent Carbon Brief:
“The combination of declines in (SO2) emissions since 2007 in China and the rest of the world, along with declines in SO2 from shipping after 2020 , have collectively unmasked a substantial amount of warming driven by GHGs.”
In particular, how have declines in SO2 emissions unmasked prior warming by GHGs?
Because SO2 aerosols provide less cooling as their emissions decrease. They don’t cause warming, as you falsely claim. If the difference is beyond your comprehension, you might try:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-human-caused-aerosols-are-masking-global-warming/
I watched the Berkeley Earth press conference of July 10 and Zeke Hausfather said there has been a 0.04-0.08 C reduction in global temperature due to decreased SO2. And that delta(T) of it was highly regional.
‘Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.’ ~Richard Lindzen
For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room… that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.~Dr. Roy W. Spencer
“Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.”
There is an obvious corollary that deserves equal consideration:
With temperature mediated reduction in albedo (among other feedbacks), the climate sensitivity becomes higher, and, of course, the more of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.
Ice free tropics with reduced cloud cover (as is already happening) is another feedback that increases climate sensitivity.
Ai is always useful in recapping the obvious-
‘Numerous instances exist throughout history where civilizations, including those in the tropics, have been significantly affected and even collapsed due to changes in weather patterns.’
‘It seems unreal, but there was a time when the Sahara Desert was green. Really green, with vegetation, frequent rainfall, and even communities living there. Hard to imagine, right? After all, today we know the Sahara as one of the driest places on the planet. But, according to recent NASA data and studies on the climate of thousands of years ago, this scenario was quite different. And the most curious thing: in 2024, some parts of the region again received an unusual amount of rainfall.’ ~EC News (July 14, 2025)
Wagathon wrote:
‘It seems unreal, but there was a time when the Sahara Desert was green.
So you’re saying that climate can change pretty fast. Right?
Wagathon wrote:
For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room… that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.~Dr. Roy W. Spencer
What do the data say?
Wagathon wrote:
For the last 10-20 years or more, a few of us have been saying that the IPCC has been ignoring the elephant in the room… that the real climate system is simply not as sensitive to CO2 emissions as they claim. Of course, the lower the climate sensitivity, the less of a problem global warming and climate change becomes.~Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Why should anyone care what Roy Spencer says?
He’s been wrong his whole career. Surely you know the history of the UAH LT time series, how they denied for YEARS what everyone was telling them, that they had a sign error in their analysis of satellite data?
It took them years to correct it.
I once spoke with a very prominent climate scientists who seemed to imply that someone had to go to them and show it explicitedly on their blackboard.
Yes, they were wrong. Instead of cooling their data showed warming.
Then there was the saga of their paper in Remote Systems.
Waga wrote:
~Richard Lindzen
When did Lindzen make this statement?
Come on, when?
Provide the link.
BTW, warming this century is already 0.63 C (since Jan 2001, according to NOAA who is pretty middle of the road).
Has anyone asked Lindzen lately what he thinks of 0.26 C/decade warming?
Anyone here?
https://www.nccivitas.org/civitas-review/climate-change-what-will-future-generations-say/#:~:text=As%20MIT%20professor%20of%20atmospheric,back%20of%20the%20industrial%20age.%22
…and, see–
‘Ambitious environmentalism’ https://share.google/hDBUWR08S2nR1Sjvx
…and see– you are such a loser!
Wagathon wrote:
https://www.nccivitas.org/civitas-review/climate-change-what-will-future-generations-say/#:~:text=As%20MIT%20professor%20of%20atmospheric,back%20of%20the%20industrial%20age.%22
Thanks for the link. But that was 15 years ago, a lifetime in climate science.
Have you asked him lately? Why not?
Ask him what he thinks of 0.26 C/decade warming since Jan 2001.
Wagathon wrote:
‘Ambitious environmentalism’
Ha ha. This guy thinks he has an automatic right to be heard regardless of the merits of his arguments.
Maybe that once worked in his communist country. It does not work in the country of science.
Extremely weak.
And that communist guy’s article was written 18 years ago!!
Way out of date.
Is that really the best you can do??
Wagathon: you didn’t reply to the question of whether 0.26 C/decade is worrisome or dangerous, or why it isn’t.
“It’s okay to be wrong, and [Lindzen] is a smart person, but most people don’t really understand that one way of using your intelligence is to spin ever more clever ways of deceiving yourself, ever more clever ways of being wrong. And that’s okay because if you are wrong in an interesting way that advances the science, I think it’s great to be wrong, and he has made a career of being wrong in interesting ways about climate science.”
– Raymond Pierrehumbert, http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/09/established-science.html
David Appell:
You misunderstood Zeke’s comments.
He actually said “The primary driver of this recent acceleration in warming has been declining (SO2) aerosol emissions.
He did NOT say that there was any reduction in global temperatures due to SO2.
You are a lying idiot!
From a libertarian perspective the only existential threat from climate change revolves around governmental attempts to mitigate it. Although PE argues for – by his definition – non market related decision making, electricity production and distribution operates under significant government control and in no way can be considered free markets.
That condition can explain how electricity is a prime target for government involvement in mitigating climate change and will be an area where initially the problems of government overreach will be seen and ignored or played down by those who see government as a singular problem solver.
Human’s ability to adapt and reason in solving problems depends on their freedoms to do so. Until our thinking and particularly that of the intelligentsia changes we will face the hardships of coercive political actions.
PE intimated that advancing technology could make the Post Office superficial whereas electric utilities are far from that point. I think that the fact that we still have a money losing Post Office belies his point. Technology outside the domain of government advances much faster than our political thinking.
Throughout history it is undeniable that it is the creators of fearful environments and not the targets of their anger and hatred that ultimately doom the people. Such fears most often are born of deception and the end is always the same: the fearmongers lead their followers down the path of misery, poverty, destruction and death.
Wagathon wrote:
Throughout history it is undeniable that it is the creators of fearful environments and not the targets of their anger and hatred that ultimately doom the people.
Do you think a 0.25 C/decade for the rest of this century is scary?
Why or why not?
Kenneth Fritsch wrote:
From a libertarian perspective the only existential threat from climate change revolves around governmental attempts to mitigate it.
Do Libertarians think a total 3-4 C warming by 2100 is a threat?
If not, please explain why not.
Appears the Netherlands is suffering from grid stress. unfortunately, the article paywalled.
https://www.ft.com/content/9c7560ec-a220-4150-a35e-a79db70c0c07
Groningen gas field closure in ’23 has led to energy rationing–solar of no help… going into the 21st century and they now must forego AI and pull their own buggy.