by Chris Morris
People have queried what is happening in Australia with their push for a decarbonised all renewables/ Net Zero grid since the last update in 2023. The answer is not much progress but massive amounts of money spent.
Renewable power has gone up to 9% of energy consumption, but energy productivity and intensity trends are flattening out. Power prices have risen above the rate of inflation and there is near terminal de-industrialisation. Despite massive LNG exports, there is a gas shortage, including for power stations. Biomass still provided more energy than wind and only a little less than solar. Most energy production is exported – the coal and gas shipments that people don’t want to be reminded of as that pays for the virtue signalling. The promised nirvana of cheap plentiful carbon-free power is probably further away now than it was then. Reality is just so cruel to the idealistic dreamers. Probably best summed up by a quote from Nick Cater “Sadly, our climate and energy policy remains in the grip of an intelligentsia that lacks the wisdom to recognise the boundaries of its own ignorance”.
The long outage at Broken Hill showed wind, solar and batteries couldn’t work when they were islanded. AEMO recognised in their Dec 2025 Transition Report about the difficulty of doing a system restart using only renewables. They write “exploring restoration support services to address stable load unavailability, and two new Type 2 Transitional Services trials to demonstrate black start capability using inverter-based resources (IBR) and to enable system restart in a high distributed photovoltaic (PV) environment.” They are still testing basic functions, like restarting without traditions resources, so it hasn’t been proven as viable, let alone something that can be relied upon.
There is a very good definition by AEMO that encompasses what system security means:
“A secure power system is one operated safely within defined technical limits, with the ability to withstand credible disturbances, return to secure operation, and restart following a widespread outage. While reliability requires sufficient generation and network capacity to meet customer demand, the requirements for system security are more technical, and include system strength (the ability of a power system to maintain and control the voltage waveform at any location, both during normal operation and following a disturbance), frequency and inertia, voltage control, transient and oscillatory stability, operability, and system restoration.”
If synchronous generators are to be replaced by IBRs, the latter have to be proven to reliably meet all those requirements in adverse conditions. Even the ever-optimistic AEMO doesn’t think that is the case.
In their earlier power system risk review report, they were concerned that all the renewables would cause protection issues, more non-credible events (2 or more loss of generation/ transmission events together or cascading) and batteries changing power flows in the transmission system. Their answer seems to be just more studies, reviews and consultations. They saw the emerging risks from synchronous generation shutting down with resultant low system strength as a possibly very serious issue, potentially leading to cascading events like the one which blacked out Spain. The terminology now used for unstable frequency is “small signal stability” As they write “Small signal stability is the ability of the power system to maintain synchronism after being subjected to a small perturbation without the application of a contingency event. This issue is gaining an increased focus in the NEM due to the growing presence of IBRs. “ That was another system strength problem that Spain highlighted with sub/ super synchronous oscillations leading to the cascade.
Armwaving statements by academics and advocates about what they theoretically do doesn’t cut it in the real world of grid operations. Performance and reliability have to be shown to be there before acceptance. That is why new plants have strict grid acceptance tests of their setting and protection systems before they are allowed to connect. They then need regular tests to show they stay compliant. And when issues arrive like relays tripping when they shouldn’t (the initiator of the Iberian blackout), the setpoints need to be changed and proven to work at the new settings.
There is a tacit acknowledgement that wind is too unreliable to provide a backup to solar. Even for an area the size of Australia, the wind isn’t always blowing somewhere. Figure 1 shows the variability. Figure 2 shows the continued reliance on coal for electricity
Fig 1 The total Eastern grid (NEM) wind generation over 24 day period showing both its variability and rapid changes (from Jo Nova). The black line shows total grid load and green is the wind generation.
The promised new pumped storage and transmission lines to support the renewables are bogged down by delays. Snowy 2.0 looks like it will be near a decade late and an order of magnitude more expensive with less storage capacity that originally promised. About the scheme, Robert Onfray in late 2023 substack post wrote “ In January this year, the project made headlines again after it was announced there would be a one-year delay. Then, in May, another announcement pushed the estimated completion out another two years. In five months, the official completion date has been delayed by three years, from 2026 to 2029. When first announced by Turnbull, Snowy 2.0 was going to be built by 2022. The construction cost estimate has blown out ten-fold to $20 billion, plus $10 billion for the plant and another $9 billion for 1,000 kilometres of 500kV transmission line connections to Sydney and Melbourne”. The energy company that is building it is currently preparing the latest price and commissioning estimate. Despite their promises, it won’t be the final one.
About the engineering aspects of the scheme, he wrote “Snowy 2.0, on the other hand, will be a giant, expensive, inefficient battery that will consume water and electricity to produce very little electricity, in contrast to the original Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme’s excellent reputation and engineering excellence. ….It is no secret in engineering circles that the Snowy 2.0 tunnels are far too long for an efficient pumped hydro system. Leading geologists and engineers know that the geological conditions for tunnelling in a typical tectonically induced alpine geology with opposing faults, tight folds, shears, bedding plane shears, and abutting perched waters are challenging and expensive. They knew this from geotechnical reports from the original Snowy scheme. And they were right, as the project costs have blown out way behind original estimates. It is simply remarkable that this project went ahead at all. It was doomed because of geology alone, let alone the defective concept.” No doubt it went ahead because the incompetent people advising the incompetent Prime Minister of the time thought he needed a good soundbite of a “vision” as his legacy. He will be remembered for it, but not in the way he dreamt.
The giant pumped storage in Queensland was cancelled by a new government that baulked at the cost. – even more expensive than Snowy 2 The smaller one at Borumba still hasn’t been committed to by the state but has Federal approval (and money) for exploratory works. The timeline for that is ridiculously ambitious and even if it goes ahead, it will be late and invariably overbudget. – they still haven’t confirmed the geology yet. The new transmission lines to bring in power to the cities, replacing the coal fired stations, from yet to be built solar and wind are overbudget and held up with planning delays. For some reason the city elites can’t understand, farmers don’t want all the pylons and power lines crossing their land with all the use restrictions with it. The woke are very big on Aboriginal land acknowledgements but not so for farmers who have been there generations. As the link mentions, these transmission lines will also need Federal concessional finance, aka subsidies.
The proposed extra DC link to Tasmania has also been hit by cost blowouts. The state no longer has an abundant hydro supply (they had to restart a mothballed fossil fuel plant as they had run out of water through reckless energy trading), and often has to import brown coal power from Victoria.
NSW is paying for a power company to extend the life of a big coal powered power station again, possibly to 2030s. The closure of Liddell cost them dearly and they are now near constantly having to import power. They also need more gas to reduce the summer blackout risk. The average age of the remaining coal stations across Australia is about 40 years old. People seem to want them only to generate when it is needed but things aren’t like that. They cannot just stop and start, can’t even rapidly ramp up or down and they have a relatively high minimum stable generation limit that constrains their turndown. They are not well maintained because of budget cuts starving them of capital investment, having to run at a loss at least part of the time, uncertainty of operation and politicians regularly trumpeting imminent closure to meet the Net Zero goals.
Fig 2: the year’s grid fuel source of the electricity generation showing coal is still the backbone of supply. The bars show the percentage from each source for the year while the graph under it is the weekly generation from each source. The dip at the end is the Xmas holidays. By showing wind as a weekly figure, it minimises its variability(note uncredited graphs are from the AEMO website)
Because of the regular middle of the day negative pricing caused by a surplus of solar and wind, some States are looking at “free” electricity to consumers over this period. The details of how this will be done has yet to be worked through, but it will invariably cost either consumers or taxpayers. You don’t get owt for nowt.
Another problem the grid is having to deal with is the loss of visibility for all the domestic solar – the behind the meter generation. When this generation drops, like for say a cloud going over, it only shows as an unexpected increase in demand. These increases can be big. Figure 3 shows a 500MW increase. This would have to be covered by FCAS (Frequency Control Ancillary Services ). Note that there are now 10 products in the FCAS market, a number of which had to be introduced because of unreliability and lack of inertia for wind/ solar.
To try to deal with the excessive domestic generation and subsequent negative pricing in the middle of the day, the federal government came up with a multi-billion dollar scheme to subsidise domestic battery installation. The scheme was badly designed and in something that should have been obvious to everyone except the scheme designers, rich homeowners installed the biggest batteries they could. These were a lot larger than their solar panels can deliver. The scheme costs got out of control. The government has redesigned the scheme and put in more money. The actual effect of all these household batteries on the grid has not been determined. It is fair to say that it is unlikely to be what was intended. It is hard to believe that all that uncontrollable and largely invisible load/ generation will make grid operations and management any easier.
Fig 3 The upper graph of grid demand showing a significant unexplained jump while the lower one was generation from grid connected solar farms. The mass of lines was the models prediction of the load, with the marked ones the actual load. This event was probably from something like a front arriving and domestic solar dropping output. (graphs from Wattclarity)
When events like this happen, it is no wonder that the grid frequency has increasing instability (Figure 4). The swings regularly go outside the deadband. That must cause significant changes in currents flowing along the lines, with the transformers having to adjust the tapchangers to keep the voltages under control. Even with frequency control on automated dispatch in the batteries providing FCAS, it would be difficult for the operators to see what is happening, let alone take remedial action.
Fig 4 The grid frequency over a 5 hour period middle of the day showing the instability – small signal stability conditions. It is often outside the deadband where no corrective action is needed, and stays within the permissible bounds but there would be significant call on FCAS. (Wattclarity is a very good site for providing reports on Australian grid events and things of interest.)
Though the batteries are touted as energy storage, they mainly seem to be used as reserve generation for grid management. In 2025, near half the revenue of the South Australian ones came from FCAS during outages and the accompanying price spikes. If they are there to provide that, their general energy trading operation providing power after the sun goes down is much restricted.
The AEMO in their December 2025 transition plan admit “Grid-forming battery energy storage systems (BESS) are progressing rapidly to be able to deliver a wide range of system security services in the NEM such as frequency control, voltage stability and some aspects of system strength.” Note they aren’t there yet and even then, they won’t provide the full suite of system strength abilities. All of which fossil fuel plant supplies as free extras to go with their generation. For the organisation tasked with implementing the government’s plans, that is quite an admission. Or are they just preparing the groundwork to say “I told you so” when the next blackout happens?
They then write “AEMO’s 2025 system strength and inertia assessments have confirmed the importance of delivering system strength and inertia solutions in tandem.” This is why Planning Engineer has been regularly writing that system strength is an undervalued capability. The lack of it is one of the main reasons the Iberian Peninsula blackout occurred.
The current federal government in Australia came to power in 2022 with a promise that their renewables push would lower power prices to the consumer. By mid 2023 the energy regulator was warning of power price increases. Since being in power, prices to consumers have gone up by hundreds of dollars. Undaunted by their failure, the same government hasn’t backed away with the promises still being made – just a longer timescale is needed.
The “average” spot price on the wholesale market bears no resemblance to what is paid by consumers because of all the negative pricing. It also isn’t volume weighted. But it is still touted by the know-nothings as proof of the cheapness of renewables. Data is hard to come by but it appears many stations (especially solar ones) are constrained off a significant proportion of the time from a combination of negative pricing together with system and line constraints. That will affect their commercial viability (a case for more subsidies?).
Australia has stopped building wind farms. It took until December for the first wind farm that year to get to financial close.so construction could start. Even then, this station was just for the separate South Western Grid in Western Australia. There were several in South Australia that were close to go-ahead but the ink isn’t on the contracts yet. Their economics (who will buy their power) aren’t known either.
AEMO, the grid operator, has warned of blackouts if the remaining coal plants are shut down. This was because the replacement equipment to provide system security wasn’t being built. That warning could be why the governments are now quietly pushing for the plants closure to be postponed, going for underwriting their continued operation. Originally this was just to 2027 for a large station in NSW, but now they want longer and no doubt more plant will be included.
South Australia (SA)
There are still the puff piece articles with headlines like this – South Australia may be first big grid in world to go without synchronous generation . The article is wrong. South Australia is not a grid. It is a small part of the larger Eastern Australian (NEM) grid. There is a massive AC interconnector coming into the state from the south and smaller DC ones from the East. The current flows along these interconnectors (at times 20-30% of grid load) mean that South Australia can virtue signal about its renewables target with minimised risk of blackout when the wind/ solar can’t deliver. The brown coal stations in Victoria supply power when wind and solar can’t. SA is also subject to massive electricity price variability on the spot market. And one trading period, or even one day is not what to base your electricity supply on. It needs to be over a ten year period at N-1-G (enough generation to cope with both the biggest transmission line and biggest single generator out of service at peak load) before it can be regarded as even near secure.
Boxing Day 2025 gives a very good illustration of how the raw grid data can be spun by articles like the Renew Energy one. The AEMO graphs showing the State’s supply, demand and price shows an apparent load of just 99MWnett for the state (Figure 5). However, the grid operators have a much higher Minimum System Load (MSL) they have to conform to to give stability. It was why 243MW was being generated – a third on gas– the difference had to be exported on the interconnectors (Figure 6). Without them, the State would have been in significant strife trying to cope with excess generation. This low nett generation is because of all the behind the meter household solar generation.
Fig5 Boxing Day 2025 showing minimal SA grid load (99MW), and power flowing into and out of the state on the interconnectors – why it isn’t a self-contained grid. The DC in is at its operating limit and the AC out near its limit. However, despite negative pricing, the gas turbines are generating as they are constrained on (which consumers have to pay for) to provide system strength services.
Fig 6 The fuel supply for the Minimum System load shown in previous figure showing the gas turbines running for grid stability. Note no grid solar.
A lot of grid solar and wind will be shut down as nowhere for the power to go. Incidently, that regular curtailment is causing commercial viability issues. The promoters’ pollyannaish answer to this seems to be new transmission lines and more batteries will solve the problem. As New Zealanders say sarcastically, “Yeah, right”
The minimum nett dropped to just 19MW for one period on Xmas Day 2025 (Fig 7) with rest of 180MW exported. However, one of the big grid batteries was issued a directive on Xmas Day to stay synchronised and absorb load to give extra grid support.
Fig 7 The SA grid generation source on Xmas Day 2025 showing the wind and solar were dispatched off to keep gas on. The actual generation mix at the marked line is shown in the bar chart below.
This very low grid generation is not truly representative for the State though. Looking at the data over a 12 month period shows a significantly different picture. That (Fig 8) shows that gas is still producing a quarter of the electricity. For one week in winter, it was about half, with diesel engines providing more power than batteries. Grid solar provided very little as that is always being constrained off by the domestic solar.
Fig 8 Electricity generation in SA over a year showing a quarter comes from gas. Highlighted is a week where most was supplied by gas and diesel produced as much as batteries. As previously mentioned, the aggregating of the wind to weekly figures masks its variability.
It gets even worse that that if one dives deeper into the detail. On one day (Figure 9), 83% of the generation came from gas and a further 5% from diesel. The much vaulted batteries provided less than that. It is days like this that the grid operators have to plan for. If they listened to the wind/ solar advocates with no fossil fuels allowed; as well as power being very expensive, there would be near total blackouts. But the fossil fuel generation needing to be available has to be paid for, even if it rarely generates. So it costs more to have a duplicated system.
Fig 9 Generation in South Australia 27th Jun 2025 showing overwhelming reliance on gas and diesel for the peaks with very little wind or solar available that day. There would have also been significant power imported from Victoria through the interconnectors.
Even that bad news for the advocates is not the full picture. Like the Boxing Day data shows, they are often exporting electricity at giveaway prices. No generation company could survive the loss making, unless there are big subsidies. But at night in the winter months as well as burning diesel to run engines, the state will be importing expensive coal powered energy from Victoria or possibly even Queensland. That is why they need the interconnectors.
Of course there is a price to pay for the solar, wind and batteries. The state has the most expensive electricity in Australia for the consumer – about US30c a unit. That power price is part of the reason the state has deindustrialised more than others have.
There is so much rooftop solar that the SA government has introduced solar curtailment plans so their supply can be shut off if it is too high. They are also lowering feed in tariffs. This is to try to reduce the risk of excessive voltages on the distribution network, which will damage appliances. In serious cases, the grid operators can automatically trip inverters. As part of this, the power network has introduced a scheme where you can send up to 1.5kW into the grid near unrestricted except for when excessive voltage trips your system. The alternative they want adopted is allowing up to 10kW in, but the network has more control over that supply. It remains to be seen if this solves the problem.
SA subsidises consumers and small businesses. This is in addition to the federal government subsidising renewable generation and paying the fossil fuel plants not to shut down as well as generating to provide system strength services.
Summing Up
There has been little decarbonisation since 2020. Aging, increasingly unreliable coal fired power stations are still the backbone of the electricity supply. The price of energy is inexorably rising. Australian governments, both State or Federal, are subsidising domestic solar and batteries, subsidising grid wind and solar generation, subsidising fossil fuel plant to stay generating to do what the unreliable wind and solar can’t, and subsidising consumers as power is too expensive. When will it all end in tears?
That the Left sees value in de-industrialization and still gets voted into office is the definition of political and not scientific motivated thinking and a proven unproductive contribution to society. When will they (the voters) ever learned?
It takes a lot of energy to turn a lot of wheels. Western Academia might as well devote all their time weaning society off its dependence on the wheel.
The primary use of a windmill on a remote farm in early Midwest America was to pump water from underground aquifers.
‘When will it all end in tears?’
That an aging movie star who cracked his nut in Hollywood who then uses his wealth to power an existence in the desert using solar power and wind energy is not insane. But it is inane. And it becomes inane insanity to then donate campaign contributions to a politician who then flies to Davos in a private jet to argue for his example.
Thanks, Chris. As usual, very detailed.
Thank you for an interesting article
( Hard to “decarbonate” also natural variability in the carbon cycle:
NEW Nature research indicate that natural SST-driven processes playing a larger and more complex role in atmospheric CO₂ variability than some models currently represen.
The study seems to suggests that sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies associated with El Niño drive natural climate variability that strongly affects the atmospheric carbon cycle, particularly through temperature-driven changes in vegetation respiration and precipitation patterns. These natural processes can cause large, short-term increases in atmospheric CO₂, independent of direct human emissions. )
.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-025-01237-z
————————–
( https://mewe.com/post/show/6962d80ce53e313d05abb7b0 )
.
Regards
SH W. Clouds
(https://mewe.com/shortwaveclouds/)
“These natural processes can cause large, short-term increases in atmospheric CO₂, independent of direct human emissions.”
Only if you define +7 to +17% in one year as large. Half of which will be absorbed by the next La Nina.
Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. Minor atmospheric CO2 changes caused by El Ninos are partially reversed by La Ninas. Global CO2 growth rates during El Niño events are typically 0.5 to 1.2 ppm/year higher than in normal years.
Half of this will be absorbed by the next La Nina.
A full El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle—the natural movement between El Niño (warm), La Niña (cool), and Neutral phases—typically occurs every 2 to 7 years.
Assume five years.
Humans will emit 35 PPM of CO2 over five years. Enso cycle will emit another 0.5 PPM.
In those five years, nature will absorb about half of all the new CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 had been net declining for billions of years until humans started burning fossil fuels.
Politicians refrain “It’s only money and it’s not even ours”
Pingback: Great Success! – small dead animals
The nitwittery of The West with its Leftist climate cult politicians is ongoing. They don’t learn from the disastrous policies that have already failed spectacularly, such as in Germany after they shut down nuclear power plants. California is facing an energy catastrophe because of taxing, suing and regulating oil companies into fleeing the state. California’s Green boondoggles include the Ivanpah Heliostat Generating Plant shutdown, the Moss Landing battery storage facility fire and the demolition of multiple dams on the Klamath River that provided cheap reliable hydroelectric power
Thanks, Chris. As someone who works in the field, I am continually amazed at the ideological drive to decarbonise our grid and the blithe dismissals of protestations from the electricity experts. I’ve said it before, but if it ever got to the stage where the renewables grid broadly “worked” (for want of a better word) it would be so vast, so complicated, so expensive and still won’t work properly, that everyone will sigh and say we should have gone nuclear or high efficiency coal.
An excellent article.
In the old days, there was a small market for uninterruptible power, e.g the farm water pump which filled a pond for cattle. It was cheaper than guaranteed steady supply. And when a fossil power plant age reached forty or fifty years, experienced utility operators rationed their maintenance budgets.
Political, academic and legalistic forces have now upset this engineering approach while in Europe, also shut down nuclear plants. Both Europe and Australia have tried to use the alternate energies, mainly wind and solar, for base load.
The result is akin to substituting fast reaction of uncontrolled interruptible generation for steady state supply, which ignores the basic design of massive equipment engineered, built and operated to meet the base load A fleet of corvettes is different than one battleship. Used improperly all can be destroyed.
Sec. of Energy C. Wright, “Mr Fracking” just authored an article on this. All alternate energy sources are far too expensive to support the grid of any advanced nation and this will be true for all people alive today. He considered the direct “all-in costs” ignoring the nebulous climate change “eternal” costs assigned against fire based energy by various voices; these assigned costs are external to the market determinated price. How much should a kilowatt hour of energy from a coal fired generator be due to hurricanes. A penny? Or $100 dollars?
I say this is a political not technical decision but caution masses will die when we get the wrong answer. The grid collapses, a common occurrence in many places, in the western hemisphere. The US’s pressing problem is that the intellectual and manual experienced veteran cohort which once worked this social need are now largely dead. The US lacks a generation of talent which takes twenty years to achieve. This is not a parlor debate topic. You bet your life on the outcome.
That is why the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
It was traditionally believed, when a surface is solar irradiated, what is not reflected, it is absorbed as heat.
It was a traditional believe: either solar energy is reflected, or it is absorbed as heat.
So, that believe led to the logical assertion, that no matter how fast a planet rotates, the entire not reflected solar energy is absorbed as heat.
Now we know, the not reflected portion is not entirely absorbed as heat. It is Immediately IR Emitted, and, only a small part is absorbed.
So, when faster rotating, a planetary surface exhibits a lower Immediate IR Emission, and a higher Heat Absorption.
In general case, a planet with a higher (N*cp) product (everything else equals), that planet absorbs more heat, and therefore, that planet develops a higher average surface temperature (Tmean).
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Update on Australian NetZero efforts – Climate- Science.press
Nothing that generates electricity can be made without massive inputs of coal, oil and gas. So called “renewables” cannot be renewed without coal, oil and gas.
Using the gross capacity of solar and wind when discussing new additions sounds more impressive than using actual capacity factors for new additions.
Also worth commenting is the concept of marginal cost / marginal benefit. As more gross renewable capacity is added, the actual capacity factor will start to decrease.
Joe, gross capacity reflects manufacture, not local generation capacity. Both are important. The latter can’t be estimated until the installation site is known.
What is the purpose of your response? Nothing in your response addresses the points made. Nor is anything in your response is an accurate reflective of the subject matter.
What did we expect when we voted in a communist government?
Detta belyser tydligt hur endpoint-säkerhet blivit en kritisk faktor inom professionella IT-tjänster.
Chris, I’ll offer the assessment of RMNL (ne NREL) scientists as rebuttal. Their conclusion:
Over the past two decades, dozens of studies have been conducted to evaluate questions associated with maintaining reliability in power systems with an increased deployment of variable renewable energy (wind and solar). These studies have identified approaches to cost effectively address the variability and uncertainty of solar and wind resources. Many of these approaches have been implemented, enabling a growing contribution of variable renewable energy resources in today’s grid. These studies also identify pathways to accommodate future
growth, including addressing the changing role of traditional generators from energy resources to capacity resources. Studies have also identified how new technologies can help maintain grid stability. These lessons can support current utility plans to develop large amounts of economic renewable energy deployments while maintaining state and federal reliability standards.
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/89166.pdf
“These studies have identified approaches to cost effectively address the variability and uncertainty of solar and wind resources.” Solar and wind are solutions looking for a problem.
Friedrich Merz, leader of the center-right Christian Democratic Union party and said to be the likely next Chancellor of Germany, admitted the shift from nuclear with reliance on intermittent renewables like wind was a “serious strategic mistake.”
George,
The problem is that fossil fuel generation is ‘dirty’ and uses a non-renewable fuel, while new nuclear in the pipeline is so slow and small, that it doesn’t make much of a dent. Currently, solar and wind are the technologies of choice addressing the problem of capacity growth.
Defining the CDU in Germany as a representation of the center right is an abuse of the term if one doesn’t first understand the “political” meaning of the word conservatism—which is often used in reference to either the right, or center right, but this is not entirely accurate in relative terms, I’ll explain.
The political definition of conservatism doesn’t translate to the dictionary definition, though over time the term has become obfuscated. Point being, the German “center right” is entirely unique to the American concept of center right, for example.
Hayek explained the distinctions between European and American conservatism when he wrote his book: “Why I’m not a conservative”. Hayek was specifically referring to European conservatism, which he rejected. Hayek was a classical liberal in the American tradition—the distinction in relational terminology that has become lost, yet it’s still contextual relevant.
Classical liberalism in the US is conservatism, it’s centered on individual liberty, freedom and the constructs found within the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Hayek was a conservative in the American Whig tradition specifically, an American conservative, not a European conservative. He explains the distinctions in his book; unfortunately his books title is all a Leftist need to understand for ideological purposes.
The political definition of conservatism means one has a sympathetic appeal to an earlier form of political philosophy (this was first defined post French Revolution). Once one gets past this basic understanding it becomes easier to frame in context in contemporary geopolitical context, this is how Hayek framed the distinctions.
Where’s all this going? Take for example, if a country has a legacy of communism, and a citizen in said system was considered a conservative, then it would mean they had a sympathetic appeal to an earlier form of said countries communist doctrine that had since evolved. Does this make said individual a Rightest? Not in the Western sense, they would have likely been long executed based on Western concepts of “Right”.
When one thinks in terms of conservatism, the important consideration is that the label is relative to the country in question. The term can have a different political persuasion in context to the country in question. In Germany, in this example, if one is considered a conservative they may have a sympathetic appeal to a kinder gentler form of National Socialism. Yes. Nobody tends to think in this regard, but it explains many things when one considers the ideals behind German conservatism. To best explain it further, the AdF party in Germany is considered Far Right, they’re labeled Fascist—yet they align with American classical conservatism ideologically speaking. Yet conservative label by definition in Germany aligns more closely with a softer/gentler version of “global” socialism, a split from the pretext of nationalism socialism. The Third Reich was never of the Right, Cambridge scholar George Watson made this abundantly clear. The world has been illuminated by gaslighting since WW2.
It’s true.
Merkel led the CDU, her father was a leader in the Hitler Youth movement. Merkel was educated on Marx, her ideals were always based on Marx, her bent was always for a kinder gentler socialism. Time has obliterated meaning.
BA
How many grids do NREL run?
There is a very large disconnect between the theory and operational experience. That is why the Spanish grid came to grief.
“Armwaving statements by academics and advocates about what they theoretically do doesn’t cut it in the real world of grid operations. “
Arm waving & hysteria make energy policy fun. Why not bitter arguments and false claims? We’re all going to die from climate change, so why not have some fun on the way out?
In Spain, solar energy production at midday can decline by 75% to 90% if dense clouds cover most of the country.
Cloud cover mainly matters during the six hours a day when the sunlight is most strong.
Low grid inertia did not cause the blackout in Spain, but it made a blackout more likely to happen.
Spain had low grid inertia at midday for several years with no blackouts. Low grid inertia is just an accident waiting to happen.
Richard wrote: We’re all going to die from climate change
If we die from climate change, it could only happen because we destroyed reliable fossil fuel and nuclear powered Grids and Fossil fuel for transportation and all kinds of everything we do.
With Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Energy, we can adapt to climate change. We have people who live in Polar Regions and we have people who live in the Tropics, hot dry tropics and wet tropics.
Pope, Tell us about all the other species that have advanced technology that will help them survive the climate change that humans are creating with their technology.
Really? In 2026, with all the backtracking the IPCC has done about ‘catastrophic climate change’ you are still ranting about ‘surviving climate change?’ It seems obvious that you are not keeping up with the literature.
Thomas,
Go ahead, cite the literature you are referring to. Maybe we can then be a smart as you.
BAB writes–
“Tell us about all the other species that have advanced technology that will help them survive the climate change that humans are creating with their technology.”
1. There are no other species with advanced technology that we know of on earth.
2. Species die out on earth due to human’s successful population growth and encroachment no due to human caused climate change.
Rob, I’m surprised, but glad you understand.
BA Bushaw, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
Thomas,
So you don’t know the difference between scientific literature and reports. No surpruse.
Nonetheless, you still don’t make a traceable citation (chapter section, page, or specific description or quotation. Or perhaps you are just playing a stupid child’s game.
I didn’t find any backtracking in AR6 WG2, but I did find this:
TS.C.1 Without urgent and ambitious emissions reductions, more terrestrial, marine and freshwater species and ecosystems will face conditions that approach or exceed the limits of their historical experience (very high confidence). Threats to species and ecosystems in oceans, coastal regions and on land, particularly in biodiversity hotspots, present a global risk that will increase with every additional tenth of a degree of warming (high confidence). The transformation of terrestrial and ocean/coastal ecosystems and loss of biodiversity, exacerbated by pollution, habitat fragmentation and land use changes, will threaten livelihoods and food security (high confidence). (Figure TS.5 ECOSYSTEMS) {2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7, Figure 2.8, 2.5.4, Figure 2.11, Table 2.5, 3.2.4, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 4.5.5, 9.6.2, 12.4, 13.10.2, 14.5.1, 14.5.2, 15.3.3, 16.4.2, 16.4.3, CCP1.2.4, CCP5.3.2, CCP5.2.7, CCP 7.3.5}
Note that are all high or very high confidence. I guess you’d have to be more specific about where that ‘backtracking’ is disscussed.
Mr. Bushaw, there’s another alternative to consider. Maybe you’re just too lazy or ignorant to read the report that is based on peer-reviewed literature.
Since there is absolutely no projected catastrophic climate change predicted in the peer-reviewed literature on which the report is based, it’s hard to provide a citation. Maybe in your world it’s easy to prove a negative. Here in the real world (which you’re welcome to join any time) it’s a bit different.
Here is the list of citations of peer-reviewed literature for Chapter 1. Fool. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_References_Chapter01.bib
None, they are a research laboratory that studies grids and grid components. They do not control or direct public power utilities.
“There is a very large disconnect between the theory and operational experience”
Yes, that is nearly always the case, and logically so.
BA
Thank you for inadvertently proving the validity of the sentence I wrote that Joe K kindly repeated.
You beloved NREL writes in the linked report “Even with significant deployment of IBRs, studies of the EI (serving about 70% of the nation’s electricity demand), show that this grid can support extremely large amounts of renewable resources with small impact on frequency stability.” Yet Figure 4 shows that even with significant batteries in FFR mode with 1 second raise lower automated dispatch and probably only about 30% renewable penetration (too much behind the meter to know exact data) that it can’t. Who are we to believe – academic witterings or real-world data? Frequency stability is the easiest of system strength requirements to meet, yet very expensive IBR technology obviously can’t even do that.
It will be interesting to see if the research direction of renamed NREL changes. I suspect that it will. Then maybe they will no longer live in dreamland and do sensible research like EPRI used to last century.
And as I have previously written, please stop the delusion that being able to do Google searches gives you any expertise in subjects that are way outside your wheelhouse. It obviously doesn’t and it is tiresome.
Chris, your continued pissing and moaning about the impossibility of reliable high penetration wind and solar generation, when it is happening and leaving you in the dust, is what is tiresome.
What NREL actually said about figure 4 was:
“Figure 4 shows an example comparing the variability of the solar resource at a single site vs. multiple sites and shows that variability typically occurs over longer timescales (minutes to hours), which reduces the potential need for expensive operating reserves. A similar benefit of aggregation occurs with
wind generators.”
Perhaps reading comprehension is beyond your wheelhouse, or maybe it is just a penchant for fabrication.
Figure 4 is a model output. It is one day. Believe it or not, there are 365 in a year. What happened on the rest of them? That is the variability is. And what happened at dusk?
Chris, Here is what you previously said about fig. 4
” Yet Figure 4 shows that even with significant batteries in FFR mode with 1 second raise lower automated dispatch and probably only about 30% renewable penetration …
That is false. Your deflections, fabrications, (and anger) make what you have to say less than interesting.
Page 8 of the NREL report has the following statement – “Early assumptions about the need for “1:1 spinning backup” from fossil-fueled resources have largely been refuted, and studies (along with real-world experience) have demonstrated that the costs of increased fossil-fuel plant cycling are small compared to the fuel cost savings from reduced fossil fuel use (Lew et al. 2013).”
While that statement may be correct, it is one of the typical bait and switch analysis that is typical of advocacy studies, especially prominent in studies such as Jacobson and advocacy websites such as Skeptical Science.
The NREL has numerous other example of bait and switch which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on.
“Figure 4 shows an example comparing the variability of the solar resource at a single site vs. multiple sites and shows that variability typically occurs over longer timescales (minutes to hours), which reduces the potential need for expensive operating reserves. A similar benefit of aggregation occurs with
wind generators.”
While that statement may be correct, it is another example of bait and switch through out the NREL report. Chris picked up on the bait and switch with the observation that NREL skipped over the frequency issue with the switch to aggregation to reduce variability, but not frequency.
The graph, particularly for few stations, is model data that has been smoothed to remove it its minute to minute variability. Especially on cloudy days, the output goes up and down 5-10% rating at very short irregular intervals. And that is the problem NREL ignore. Electricity grid operation is Power, NOT Energy. True sometimes the variability flattens out, but other times it reinforces and overwhelms the frequency keeping. And that is why the Spanish and Australian grids – the stuff in the real world, have big issues.
Along with the source of the generation changing, from that, different current flows in the transmission system occur. That means reactive voltage problems like what Katryn Porter wrote abouthttps://watt-logic.com/2025/10/24/location-location-location-managing-voltage-in-weak-grids/
Chris’s comment –
“Especially on cloudy days, the output goes up and down 5-10% rating at very short irregular intervals. And that is the problem NREL ignore. ”
As I stated, Bait and Switch is prolific in through out the renewable advocacy commentary. The aggregation partially solves the variability issues, but not the frequency issues. As noted by Chris, NREL trying to hide it by their focus on the aggregation.
Joe K: ““Especially on cloudy days, the output goes up and down 5-10% rating at very short irregular intervals. And that is the problem NREL ignore. ”
No, that is exactly the problem that aggregation addresses. It is simple statistics. Too bad about your comprehension skills, or is it just another lie?
Joe K: ““Especially on cloudy days, the output goes up and down 5-10% rating at very short irregular intervals. And that is the problem NREL ignore. ”
Bab’s response “- “No, that is exactly the problem that aggregation addresses. It is simple statistics. Too bad about your comprehension skills, or is it just another lie?”
That is the aggregation problem that NREL superficially pretends to address. Cloudy days tend to cover large geographical regions. When one is affected many , if not most all , are affected. Same with wind. Wind trends tend to be continental wide, not small localized patterns.
Check source data such as EIA.gov instead of relying on advocacy reports.
Joe K:
“Joe K: ““Especially on cloudy days, the output goes up and down 5-10% rating at very short irregular intervals. And that is the problem NREL ignore. ”
Bab’s response “- “No, that is exactly the problem that aggregation addresses. It is simple statistics. Too bad about your comprehension skills, or is it just another lie?”
That is the aggregation problem that NREL superficially pretends to address.”.
Self negation (in bold) is so entertaining, and you do it so much. So NREL specifically addressed the problem, not ignored it. Just another lie from jojo, who will probably attempt a CYA with a “yabut, they didn’t cover it the way I thought they should”.
Bab – Your response shows you dont understand the distortions , bait and switch, etc. presented by NREL.
As previously suggested, review the source data at EIA so that you have better grasp of the topic and so that you can recognize the validity of an advocacy article.
Joek – No, my response shows that I understand your self-negation, and that you don’t know the meaning of “bait and switch” – you can’t provide examples thereof. Repeating the lie does not make it (nor you) correct.
I look at EIA articles, as you know (solar and batteries are by far the fastest growing grid components) and data. However, by definition, data does not go beyond the present. My interest lies with the future.
Here is the source data for US wind+solar generation exceeding that of coal in 2025:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/elec_coal_renew.php
BAB Scores another own goal!
The issue is the variability, stability and frequency.
You shifted to gross volume which addresses none of those issues. You didnt even notice that you addressed gross volume (gross capacity) instead of actual capacity, in spite of the multitude of prior explanations.
Go back to EIA to grasp the basics.
Bab – the discussion is on varibility, stability and frequency.
This is the eia dashboard you should be looking at, not the gross numbers which hide the varibility stability and frequency issues.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
Thanks, Joe. I always appreciate your degree of wisdom and insights.
Bab writes –
“Thanks, Joe. I always appreciate your degree of wisdom and insights.”
Bab – instead of being a smart ass with your comments – you could drill down into the EIA generation by source data. It should become quite apparent to you that NREL’s analysis of variability and frequency management is not very robust. The source data allows you to pick any time period, any grid.
Compare and contrast the actual source data from EIA with the Fig 4 in the NREL. The NREL fig 4 shows very little variability for all of Southern CA. The actual source data at EIA shows considerable variability for the entire CISO. The NREL study makes no effort to reconcile the discreptancy.
Who are you going to believe ? Studies ? or actual Source data?
fwiw – I posted the same linked at skeptical science mentioning that the source data conflicted with the narrative. Several commentators at SkS commented that you should rely on the “peer reviewed” studies and never check the work against source data. Wonder why the advocates are scared of letting the raw or source data be known?
Joe K, I’d rather be a smart ass than a stupid one like you.
What a good point from the Bab who has been consistently wrong on the subject of renewables.
Joe K: “Who are you going to believe ? Studies ? or actual Source data?”
Both, you should try it. Generally, the people who do the studies have the expertise to use and analyze the source data, and do so. I don’t think you have those skills.
Joe K: “Who are you going to believe ? Studies ? or actual Source data?”
As Bab writes ”
“Both, you should try it. Generally, the people who do the studies have the expertise to use and analyze the source data, and do so. I don’t think you have those skills.”
Your repetitive commentary that various individuals lack skills is humorous. You have repetitively praised the NREL study and other studies. Yet as both Chris, myself and others have shown, Those studies lack the robustness sufficient to demonstrate scientific rigor. It would be your skills that are lacking as shown by your failure to recognize the inherent weakness of the studies which you praise.
Nothing more needs to be stated since you have not demonstrated actual knowledge of the subject matter.
Joe, The particular NREL article I referenced is a progress report suitable for public consumption. If you want Scientific rigor, try looking at the 44 references they give. I look forward to the references you can give to support your incorrect and worthless personal opinions.
BAB writes –
“Joe, The particular NREL article I referenced is a progress report suitable for public consumption. If you want Scientific rigor, try looking at the 44 references they give. I look forward to the references you can give to support your incorrect and worthless personal opinions.”
Bab – like the 44 references the NREL report has? Including the one on Page 8 (lew 2013)?
The one that gets several issues wrong. The error has been explained to you upwards of 30+ times, yet you still dont understand why Lews statement is wrong and highly misleading?
Came across this point from a month ago, re “Page 8 of the NREL report”
Quote piece “studies (along with real-world experience) have demonstrated that the costs of increased fossil-fuel plant cycling are small compared to the fuel cost savings from reduced fossil fuel use (Lew et al. 2013).”
Large plant designed for base-load likely will suffer a heavy cost in material life expenditure. In coal/oil steam plant Low-Cycle Fatigue due to thermal cycling can be considerable. And dangerous if it is not being monitored. Same with gas-turbines, cycling as in two shifting may near double hot gas path life expenditure. Material replacement and downtime costs may be considerable.
I sense that the report is – or may be- not conscious of such matters. At the design stage for Two-Shifting plant these matters figure strongly in cost factoring of generated power. Costs of long unscheduled outages is likely to be very high.
Joe K, read the table of contents if you are not able to comprehend the whole report. They do not skip over the frequency issue. Thanks, for the usual and obvious empty lies.
They did skip over the substantive frequency issue as both Chris and I noted. The subsequent discussion of frequency is shallow.
As I previously stated – The NREL has numerous other example of bait and switch which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on.
Chris picked up on the issue – BaB did not.
Joe K, So they didn’t skip over it, you just didn’t like treatment. Thanks for admitting that you lie indiscriminately. You also continue your word games with your empty, unspecified accusations.
I’ll just note that in 2025 wind and solar output in the US exceeded that of coal. The trajectory is expected to continue.
The discussion of frequency was very superficial. That is a variation of skipping over it.
As I previously stated – The NREL has numerous other example of bait and switch which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on.
Chris picked up on the issue
Joe K: “As I previously stated – The NREL has numerous other example of bait and switch which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on.”
And as I have pointed out previously, you are unable to name a single one. Sorry, you don’t get it. Absurd claims with without evidence are garbage and most likely lies. This particular case is not “bait and switch”, nor was it skipped over, and jojo can’t provide evidence of any other cases. What a child – just makes stuff up.
“The discussion of frequency was very superficial. That is a variation of skipping over it.”
Are you really that stupid? Obvious CYA for your obvious mistakes.
BAB write
“And as I have pointed out previously, you are unable to name a single one. ”
A specific instance where I specifically point one out –
Joe K | January 13, 2026 at 10:53 am |
“Figure 4 shows an example comparing the variability of the solar resource at a single site vs. multiple sites and shows that variability typically occurs over longer timescales (minutes to hours), which reduces the potential need for expensive operating reserves. A similar benefit of aggregation occurs with
wind generators.”
Now the question arises – Why should I point out each one of the multitude of deception which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on. Note that Chris picked up on those issues. You did not which is reflective of your superficial knowledge of the subject matter.
BAB write
“And as I have pointed out previously, you are unable to name a single one. ”
Here is another time where I specifically pointed one out –
Joe K | January 13, 2026 at 10:51 am |
Page 8 of the NREL report has the following statement – “Early assumptions about the need for “1:1 spinning backup” from fossil-fueled resources have largely been refuted, and studies (along with real-world experience) have demonstrated that the costs of increased fossil-fuel plant cycling are small compared to the fuel cost savings from reduced fossil fuel use (Lew et al. 2013).”
BaB – Care to come back and address the specific items of deception that you deny that I previously cited?
Or do you even recognize the deception – the bait and switch?
Joe K,
That’s right. I don’t see it. What is the bait, what is the switch?
And no, I can’t and won’t respond to things you can’t or won’t specify.
Bab Writes –
“That’s right. I don’t see it. What is the bait, what is the switch”
I dont expect you to see it – even though its pointed out to you.
As I previously stated – The NREL has numerous other example of bait and switch which an astute reader with knowledge of renewables should easily pick up on.
Very simply, you come in the discussion with considerable arrogance, yet as several knowledgable individuals have corrected you on numerous occasions, you fail to have sufficient basic understanding of the topic. As such, there is a failure on your part to pick up on the deceptions, the bait and switch, etc. Renewables is not the only topic which you show extreme arrogance with little basic knowledge.
My comment – “The discussion of frequency was very superficial. That is a variation of skipping over it.”
Bab’s comment – “Are you really that stupid? Obvious CYA for your obvious mistakes.”
The discussion on frequency is very superficial. Its a case of you not understanding the subject matter, so the superficial aspects escape you. You also missed the bait and switch.
Thanks, Joe. You can’t support or explain your silly, contentless comments – even when directly asked. And you don’t learn from being called on it. Pathetic.
BAb’s comment ”
“Thanks, Joe. You can’t support or explain your silly, contentless comments – even when directly asked. And you don’t learn from being called on it. Pathetic.”
4 times I gave you the specific statement – yet you cant figure out what was wrong – Why? Because you dont understand the topic even though you arrogantly assert your superior knowledge.
Since still have not pick up on your ignorance –
First one was the misdirection of costs
Second one is the misdirection/ over simplication of variability with the aggregation.
Third was the superficial discussion of ibr and the effect on frequency.
Again – you have to understand the topic to pick up on the issue
Yeah Joe, I’m really stupid. What is the bait and switch?
Bab’s comment – ”
“Yeah Joe, I’m really stupid. What is the bait and switch”
Read Chris’s comments – He was at tad more patient and polite.
Joe K,
So you can’t do it, eh? LMAO.
I’ve read Mr. Morris’ comments. They pretty much stopped after he mis-identified the contents of Fig 4, and then attempted to insult me by accusing me, correctly, of using Google to do literature research. LMAO.
Don’t represent what I wrote BAB to cover your inadequacies and lack of understanding of the subject. I gather you are referring my comment 12:21 13/1/26. Try reading it again but this time knowing the Figure 4 I referred to was the one in my post.
That shows that there was inadequate frequency control with relatively low penetration of IBR and a more sophisticated management system than what the NREL academics wrote and which I quoted.
Sure Chris. You didn’t say “my Figure 4”. Sloppy and angry, as usual. Don’t let the dust choke you.
BAB writes “Sure Chris. You didn’t say “my Figure 4”. Sloppy and angry, as usual. Don’t let the dust choke you.”
Dont let your continuing display of ignorance on a subject for which you express great knowledge choke you.
Mr. Fuller wrote “Mr. Bushaw, there’s another alternative to consider. Maybe you’re just too lazy or ignorant to read the report that is based on peer-reviewed literature.”
I gave a direct quote from your selected reference. You didn’t – who is lazy? I guess you find insults easier, if you can’t do the research.
As for your personal opinions, they have no value without evidence.
Page 2: Update on “CCP” NetZero efforts
https://libertysentinel.org/ccp-plays-power-broker-at-un-climate-summit/
Page 2, in the fold:
https://ussanews.com/2026/01/11/trump-order-taking-us-out-of-un-climate-orgs-caps-flood-of-corporate-exits/
I might add—the CCP enjoys unfettered access for live fire naval flotilla exercises surrounding Australia.
Must be one of their solar ad campaign teasers.
Pingback: Was andere Medien sagen
I enjoyed this satire article on Australia’s Net Zero. Net Zero has been a big success everywhere it has been tried. Few people know that because they don’t realize what Net Zero is intended to do. I knew what Net Zero was ten years ago when the term was invented. I’m no genius, but I can tie my shoes and chew gum at the same time
I realized immediately that almost all economic activity increases atmospheric CO2.
Windmills and solar panels were not going to change that. There had to be other reasons why politicians wanted Net Zero. I rounded up the usual suspects and here they are:
(1) Net Zero allows politicians to tell everybody how to live and what to do.
(2) Net Zero allows politicians to steer a lot of government spending and other money to their supporters.
Net Zero is simply a boogeyman that allows politicians to gain more political power. But CO2 is getting to be a boring boogeyman and I want a new one. CO2 doesn’t scare me and I don’t even know why it scares anyone. For a new and scarier boogeyman, I propose an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus coming with weapons of mass destruction.
New Zealand is heavy in hydro. Net zero does in fact work well when hydro/geo are the primary sources for electric generation. Not so true with solar and wind. dont conflate two different energy mixes as one and then pretend that is a valid comparison
New Zealand not Australia.
my bad – RG wrote Australia and then Net Zero so many times, I mistook it for new zealand. RG also wrote net zero has been big success everywhere tried which is true for countries with high levels of hydro and geo for their renewables which is the case for NZ, Iceland, Norway and a few others. I simply read the post too quickly.
In Norway, fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) make up a significant portion of the total energy supply, around 45-50% in 2024
Iceland champions the power of geothermal energy for the …In Iceland, fossil fuels account for roughly 15-20% of primary energy consumption, with the vast majority used in transportation, while nearly 100% of electricity and over 90% of heating come from renewable geothermal and hydropower sources.
Fossil fuels still supply a significant portion of New Zealand’s primary energy, around 54-55%. New Zealand has officially legislated a “Net Zero” target, but the implementation and commitment to this philosophy are currently subjects of significant political debate. I don’t know why you mentioned New Zealand. Hydropower is New Zealand’s largest renewable electricity source, typically providing around 50-60% of the nation’s electricity, but it’s a smaller, though significant, part of primary energy, making up about 15% of total domestic energy supply in 2024
I only considered Net Zero when it was a new policy for a nation. Norway and Iceland just continued doing what they were always doing concerning energy before 2015.
Iceland and Norway had low CO2 emissions from their energy sectors long before “net zero” was formally adopted as a global policy goal (which gained traction in the late 2000s and was solidified by the 2015 Paris Agreement).
Their low emissions were primarily due to the early adoption of renewable energy, particularly hydropower and geothermal, for electricity and heating.
90% or more of Norway’s electricity is from hydropower generation…
New Zealand is not as far down the Net Zero path as proponents make out. We are deindustrialising because of high energy costs. Typically, it still averages around 50g CO2/ kWh. The easy pickings have gone. Hydro still makes over 50% and geothermal about 20%. Thermal makes up to 20% and is mostly relied on over the winter peaks. It is heavily coal in an old station as the previous government effectively killed the gas exploration so that is running down.
The grid operator has realised the risk of low inertia and set minimum limits for each island. This has been exceeded a few times. In future, wind will be dispatched off very little solar generation during those times.
Chris, I truly feel for the pragmatists in Australia. The woke green movement is off the rails in the US too, especially the coasts. Much of the EU, the same thing. Also Canada, in particular western Canada, they’re being strangled by the Leftists in Ottawa, Ontario. Western Canada has a lot to say about it. I’ve been closely following the fascinating developments unfolding there:
I’ve never had a damaged box since switching to this China delivery base.
The increase in CO2 is highly correlated with outgassing of the oceans. https://nigelkingify.substack.com/p/co2-vs-ocean-temperature-correlation
Yes, feedbacks are highly correlated.
Year over year there is more CO2 in the oceans, meaning there is no NET out gassing.
The oceans in total are absorbing CO2.
They are not net outgassing over a full year.
The ocean holds more carbon dioxide (CO2) year after year as it acts as a primary “carbon sink” for human-driven emissions. During the year, a continuous and bidirectional exchange of carbon dioxide occurs between the atmosphere and the ocean, driven primarily by differences in partial pressure at the air-sea interface.
Outgassing typically occurs in warm tropical regions year-round and in temperate regions during the summer as surface waters heat up.
In subpolar and polar regions, outgassing often peaks during the winter.
Oceans merely absorb slightly less CO2 when they are warming.
Humans add CO2 to the atmosphere and nature absorbs about half of it. Oceans absorb about 1/3 of all the CO2 absorbed by nature.
Chris: “…push for a decarbonised all renewables/ Net Zero grid…The answer is not much progress but massive amounts of money spent…. Power prices have risen above the rate of inflation and there is near terminal de-industrialisation.”
The prior video is a 30 thousand foot view, a demonstrative attribution stemming from net zero ambition; yet more than just net zero ambition—much bigger; it’s a direct correlation to evolving geopolitical conditions perturbed by a global ideological edifice.
The following video cuts to the singularity, the primary causation for most societal disruption—the EU, Brussels. This centralization of authority led to the Paris climate accords program, among many other wickedly manipulative societal contrivances, like open borders. Programmatic building blocks, a multi-faceted sympathetic ideological appeal for creating disruptors to buttress the globalist authoritarian movement—ideas generated in the bowels of the academic engine. The massive global engine produces programs out of whole cloth to promote ideological goals—multi-pronged woke agendas. A dismantling of society with intent to remake; the global breakdown of borders, power structures—everything.
Furthermore, the consequence of Brussels ideological actions has emboldened China and Russia, the new axis. Brussels pulled energy from the US to build its ideological edifice, relying on the US defensive umbrella, and favorable trade terms sympathetic to the 75-year old Marshall Plan, while simultaneously being the instrument for breaking the knees of America.
Of all people, Elon Musk just threw down the gauntlet at Brussels.
When you’ve invested so much in a project – as climatists and Eurocommunist hatred of Americanism have (using someone else’s money) – you’re driven to throw good money after bad. The only positive thing we can accomplish at this point is getting science out of the middle of the global warming debate. “We should let politics decide,” says Mike Hulme, “without being ambushed by a chimera of political prescriptiveness dressed up as scientific unanimity.”
Indeed, fight back.
I think the ramification of turning a blind eye towards Brussels, to all variants of global collectivism, is crystal clear. Free people don’t want the tyranny of a global hegemony, this reality becoming increasingly clear to global publics.
I might add, even if free people didn’t rebel against Brussels, it isn’t powerful enough, nor smart enough to pull off their wet dream anyway. The new global axis is ready to take it from them the proverbial “taking candy from a baby”. While the EU pouts, blusters, while puffing out their chest, they continue to drag their feet on reindustrializing, in particular scaling up their respective military budgets.
China and Russia are watching all this while rubbing their collectivist hands together like Snidely Whiplash tying up free world Nell Fenwick to the railroad tracks.
Though to underscore, the problem is bigger than corrupt science specifically. Science is merely one of the described academic tools hinged on the Brussels fulcrum.
The experience in Victoria, one of the Australian states, is the grid solar is now earning much of its revenue during winter when running at very low capacity and when the wind isn’t blowing. During summer months, a lot of the time for 9am to 3pm, pricing is negative.
The economics of the intermittent IBR must be dodgy under these circumstances.
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2026/01/eternal-sunshine-eecent-and-projected-patterns-in-solar-performance/
I think a wise person would have personal battery backup to store electrical energy. Charge the batteries with solar and/or low-cost midday grid power; Use that to skip over the peak grid hours, reducing overall peak grid demand and costs.
The Australian grid frequency control has got worse in the middle of the day on the 16th.
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2026/01/16jan-frequency/
The fuel mix hasn’t been posted yet but on the previous day’s data, it looks like IBRs had massive collective underperformance.
Even though a couple of big coal units had coincident trips on the 15th, the rapidly fluctuating dispatch underperformance of large solar units that day had a larger effect on the underfrequency. The batteries gave a 740MW injection but that didn’t prevent it going outside the Normal Operating Frequency Band- doesn’t need to get much worse before you start risking grid collapse.
https://downloads.global-roam.com/WattClarity/2026-01-15/2026-01-15-ez2view-trends-dispatcherror-byfueltype.png
Maybe they ought to seek advice from the academics of NREL as to why the Oz grid doesn’t behave as their theory says it should.
“Maybe they ought to seek advice from the academics of NREL as to why the Oz grid doesn’t behave as their theory says it should.”
Yes, that is the entire issue – empirical measurement compared with academic hypotheses. BAB(l), as his wont, avoids that in this whole heated argument.
I appreciate your description of the alpine geology facing Snowy 2.0. I wrote something like that when Lord Waffle (Turnbull) did his Snowy 2.0 TV announceable and then pulled a big face when someone else also noted the same obvious issue.
Ian it wasn’t my description. The credit is due to Robert Onfray.
In the post I left out mention of the hydrogen powered CCGT – another of Turnbull’s brainfarts. The embarrassment of that means there are no recent press releases or even industry gossip. I suspect it will quietly be converted to run entirely on coal gas.
Yeah, maybe Oz should consult NREL. Their intellect apparently is not sufficient to deal with their problems on their own.
Regarding the 740 MW battery injection. It seems your description was a bit biased as compared to what your reference says:
“Battery units collectively were very helpful, in terms of over-performing (compared to Target) to act against the threats driving frequency through the floor.”
Such instances of misrepresentation are why I don’t give much credence to the things you have to say.
How about you try growing up BAB. You might like the change. The batteries’ injection was because they were paid to be available to inject on FFR which they did. That is why they overdelivered relative to the dispatch.
Chris, how about you grow up and stop misrepresenting your own reference. I don’t really need the technical details of the injection – in this context, you are just deflecting from your inept, childish misrepresentation.
Chris did not misrepresent the 740mw battery injection – its was you that only picked up on one item of the several items that affected the battery injection and the resulting frequency stabilization. Since you were only capable of picking up on the one item, you failed to grasp the full aspect of Chris’s statement.
BAB, Chris provides valuable expertise dealing with the underlying mechanical science of grids, including their limitations. Your Google eyed expertise is mostly talking points about a fantasy grid — including fanciful knowledge about them. Germany would have used these already if they worked. Your credence has no relevance.
BAB you are so far in front of your skis that you are cartwheeling. The source I got the graph from also shows the coal units in service picked up over 400MW (which I didn’t bother commenting about) except they weren’t paid to be able to do that. It is just something that synchronous plant on part load does.
The cause for both units tripping hasn’t been established but speculation is that it was caused by an activated voltage stability constraint at the local substation. If that is correct, then that is the Iberian blackout scenario.
JT, yes I am sure Mr. Morris has valuable practical experience (Mr. K does not, and JT probably not either). Me too – 35 years doing research in a DoE national energy laboratory, and writing rigorous-reviewed scientific papers about that research.
Did you ever get around to asking your AI interaction about data sources and uncertainties in the derived percentages? Or did you already suspect the answer and then exercise willful ignorance.?
Why do you fools think accusing someone of using Google, among things, to learn about climatology is some kind of belittlement? So I have to ask, where do you learn about climatology? Here on CE?
Thanks, Chris.
You’re deflecting again. I read all the text blocks in your supporting link. I quoted verbatim the only one that referred to the battery injection – you mis-represented it. Fini. Continued deflection, and not being able to admit your mistakes, further reduces your credibility. The grammar and excessive use of ‘snarl’ insults in your more formal writings tend to add to that distrust.
Bab – I have vastly more knowledge and expertise for renewables than you as demonstrated by the overwhelming unforced errors you continue to make over the last 2 years.
exhibit one is you failure to grasp any of the financial fallacies in the lcoe computations and other comparisons of costs
Exhibit 2 is your failure to grasp and reconcile the variability issues by your attempt today to equate gross renewable additions as a substitute for solving the variability issues. This includes your frequent conflating two or three different unrelated topics as if they resolve your confusion.
As has been well documented, you have never been able to refute a single error you made that I exposed.
BAB “Did you ever get around to asking your AI interaction about data sources and uncertainties in the derived percentages?
The post you refer to dealt with the headline essay: “AI models and their “knowledge” of climate change.”
The premise of the post in question relates to my approach asking AI to utilize the sum of human climate knowledge to develop a quantitative probablistic model of attribution for climate change, using the last 200 years as a parameter. I couldn’t imagine a more intimidating challenge for any human to resolve, yet I could imagine it might be the type of problem AI would be suited for.
What I did was break down the problem in a way that I believed would be within the wheelhouse of AI capability, the development of a mathematical model of probabilities for AGW causation. Once I arrived on a reasonable premise for AI’s guardrails, the rest was relatively easy, math is AI’s strong suit as long as it has underlying data to work with, and this represented an exercise of probability.
AI used the sum of published human knowledge to arrive at a set of data driven probabilities. I did’nt tell AI how to segregate the information, nor did lead AI with any prejudice. I asked it to use the last 200 years as its parameter. Hindsight, I further asked it to reconsider its attributions agains long tail data, to see if it might influence AI’s probabilities. AI didn’t change the probabilities, though it did provide a more granular synopsis for each bucket.
AI sourced all available published peer review it deemed relevant for its determination, including all accepted raw data sources used in peer review.
The answer is no, AI didn’t provide a line item bibliography of specific data used.
Bottom line, it was a rudimentary exercise addressing the essays quest to understand AI’s scope of knowledge.
What we know is that AI is already used to create business agents. We know it’s used to write software–it’s used for many complex tasks. We know it can hallucinate, and that it can lie. It does require proofing, cross examination to determine veracity. That you think the essays intent was to uncover an epiphany resolving climate questions is inreasonable. Finding AI the flaw is your ideological desire to undermine a legitimate query entertaining AI’s power for discovery, this was the findamental question.
Finding the holy grail for climate change attribution is an unreasonable ask, that’s why I ignored you. In the end your an ideological protectionist hack. I’m okay at this level that AI’s response can’t be verified–though it’s interesting that it aligns with the Dr. Curry’s lukewarm stance. I didn’t prompt AI to consider this.
JT, Thanks – I’ll take that as a ‘No’.
Under the category of “Who couldn’t see that coming”.
“ German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called Berlin’s exit from nuclear energy a “serious strategic mistake” and criticized previous governments for hastily shutting down the country’s last atomic reactors. Speaking at a business conference in Saxony-Anhalt late Wednesday, Merz directed sharp criticism at the energy policies of his predecessors, including former Chancellor Angela Merkel, for creating the world’s costliest energy transition. “It was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy,” Merz said. “If you were going to do it, you should have at least kept the last remaining nuclear power plants in Germany on the grid three years ago, so that we would have had the same electricity generation capacity.” He added: “We’re now making the most expensive energy transition in the entire world. I don’t know of a second country that makes it as difficult and as expensive for itself as Germany does. We set ourselves a goal that we now have to correct, but we simply don’t have enough energy generation capacity.”
https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/germany-16-1-26/
I appreciate the post, cerescokid.
The truth is that Merz is backpedaling for political survival, he’s a fool, a scapegoat artist, a socialist. Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s Prime Minister, took Merz to the woodshed recently. She did the same with France’s Macron.
There’s a tectonic shift occurring in EU politics. British Prime Minister, Stramer, was just dealt a no confidence blow by the Labour Party. The tectonic shift is occurring globally actually. I consider Japan’s newest Prime Minister, Sanae Takaichi and Italy’s Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, to be the global duo “Iron Ladies”; they have steel spines, and smarts to go with it. Musk, Trump, and others are lighting a fire under EU’s inept governance, and worse.
I’m not trying to hijack the net-zero thread with overarching geopolitical slants, but geopolitics is the whole point of net-zero, frankly. De-industrialization and net-zero go hand-in-hand, it begins with politics—the mechanics of grids is the minutia. Geopolitics cuts to the chase of net-zero consequence, and net-zero cuts to the chase of rising EU authoritarianism.
Another view from 30k feet:
Circling back on why Merz’s German government only now begins to embrace nuclear. Yes, “who couldn’t see that coming”, too little too late for him and his party.
Germany has been forced to adopt a pragmatist view, because of: expensive energy; deindustrialization and declining living standards across the EU, especially in Germany; an increasing evolution towards civil unrest; the threat of war spreading at the EU border; unbalanced trade—the threat of China trade exploitation (hollowing out the EU economy). China represents an imperialistic threat as great as Russia, probably bigger.
The forces of discontent are closing in all around Germany, especially on Merz. Germany desperately needs cheap energy. Industry is leaving Germany. For Merz—nuclear all of a sudden is a great idea!
But the interesting thing is the one holdout in Germany that didn’t support the green ideological bent from the beginning, the Germany AfD party. The AfD now represents 20% of Germany’s political constituency, it’s growing fast and continues to apply pressure. They’re pro nuclear, pro sovereign policy; and they’re pro Washington. The primary reason Merz supports nuclear is because he must, the overture helps save face for himself, and his party, and he might as well because he’s on his way out. Washington has severed diplomatic relations with the German government. This isn’t just bad for Germany, it’s terrible for the EU status quo. Italy, Poland and Hungary have aligned with Washington, a populist sovereign shake-up is in the making.
Chris Morris,
Thank you for your essay.
Joe K: “Chris did not misrepresent the 740mw battery injection – its was you that only picked up on one item of the several items that affected the battery injection and the resulting frequency stabilization. Since you were only capable of picking up on the one item, you failed to grasp the full aspect of Chris’s statement.
Yes, he did. I only gave a verbatim quote (do you know how to do that) of what the reference he used to support his attempted misrepresentation. It does not agree with his misrepresentation, and thus reduces credibility. I don’t expect you to understand.
Another own goal –
Yes you gave the full quote , but you didnt pick up on the other items. Why – because you grasp far less than you arrogantly believe.
Bab –
Care to respond to your other errors such as the 44 references , including but no limited to the errors and misrepresentations in the NREL report? ie the one that you could figure out was was wrong!
Bab – like the 44 references the NREL report has? Including the one on Page 8 (lew 2013)?
The one that gets several issues wrong. The error has been explained to you upwards of 30+ times, yet you still dont understand why Lews statement is wrong and highly misleading?
Joe K,
I pick up on the other things. I need not discuss or include them, when I am responding specifically to CM’s misrepresentation of the battery injection. Go away jojo, you have nothing to add.
BAB “how about you grow up and stop misrepresenting your own reference. I don’t really need the technical details of the injection”
There was no misrepresentation (which you did not detail – just another one of your armwaving rants?) and it wasn’t a technical explanation. You don’t even comprehend plain English ones so it would have been a waste of time going deeper. The batteries were paid to do a job and they did it. Power suppliers do that all the time – we get fined if we don’t deliver.
“The batteries were paid to do a job and they did it.”
Well, isn’t that a nice CYA for what you actually said:
“The batteries gave a 740MW injection but that didn’t prevent it going outside the Normal Operating Frequency Band- doesn’t need to get much worse before you start risking grid collapse.”
BaB – You still have responded to this error you failed to catch –
Still waiting
Bab –
Care to respond to your other errors such as the 44 references , including but no limited to the errors and misrepresentations in the NREL report? ie the one that you could figure out was was wrong!
Bab – like the 44 references the NREL report has? Including the one on Page 8 (lew 2013)?
The one that gets several issues wrong. The error has been explained to you upwards of 30+ times, yet you still dont understand why Lews statement is wrong and highly misleading?
Joke, No I don’t care to, and can’t respond to, your claimed “errors” when you can’t specify what they are.
Bab – responds – Joke, No I don’t care to, and can’t respond to, your claimed “errors” when you can’t specify what they are”
Bab – how many times has it been explained?
At least 3-4 times on this thread
At least 30-40 times on prior threads.
hint – bad cost computation
But lets avoid insults even though with your supposed superior intellect you still cant understand the error.
Joe, the only reason I can’t recognize your claimed errors is because you don’t say what they are.
Bab writes – “B A Bushaw | January 16, 2026 at 4:46 pm |
Joe, the only reason I can’t recognize your claimed errors is because you don’t say what they are.”
Bab – Why dont you just admit you dont understand the subject matter.
You have been told at least 4 times on this thread the error / bait and switch (Lew 2013) made. Go back
You have been told at least 20-30 times in prior posts why Lew2013 concept of costs was wrong.
hint his cost comment – now its 5 times the error has been explained.
Do you need a sixth time before you demonstrate an understanding.
What are the bait and switch? Only thing I admit is that you can/will not define what you are talking about. That error is yours, and the same old games you play.
hint – deals with logical fallacies.
Still waiting
You are excrutiating obtuse about a simple grid issue – driven mainly by your inability to admit you don’t understand stuff you waffle on about so pretend to be pedantic because things don’t say what you want them to. All bar you seem to understand what I wrote, which is not misrepresentation in any bar tiny minds., Do you think that might indicate where the problem is?.
The major reason for the underfrequency was the grid solar not meeting their dispatch. It was a very unstable generation out of them, incidentally something that NREL pretended wouldn’t happen in their “model”.
The batteries covered the Callide trips which is what they were paid for, along with the coal plant who weren’t paid. Because of the grid solar shortcomings, they couldn’t prevent the grid underfrequency.
That’s OK Chris. I knew everything I needed to know after the first two paragraphs of your article.
Joe K said: “Bab – I have vastly more knowledge and expertise for renewables than you as demonstrated by the overwhelming unforced errors you continue to make over the last 2 years.”
Sure Joey, too bad you are totally incapable of expressing any of that self-professed vast knowledge. Despite your self-assessment, what you exhibit here is ignorance and the inability to define your perceived wrongs. You also just make up nonspecific crap, e.g., ‘bait and switch’.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability.
Bab writes – “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias that describes the systematic tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability.”
Enough about you
Now explain why you failed to recognize Lew 2013 mistake (bait and switch) from page 8 of the NREL report
What mistake, what is the bait and the switch?
Do you have some kind of learning/comprehension disability? Why are you not able to describe your perceived mistakes and errors? Probably because they aren’t.
Now it is the 7th time I explained it just on this thread.
“Cost” Its been explained 20-30 times prior on other threads.
Explain it again, give a traceable reference, or STFU.
Its common for Dementia patients to lash out in anger as they become increasingly confused as BaB just did.
A college professor isnt going to tolerate a student that fails to do their homework. An employer is not going to tolerate an employee that refuses to learn the material necessary to perform their job. So BAB please explain why I should provide you with an education on a subject you refuse to learn.
As previously stated the error on page 8 of the NREL report (from Lew 2013) deals with cost. It has been mentioned to you at least 7 times on this thread. The necessary background information has been discussed at least 20 times on prior threads.
My final response – Do your homework so that you have at least the minimum level of education on the subject.
Joe K,
No explanation, no references, at least you seem to understand STFU – thanks for that.
Joke said “My final response” – hallelujah! – let’s see how long it lasts.
Lashing out in anger like a patient suffering from dementia – solely because you refuse to understand cost and refuse to do your homework.
Joke, said. “My final response”.
Just another lie, in a string of many.
I suggest you research ‘ad hominem’. It is apparently all you know how to do. You can attack me all you want, I know better and don’t care; it doesn’t change the reality that you are a scientifically undereducated loser that can’t support his claims.
Joke: “As previously stated the error on page 8 of the NREL report (from Lew 2013) deals with cost. It has been mentioned to you at least 7 times on this thread”. Quite possibly 7 times – you repeat yourself a lot. What you haven’t done is explain why it is a ‘bait and switch’, nor have you identified any others that you claim exist. Not only a Joke, but a angry
… clown with hurt feeling.
Joe K asked, “Who are you going to believe ? Studies ? or actual Source data?”
I believe (or not) both studies and the source data they address, based on the content of individual cases. I do not believe your logically deficient generalizations. I certainly do not believe that you know what the verb ‘explain’ means.
BaB writes – “I believe (or not) both studies and the source data they address”
You have to have a minimum level of knowledge to know what source data is applicable. The discussion was on Variability, stability and frequency. I suggested you review the source data at EIA.gov.
You took that suggestion, pulled data you were quite proud of your ability to pull data from the EIA website that you thought was relevant. However, the data you provided not only wasnt source data, but did not even related to variability, stability or frequency, a clear sign that you didnt understand the topic.
Hey, Joke – you told me to look to EIA for an education. That’s what I did. And yes, I found that, in 2025 the US solar + wind passed coal for electrical generation.
” The discussion was on Variability, stability and frequency. I suggested you review the source data at EIA.gov.”
Yes, that is what the NREL report addresses. And, I have been looking at both EIA reports and source data for years. I don’t need your suggestions. As for expertise on IBR, I will go with the power electronic engineers that publish, not an unknown accountant or control room operator.
You must be pretty stupid, to think you can know my level of knowledge. However, the number of references that you and I make is quite indicative. I have the background and ability to learn; you have not demonstrated either.
Bab writes
“You must be pretty stupid, to think you can know my level of knowledge.”
I am making that judgement from the frequency of your errors on you commentary of renewables, along with the frequency of your errors on a variety of topics as you comment.
Bab – If you know so much about renewables, then why were you so proud of linking to EIA for a non relevant subject when the discussion was variability and stability? You seemed so happy to prove you knowledge with an off topic link. Did you superior knowledge not forewarn you?
Replacing climate change alarmism and its poisonous rhetoric (e.g.., climate change ‘deniers’) is going to take a while longer. Misinformation is still ubiquitous as for example, TWC.
AI– In 2026, The Weather Channel (TWC) faces ongoing criticism from various ideological perspectives regarding its climate change coverage, often centered on perceived “alarmism” and a shift toward sensationalized production.
Jojo,
Nothing to be proud of. I do internet literature searches all the time. Besides that, it’s where you first directed me.
Where is the example of ‘bait and switch’? A verbatim quote with a traceable reference will suffice. Nah, make it at least two examples, since you said there were ‘many’. You have no credibility whatsoever.
I will continue to view you as a fool who lies and fabricates, and who thinks ad hominem personal attacks and insults are a valid form of rebuttal.
My superior knowledge told me that we are in the middle of a transition to high renewable penetration, it is necessary and accelerating. It also told me that you and Chris can’t do a damn thing about it.
The discussion was on variability and frequency. You superior knowledge thought information on gross capacity addressed the issue of variability and frequency. You were quite proud that you found a report that addressed that topic. Except it didnt and you failed to understand
I gave you a multitude of information explaining the error. I am not going to do basic homework for someone that thinks they have a superior intellect, that is forced to take wild stabs hoping that he uncovers something that actually addresses the topic.
No, Joke, the subject of discussion is “Update on Australian NetZero efforts”. IBR performance and problems fits with that. Your attacks on me do not, tho’ I find them entertaining.
Bab Writes
“No, Joke, the subject of discussion is “Update on Australian NetZero efforts”. IBR performance and problems fits with that. Your attacks on me do not, tho’ I find them entertaining.”
Bab – you changed the subject to variability stability reliability and frequency with your post on “B A Bushaw | January 12, 2026 at 10:54 am | Reply”
Did you think that when you got caught lying, that no one would notice the attempted deflection ?
“I found that, in 2025 the US solar + wind passed coal for electrical generation”. BB
In 2025, wind and solar combined accounted for approximately 3% of total U.S. primary energy consumption. Wind and solar reached 1% of total U.S. primary energy in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
From 1% to 3% in 25 years.
Slower than a sloth on a hot day.
Both solar and wind have increased nearly 100-fold since 2000.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/electricity-generation-from-wind.php
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-energy-consumption.
We have been discussing electricity generation (17%, 2024).
From 1% to 3% is +200%
Assume math is not your strongest subject?
No, I assume my references are infinitely better than yours.
Richard Greene was referring to Energy generated from wind and solar. BB’s rebutal to that statement was electricity generated from wind and solar. You cant equate two different metrics and pretend they are the same to rebut a factually correct statement.
Greene,
We are both correct, using different metrics. I give references for mine. My math is fine, although chemistry and physics are probably better.
To AI I put the statement- to generate electricity, oil, gas and coal are among the least costly means whereas solar and wind are among the most costly. AI corrected me saying as of 2026, both solar and onshore wind we’re the least costly.
When it comes to climate change alarmism, AI currently is pro–China and unapologetically anti-American…
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capital_cost_AEO2025.pdf
also includes generation cost.
The EIA study done under the Biden administration is full of pulp critical– e.g., Critics of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports released under the Biden administration, such as the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2025, argue that the agency’s data overestimates the competitiveness of wind and solar by failing to account for total system costs. The experiences of Germany and Spain show the results obtained when such Leftist pro-China and anti-America propaganda is put into practice.
The only thing the EU has gotten from its green investments is higher energy costs…
It also got rid of its industry.
Sure, Chris.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/euu/european-union/gdp-gross-domestic-product
Like the Joke, you just make up stuff. The EU still has industry, nobody, “got rid” of it. Unlike the Joke, I would expect you to try to maintain some degree of credibility – fail!
Chris was discussing “industry”
Another example of BaB pulling unrelated to show some one is wrong. Woulda thought the person with superior knowledge would at least understand the subject matter to at least link to the correct data.
BaB why insult some one when your link shows you dont even understand the topic by presenting unrelated data?
https://ycharts.com/indicators/germany_industrial_production
AI– ‘High energy costs in Germany have indeed triggered a significant trend of manufacturers relocating or expanding operations in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as of early 2026.’
Quite a few insults spewed by BaB for Chris’s reply to to Wagathon. The worst thing that can be said about Chris’s comment is a trivial typo that doesnt change the substance of Chris’s comment.
Only the stupid equate GDP with industry.
For the EU, the grouping “industry” is only about 22% of the economy and has been dropping. If one does industries that use a lot of energy like say steel making, then for the countries with high energy costs like say Germany and UK, it has plummeted. That is even with Germany paying subsidies to the companies to stay there. https://carboncredits.com/germany-multination-thyssenkrupp-wins-eu-nod-for-2-2b-green-steel-subsidy/
Even the subsidies paid to make “green” steel are not enough to keep the industry there
https://www.dw.com/en/arcelormittals-pullout-plunges-german-green-steel-in-doubt/a-73303680
The house of cards is collapsing.
“Chris Morris | January 20, 2026 at 11:58 am |
Only the stupid equate GDP with industry.”
That is another example of how poorly Bab has any grasp of the subject matter.
Its about the 10th to 12th time he has responded to someone else’s comment with an unrelated / non relevant link trying to show he understand the topic he was responding to. Likewise switching to a different unrelated topic.
According to AI, manufacturing employment is currently in decline with 120,000 to 143,000 industrial jobs lost over the course of 2025 alone. Employment in the auto sector is at a 10-year low…
…Germany
Why NATO has become a burden for America & no longer serves its purpose
In 1949, General Eisenhower predicted that if American troops were still in Europe in ten years, NATO would have failed. Seventy-six years later, over 100,000 American soldiers remain stationed on European soil.
This documentary examines how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization transformed from a temporary shield against Soviet aggression into an instrument of permanent European dependency on American military power and taxpayer dollars.
KEY FACTS COVERED IN THIS VIDEO:
–European NATO members have underspent on defense by over $800 billion since the 2014 Wales Summit pledge
–Germany’s military shrank from 495,000 Cold War troops to barely 50,000 combat-ready soldiers today
–German tank fleet collapsed from 2,000+ to approximately 300 operational vehicles
–The U.S. has allocated $183 billion in Ukraine aid while European factories struggle to produce basic ammunition
–Only 3 NATO members met the 2% GDP defense spending target when the pledge was made in 2014
–American taxpayers effectively subsidize European welfare states, where workers receive 30 days paid vacation compared to 10 days for Americans
–France withdrew from NATO military command in 1966 but remained under Article 5 protection
–The 2025 Hague Summit set a new 5% GDP target for 2035, yet Spain immediately demanded an exemption
TOPICS ANALYZED:
→ The founding of NATO and Article 5 collective defense
→ The Berlin Airlift and origins of American commitment to Europe
→ How the Korean War expanded U.S. military presence in Europe
→ European defense spending decline throughout the Cold War
→ France’s 1966 withdrawal and the precedent it established
→ NATO expansion after the Soviet collapse
→ The 2014 Wales Summit 2% pledge and its failures
→ German Bundeswehr readiness crisis
→ The 2011 Libya intervention and European military limitations
→ Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and European unpreparedness
→ The strategic importance of Greenland for American defense
→ The 2025 Hague Summit 5% commitment
Joe K said “Did you think that when you got caught lying, that no one would notice the attempted deflection ?”
Nobody except you. No, I don’t think I lied at all. You are the only one deflecting – that’s your purview. I think you are delusional, ignorant, and fabricate lies, as well as being a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Go ahead, give us another 2nd grade, ‘I know you are, but what am I’. I appreciate the 2nd grade mentality demonstrating D-K.
You said I lied in the ‘B A Bushaw | January 12, 2026 at 10:54’ comment. That is false – It was a direct quote from the NREL report, which cannot be my lie. You are such a little boy, and the obvious liar. Sorry to have to expose your irrational stupidity and hurt your feelings.
The direct quote from NREL was not the lie. Its the one you made.
The lie was that you changed the subject to deflect from the error / misrepresentation you made, then denied changing the subject.
The only other thing I wrote besides the NREL direct quote was the introductory:
“Chris, I’ll offer the assessment of RMNL (ne NREL) scientists as rebuttal. Their conclusion:”
As usual, you fabricate, lie, and cannot substantiate your insinuations/accusations. STFU
Why such extreme difficulty understanding what you said?
The comment that you misstated/denial was that you did not change the subject with a non relevant response.
You have now made three comments defending the NREL statements which were never the subject of your misstatement/denial. Its another example of your frequent rebuttals interjecting completely unrelated topics.
Go back to the original statement where you changed the subject matter and then denied changing the subject matter. I have cited it a couple of times.
Jojo. I didn’t change the subject. I provided a report as rebuttal to some of Chris’ comments about renewables. Even if I did change the subject, that is (1) only your ignorant opinion, and (2) even if, switching subjects is not a lie. I would recommend a remedial vocabulary and comprehension class.
Where is your claimed ‘bait and switch’, mister Jojo the lie fabricator? Still waiting.
If the science had not been corrupted by Leftist politics, that climate changes and has changed many times before now, all without the help of humanity, would have been accepted long before now. That simple fact is the only thing Western Academia can actually prove about weather and by extension, the climate.
On the basis of an unproven conjecture about climate and why it changes, Western nations flushed their economies down the toilet and handed their futures over to a collective of socialist and theocratic authoritarians. Reality really is stranger than fiction.
As has been reported on (with comments) elsewhere, the operation of the large 40 year old coal fired Eraring Power Station has been extended again. The previous extension was subsidised https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/nsw-to-pay-origin-up-to-225m-a-year-to-keep-eraring-open-until-2027-20240523-p5jfxc but there is no official word as to whether the same or a new arrangement will be put in place.
Just watched Trump’s DEVOS speech, it was very strong.
This would be my solution for Greenland:
75% of Greenland, including the northern and all the central and eastern portions of Greenland (to within a few hundred miles of the western coast) is sold to the US. This land is renamed the United States Northeast Territory. The US can build the golden dome to protect NATO. The 57k native population (representing several small communities distributed along the west coast of Greenland) remains Greenland, it also remains under Denmark’s control. The U.S. pays a tremendous sum for the 75% it purchases (making all Greenlanders rich). Denmark can co-own the western portion of Greenland and maintain the populations $600 million welfare subsidy.
Very Strong – LMAO – I thought it was a great public demonstation of rapidly progressing dementia.
, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIEVqFB4WUo&list=OLAK5
uy_lqO8vf9pJrecHpIJi940NATAyztK2C5Bg&index=9
Trump’s done more for Middle east peace than Biden or Obama
Rob This subject is off topic
But – Yes Trump has done substantially more than Biden or Obama for peace in the Middle East.
While Chamberlian’s peace in our time encouraged Hilter, at least he wasnt stupid enough to fund Hilters War Machine. Obama on the hand promoted the JCPOA which was a behind the scenes stunt to help facilitate future nuclear development and to also fund the mullahs with pallets of cash.
A great book to understand the geopolitics of war is Victor Hanson book to the Second World Wars. A good chapter on the 1000 or so year history of the geopolitical arena.
Poor Polly lost his cracker.
While it’s doubtful that any suggestion will remediate his issues, this 10-step program might help a tiny bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Gr92HzX0k
Though sorry to say, it’s doubtful that anything will spare us from his unfulfilled Polly wanna refrains—squawk as he may, nobody really cares.
If you don’t care, why do you answer and insult?
“Trump’s done more for Middle east peace …”
What Middle East peace?
JT, thanks for yet another admission of intellectual failure.
Unfortunately for you, Polly, that mirror you kiss in front of you is your intellectual impasse—can’t get around that.
Aw, how sweet of you. At least I have intellect, a name, and a background.
Jungletrunks, Trump caved on Greenland. One Danish pension fund walks away from the US Treasuries market and Trump went all TACO. He walked away with the right to build bases in Greenland. Yay? The US has had the right to build bases in Greenland since 1951.
Rob Starkey, why are you making me agree with BA Bushaw? Darn you!!! There is no peace in the Middle East. At all.
Thomas: “Trump caved on Greenland.” Respectfully, not really.
The preliminary context of the proposed deal secures “forever” ownership, not a license, or any restricted framework for the US development of Greenland. The proposal includes an EU partnership to develop missile defense across the entire Arctic region, including Greenland. NATO will participate and help pay for defensive development, they’ll also have access to all deployed defensive technology. The proposed framework secures US exploitation of Greenland mineral rights.
So Trump won, even though the context of stated deal is less than the complete ownership of Greenland, that Trump originally pressed for. The important consideration is that the current proposal fits the minimum requirement for US success. Deals rarely begin using the exact goal for a start point in negotiation—a negotiation usually begins either high, or low, in attempt to find middle ground; this is how it usually works, you know this.
Here’s more detail about the proposal, for anyone interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N7g1vKVauU
As far as the Danish threat of selling $100 billion in US treasuries, it’s absolutely a nothing burger, nobody in the administration batted an eye over it. China has sold over a half trillion in US treasuries over the last several years. Much larger sell/buy transactions of US treasuries occur as countries reposition assets, it happens frequently. Also the pejorative TACO crowing is sad, it’s simply wrong. Trump takes more risks than most leaders, by far, and he usually follows through—his record demonstrably proves this.
“Davos” of course.
Dare I put it to A I the statement… slthough part of a defense alliance known as NATO the EU is very obviously at times anti-American and hostile to the culture of capitalism and free enterprise?
AI ‘thinks’ that… In 2026, the relationship between the European Union (EU) and the United States is characterized by significant strain, driven by clashing economic philosophies, regulatory disputes, and a recent geopolitical crisis over Greenland. While both remain critical partners within NATO, the EU is increasingly pursuing “strategic autonomy” to reduce its dependence on American security and economic systems.’
Now THAT is worthless drivel…
Fines in 2025 alone… Google- $3.5B, Apple- $571M, Meta–$230M, X- $140M.
Atmosphere doesn’t play role of a warming blanket.
—
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The analogy is compelling- Pres. Trump went to Davos to represent and advance the interests of the US; Gov. Newsom went to Davos to represent and advance the interests of himself, not California. Similar to Governor Newsom’s dishonorable example, Western academia’s collective consensus on the unproven AGW conjecture is to represent and advance their personal interests and not to represent science nor advance the interests of the people who pick up the tab.
This weekend should be a good example of the variability issues with wind and solar.
Watch the EIA grid monitor “electric generation by source ” monitor.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
You know it’s bad when people have to pull out their gas logs and burn wood in fireplaces for warmth cuz grids go down… which is not something that should come as a big surprise- even on a perfectly sunny day, solar panels only generate high levels of power for a limited number of hours, primarily around midday.
We discussed quite a bit of Bait and switch in the NREL article.
Skeptical Science pulls similar stunts. One of their “busting renewable myths” dealt with the myth “that solar panels dont work in the cold” Their rebuttal to that myth is that solar panels are more efficient in the cold due reduced overheating. The bait and switch was that they ignored that sunlight hours and sunlight angles greatly reduce actual electric generation. Winter electric generation is about 1/2 to 1/5 of summer generation depending on latitude.
Also ignored are :
the coldest period of the day during the winter are the hours of 4am to approx 9am. That period coincides with a period of no electric generation from solar in the northern latitudes (45N ) and lowest period of the day of wind electric generation. Further, during the rest of the day, there is little if any excess electric generation from wind or solar to recharge the storage batteries.
Why don’t Leftist shamans of AGW Climate Change Armageddon learn from their own mistakes, let alone those of others? When they first clamored for the transition to an energy industry based on solar power, there was no talk at all about a logically foreseeable need for batteries! Anyone who has a drawer full of spent batteries requiring disposal and replacement would know that’s no way to run a railroad. And, that pretty much explains why Western Europe has shipped responsibility for all the decision making over its future to the politburo of China– they are incapable of learning from or admitting their mistakes and are now incapable of taking care of themselves without a handout from Uncle Commie.
Figure 4 in this article https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2026/01/eternal-sunshine-eecent-and-projected-patterns-in-solar-performance/
shows output of solar generation on Victorian grid solar is about half what it is over summer.
Note the comment “Solar earns most of its money when it is operating at a relatively low proportion of nameplate capacity. …large proportions of solar revenue may come from periods where it is generating at less than 30 per cent of nameplate”
No, we didn’t discuss quite a bit of ‘bait and switch’ in the NREL report. You claimed it existed multiple times, but couldn’t describe it nor demonstrate where. And, you still can’t, not even when you bait and switch from NREL to Skeptical science.
Joe, you still haven’t figured out what ‘bait and switch’ means. Skeptical Science debunked the claim that solar panels don’t work in the cold. They do, even better. What other irrelevant well-known facts, that Jojo thinks should be included, are irrelevant. Very similar to Jojo’s complaint that EIA didn’t talk about well-know capacity factors when writing about new production in terms of name-plate capacity. Except that they did mention the relevance of the variable capacity factors.
What a Joke
AI– While it is a fact that solar panels are more efficient in cold weather, it is misleading to say they “do even better” overall during winter because shorter daylight hours significantly reduce total energy production.’
BaB – The game of denying that I never gave a single cite of the error gets very old. My initial response immediately follows the post with the error with an explanation the error.
Your repetitive denials get old!
BAB – I explained in detail the bait switch that SK played with their myth busting. SK made a factually correct statement to hide the actual and significant decline in actual capacity.
It is not my fault you lack basic comprehension to understand the subject matter in the renewable arena.
Joe K: “Winter electric generation is about 1/2 to 1/5 of summer generation depending on latitude.”
No. Varies a lot, but not that big a difference.
https://www.solarinsure.com/solar-performance-in-winter-spring-fall-summer
Cloudiness in winter v summer is a big factor. Where I live we do fine all year long.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b
across the 48 states 31% summer vs 13% winter. Where as the northern latitudes are closer to 40% summer vs 7-8% winter
EIA data doesnt support the data in your link.
Joe – Not sure where you’re getting your numbers – not from your EIA link. Looks like maybe you’re picking min winter to max summer – from somewhere?
This source for Minnesota is a little old, but the delta between winter and summer is fairly constant.
7-8% in winter vs 30+% in summer
Their source is EIA.
https://www.americanexperiment.org/why-minnesota-solar-panels-dont-work-well-in-winter/
I presume you are aware that your link is a sales brouchure, with out any links to actual source data.
Thanks Pat,
A useful reference. In winter, we see about 55% of summer (Denver area). Higher altitude helps.
Joe “… your link is a sales brouchure, with out any links to actual source data.”
Links are given in previous articles for the effects of latitude, panel tilt angle, system losses, inverter efficiency, etc. Weather for various locations is accounted for, but right, no links for that. But there’s enough info for you to check them out if you doubt their results.
Using their calculator for my location and system, I get a MIN winter to MAX summer ration of .7, which sounds about right from my experience. Of course the average winter to summer ratio is higher. Considerably better than your Minnesota numbers, but as they say, results may vary.
Pat – I provided the link to the EIA electric generation by source monitor so that you can ascertain the validity of the data presented in your link – which for all practical purposes is a sales brouchure.
The data presented in your link is not even remotely close to the hard raw data.
You ask the question where I am getting my numbers – directly from the EIA source data link I provided. Granted, it requires extracting the raw data, doing some basic arithmetic and basic math, then comparing an contrasting, But its basic due diligence. Far better than taking advocacy articles with blind faith.
pat’s comment
“Using their calculator for my location and system, I get a MIN winter to MAX summer ration of .7, which sounds about right from my experience. ”
ERCOT delta is about .6
Do you live south of 32n? if not, the .7 delta from their calculator is off big time. Not even close to reconciling with the raw data
Joe: “…not even close to reconciling with the raw data.”
Joe, I’m talking about my system. Reconciles with my data, as close as I’ve monitored it.
Why are we even debating winter/summer ratio? Panels are cheap. Batteries are getting cheaper and better. Overbuild. Just like the utilities do now.
Pat C – Its doubtful that your home solar winter/summer delta differs that significantly from the utility solar since the performance is governed by sunlight. Cross check your performance against EIA.
You make two additional comments
A – why not load up on behind the meter solar – As Chris noted, behind the meter solar creates even variability, frequency issues that the grid has to adjust and control for.
B – while batteries are becoming less expensive (maybe less expensive) the needed redundancy adds to the total cost of electric generation. batteries add a third and fourth layer of redundancy and cost. Full system cost is the correct metric, not LCOE.
C – Review the electric generation by source monitor at EIA. Over the last three days, wind has vacilated from 84,000mw out of 470,000 mw demand to 43,000mw out of 612,000 mw demand. Those are significantly large swings that require considerable additional costs to control the variability, stability and frequency control.
Joe: “Its doubtful that your home solar winter/summer delta differs that significantly from the utility solar since the performance is governed by sunlight.”
No. There are other factors. Read the “sales brochure” I linked to more carefully.
As I said, I’m talking about my system, my data. You doubt it; I don’t. (I understand why it dffers from your expectation based on EIA data.)
Hey, have you seen pictures like this?
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/sustainability/how-china-came-to-dominate-the-world-in-solar-energy/articleshow/108317340.cms?from=mdr
The counter to that solar farm photo (a lot can’t generate as they have overloaded transmission lines https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-stops-publishing-data-highlighting-solar-power-constraints) is a station like this which produces power after the sun goes down.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/new-coal-power-plant-projects-in-china-hit-the-highest-level-in-nearly-10-years-report-says/
For grid operation, the main if not critical issue with unreliable generation (solar and wind) is not how much it produces, but how close is it to even day-ahead forecasting and when generating, how stable is the output. These factors are the critical ones, setting cost and reliability of operation. If the output can’t be predicted or does up and down minute to minute variability, then more reserves have to be kept on standby, with them needing to be often rapidly ramped up and down. That increases operational cost and lowers reliability.
Behind the meter generation is even worse than those unreliables on the grid.
Note that cost referred to is the total cost of grid operation, not individual components taken in isolation. For the latter, TCOE is the more relevant metric.
Unreliable, variable, and intermittent:
https://energytransition.org/2014/01/intermittent-or-variable/
No they are just unreliable. They cannot be dispatched and they cannot even be relied on to meet their target. Anyone who knows anything about grid operations knows the criticality of meeting dispatch.
Reliability (a different term) for generators is expressed in terms of outage factors for which there are strict definitions. GADS which came from NERC is the main one used. There is a similar reliability system for grids where they have minimum performance targets often expressed in MW minutes or the like
As usual BaB provides a link to rebut Chris M, yet that link not only doesnt address any of the points made by Chris, but isnt even on the same topic.
None of the cost estimates include things like a $15 capacitor you could buy in home Depot (if you knew it was the problem) that gets burned out on your AC unit due to a fluctuation in the grid on a hot day. You only learn what the problem is after paying $200 to an AC technician to troubleshoot the system and then, only later because of all the other people who were similarly affected.
Chris, They can be dispatched – you just ignore storage, which obviates most of your complaints.
Joe K,
Thanks. Your brilliance always amazes me.
I see you have gone back to making stupid statements BAB. Is that because your ego won’t admit you are out of your depth. Couldn’t you find anything by Google that supported your crackpot ideas?
Batteries are not solar or wind.
Chris,
Thanks for the stupid statement. Of course batteries are not wind or solar, they just make them viable, and you don’t seem to be able to deal with it rationally.
Your spinning your wheels with certain people, Chris.
The bottom line is that wind and solar remain niche solutions, they can be deployed on a large grid up to a certain point, but go much beyond 20% and energy prices become increasingly more expensive. I’m sure that as technology evolves that alternative solutions will become incrementally more competitive, and expandable solutions, we’re just not there yet. An “all the above” approach is the only pragmatic solution. It makes no sense to force “the alternative curve”.
Germany represents a primary case study of real world alternative energy application, it continues to be ignored by academics. It’s academic arguments that need to be ignored, since they ignore real-world experience, it trumps theoretical and enthusiast arguments:
Many papers and articles have been published on the subject, and even written about here on CE. Germany’s costs and consequences. Here’s AI’s summary:
Germany’s aggressive shift to renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, has brought substantial changes to its energy landscape. Despite initial optimism regarding renewables, the economic realities faced by the country today suggest that the transition has not been as beneficial as anticipated for consumers.
Key Reasons for High Energy Costs in Germany
High Initial Investments
The transition to renewable energy required significant investment in new infrastructure. These upfront costs are passed down to consumers, contributing to higher electricity prices.
Subsidies and Costs
To promote renewable energy, Germany implemented substantial subsidies, leading to rising public costs. These renewable energy surcharges have been added to consumer bills, impacting household affordability.
Reliability Issues
The reliability of energy sources is crucial for maintaining a stable and efficient power supply. While renewables like solar and wind energy have many advantages, they also face significant intermittent reliability challenges that can impact overall energy systems. Volatility in energy supply can create challenging conditions for consumers and businesses that rely on stable energy costs for budgeting and planning.
Market Dynamics and Energy Prices
Germany’s move away from nuclear energy further pressured the grid. The closure of nuclear plants and phasing out of fossil fuels placed greater reliance on renewables, leading to increased demand and, consequently, higher energy prices.
Economic Consequences
Manufacturing and Industry Flight: Many energy-intensive industries have left Germany or reduced their footprint due to high energy costs, compounding economic challenges.
Affordability Crisis: With energy bills rising, low and middle-income citizens find it increasingly difficult to manage their expenses, leading to public discontent and calls for policy reevaluation.
Conclusion
Germany’s case highlights financial burdens and systemic challenges that outweigh the potential advantages of long-term renewable benefits. The current situation emphasizes the necessity for a balanced energy strategy that addresses affordability and reliability, ensuring that economic considerations remain at the forefront.
Who the hell is SK? You may have described something, but you haven’t described a bait and switch in the NREL article. You are a Joke and a stupid one.
A – If you followed the original post you would know who SK is, but no you have to bounce around. Is that an attempt to hide your confusion?
B – I explained the bait and switch 4-5 times. Pay attention – Use that superior brain power you claim to possess. Do your homework.
If you can’t cite what the original post is, if you can’t cite where you explained the bait and switch in the NREL report, then I’m not interested. Thanks anyway.
I have already cited it 4-5 times.
Over the last 2 or so years you continue to play the same immature game. The first cite directly following your original error should be sufficient. Instead you continue to play the same immature game.
4 or 5??? How about properly referencing the one you found in the NREL report, including a direct quote from said report, and where you explained why it was a bait and switch. Your contentless inuenndo is boring.
I’m not interested. You never provide evidence for your repeated claims, you don’t know how to (or can’t because they don’t exist) cite or provide traceable references for them. Until you do, I’ll just have to assume that you lie pathologically. Repeating the same lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.
BaB
You could not understand the Skeptical science bait and switch with the solar electric generation in the cold. Nobody expects you to understand the bait and switch in the NREL report, even after the specific bait and switch was cited.
Thanks Jojo, not interested in your deflections from the NREL report.
It’s never been about the science! ‘The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are politically driven.’ ~Dr. Philip Stott
We need wind turbines, we need solar panels, we need NG turbines, we need oil and coal plants.
We do not need NetZero, because the fossil fuels burning doesn’t influence global iemperature.
The global temperature rises not because of fossil fuels burning, the global temperature rises because of orbital circumstances.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Musk’s solution for data center power is to build solar arrays in space—not just an idea, he’s going to do it—it’s a perfect fit. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos are both on board with this concept.
Space is a ready made environment for such an enterprise, unlimited solar energy 24/7. Processing would occur behind the array, the shadow side would naturally keep processors cool. Starlink V3 satellites with high speed laser links would transfer the data. Space X would support the logistics behind the endeavor.
Musk is developing rocket platforms like Henry Ford did for cars. Space X is manufacturing reusable rockets, 24 at a time. All the pieces for this endeavor are coming together, it represents a revolutionary moment for monetizing space, and beyond.
In 2100 Musk will be viewed as one of the great visionaries of our time. And yet some polls indicate those on the left would like to see him whacked or imprisoned . It says everything that needs to be said about the left.
Very true, cerescokid.
You are entitled to your opinion. Your declaration of what the future ‘will be’ in 74 years is ignorable – you couldn’t possibly know.
Sure Polly, the 20th-21st technological revolution is a lie.
BTW, the space based solar array/AI compute is anticipated to arrive within 10 years. I suppose only the brightest minds, and entrepreneurs believe it—and what do they know.
Sure dirtypants, you said:
“Sure Polly, the 20th-21st technological revolution is a lie.”
If you say so – I certainly didn’t say that. I indicated that declarative statements about the future are presumptive and worthless, kinda like you and the kid.
Not a panacea. Kessler Syndrome.
https://rntfnd.org/2025/10/19/have-we-reached-a-space-junk-tipping-point-ieee-spectrum/
And the solar power (the proper metric, not energy) is not unlimited, it is ~ 1362 W/m^2.
The only syndrome Polly needs to worry about is the Stockholm Syndrome, you’re a stereotypical political captive.
That’s OK pants. You are in failure mode again.
Space flight is about to become ubiquitous, the development of space enterprise, moons, and planet development will expand relatively quickly going forward.
Consider building AI solar arrays around the moon, have Starlink V3 satellites beam the data back to the Earth at the speed of light.
We’ll likely have nuclear fission power on the moon and a nascent moon base at around the time of the 1st Earth orbit AI solar array, or soon thereafter.
OK, I’ll wait for that (very) large orbiting array. Good chance it will come from the ESA.
Austria, and other EU nations are embracing their respective sovereign heritage, breaking out from the bonds of ideological captivity; from the cultish edicts cast on them by Brussels. No more zombie Stockholm Syndrome nods to get along with central authority. A great reclaiming is underfoot. Sovereignty is the new currency.
Hahaha. No border closing. Same paper checks and inspections for selected ‘problematic’ borders that have been in place since 2015.
A policy evolution began in earnest after the 2025 elections.
Austria’s new coalition took hard stance on migration
“The newly formed government has laid out its migration policy framework, which emphasizes curbing irregular migration and improving migrant return mechanisms. The government says it reserves the right to suspend asylum applications in the event of a “significant increase” in refugee numbers.
Austria will also oppose accepting additional asylum seekers through the EU’s relocation or resettlement program until the bloc secures its external borders.”
2026, further rules:
Austria | Immigration | Immigration 2026 update
https://vialtopartners.com/regional-alerts/austria-immigration-immigration-2026-update
Perfectly reasonable, considering Austrian eastern neighbors are corridors for ‘irregular’ immigration. Nonetheless, no border closing.
Read again, the headline doesn’t state “closed” its borders.
If the US followed the same immigration plan we’d clear out half of Minnesota freeloaders, and all the welfare thieves, falling under the category of “just for starters”.
Regardless; Italy, Poland, Hungary, and other select countries are following suit with similar programs. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni in particular has gotten very tough with Brussels.
You read again: both I and the title said “closing”.
Yes, but you, the flapping cross eyed feathered lightweight, are implicitly trying to reframe the discussion to a business as usual bent, when clearly Austria’s revised immigration policies are obviously not business as usual. Maybe your biggest issue has more to do with sycophantical kinship; known for its associated bird processing throughput.
The article subtext is clear for any rational thinking human: ‘Austria will also oppose accepting additional asylum seekers through the EU’s relocation or resettlement program until the bloc secures its external borders.’ There are some exceptions outlined in the link I provided, but there’s been severe curtailing of immigration.
I really don’t care about your Stockholm Syndrome issues, Polly. I can pull article after article outlining cracks in the Brussels collective. I’d be willing to bet that British Prime Minister Starme doesn’t last 6 months; he’s been trying to usurp the will of the British peoples Brexit vote through Brussels back dealing. I doubt he survives that one.
Failed again, and exhibiting the now familiar failure response of irrelevant insults and name-calling, coming from a low intellect, no name, nobody. How entertaining.
And, no, I reframed the discussion to point out that your link was a lie, and that you are sloppy with made up quotations to support the lie.
Sure, Polly.
Thanks. It was also a pleasure to comment on your foray into AI. Unfortunately, you refused to pose two simple but important queries to your AI ‘partner’ – references, uncertainty limits on results, and I would add “show your work”. Anyway, that told me all I needed to know. Glad you gave up on it – should save you from further disappointments.
“Thanks”? for what, lacking time to deal with the local nesting boor? Okay sweetie, you’re welcome.
I didn’t present any “made-up quotes”. The specific quote in question is in this article: https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/63132/austrias-new-coalition-takes-hard-stance-on-migration
“The newly formed government has laid out its migration policy framework, which emphasizes curbing irregular migration and improving migrant return mechanisms. The government says it reserves the right to suspend asylum applications in the event of a “significant increase” in refugee numbers.” Further down, same article: “Austria will also oppose accepting additional asylum seekers through the EU’s relocation or resettlement program until the bloc secures its external borders.” These quotes address the jist of the video that referenced several select nations standing up against Brussels, reasserting their sovereignty.
So here you go again, reflecting about the prior thread: “AI models and their “knowledge” of climate change”
The point of my exercise was simple, present an example of AI’s so called “knowledge”, the AI hypothesis on climate change, its approach to analysis, and its references. I can’t vouch for AI’s knowledge, veracity, or science—how could anyone if they don’t do the work themselves to verify it? I asked the board to tease apart the analysis, if anyone cared to. It was nothing more than an interesting discussion.
You’re threatened, you’re obnoxiously insecure about AI’s analysis, so much so that you press me to prove its conclusion. You’ve come back to this topic multiple times now, saying that “I refuse” to provide peer review level quantification for AI’s hypothesis—that I “gave up on it”, lol, like I owe you something. You’re just an anal retentive declining old ideologue, a fool.
For those not familiar with the “AI hypothesis” mentioned, here’s a link to it: https://judithcurry.com/2026/01/05/ai-models-and-their-knowledge-of-climate-change/#comment-1022236
I only present it for reference, feel free to tear into AI’s conclusion, I would find it engaging. Interestingly, it lands on the lukewarmer position, the same conclusion Dr. Curry has—which is not to suggest that Curry agrees with anything about AI’s analysis, this is not the point of the exercise. AI presents an entirely independent conclusion. It offers an interesting speculative reference point to engage with is all. Questions are what it’s all about.
JT, of course you made a mistake; “closed” was not in the title for your link. So you drop into failure mode again. How predictable for a no-name nobody with no known background.
Thanks for ‘permission’ to attack your AI’s conclusions. I already have. Those conclusions are not scientific, at best pseudoscience. And you refused to ask a couple questions that may have fixed that. But then, you are a NNN that breaks into insults and name-calling whenever your mistakes are pointed out.
BAB stated: “Perfectly reasonable, considering Austrian eastern neighbors are corridors for ‘irregular’ immigration. Nonetheless, no border closing.”
I followed up: “Read again, the headline doesn’t state “closed” its borders.”
Unquestionably, the implication of your comment is that there’s been no change in the status quo with Austria’s border enforcement. The root of your dismissive obfuscation is that the border hasn’t been closed, or “no border closing”, same implication—you turn a blind eye to the facts, and evolve it into a lie. Just more of your obnoxious obfuscation of meaning. Go back to sitting on your egg, try to hatch something believable that will still be a lie; there’s absolutely no question you’ll try.
“Thanks for ‘permission’ to attack your AI’s conclusions. I already have.”
It’s not my AI, or my conclusions, but you’re welcome again, and so what.
I asked the board to in fact challenge AI’s hypothesis. Giving you permission is nonsensical overkill. I don’t care about your opinion, nor thanks you hatched an opinion, great—next.
AI turns science upside down. The AGW climate change conjecture is not more science then it is mere opinion in as much as the null hypothesis of the AGW conjecture has never been rejected that, “nothing is happening now that has not happened before.” Ai however turns the null hypothesis upside down where the null hypothesis—that observed warming is caused solely by natural variability—has been repeatedly rejected through multiple lines of evidence.
In other words… AI believes humanity is unnatural.
Wagathon, it’s true that AI is the sum of its human programming, thus it’s artificial intelligence.
In this example it takes the artificial and turns its human algos and data into the sum of its ability to decipher a conclusion. It’s simply architecture. On this measure it’s as fallible as the humans who’ve programmed it. One could look at it as taking the body of all science decrees, turning these on their head while using the same tools and data that humans also created—I’d call this a paradox.
AI is a bit behind the times- it actually believes fossil fuels are being phased out to save the environment from economic growth.
Toddlers are equally mysterious and entertaining that way.
JT, Sorry – I’ll stick with the facts. The Austrian border is neither “closed” nor “closing”. They are enforcing existing law and policy (similar to ours, pre-Trump). Your link lied, and you used it to misrepresent. Now you are trying to deflect from the fact, with your incessant blathering. If you are confused, “your AI” means the one you used.
BAB, Other than Stockholm Syndrome captive issues, it could be that you’re ignorant, and lazy—as well as a practiced obfuscating liar.
I’ll have to spell it out: what the video meant by “Austria is closing its borders” is that it’s closing them to the EDICTS of Brussels law, several other nations are doing the same. Austria’s new immigration policy is conditional, based on strict considerations that protect Austria’s sovereignty. If you actually read and studied what’s going on there then your comprehension would rise immeasurably—translation here; pull your head out of the ideological hole you call home.
Repeating this quote: ‘Austria will also oppose accepting additional asylum seekers through the EU’s relocation or resettlement program until the bloc secures its external borders.’ The 2026 link I provided provides the new terms for immigration policy, all based on Austria enforcing its sovereignty, much more rigid—protecting its culture.
And there are an infinite number of other things it DOESN’T say. You can’t repeat what it DOES say, because you would prove yourself wrong.
I asked AI about the impact of geothermal activity on the AIS.
“ Geothermal activity, caused by heat from the Earth’s interior (mantle plumes and radioactive rock decay), significantly impacts the Antarctic ice sheet by melting it from below, particularly in West Antarctica. This creates basal meltwater, which lubricates the ice, speeding up its flow into the ocean and contributing to the instability of glaciers.”
Common sense. Mix ice, heat, lower viscosity and gravity and it happens every time. A high school kid could figure it out.
I just channeled Sir Isaac and posed the same question. His reply? “Well, duh.”
And yet hundreds of top climate scientists were mum about it in IPCC6.
Let’s see if the establishment can elevate their game and conclude what a primitive AI and high schoolers have done.
Even if the impact accounts for only .001% of the melting, it’s part of the dynamics and any document discussing the AIS climate needs to include the literature pertaining to those dynamics.
They still use Stefan-Boltzmann Emission law as the radiative energy Absorption Law.
It is a non scientifical approach. It is not acceptable.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, you don’t know enough to say what is acceptable or not. I will give you a clue. Almost everything you say about scientific matters is not acceptable, nor accepted. You have quite well demonstrated that you don’t know what a scientific approach is.
Good day! Please, how much is the planet Mars’ the global average surface specular reflection?
I don’t know, but I expect quite low.
Good day, B A!
It is I, who don’t know enough…
Now, you say, you don’t know…
That’s right, it is something I don’t know – I admit it, and I’m not going to do research it for you. Better than you making declarative sentences about things you don’t know or understand.
“The global average surface specular reflection for Mars is 0.53 (or 53% of the incident solar flux). This value accounts for the directional specular losses on smooth planetary surfaces, derived from Fresnel equations integrated over the sunlit hemisphere.”
Link:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/c8d07e00eee3438789d51fb29d1ccffc
I directly quoted your question to ChatGPT 5.1, here is the answer:
The user is asking about Mars’ “global average surface specular reflection.” I think they mean Bond albedo, which is around 0.25, or maybe they’re asking about the difference between specular and diffuse reflection. Mars mostly has diffuse reflection, with specular being very small. Since Mars doesn’t have oceans, specular reflection is negligible. I’ll keep it simple and clear, especially since the user might be an ESL speaker. I’ll mention the Bond albedo and geometric albedo values to make it easy to understand.
For Mars, people usually talk about albedo rather than “specular reflection,” because Mars’ surface is mostly diffuse (matte) rather than mirror-like:
Bond (global) albedo of Mars: about 0.25
This means Mars reflects roughly 25% of the sunlight it receives back to space, averaged over the whole planet and all wavelengths.
Specular reflection specifically: effectively very small on a global average.
Mars has no large liquid oceans or smooth mirror-like surfaces, so almost all reflection is scattered diffusely by dust, rocks, and ice.
So, if you’re asking “how much of the Sun’s light does Mars reflect overall?”, the answer is about 25%. If you mean “mirror-like (specular) reflection,” the global average is close to zero compared to that 25%, essentially negligible.
Two solid, citable sources work well for this kind of question—one for Mars’ overall reflectivity (albedo) and one for the lack of specular reflection.
1. NASA Planetary Fact Sheet (Mars Albedo)
A clean, authoritative reference for Mars’ Bond albedo ≈ 0.25 and geometric albedo ≈ 0.17.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Planetary Fact Sheet: Mars
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html (nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov in Bing)
This is the standard go‑to for planetary constants and is widely accepted in planetary science.
2. Mars Surface Reflectance Studies (Diffuse vs. Specular)
A good scientific reference showing that Mars’ surface is dominated by diffuse (Lambertian-like) scattering with negligible specular reflection:
Wolff, M. J., et al. (2009). Constraints on dust aerosols from the Mars Exploration Rovers using Mie and non-spherical particle models.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 114(E2).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JE003130 (doi.org in Bing)
This paper is often cited because it explicitly analyzes Mars’ scattering behavior and shows that the surface and atmosphere are strongly diffuse, with no meaningful specular component.
You might try switching your AI partner.
Thank you, B A.
“You might try switching your AI partner.”
https://x.com/i/grok/share/1fa11f3ae3f4423a9742a40d96b55188
Christos, that is a stupid deflection. Fresnel reflection will not be specular unless it is taking place on a specular surface.
B A,
“Christos, that is a stupid deflection. Fresnel reflection will not be specular unless it is taking place on a specular surface.”
A specular surface… Do you consider a surface specular only when it is polished to a level someone sees his image in the surface, the way we are used to see ourselves in mirrors? The mirror-polished surface?
Well, when we look in the mirror, we do not see any specular reflection of direct light.
When we look in the mirror, we see what light is being diffuselly reflected from our face towards the mirror, and reflected to our eyes specularly.
The specular reflection of direct light is blinding!
The specular reflection of direct light from any surface is blinding.
When an illuminated surface exhibits diffuse reflection, we cannot see our face in that surface, because our face exhibits a diffuse light.
The not polished surface (a matte surface, which when illuminated, exhibits some level of diffuse reflection), that surface also reflects specularly – that surface has a specular constituent, which is directionally oriented to the opposite from the source of light, and at angles of the law of specular reflection. And when the source of light is at higher angles of incidence, the specular reflection is always strong and blinding.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Mars’ diffuse reflection (a=0,250)
Φ(1-0,250) = 0,47*0,75 = 0,3525 it is the not reflected portion.
1-0,3525 = 0, 6475 it is the Mars’ Bond Albedo.
the 0,53 is the Bond Albedo for a smooth planet without diffuse reflection
Earth’s average surface Albedo
(a = 0,306) is a satellite measured diffuse reflection.
Earth’s Bond Albedo ( 0,6738 ).
Bond Albedo is defined as =
= (entire reflected)/(total incident)
Therefore, Earth’s Bond Albedo is more than twice as much as Earth’s diffuse Albedo.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry, your intuition fools you again. Can you see a weak reflection of yourself (or somebody else) in a matte white wall? To paraphrase Feynman, if your thinking does not match the observations, you need to change your thinking.
Of course, B A, thank you.
B A,
“Sorry, your intuition fools you again.”
–
So, I have intuition, which fools me.
The good thing is that I have intuition.
And my intuition is a good intuition. It serves me well!
None is perfect, so my intuition.
Don’t you have intuition, B A?
Don’t you have a good intuition ?
–
“Can you see a weak reflection of yourself (or somebody else) in a matte white wall?”
A weak reflection in a matte white wall…
It is kind of difficult, by let’s give it a try.
In a complete darkness, stand in front of a matte white wall.
Illuminate brightly yourself, but not your eyes. Make sure, you do not have any object around reflecting your light towards the matte white wall, so the walll doesn’t diffuse the light back.
Even better, try a matte black wall.
Why do you insist so much it is necessary should be a white matte wall?
Yes, you have intuition, but it is not good – it is usually upside down. I have good intuition developed from an excellent physical science education and 40 years of doing optical physics research (and publishing it).
The thing I’ve noticed is, you find it impossible to learn anything new if it disproves your weird intuition and false ideas. You still (willfully) don’t understand Bond albedo, and don’t try to do so, even thought it is relatively simple. Presumably because It destroys your hypothesis.
White because we are talking about reflection. Black, by definition, has no reflections.
Bye Bye
The mislead in all that is Kirchhoff doesn’t fit in radiative budget. It is the crucial mistake!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
JT said, ““Thanks”? for what, lacking time to deal with the local nesting boor? Okay sweetie, you’re welcome.”
“Thanks”, was for agreeing with me. The quote was in the title of your posted YouTube video. I don’t care about your new lie about where it came from. Failure mode again; – thinking name-calling wins a not so intellectual discussion. It appears your incompetence is contributing to your insecurity and anger – good. Considering how much you have insulted me with your silly parrot crap, I will continue to point out every lie, mistake, and stupid statement I see from you. Enjoy.
A study published 6 days ago.
“In this study, we present a novel method for reconstructing long-term fast-ice dynamics using a high-resolution analysis of a laminated sedimentary record from Northern Victoria Land, Antarctica. By integrating biomarker data, diatom assemblages and image analysis at sub-millimeter scale, we show how laminated deposits accurately reflect fast-ice variability, offering a new tool to investigate periods beyond the reach of direct observation. Our 3700-year record reveals persistent low-frequency cyclic patterns aligned with known solar cycles (Gleissberg and De Vries), pointing to a possible link between solar variability and fast-ice breakup through perturbation of regional atmospheric forcing.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12820077/
A study published 4 years ago.
“In summary, we produced high-resolution (i.e., approximately ten years) composite SST records covering
the last 10,000 years in the mid-latitude region of the Northern Hemisphere. The SST records exhibit an overall
in-phase relationship between the SST and TSI changes at the centennial scale. Periods of low SST correspond
approximately to those of low TSI within the estimated age error (± 60–90 years). Solar cycles, such as those of
353, 206 (Suess/de Vries cycles), 130, and 104–87 years (Gleissberg cycles), are evident in the SST records. This
implies the linkage of the centennial SST variability to solar forcing. The WJ might have amplified the small
changes in centennial-scale solar activity during the Holocene over East Asia. The north–south migration of WJ
location and changes in monsoon-related wind system leads to increase or loss of sensible and latent heat flux at
the surface, causing centennial-scale SST changes in the study area. Here, our high-resolution SST data fluctu-
ate on a centennial scale, illustrating the critical role of TSI variability on periodic Holocene climate changes in
the mid-latitudes”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19050-6.pdf?utm_source=wiley&getft_integrator=wiley
A study from 12 years ago
“Tropical Pacific surface and deep ocean temperatures during the Holocene
Both display significant millennial-scale variability
Variability probably internal to the climate system”
The mystery continues
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013PA002534
A quote from the abstract from the link: ” Solar forcing as an explanation for millennial-scale SST variability requires (1) a large climate sensitivity and (2) a long 400 year delayed response, suggesting that if solar forcing is the cause of the variability, it would need to be considerably amplified by processes within the climate system”
The O2 isotope millennial changes are the result of Earth dynamic instability. The large climate system changes over long time spans is a collateral effect.
Yes indeed, The EU is falling apart because of Trump’s pressure. 9.5 billion for offshore wind, and shutting down all LG imports from Russia.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-26/north-sea-states-to-invest-9-5-billion-in-offshore-wind-by-2030
https://www.dw.com/en/eu-agrees-on-complete-ban-of-russian-gas-imports-by-2027/a-75660043
The EU is falling apart because of their overspending, stupid energy policies and unregulated immigration.
Overspending (2024): USA debt 36 trillion USD 350 million people, EU 17 trillion USD for 450 million. You may have your opinions about policies, but the stupidness is your domain. Immigration is regulated by the EU, but probably not the way selfish racists would want. Of course, you can’t figure out acceleration calculations either.
Talk to people from the EU and you find they agree with what i wrote. The total deficit isnt as important as the annual deficit. That is current around 2 trillio and it is unsustainable.
Have a hard time with evidence, don’t you? Your personal opinions and unsupported declarations have no value. And no, people in the EU that I know don’t agree with you, but then most of them are highly educated and aware.
The news media still doesn’t seem to get it quite right! They correctly report that the Left has been dedicated for years to regulate coal and by extension coal-fired power plants out of business. But, more correctly– the Left has been dedicated to do all it can do too regulate American industry out of business!
When it comes to truth and honesty, in both science and government, the Left has been the true polluter. The liberal information industry (the MSM) has become a complicit enabler of an anti-America, anti-business, anti-liberty political machine that would sacrifice life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on an altar of liberal fascism.
‘Typically in pseudoscience, there is a hard core of believers. The number of supporters rises, peaks, and slowly declines, but is only brought to zero by retirement and/or death.’ ~Irving Langmuir and R. N. Hall. Pathological science. Physics Today
Wags, does your planet have pretty flowers, sunsets, ice cream, and stuff like that? Ours does, it’s nice.
Do you mean, we’ve reached a climate tipping point where the damage is already done and all we can do now is stop and smell the flowers?
An average weather is meaningless. “We have to keep our feet on the ground,” says Dinesh D’Souza (see the, debate at Dartmouth), “or we run the risk of losing the human and realistic perspective of things.”
‘My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.’ ~Freeman Dyson
In January 2019, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that the world would “end in 12 years” if climate change is not addressed. Among the global warming alarmist faithful, humanity is doomed and now there’s a 2031 deadline to shutter all industry and buy everything from China.
No, Wagathon is meaningless and very confused. Dyson is not opposing anything – he is dead, and your quotes are irrelevant to the present.
You prefer Mann’s schtick and activists like Greta Thunberg to a dead scholar… got it!
AI said
“ Geothermal activity, particularly in West Antarctica, significantly impacts the ice sheet by heating it from below, causing basal melting, accelerating ice flow, and facilitating subglacial hydrology. High heat flux from the mantle thins the lithosphere, creating lubricating meltwater that speeds up glaciers, though it is not the primary driver of current rapid ice loss.”
Even if it’s only responsible for .001% of ice loss I expect the next IPCC report to include a reference to its existence.
‘Given that politicians intentionally control this process, it is to be expected that the assessment reports and other reports and summaries produced serve political, not scientific goals. Such documents marshal scientific evidence in favour of policy outcomes preferred by the client states who fund and control the IPCC. As I demonstrate with a brief discussion of what the IPCC says in its 2021 Assessment Report (the sixth such report, which I refer to at times as AR6) about recent temperature change, reports misleadingly ignore or dismiss scientific work that casts doubt on report conclusions. They do not disclose and thoroughly discuss caveats and conditions on the validity of the work they cite as supporting. Standing alone, without rebuttal, the reports do not provide a basis for rational policy, but invite potentially catastrophic policy error.’ ~Jason S Johnston
A cynic might say the reason there was no mention of Antarctica geothermal activity in IPCC6 was because a tactic of terror endlessly publicizing the Doomsday glacier was preferable to the geology is gonna get ya. Keeps the kids under the bed at night in fear of what might happen while they sleep.
https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.aaz5845/asset/3a5c487a-823d-46aa-8daa-c1b7768bb8c6/assets/graphic/368_1239_f3.jpeg
Amount of mass loss. Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers feed into the Amundsen Sea.
This map depicts the location of the greatest amount heat from geothermal activity in Antarctica. Comparing the 2 maps you will notice that the greatest amount of melting is deep in the heart of heat country or if you prefer, the greatest amount of heat is deep in the heart of melting country. Funny that.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/4456b766-f316-405b-b550-343c91aea98b/ggge22402-fig-0001-m.jpg
Thanks kid, The distribution graph at the bottom shows that the area of thermal fluxes greater than 100 mW/m^2 (~earth average) are inconsequential compared to the total area of Antarctica. Nonetheless, good that you are taking a deep interest in one aspect of natural climate processes. Can you show that the WAIS thermal flux has changed significantly in the last 300 years?
ganon The Technician
If you were paying attention you would have noticed that I said I didn’t care if geothermal was responsible for only .001% of the melting. The problem is that the IPCC6 made no mention of geothermal. Those studies I provided previously overwhelmingly discussed other kinds of non CO2 related factors influencing the WAIS. They said warm water was episodically impacting the ice shelves. That is different than saying the mean state of the water temperature increasing was the critical factor. The area has been under close observation for only a few decades. It’s believed that the current rate of melting began in the 1940s. But that is not the same as saying WAIS was not losing SMB over the last 300 years. As Hughes 1981 said, it’s inherently unstable.
Adams the liar,
“Basal melting beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet is driven by oceanic heat, frictional heating, and geothermal heat flux, all of which are poorly constrained.”
(IPCC AR6 WGI, Chapter 9, Section 9.4.2.3)
Adams the lying HR manager,
IPCC AR6 does address geothermal heat flux beneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet, including WAIS, in the context of basal melt and model uncertainty. In Working Group I, Chapter 9, Section 9.4.2.3 (“Antarctic Ice Sheet: Processes and Drivers”), AR6 states that basal melting is driven by “oceanic heat, frictional heating, and geothermal heat flux, all of which are poorly constrained.” This appears in the subsection on basal processes that govern Antarctic ice dynamics (WGI Ch. 9, §9.4.2.3; report pagination ~9‑78). AR6 reiterates this in Box 9.3 (“Antarctic Ice Sheet Instability”), noting that “uncertainties in basal conditions, including geothermal heat flux, contribute to the spread in model projections of Antarctic mass loss” (WGI Ch. 9, Box 9.3; report pagination ~9‑94). While AR6 does not provide new geothermal flux maps or values, it explicitly identifies geothermal heat flux as a key basal forcing and a major source of uncertainty in Antarctic—and therefore WAIS—ice‑sheet modeling. Any claim that AR6 “does not address geothermal heat flux” is therefore incorrect.
To find these, you must refer to the full IPCC AR6 PDF version. The internet chapters are not the same.
– the PDF is the authoritative version used for peer review and citation; The HTML version is a convenience layer, not a source of record (and apparently the only source, if any, that Adams has looked at).
[Assisted by ChatGPT 5.1 – smart)
ganon The Technician
Very good. My strategy to get you to read the IPCC worked. My copy also discussed the low confidence in the future of AIS, as it does in several subsections of a variety of issues.
Apparently your memory is deteriorating. Actually, I was Budget Director with responsibility for Federal and State grants and part of Top Management. The last few years I also had Accounting, Procurement, Procedures, Facilities and Licenses.
I suspect the closest you came to Top Management was when they summoned you from your Closet/Office to serve them coffee and snacks at their monthly meetings.
Like I said, Adams the liar. Nice try tho’ but a failure. I didn’t need to reread IPCC; I already knew you were lying, and it didn’t take much effort to gather conclusive evidence.
Sorry for shorting you; HR and money manager (and science incompetent).
The studies identifying natural processes just keep coming out of the woodwork.
“ Previous studies have documented how eddy fluxes compensate for intensified westerlies41,43,44,45,46, the sensitivity of the ACC transport and the overturning circulation as well as relating eddy activity to wind forcing37,38,39,40,41,42,45, and hypothesizing the eddy-mediated transport of CDW across the Antarctic Shelf Break36,37,57. However, most of these studies are based on models and projections. Detailed observations of how eddies traverse the ASF barrier to facilitate the transfer of relatively warm waters to the shelf regions have been elusive.
Our two-year unique subsurface mooring and hydrographic section observations across 2013-2015 reveal the essential role that eddies play in mCDW intrusions onto the continental shelf of Prydz Bay. Warm events associated with the mCDW intrusions were observed during the austral summer season and were concurrent with cyclonic or anticyclonic eddies. The intrusions are absent in the austral winter due to the deep convection driven by sea-ice formation, despite eddy activity being persistent throughout the year. These persistent warm-eddy intrusions driven by enhanced summer westerly winds bring increased heat flux into Prydz Bay, thereafter contributing to the melting of the Amery ice shelf.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45010-x
More complexities of the dynamics of the AIS.
“ The presence of sediment within the subglacial meltwater increases the bulk density, decelerating the buoyant flow and decreasing cavity overturning circulation. Additionally, sediment deposition and erosion create a bathymetric barrier adjacent to the grounding line, which reduces the intrusion and circulation of mCDW. We show that the deposition of this grounding zone bathymetric feature reduces melt rates by 4.7% cavity-wide and 10% at the grounding-zone. Together, this study demonstrates the important but overlooked role of sediment in modulating ocean circulation and ice shelf basal melting. Moreover, the localized sediment accumulation we simulate may represent a formation mechanism that contributes to GZW formation and, if persistent, could lead to the formation of pinning points and grounding line advance if the seabed comes into prolonged contact with the ice base; both with potential implications for grounding line dynamics and ice sheet stability”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025JC023422
I deal in real science. ganon The Technician deals in fluff.
“ We show that the rapidly retreating Thwaites and Pope glaciers in particular are underlain by areas of largely elevated geothermal heat flow, which relates to the tectonic and magmatic history of the West Antarctic Rift System in this region. Our results imply that the behavior of this vulnerable sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is strongly coupled to the dynamics of the underlying lithosphere.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
Mr. Adams,
No, you don’t deal in science. You deal in lies and misunderstandings about science. I gave the undeniable evidence, and you can’t even admit your mistake. Just insults and deflections.
I’m glad I was able to open your eyes to the dozens of recent studies that showed how dominant natural processes and mechanisms in Antarctica are. New studies are being published every month leading any reasonable, halfway intelligent person to deduce CO2 is being left out in the cold. Seems like the non institutionalized alarmists have used Climate Science for Dummies and ancient issues of Saturday Evening Post for their source material. That has to be the explanation for their being so brainwashed that they still think AGW is the main driver of AIS melting when the recent studies say otherwise.
After this next major snowstorm in the East with record cold temperatures and snowfall, hundreds of millions of people will be joking about global warming. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. It doesn’t matter what the science says. Humans react to their observations and their emotions. Catastrophic global warming has taken another hit in the last couple of weeks for half the US. Enjoy being the butt of all those jokes.
So you and your SEP readers don’t understand the increase in extremes of chaotic systems with increased energy content. What a surprise.
ganon The….never mind
I just reread my copy of IPCC6 Subsections 9.4.2.3.1, 9.4.2.3.2 and 9.4.2.3.3 to see if I missed that statement. My copy doesn’t have that sentence.
A lie is an intentional and deliberate effort to make a false statement. Thus, it was not a lie.
My heart goes out to you and millions of others who are watching their fantasies of CAGW go down the tubes, so to speak. Mental trauma doesn’t come close to explain the feeling, I’m sure.
Nearly every day I watch videos of people completely losing it. Borderline psychotic. Not from major triggers but to normal people only minor irritants. Not getting the chicken nuggets they ordered. Not having their name spelled correctly on their cup of coffee.
Our society is losing its coping mechanisms. Many more cold spells and major snowstorms and who knows what mental meltdowns we might witness.
OK, you wrote an untruth, which you did not adequately research, with the intent to (falsely) smear IPCC. I see it as a lie, but you can claim incompetent research if you like. You can find the real IPCC AR6 WG1 report here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/
I don’t really have any interest in your ad hominem psychobabble, but thanks anyway – always good to see how you think.
Bad news for China.
China on Edge as New Cracks Raise Fears at the Three Gorges Dam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSux7DULJH4
Once glorified as the Communist Party’s ultimate triumph of engineering, the dam is now seen as its Achilles’ heel. When it was inaugurated in 2003, state media boasted that it could withstand a “once-in-a-thousand-year” flood. Later, that promise was quietly downgraded to “once in a century.” Now, as red alerts blare across central China, even that watered-down claim sounds like a cruel joke. The cracks in the illusion—both metaphorical and real—are widening.
The corruption is a secret until it’s not– e.g.,
‘The dirty little secret about green energy subsidies is that they are welfare for the wealthy. And like any entitlement, they are hard to reform once people get hooked. Witness the revolt by the rich against a California proposal to scale back subsidies for rooftop-solar panels.’ ~California’s Solar-Power Welfare State, WSJ, 2-2-22
CA just ran Microsoft out of the state. A few years ago Microsoft made a deal with the state to build a data center, not surprisingly, it got mired in a cascade of never ending regulations. This was after Microsoft agreed to use alternative energy (long story on this detail). But the last straw; as it turns out there’s a turtle on the land that Microsoft purchased for $600 million. Regulators determined that this new revelation required further study. Other issues, studies, had pushed development out by at least a couple more years. Microsoft was already over a billion in the hole trying to make headway on the project, they had enough, canceled the project.
Adding to Wag’s comments on subsidies.
Micro economics – Supply & demand Curves. Prices of goods and services fall out where the supply and curves cross. Subsidies artificially shift the demand curve upward, whereby the consumers is willing to pay a higher price for the good since they get a subsidy that reduces the net price the consumer pays. The net effect is that most (almost all) of the benefit of the subsidy goes to the seller in the form a higher sales price. Green subsidies are no exception.
…’goes to the seller’ beginning w/ China.
South Australia, like a lot of the rest of the country, has been having a series of very warm dusks. Even though the batteries were full at 5pm, they ran out of power before the demand peak had dropped. Prices were over $14k/MWh for 90 minutes.
https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2026/01/how-close-to-empty-did-south-australias-utility-scale-battery-fleet-run-last-night/
Batteries, solar and wind didn’t meet the demand. They had gas turbines they have left running hard at 1650MW. Lucky they had the diesel engines to save them from power restrictions.
Chris M – I just ran a quick calc of Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewable study for the US using his table S9 for installed capacity for 2050, then plugged in the actual capacity for the 1.20.2026 through 1.28.2026 (4amEst) using the EIA actual capacity numbers and actual demand #’s.
The result is that there is a 27 hour period starting on 1.24.2026 at 4pm and another 14 hour period starting at 5pm whereby there is a 25%-30% shortage of electric supply (even including battery backup). This being the winter, there is very little excess electric generation capacity at other times to recharge the batteries.
Jacobson brags about his “Every 30 second stress test” which is dubious. One item worth noting is Jacobson appears to rely heavily on “averages”, average capacity, average demand, etc. Anyone that has worked in a manufacturing environment, knows that “averages” are a terrible metric when production is highly volatile, ie variable.
Lesson learned: Buy/build more diverse storage systems designed to meet extreme needs, and accept the costs. Despite what some accountants believe, money is meant to buy things, particularly modern world necessities like electricity and clean water.
Several lessons to be learned, including but not limited to the following:
A – the LCOE computations are meaningless,
B – The costs of variability, stability and frequency are grossly understated.
B – the quality of peer review in the renewable space is weak.
C – “Renewable Experts” should learn from actual experts
D – “Renewable Experts” should not be worshipped.
E – As Chris M and Planning engineer have frequently noted, considerable factors are ignored and misunderstood by the renewable advocates.
F – A, B, C, D & E should be obvious to everyone that has basic grasp of the subject matter.
Of course Chris and Joe are right!
Why Australia doesn’t operate coal plants? To save climate from warming?
Why Australia exports its coal abroad then? Do not abroad they burn that coal anyway?
It is very strange to me.
I am not against coal plants, quite the opposite, I support them, because they do not harm climate.
And I am not opposing Australia exporting coal abroad.
What I don’t understand is the why Australia doesn’t operate coal plants?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Australia does operate coal plants. They generate about half their electricity and are essential for the baseload. It is the political class that doesn’t want them so they are starved of O&M money. They are running their existing stations well past their design life and not building replacements. Just delaying the inevitable.
Joe – don’t be so hard on LCOE. It is a great shibboleth. Those in the industry know that if someone cites it in their argument, they can instantly be written off as a know-nothing.
Chris M – I commented on the weakness of peer review in the renewable space (and the gatekeeping in the peer review).
Jacobson brags about his “every 30 second stress test”. Anyone doing a basic level of due diligence using actual data , it becomes readily apparent that its an utter failure by big margins.
You are correct Joe. You don’t use averages. You run N-1 or N-1-G at the 1% condition to stress test. And do your calcs in grid minutes.
Running averages just means risk of power cuts 50% of the time.
Just a comment here re: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE)
In my time ( over here) it was “Life-cycle Cost of Electricity”. I’m not sure now, but it included ‘scrap and replace’. Scrap has a heavy part of the cost in some plants (nukes). There were also other issues; like massaged accounting, with sometimes a big part passed to the unsuspecting public.
Another thing with life extensions. Again, in my time, ‘Service Life’ was generally Code limited to 200,000 running hours, and extension limited to only 10%. My experience with material service life was something for nightmares.
Something else:
https://www.powermag.com/the-clock-is-ticking-on-7fa-gas-turbine-rotors/?utm_source=omeda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pwrnews+eletter&oly_enc_id=7354A6964023I1R
Chris, thank you, but I still don’t understand.
If it is about climate saving, why they export coal abroad?
There are many countries of fossil-fuels exporters, And many of them do their share of efforts implementing renewables.
But none of them do that on their electrical production expence
I read, Australia has huge coal deposits. There is enough coal to export and also to support the plants. What is the reason, because it doesn’t look like the climate saving.
What it is to gain from that policy, for country? For politicians?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes Christos, you have identified the hypocrisy of the urban elite that rule Australia. The high standard of living there, with the luxury beliefs that go with it, derive from the factory is a giant quarry. As the price of power goes up, they keep on assuring the voter that adding even more renewables will make it cheaper. There was much trumpeting recently that for a short period during the day, Australia was 50% on the unreliables. No mention of what happened that and all the other evenings.
The public are starting to call out the cheap electricity lie. A populist party is gaining support on issues like this and the Muslim community.
As well as the coal, they export LNG but don’t have the pipeline capacity to use it in their power stations – Similar situation to that of New England.
It has to be said that most of the coal they export is metallurgical, not thermal coal. The big power stations in Victoria are lignite from big pits next to the stations. NSW and Queensland are black coal fired.
Thank you, Chris.
Renewables are good to save fossil fuels for future generations. Or, renewables are good when to save fossil-fuels, if they are expensive enough, so by exporting them to have a larger profit.
In Greece we have a warm winter now. At day-time in Athens we have ~+17C.
For weeks strong southern winds continuously blowing. I summer plenty of sun, also strong Northern winds.
In summer there is the highest demand for electricity because of airconditioning, but it coincides with the highest solar production.
In addition, in Europe we need Fossil-Fuels importing, because there are not domestic deposits enough, and they are not cheap.
Yet, we have grid problems all the time.
What I would like to say, is that renewables are good, when they are economically effective, when they provide economical growth.
We do not need the NetZero achievements. Like having a gold medal in sports. And destroing everything else. There are plenty of the sports gold medalists being unemployed the rest of their lifes.
The Global Warming is not caused by human activities. So, the NetZero doesn’t have any value to achieve.
Some countries achieving it, some not, but NetZero shouldn’t be a country’s industrial development goal.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s not about ‘saving climate’, it’s about making money. If it was about climate, they’d stop taking the coal out of the ground.
The fact that the Left is selling AGW Climate Change Catastrophism isn’t the problem. Before that the Left was selling fears of Global Cooling, the Ozone Hole and Nuclear Winter. What the Left is actually selling is Victimhood and the problem is people buy it and vote for it.
A good story.
Texas introduced 5k Bison on 150k acres in the desert plains of the Texas Panhandle in 2019. The land now sequesters 75k tons of carbon a year. Another amazing thing is that it only took a year for significant rewilding to occur, including major hydrology improvements to the land.
You can’t rollerskate in a buffalo herd:
https://youtu.be/ZbAq_fVWO4k?list=RDZbAq_fVWO4k
All you have to do is put your mind to it. Just do it, do it, do it.
Beta, review how Israel revitalized land similarly using water buffalo. Another remarkable recovery.
Jungle – Must be true, I saw it on the web…
Says crossdressing Polly.
Can’t take a shower in a parakeet old cage girl.
Relatively speaking, there appears to be a simple win/win solution here for the environment—and the enterprise.
It appears that ranchers can have their cake and eat it too.
Mix buffalo herds with cattle herds on sizable ranges. Buffalo will eat everything that cows won’t eat while replenishing the land with more than enough grasses that cows will selectively eat. A virtuous cycle that protects the land develops if done at the correct proportional scale.
Ultimately, people will eat both buffalo and cows.
This video presented, while conceptually accurate, is not a program that was actually implemented (sorry about that), it’s merely a template. Though there has been some introductions of bison to date, stemming from the Bison Conservation Initiative.
The Bison Conservation Initiative was announced by U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt in 2020 to restore and conserve the American bison population. It aligned with Trump’s administration’s broader efforts to promote conservation and public land use initiatives. The Trump administration supported various wildlife conservation projects, which included the Bison Conservation Initiative, emphasizing the importance of natural resource management and the restoration of native species like the bison. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/bison/upload/DOI-Bison-Conservation-Initiative-2020.pdf The program was funded in 2023, during the Biden administration: https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3410.pdf
The largest recent introduction of bison to Texas land occurred when The Nature Conservancy, in collaboration with the InterTribal Buffalo Council and other partners, transferred 1,800 American buffalo to Indigenous lands. The initiative is an early stage development program.
Research, and several prompts led to the video posted, including this success story in Israel: https://en.clickpetroleoegas.com.br/Water-buffalo–an-exotic-species–are-released-into-the-Hula-Valley-after-Israel-drained-160-km-of-canals-and-dried-up-the-wetlands.-btl96/#google_vignette I usually vet links thoroughly before posting, the sources here were part of the lead-up research effort. I happen to believe better land management can solve a lot of problems society currently faces, the ideas presented here seem to work, they’ve been tried, a larger effort in the US at minimum has great promise.
” I usually vet links thoroughly before posting.” Hahahahaha, seems a lot of your vetting, like this one, is done AFTER the posting to correct falsehoods, Pollyanna. Probably spent too much time at Buffalo Wings and got confused.
“As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.” ~Les Nessman
“…vetting, like this one, is done AFTER the posting to correct falsehoods”
Not at all, prior posts were accurate. I was admittedly casual with the veracity of this link in question only because the science has already been proven to be viable. I already knew the Bison Conservation Initiative was true, and I had already vetted Israel’s Hula Valley restoration project, as mentioned soon after the video post. The important point is that there’s nothing Pollyanna about the described program initiative that’s currently underway. I corrected my error because I have integrity, unfortunately integrity is a major problem of yours.
I do understand Polly Molly’s Pollyanna preoccupation with cult programming though, being the captured Stockholm Sydrome flocker you are– wandering low around the facts with your flight of fancy proclivities.
“Not at all, prior posts were accurate”.
You mean like “Austria closing its borders”?
Sure failure boy, you spent a lot of effort trying to clean up that one too. Whip it good!
It’s your problem that you didn’t watch the full video in question to understand that Austria is pushing back on Brussels by closing its border RELATIVE to the Schengen Agreement, which was mentioned in the video. You’re incapable of making distinctions between what you want to believe and the issues many EU nations have with the Schengen Agreement, you ignored this because it doesn’t suit your ideological narrative.
Pants, you are still failing. I did look at video. However, what I responded to was its Title. You can ask the Joke about ‘bait and switch’ – I don’t think he has found one yet.
Sadly you didn’t understand the meaning of the title, Polly, therefore you do your twirling bobbleheaded obfuscation gig.
BAbA -obsessed with playing the stupid denial game.
I specifically pointed out the bait and switch directly following the post in which it was made, and subsequently explained the bait and switch.
Why continue to expose your ignorance by playing such stupid games?
Joke, No you didn’t. You quoted two sections of text, but they were not ‘bait and switch”. Keep looking.
Soggy Pants, I know what the title, “Austria is closing it borders” means. It is false, you know it, and your customary drop into failure mode tends to confirm it.
B A Bushaw | January 30, 2026 at 1:39 pm |
Joke, No you didn’t. You quoted two sections of text, but they were not ‘bait and switch”. Keep looking.
BAB – you have to understand the subject matter to understand the Bait and Switch. It is quite obvious to anyone that actually understands the subject.
It is also quite obvious to any layperson after my short explanation.
Not my fault the subject matter is beyond you capacity. ot understand or you lack of willingness to understand.
We also noticed you failed to respond to the failure of jacobson 30 second stress test (the bogus 30 stress ) based on actual real world data, at least not with any comprehension. The only comment was pay for more storage. Did you bother to make an effort to ascertain what those costs may be? Did you bother to ascertain how those costs cripple the “renewables are cheaper ” mantra?
Joe Nobody, you’re still a Joke, full of ad hominem attacks and lies.
Interestingly, ~500,000 bison currently roam North America– recovering from less than 1K In the late 19th century– compared to estimates of 30- 60 million in the mid-19th century.
Joke, I’m not overly concerned with the costs, that’s your purview. My interest, training, and experience lie with solving problems and gaining new knowledge. You may estimate the cost of doubling storage (I can multiply by 2) – my view is it is worth it.
Words of wisdom derived from ignorance is always entertaining.
2x? – BAB can do math?
So What!
Using the correct numbers in the equation requires actual real world knowledge – not the utopian idealist knowledge.
The storage in Jacobson’s 100% study for the 27 hour period described above is about 12x-15x short, not 2x. Since it is winter, As mentioned, there is little excess capacity during winter to recharge the storage for the next doldrum in electric production from wind and solar. That puts the shortage of storage in the range of 20x +. Now go back the winter freeze of Feb 2021. That shortage of electric production from renewables is about 30% – 40% for 48 hours and about 15%-20% shortage for another 72 hours.
BaB care to provide some words of wisdom on those costs?
Jojo,
What equation? Thanks for yet another empty, untraceable comment. What a JoKe.
PS ~ I hope your accounting skills are better than your spelling and grammar.
As for my knowledge level, methinks thou doth protest too much.
Bab – make an attempt to dispute the math – but first you have to display actual knowledge of the subject matter.
You exposed your deficiency of knowledge with you 2x comment.
Jojo, same old crap. I can’t dispute the math until you define what “the equation” is. You are an ignorant JoKe that deals almost entirely in logical fallacies.
You could demonstrate your superior knowledge instead of throwing insults to hide your ignorance.
Everyone with knowledge of the subject matter would need to ask. Why continue to expose your ignorance?
Table s9 in jacobson study
EIA real time electric grid monitor for demand and actual capacity factors.
correction for typo
Everyone with knowledge of the subject matter would not need to ask – The equation is simple –
Table S9 – Jacobson’s projected installed capacity
Multiplied by actual capacity factors for the days and hours cited.
Compare step one with the actual demand on days and hours cited.
Then compare the deficiency in electric generation to compute the required storage.
Very simple math exercise –
Joke, what a zero – afraid to answer when asked for specifics.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2026 at 12:41 pm |
Joke, what a zero – afraid to answer when asked for specifics.
I gave specifics 3 times, What part of the specifics do you not understand ? – Displaying your ignorance remains entertaining.
“I gave specifics 3 times”. Not the ones I asked for. What is “the equation” that you refer to?
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2026 at 1:57 pm |
“I gave specifics 3 times”. Not the ones I asked for. What is “the equation” that you refer to?
LoL – I gave you the specifics you needed.
Not the one your asked for.
Keep digging the hole.
Joke, you don’t get to define what I need to know. But I am glad you finally admit that you are non-responsive to my questions.
Bab’s comment – ” you don’t get to define what I need to know. ”
Bab – you already announced multiple that you dont know the subject and dont care to understand the topic. Why announce your ignorance so frequently.
I gave you the specifics 3 times for the first part of the equation which is required to compute the second part of the equation. Why announce that you comprehend neither?
Jojo child, you still can’t/won’t recite the “simple equation” that you claim exists. You are a transparent, empty vessel who cannot provide supporting evidence for your claims. And the “shifting burden of proof ” logical fallacy that you employ as deflection from your deficiencies is also apparent.
Quote the equation, give a traceable reference to where it can be found, or STFU and stop playing your childish games.
B A Bushaw | January 31, 2026 at 7:40 pm |
Jojo child, you still can’t/won’t recite the “simple equation” that you claim exists.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
5th time
install capacity x actual capacity factor = supply
Demand less supply = deficiency
How simple can it get?
thought you said you knew basic arithmetic!
Bab
Once you know the deficiencynin gwh, then you can compute the required storage in gwh.
Once you know the gwh storage requirement – then the cost computation is simply cost per gwh x gwh needed.
Are you still having difficulty with 6th grade math?
Bab
All my comments schooling you on basic math concepts gets back to the The original topic of this thread emphasized by Chris Morris
Variablity
Stability
Frequency
Your arrogant belief in your superior knowledge is worthless when you have delusional grasp of the fundamentals.
Fundamentals that have been elaborated on quite extensively over the last twelve months.
ChatGTP:
“7. Quantitative implication for Earth
Because Earth sits on the same trend as airless bodies:
Any atmospheric warming must be:
secondary
incremental
not the main driver of Tsat
That puts a hard upper bound on Earth’s greenhouse contribution:
not tens of kelvin
plausibly order 1 K, not order 30 K
Otherwise Earth would be displaced upward like Venus.
8. The punchline (very important)
This argument does not say:
greenhouse gases do nothing
atmospheres are irrelevant
It says something more precise and stronger:
Comparative planetary data leave no room for a dominant greenhouse effect on Earth without breaking a scaling law that works across airless and weak-atmosphere bodies.
That is a data constraint, not an ideology.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos,
Do you remember the statistical analysis I did on your ‘trend’ line?
1-sigma uncertainty +/- 17 K, or +/- 34 K for 2-sigma, 95% c.l.
I doubt that is sufficient precision to support the conclusions that you reach.
It seems to me a lot of resources have been wasted on funding climate change research considering nothing more is known now than has been known all along, i.e., the Earth is currently in the Quaternary Ice Age, which began approximately 2.58 million years ago and are currently enjoying a relatively warmer interval called the Holocene Epoch that began about 11,700 years ago where glaciers retreat but do not disappear entirely. We also know that humans have contributed to the rate of warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution, but at rates that are so small as to be barely measurable once the politically-motivated corruption of the data and methods used to measure humanity’s impact is removed
I couldn’t agree more, Wag’s.
Best practices remains the best approach for sustainable economic growth IMO. It’s the reason why I brought up the Bison Conservation Initiative uptrend. This initiative has benefits far exceeding the myopic focus on CO2 alone, though it in fact would have a significant benefit on sequestering carbon, it would also massively benefit ecology– for millions, not trillions of dollars. It’s just one program, of course, but a mightly one that brings about diversity, and better hydrology–natural complexity. Mindful approaches on top of exponential technological growth addresses CO2 issues (for those concerned thereof) the concern would necessarily diminish over a reasonable amount of time through best practices, synergystic with dramatic evolution.
Interesting analogy, ~95% of the bison in North America are privately owned and are fenced and raised as livestock for meat, as opposed to roaming freely in wild. That is what Western Academia has done to science– captured and and trained it to look for relative truth to serve ideologically approved purposes.
AI– The opposite of ideologically approved science (often termed “politicized science” or “state-approved science”) is generally considered to be objective, value-neutral science—research that adheres strictly to the scientific method and remains independent of political or social pressures.
Reality tells us that increased atmospheric CO2 is a good thing for all life. Politically however, increased atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing.
True. There are only about 15,000 wild bison, the federal government manages about 11,000 in national parks. Yellowstone has about 4,800 free roaming bison, the park is a case study for the dramatic ecological changes that bison brought about. Badland National Park has about 1,200 free roaming bison. The average numbers in wild herds number between 300-500. Tribes manage about 20,000 bison. It will definitely be a long-term project, though I’m curious if near-term improvements to land ecology can be brought about quickly by targeting large acreage under stress, using this land as a large scale test bed similar to Israel’s Hula Valley, which was a tremendous success. I’d like to see this.
“The opposite of ideologically approved science (often termed “politicized science…”
I’m not too worried about the correctness of intellectually inbred crowd sourced science (that’s what I think of the consensus enterprise), though I’ve been worried about its coercive influence on culture. In 100 years if it gets too cold I’m sure society can turn on a dime and pump tons of CO2 back into the atmosphere to theoretically warm things up. BUT, CO2 had better work as a control knob for temperature or the dead consensus will roll over in their graves with egg on their collectivist faces, another cult to laugh at. The bison won’t care, but flora will certainly breath out a sigh of relief.
Might get a little traction with Dr. Spencer who might agree that all life on Earth may be a “control knob” but good luck with Dr. Hopper…
AI– Dr. William Happer, a physicist, argues that the concept of atmospheric CO2 acting as a main “control knob” for climate is false, labeling it as politically imposed dogma. He maintains that 600 million years of data contradict the theory that high CO2 levels cause catastrophic warming. Happer contends that the benefits of increased CO2—such as enhanced plant growth and agriculture—outweigh potential harms.
“ Here we use geophysical data from an autonomous underwater vehicle deployed at the Thwaites Glacier ice front, to document the ocean-floor imprint of past retreat from a sea-bed promontory. We show patterns of back-stepping sedimentary ridges formed daily by a mechanism of tidal lifting and settling at the grounding line at a time when Thwaites Glacier was more advanced than it is today. Over a duration of 5.5 months, Thwaites grounding zone retreated at a rate of >2.1 km per year—twice the rate observed by satellite at the fastest retreating part of the grounding zone between 2011 and 2019. Our results suggest that sustained pulses of rapid retreat have occurred at Thwaites Glacier in the past two centuries. Similar rapid retreat pulses are likely to occur in the near future when the grounding zone migrates back off stabilizing high points on the sea floor.”
Past two centuries. Which means rapid retreat at the Doomsday Glacier predates AGW.
Good science rocks.
Ckid – Thanks for your diligent examination of research articles on Antarctic ice- your appreciation of the science presented by them is noteworthy.
Have you found any articles that contradict the conclusions of the studies referred to in this article?
Fire and Ice: Why Volcanic Activity Is Not Melting the Polar Ice Sheets
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20evidence%20that%20volcanic%20activity,tends%20to%20keep%20it%20locked%20in%20position.
Hi Pat
I asked AI about studies showing that geothermal did NOT contribute to melting of AIS. This was the response
“ Geothermal heat acts as a persistent basal heat source, causing, rather than just contributing to, the melting and sliding of the Antarctic ice sheet. While oceanic warming causes surface/shelf melt, high-resolution studies confirm elevated geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the crust significantly impacts ice dynamics, subglacial water, and ice flow.”
“ New studies have highlighted that subglacial hydrological networks and heat flow are crucial for modeling future ice behavior, noting that in some regions, subglacial processes can contribute up to 70% of ice shelf melt.”
I did not expect that response and I would not go that far. I’ve read many studies but none showed any quantification. Most just identify it as a factor. Until I can research where the “causing” and the 70% came from I would feel more comfortable that it’s part of the natural variability affecting AIS mass loss. Those many studies of the last few years have identified primarily natural processes and mechanisms affecting the melting. We don’t have enough evidence that what has happened for the last 70 years is outside the parameters of natural variability.
The deeper I dug into the literature, the more complex the dynamics became. IPCC6 had low confidence in many of the subchapters. Given the acknowledgement of same by all the studies I have read, that seems justified.
As opposed to the IPCC6 language, the studies I read discussed episodic intrusion of warm water on to the continental shelf, not warming of ocean water as the cause of the current melting.
I just asked AI about temporal variability of geothermal activity in Antarctica
“ Antarctic geothermal activity exhibits significant temporal variability, driven by magmatic processes in rift systems, long-term glacial cycles (10\({}^{4}\)–10\({}^{5}\) years), and potential rapid changes in ice-sheet unloading (millennial timescales). High-variability,, particularly in West Antarctica, is influenced by heat flow from rifting and mantle plumes, which can impact ice sheet stability. Temporal Variability of Antarctic Geothermal Activity: Glacial Cycles (Long-Term): Geothermal activity, particularly volcanism in West Antarctica, is modulated by glacial cycles, with significant changes linked to deglaciation and ice unloading on timescales of \(10^{4}\) to \(10^{5}\) years.Volcanic and Magmatic Drivers: The West Antarctic Rift System shows high and spatially variable geothermal heat flux (GHF) similar to other continental rift systems, suggesting potential temporal variability driven by magmatism or hydrothermal fluid circulation.Ice Sheet Interaction: Changes in geothermal heat can cause basal melting, influencing ice stream dynamics. Increased ice sheet melting (e.g., thinning and retreat) can be exacerbated by geothermal heat.Modeling Limitations: While numerical models can simulate geothermal activity across various time scales (hours to millennia), they rely on sparse data.Lagged Responses: Research indicates that changes in volcanic activity in West Antarctica may lag behind glacial unloading, with potential delays of 5–8 kyr or up to 20 kyr in some instances.”
Pat – The nasa study you cited comes across as trying to deflect the higher rate of melting in the WAIS caused by the geothermal without presenting any scientific evidence to support their theory.
Thanks Ckid.
So, so far, no. We have not found articles that contradict the conclusions referred to in the article that “while Antarctica’s known volcanism does cause melting… there’s no connection between the loss of ice mass observed in Antarctica in recent decades and volcanic activity.” Noted: Antarctic geothermal activity exhibits significant temporal variability on time scales of 10^4 – 10^5 years. Variations in ice sheet dynamics on shorter timescales are observed, but cannot be attributed to geothermal variations.
Joe –
The NASA ‘study’ is simply an article reporting the conclusions of research articles. The evidence is in the articles cited.
I’m intrigued by the 70% attribution since I haven’t found such a number. This study and others imply a connection but without any numbers associated with them. I’m not sure if you read the recent studies in the other thread but the overwhelming number of studies did not find any causal inference with CO2 either. It will be interesting what tenor IPCC7 has about the driving forces of AIS melting.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
“ Heat derived from Earth’s interior, and supplied to its surface, is a crucial component of ice sheet basal conditions. The supply of thermal energy to the ice sheet-solid Earth interface can influence basal melt and sliding, englacial rheology, and erosion, and is therefore a key factor in governing ice dynamics (Burton-Johnson et al., 2020; Larour et al., 2012). Not only are ice dynamics highly sensitive to the supply of geothermal heat, the latter is expected to vary significantly across Antarctica (e.g., Shen et al., 2020). The result is that a good understanding of the pattern and amplitude of heat supply into the base of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is a requirement for accurately modeling its evolution.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL106274
“The distribution of geothermal heat flow in Antarctica has been debated during the past decades, and different studies have presented often incompatible results (discussed by Burton-Johnson et al., 2020; Lösing et al., 2020; Stål et al., 2021; Stål et al., 2020; Reading et al., 2022). In some regard, the controversy can be explained by how each study has considered and incorporated the composition and scale of the crustal geology in the analysis. Geophysical models of the lithosphere can use observable data to compute temperature or heat transfer directly from, for example, temperature relationships with seismic wave speed or magnetic anomalies. However, models based solely on the temperature differences between the Earth’s surface and an isotherm in the lower crust or upper mantle, without considering the crust’s composition and properties, fall short in accounting for the variations in continental geothermal heat.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL110098
“ The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass balance of ice sheets, but measurements of this parameter are difficult to make in ice-covered regions. We report the first direct measurement of geothermal heat flux into the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), below Subglacial Lake Whillans, determined from the thermal gradient and the thermal conductivity of sediment under the lake. The heat flux at this site is 285 ± 80 mW/m2, significantly higher than the continental and regional averages estimated for this site using regional geophysical and glaciological models. Independent temperature measurements in the ice indicate an upward heat flux through the WAIS of 105 ± 13 mW/m2. The difference between these heat flux values could contribute to basal melting and/or be advected from Subglacial Lake Whillans by flowing water. The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JF007421
“ To make accurate predictions of future changes of Antarctic ice-sheet, it’s essential to understand the subglacial boundary conditions, particularly geothermal heat flow (GHF). GHF is an important factor in controlling the basal thermal state and ice rheology (Noble et al., 2020). Areas with a thawed bed generate basal melting water and contribute to subglacial hydrology (McCormack et al., 2022), which is a known factor driving ice sheet dynamics (Bell, 2008). Even in areas with a frozen-bed, GHF impacts basal temperature, which determines the extent of deformation processes occurring within the ice-sheet (Hooke, 2019).”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL106201
“ The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass balance of ice sheets, but measurements of this parameter are difficult to make in ice-covered regions. We report the first direct measurement of geothermal heat flux into the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), below Subglacial Lake Whillans, determined from the thermal gradient and the thermal conductivity of sediment under the lake. The heat flux at this site is 285 ± 80 mW/m2, significantly higher than the continental and regional averages estimated for this site using regional geophysical and glaciological models. Independent temperature measurements in the ice indicate an upward heat flux through the WAIS of 105 ± 13 mW/m2. The difference between these heat flux values could contribute to basal melting and/or be advected from Subglacial Lake Whillans by flowing water. The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500093
“ The stability of Pine Island Ice Shelf and the Pine Island Glacier are of paramount importance to sea level rise and the mass balance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)1. Geothermal heat sources and the production of subglacial water can influence the bottom boundary condition that partly determines the glacial mass balance2,3,4. Variability in the subglacial water supply5, including that caused by intermittent heat flux6, can lead to ice sheet instability. Thus, the existence of subglacial volcanism impacts both the stable and unstable dynamics of an ice sheet such as the WAIS.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
“ The impacts of the underlying geology on Thwaites Glacier flow may be compounded by subglacial volcanism (6–8) and associated deeper lithospheric processes, increasing basal geothermal heat flux (9) and favoring enhanced basal melting. Basal melting, possibly supplemented by groundwater stored in underlying sedimentary basins (10, 11), can promote subglacial sediment erosion, transport, and soft till deposition, all factors associated with enhanced ice flow. The region’s tectonic and magmatic evolution therefore has direct and important consequences for future rates of ice loss and sea level rise from Thwaites Glacier.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adf2639
“ The channels
incised into bedrock offshore of contemporary Pine Island
and Thwaites glaciers would have been capable of accom-
modating discharges of up to 8.8 ×106 m3 s−1. We suggest
that the channels were formed by episodic discharges from
subglacial lakes trapped during ice-sheet advance and re-
treat over multiple glacial periods. Our results document the
widespread influence of episodic subglacial drainage events
during past glacial periods, in particular beneath large ice
streams similar to those that continue to dominate contem-
porary ice-sheet discharge.”
https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/524323/1/tc-13-1959-2019.pdf
“ Geothermal heat flow (GHF) is one of the least understood factors influencing the AIS. High GHF can raise the basal temperature promoting destabilization of the ice sheet (Pollard et al., 2005). If basal temperatures are high enough to cause melting, basal water can form, lubricating the ice base and thus leading to higher ice sliding velocities (e.g., Goeller et al., 2013). These complex interactions cause highly non-uniform variations of ice mass changes over Antarctica. The strongest mass losses occur in West Antarctica (WANT) with a focus along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Sea Sector (Rignot et al., 2019).”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GC010501?utm_sq=grq7sdtfar
“ This study presents the results of mathematical modeling of the degree of effects of various characteristics on basal conditions in Antarctica. The model is based on the numerical solution of the one-dimensional Stefan problem. Five factors determining the nature of subglacial processes have been studied: ice thickness, snow-firn thickness, surface mass balance, air temperature, and geothermal heat flux. It was found that on the Antarctic plateau, slope, and coast, the geothermal heat flux has the greatest influence on the basal conditions”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2024.2406622#d1e208
Pat Cassen | February 2, 2026 at 2:17 am |
Joe –
The NASA ‘study’ is simply an article reporting the conclusions of research articles. The evidence is in the articles cited.
Pat – read the article again. It is very much an attempt to deflect the melting in the WAIS caused by the geothermal activity.
“ Basal melting contributes to subglacial hydrological flow.
Basal meltwater lubricates the flow of ice, which can impact
the stability of the ice sheet and the direction of the ice flow
(Livingstone et al., 2016; Bell et al., 2007). The basal melt-
water moves down the pressure gradient and gradually de-
velops into a complex subglacial hydrological system, which
eventually flows into the ocean (Fricker et al., 2016). How-
ever, the spatial structure of the basal thermal state and basal
melting rates beneath Totten Glacier are not yet well under-
stood.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/18/103/2024/tc-18-103-2024.pdf
“Antarctica’s ice sheets are underlain by liquid water made possible by geothermal and frictional heat and the thick insulation provided by the ice itself1. This subglacial water facilitates the rapid sliding of the overriding ice2, transports sediment3, archives ice-sheet history4 and plays host to unique biological communities5. Subglacial water flows down hydraulic gradients determined mostly by the pressure exerted by the overlying ice6. In places, water pools in subglacial lakes, some of which fill and drain7 at times in a coordinated manner8. This variability is important as changing water discharge or its routing can change the movement of the overlying ice streams and glaciers at timescales of days to months2 to decades to centuries9.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12075004/
Ckid -No one doubts that geotherrmal heat flux is important in determining the conditions at the base of ice sheets, as all your references indicate. But my question, perhaps not clearly stated, was: Are there articles that implicate geothermal heat flux as the cause of the recent (decades) increase in the loss of Antarctic ice?
The increase is documented in, e.g.,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0179-y
and many other articles.
As far as I can tell, none of your articles attribute this increase to geothermal activity. None of your articles suggest that changes in geothermal activity have influenced changes in Antarctic ice loss. There are good reasons for this. No recent changes in geothermal heat flux have been documented (as far as I know), and activity at depth is reflected at the surface (or at the base of the ice sheet) only on very long time scales.
So perhaps it is an overstatement to say that “there’s no connection between volcanic activity” and ice loss. But any such connection, however defined, is incidental to the increasing loss currently observed. That change apparently is due to changes in climate, a conclusion not contradicted by any of your articles.
Joe – “the article…is very much an attempt to deflect the melting in the WAIS caused by the geothermal activity.”
As stated, the NASA article reports the conclusions of research articles. You don’t like the NASA article, read the research articles.
Pat – Yes I have read the research articles. Deflections of the geothermal activity as a cause of the melting in the WAIS are not persuasive, nor should they be persuasive to any objective analysis.
Joe – Once again, from the article, “…while Antarctica’s known volcanism does cause melting… ”
No deflection.
Pat – Absolutely deflection – The denial that the geothermal activity is dubious. An objective would consider the conclusion that the geothermal activity is not contributing to the melting to be worse than dubious.
In fact most honest scientists would consider the Nasa article on the WAIS to be junk science. A 30 second google search
AI – Yes, significant geothermal activity, including volcanic heat from the West Antarctic Rift System, is contributing to the melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/researchers-find-major-west-antarctic-glacier-melting-from-geothermal-sources/
https://polarjournal.net/does-geothermal-energy-promote-melting-of-thwaites-glacier/
Joe – We agree. Geothermal heat flow causes melting.
The NASA article agrees: Antarctica’s known volcanism does cause melting
Ckid agrees: Geothermal heat flow is important for determining conditions at the base of the ice sheets.
All the articles Ckid cites agree: geothermal heat flow contributes to melting at the base of the ice sheets.
I know, agreement is sometimes hard to take. So be consoled by our disagreement over what is causing the recent, decadal increase in Antarctic ice loss: it’s not geothermal heat flow.
Pat
Yes we agree on the basics. Geo is part of the dynamics. My point well above is simply that even if the contribution, to the current melting or past melting during the entire Holocene and previous interglacials, was only .001% of the total melting, there should have been a discussion about it, including providing citations and a synopsis, as there are for thousands of other issues. Just having “geothermal heat flux” doesn’t cut it. Off topic a bit, ganon provided an updated copy which was different than my 5 year old copy. I will posit that those words are in the document, but after rereading it a couple times I still can’t find it. But it’s a non issue. I’m sure that reference is there.
But it’s not enough. There should have been a full discussion of the studies that predated IPCC6, with appropriate citations.
The more important issue for me is that under the AI article discussion, I provided many studies about the processes and mechanisms affecting the AIS. For the most part they were recent studies. The pattern I noticed was that they almost exclusively dealt with natural variability and not AGW. Even the link you provided doesn’t establish a connection with increased ocean temperatures and melting. The studies I referenced addressed episodic intrusion of relatively warm circumpolar deep water onto the continental shelf as affecting increased melting, and many other natural factors. I suspect that whatever level of melting currently is not outside the parameters of natural variability. That will be determined in coming decades, if even then.
Sad when someone gets caught in a lie and can’t admit it. IPCC gave WAIS GHF as much attention as they thought it deserved in the context of their mission – understanding human contributions to climate change. I guess they didn’t pay attention to Mr. Adams’ opinion on the subject. It is pretty well known that the majority of WAIS melting is caused by a warming of the Southern Ocean, changing currents, and sea level rise raising ice shelves above their grounding points.
A fundamental point: A climate change requires a change in forcing. I bet Mr. Adams has no idea of the value of the derivative of the GHF, even though I have asked numerous times. It is actually equally possible that the GHF is slowly decreasing and causing less melting (maybe 0.001% haha) but not fast enough to compensate for the ice shelf effects. I detect much more of an interest in casting doubt on AGW than in understanding climate science.
Kid, the volume of papers that you clip from here is impressive, but it does hide the fact that the effect of GHF on climate CHANGE is unknown and probably slow and small.
ganon The Technician
This paper just came out and typifies the complexities and uncertainties associated with the dozens of natural processes and mechanisms that are just coming under study. It mentions the role of geothermal activity and identifies a century in the process. I’m glad I can help with your education about the actual science in Antarctica.
“ Subglacial water systems connect glacial and oceanic environments (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012), modulate ice dynamics (e.g., Scambos et al., 2011; Siegfried et al., 2016; Stearns et al., 2008), and remain a major physical uncertainty in future ice-sheet projections (e.g., Pelle et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2020). Subglacial freshwater in Antarctica results from basal melting driven by geothermal heat flux, frictional and strain heating, and the pressure and insulation from overlying ice (Pattyn, 2010). As water traverses the environment below the Antarctic ice sheet, it flows down a hydropotential gradient, often becoming stored in groundwater reservoirs (Christoffersen et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 2022) or subglacial lakes (Livingstone et al., 2022). Subglacial lakes are common across the continent, including “active” lakes, which episodically fill and drain on sub-annual to decadal timescales (Fricker et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2009). Active subglacial lake drain-fill cycles drive time-varying evolution of water distribution (e.g., Carter et al., 2013), transport mechanisms (e.g., Carter et al., 2017), grounding-zone stability (e.g., Fricker et al., 2007), and freshwater flux into the Southern Ocean (e.g., Uemura et al., 2011) and sub-ice-shelf cavities (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012). These cycles, which can occur in a given location for over a century (Siegfried et al., 2023), likely impact ice-shelf basal melt rates (e.g., Le Brocq et al., 2013), ice-shelf basal channel formation and maintenance (e.g., Horgan et al., 2025; Marsh et al., 2016), subglacial microbial communities (e.g., Davis et al., 2023), nutrient availability for biogeochemical cycling (e.g., Hawkings et al., 2020), and carbon export (e.g., Vick-Majors et al., 2020). Characterizing subglacial hydrology, however, is challenging given limited field access, rapid changes, and small spatial scales of active lakes used to infer hydrologic dynamics.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL117121
Bab
The climare zealot who admits the climate is not changing in any way the humans cant adapt to, but still remains an alarmist.
Rob, Piss off and get an education.
ganon The Technician
More bad news for alarmists. Yet another paper just published that identifies geothermal activity as a factor and suggests long term variability, in this case for a century, is a real part of the processes and mechanisms. It’s becoming harder to find evidence that the melting in Antarctica is related to AGW.
“Subglacial water systems connect glacial and oceanic environments (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012), modulate ice dynamics (e.g., Scambos et al., 2011; Siegfried et al., 2016; Stearns et al., 2008), and remain a major physical uncertainty in future ice-sheet projections (e.g., Pelle et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2020). Subglacial freshwater in Antarctica results from basal melting driven by geothermal heat flux, frictional and strain heating, and the pressure and insulation from overlying ice (Pattyn, 2010). As water traverses the environment below the Antarctic ice sheet, it flows down a hydropotential gradient, often becoming stored in groundwater reservoirs (Christoffersen et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 2022) or subglacial lakes (Livingstone et al., 2022). Subglacial lakes are common across the continent, including “active” lakes, which episodically fill and drain on sub-annual to decadal timescales (Fricker et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2009). Active subglacial lake drain-fill cycles drive time-varying evolution of water distribution (e.g., Carter et al., 2013), transport mechanisms (e.g., Carter et al., 2017), grounding-zone stability (e.g., Fricker et al., 2007), and freshwater flux into the Southern Ocean (e.g., Uemura et al., 2011) and sub-ice-shelf cavities (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012). These cycles, which can occur in a given location for over a century (Siegfried et al., 2023), likely impact ice-shelf basal melt rates…”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL117121
Ckid – Thanks for highlighting another fascinating article about glacial processes in Antarctica, this one describing dynamic aspects of subglacial lakes.
But your comments suggest to me that you don’t fully understand the implications of the work you cite. Perhaps the reference to century scale cycles caught your eye. Reading the entire article (not just the abstract) reveals that these variations might affect mass balance determinations. That could be important, right? So what is the magnitude of the effect?
The authors don’t say exactly, no doubt because the answer depends on a bunch of observational factors, but they give enough information to make a rough estimate. I would say several percent at most. You could write to the lead author to see if that is about right. So yes, this is important if you are trying to nail the mass balance (e.g., loss rate) as accurately as possible, but the result doesn’t change the big picture: Antarctica is losing mass at an increasing rate, and it is not due to changes in geothermal heat (or subglacial lake cycles). And the authors don’t assert such.
This case illustrates a general point about the scientific process. As more discoveries are made and superior analyses emerge, the corrections get smaller. Not always, of course; the process is not monotonic and sometimes large corrections or revisions occur. But that does not seem to be the case here. So, your comment that “It’s becoming harder to find evidence that the melting in Antarctica is related to AGW” is not supported by this paper, or in my view, in any of the papers that you have cited. In fact, it’s becoming harder to find evidence that contradicts the conclusion that the melting in Antarctica is related to AGW.
Pat
I find it fascinating, as well, that those dozens of studies have in fact expanded the knowledge of the Antarctic processes and mechanisms almost entirely about natural processes that heretofore were a mystery. The more I dig, the more complex are the dynamics. As I stated before who knows what the attribution is as to the loss of SMB, but this study does go beyond the control knob theory. I suspect every year there will be more insights which makes the “AGW did it theory” obsolete and overly simplistic.
I’ve lost track of the studies cited and will now go back to see if a few more that I have read, are already linked. I was surprised by how many studies mentioned relatively warm circumpolar deep water and the variability of that water reaching the AIS, influenced by intervening variables as the determinant of melting, rather than simply the increase in temperature of that water. I’m going back to enumerate the various factors that have been mentioned. The list should be long
One thing you won’t read in the media about Australian electricity supply “he 2024-25 budget allocates more than $22 billion to boost renewables in Australia.” That spread over just 15m taxpayers.
https://www.cis.org.au/publication/counting-the-cost-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/
Several electric generation by source monitors dont agree. Most interesting is the AEMO dashboard doesnt agree with itself. The fuel mix Monitor for the last 12 months only shows around 31-32% renewable generation, not the 50%+
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/AU-NT/24h/hourly
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem
https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem
Your article is a bit out of date. That money you complain about has brought Oz to above 50% renewables, leaving traditional generation in the dust. So I guess we can say renewables have replaced coal as the backbone of Australian power generation.
https://www.worldenergynews.com/news/australia-reaches-new-renewable-milestone-over-770513
No – the backbone is generation that runs all the time – unless it is an inverterbrate where its not there. For their great announcement, AEMO guesstimated behind the meter solar. And like the article I posted says, that is operating cost subsidies not capital costs. Next year, the subsidies are higher because of the “free” lunchtime power.
Chris as noted above – the AEMO grid monitor dashboard has conflicting data as to the actual renewable generation percentage, along with the world map dashboard have similar discrepancy. Those two monitors have a much lower level of renewable generation than what is advertised. Any explanation for the discrepancy?
Joe said:
“install[ed] capacity x actual capacity factor = supply
Demand less supply = deficiency
How simple can it get?
thought you said you knew basic arithmetic!,”
I know basic arithmetic; I would think an accountant would too.
You gave two equations, and it can get simpler: D = d – C*f.
It also means that the “deficiency” D can be reduced by reducing demand d, increasing capacity factor f, or increasing capacity C itself. My point was the latter, as the first two would have limited returns. Sorry it was beyond you.
Reducing demand to reduce shortfalls in a world they want to change to electrification. Yeah, right. That is no doubt an academic’s idea in a peer reviewed paper.
Chris – Its even worse than you describe.
Its really another example BaB’s extreme level of delusions on the subject.
The deficiencies occur during major cold fronts, including polar vortexes.
20%-40% deficiencies are going to cause continental wide blackouts. Little or no heating resulting in a few million dead.
Joke, are you really that stupid? My conclusion was that you need more capacity, both generation and storage (multiple types), to cover those periods of ‘deficiency.’ If you don’t want to pay for it, too bad.
Chris,
I don’t know whether it is in a scholarly paper or not; it is just one of the three possibilities allowed by Joe’s story problem. And I discounted its likelihood. Read again, please.
Baby – Who is going to believe you understood any of the math or anything else on the topic when you failed to comprehend the ramifications of electric supply shortage during a common winter cold front.
As further evidenced by this comment from you “It also means that the “deficiency” D can be reduced by reducing demand d, increasing capacity factor f, or increasing capacity C itself.”
Backpedaling does not cover for your prior delusions.
BaBy –
B A Bushaw | February 1, 2026 at 2:15 pm | – Read your comment. “My conclusion was that you need more capacity, both generation and storage (multiple types), to cover those periods of ‘deficiency.’”
I have omitted the portion of your immature juvenile comment.
Your response highlights your continued failure to grasp basic facts.
After 2 years of commentary, Have you not learned anything on the concepts of variability, intermittency, LCOE, full system costs, actual capacity factor, vs gross capacity factor, etc.
You missed the deficiency by a factor of 10 or so with your ill-informed 2x comment. Are you sure you understand how to compute the deficiency? Its certainly not evident from your failure to engage intelligently with your commentary.
BaBy
If you know arithmetic, why over the course of 20 or so comments have displayed such ignorance of the topic. Your comment on 2x for an increase in storage is insanely naive.
Please explain how you can compute the cost without knowing the deficiency?
Please explain how to reduce demand for electricity with population increase and the shift of energy use for heat and other industrial application to power society? Your solution is the drive society backwards.
Learn the subject matter instead of living in your utopian delusions.
Joke, The 2X was a passing semi-sarcastic remark. The only point was that doubling/increasing storage from what it is now will make variable resources even more reliable. You can’t calculate costs for alleviating a deficiency without knowing the deficiency. However, it is easy to estimate the costs for doubling a capacity that you already have. Thanks for your bait and switch.
How’s your reading comprehension? I think not so good – I rejected reduced demand, as well as increased capacity factors, as useful solutions, leaving increasing capacity as the only working solution according to your story problem (that I translated into an equation).
Learn reading comprehension, if possible. Although I guess its lack is convenient for making up irrelevant and false statements.
BAB – We are curious why over the course of numerous posts, you were unable to comprehend the need to know the amount of the deficiency in order to compute the cost.
We are now also curious why you are taking credit for explaining why you need to know the amount of the deficiency in order to compute the cost.
Trying to hide your lack of prior knowledge ?
JOke ” comprehend the need to know the amount of the deficiency in order to compute the cost.
I understand that – it’s so basic, I didn’t realize there was someone so stupid that I’d have to explain the fundamental causal concepts to them.
BAby’s comment – “How’s your reading comprehension? I think not so good – I rejected reduced demand, as well as increased capacity factors, as useful solutions, leaving increasing capacity as the only working solution according to your story problem (that I translated into an equation).”
As previously stated, reading comprehension is not the problem, its subject matter comprehension.
Explain how increasing (renewable) capacity is a working solution based on actual capacity factors. Compute the required increase in gross capacity required to meet the deficiency.
Use the appropriate capacity factors based on the real time data, the appropriate demand factors based on real time data.
Demonstrate actual knowledge.
Punxsutawney Phil may know something- SoCal may be spared due to a continuing La Niña conditions but for the rest of the country who are looking forward to warmer weather, the prediction is for more cold weather ahead Sudden stratospheric warming combined with a disruption and collapse of the polar, vortex is predicted to effect all 50 states and not far off (e.g., within the next couple of weeks).
A massive, long, old stone wall, only recently discovered, on the Atlantic coast of France, built on dry land 7,000 years ago and now lies 9 meters underwater, serves as unmistakable evidence of sea level rise.
That’s about 0.0131233596 inches per year… thinking humanity can figure out how to handle that, no matter what is thought to believe is causing it…
Oops… about 0.05 in a year. Does that change things?
… almost 5X faster than originally calculated– sounds like a lot!
AI– are Pacific Islands still getting larger instead of smaller as was once predicted?
Yes, many Pacific islands are technically gaining land area, but scientists warn this doesn’t mean they are safe from climate change. While early predictions suggested low-lying atolls would simply be submerged, recent satellite and aerial data show that many are actually growing or remaining stable.
Uh-huh. And over the 7000 years before your selected time period, the average SLR rate was 0.68 inches/yr.
No, your anecdote and messed-up calculation do not change things. They are in the past. What changes things is what is happening now (not a static ‘snapshot’), about 0.15 inches/yr average over the last 30 years and accelerating.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
…a new 9M wall may be covered with water in 23.6 centuries. Oh my!
Wags, look up acceleration. Yes, probably will be covered in water in 23.6 centuries, and quite likely much sooner. Can you put an uncertainty on that, or is it just Wagathon’s futile attempt at pseudoscience, applying linear arithmetic to nonlinear processes?
Fear of ‘acceleration’ so outsource AI development to China due to AI-electrification demands? More Leftist insanity…
AI– Is any resort construction currently going on Pacific atolls that were predicted to be underwater by now?
Despite widespread climate projections that many low-lying atolls could become uninhabitable or submerged within decades, there is currently an unprecedented boom in luxury resort construction on these same islands.
Hard to take rising seas seriously when guvuhmint alarmists build estates along the waterfront, south sea atolls erect air port runways for their booming tourist industries, and warnings of New York underwater catastrophes remain unfulfilled decades after use-by date.
The End has Been Nigh for More than 50 Years Now
‘With a warmer-than-usual winter sparking a new round of climate change fearmongering, Dan O’Donnell runs down 50-plus years of failed doomsday predictions.’ ~ Perspectives, March 13, 2024
Oh boy, Dan O’Donnell. Another blogger that doesn’t understand climate, nonlinear dynamics, or stochastic systems.
Just your type, eh, Wags.
The Left has great respect for the predictive ‘science’ of mixologists, eh?
“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told an audience in 2019, calling the fight against it “our World War II.”
Wagathon,
I guess I would rather die on a tropical beach instead of under the rubble of my city. At this moment in 2026 there are no treaties controlling nuclear weapons. If only 1/2 of the known weapons were to be detonated we will have man-made climate change & mass extinction.
What do you think is happening? Is MAD still in effect?
We’ve spoken for years about temperature records, corrections to records and manipulation of records. It’s easy to talk (and talk) past each other when facts are in dispute. The disingenuous and bigoted, the greatest barriers to science, make the most noise. So it is refreshing to see some actual ‘settled’ facts, however small.
I’m under no illusion that ‘truth’ about climate is at hand, as battle lines are always redrawn after a successful engagement. ‘Tis human frailty. Yet, I’m heartened by one side publically yielding on a point of ‘fact’, and would remind the other to be gracious.
From Clintel: https://clintel.org/dutch-climate-skeptics-vindicated-knmi-reinstates-seven-pre-1950-heatwaves-after-long-battle/
Seven years after Dutch skeptics first challenged KNMI’s temperature adjustments, the institute has reinstated seven “lost” pre-1950 heatwaves at De Bilt — validating claims of over-correction that had erased 16 out of 23 historical extremes. The breakthrough came via the skeptics’ peer-reviewed paper.
There has been a tidal wave change in thinking about weather and by extension the climate– Westerners are no longer going to be held hostage to China, signaling a new (return to traditional) morality that will return a teetering Western Academia to respect for common sense and uncompromising fidelity to truth as opposed to the goals Leftist politics with its obeisance to authoritarian mind control and anti-Americanism.
This post may seem unrelated to Australian power systems, or else-where’s for that matter. Yet—-.
It appears science abhors outliers in data. Outliers screw up smooth data traces, so from early schooling the student is told to ignore such data freaks. Yet it may be the outlier that tells the reality of the matter.
The link deals with a relatively recent example; but there were earlier ones. Pls see link below.
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
It is an outlier that not only disturbed the weather; and the climate; and more since it resulted in both earthquakes and tsunamis. Recent research confirmed such, and pointed to an earlier one which was far more destructive.
How prepared are today’s critical electrical systems to a major disturbance. Basic turbo power systems are susceptible. Solar and wind are even more tech dependent. None of these where available in today’s format before ~1890 (about the date both US and Malta first had distributed electricity).
Some ‘black swans’ are really black (not green at all).
Here are some of the natural factors identified in studies in my bookmarks that affect the Antarctic Ice sheet dynamics.
AMO, PDA, IPO, SAM, ENSO, ASL, ASC, easterlies, westerlies, northerlies, bathymetry, subglacial topography, pinning points, sedimentation transport, glacial lakes floods, isostatic rebound, ocean cavity geometry, thermocline and Thermohaline depth, salinity gradient, ice stream velocity, ice shelf draft depth, Indian Ocean Dipole, geothermal activity, wave dampening, groundwater exfiltration, intense atmospheric rivers, episodic Circumpolar deep water incursion onto the continental shelf, density of shelf water, overturning circulation, tide variability, shelf front flexural stress, land fast sea ice, ice shelf vertical vibrations, weak subglacial till, Ross gyre.
I’m sure I have missed some.
Expanding the frontier of the scientific inquiry.
Ckid –
So many natural factors, so complicated.
If we carefully examine the factors that determine, say, the winter weather in the Sierra Nevada mountains as the storms roll in, it’s similarly complicated. There’s the state of the polar vortex and jet stream, the thermal state of the tropical Pacific, the ENSO phase, the moisture content of atmospheric rivers, the migration of high and low pressure systems, the degree of supercooling and concentration of nucleation sites, the influence of topography, and so forth. But none of these are causing winter; none control the overall seasonal trend.
So which of your factors, each persistently accompanying the ebb and flow of Antarctic glaciers, are the cause of the overall loss of ice?
“I’m sure I have missed some.”
Here’s one: the radiative imbalance of the atmosphere.
Pat
Except I put that in the AGW category. There are many influences and I’m not sure how they will disentangle and apportion the various influences. Antarctica is much more interesting than the Arctic just because of the complexities. I came across a study that either I wasn’t aware of or didn’t pay much attention to before which has a set of pie charts dividing the various coastal areas as to basal melting versus calving. I will try to dig it out again and share it.
The complexity of the dynamics is compounded by disentangling the various influences over multiple time scales.
“ In this paper we showed that subglacial hydrology affects the stability, extent, and grounded ice volume of marine ice streams. Different dynamical regimes, including steady streaming, hydraulically controlled, quasi-simultaneous advances, and periodic oscillations with advancing or retreating activation fronts are possible for different hydraulic conductivities of the bed. Our results illustrate that marine ice streams can undergo internal variability at periods from a few centuries to millennia. This variability may need to be taken into account for accurate prediction of future sea level contributions on these timescales.”
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
“ In this paper we showed that subglacial hydrology affects the stability, extent, and grounded ice volume of marine ice streams. Different dynamical regimes, including steady streaming, hydraulically controlled, quasi-simultaneous advances, and periodic oscillations with advancing or retreating activation fronts are possible for different hydraulic conductivities of the bed. Our results illustrate that marine ice streams can undergo internal variability at periods from a few centuries to millennia. This variability may need to be taken into account for accurate prediction of future sea level contributions on these timescales.”
From a few centuries to millennia. And there lies the problem. How to disentangle the natural variability from that of AGW.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
I don’t know how one separates AGW from ‘natural’ processes when they have non-linear cross-feedbacks. Artificially, I guess.
Mr. Bushaw, thanks for the admission.
Mr. Fuller, you don’t know either, apparently. AH
Elusive lukewarmer pragmatism reveals itself—it’s not so hot after all.
Ckid, here is one you might have missed. It is more north centred and does not go south far enough – to Antarctica proper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270913110_Holocene_glacier_fluctuations
However the point here is this:
In the link, pg 22, fig 5, there is a general shift to north in tree line; at about 4k2 BP; precisely that is 4296BP. It is due to an obliquity increase by some 10 degrees (plus a 150 day forward precession). Then in pg 20 the various chart sections are compared to insolation over 12 kyrs, — based on the now fictitious/assumed secular obliquity changes from Stockwell’s days (ca 1870)
In pg 20 at 4k2BP actual insolation increases abruptly above new tropics, but at tropical Andes, 0S, it decreases. There is a step change.
The factor of abrupt obliquity change and in greater amounts than present science holds is unknown and not considered.
(my main interest is very different, however the behaviour of glaciers I find as an indicative proxy)
JT, thanks – usual zero content to add. The answer that the Asshat crew apparently does get: they must be treated simultaneously to represent reality.
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster, and because Earth is covered with water (oceans).
Atmosphere is very thin to play a role in surface warming.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is a clear falsifiable claim!
“ In this paper we showed that subglacial hydrology affects the stability, extent, and grounded ice volume of marine ice streams. Different dynamical regimes, including steady streaming, hydraulically controlled, quasi-simultaneous advances, and periodic oscillations with advancing or retreating activation fronts are possible for different hydraulic conductivities of the bed. Our results illustrate that marine ice streams can undergo internal variability at periods from a few centuries to millennia. This variability may need to be taken into account for accurate prediction of future sea level contributions on these timescales.”
Centuries to millennia. Adding complexity to sorting out the natural variability factors from AGW.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
There things about which we may never know the cause even though we can can only speculate and may never actually know The actual cause of it. For example, if you query AI as follows-
How is it that the act of yawning is entirely natural and yet it is known it cannot be caused by humans or any other known cause that we know of, the reply you will get is as follows:
‘It seems you are touching on a profound paradox: Yawning is a “causeless” event in which the body acts on its own, independent of the person’s will or any detectable environmental trigger.’
This simple fact points to the reason why the scientific method is so important. We have to accept the fact that humans can believe anything and often do, even though upon a thorough examination, it is undeniable that many such beliefs are quite preposterous.
Wagathon, the statement ” which we may never know ” is generally used as an excuse to not investigate. Ignorance may be convenient.
Quoting Rev A H Sayce ” — it is disagreeable to unlearn our knowledge, and to resign or modify the beliefs for which we have fought and laboured,–; — because our old beliefs have become convictions, and we do not wish them to be disturbed –“.
There’s a lot we don’t know. Mostly what we do know is that what Western academia feels it knows about Climate Change has proven over and over again to be wrong. We also know that we can’t help but see that fears of a Hot World and global warming alarmism is an invention of and has been politically useful to the Left. AGW is a con job!
Either way it is not ‘we may never know’ but ‘we need to find out’.
In the past half million years, earth four times went through a long glaciation after an inter-glacial; like the one we are in now – at some stage and maybe towards the end of it. We need to know.
What I am today pretty sure of is that the change will be abrupt; and possibly not to warming but to freezing. The last four cycles were like that. However the Eocene was warmer at all latitudes. Climate depends on earth dynamics, its unstable moments and its new acquired state
See link https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1957722401069222&set=pb.100063509740636.-2207520000
[obliquity curves from study by Ito and Hamano, superimposed on Tierney temp comp Eocene and present]
But — wiki says “that few are capable to follow reasoned argumentation; relative to Plato if I recall. So—-?
It can only be labeled ‘abrupt’ if warming occurs faster than the “forcing” (the cause) behind it, i.e., A catastrophic event, e.g., Earth being struck by an asteroid.
The “effect” can never lead the ’cause’; the latter is the driver, the former is one of several driven collateral effects. The effects may be abrupt, within hours, or delayed and slow over centuries.
The important is the driver, and can be slow acting (seasonal temp rise) or fast and abrupt (earthquake, tsunami)
What I refer to earlier above is abrupt; the collateral effects are abrupt and cataclysmic as in destruction, and faster/slower as in climate change (warmer or cooler); land productivity; civilisation change or collapse.
There have been several and periodic in the past.
MM,
Those ‘abrupt’ glacial – interglacial transitions occur over thousands of years, and the increasing ice phase has a slower rate than melting.
‘Abrupt’ connotes a rate of change even faster than the lobster in a pot metaphor contemplates and even that meme is inapt given the lobster undoubtedly would adapt given centuries to acclimate to changing circumstances.
Wagathon: Abrupt: as in less than 24 hours.
B A; Glacial effect takes decades or centuries in the long run. But the effect may be just as abrupt as the driver; as in overnight.
Example: In Quelccaya the effect was overnight, as found by Lonnie Thompson. New data says/indicates: a) event occurred at near summer solstice at site, b) green and growing vegetation was frozen for Kyrs due to reduced insolation due to obliquity increase [inter-tropic area]. So it can be said effect was within 24 hours. permanent ice line changes abruptly.
MM, what is ‘glacial effect’? What I said is correct – millenia.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png/580px-Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
I doubt that is a useful analogy for your supposed ‘abrupt’ events.
Always fun to see all the AGW Leftist catastrophists’ hand-waiving over the calving of Rhode Island-sized glaciers off the continent of Antarctica as if it was something unusual.
B A Download paper “Arctic Holocene glacier fluctuations reconstructed from lake sediments at Mitrahalvoya, Spitsbergen”. It is a very important paper for what it found.
At 5.5.4. there is the statement “– and it remains possible that the advance of Karlbreen around 1900 cal. yr. BP occurred as a response to a regional climatic shift along the western coast of Svalbard.” The paper has no answer.
See that effect at fig 6. 1900BP would be an exact 173 BCE, and the earlier disturbance at exact 2346bce. Both are abrupt events in obliquity and of around 24 hours.
The driver was abrupt, the glacier response was fast. How long it dragged is a different matter. In 173ce it was an impulse driver; in 2346bce it was a step change driver. In the former glacier condition reverted back, the latter was permanent.
Evidence beats hypothesis, but one has to follow the various trails. In my case this was a lucky find to my search.
Like Lonnie Thompson’s Quelccaya frozen preserved green vegetation, the Yukon and Siberian preserved carcasses tell the change was very fast.
MM,
Yes, individual glaciers or regions can show highly variable (and abrupt) behavior, often from the release of ice dams on glacial lakes. Doesn’t have much to do with global glacial-interglacial transition rates.
B A; To repeat what I said above in another post, not so infrequently it is the outlier in the data that tells the true story.
Except when it comes to ‘global’ the tell-tales are nearly everywhere in ancient history. That it would also show up in glacier behaviour indicates the great impact of the event.
In a previous comment, I asked for physical causality (being a physicist) for these abrupt and large obliquity shifts that you claim. Did I miss your answer?
B A, you, I take it ‘being a physicist’, then dealing with the theoretical. Occasionally getting it wrong, or inaccurate, or incomplete, re theories. I am an engineer (mechanical) dealing with the application of those theories, -some-, and in my case getting it wrong may have the application coming out to bite you.
With respect to the subject of this thread, to keep it in mind, power generation, the events at Hinkley Point ‘A’ p.s. when rotor parts went out through the roof, were a serious reminder for one fresh out of college and on to such plant. There have been several other since. Everything comes to an end-of-life point, or before if messed up; we forget they are still the main beasts-of-burden.
But to your point. ” ‘Physical causality’: is the principle that physical events (effects) are produced by prior physical events” Courtesy Google. They are:
Temporal Order: A cause must occur before its effect.
Physical Closure: In scientific terms, every physical effect has a sufficient, preceding physical cause.
Mechanism: It represents a, usually, direct, material interaction between particles, energy, or systems.
That’s the theory, and it serves for nothing without proof and evidence. It is here, repeat posting (as in earlier above) https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
Google had something extra; that is very important:
Predictability: It allows for the prediction of future states based on current and past physical data.
MM, that is a pretty long answer for saying, “No, I can’t provide a physical causality”. You do add to the mounting evidence of mechanical engineers here on CE not understanding science.
Looks like you never had to spoon-feed a child. It takes a long while, especially with difficult ones.
Get serious.
“ In this paper we showed that subglacial hydrology affects the stability, extent, and grounded ice volume of marine ice streams. Different dynamical regimes, including steady streaming, hydraulically controlled, quasi-simultaneous advances, and periodic oscillations with advancing or retreating activation fronts are possible for different hydraulic conductivities of the bed. Our results illustrate that marine ice streams can undergo internal variability at periods from a few centuries to millennia. This variability may need to be taken into account for accurate prediction of future sea level contributions on these timescales.”
Centuries to millennia. That is the natural variability in question.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
“ Ice sheets gain mass through snow accumulation and lose it through three processes: surface melt runoff (Greenland, 50 to 65%), iceberg calving (Antarctica, ~50%, and Greenland, 15 to 25%), and basal melting of floating ice shelves (Antarctica, ~50%) and tidewater glaciers (Greenland, 15 to 25%) (4–6). The net balance between these competing processes largely dictates decadal to centennial ice sheet contributions to sea level and depends on interactions between ice, ocean, and atmosphere. Surface meltwater runoff, basal melting, and precipitation are all expected to increase in a warming climate, which has been observed for both ice sheets (7, 8).”
The estimate of calving vs basal melting varies by study.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz5845#:~:text=Ice%2520sheets%2520gain%2520mass%2520through,%2525)%2520(4%E2%80%936).
I’ve been trying to get this study and others through before. Appears my connection is back. The pie charts depict the calving vs basal melting by ice shelf.
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adi0186
I can’t see where you are going, Mr. “top manager”, because you deflect so often. Besides, I really don’t care where you going – far too myopic and willfully ignorant.
I see that your quote doesn’t even mention Geothermal Heat Flux. Perhaps you confuse it with ocean basal melting of floating ice shelves.
To add to Mr. Bushaw’s point – there is a lot we don’t know about these ice deserts. Greenland sits on the Iceland magma plume. Antarctica has nine recently discovered volcanoes and supposedly an interconnected net of lakes under the ice pack. Lots of surface melting is refrozen at night in the firn, according to a recent study. Still, in my opinion the submersion of the WWII time Mosquito planes under 350 feet of ice seemingly shows the surface melting being not the big driver of ice loss in many places. The specific locale has not sea water influx, nor does it have glacial flow distortion to influence this ice accumulation. Greenland experiences high snow redistribution when winds exceed 120 to 140 mph velocity, as evidenced by large antenna installations simply having disappeared. They are designed for safe survival at 120 mph. With customary safety factor of at least 1.3 such destructive wind velocity would be about 140 mph.
ganon The Technician
No, I didn’t mention geothermal because the pie charts are differentiating calving and basal melting from oceanic heating. It’s obvious you are the one confused. But we have known that ever since you have been on here. After all that time I spent tutoring you and you still have gaps in your knowledge. I have many more studies that I plan on sharing. Eventually you will see where I am going.
Update on Australian NetZero efforts refers to the latest progress Australia is making toward reducing carbon emissions and achieving net-zero targets through renewable energy, policy reforms, and sustainable development initiatives sassa srd status check
Before attribution we must first know what is happening with the AIS, part of which is the current behavior of the glaciers affecting the ice shelves.
“We ascertain that calving processes at different ice shelves may be governed by dissimilar physical principles as a consequence of varying degrees of lateral confinement (among many other potential factors) and that unique tuning parameter values must be determined accordingly.”
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/4889/2023/
“….we must first know what is happening with the AIS.”
Although the details surely vary, overall it looks like what’s happening with the AIS is pretty much the same as what’s happening all over the world:
https://wgms.ch/sea-level-rise/
(See fig. 4)
Pat
Don’t you see your source as biased?
Rob – “Don’t you see your source as biased?”
Well here’s some info about the source (from its website):
For more than a century, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) and its predecessor organizations have been compiling and disseminating standardized data on glacier fluctuations. Thereto, the WGMS annually collects glacier data through its scientific collaboration network that is active in more than 30 countries.
And I’m familiar with some of the members of the scientific collaboration network mentioned. So, no, I didn’t detect any bias. Did you find errors in the data that I referred to?
This paper identifies the variability of ice shelves for AP, WAIS and EAIS.
“ This study has generated a comprehensive dataset of change in ice shelf area on 34 Antarctica ice shelves over the last decade. Overall, ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica lost areas of 6693 km2 and 5563 km2, respectively, while East Antarctic ice shelves gained 3532 km2 of ice, and the large ice shelves of Ross, Ronne, and Filchner grew by 14 028 km2 (total). This dataset is a high spatial resolution record of change from 2009 to 2019, which shows the regional differences in ice shelf calving behaviour and documents the frequency and magnitude of ice shelf calving events across the continent on decadal timescales.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/17/2059/2023/
This study published a week ago.
“ Atmospheric rivers and winter sea ice drive recent reversal in Antarctic ice mass loss”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-026-03242-3
“ Unlike previous studies, we detect no obvious strong trend in the modelled SMB in any of the models or in the driving ERA-Interim model. Shorter periods within the time series appear to have quite strong trends. For example, a steady declining trend is apparent through the 1990s and 2000s but appears to reverse after 2014. Our results suggest that strong interannual and decadal variability makes the identification of meaningful trends over periods shorter than multidecadal very difficult. Distinguishing noise from signal will be challenging in the coming decades, and this also emphasizes the importance of long time series of observations. SMB variability is a result of low- and mid-latitude weather variability, but interannual variability is particularly large at the beginning of the ERA-Interim period up to 1990, and we hypothesize this is related to improved data assimilation in the Southern Hemisphere in the period between 1979 and 1989 (Dee et al., 2011). The models disagree on both the magnitude and the sign of the overall trend in the 1987–2018 common period of all models”
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/15/3751/2021/
Hi Mr./Ms. (?) Cassen, it is my understanding that despite the efforts of WGMS (this is not a dig at them) that the number of glaciers being monitored is shockingly low. Perhaps satellite imagery has helped, but do you have more details on this?
Thomas – “…the number of glaciers being monitored is shockingly low.”
No, I would not say that. There are more than a hundred examined systematically in detail the field, of which about 60 are selected as a benchmark set. Thousands are measured by remote imaging. Gravimetric measurements (GRACE satellites) provide regional assessments. Results from all three methods are compared and examined for consistency and/or possible biases. The details are explained at:
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/observations-glacier-mass-balance-world-glacier-monitoring-service#:~:text=This%20system%20consists%20of%2060,Service%20Network%20of%20Reference%20glaciers.
From that website:
“The number of reference glaciers is small compared to the total number of alpine glaciers (~200,000) in the world but has proven to be a good approximation of global alpine glacier change (WGMS, 2020).”
And:
“The acceleration of mass balance loss is apparent regardless of datasets used to determine glaciological observations, geodetic observations, or gravimetric observations.”
Hi Pat, It seems like 100 out of 215,000 is a bit low to be making statistical projections. Phys.org says they know of more than 3,000 glaciers that are actually growing. If my old market research math is still working, I think you would need a sample size of almost 400 to make statements at a 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error…
Atmosphere is very thin. Atmosphere doesn’t play a role of a warming blanket. The CO2 content (~0,042% or 1 CO2 molecule vs 2500 air molecules) is an infinitesimally small amount in an already thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
melitamegalithic wrote,
” | February 11, 2026 at 11:58 am |
Looks like you never had to spoon-feed a child. It takes a long while, especially with difficult ones
Get serious.”
I’m serious – no matter how you deflect, you can’t give a physical causality for your delusional fixation. BTW, too embarrassed to use your own name? I find that disqualifying if you wish to be taken seriously.
OK.
I wrote my earlier reply to elicit some form of indication behind the character profile; whether it is phishing for info, conducting some form of psychological study, or something else. Well!
However that is not important.
There are others, readers who reflect on what is being said. The discussion presents and affords me the opportunity to explain and give specific detail. To address a lacuna in the ‘settled science’. Lack of knowledge has many opinions; but the truth of the matter is only one. As I started with in the first reply to Wagathon, We need to know.
Feedback tells me others – some- are interested, and some even doing homework on the matter. The information is all there. (For the scientifically inclined it is not difficult; for the others, the tech-impaired to borrow a phrase, the less the better).
Richard Feynman, physicist (expressing a profound comfort with the unknown)-
“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.”
MM, you still haven’t provided a physical cause.
Wagathon: your reply reveals a character trait. You should also see Feynman at
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2860611457580990
first 2min.
Advocating a “not knowing attitude” is done by those to whom knowledge is a treat to their position; and the lazy to whom ‘ignorance is bliss’; they don’t have/want to think. Thinking means taking on responsibility, which many cannot handle.
‘Knowing’ upsets many a dogmatic apple-cart.
Consider the last two millennia, the abysmal ignorance of the times, and the exorbitant price humanity paid for that. Those two millennia, climate wise, were exceptionally mild. Unlike the fourth to third millennium bce and some later
see 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyry8mgXiTk
The previous downturns were far more destructive.
“I refer to the subject again, for I am not satisfied with having said it once” – Mahabharata, heavily disguised reference to the 2346bce event (4K2 event), described in great detail; same also Enoch bk1 sec 80, the part most critics ignored/not understood. I repeat: We NEED to know..
Wagathon: on second thoughts and after myself watching the full video in my first link above:
Feynman is very wrong in the part you quoted. For some of what he and us do not know can be our undoing. He rightly doubted the ancient texts but then he never understood them.
As I indicated earlier those texts are a hidden warning, confused because those who composed them into texts never understood their dire meaning. Not that they did not try; they had not the scientific understanding to realise what the ancient oral traditions were attempting to convey.
Feynman’s observation regarding things we don’t know and taking comfort in our collective ignorance, was with reference to his discussion of what is known as the Fermi Paradox, e.g., the supposed high statistical probability of other life in the universe, given the unimaginable expanse of it, combined with the irrefutable observation that it is impossible for us to ever know, again… given the unimaginable expanse of the universe. By definition there’s not a enough power on Earth to ever confirm our suspicions because it would take all the power on Earth to merely go only a small part of the way to the closest possible place it could be and many lifetimes even if traveling at the speed of light.
Wagathon: Your quote ““I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.” you have interpreted opposite to Feynman’s intended meaning.
The video clip linked above is a section named precisely “The pleasure of finding things out”. Watch again from 2:30 to 3:20. It is not what you are trying to explain.
To your point, no, we are not going anywhere; not with our present mindset. The only route likely, with our way of life, is that of the dinosaurs. Electricity has made for a highly leveraged life-style.
As Feynman says, the old stories are hard to believe. But there is in them an underlying historical fact. Good science can uncover that. Part of it I stumbled upon, but it is only the tip of an enigmatic ice-berg (to keep to glaciers at least)
We need to find out.
When it comes to what the Earth’s climate will be in 50 years or even next year, school teachers should have the courage of Socrates to simply admit –e.g., “All I know is that I do not know.” That is the wise thing to do; and, that is the only honest thing to say about global warming.
“If we take everything into account, not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn’t know, then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know. But in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.” ~Feynman
California is the UK of the US. Even Hollywood abandoned LA.
The interplay between natural and anthropogenic factors is definitely more nuanced than often portrayed. When empirical models that include natural oscillations are used to project future temperatures, the result is typically moderate future warming rather than extreme trajectories. This raises important questions about the scientific basis for the most aggressive mitigation pathways.
The figure compares the warming expected from GCMs, as assessed by the IPCC, with the associated relative risks, alongside the expectations derived from the empirical modeling proposed in the paper. While net-zero pathways such as SSP1 are considered necessary to meet the Paris Agreement target of limiting global warming to below 2 °C by 2100, empirical considerations suggest that the same target could also be achieved under the far more moderate SSP2 scenario.
This distinction has major global economic implications, because the prevailing climate-crisis narrative does not appear to be fully supported by the evidence, and far less costly adaptation strategies could be more appropriate than highly aggressive mitigation policies.
The study stresses the importance of addressing the key open questions of climate science. Climate policy should be informed by the full spectrum of scientific evidence, including uncertainties and alternative interpretations.
https://phys.org/news/2026-02-rethinking-climate-natural-variability-solar.html
Macron Blames Renewable Energy for Spain’s National Blackout
Macron said in a Feb. 10 interview with Spanish newspaper El País that the issue in Spain is “a false debate.”
“Its problem is that it has a 100 percent renewable energy model that its own domestic grid cannot support,” the French president said.
“The blackout in Spain has nothing to do with interconnections, but with the fact that no system, at least with current technology, can sustain such dependence on renewable energy. Stability in the energy mix is needed because otherwise, shocks that are too large occur. But it’s not just about interconnections. Grids are needed.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/macron-blames-renewable-energy-for-spains-national-blackout-5984495?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy
Bill agreed –
The first link is the total demand and supply for the US 48 states grid[s]. the second link is the electric generation by source for the US 48 states grid[s]. The first thing to notice is the demand is relatively stable, While the electric generation by source is highly volatile.
The second thing to notice is extreme vulnerability of the grid with high penetrations of renewables. As previously noted using Mark Jacobsons 100% renewable study, using his data, during the last week of January, there was a 27 hour period and a 14 hour period where the supply of electricity from renewables was about a 30% shortage of demand.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/ElectricityOverview-2/edit
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4/edit
A study from November, 2025.
“ In this paper we showed that subglacial hydrology affects the stability, extent, and grounded ice volume of marine ice streams. Different dynamical regimes, including steady streaming, hydraulically controlled, quasi-simultaneous advances, and periodic oscillations with advancing or retreating activation fronts are possible for different hydraulic conductivities of the bed. Our results illustrate that marine ice streams can undergo internal variability at periods from a FEW CENTURIES to MILLENNIA. This variability may need to be taken into account for accurate prediction of future sea level contributions on these timescales.”
GOOD SCIENCE ROCKS
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
Even in NZ with its very high level of hydro generation, the high penetration of solar and wind are causing significant grid operational problems. The graph in the weekly insight shows how bad the unreliables are at making dispatch, even on 30 minutes ahead. The extreme whisker shows 1GW error with an average error of 500MW. This on an average 5GW grid
https://static.transpower.co.nz/public/bulk-upload/documents/MO%20Latest%20Update.pdf?VersionId=_r9yitwrbdb2AjpaMnznKuAl4NLBRkyq
Yes Chris – NZ gets saved by hydro.
There is 36 hour period with little or no wind electric generation.
That is a lot of back up storage needed to cover that deficiency (absent hydro) .
The piddling amount in the renewable expert’s studies ain’t going to cover it
Joe – to be pedantic the drop in wind is usually covered by firing up GTs then bringing on coal. It is bit of an unusual situation at present with it being a very wet summer and hydro lakes are full so the dams are spilling. But it isn’t like that most years.
But yes, batteries won’t cover the windless period and they can’t put more dams on the rivers or increase the number of generators at each hydro – turn the stations from two shifting to peaking. There are also significant transmission line constraints and minimum inertia levels to maintain.
Chris –
Sorry for the confusion in my comment. I was directing my comment toward the 100% renewable studies with an emphasis on countries lacking significant hydo such as the US. Under the 100% renewables setup, the fossil fuel plants wont exist ( or just be mothballed). Hydro can work as the “storage back up”. However, in the US. large part of the hydro is located in the western US which needs the water supply for irrigation and water needs, thus not really available.
“ Over the last 10,000 years, the world has lost one-third of its forests. An area twice the size of the United States. Half occurred in the last century.”
Which raises the question. To what extent has that affected global climate over the Holocene?
https://ourworldindata.org/world-lost-one-third-forests
Cerecokid –
My recollection is that a significant part of forest loss occurred in the 1800’s due to the need for farm animal habitat (grazing etc. ). Then in the early to mid 1900’s, forest regained land as farm machinery took the animals place, thus the reduced need for the land required to maintain the farm animal stock. As I recall that was especially true in Europe.
The world data does not reflect that change.
For New Zealand, the current forest cover is about a third of the country. About a quarter of this is plantation pine forest, planted in last century.
Up to about 1300, it was 80%. When the first peoples arrived, the Maori, they burnt off about a third of that forest. When Europeans arrived about 500 years later, they logged and cleared about another third. The reafforestation and abandonment of marginal land for regeneration have got us to the current situation.
All of those vegetation changes would have had an effect on the country’s climate. How far that would have extended into the SW Pacific, nobody knows. NZ regularly sees the Australian bushfires smoke, which would give nucleation particles for the rain.
Nearly 90% of forests lost in the last 40 years has been in the tropics and in most instances is in areas of high poverty. In more affluent areas, there’s nothing wrong with being busy as a beaver. Beavers proactively change their environments by creating massive dams and lakes that fundamentally alter their environment. While these ponds can sometimes accelerate permafrost thaw and release greenhouse gases locally, they also create entirely new habitats that help diverse species of fish, birds, and insects survive changing conditions. It seems to me it’s more often heard of species that supposedly was lost but has been recently discovered then it is to hear of a species that has been wiped out by humans changing the climate.
Ice streams internal variability from a few centuries to millennia.
https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/19/5939/2025/
“thomaswfuller2 | February 16, 2026 at 11:45 am |
Here is the list of citations of peer-reviewed literature for Chapter 1. Fool.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_References_Chapter01.bib”
So, which of those references support you position? Probably none since you can’t specify them. Jerk.
Fuller has been round the block with this many, many, many times before.
He has stamina, and a doctorate in obfuscation.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/01/10/fact-mongering/#comment-136601
A nice discussion about the evolution of knowledge regarding ice streams.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/esp.4259
Ckid, you’re right, that’s a very nice article. Provides an excellent perspective on how interdisciplinary science progresses in a specific context. Thanks.
Hi Pat–I just posted a comment upthread about glaciers, if you’re interested in pursuing. Reproduced here:
Hi Pat, It seems like 100 out of 215,000 is a bit low to be making statistical projections. (Phys.org says they know of more than 3,000 glaciers that are actually growing.) If my old market research math is still working, I think you would need a sample size of almost 400 to make statements at a 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error for a universe of 215,000…
Pat, I think I’m way off base. I should have done a lot more research. (Thank you ChatGPT.)
“There are roughly a quarter-million glaciers on Earth outside Greenland and Antarctica. Yet only a few hundred are monitored directly each year through on-site measurements of snowfall, melt, and ice flow. At first glance, that sounds like an impossibly small sample from which to draw global conclusions.
…”But the reality is more complicated. Modern glaciology does not rely solely on boots on the ice. Satellites measure changes in glacier elevation and extent across entire mountain ranges, and gravity measurements detect changes in total ice mass. The small network of “reference glaciers” provides detailed local physics; the satellite record provides global context. The numbers exist—but they describe different layers of reality.”
…”Some advance while others retreat, sometimes dramatically. Studies have identified thousands of glaciers that have grown in recent decades, especially in regions where snowfall has increased or local climate patterns favor accumulation. These examples are often cited as proof that the broader narrative of ice loss is exaggerated.”
…”A handful of glaciers grow. Thousands shrink. Almost all fluctuate from year to year. The real question is not whether glaciers are changing — they always have — but whether the total mass of ice is rising or falling. On that question, the numbers are clearer: global glacier ice has declined steadily over recent decades, even as a minority of glaciers advance.”
…”Recent UN/WMO summaries say:
All 19 glacier regions recorded net mass loss recently.
Global glaciers lose hundreds of billions of tons of ice annually.”
Hope I didn’t waste any of your time.
Airless bodies provide a useful baseline for understanding this process. Mercury and the Moon exhibit large diurnal temperature excursions, rapidly re-emitting much of the incident energy
before it can be stored as heat.
Faster rotation and higher surface heat capacity increase the ability of a surface to retain energy between illumination cycles, raising the mean temperature
without invoking atmospheric trapping.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Good point although, heat capacity vs thermal inertia seem to be variables that are often conflated in the literature.
What does ‘diurnal’ mean with respect of the moon?
The moon’s rotation with respect to the sun as the heat source is very slow. In effect it is a stalled rotating heat exchanger. Heat gained from a point source is lost to wide space as it turns; the faster the rotation the faster the loss.
Thermal absorption and thermal residence time increases as rotational speed decreases.
Wags, not “…conflated in the literature.” Maybe in the minds of some ‘blog scientists’.
AI– Why does heat capacity vs thermal inertia seem to be variables that are often conflated in the literature?
It is a common source of confusion even in academic circles because both terms describe a material’s “reluctance” to change temperature. However, they operate on different scales and represent different physical realities.
The conflation usually happens because heat capacity is a component of thermal inertia, making them mathematically related but functionally distinct.
e.g. (from AI)…
The most dangerous part of conflating the two is ignoring thermal conductivity.
A material could have a huge heat capacity (like a block of wood) but low thermal inertia because it is a poor conductor. The surface of the wood will get hot quickly because the heat can’t “hide” deep inside the material fast enough. Conversely, a metal might have a lower heat capacity than wood but higher thermal inertia because it moves heat away from the surface instantly.
Key Takeaway: Heat capacity is about storage volume, while thermal inertia is about the speed of access to that storage.
Wags,
Glad you found something that you’ll listen to. You can find more useful physical equations and descriptions here:
https://blog.truegeometry.com/api/exploreHTML/026ee0621167bd0d084c37ca30408db8.exploreHTML
You would also might like to investigate thermal diffusivity [see Wiki], which is a vector and describes the dynamics of the heat conduction.
As a practical matter, AGW is an impossibility on Earth no matter how many matches earthlings ignite because over 70% of the Earth’s surface is comprised of water!
Earth’s atmosphere is 50 times the volume of the oceans but the oceans are 500 times the mass of the atmosphere.
‘As a practical matter’ change the earth’s obliquity to zero or near and an ice age results; or to about 45 degrees and all ice melts. And both are a future possibility.
And, instead of practical, perhaps operational regarding the impact on climate and from the perspective of the human lifespan and even civilizations, perhaps pragmatic and in all events, completely outside human control.
Huh? Then why are the oceans warming?
Go back ~8,000 years ago during the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the planet was ~2°C warmer and a the Northwest Passage may have actually existed and in all events, having nothing to do with us puny humans.
Pingback: Australia’s Problem Child, The BOM. | ajmarciniak
Pingback: Ilmastonvakiointi voi tulla kalliiksi | Roskasaitti
Pingback: Australia’s Problem Child, The BOM. – Climate- Science.press
Surface-Rotation Control of Mean Planetary Temperature
https://impro.usercontent.one/appid/oneComWsb/domain/cristos-vournas.com/media/cristos-vournas.com/onewebmedia/Figure1_SurfaceRotation_TsatTe.png?etag=W%2F%225961-19c6d2e93d8%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fpng&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=588%2B390
This provides continued discussion of the dynamics involved with Antarctica’s ice shelves and indicates, as in other studies, that processes can involve hundreds and thousands of years.
“ In terms of oceanographic changes, transitions from cold to warm ice-shelf cavities with the associated increase in basal melt rates will reduce CMI and ice-shelf buttressing. Specific mechanisms may include increasing ice fractures and damage (Watkins et al., 2024). This could have particularly large effects, for example, on the Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf where intrusion of warm circumpolar deep water could happen abruptly (Hellmer et al., 2012; Hoffman et al., 2024) and lead to ungrounding of one of the numerous ice rises and pinning points in this area. Other regional predictions, for example, in the Amundsen Sea sector (Naughten et al., 2023), suggest a rapid increase of basal melt rates by the end of the 21st century. Given the symmetry for the LMI/CMI composition, the ice-dynamic effects will be similar as discussed for the predicted SMB changes, while spatial imprints are likely stronger for West Antarctica.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL112585
A tropical depression in Central Australia.
Still high in the central equatorial Pacific.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
A new study expands knowledge of Subglacial lakes and their impact on the AIS.
“ Subglacial water systems connect glacial and oceanic environments (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012), modulate ice dynamics (e.g., Scambos et al., 2011; Siegfried et al., 2016; Stearns et al., 2008), and remain a major physical uncertainty in future ice-sheet projections (e.g., Pelle et al., 2023; Sun et al., 2020). Subglacial freshwater in Antarctica results from basal melting driven by geothermal heat flux, frictional and strain heating, and the pressure and insulation from overlying ice (Pattyn, 2010). As water traverses the environment below the Antarctic ice sheet, it flows down a hydropotential gradient, often becoming stored in groundwater reservoirs (Christoffersen et al., 2014; Gustafson et al., 2022) or subglacial lakes (Livingstone et al., 2022). Subglacial lakes are common across the continent, including “active” lakes, which episodically fill and drain on sub-annual to decadal timescales (Fricker et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2009). Active subglacial lake drain-fill cycles drive time-varying evolution of water distribution (e.g., Carter et al., 2013), transport mechanisms (e.g., Carter et al., 2017), grounding-zone stability (e.g., Fricker et al., 2007), and freshwater flux into the Southern Ocean (e.g., Uemura et al., 2011) and sub-ice-shelf cavities (e.g., Carter & Fricker, 2012). These cycles, which can occur in a given location for over a century (Siegfried et al., 2023), likely impact ice-shelf basal melt rates (e.g., Le Brocq et al., 2013), ice-shelf basal channel formation and maintenance….”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL117121
An essential read:
https://www.powermag.com/anatomy-of-a-blackout-findings-from-the-spain-portugal-grid-collapse-final-report/?utm_source=omeda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pwrnews+eletter&oly_enc_id=7354A6964023I1R
An essential read:
https://www.powermag.com/anatomy-of-a-blackout-findings-from-the-spain-portugal-grid-collapse-final-report/?utm_source=omeda&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pwrnews+eletter&oly_enc_id=7354A6964023I1R