Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

There really is no possibility of those who study the myriad fields related to climate actually coordinating their results.

And, if there was any effort, it wouldn't go undetected for decades.

When scientists identify a cause of warming, they term that a "forcing factor". It's not something that is added.

 

It's also not necessary when the basic data are politically controlled, manipulated and falsified.

It hasn't.

 

You are proposing a world wide conspiracy - one of unimaginable breadth and depth.

And, you have zero evidence of that. You don't even have evidence of how it MIGHT be possible.

 

Easy. They all know that they can't get a real job so they they all play dumb and continue to hype whatever the story coming from the top where ever it goes.

Doesn't even need to be coordinated.

 

LOL!!!

 

Of course "forcing factors" are added. The models don't work with real science like physics (see my bathtub example- again). Since they're models and not empirical data, it's easy to make up stuff that will make the models work like you need them to.

 

Like I said, your idea of what a "forcing factor" is just doesn't even slightly match the actual definition.

"Forcing factors" come from looking at the data from myriad climate related disciplines and noticing what it is that is making a difference.

It's not something that a human adds.

 

So you've seen the coding behind the models they use? That's how you know that?

Tell me, how did you get access to the code? I'd love to check it out myself.

 

What a forcing fact is, the definition of the term, is well known throughout the disciplines of climatology.

Don't expect me to do work to try to support your conspiracy theory.

If you want to claim there is a conspiracy, then YOU do your work.

 

You're the only one claiming a conspiracy theory.
Climate forcing measures the imbalance in the Earth's energy budget caused by a perturbation of the climate system.

 

So you haven't seen the computer code that the theory of climate change hangs on? And yet you also claim to know all about it.

Curious.

 

No, you made that up.

Wrong again. I have the evidence of temperature records being retroactively altered to conform to CO2-centered climate theory: the instrumental record of dramatic 1940s-70s cooling -- which I remember -- that prompted the cooling scare of the 1970s has been erased.

 

We Must Demand A Demonstration Project Of A Mainly Renewables-Based Electrical Grid
February 08, 2023/ Francis Menton

• 
  Could anybody possibly be stupid enough to believe the line that wind and solar generators can provide reliable electricity to consumers that is cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels?
  
  
• It takes hardly any thought about the matter to realize that wind and solar don’t work when it is calm and dark, as it often is, and particularly so in the winter, when it is also generally cold. Thus a wind/solar electricity system needs full backup, or alternatively storage — things that add to and multiply costs.
  
  
• Surely, our political leaders and top energy gurus are fully aware of these things, and would not try to mislead the public about the cost of electricity from a predominantly wind/solar system.
  
  
• If you think that, you must have missed the State of the Union Address yesterday.
  

READ MORE

 

There are a good number of significant sources - wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, natural gas, etc.

Each of those sources has different characterizes - construction/life time costs, costs of consumed materials, modulation characteristics, vulnerabilities, costs of externals (such as pollution not cleaned up by the purveyor), etc.

One can go to the purveyors of each factory and ask them what they will charge for a gigawatt hour.


I doubt there are many places in the US where utilities depend on one single source of electricity. Plus, there are three major grids in the contiguous states that facilitate sharing. So, modulating demand is made easier by these grids as well as by rates related to usage patterns. Plus, industrial sized battery facilities help with modulation.

And, of all the sources, wind is usually found to be the cheapest source, but has characteristics that cause utilities to contract for other sources as well to fill out their energy strategy.

 

Your reply is an evasion.

 

Already exists

CostaRica Germany etc etc

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/renewables

 

You would need to explain THAT idea.

All utilities deliver electricity generated in a variety of ways.

All utilities companies have the ability to modulate their electricity output based on their sources and on demand.

The idea that utilities can't do that is ridiculous. They have all done that for YEARS.

And, it is CRAZY to STATE that buying wind power would mean that a utility cans no longer modulate their production to meet demand.

It is you who is evading. And, the reason is that you don't have an argument.

 

Wow. 10 whole countries, each roughly 10-20% the size of the US and a number who have specific helpful physical features that help with, say, water power and population densities that eliminate any kind of long drives over barren, unpopulated terrain. And China, who's conveniently building coal power plants at a rate of one every month or so.

And that hasn't even touched on this war with Russia thing that is causing many countries to reverse thier plans.

Yep. They're sure showing us.

And is there something there that we should care about?

 

Not really.
". . . It’s so spectacularly contrary to reality that it doesn’t nearly do it justice to call it just a “lie.” In Germany and the UK, energy transition fantasies have led to electricity bills three times and more the U.S. average, and continuing to increase, and millions of ratepayers thrown into energy poverty. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why the costs explode. They can build thousands of wind turbines and solar panels, but they can’t get rid of any of the dispatchable power plants because they are all needed for backup. So now they are paying for two duplicative systems. Then they must pay the dispatchable plants enough to cover their capital costs at half time usage. Then they must buy the fossil fuels for backup on spot markets where production has been suppressed by, for example, banning fracking. . . . "

 

And still nothing about a mainly-renewables electrical grid. Still evading.

 

The existence of the menu that we have today means that we can depend FAR LESS on traditional attempts to own the whole electricity production industry.

So far, your logic has been to simply deny that modulation is possible - even though it exists today.

We are a long way from being short of dispatchable sources like you keep claiming.

 

You missed the key passage.
". . . So now they are paying for two duplicative systems. Then they must pay the dispatchable plants enough to cover their capital costs at half time usage. Then they must buy the fossil fuels for backup on spot markets . . . ."

 

You want to pretend that if renewables don't fully replace ALL sources, then they shouldn't be allowed to play.

But, NO single source of electricity is doing that today.

And, suggesting that customers should be denied cheaper electricity on the grounds that wind doesn't work as a single source is just plain LUDICROUS.

COAL doesn't work as a single source.

 

I ignored it, as it is just one more way of trying to claim that a utility can't used energy from a collection of sources and trying to claim that if wind isn't a single source, then it can't play.

 

Please see #1897.