Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

the lead author: " “We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. "

Unfortunately its not easy.

"The Harvard University researchers also concluded that the transition to wind or solar power in the United States would require 5 to 20 times more land than previously thought"

"For wind, the average power density—the rate of energy generation divided by the encompassing area of the wind plant—was up to 100 times lower than estimates by some energy experts because most of the latter estimates failed to consider the turbine-atmosphere interaction. For an isolated wind turbine, the interactions do not matter. For wind farms that are more than 5 to 10 kilometers deep, the interactions have a major impact on the power density."

"For solar energy, the average power density (measured in watts per meter squared) is 10 times higher than wind power, but also much lower than estimates by leading energy experts, including the U.S. Department of Energy and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

[WMD]

I know that the mix is going to be different for each location, but the problem with your examples is that they are leaders in renewable energy because they have a natural resource advantage. A 100% non carbon renewable system in the US is going to depend on a lot of wind and solar. None of your examples are translatable to the entire country, and they don't tackle the biggest problem which is storage. Scotland was able to generate 2x the required power for its homes, yet it still could only make it a maximum of 7 days before burning coal because they don't have storage.

Once again you are lying. The UK, with the help of Scotland's wind, went 7 days without using coal. The UK is more than Scotland.

[ron johnson]

Once again you are lying. The UK, with the help of Scotland's wind, went 7 days without using coal. The UK is more than Scotland.

My mistake. All of UK. But you are lying again too. The reason they were able to make it to even 7 days is because of nuclear and natural gas. UK energy mix in 2018: 5% coal, 39% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 33% renewables.

[WMD]

My mistake. All of UK. But you are lying again too. The reason they were able to make it to even 7 days is because of nuclear and natural gas. UK energy mix in 2018: 5% coal, 39% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 33% renewables.

Good try, but wrong. I sent an article about Scotland. You brought up the UK, not me.

More lies. How much do you get paid for this?

[WMD]

My mistake. All of UK. But you are lying again too. The reason they were able to make it to even 7 days is because of nuclear and natural gas. UK energy mix in 2018: 5% coal, 39% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 33% renewables.

Even this is not true, of course. Where is your source for this?

"UK Government energy generation statistics show rise in renewables"
https://www.power-technology.com/new...on-statistics/

Statistics from the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) indicate that the UK’s energy supply increasingly comes from renewable sources at the expense of fossil fuels.

The figures show that in the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018 renewables formed 37.1% of the country’s energy supply, a 7% increase on Q4 in 2017. This makes renewables the UK’s second biggest source of energy, behind gas at 37.9%, having fallen from 40% in Q4 of 2017.

Nuclear power fell from 18.1% at the end of 2017 to 16.5% in 2018. Low-carbon sources in Total reached 53.6% in the quarter, just above the 2018 average of 52.8%.

Coal continued to decline, going from 9.1% in Q4 of 2017 to 5.7% in Q4 2018 while oil and gas remained stable at 2.7%. Total electricity generation decreased by 1.4% from 339 terawatt (TWh) hours in 2017 to 334TWh in 2018.

Since 2008, energy obtained from renewables has risen by over 400% from 22TWh to 111TWh whilst coal has declined by 86% since 2008, falling from 124 terawatt hours (TWh) to just 17TWh.

A BEIS spokesperson said: “We continue to lead the world in clean growth, going further than any other G7 nation by cutting our emissions by over 40 per cent since 1990, whilst growing our economy.

“The UK has already gone more than 833 hours without coal this year, and we are investing £2.5 billion in low carbon innovation through our modern Industrial Strategy.

“All this means the UK is firmly on track to meet its target to phase out coal completely by 2025.”

The BEIS also tweeted: “The latest quarterly stats from our major power generators show the UK is continuing to move to a cleaner, greener energy mix.”

[ron johnson]

Even this is not true, of course. Where is your source for this?

"UK Government energy generation statistics show rise in renewables"
https://www.power-technology.com/new...on-statistics/

Apologies for my numbers being a couple percentage points different from yours. They come from a link in your article: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-...coal-right-now

[k2skier112]

Conclusion
Clearly, the scenario developed by the Harvard researchers is unlikely to occur, i.e., the United States is unlikely to generate as much wind power as the researchers simulate in their scenario. Despite that, the researchers found that localized warming occurs in even smaller wind generation projections. Thus, the warming phenomena of wind farms is a factor that politicians, utility planners, and the public should consider when determining which technologies should be built and what subsidies should be enacted or extended.

Go away you lying sack of shit

"The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."

[k2skier112]

Apologies for my numbers being a couple percentage points different from yours. They come from a link in your article: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-uk-...coal-right-now

Fucking hack posts altered BS, you're a clueless lying moron

[k2skier112]

My mistake. All of UK. But you are lying again too. The reason they were able to make it to even 7 days is because of nuclear and natural gas. UK energy mix in 2018: 5% coal, 39% natural gas, 20% nuclear, 33% renewables.

Just stop troll, you've lost any credibility long ago

[Flounder]

BTV gets 36% of its energy from wood (carbon), and 36% from hydro (not translatable in many locations). Only 28% from wind and solar. Get rid of your wood burning and costs will increase dramatically.

How many times do we have to prove you wrong before you go away? Another flat out wrong statement. The McNeil wood chip plant is more expensive to run than wind, solar, and hydro. The plant is an incredibly inefficient source of energy and the air scrubbers required on the stack are expensive. When we are able to eliminate the plant, costs will drop.

Headed down today to drop off a trailer load from pruning. I'll use the electricity later while soaking in the hot tub.

[SkiCougar]

well, maybe we will finally get some conclusion with the next solar cycle:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/so...or-exploration

"The Sun's activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025."

if its the lowest solar cycle in 200 years and there is still warming, the alarmists may finally have won the argument; if cooling occurs; the deniers may be undeniable.

(i'm hoping it cools, regardless; its September and still dam too dam hot)

[old goat]

Unfortunately its not easy.

“We choose to go to the moon not because it's easy, but because it's hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”
--John Fitzgerald Kennedy, speech at Rice University, September 12, 1962

[ron johnson]

Go away you lying sack of shit

"The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves."

Already told you, there is no analysis from NTZ on the link I gave. All it is a link to 2019 papers on the MWP.

[ron johnson]

Fucking hack posts altered BS, you're a clueless lying moron

What did I alter? The numbers I gave are straight from the article.

[ron johnson]

How many times do we have to prove you wrong before you go away? Another flat out wrong statement. The McNeil wood chip plant is more expensive to run than wind, solar, and hydro. The plant is an incredibly inefficient source of energy and the air scrubbers required on the stack are expensive. When we are able to eliminate the plant, costs will drop.

Headed down today to drop off a trailer load from pruning. I'll use the electricity later while soaking in the hot tub.

The thing you don't seem to understand is the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the sun isn't always out (especially in winter in VT). You need something to provide electricity when wind and solar aren't providing. Hydro can't supply the demand on its own, so without your wood chip plant you would need massive storage system which is going to cost a whole lot more money compared to just keeping your wood chip plant.

If the McNeil wood chip plant is so expensive why does it even exist?

[k2skier112]

The thing you don't seem to understand is the wind doesn't blow all the time, and the sun isn't always out (especially in winter in VT). You need something to provide electricity when wind and solar aren't providing. Hydro can't supply the demand on its own, so without your wood chip plant you would need massive storage system which is going to cost a whole lot more money compared to just keeping your wood chip plant.

If the McNeil wood chip plant is so expensive why does it even exist?

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY YOU FAKE DATA POSTING PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[k2skier112]

What did I alter? The numbers I gave are straight from the article.

Your source; NTZ faked it. You're busted, in your face . SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY YOU TROLL

[Bunion 2020]

Sigh.....

Put on ignore

Do not reply

Troll leaves to find other suckers who will engage.

[Deebased]

Your source; NTZ faked it. You're busted, in your face . SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY YOU TROLL

Imagine if we held the rest of the media to that standard lol.

sad

[MultiVerse]

Sigh.....

Put on ignore

Do not reply

Troll leaves to find other suckers who will engage.

Probably the right call. But I'm still unconvinced he's a troll per se. He's definitely trolling, sure, but it's the trolling of a clueless true believer.

He's more like a Monty Python Black Knight.

Victory is mine......

Loses both arms and legs

"Alright! We'll call it a draw."

[Bunion 2020]

Cross post, just for Ron.

[SumJongGuy]

Probably the right call. But I'm still unconvinced he's a troll per se. He's definitely trolling, sure, but it's the trolling of a clueless true believer.

He's more like a Monty Python Black Knight.

Victory is mine......

Loses both arms and legs

"Alright! We'll call it a draw."

[ron johnson]

Your source; NTZ faked it. You're busted, in your face . SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO AWAY YOU TROLL

I never used NTZ as a source. The papers linked on the site are my source.

[ron johnson]

Fitting coming from easily the stupidest person in this thread. What would say, maybe 10% of your posts in this thread have any element of truth or relevance?

[ron johnson]

For as much shit as I get in this thread does anyone care to make a list of things I got wrong in this thread? Off the top of my head I can think of:

1. Sea level rise argument with neufox.
2. The Easterbrook GISS graph is incorrect. Greenland was not as warm in the past as that graph showed, but it still had many periods warmer than today over the past 10,000 years.
3. I suppose some might say my criticism of MultiVerse's authoritative statements on the global synchronous warmth experienced today compared to the past are wrong. I wouldn't agree.

Anything else?

I've disproved a lot more of the true believer's positions than my positions have been disproved.