In my previous post on multiple regression of known solar cycles versus HadCRUT5, I simply threw the solar cycles, ENSO, and sunspots into the regression blender and compared the result to various models that included CO2. Before reading this post, it is a good idea to read the previous one, since much of this post relies on the information in it. It was a very simple statistical analysis designed to show that the IPCC conclusion that rising CO2 and other greenhouse gases are “responsible” for “1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900” is probably erroneous. The difference between the HadCRUT5 1850-1900 average and the 2018-2023 (through all of 2022) is 1.18°C, so they are saying that essentially all the warming since the 19th century is due to humans. The analyses described in this post show they cannot be certain of their conclusion because they have ignored persuasive evidence that changes in the Sun caused at least some of the warming.

We have shown that various statistical combinations of known solar cycles correlated with HadCRUT5 as well as, or sometimes better than, changes in CO2 concentration. The way that the Sun might affect our climate is unknown. The IPCC only considers the direct effect of changing total solar irradiance (or TSI) directly on the Earth, as if the Sun were an incandescent light bulb over a piece of paper, but this cannot be correct. The climate effect of solar changes during a single 11-year solar cycle[1] is nearly an order of magnitude larger than the change in solar radiation can account for.

Recently great strides have been made in modeling and understanding the solar dynamo. However, modeling many important elements of the generation of solar cycles remains beyond our grasp. We only know their effect on Earth’s climate is much larger than the change in power received from the Sun during the cycle. We can examine the correlation of known (but poorly understood) solar cycles and climate change, but we cannot explain the mechanisms involved.

How additional CO2 can warm Earth’s surface is understood, but the climate sensitivity[2] to CO2 is not known. Recent published estimates of the sensitivity, range from near zero to over 5°C/2xCO2 (2xCO2 means doubling of the CO2 concentration). The IPCC claims that human generated CO2 and other human activities have caused all (or essentially all) recent warming. This is speculation. We do not know how much changing CO2 can affect climate, and we can’t explain the large observed effects due to solar changes,[3] so how can we know all the observed warming is due to CO2 and human activities? The advantage of the CO2 hypothesis is that the mechanism is known, but since the magnitude of the effect cannot be calculated accurately, quantitatively it is just as unknown as the solar effect, which the IPCC is clearly underestimating.[4]

In this post we will take a closer look at the correlation between solar activity and HadCRUT5, and address some of the many comments to my previous post. First overfitting.

Overfitting

Solar cycles are not understood but can be observed in cosmogenic isotope studies that have been used to document the very long Hallstatt (or Bray 2400-year, ±200 years) and Eddy (1000-year ±30 years) cycles. These two long cycles correlate with the most significant climate events in history, the Bray Cycle correlates with the Greek Dark Age (~ 1200 to 800BC) and the early part of the Little Ice Age (~ 1300 to 1600, we target 1470 as the Hallstatt low). The Eddy Cycle correlates with the Medieval Warm Period (~ 950 to 1250), the latter part of the Little Ice Age (~1500 to 1816, we target 1680 for the Eddy low), and the Modern Warm Period (~1940 to ~2005).[5]

The shorter cycles are not as climatically significant but noticeable. Both the “Pause” in warming and the cool period around 1910 correlate well with the Feynman Cycle, and the cooler period from 1945 to 1976 in the early part of the Modern Solar Maximum correlates with the Pentadecadal cycle. All these cycles are plotted for the instrumental period in Figure 1 along with HadCRUT5.

https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Figure-1.png

Figure 1. The known solar cycles plotted for instrumental era along with the HadCRUT5 global surface temperature record.

As some pointed out in comments on my last post, with this many cycles, multiple regression will always find a reasonable fit to almost anything trending upward. Further all the time series, including HadCRUT5, are strongly autocorrelated. The cycles are anchored to the solar lows or highs as specified in Ilya Usoskin’s 2016 and 2017 papers[6] or Joan Feynman’s 2014 paper.[7] The 22.1-year Hale Cycle is anchored to early 2020 during the solar cycle 24 minimum. It has been proposed that the de Vries Cycle is a beat period between the Hale Cycle and the 19.86-year orbit of the Sun around the solar system barycenter,[8] this configuration is consistent with this hypothesis.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/25/climate-co2-and-the-sun/

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 26^th, 2023 at 2:29pm:

Posted a couple articles, one from WUWT and a crazy exercise in regression of temperature data. You can always find a lot of correlations and other relationships but does not mean they are real!

Poor JM. I either not read or did not understand.


lee wrote on Nov 26^th, 2023 at 12:54pm:

As some pointed out in comments on my last post, with this many cycles, multiple regression will always find a reasonable fit to almost anything trending upward.

::)

The Bray (Halstatt) Cycle.

"The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation changes, glacier re-advances, atmospheric changes reflected in alterations in wind patterns, oceanic temperature and salinity changes, drift ice abundance, and changes in precipitation and temperature. This is established with proxy records from many parts of the world.

Introduction

In our attempt to better understand the nature of our planet’s abrupt climate changes I have already reviewed the glacial-interglacial cycle, and the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle’s that take place during glacial periods. I now start reviewing the millennial climate cycles that abruptly impact the slowly changing Holocene climate. The most significant and regular one is the ~ 2400-year Bray cycle.

Recently, the Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle was reviewed by analyzing the main findings of some of the most significant articles by researchers who have studied it. That article summarizes the current scientific understanding of the ~ 2400-year cycle. In part A of this article, we are going to review, in detail, the evidence for the existence of the ~ 2400-year climate cycle. In part B, we will go over the arguments that the ~2400-year cycle of the production of cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be represents a cycle in solar activity. In part C, we will discuss what it is considered the most likely mechanism by which solar variability could affect climate, as proposed by the authors researching the subject. Afterwards we recommend that the interested reader read the post “Impact of the ~ 2400 yr solar cycle on climate and human societies.” The post explores, in detail, the climatic effects and their impact on human civilization in each of the Bray cycle lows during the Holocene.

The biological 2400-year climate cycle

Over a century ago Scandinavian botanists started to reconstruct the climate of the Holocene from peat bog stratigraphy. They could distinguish the sediment layers into wet/dry, cold/warm, periods, and developed crude dating methods. Their efforts resulted in an understanding that the Holocene climate could be subdivided into periods of different climatic conditions, like in a diagram by Rutger Sernander from 1912 (figure 50 A, upper diagram).

https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/figure-50.png

Figure 50. Postglacial vegetation and climate periods as understood during the first half of the 20th century. A). Upper diagram, Rutger Sernander’s view of postglacial warm climate periods in southern and central Sweden, showing his proposed abrupt climate degradation at the Sub-Boreal/Sub-Atlantic transition, termed “fimbulvintern.” The dashed line indicates G. Andersson’s opposite view of continuous temperature evolution. Lower diagram, Late Glacial/Postglacial temperature evolution in southern and central Sweden based on biological evidence, after Magnus Fries, showing the temporal disposition of the nine pollen zones in Roman numbers. The thin line represents a near-millennial oscillation in humidity. Dates in calendar years. Source: T. Bergeron, 1956. Fornvännen, 51, 1-18. B). Analytical pollen zones defined by Knud Jenssen and Johs. Iversen for southern and central Sweden confirming Sernander’s climatic reconstruction. Dates in calendar years. Source: O.K. Davis, 2009. Introduction to Quaternary ecology."

https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-a/

Poor JM. Goes for glory and FAILS once again.

https://climatefactchecks.org/post-falsely-claim-that-solar-cycles-are-causing-climate-change/

About climate fact checks -

Includes ONE environmental scientist.  Not a solar expert. "Dr Partha Jyoti Das"

Now Bray cycle - "Glaciation and Solar Activity since the Fifth Century BC and the Solar Cycle"

https://www.nature.com/articles/220672a0

And then the post cites another story completely. "John Shewchuk
@_ClimateCraze
Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM)."

At least a better source than that below. ;)

And it gets worse - "Fact check story

By Aayushi Sharma"

Ah Studying for a PhD in Environmental Health. Always good to go to someone who knows what they are talking about.

But perhaps something newer

"Decadal–centennial-scale solar-linked climate variations and millennial-scale internal oscillations during the Early Cretaceous"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25815-w

Dated 2022.

When all you have is Milankovitch. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor JM.


Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 29^th, 2023 at 2:53pm:

LOL sometimes lees really fancies he gets this science stuff. But he doesn’t really. Did the lunatic ever buy a copy of “Statistics for Dummies?”

And yet he likes to show statistics. You know, the ones CO2 v Temperature.  Curve fitting and statistics.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

From JM's tripe -


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2023 at 8:04am:

Spencer reckons the rate of warming is 0.14°C per decade, significantly slower than RSS and the terrestrial series, not surprising since he is a denier.

"But [thighlight]that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases[/highlight], because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere].

...

Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. "

https://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

So we know JM lies, and continues to do so.

And he complains about a 0.07/DECADE difference. The climate models are out by more than that, (but don't tell him). ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

"Observations from earlier satellites were recalibrated to remove their calibration drifting errors relative to the reference using sequential overlapping observations. This included removal of spurious warming drifts in the MSU observations onboard NOAA-11, NOAA-12, and NOAA-14 and a spurious cooling drift in the NOAA-15 AMSU-A observations.

...
The new record yields a trend of 0.14 K/decade during 1979–2021 with an even greater rate of warming after the year 2002 (0.22 K/decade)"

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD037472

"NOAA-11      2      2      2,4      3      4      -      -      -      -      -      -
NOAA-12      2      2      2,4      3      4      -      -      -      -      -      -
NOAA-14      2      2      2,4      3      4      -      -      -      -      -      -
NOAA-15      5      5      5,9      7      9      10      11      12      13      14      10-13"

https://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/

I notice that the Environment Expert Monk hasn't shown his face up here to take you on Lee.

He tends to shoot from the lip at his own bloghole.

Jasin wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2023 at 3:03pm:

I notice that the Environment Expert Monk hasn't shown his face up here to take you on Lee.

That's because that halfwit is banned till 23/12/23.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1612043899

Good. He only knows how to lick his own balls and wormings in his Pussy & Critters Board.
Anything beyond that is just a drunken hallucination binge.

I see JM is lauding the fact he can control his own garbage posts. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

More from JM's tripe -


Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 8^th, 2023 at 8:17pm:

That does not contradict AGW science.

According to AGW science if it is hotter it is AGW
If it is cooler it is AGW
If sea level rises it is AGW
Sea level fall? AGW
More precipitation ? It is AGW
Less precipitation? AGW
More snow? AGW
Less snow? AGW

CO2 science the only hypothesis that can't be disproved. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Climate Change is cobbled together out of items in the propaganda bin.

Al Gore is not really a High Priest. John Kerry and Barack Obama are not really apostles of truth. Our own Tim Flannery … well, the less said the better. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-Genearl who claimed the crown of Climate Clown just before you could plonk it in your own head at COP28, has the world ‘boiling’ already. Boiling! And they all blame emissions of carbon dioxide … for they know not what they do.



‘The whole thing is a total scam. There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons.’ That’s Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, not your average ‘denier’, eh? ‘We don’t need CO2. For us, it’s a waste product – we need oxygen. But plants are the ones who make the oxygen for us, and we’re making the CO2 back for them.’ He said the burning of fossil fuels – which emit CO2 – is a good thing for plant life.

Moore pointed to a graph that charts CO2 and temperature over the past 500 million years. ‘It’s very clear that CO2 and temperature have been out of sync more often than they’ve been in sync. That more or less negates the whole idea that there’s a direct cause-effect going on there.’

Moore says current CO2 concentrations are ‘historically low’. (As opposed to hysterically high, as you might think, Minister?) ‘Going back 150 million years, CO2 was somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500 parts per million (ppm).’

Generally, atmospheric CO2 is low (around 180 ppm) during glacial periods and higher during inter-glacial periods, according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Before the industrial era, circa 1750, atmospheric CO2 was about 280 ppm for several thousand years, the IPCC states. The current peak level in the atmosphere is around 420 parts per million (ppm), according to 2021 data from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Research.

Moore says that that’s a good thing, and that the push for Net Zero CO2 is a disastrous policy. Anything under 150 ppm is ‘starvation level’ for most plant species.

‘CO2 is only now at 0.042 per cent of the atmosphere. And the fact of the matter is plants would prefer between 1,500 and 2,000 ppm for optimum growth.

‘Commercial greenhouse growers worldwide purposefully increase the CO2 level in their greenhouses to between 800 and 1,200 ppm. Really, it’s about 2,000 where you’re at the optimum level for trees and plants, in general.’

Here’s more: weather-related deaths and climate disasters have in fact declined ‘precipitously’ over the years, according to John Christy, a climatologist and professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the director of the Earth System Science Centre. ‘CO2 is portrayed now as the cause of damaging extreme weather. Our research indicates these extremes are not becoming more intense or frequent. Thus, CO2 cannot be the cause of something not occurring.’

Christy said the Earth’s climate has ‘tremendous natural variability’ and that it’s currently in a gradual warming phase. ‘CO2 has been unfairly demonised because it is actually plant food in its atmospheric form, and it is the consequence of generating carbon-based energy, which unquestionably improves lives around the world.’ He calls CO2 the ‘currency of life.’

‘In past epochs, there were many times more CO2 levels in the atmosphere than today.’

The UN is blindly planning for countries to cut emissions to as close to zero as possible by 2050. Plants would wither if denied CO2. If plants wither, so do we. Children first.

‘The plan is collective suicide,’ says Malgosia Askanas, a senior research and development associate at Aurora Biophysics Research Institute.

Askanas said the concern over CO2 is not based on science. ‘It started with the hysteria of the New Ice Age and a little-known CIA report in 1974 that claimed that a major climatic change was underway,’ she said. ‘Later, the “global cooling” alarmism morphed into its opposite, by employing the false notion of global warming due to excess CO2 – which is chemically a falsehood.’
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/01/dear-chris-bowen-a-new-years-letter/

AGW - falsehoods cobbled together from the propaganda bin.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 9:36am:

"The whole thing is a total scam. There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons". That’s Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace...

Why would you trust anything Moore says Frank?

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media
as an environmental "expert" or even an "environmentalist",
while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range
of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance.
He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell
himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson,
usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting
industries for more than 30 years, including the timber,
mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries, and has
now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked
for Greenpeace.

Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder
of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated
this characterisation.  Although he played a significant role
in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not
found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen
founded Greenpeace in 1970, a year before Moore joined the
organisation.

lee wrote on Nov 28^th, 2023 at 12:21pm:

The Bray (Halstatt) Cycle. "The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation changes, glacier re-advances, atmospheric changes reflected in alterations in wind patterns, oceanic temperature and salinity changes, drift ice abundance, and changes in precipitation and temperature. This is established with proxy records from many parts of the world.

Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward?

Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 10:41am:

Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward? Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard....

There is no imperative Economic or otherwise for the continued existence of life on planet earth. Most civilisations collapsed on cooler changes, not warmer when they expanded.

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 10:00am:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2024 at 9:36am: "The whole thing is a total scam. There is actually no scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for climate change over the eons". That’s Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace... Why would you trust anything Moore says Frank? Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental "expert" or even an "environmentalist", while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes. Moore has been a paid spokesman for a variety of polluting industries for more than 30 years, including the timber, mining, chemical and the aquaculture industries, and has now worked for polluters for far longer than he ever worked for Greenpeace. Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterisation.  Although he played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace. Phil Cote, Irving Stowe, and Jim Bohlen founded Greenpeace in 1970, a year before Moore joined the organisation.

CO2 is not 'pollution'. To call agriculture, timber etc industries 'polluting industries', as if their main purpose was to cause harm, is idiotic and malicious in the extreme.

I can't take you seriously if you are unthinkingly, propagandistically conflate concepts  and then preen and emote.

anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant.

lee wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 12:20pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 2nd, 2024 at 10:41am: Assuming this to be true (and it does tie in with the recorded collapses of various civilizations/cultures in history, due to climate change), how do you propose to deal with future climate change, while avoiding similar economic collapses going forward? Hint: business as usual won't cut the mustard.... There is no imperative Economic or otherwise for the continued existence of life on planet earth. Most civilisations collapsed on cooler changes, not warmer when they expanded.

You missed 'The Cosmos through Symphony' concert  MC'ed by prof. Brian Cox last night.

The capacity of lifeless atoms and energy to achieve consciousness, and comprehend joy and transcendence, is not necessarily widespread in the universe; we have a profound responsibility to preserve life in the universe.

Frank wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2024 at 1:29pm:

anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant.

The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute.....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:29pm:

You missed 'The Cosmos through Symphony' concert  MC'ed by prof. Brian Cox last night.

Oh noes. Brian Cox? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Alarmist extraordinaire.

But perhaps you can expound on those claims of his with which you agree.

Did I miss it? Nope. I had better things to do.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:29pm:

The capacity of lifeless atoms and energy to achieve consciousness, and comprehend joy and transcendence, is not necessarily widespread in the universe; we have a profound responsibility to preserve life in the universe.

Err no we don't. We have a responsibility to ourselves. What makes you think that we are the only sentient beings in the universe?

But further to civilisation extinctions, the cooler conditions caused famine, the warmer made food more plentiful. As we now have a far larger population, we do not need cooler conditions causing famine. We do however need despatchable energy, and renewables can't do that. The people want more energy. Unless you want large swathes of Africa and Asia to live in energy poverty. Some want more to charge EV's, which can only lead to larger increases in energy.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 4:37pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2024 at 1:29pm: anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant. The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute.....

So what is the dispute? That we can categorically state the CO2 causes warming? All things being equal, that is true. However all things do not remain equal. A laboratory experiment is not the same as an open air experiment. Do I think CO2 has caused some warming? Yes, but I certainly don't believe it is anything but benign.
A warmer world is a better world, more people die of cold than heat, even now.

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:57pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 3rd, 2024 at 4:37pm: Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2024 at 1:29pm: anthropogenic CO2 is not causing climate change and it's not a pollutant. The first proposition is disputed, and the 2nd proposition is (admittedly erroneously) caught up in that dispute..... So what is the dispute? That we can categorically state the CO2 causes warming? All things being equal, that is true. However all things do not remain equal. A laboratory experiment is not the same as an open air experiment. Do I think CO2 has caused some warming? Yes, but I certainly don't believe it is anything but benign. A warmer world is a better world, more people die of cold than heat, even now.

It cannot be argued that pouring billions of tonnes of CO2
and other gases from fossil fuels into our atmosphere every year is a good idea.
Methane is much worse and we put plenty of that into our atmosphere too.

Our only hope is clean energy from nuclear fusion or Thorium nuclear reactors.
It's such a pity that Deuterium is all around us in water
and Thorium is an abundant element found everywhere too -
even in your garden soil -
yet it is so difficult to release their energy in a commercial way.
Maybe one day when we discover the means to do so we
can undo all the environmental damage we've done?

Methane would only be much worse if they had the same  weight, as methane is measured in parts per billion (ppb) rather than parts per million (ppm).

"Clyde Spender explained that changes to radiation effects occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis in the atmosphere in an article here titled The Misguided Crusade to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions.  The Climate Act tracks emissions by weight.  In the atmosphere CO2 is more than two orders of magnitude more abundant than CH4 on a molecular basis. The Climate Act uses the global warming potential that estimates the mid-range, long-term warming potential of CH4 is 32 times that of CO2.  However, that equivalence is for equal weights of the two gases!  Using a molecular basis (parts per million-volume mole-fraction) to account for the lighter CH4 molecule reveals that the annual contribution to warming is a fraction of that claimed for CO2.  Methane emissions on a molecular basis are increasing at a rate of 0.58% of CO2 increases.   Therefore, changes in methane emissions have insignificant effects."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/12/29/new-years-resolution-methane-response/

lee wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2024 at 6:50pm:

Err no we don't. We have a responsibility to ourselves. What makes you think that we are the only sentient beings in the universe?

 

Cox explained it; from the example of life on earth, it takes a long time for life to develop - c. 4 billion years from single cell 'life', to complex self-aware, reasoning organism (us).

Turns out there are not many likely life-friendly planets in the Milky Way that are much older than earth. 


Quote:

But further to civilisation extinctions, the cooler conditions caused famine, the warmer made food more plentiful.

Not only; drought and desertification were also factors. 


Quote:

As we now have a far larger population, we do not need cooler conditions causing famine. We do however need despatchable energy, and renewables can't do that.

Wrong on both counts, as noted above; and indeed an area less the the size of Spain - c.500,000 square klms, is sufficient to power the world.


Quote:

The people want more energy. Unless you want large swathes of Africa and Asia to live in energy poverty. Some want more to charge EV's, which can only lead to larger increases in energy.

We have the capacity to run the world on free sun and wind, with judiciuous nuclear backup.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Cox explained it; from the example of life on earth, it takes a long time for life to develop - c. 4 billion years from single cell 'life', to complex self-aware, reasoning organism (us).

And? ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Not only; drought and desertification were also factors.

Exactly right... in a cooler climate. EG California drought 900 years. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

Wrong on both counts, as noted above; and indeed an area less the the size of Spain - c.500,000 square klms, is sufficient to power the world.

Please provide the calculations. You haven't provided anything above. Sort term memory loss?


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 11:46am:

We have the capacity to run the world on free sun and wind, with judiciuous nuclear backup.

Nuclear yes. You haven't provided data on renewables. The MINSKY model is not proof of anything, it depends on the underlying assumptions. I see in the USA, offshore windfarms are bailing, they want more money. In Europe also. Free wind and free solar but the infrastructure and the replacement infrastructure are NOT free. And Batteries are not free. ::)

But you are a typical NO engineering, NO science hack.

https://i.postimg.cc/13K0vK8B/Screenshot-2024-01-04-060759.png

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 12:37pm:

Nuclear yes. You haven't provided data on renewables.

Try google.


Quote:

The MINSKY model is not proof of anything, it depends on the underlying assumptions. I see in the USA, offshore windfarms are bailing, they want more money.

Which the currency-issuing govt. COULD supply for free...capiche?

Collapsing economies will force the issue of free public sector money creation. 



Quote:

In Europe also. Free wind and free solar but the infrastructure and the replacement infrastructure are NOT free. And Batteries are not free. ::)

More parrotting of mainstream economic nonsense re "free"; debt need  only apply to the private sector as it apportions rsources in the private sector.


Quote:

But you are a typical NO engineering, NO science hack.

Like I said, use google to find out how much area is required to power the world with free sun (and wind); and study economics.

Start with the film "Finding the Money", on screens in Oz in March.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Try google.

Google is not now, and never has been, a source of engineering data. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Which the currency-issuing govt. COULD supply for free...capiche? Collapsing economies will force the issue of free public sector money creation.

Your dedicated response to Minsky is acknowledged. It is still a MODEL. And subject to its limitations. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

More parrotting of mainstream economic nonsense re "free"; debt need  only apply to the private sector as it apportions rsources in the private sector.

Rubbish, new lamestream economics. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Like I said, use google to find out how much area is required to power the world with free sun (and wind); and study economics.

Google cannot tell you that. It depends on the underlying assumptions. Spain, at one time, figured out how to get solar power at night, at the same level as during the day.  ::)

Telling me to study economics when you don't understand it yourself, is beyond laughable. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 1:34pm:

Start with the film "Finding the Money", on screens in Oz in March.

OOH finding money.? Does that mean it is printed and given away? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 3:35pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4th, 2024 at 1:34pm: Try google. Google is not now, and never has been, a source of engineering data. ::)

We are talking ball park figures: area to power the globe.

Try it.


Quote:

Your dedicated response to Minsky is acknowledged. It is still a MODEL. And subject to its limitations. ::)

Keen proves government debt is a positive for economic development.


Quote:

Rubbish, new lamestream economics. ::)

No, real economics, something you haven't begun to grasp.


Quote:

Telling me to study economics when you don't understand it yourself, is beyond laughable. ::)

Try the MMT thread; you will see the growing literature on real economics, there.


Quote:

OOH finding money.? Does that mean it is printed and given away? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Well....yes, if you are the legal currency-issuer, and the resources you wish to buy are available for purchase in the currency of issue.....

Warning:  you and I have to earn or borrow the stuff; unfortunately it's NOT free for players in the private sector.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

We are talking ball park figures: area to power the globe.

What is the assumption on solar efficiency, wind turbine efficiency? Something with a 30% efficiency would need far more land than something that was 100% efficient. And when the there is cloud or a lack of wind or too much wind, more land is not necessarily a panacea.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Keen proves government debt is a positive for economic development.

Keen has not proved anything. It is a MODEL. It only needs one assumption to be wrong. And he can't guarantee any one assumption.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

No, real economics, something you haven't begun to grasp.

Coming from you, that is hilarious. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Try the MMT thread; you will see the growing literature on real economics, there.

Nope. I won't. It won't.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Well....yes, if you are the legal currency-issuer, and the resources you wish to buy are available for purchase in the currency of issue.....

Ah yes. Nothing about international trade dealing with depreciated dollars. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 4:50pm:

Warning:  you and I have to earn or borrow the stuff; unfortunately it's NOT free for players in the private sector.

It never was and never will be. You really have a utopian view. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So now you have gone down the rabbit hole again. Nothing about climate, CO2 or the sun. ;)

lee wrote on Jan 4^th, 2024 at 6:07pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 4th, 2024 at 4:50pm: We are talking ball park figures: area to power the globe. What is the assumption on solar efficiency, wind turbine efficiency? Something with a 30% efficiency would need far more land than something that was 100% efficient. And when the there is cloud or a lack of wind or too much wind, more land is not necessarily a panacea.

Google has taken those things into account, and is assuming sufficient battery or other storage.
Nuclear currently produces c. 10% of global power; that could be easily doubled, allowing for excess renewables to be stored - and the sun is always shining (and the wind always blowing) somewhere on the  globe.


Quote:

Keen has not proved anything. It is a MODEL.

It is a model of real, known money flows, unlike the unreal assumptions (eg DSGE models)  of mainstream economics which don't even consider the role of government debt in an economy.


Quote:

It only needs one assumption to be wrong. And he can't guarantee any one assumption.

Unlike your criticisms of AGW, which may have merit regarding assumptions etc, they do not apply with Keen's graphical description (in Minsky) of the knowm money flows in an economy. But you can't understand that because you know nothing about economics - either the delusional mainstream version, or the correct (real)  MMT description of macro money flows.


Quote:

Nope. I won't. It won't.

Spoken with the fervour of an ISIS theologian...


Quote:

.... if you are the legal currency-issuer, and the resources you wish to buy are available for purchase in the currency of issue..... Ah yes. Nothing about international trade dealing with depreciated dollars

The dollars aren't depreciated,  because the homegrown resources were available for purchase in the nation's currency, as noted above.

Yes, indeed the resources MUST be available for purchase (by the currency-issuer); which is a limit to the ability of the currency-issuer to purchase resources on a debt free basis. 

Therefore a reformed IMF/BIS will be required to allow ALL nations some of whom lack resources)  to exercise the non-inflationary power of a currency-issuer (via resources transfer) ; but Oz - like the globe -  has all the resources needed for the green transition.   


Quote:

It never was and never will be. You really have a utopian view. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Never say never: and if AGW projections are correct, debt free public money will become the reality sooner than you think.


Quote:

So now you have gone down the rabbit hole again. Nothing about climate, CO2 or the sun. ;)

Pollution is real, and will require the 100% circular economy,  to solve the problem.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

Google has taken those things into account, and is assuming sufficient battery or other storage.

And yet you can't quantify "those things taken into account". Your claim, your proof. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

It is a model of real, known money flows, unlike the unreal assumptions (eg DSGE models)  of mainstream economics which don't even consider the role of government debt in an economy.

It is still a MODEL. It takes more than money flows, it takes assumptions. And as you can't cite these assumptions, you cannot verify them. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

Unlike your criticisms of AGW, which may have merit regarding assumptions etc, they do not apply with Keen's graphical description (in Minsky) of the knowm money flows in an economy.

Yes they do. Minsky specifically asks for Parameters and Variables. Those are ASSUMPTIONS. They are assumptions on FUTURE payments. Unless of course you believe Keen knows the future. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

Spoken with the fervour of an ISIS theologian...

And know TGD knows about ISIS theology as well. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

The dollars aren't depreciated,  because the homegrown resources were available for purchase in the nation's currency, as noted above.

So there is no inflation in any government that prints their own money. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Biden's misnamed Inflation Reduction Act proves that wrong. ;)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:09pm:

Therefore a reformed IMF/BIS will be required to allow ALL nations some of whom lack resources)  to exercise the non-inflationary power of a currency-issuer (via resources transfer) ; but Oz - like the globe -  has all the resources needed for the green transition.

Except of course only China and India will have cheap energy, fossil fuel derived. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2024 at 12:38pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 5th, 2024 at 12:09pm: Google has taken those things into account, and is assuming sufficient battery or other storage. And yet you can't quantify "those things taken into account". Your claim, your proof. ::)

You aren't keeping up; Vanadium  batteries on every city block will be able the store excess renewable energy needed in the night.


Quote:

It is still a MODEL. It takes more than money flows, it takes assumptions. And as you can't cite these assumptions, you cannot verify them. ::)

No assumptions, just demonstrating the real outcomes  of real money flows; whereas mainstream DSGE theory is built on unrealistic assumptions.   


Quote:

Minsky specifically asks for Parameters and Variables. Those are ASSUMPTIONS. They are assumptions on FUTURE payments. Unless of course you believe Keen knows the future. ::)

No; Keen has the data for last year's money flows -  actual real data relating to the government, private domestic,  and external sectors ...



Quote:

And now TGD knows about ISIS theology as well.

Yes... it's fundamentalist nonsense, like mainstream economic DSGE dogma.


Quote:

So there is no inflation in any government that prints their own money.

You have ignored my outline of the requirments for a currency-issuer to be able to issue non-inflationary debt free money, ie  if the resources are available then indeed the debt-free-funded spending will increase the size of the economy wihout inflation.



Quote:

Biden's misnamed Inflation Reduction Act proves that wrong. ;)

The pandemic and war wrecked supply; price controls should have been inplemented.  But the IRA is mostly a means of building supply chains outside of China, for geo-political reasons - tossing "free trade" principles overboard. 


Quote:

Except of course only China and India will have cheap energy, fossil fuel derived. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wrong as always: China is already the world's fastest adopter of renewables, and both are committed to green by 2060.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

You aren't keeping up; Vanadium  batteries on every city block will be able the store excess renewable energy needed in the night.

Vanadium Redox batteries have been built, but not tested to scale. Although it was expected to do so in August.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

No assumptions, just demonstrating the real outcomes  of real money flows; whereas mainstream DSGE theory is built on unrealistic assumptions.

MODELS can never show "real outcomes" if the model is not 100% accurate. That thgen makes it assumptions. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

No; Keen has the data for last year's money flows -  actual real data relating to the government, private domestic,  and external sectors ...

Last year's data cannot be relied upon for future earnings or spendings. So it is only good to last year. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

Yes... it's fundamentalist nonsense, like mainstream economic DSGE dogma.

Like your ramblings. The one who doesn't do economics but understands it implicitly ...because models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

You have ignored my outline of the requirments for a currency-issuer to be able to issue non-inflationary debt free money, ie  if the resources are available then indeed the debt-free-funded spending will increase the size of the economy wihout inflation.

And yet apparently you can purchase at international trade with nothing to support your "debt-free money". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

The pandemic and war wrecked supply; price controls should have been inplemented.  But the IRA is mostly a means of building supply chains outside of China, for geo-political reasons - tossing "free trade" principles overboard.

2021 was somewhat after the initial pandemic. But it was Biden's Inflation Reduction Act that lifted inflation in the USA. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 11:35am:

Wrong as always: China is already the world's fastest adopter of renewables, and both are committed to green by 2060.

Rubbish.

China produces 15% of its energy from renewables. Its consumption is 12% from renewables. Renewables include hydro.

https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/China/pdf/china-2023.pdf

Table 1.

India “There will be pressure again on those countries who use coal,” RK Singh, minister of power and new and renewable energy, said Nov. 6. “Our point of view is that we are not going to compromise with the availability of power for growth.”

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/112923-cop28-india-doubles-down-on-right-to-increase-climate-emissions?mc_cid=d0ed989b90&mc_eid=4961da7cb1

That is continued growth of coal.

Promise by politicians - what could possibly go wrong? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

More from JM's tripe...Plimer.

Who to believe? A bloke who puts his name to something or a person who doesn't.

But JM believes, so it must be ANON E Mouse. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

More from JM's tripe -


lee wrote on Jan 17^th, 2024 at 10:27pm:

Sorry got carried away. Can’t resist denying AGW, can you?  ;D ;D ;D Never mind, accept you posted in error.

What I had posted is my previous post which I deleted at his "forum" as I am not allowed there.

Now if you can find where I denied AGW please tell me. ;)

The climate scam and it's consequences explained rather well:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEFmVgjdLfs

More from JM's drivel -

A string of Twitter posts by:


Quote:

: Leon Simons@LeonSimons8 Gentleman scientist Mission: To understand & protect the home planet. Innovator, climate research & communication, social entrepreneur. Board Club of Rome NL

So not a climate scientist then. ::)

From The Spectator. The 'green' movement in a nutshell:

Why isn’t the media challenging the $60 trillion Net Zero cult?
Alexandra Marshall The Spectator Australia 4 December 2023
Those  who believe renewable energy will save the planet generally have very little understanding about what the apocalypse is meant to look like … or the engineering reality of the proposed solution. This is not a criticism. Climate Change is a political movement. The renewable transition is a collection of opaque policies and corporate deals negotiated in secret. Their failures are a matter for complex engineering reviews and guesswork.
Expecting anyone to understand something that has been deliberately blurred from public view is unfair.
Those who are curious enough to ask questions quickly discover that politicians have no idea what their policies mean in the real world. MPs and Senators struggle to make it through cover speeches written by their advisers, tripping over the big words and mumbling their way in and out of statistics that look fabricated or, at the very least, incomplete.
Net Zero 2050? ‘Decarbonisation’? They are bits of nonsense that look good on a campaign banner.
Political parties, mining companies, and tech firms are pilfering a fortune in public and private money to ‘do things’ that sound ‘green’ – almost all of which are damaging the environment. Is there proof that anything is truly ‘net zero’? No. ‘Carbon neutral’? That is gibberish. But no one asked for proof, so it doesn’t matter.
Where are, for example, the total costings of a wind farm over a 100-year period including ripping it out of the ground and re-building it every 25 years concealed under the feel-good heading ‘re-powering’? What about the construction and maintenance of transmissions lines, the building of the battery backup, and the replacement of that backup at least four times during the life of the wind farm? We haven’t seen that on any of Chris Bowen’s glossy press releases. His department did not include those costs when formulating the ‘cheap energy’ narrative. I am not suggesting that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (notice the priority order in that title) is hiding the figures, I am suggesting the government has not bothered figuring them out.
Green-tinged governments were either too dumb or lazy to check the detail before signing over billions. They were bamboozled by pitch meetings given by a hungry private sector chasing a piece of the tens of trillions on offer in the energy transition. This negligence in duty is almost more depressing than conspiracy.
That said, the public are starting to realise that having their pristine landscapes draped in wires, blades, solar panels, and batteries is not the environmentally-friendly Utopia they were promised. The industrialisation of our beaches, rainforests, and oceans feels wrong. It looks wrong. It is wrong.
Under Chris Bowen and state Labor Premiers, Australia is vandalising its natural assets in service of backroom handshakes at international talk-fests – the purpose of which is to make money and empower dangerous foreign governments. Ask why mining companies would support a Net Zero ideology that pretends to hate the industry. Ask how much money these companies are making from publicly-funded grants for ‘green’ solutions. Ask how much the price of previously worthless minerals has increased now that they are used for the renewable industry. Ask how much they are making on Lithium with global government policy mandating the market create unsustainable demand. Ask who is making a fortune while pretending to close down… Ask who is keeping their fossil fuel and nuclear assets in the back pocket for a time when all this green zealotry runs out of belief… Ask who profits from your good will.
Australia’s soft-press is refusing to ask these meaningful questions or to risk embarrassing politicians either because they are incapable or, more likely, they want to protect their seat on the press bus (and clicks for their network).
Politicians and the press have developed a sick dependency on each other. Politicians are frightened of the press and the press has grown lazy and ideologically obedient. Yes, those of us who ask uncomfortable questions get quickly cut out of the media circuit and there is no requirement for politicians to suffer the indignity of a tricky interview.
Meanwhile, the independent press, who are at the door with claws and teeth, are held at bay by Silicon Valley tech giants who would prefer to work with the easily-manipulated status quo. Whenever they want another billion-dollar tech contract out of the government, they send memos to the press. It’s win-win-win for them.
Big Tech has teamed up with the Climate Change movement, expanding the pool of potential revenue upward of $60 trillion worldwide. When we take into account the money to be made from Big Pharma’s global health passports, Digital Identity, ‘smart’ cities, fake food, and 15-minute surveillance towns – the cookie jar of corporate sin expands beyond description.
The public asks why there is a consensus of lies and the answer is: money.
This money doesn’t belong to politicians – it belongs to us – and because there are no consequences for this lightweight political class, they are more than happy to wedge the door open for Silicon Valley in exchange for a friendly press and zero push-back to their mistakes thanks to ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ social media guidelines. cont:

cont: 

Look what happened during Covid. The press, including allegedly conservative-friendly media around the world, took money to promote Covid health policies and then quietly refused to openly acknowledge mounting safety concerns. They laughed at accusations of social media censorship instead of demanding the truth from the Department of Home Affairs which later had to acknowledge leaning on Facebook and Twitter to remove factual information that harmed government message of vaccine safety when those vaccines were later revealed to be as the public had warned – potentially dangerous.
This is not a functioning society. It is a democracy crumbling with the consent of those who see anything with the word ‘free’ as a risk.
During Covid, the public allowed their fear to hold them back from asking questions.
Now, when it comes to the Green Era, ‘virtue’ and embarrassment are playing the role of duct-tape.
Start asking questions.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 28^th, 2024 at 4:54pm:

From The Spectator. The 'green' movement in a nutshell: Why isn’t the media challenging the $60 trillion Net Zero cult?

Maybe because the never-ending simultaneous floods, droughts, temp.extremes  and storms around the globe are catching the media's attention....

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2024 at 2:01pm:

Vanadium Redox batteries have been built, but not tested to scale. Although it was expected to do so in August.

 

China is already testing the biggest Vanadium battery in the world (google).


Quote:

Last year's data cannot be relied upon for future earnings or spendings. So it is only good to last year. ::)

The point is Keen describes real world money flows using real word data. 


Quote:

... mainstream DSGE dogma Like your ramblings.

Can't address the point?


Quote:

And yet apparently you can purchase at international trade with nothing to support your "debt-free money".

As a matter of fact, the COP meetings wil eventully wake up to how to find the money required for ALL nations to transition to green, regardless of individual national resource endowments and national wealth.


Quote:

2021 was somewhat after the initial pandemic. But it was Biden's Inflation Reduction Act that lifted inflation in the USA. ::)

"somewhat after the initial pandemic" ...when supply chains were still diminished and Russia decided to start a war...

As for the IRA, don't be fooled by the name; it is an anti-free-trade bill designed to protect US industry against Chinese competition, especially in green industries. 


Quote:

China is already the world's fastest adopter of renewables, and both are committed to green by 2060. Rubbish. China produces 15% of its energy from renewables. Its consumption is 12% from renewables. Renewables include hydro.

Both statements are correct, because of the huge size of China's economy; it is rapidly reducing the percentage of coal useage, as an energy source, even while opening new coal; the increase in renewables is faster  than in the increase in coal.  China expects to peak emissions by 2030.

As to the year 2060 , that's the claim by both countries, just as most other countries claim emissions' free status by. 2050. 


Quote:

India “There will be pressure again on those countries who use coal,” RK Singh, minister of power and new and renewable energy, said Nov. 6. “Our point of view is that we are not going to compromise with the availability of power for growth.”

Yes, that's the anti-green stance of the Coal-ition in Oz.


Quote:

Promise by politicians - what could possibly go wrong? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The persistance  of mainstream neoliberal economics is a greater catastrophe...

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

China is already testing the biggest Vanadium battery in the world (google).

Testing is not the same as proven. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

The point is Keen describes real world money flows using real word data.

And it still can't be relied upon. "past performance is no guarantee of future performance".  ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Can't address the point?

You had a point? Apart from your lack of knowledge of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

As a matter of fact, the COP meetings wil eventully wake up to how to find the money required for ALL nations to transition to green, regardless of individual national resource endowments and national wealth.

So that would be COP number 5230? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

"somewhat after the initial pandemic" ...when supply chains were still diminished and Russia decided to start a war...

So now it is only supply chains diminished and Russia? Better tell the Houthis that. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

As for the IRA, don't be fooled by the name; it is an anti-free-trade bill designed to protect US industry against Chinese competition, especially in green industries.

You would probably, but not necessarily, know there are many people who don't believe it. How does a bill that is so green it will never burn, become a USA protection method? They would need more fossil fuel use or nuclear to produce solar panels and wind turbine blades. In fact offshore wind is really on the nose, not just in  the USA, but elsewhere. ::)

Semiconductor making needs a stable source of power, as do making turbine blades, making copper windings etc, etc.



thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Both statements are correct, because of the huge size of China's economy; it is rapidly reducing the percentage of coal useage, as an energy source, even while opening new coal; the increase in renewables is faster  than in the increase in coal.

It is not RAPIDLY reducing anything. ::)

Not according to Statista.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/302233/china-power-generation-by-source/


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

China expects to peak emissions by 2030.

Tell me when they actually show that. So according to you that is another 6 years of increasing coal use, but coal is inherently bad. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

As to the year 2060 , that's the claim by both countries, just as most other countries claim emissions' free status by. 2050.

Yes and claims are not worth the paper they are written on. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Yes, that's the anti-green stance of the Coal-ition in Oz.

No that's the anti-green stance of the people in India. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

he persistance  of mainstream neoliberal economics is a greater catastrophe...

So says the bloke that doesn't understand models, economics, engineering etc, etc.

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7th, 2024 at 11:13am: China is already testing the biggest Vanadium battery in the world (google). Testing is not the same as proven. ::)

We'll see. And if proven, every suburb on Oz will run on free renewable energy (both roof-top and grid-derived including wind)


Quote:

And it still can't be relied upon. "past performance is no guarantee of future performance".  ::)

We (and Keen)  aren't taliokng about "future performance", we are taliking about money flows in the real economy. 


Quote:

You had a point? Apart from your lack of knowledge of course. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your resort to crippled-brain mode is noted, the point is  delusional DSGE mainsteam dogma


Quote:

So that would be COP number 5230? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, much sooner, as everyone realizes the transition is urgent and low-resource poor countries need assistance.


Quote:

So now it is only supply chains diminished and Russia? Better tell the Houthis that. ::)

Your crippled brain mode: not only, but also, and more, including trade wars....


Quote:

How does a bill that is so green it will never burn, become a USA protection method?

By state subsidization of PV and EV industry  , to bring those industries back to the US from China  - which is what the IRA aims to achieve.


Quote:

They would need more fossil fuel use or nuclear to produce solar panels and wind turbine blades. In fact offshore wind is really on the nose, not just in  the USA, but elsewhere. ::)

 

1. Not if they build renewables to power industry. 2. Offshore wind is a powerful tool to cut emissions especially in Europe which doesn't have arid deserts for PV farms.


Quote:

Semiconductor making needs a stable source of power, as do making turbine blades, making copper windings etc, etc.

Yep, solar/wind backed by sufficient storage of all kinds IS stable, by definition.  


Quote:

It is not RAPIDLY reducing anything. ::)

China is rapidly  increasing renwables as an energy source, eventually renewables will take over as the maon energy source. 


Quote:

Tell me when they actually show that.

?? I can only "tell you that"  in 2030, obviously


Quote:

So according to you that is another 6 years of increasing coal use, but coal is inherently bad. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

coal is bad -  but reducing the necessary rate of increase in energy consumption required to improve living standards, is worse.  Get back to me in 2030, to see if coal has peaked while renewables are forging ahead. 


Quote:

Yes and claims are not worth the paper they are written on. ::)

the COPs accept them....


Quote:

No that's the anti-green stance of the people in India. ::)

ROTFL - thanks  (but you omitted some of the people in India); yes, bias is in the eye of the beholder...but your anti-renewables crusade is doomed to failure, since all nations intend to attend the next scheduled COPS



Quote:

So says the bloke that doesn't understand models, economics, engineering etc, etc.

Descriptions of money flows in the real economy aren't models.  And there is no lack of resources required to build sufficient solar/wind/backup, to run the planet on free sun and wind. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

And if proven, every suburb on Oz will run on free renewable energy (both roof-top and grid-derived including wind)

Ah dream the impossible dream. You still haven't figured out if it is paid for it is not free. And the batteries are not free either. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

We (and Keen)  aren't taliokng about "future performance", we are taliking about money flows in the real economy.

So money flows in a real economy are static? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Your resort to crippled-brain mode is noted, the point is  delusional DSGE mainsteam dogma

And yet it is you that can't explain it. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

No, much sooner, as everyone realizes the transition is urgent and low-resource poor countries need assistance.

So to China it isn't urgent but to others it is? Got it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Your crippled brain mode: not only, but also, and more, including trade wars....

Oh trade wars. Isn't that something that is supposed to be a thing of the past, as every one gets along. Kumbaya. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

By state subsidization of PV and EV industry  , to bring those industries back to the US from China  - which is what the IRA aims to achieve.

But closing down fossil fuels will not achieve that. Subsidies only work when you have enough electricity to do something with. Degrowth of energy is not going to cut it, with EV's etc being an increasing drain. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

1. Not if they build renewables to power industry.

It hasn't worked in the real world yet. And nowhere is close to doing so. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

2. Offshore wind is a powerful tool to cut emissions especially in Europe which doesn't have arid deserts for PV farms.

And yet the major builders of offshore wind are bailing as it doesn't pay enough.  Orsted, Siemens etc.


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Yep, solar/wind backed by sufficient storage of all kinds IS stable, by definition.

Ah yes. "Sufficient storage". Have you got a figure for that yet? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

China is rapidly  increasing renwables as an energy source, eventually renewables will take over as the maon energy source.

At what percentage overbuild? ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

?? I can only "tell you that"  in 2030, obviously

Exactly. Pie in the sky stuff. But you "believe". ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

coal is bad -  but reducing the necessary rate of increase in energy consumption required to improve living standards, is worse.

And yet we have headlines like "Over the next several years, many regions of the US and Canada may struggle to ensure a reliable electricity supply amid soaring energy demand from the tech industry and electrification of buildings and vehicles"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2409679-much-of-north-america-may-face-electricity-shortages-starting-in-2024/

The same thing is happening in the UK, in the rush to net zero.

"Wind Farms Are Overstating Their Output — And Consumers Are Paying For It"


"Electricite de France SA’s Fallago Rig wind farm near the Scottish border claimed that it would generate 27.1% more power than it did during the five-and-a-half-year period. Just a few miles away, Fred. Olsen Renewables’ Crystal Rig II wind farm said it would produce 35.5% more energy than it delivered. Ventient Energy, backed by JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s asset management arm, overstated the output at its Farr wind farm by 28.7%."

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-uk-wind-farms-overstate-output/

That overstatement of wind means they get paid more, but there is less available to the consumer.

"In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy—cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other. And then came the Ukraine shock. During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.

In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive. In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas. Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas. These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas."

https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/britains-disastrous-path-net-zero-warning-the-us


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

since all nations intend to attend the next scheduled COPS

And will actually achieve something? ;D ;D ;D ;D

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Descriptions of money flows in the real economy aren't models.

Of course they are. That's what Keen used. MINSKY is a model.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

And there is no lack of resources required to build sufficient solar/wind/backup, to run the planet on free sun and wind.

Get to it then. Your claim, you do it. ::)

Wind -

"Daily near-surface wind speeds (u) grids have been developed over all of Australia at a 0.01° spatial resolution by interpolating terrestrial anemometers measurements from an expanded network for 1975–2006. For these new grids, the Australian-averaged u trend for 1975–2006 was -0.009 m s-1 a-1 (agreeing with earlier site-based studies) with stilling over 88% of the land-surface. "

https://data.csiro.au/collection/csiro:Wind_Speed

So an average trend slightly below zero and stilling (no wind) over 88% of the land surface.  ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:50pm:

Descriptions of money flows in the real economy aren't models.

So you are either saying Keen lied or you just don't understand what you are talking about.

"Steve Keen's model of Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis (Keen, 1995) displayed qualitative characteristics that matched the real macroeconomic and income-distributional outcomes of the preceding and subsequent fifteen years: a period of economic volatility followed by a period of moderation, leading to a rise of instability once more and a serious economic crisis. This paper extends that model to build a strictly monetary macroeconomic model which can generate the monetary as well as the real phenomena manifested by both The Great Recession and The Great Moderation."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268111000266

::)

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2024 at 5:00pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 7th, 2024 at 12:50pm: Descriptions of money flows in the real economy aren't models. "Steve Keen's model of Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis (Keen, 1995) displayed qualitative characteristics that matched the real macroeconomic and income-distributional outcomes of the preceding and subsequent fifteen years: a period of economic volatility followed by a period of moderation, leading to a rise of instability once more and a serious economic crisis. This paper extends that model to build a strictly monetary macroeconomic model which can generate the monetary as well as the real phenomena manifested by both The Great Recession and The Great Moderation." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268111000266

Note the underlined: ''...real distributional outcomes..."; unlike climate models used to predict the effects of climate change in the future, Keen has shown mainstream "balanced government budget" dogma is nonsense - NOW (ie, not in the future) - using real data.

But AGW deniers be warned:

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/us-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1m-in-defamation-lawsuit/ar-BB1i2Knz?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ENTPSP&cvid=58f01ed869b04890828670b84497049a&ei=9

US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit

Regardless, in 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian thinktank, published a blogpost by Rand Simberg that compared investigations by Penn State University into Mann’s work with the case of Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach who was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple children.

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent”.

Mann sued both men and their publishers. In 2021 a judge dismissed the two outlets as defendants, saying they could not be held liable, but the claims against the individuals remained.

Simberg and Steyn argued they were merely expressing their opinion.

....opinion grounded in libertarian delusions....

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 10:57am:

Note the underlined: ''...real distributional outcomes..."; unlike climate models used to predict the effects of climate change in the future, Keen has shown mainstream "balanced government budget" dogma is nonsense - NOW (ie, not in the future) - using real data.

So now you concede it is a model. Make up your mind. That then goes back to what I wrote earlier -

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

And it still can't be relied upon. "past performance is no guarantee of future performance".

And real data? Projections can never be from "real data".



thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 10:57am:

But AGW deniers be warned:

So who are these people who believe the climate doesn't change? They must be nutters. The climate has changed for millions of years.


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 10:57am:

US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit

Yes. $1 in compensatory damages. He was defamed to that extent? $1 in 12 years? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 11:56am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10th, 2024 at 10:57am: Note the underlined: ''...real distributional outcomes..."; unlike climate models used to predict the effects of climate change in the future, Keen has shown mainstream "balanced government budget" dogma is nonsense - NOW (ie, not in the future) - using real data. So now you concede it is a model.

No, I concede Keen's work proves the mainstream "balanced government budget" dogma is mythology with no foundation in reality.


Quote:

And real data? Projections can never be from "real data".

Keen isn't making "projections,  he is disproving mainstream "balanced budget" dogma using real data. 


Quote:

So who are these people who believe the climate doesn't change? They must be nutters. The climate has changed for millions of years.

Low IQ (or crippled brain)? The issue is the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on climate change.


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 10:57am:

US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit

Quote:

Yes. $1 in compensatory damages. He was defamed to that extent? $1 in 12 years? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Can't read?

"US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit"

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 1:08pm:

No, I concede Keen's work proves the mainstream "balanced government budget" dogma is mythology with no foundation in reality.

So it is model but isn't a model. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 1:08pm:

Keen isn't making "projections,  he is disproving mainstream "balanced budget" dogma using real data.

Then how do you explain "the preceding and subsequent fifteen years". Subsequent - Following in time or order; succeeding.  You really should try to learn basic English. So hindcast and forecast. Forcast also means projection. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 1:08pm:

The issue is the effects of man-made CO2 emissions on climate change.

And what are they? Be specific. ::)

https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12_Table_12_12_1.jpg

And the test for it -

https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/figures/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter12_Table_12_12_2.jpg

That's what the science says, according to the IPCC.


thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 1:08pm:

Can't read?

Can't read beyond the headlines? Who knew? ;D ;D ;D ;D

"The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer."

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-defamation-michael-mann-penn-state-61289ee2d8d2143768d28995c83899ef

Once again shown to be a complete idiot. Not quite complete but working hard on it. ::)

As soon as I see a post referencing well known conspiracy theory 'loon' site https://wattsupwiththat.com/
(as referenced in the O.P of this thread)
I know it's time to roll my eyes and say "NEXT"

(I couldn't even tell you what this one's about)

Life is too SHORT !




https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a0/b3/24/a0b324191f5a1cfb85fc99c4df9008eb.jpg






.

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 10^th, 2024 at 2:33pm:

As soon as I see a post referencing well known conspiracy theory 'loon' site https://wattsupwiththat.com/

You really don't know do you? Watts provides peer reviewed articles and that makes them "loons".

Now all you have to do is show, conclusively, that it is bogus. Go for it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But I expect you believe that the "science is settled". ;)

Buzz,

Quote:

As soon as I see a post referencing well known conspiracy theory 'loon' site https://wattsupwiththat.com/

I checked it out:


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/


Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

Overall, we rate Watts Up with That a strong pseudoscience and conspiracy website based on promoting consistent human-influenced climate denialism propaganda and several failed fact checks. (2/14/2017) Updated (D. Van Zandt 04/11/2022)

About Dave van Zandt and MediaBias Fact check

"CCD Editor’s note: Our site has also come under attack by this dubious, phony fact-checking website, which forced me to correct them on our About Us page.

I’m delighted that someone is finally taking action on them in the courts.

* * * * *

The discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease-and-desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).

MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist."

https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/
;)