IPCC’s Kangaroo Science…To Ignore Over 600 Papers Confirming Major Solar Impact On Climate

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

The upcoming 6th IPCC Sixth Assessment Report will be a “comprehensive assessment of the science” related to climate change and published in 2022. However, don’t expect it to be “comprehensive” at all as hundreds of scientific publications showing profound impacts by sun and oceans will go ignored.

Climate science has turned into a religion that centers on a single act of faith. Human CO2 is changing our climate.

In the past it was always understood that climate was impacted by a vast array of factors, such oceanic cycles, solar cycles, aerosols, cloud cover, etc. to name a few.

Images: NASA (public domain)

But over the years tremendous resources have been poured into an effort aimed at pinning the blame on man-made greenhouse gases. Models have been grossly distorted and corrupted to make CO2 the 90%+ climate driver.

Despite global temperatures having fallen by more than 0.5°C over the past two years due to the ending of an El Nino event, IPCC scientists continue to insist that trace gas CO2 is the main driver behi9nd climate warming. In the IPCC 5th summary report for policymakers, for example, solar and oceanic factors re described as having little effect on global temperatures:


Source: IPCC 5th Summary Report for Policymakers.

With such a disregard for natural factors, it is no surprise that we are already observing the spectacular failure of the climate models.

Not only have ocean cycles been grossly ignored in climate models, but so have solar factors. The sun is not constant in its behavior, and has been shown to act in cycles that have profound impacts on the earth’s climate system.

Research showing sun’s impact piles up

Despite all the effort to frame CO2, scientists are still conducting a formidable amount of research on the sun’s impact.

Indeed since the last IPCC report was released in 2013, there have been literally hundreds of scientific peer-reviewed publications showing that the sun directly and indirectly have a great impact on the earth’s climate. Yet IPCC scientists obstinately continue to refuse to acknowledge these in their models.

Back in 2013 I produced a list of 123 paper showing that the sun impacts global climate.

More than 600 published papers show clear solar impact on climate

NTZ guest author Kenneth Richard has been busy listing the papers as well. What follows are the list of papers showing the sun impacts global climate.

2012 123 papers had been published and ignored by IPCC 4AR

In 2014, 93 papers were published.

In 2015,  95 peer-reviewed papers were published

In 2016, 133 papers were published.

In 2017,  121 peer-reviewed solar papers were published.

In 2018, so far, ca. 60 papers.

That brings the total of scientific peer-reviewed papers that will be completely ignored by the IPCC to 625. If that isn’t fraudulent “science-based” policymaking, then what is?

Aim: human society in shackles

The aim of the IPCC is to ignore recognized standards of science, frame mankind for a nonexistent crime, and shackle human society. It’s the next planned slavery. The developing countries, who will be denied cheap and reliable energy, will bear the heaviest chains.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

74 responses to “IPCC’s Kangaroo Science…To Ignore Over 600 Papers Confirming Major Solar Impact On Climate”

  1. SebastianH

    How exiting, another “we are being lied to”, “everything is a hoax”, “the true science gets ignored” post. Great scott, if only climate science would listen to those pesky skeptics who are so much wiser than everyone else. Could save us so much trouble, right?

    The aim of the IPCC is to ignore recognized standards of science, frame mankind for a nonexistent crime, and shackle human society. It’s the next planned slavery.

    WTF?

    The developing countries, who will be denied cheap and reliable energy, will bear the heaviest chains.

    Just wow! In times where the cheapest form of energy is in fact solar? Nobody is denying them anything.

    Postings like this one should be a wake up call for real skeptics. Do you want to be associated with this kind of conspiracy talk or not?

    1. TedM

      If you have solar panels on your roof then solar is cheaper than power delivered by the grid during periods of sufficient sunlight, but not cheaper than solar delivered by the grid. To have 24hr power you need batteries then solar is not cheaper than fossil fueled power delivered by the grid.

      Solar is by far the most polluting. Particularly solar with batteries.

      To say that solar is the cheapest form of power without the above mentioned qualifications is more than a little dishonest.

      1. spike55

        “is more than a little dishonest”

        That’s seb for you.

        and you picked it up in one post ! 🙂

      2. SebastianH

        If you have solar panels on your roof then solar is cheaper than power delivered by the grid during periods of sufficient sunlight, but not cheaper than solar delivered by the grid.

        Rooftop solar is about 2 to 3 times more expensive than grid solar. That is also the reason why rooftop solar makes up such a small percentage in the total power provided by photovoltaics.

        Or do you think you could get a kWh from you roof in Germany for less than 4 to 5 €-cent? Yeah, that’s the most recent auctioned kWh-price for grid solar here. One would think a sunnier place would be able to reach much lower prices, and of course they do: Mexico 1.77 $-cents/kWh and even the US manages to build grid solar for 2.155 $-cents

        To have 24hr power you need batteries then solar is not cheaper than fossil fueled power delivered by the grid.

        Yes, you’d need batteries. But you can also do with natural gas power planet doing what they do best, providing energy as needed.

        Side-question: do you think it would be possible to cover the grid consumption with baseload power plants only? Or do you accept that they need help in form of more flexible power plants / storage too?

        Nothing of this sort exists as an island.

        Solar is by far the most polluting. Particularly solar with batteries.

        Please get back to under the rock you came from …

        To say that solar is the cheapest form of power without the above mentioned qualifications is more than a little dishonest.

        What is the total cost of running on fossil fuel alone? There has been a lot of dishonesty in this field. Solar includes most of its costs in the actual price we pay … and again, it is about 0.02$ per kWh in the US (Nevada).

        1. MrZ

          0.02$ per kWh. 8) LOL

          You might get 300W per square metre in Nevada. Let’s say the sun shines 12 hours. You then need 1000/150 = 6.66 m2 per kW.
          You buy +6m2 solar panels and you pay them off with 175USD yearly revenue (0.02×8760)??? Come on…

          I excluded inverters, batteries, cables, mounting, land cost, interest, service, billing etc in the example

          1. SebastianH

            0.02$ per kWh. 8) LOL

            Come on, you could have at least clicked on that link.

            You might get 300W per square metre in Nevada. Let’s say the sun shines 12 hours. You then need 1000/150 = 6.66 m2 per kW.
            You buy +6m2 solar panels and you pay them off with 175USD yearly revenue (0.02×8760)??? Come on…

            What kind of calculation is this?

            You’ll get 2400 kWh per kWp in Nevada per year. Over 25 years that’s 60000 kWh. At a price of $0.02 this gives you a revenue of $1200 per kWp. You can take an educated guess what the current average kWp prices are for a 250 MW Nevada solar power plant …

    2. spike55

      “Postings like this one should be a wake up call for real skeptics”

      Realists have known for a long time what the real agenda behind the IPCC is. Its anti-science, anti-CO2 anti -development, globalist control agenda is obviously to all but the most brain-hosed AGW psychophant.

      That agenda is not a conspiracy theory, it has been stated LOUD and CLEAR by some of the highest echelons of the globalist anti-CO2 agenda.

      The LIES and misinformation and the total disregard for the damage done by their agenda is one facet that truly stands out.

      We see it in seb’s post.. the idiotic “solar is cheapest ” meme.

      BS for a start, plus its TOTALLY USELESS for any sort of industry or development because it only works a few hours a day..

      But that is the aim of this despicable agenda.. to slow the progress of these developing countries, using anti-CO2 garbage science to do it. (fortunately China has come to the rescue sponsoring coal fired power in many countries)

      seb, I DARE you to use electricity only when the sun is shining and there are no clouds..

      .. you WOULDN’T, would you.. you RELY on fossil fuels to maintain the regularity of supply.

      But this is what you would wish on others in poorer countries.

      What a DISGUSTING hypocrite you really are.

      Yes, this post is a wake up call, that somehow we need to do more to combat this deceitful, evil agenda.

      We have to counter its LIES and deceitful misinformation wherever and whenever we can.

      1. SebastianH

        Realists have known […]

        You are not a realist.

        BS for a start, plus its TOTALLY USELESS for any sort of industry or development because it only works a few hours a day..

        You’ll see industrialized countries switch over to more direct usage of solar energy soon enough.

        seb, I DARE you to use electricity only when the sun is shining and there are no clouds..

        Why? You keep thinking using solar is the same thing a living in a hut and only do something when the weather is good. Wake up! This is nonsense you are taught to believe by you silly “skeptic” prophets.

        Yes, this post is a wake up call, that somehow we need to do more to combat this deceitful, evil agenda.

        This is just unbelievable. You are seeing this as some kind of war that fossil fuel has to win? Why? This makes no sense …

        We have to counter its LIES and deceitful misinformation wherever and whenever we can.

        No, you have to read more and snap out of your hillbilly backcountry behaviour of trying to preserve the status quo and believing that there is a conspiracy going on that wants to harm you by taking away your precious carbon emitting fuels. ASAP!

        1. spike55

          poor empty seb

          You wouldn’t know REALITY if you faceplanted in it.

          I knew you would squirm out of using solar the way you expect third world to use it..

          How long during the day do you think solar actually works?? How long during the day do you actually need electricity.

          You are FOOLING yourself seb.

          Its not a conspiracy when your higher echelons state exactly what the agenda is.. why be so WILFULLY BLIND and deliberately IGNORANT??

          You are either a totally NAIVE little troll or you are fully immersed in promulgating this disgusting anti-human farce onto the people.

    3. Sam_CO

      My guess would be, with all the snide comments, that you’ve never bothered to actually READ any of the opposing studies, but just listen to the mainstream media hype as it fits your AGW religious beliefs.

      Your statements on solar are so off the mark as to be humorous. I worked in the power industry, and still do as a contractor. When the most efficient solar plant on the planet only manages to produce 22% of its rated capacity over a year, it shows just how wrong you are. Especially when you find the average output is 17% of rated capacity.

      The closer you get to the poles, the worse these numbers get. Because of the actual efficiency there isn’t enough room in many countries to go solar. In the US it would take a solar plant the size of Arizona to replace existing production.

      Those are the true facts, not the hype the media puts out.

  2. spike55

    Hey, their charter is to show ONLY human effects.

    Grimm Bros would be really impressed with the fantasy imaginings of what comes out of their “process”

    Its all based on an unproven conjecture / brain-f**t.

    A FAILED anti-science hypothesis.

    But its all they have.

  3. Henning Nielsen

    IPCC certainly has an outstanding record of “comprehensive suppression”, and in ignoring “inconvenient truths”. However, the world’s politcians have wearied of this charade. I wonder how much attention the 2022 report will get. Will there be yet another leading statesman to announce that “we have 50 days to save the world”?

    I recommend this article about African nations now finally refusing the eco-imperialism and going ahead with affordable coal energy:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/14/rejecting-carbon-colonialism/

    “Now, in a daring show of humanity and common sense, the African Development Bank (AfDB) has broken ranks with the World Bank and its like-minded carbon colonialist brethren. The AfDB has announced that it will once again finance coal and natural gas power generation projects.”

    1. Newminster

      Isn’t the AFDB backed by the Chinese? We in “the West” are becoming remarkably adept at shooting ourselves in both feet!

    2. spike55

      China has been helping out considerably with finance for RELIABLE power supplies.

      I’m guessing the politicians and the AfDB have seen this and realise that they cannot let China be the only people in control of the energy supply in the region.

      Once the world bank sees the tentacles of Chinese expansionism, they also may wake up to reality.

      Until then, they are in the grip of the anti-CO2 pseudo-religion.

  4. GC

    @sebastianH

    Lol. Solar is the cheapest form of energy! Not only are you completely ignorant in economics and basic mathematics, you are completely ignorant in the relevant technological engineering capacities of Solar to power into a developed first world power grid 24/7 seven days a week three hundred and sixty five days per year, year after year. Not denying the third world?! Stick aSolar panel on a straw hut and walk away and watch the third world thrive! How do you plan on the third world to develop heavy industry with Solar! Or did you just think that the world world is going to sit in the dirt with a lap top connected to a Solar panel and fill spreadsheets to track non existent customers from a non existent economy because there is no heavy industry.

    1. SebastianH

      Lol. Solar is the cheapest form of energy! Not only are you completely ignorant in economics and basic mathematics, you are completely ignorant in the relevant technological engineering capacities of Solar to power into a developed first world power grid 24/7 seven days a week three hundred and sixty five days per year, year after year.

      Plenty of studies covering that. And nobody is saying you need to run everything on 100% solar (and wind, hydro, biogas, etc) tomorrow anyway.

      How would you run a small country on a large (enough to cover peak usage) nuclear power plant? Do you think that would even be possible without storage? Or would you size it smaller and augment its output with some gas generators?

      A big solar panel can not power a country the same as a big nuclear power plant can’t power a country. But if you want to provide extra energy to the grid at the times where it is needed most the cheapest way is to just build a solar power plant. In the US you’ll pay about $2.2 per MWh, in Germany about double that amount.

      And yes, I know that there will come a point where additional solar panels will require storage to smooth out the production. But we are a few years away from that moment, wouldn’t you agree?

      1. MrZ

        2.2USD per MWh!!!!
        See my comment above as well.
        In this example they use 6666 m2 panels and run them on a yearly revenue of
        10272USD.

        Great business. Anybody ready to invest with me?

        1. MrZ

          19272!
          My bad

        2. SebastianH

          Huh? It’s a 250 MW power plant averaging 600000 MWh per year (same as Copper Mountain Solar 3). That is a yearly revenue of 1.32 million dollars.

          Please learn to do math before trying something like this on us 😉

          1. MrZ

            I’ll get back to the previous one later. I responded but not sure if it got posted or not…

            I was doing 1MW and what it means in terms of panels, 6666 m2. 6 666m2 comes from 1 000 000W/150W per m2 (see above)

            19272USD was for 8760 MWh (1MWh 24/7 one year) so the math is the same as yours.
            It is very easy to understand that 19 272 does not pay any large portion of 6666m2 solar panels (even without specifying their actual price).

            We can do it your way. What is the payback time for the 250MW investment and 1.32MUSD yearly revenue???

            My guess is your 2.2USD is out by a factor 5-7 for a decent business case.

            Hint:
            From what I can find in (Northern) Nevada you pay 0.09USD per kWh then you add 0.042 for green. When green approx. 10% is solar.

          2. SebastianH

            I’ll get back to the previous one later. I responded but not sure if it got posted or not…

            First I have to apologize, I got confused. 2.2 cents per kWh are $22 per MWh of course. But since you replied the same way to the $0.02 figure above, well …

            19272USD was for 8760 MWh (1MWh 24/7 one year) so the math is the same as yours.

            A 1 MW solar panel doesn’t produce 1 MW 24/7 hours. You know that, right?

            With your calculation and the correct MWh-price you can spend $4800 on 1 kWp of solar panels and still make money. Do you think 1 kWp costs $4800 at a 250 MW solar power plant?

            1 MW solar in Nevada will net you about 2400 MWh in reality, in case you care.

            From what I can find in (Northern) Nevada you pay 0.09USD per kWh then you add 0.042 for green. When green approx. 10% is solar.

            That is not how to get to realistic prices of solar my friend. You just look up the auctions and documents the state issues. Those usually contain the price per kWh/MWh that is getting paid to the owners of those power plants. Why are you doubting that those figures are right?

          3. MrZ

            For the readers of this thread some might wonder why I don’t respond to Seb’s block comments on my statements. The answer is we have different argument techniques. Seb constantly tries to shoot holes in the opponents arguments while on purpose misread what they meant. This strategy means he does not have to contribute (and hence risk any critique) with his own opinion and the evidence backing it up. This works in the political space where you might get challenged for 5 minutes at the time. Here however such approach will appear as dishonest.

            Let’s see what follows and summarize in the end.

          4. Kenneth Richard

            This strategy means he does not have to contribute (and hence risk any critique) with his own opinion and the evidence backing it up.

            Backing it up has long been the problem for SebastianH. It’s drive-by commenting.

          5. Yonason

            @MrZ 23. July 2018 at 5:54 PM

            Yes, he takes as few risks as possible, while attacking what he considers his opponents’ weakest points. And, if there are no weak points, he’ll either twist what they write or make stuff up. And, if you point out his errors, he never acknowledges or corrects them, and often just ignores the criticism. You can correct the same mistake multiple times to no avail. He’ll just continue to make it if it suits the narrative he’s spinning. And then there are the gratuitous insults. I’ve stopped reading most of what he writes, sometimes only what others are commenting on. Not an honest or pleasant person, imo.

            Good thing you aren’t the HR guy who’s interviewing him. He’d grow old and gray waiting for the job offer that would never come, unless of course you were looking for someone with his peculiar talents.

        3. MrZ

          A 1 MW solar panel doesn’t produce 1 MW 24/7 hours. You know that, right?

          Yes, that is why I used 6666 m2 and not half of it.

          You would be smarter if you converted your thinking to how much you can farm per m2. Doing so you quickly see how ridiculous the figures are. With peak for a panel of an unknown size this is hidden.

          Try yourself! You simply CANNOT sell at 0.022USD per kWh and have a sustainable business. However tells you that is laying. If that is the price in an auction somebody pays the definite loss. Probably mostly people who invested in first round stocks.

          I try my case one more time here after digging some Nevada figures:
          Average kWh per day per m2: 5.1kWh
          Panel size: 72m2
          Efficiency sun to DC to AC: 23%x95% = 21.85%

          72×5.1×0.02x365x0.2185 = 585USD per year.
          If you want to pay that panel off in 15 years with no revenue, no interest rate or any other cost what so ever it can not cost more than 8775USD including installation and inverters

          If you find one please let me know.

          1. SebastianH

            You would be smarter if you converted your thinking to how much you can farm per m2.

            Why? I’d think space is relatively free in the deserts of Nevada.

            Try yourself! You simply CANNOT sell at 0.022USD per kWh and have a sustainable business.

            The solar panels itself cost around $500 per kW peak. You’ll get 2400 kWh from 1 kW peak in Nevada. Over 25 years at $0.022 that makes you $1320. Plenty of money left to pay for installation, inverters, etc. There might be additional tax incentives for those who install such a power plant in Nevada, but I don’t think this is selling electricity at a loss. Why would anyone do that? Isn’t the main accusation of skeptics that solar panel owners get their pockets lined by too expensive feed in rates? Can’t have it both ways 😉

            Average kWh per day per m2: 5.1kWh
            Panel size: 72m2
            Efficiency sun to DC to AC: 23%x95% = 21.85%

            So your 72 m² panel installation gets you 30826 kWh of electricity per year? That would mean that we are talking about a 12.8 kW peak installation here. I doubt that you can fit 12.8 kW peak into just 72 m², but maybe that is possible. It’s not too far of so let’s continue.

            72×5.1×0.02x365x0.2185 = 585USD per year.
            If you want to pay that panel off in 15 years with no revenue, no interest rate or any other cost what so ever it can not cost more than 8775USD including installation and inverters

            Why would you want to do that? 15 years seems awefully short and why no other costs? But anywhay, your 12.8 kW peak panels will cost you around $6400. More with installation, inverters, the interconnect to the grid, etc … but we are not talking about residential installation here, are we? Because 12.8 kW peak sounds like half a roof full of solar panels and residential installations typically cost a bit more than utility scale solar.

            If you need more convincing that solar is now the cheapest form of energy:
            https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

            Levelized costs including tax credits for solar pv is 46.5 $/MWh which is lower than conventional coal power plants. But it gets beaten by geothermal and onshore wind. I am guessing these are averages, so it’s entirely possible to have solar PV power plants in certain locations that reach $22 per MWh … as the auctions prove.

          2. MrZ

            My 72m2 panel is from a project I happen to know.
            There are 36 panels in each 72m2 frame. 91 of such frames makes up 6552m2 providing 1MW peak.
            The cost they presented is approx 26 000 USD per such frame including installations but excluding land (40 000m2), O&M and interest rates.

            I think even you agree that with those figures 585USD revenue per year is an extremely bad business case. 44 years to break even disregarding interest rates, O&M, land lease and any profit.

            Now you state this could be built for 6400. I doubt that is true unless Chinese government subsidize this industry so companies can sell at loss.

            Even accepting your figure it is still a bad business case reaching break even after 11 years using above criteria.

            So I repeat 😎 0.022USD per kWh is not sustainable even in Nevada. If they say that there are some serious costs that are not included.

            You say tariff is no indicator but northern Nevada charge approx 0.14USD for green energy 0.04 above normal energy. The reported 0.022 is hidden in there.

            BTW I made a fake order for my power consumption in Berlin. It was more than double that what I have or 3600€ per year. How come since Germany is so full of this wonderful and virtually free of charge technology?

          3. MrZ

            I guess you gave up Seb?
            Would be polite of you to admit my math was better than yours this time. It is very deep in this thread so you would not loose face but gain some additional respect from me 🤓

            I compared my 585USD yearly revenue with your 2400MWh/year.
            585 x 91 = 53 235
            2400 x 22 = 52 800
            So our estimation methods are almost 100% aligned

            Let’s use my figure to make the best possible case.
            Let’s also assume that you can build for 75c per kWp, you then invest $750 000 for 1MW (this is a 3rd of my reference case)

            We have a revenue of $4 436 per month to play with
            We want 3% return on our investment that’s $1 875
            We now have $2 261 to spend every month
            If we use all to pay back the $750 000 we need 28 years!!!
            We pay it back in 50 years instead, that’s $1 250

            We now have $1 011 per month to spend on salaries, insurance, office space, O&M etc.

            Chackmate!

          4. SebastianH

            My 72m2 panel is from a project I happen to know.
            There are 36 panels in each 72m2 frame. 91 of such frames makes up 6552m2 providing 1MW peak.
            The cost they presented is approx 26 000 USD per such frame including installations but excluding land (40 000m2), O&M and interest rates.

            They overpaid. That’s basically what you would pay for a residential installation per 12.x kWp panel array including installation, etc. for utilitiy scale the price is much lower, at around $500 per kWp without installation, etc.

            Even accepting your figure it is still a bad business case reaching break even after 11 years using above criteria.

            Why do you want to break even after 11 years? What matters is what you get back from your investment per year this power plant works and that certainly is not 11 years plus 6% profit (e.g. you wont dismantle this thing after 12 years).

            So I repeat 😎 0.022USD per kWh is not sustainable even in Nevada. If they say that there are some serious costs that are not included.

            They get other tax incentives to build their power plant there. That is true.

            You say tariff is no indicator but northern Nevada charge approx 0.14USD for green energy 0.04 above normal energy. The reported 0.022 is hidden in there.

            I don’t know how it is in Nevada, but for Germany the money we spend for “green electricity” included many more sources than solar and especially old solar panels that will be financed for 20 years. Those old “power plants” were pretty expensive and are likely also included in that Nevada “green” price.

            BTW I made a fake order for my power consumption in Berlin. It was more than double that what I have or 3600€ per year. How come since Germany is so full of this wonderful and virtually free of charge technology?

            Old solar, old everything. We have to pay those fixed feedin-rates for old stuff for 20 years. However, prices came down dramatically in the last years. In small residential installations you can reach 0.10 € per kWh from your own panels. Utility scale solar (latests Auction, site in German) was 0.0459 € per kWh on average and 0.0389 € per kWh at the lowest.

            That’s how “cheap” you can produce electricity with solar in Germany and we get only 1000 kWh per kWp out of our panels compared to 2400 kWh in Nevada and we don’t have otherwise unusable desert areas.

            Chackmate!

            We aren’t building a 1 MW powerplant we are building a 250 MW powerplant and the market price is around $0.50 per kWp. Installation, inverters and the interconnect necessary to run this thing make up a far lower amount per kWp at such a scale than with a 1 MW power plant or a residential installation.

            With $0.022 per kWh you’ll have a revenue of $22 * 600000 MWh * 25 years = 330 million USD. That’s 1.1 million USD per month to “play with”.

            We have a revenue of $4 436 per month to play with
            We want 3% return on our investment that’s $1 875
            We now have $2 261 to spend every month
            If we use all to pay back the $750 000 we need 28 years!!!
            We pay it back in 50 years instead, that’s $1 250

            You invest $750000 and want it to have 3% yearly return over 25 years? So you’ll need to make $1570333 in 25 years, right? If you had no other costs and would sell your electricity for $26.2 per MWh you’ll be ok (26.2 * 2400 * 25 = $1572000). Of course you have other costs, but then again you can reduce them by going bigger (250 MW) and also take the current market prices for panels instead.

            Would be polite of you to admit my math was better than yours this time. It is very deep in this thread so you would not loose face but gain some additional respect from me 🤓

            Nope. Would you admit that current auctions for large scale solar power plants indicate that solar is indeed cheaper than fossil fuel power plants as long as storage is not an issue yet?

          5. MrZ

            Oh dear Seb!
            I know you are not stupid, you have better English and you spell better than me but on this you appear thick.

            I suggest you spend some time with a pen and paper and maybe a glass of cooling beer before responding….

            You said @26.2USD would pay the 3% ROI. You forgot you also have to payback the 250×750 000 you invested, 187MUSD. You are not a thief are you?

            You are talking about scaling factors. I have already included those by quoting 75c per Wp. I also included slightly higher revenue than what you proposed. You can’t write it off faster than 28 years and with 50 years write off you have 1011×250 to spend on a monthly basis.

            Now, think before you respond. Hint, you can multiply all my figures by 250. I scaled them down to values you can grasp but it obviously did not help you…

            You said about fossil being more expensive. Our debate is about the 22USD per MWh business case. I don’t think it is possible with any current technology to reach that.

            Good luck!

          6. SebastianH

            You said @26.2USD would pay the 3% ROI. You forgot you also have to payback the 250×750 000 you invested, 187MUSD. You are not a thief are you?

            Huh? Why are you investing 187 million USD now? I thought you were talking about just $750000? 3% interest in 25 years equals as sum of $1570333 (750000 * 1.03^25). That’s the amount of money in your bank account after 25 years. So you have to make this sum of money from your investment to get that kind of return. You’ll make that amount by selling your electricity for $26.2 per MWh if you had no other costs. You don’t have to payback the $750000 additionally.

            You are talking about scaling factors. I have already included those by quoting 75c per Wp. I also included slightly higher revenue than what you proposed. You can’t write it off faster than 28 years and with 50 years write off you have 1011×250 to spend on a monthly basis.

            28 years of $22 per MWh equals 330 million USD of revenue. How is that not paying of the the 187 million USD you just calculated above much earlier than 28 years?

            Now, think before you respond. Hint, you can multiply all my figures by 250. I scaled them down to values you can grasp but it obviously did not help you…

            I’d say you are a little bit confused here.

            You said about fossil being more expensive. Our debate is about the 22USD per MWh business case. I don’t think it is possible with any current technology to reach that.

            It has been reached many times now. The Nevada site is not the only one with such low prices in the world. The sunnier the place, the lower the costs. And they are continuing to decline …

          7. spike55

            “And they are continuing to decline …”

            Ah yes.. the decline

            Looks like s 24% reduction in global solar installations this year.

            So sad. 😉

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/07/22/new-solar-installations-to-contract-by-24-this-year/

          8. MrZ

            Seb,
            First off all thank you for keeping a good tone. Some people do get upset and angry when they don’t understand.
            My point is if 1x investment/revenue does not work 250x will not either. You are using the same money for both depreciation and ROI. That’s called double counting.

            We have three figures we agree on:
            750 000USD per MWP
            22USD per MW revenue
            2400MWh per installed MWp farmed per year.

            You are right you dont have to payback the investment per say but you have to stash some money to replace panels as they get old. I am sure you do understand that part since you blamed that for the high prices in Germany. You could also think of the investment as money you have borrowed but then you also have to pay interest on those. I’ll be nice here, we can assume you get the money for free.

            Can you please specify how the 22USD pays for 3% ROI, depreciation and O&M. To simplify let’s assume O&M includes salaries, office space, insurance etc.

            You are free to change investment and per MW revenue if you want. You can also decide on depreciation period and what ROI you offer. 3% is silly low as inflation hovers around 2%. Also if you have subsides or other arrangements you know of, include them.

            Let play Dragons den. You are in the elevator on the way up to tell me why I should invest.

            For the record Solar is not a bad idea when you can harvest at Nevada levels while you also have a high daytime demand. It is just the 22USD that is redicoulus. It’s not off by 20-30% but rather 200-300%

          9. MrZ

            Spike,
            I wonder if that has anything to do how they calculate their business cases? Some are wakening up.

            In Germany they were so sharp at math that 35% renewal contribution caused a duplication of the consumer energy prices.

            I don’t think this could have happened without melon politicians in the mix.

          10. SebastianH

            MrZ,

            My point is if 1x investment/revenue does not work 250x will not either.

            A rather strange point. Nearly every business has to reach a certain volume to become profitable, why should solar power plants be exempt from this? The bigger you go the less you pay per MWh produced.

            You are right you dont have to payback the investment per say but you have to stash some money to replace panels as they get old.

            I thought that is included in those $750000, why else would you add 50% to the market price of the panels alone?

            I am sure you do understand that part since you blamed that for the high prices in Germany

            The main difference between Germany and Nevada is about 2.4 times more Sun available in Nevada.

            You could also think of the investment as money you have borrowed but then you also have to pay interest on those.

            If you need to borrow then this becomes a entirely different thing. Someone else is making money from your business then. But we can talk about opportunity costs. Maybe you could invest in the stock market and get 5% out of your investment. So the solar power plant has to beat that. Let’s say we want 6% back per year and lets say our 250 MW power plant costs 250 million dollars to build and maintain for 25 years. You’ll produce 15 TWh in that time and will have to sell the MWh for $71.53 to get those 6% profit. To get to $22 per MWh changes in the total costs or the expected profit need to happen. At 187.5 million dollars I get a MWh price of $26.2 to reach 3% profit per year.

            Can you please specify how the 22USD pays for 3% ROI, depreciation and O&M. To simplify let’s assume O&M includes salaries, office space, insurance etc.

            I think I linked you to the levelized costs table of the EIA, haven’t I? $46.5 per MWh for the entire US. Why is it so hard to imagine that there are places that can reach half the price because they are very sunny and the land ist super cheap and maybe the state is helping with the interconnect too?

            For the record Solar is not a bad idea when you can harvest at Nevada levels while you also have a high daytime demand. It is just the 22USD that is redicoulus. It’s not off by 20-30% but rather 200-300%

            The link to this $22 power plant contained a detailed document of how they do it: http://pucweb1.state.nv.us/PDF/AxImages/DOCKETS_2015_THRU_PRESENT/2018-6/30452.pdf

            Have fun reading it.

            @Spikey:
            https://www.greentechmedia.com/research/report/global-solar-demand-monitor-q1-2018#gs.kdTOLTw

            We’ll see.

            @MrZ answering Spikey:

            In Germany they were so sharp at math that 35% renewal contribution caused a duplication of the consumer energy prices.

            There is a reason why German electricity prices are high. The currently very cheap new PV plants aren’t the reason. It’s the high prices of installations from 10+ years ago (and some other renewables besides solar) that we have to pay for on our bills.

            I don’t think this could have happened without melon politicians in the mix.

            This was expected, but I agree that some politicians didn’t communicate that well to not lose votes (maybe). It was also expected that the subsidies will eventually level off when the installation costs go down.

            In about 10 years countries that subsidized solar/wind this way will have lower electricity prices again. And the world can thank those countries for cheap solar/wind arriving a bit earlier than it would have on its own.

          11. MrZ

            Thanks for the link Seb you are “evil” (300+ pages) but I sort of like it 😎
            So the case for the state and the energy sector is to save from future occurring costs in old technology and fossil fuels and spend it on solar instead. Point taken!

            Tell me how that helps our 185MUSD investment vs 13.2 MUSD per year revenue as a supplier (auction bidder) case?

            I think we are honestly getting closer… Be fair and point me to the pages I must read. The pages that specifies what part the supplier gets that makes his case fly. I will be reading in parallel.

            Need to add about Germany:
            Before 100% = 100%
            Now 35% + 65% = 200% ???
            35% = 200-65% = 135% !!!
            135% / 35% = 386% 😎

            Nevada is smarter, they put the burden on the supplier instead of the tax payer. Let’s hope they are not 386% wrong.

          12. SebastianH

            Tell me how that helps our 185MUSD investment vs 13.2 MUSD per year revenue as a supplier (auction bidder) case?

            Why do you think anyone needs help in this scenario? Do you think it will cost more than 185 million dollars in that location? Or do you think 13.2 million dollars per year in revenue aren’t enough to make a decent profit in the lifetime of such a power plant?

            Need to add about Germany:
            Before 100% = 100%
            Now 35% + 65% = 200% ???
            35% = 200-65% = 135% !!!
            135% / 35% = 386% 😎

            The price increased by about 80% and half of that increase is inflation. If you understand German, here is a detailed description what it included in the price customers pay: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/FAQs/DE/Sachgebiete/Energie/Verbraucher/PreiseUndRechnungen/WieSetztSichDerStrompreisZusammen.html

            The part that finances the renewable part (“EEG-Umlage”) is 23% of the final price. That’s about 7 eurocent. Because of taxes this amounts to about 10 eurocent (one third) of the final price. That’s how much cheaper the price will be or would be without subsidizing renewables. But we wouldn’t have much renewables then and if no country had pushed renewables forward we would not be able to build power plant as cheap as we can today and more so in the future.

            Be fair and point me to the pages I must read. The pages that specifies what part the supplier gets that makes his case fly. I will be reading in parallel.

            The part about renewables begins at page 68 as the table of content should have told you 😉

            The plant we are discussing here is copper mountain solar 5 and its paragraphs start at page 79.

            They expect to build this thing in 2 years and will create 375 jobs for this timeperiod. To run this power plant 5 permanent jobs are planned at $17 million over 25 years.

            The MWh price of $21.55 is not fixed, but will increase by 2.5% to match inflation I assume. There is another power plant in that list without this kind of escalation. That amounts to even cheaper prices over those 25 years.

            The power plant will generate 720022 MWh per year (it’s a tracking installation as opposed to previous 250 MW copper mountain installations with fixed panels) and output will degrade by 0.5% per year.

            There you have it. Putting these numbers into Excel results in $496 million in revenue from selling electricity. Minus $17 million for the employees equals $479 million. Which amounts to roughly 3.7% profit if building the power plant and maintenance over 25 years costs them $200 million. Something like that … any objections?

          13. MrZ

            Seb,
            I will have to analyze this over night. Too much info, nice weather and wine. But I can already now state that your ice looks very thin to me. I could be wrong though…

            On another subject, I would love to know where you are sitting this moment. I can picture Düsseldorf, Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Aachen and Munchen. All buetiful places. Anyone of them?
            Me? I am in Stockholm.
            Sleep tight (later)

          14. SebastianH

            But I can already now state that your ice looks very thin to me.

            How many more times need I to emphasize that it is not my “ice”. Do you think those companies are building stuff to intentionally lose money?

            I would love to know where you are sitting this moment.

            I’ll give you an engineers reply: between 49° and 50° E and 10° and 11° N.

          15. MrZ

            Well Seb,

            From the Sempra Renewables homepage:
            Together with our affiliates and joint-venture partners, we own and operate nearly 2,600 megawatts (MW) of renewable generating capacity* fueled by the sun and wind, that generates power for over 600,000 homes and businesses. Our more than $3 billion investment in clean energy has created over 5,000 jobs, while providing an economic boost to communities and landowners in 11 states.

            Try 3BUSD divided by 2600. We used 75c/watt. Not 1.15USD/watt
            Oh, it requires 5000 emplyoees
            Oh, land has a value

            21.55 with with 2.5% yearly escalation is:
            Y5 = 23.79
            Y10 = 29.91
            Y15 = 30.45
            and so on
            Average over the contract period is 29.44.

            It is not clear who pays the land but it looks to be owned by the state so I don’t think it hits Sempra hence subsidy

            The we have the production credits PC. The document is not searchable but I think it refers to the Nevada SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INCENTIVE PROGRAM. In short Nevada pays them credit per kWh. Moreover a certain percent of production must be provided by renewables (20%). The PC counts regulate this. “Earning” PCs is important for both companies or else they are not “RPS compliant”

            Finally (from what I had energy to dig out) there is a Nevada taxation incentive as well. You can currently deduct 30% of your investment from profit tax.

            All in all. 22USD per MWh is NOT true.

            Sometimes an on the envelope calculation is pretty good. In my example we quickly understood that and investment of 187MUSD can not be paid with 13.2MUSD yearly revenue. Nobody gives you 187MUSD and then waits 14Years for break even.

            The reason Sempre can give this good bid (it is still impressively low) is because they have muscles from other revenue sources.

          16. MrZ
          17. SebastianH

            Try 3BUSD divided by 2600. We used 75c/watt. Not 1.15USD/watt
            Oh, it requires 5000 emplyoees
            Oh, land has a value

            You are intentionally reading this wrong. Maybe you do some research when this company began to invest in solar. Only half of those 2600 MW is solar and their first power plant was in 2010 when prices were comparatively high compared to today.

            They also don’t employ 5000 workers permanently. Counting jobs created works differently.

            21.55 with with 2.5% yearly escalation is:
            Y5 = 23.79
            Y10 = 29.91
            Y15 = 30.45
            and so on
            Average over the contract period is 29.44.

            Yes indeed, without adjusting for inflation that is the average price for this power plant. There is another power plant in that document that doesn’t has this kind of escalation on its MWh price. Could be that their price is lower after adjusting for inflation. Have you checked?

            It is not clear who pays the land but it looks to be owned by the state so I don’t think it hits Sempra hence subsidy

            It’s a desert. I’d worry about the interconnect costs more than land costs.

            Sometimes an on the envelope calculation is pretty good. In my example we quickly understood that and investment of 187MUSD can not be paid with 13.2MUSD yearly revenue. Nobody gives you 187MUSD and then waits 14Years for break even.

            Huh? This happens regularly with even longer timespans. Capital intensive stuff doesn’t break even in short timespans, how do you think these things get financed?

            The reason Sempre can give this good bid (it is still impressively low) is because they have muscles from other revenue sources.

            Half of their investment in clean energy is from wind farms and they are even into storage. So are you saying they are using the money from those areas to finance their solar losses?

            It is probably very profitable. Maybe you should raise some capital 😎

            The problem is, if you have not a lot of money it is hard to “raise some capital”. The more you have the easier it gets. So no, building a large solar power plant is not something I’d do with my money. But there is always the possibility to join a citizen funded renewables project with actually not that bad returns 😉

          18. MrZ

            Anybody who has the energy to read this thread will agree that 22USD per MWh was never true. It was only achievable AFTER heavy subsidies.
            Sempra, the mother company, will now sell Sempra Renewable after writing off 50% of its 3BUSD renewable assets as worthless.

            This is how you fund those projects and how you milk government subsidies. Who pays then? The tax-payer and eventually the consumer with higher tariffs. You and I are on both sides paying twice.

            Let’s end this discussion here. People with energy are welcome to vote M or S for who they believe.

            Onto next subject Seb, whatever that might be.

  5. Bitter&twisted

    But, but I thought the science was “settled”?
    Then I hear that there are 100s of peer-reviewed papers stating that CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperatures.
    Has the IPCC not been giving us a true account of the science?
    I’m shocked- Shocked!

  6. Davidgar

    Wrong, Theos. Scientific consensus, like all other forms of mutual agreement, is merely a statement that says that I agree with you. Perhaps we are both totally wrong, but never mind – we have a consensus. Likewise, your claim about scientific consensus upholding scientific truth is simply disproved by the countless instances over hundreds of years where scientists have been persecuted and vilified for the simple crime of disagreeing with the consensus. The most famous example is probably Galileo, who was constantly attacked by the scientific community of his time because he challenged the consensus of Aristotlean science. He proved that he was right and that the consensus was wrong. As the scientists of his day were unable to disprove his science or counter it with science of their own they sought to have him gagged by the Church as a heretic. Please don’t try to raise that old bit of dishonesty about Galileo being persecuted by the Church. He wasn’t. He was persecuted by the scientists of his day.

  7. MJSnyder

    Well Seb, I’ll give you credit for one thing: you are a master at deflection. This is an article about Scientists publishing hundreds of peer reviewed papers demonstrating the sun’s influence on global climate. Did you talk about that? Nope. Instead you lump these scientists into your group “pesky skeptics”. But you couldn’t possibly acknowledge that these are actually scientists, with actual printed scientific papers that have milked your sacred cow dry.

    And most egregiously you state that “the cheapest form of energy is in fact solar”.

    I rarely comment, but your misleading blather pushed me too far. You are either a failed scientist trying to protect your life’s legacy, or you are a paid troll trying to disrupt a very successful skeptical blog. I think the latter.

    1. SebastianH

      This is an article about Scientists publishing hundreds of peer reviewed papers demonstrating the sun’s influence on global climate

      This is an article that tries to smear the IPCC and actual scientific results. Accusing them of lying and ignoring what skeptics think is really happening.

      There aren’t hundreds of papers showing that the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years. You skeptics just count everything that vaguely sounds like it to your sides argument. It’s weird and the reason why fact checking sites do now have to exist.

      And most egregiously you state that “the cheapest form of energy is in fact solar”.

      Please go on and demonstrate how any other power plant could possibly add electricity to the grid at the price of solar now? Even considering that other powerplant have to stand down while solar provides its electricity, how can any other source compete with that, especially when we are talking about low or zero carbon emissions?

      I rarely comment, but your misleading blather pushed me too far. You are either a failed scientist trying to protect your life’s legacy, or you are a paid troll trying to disrupt a very successful skeptical blog. I think the latter.

      I get why you guys try to call facts and opinions that you don’t agree with trolling. Doesn’t change those facts though. The article above is misleading … very misleading.

      Waiting for your demonstration (and no Kenneth, I won’t accept a list of papers and quotes from them that you’ll undoubtly will reply with).

      1. spike55

        ” actual scientific results.”

        ROFLMAO

        The assumption of CO2 warming IS NOT SCIENCE.

        Deliberately DENYING the SUN and other natural forcings IS NOT SCIENCE

        You do NOT even know what science is , seb

        You can’t even give any evidence that CO2 warms anything anywhere.

        THAT IS NOT SCIENCE

        Come on seb

        …. those two questions , which you just keep running away from like a headless chook. Prove you have “science” on your side….

        or NOT.

        Q1.. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        1. Yonason

          “actual science results” my %$(&%%^!!! – spike quoting SebH

          “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Not a Scientific Organization But a Political Lobbying Group”
          http://objectivescience.net/intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc-is-not-a-scientific-organization-but-a-political-lobbying-group/

          See also here.
          https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/

          Poor little chatbot, always so very very wrong.

      2. tom0mason

        Very unconvincing SebastianH when you say “There aren’t hundreds of papers showing that the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years.”

        With so much evidence on this blog site showing your ineptitude with elementary arithmetic skill why should anyone believe you?

        Apart from that you have been shown to tell a few lies here and there — for instance like now. I’m quite sure that you have not counted how many papers show evidence that “the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years.”. Probably just more SebastianH’s made-up ‘facts’ (aka real world fiction).

      3. spike55

        “There aren’t hundreds of papers showing that the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years”

        What climate change would that be, seb?

        A fraction of a degree of beneficial warming ??

        All from the SUN?

        Come on, you are allowed to answer, seb.. no one is stopping you except yourself..

        Q1.. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

        Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

        Seems that there aren’t ANY papers showing scientifically that the slight warming is from anything BUT the SUN.

      4. tom0mason

        Very unconvincing SebastianH when you say “There aren’t hundreds of papers showing that the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years.”

        With so much evidence on this blog site showing your ineptitude with elementary arithmetic skill why should anyone believe you?

        Apart from that you have been shown to tell a few lies here and there — for instance like now. I’m quite sure that you have not counted how many papers show evidence that “the Sun causes the climate change we are observing in the last 50 years.”. Probably just more SebastianH’s made-up ‘facts’ (aka real world fiction).

  8. Steve

    I like the pic of the sun on the left.
    It looks like a tennis ball.
    You can play when its hot and when its cold, and when its raining you can play indoors.
    Funny how man uses his brain and technology to adapt to the weather.

  9. John F. Hultquist

    Here is the UN’s wording: (note quote within a quote)

    “… the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts” …

    From: https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

    Key phrase: human-induced climate change

    Therefore, one can argue that UN related climate folks would be doing mission-creep if researching other forcings and natural variation.

    Scientists and researchers not forced (pun !) by their funding agency to pursue the CO2 aspect are free to go where the science takes them. And they have.
    Skepticism is the foundation of science.

    ~~~~~
    SebastianH claims solar is the cheapest form of energy.
    That’s not even worth the time to show how silly it is.
    However, there are places where solar is useful.
    Try these coordinates in Google Earth:

    46.914548, -121.643814

    Zoom in. This is a visitor center in a remote part of Mt. Rainier National Park. For may years fuel has been hauled in from many miles away, at sea level, to 6,400 feet (1,950 m).
    Last year construction was started on a new building within the compound. The building will house new electrical facilities and solar panels will be on the roof.
    A building about ½ mile to the WNW has the current diesel generators that will be removed when the solar power has proven itself.
    Even though the building muffles the sound of the generators, they are still heard on the nearby trails. Soon only the wind will be heard.

    1. SebastianH

      Key phrase: human-induced climate change

      Therefore, one can argue that UN related climate folks would be doing mission-creep if researching other forcings and natural variation.

      But they do research other forcings. The reports are pretty extensive on them …

      Scientists and researchers not forced (pun !) by their funding agency to pursue the CO2 aspect are free to go where the science takes them. And they have.
      Skepticism is the foundation of science.

      Indeed they have … and Kenneth and Pierre do a good job of presenting the most ridiculous examples here. Pseudoskepticism and pseudoscience is the death of science … or well, usually it should not be the case, but when an increasing number of people start to believe what your side fantasizes about, then it becomes a problem. Stupidity should never be able to win an argument. We can’t even agree on basic facts, that’s how far removed from reality you guys are …

      SebastianH claims solar is the cheapest form of energy.
      That’s not even worth the time to show how silly it is.

      Yeah, so silly that you can’t be bothered to update you perception of reality once in a while. I am guessing your image of solar lags 5 to 10 years behind the present? Am I guess wrong? It’s like witnessing someone declaring that rockets would never able to land back on Earth or that videos/movies will never be a thing on the internet. Still have your VHS-rental store membership card?

      1. John F. Hultquist

        I gave you an excellent example of solar,
        so there is your 1st FAIL.
        I have never had a VHS-rental store membership and can’t recall ever being in such a place,
        so there is your 2nd FAIL.
        And, my brother was, in fact, a rocket scientist so I have great faith in those folks,
        so there is your 3rd FAIL.

        Hope the rest of your day goes better.
        Thanks for engaging.

        1. SebastianH

          That was a pretty interesting reply. Why do you think those are fails?

          1) I my guess correct? What does that have to do with you giving an example of solar?
          2) Not detecting a humorous (and foremost rethorical) question when you see one? (VHS)
          3) I am not saying what you apparently think I said about rockets.

          In essence, you didn’t understand what I wrote and tried to reply in the usual skeptic way (only with less insults than spikey).

          Thank you for playing though. Hope you’ll have not much chance to distract anyone from furthering progress.

          1. spike55

            Still basically WRONG with anything you type.

            HILARIOUS.

            You KNOW you cannot back up the fallacy of CO2 warming with any sort of science

            EVERYBODY can see your continued headless chook routine when ever asked to actually provide scientific evidence for CO2 warming.

            You are EMPTY , poor little seb-troll

            You existence here is nothing more than that of a serial pest.

            A monumental FAILURE at whatever else you imagine you are doing in your feeble little. mind.

          2. SebastianH

            You sure aren’t empty of insults yet, spikey …

          3. spike55

            You SURE ARE EMPTY of any scientific evidence seb

            When are you going to realise that your continual MINDLESS BLUSTER is NOT evidence of any kind

            But its all you have, isn’t it.

  10. spike55

    Its great to see others now speaking up against the underhanded, deceitful troll LIES and ANTI-INFORMATION from seb.

    I ask that you continue to do so.

    Don’t make this your only post.

  11. spike

    OT, but its great to see the EU, India, Turkey, and particularly China, doing so much to support world plant life.

    https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/bpco2-720×513.png

    USA, pull you socks up and stop sponging on everyone else. !!

  12. spike55

    Crickey, no wonder I’ve been thinking its a bit cooler than normal this July.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/web03/ncc/www/awap/temperature/minanom/week/colour/history/nat/2018071020180716.hres.gif

  13. Ignored: 600 Papers Confirming Sun's Key Impact On Climate | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

  14. Douglas Cotton

    As I have said, the Sun affects cosmic ray intensity which in turn affects cloud cover and thus surface temperatures. But you people like those here and at PSI don’t know how the required energy gets into the surface on the sunlit side: I do.

    All over the globe temperatures near the ocean floor are similar. The water never freezes there, but the temperature is close to the freezing point of water which itself varies due to pressure and salt concentration. This approximate leveling of temperatures down there from the Equator to the Poles has occurred over the life of the planet.

    On the sunlit side in the tropics and in most non-polar regions thermal energy enters through the warmer surface and there is convective heat transfer downwards towards the ocean floor. The thermocline exhibits such a cooling process which is actually a state of hydrostatic equilibrium, not thermodynamic equilibrium as tends to occur in the troposphere where the Loschmidt Gravito-thermal effect dominates.

    The thermal energy reaching the ocean floor in non-polar regions then causes heat transfer along isotherms in the depths of the oceans towards the Poles. There, as the article says, the thermocline vanishes as temperatures level out and become slightly warmer at the floor of the ocean than at the surface. So this allows thermal energy to complete its cycle and exit back to the atmosphere in these regions.

    But, whilst it appears that this may be controlling climate, and there is indeed a correlation, the fact is that it is the climate itself in non-polar regions which is the driving force. The natural climate cycles are regulated primarily by cosmic ray intensity reaching the Earth and affecting cloud formation and coverage, thus temperatures beneath those clouds. Solar activity affects the size of the heliosphere, and this, in turn, affects the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the inner Solar System where we reside. Magnetic fields from the planets also alter the paths of cosmic rays, and so we see correlations between solar activity and also some apparent correlation between planetary orbits and climate cycles, this then explaining the apparent regularity of natural cycles, especially a 60-year cycle.* There is no way that sub-surface activity of itself would “know” what is happening with the Sun and planets.

    Geothermal energy actually comes from the Sun via the “heat creep” process. It’s explained in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures”** that was rejected by Joseph Postma because it proved his paper to be wrong. It is climate change that influences geothermal effects, not the opposite as claimed in this article. Sub-surface regions are hotter when (and because) the natural climate cycles are hotter. But you’ll never understand why until you understand my 2013 paper.

    While PSI promotes Postma’s pathetic physics prominently appearing in his paper “The Model Atmosphere” and postulating that direct solar radiation to the surface is sufficient to explain global mean surface temperatures then, as long as Journalist John believes such nonsense and retains that paper at the top of the list here, then PSI will be a laughing stock, mocked by skeptics and alarmists alike. If such physics were correct then it would also apply for the Venus surface which receives about one-eighth of the direct solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It doesn’t.

    The brilliant physicist, Josef Loschmidt was right when he explained back in 1876 that gravity forms a non-zero temperature gradient in the troposphere at the molecular level and not due to any imaginary parcels of air rising from a solar-warmed surface. There is no such surface at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there.

    Now, with a better understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics found in papers since the 1980’s, we can use that law to prove Loschmidt was right. Now, also with data for other planets we can see the same process must be occurring throughout the Solar System and the Universe, because physics is universal. The Creator of that Universe has revealed how His Universe functions, and He has done so through the minds of those with a correct understanding of physics.

    * http://whyitsnotco2.com
    ** https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.

    1. SebastianH

      Wow, just wow 😉 You are really crazy … waiting for the usual suspects that try to defend you because I didn’t counter anything you wrote.

      1. spike55

        You didn’t counter anything Doug wrote.

        Thanks for making the point for us.

        EMPTY as always.

        At least he hasn’t produced some idiotic scientifically unsupportable CO2 warming meme like you keep trying to, (but always running away from actual proof.)

        Your continual DENIAL of the gravity thermal gradient, measured and obvious on every planet with an atmosphere shows just how little you understand actual science and physics

        That total lack of understanding of science and physics is one of the hallmarks of your every post..

      2. Chris

        Truth hurts when it doesn’t agree with you…

  15. Doug 

    As I have said, the Sun affects cosmic ray intensity which in turn affects cloud cover and thus surface temperatures. But you people don’t know how the required energy gets into the surface on the sunlit side: I do.

    All over the globe temperatures near the ocean floor are similar. The water never freezes there, but the temperature is close to the freezing point of water which itself varies due to pressure and salt concentration. This approximate leveling of temperatures down there from the Equator to the Poles has occurred over the life of the planet.

    On the sunlit side in the tropics and in most non-polar regions thermal energy enters through the warmer surface and there is convective heat transfer downwards towards the ocean floor. The thermocline exhibits such a cooling process which is actually a state of hydrostatic equilibrium, not thermodynamic equilibrium as tends to occur in the troposphere where the Loschmidt Gravito-thermal effect dominates.

    The thermal energy reaching the ocean floor in non-polar regions then causes heat transfer along isotherms in the depths of the oceans towards the Poles. There, as the article says, the thermocline vanishes as temperatures level out and become slightly warmer at the floor of the ocean than at the surface. So this allows thermal energy to complete its cycle and exit back to the atmosphere in these regions.

    But, whilst it appears that this may be controlling climate, and there is indeed a correlation, the fact is that it is the climate itself in non-polar regions which is the driving force. The natural climate cycles are regulated primarily by cosmic ray intensity reaching the Earth and affecting cloud formation and coverage, thus temperatures beneath those clouds. Solar activity affects the size of the heliosphere, and this, in turn, affects the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the inner Solar System where we reside. Magnetic fields from the planets also alter the paths of cosmic rays, and so we see correlations between solar activity and also some apparent correlation between planetary orbits and climate cycles, this then explaining the apparent regularity of natural cycles, especially a 60-year cycle.* There is no way that sub-surface activity of itself would “know” what is happening with the Sun and planets.

    Geothermal energy actually comes from the Sun via the “heat creep” process. It’s explained in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures”** that was rejected by Joseph Postma at PSI because it proved his paper to be wrong. It is climate change that influences geothermal effects, not the opposite as claimed in this article. Sub-surface regions are hotter when (and because) the natural climate cycles are hotter. But you’ll never understand why until you understand my 2013 paper.

    While PSI promotes Postma’s pathetic physics prominently appearing in his paper “The Model Atmosphere” and postulating that direct solar radiation to the surface is sufficient to explain global mean surface temperatures then, as long as Journalist John believes such nonsense and retains that paper at the top of the list here, then PSI will be a laughing stock, mocked by skeptics and alarmists alike. If such physics were correct then it would also apply for the Venus surface which receives about one-eighth of the direct solar radiation that Earth’s surface receives. It doesn’t.

    The brilliant physicist, Josef Loschmidt was right when he explained back in 1876 that gravity forms a non-zero temperature gradient in the troposphere at the molecular level and not due to any imaginary parcels of air rising from a solar-warmed surface. There is no such surface at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, but it’s hotter than Earth’s surface down there.

    Now, with a better understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics found in papers since the 1980’s, we can use that law to prove Loschmidt was right. Now, also with data for other planets we can see the same process must be occurring throughout the Solar System and the Universe, because physics is universal. The Creator of that Universe has revealed how His Universe functions, and He has done so through the minds of those with a correct understanding of physics.

    * http://whyitsnotco2.com
    ** https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.

  16. Submission on the Zero Carbon Bill | CCG

    […] For some reason the IPCC does not mention in its reports hundreds of papers confirming a solar influence on climate (see NoTricksZone). […]

  17. IPCC’s Kangaroo Science…To Ignore Over 600 Papers Confirming Major Solar Impact On Climate – CO2 is Life

    […] Continue Reading […]

  18. tom0mason

    So it must be CO2 because —

    Total atmosphere weighs approximately 5.3 million Gigatonnes.
    Total CO2 at 0.04% by volume of the atmosphere weighs aproximately 0.003 million Gigatonnes.
    Human produced CO2 is estimated (alleged) to be 4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere and weighs 0.000012 million Gigatonnes.
    [A gigatonne equals 1,000,000,000,000 tonnes.]

    So the rare gas CO2 atmospheric level and humanity’s minuscule input to it, must be controlling the climate. That is the UN-IPCC’s argument even though UN-IPCC says climate is not predictable…

    The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    … I ask you does that really make sense!

  19. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #322 | Watts Up With That?
  20. IPCC's Kangaroo Science…To Ignore Over 600 Papers Confirming Major Solar Impact On Climate | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, July 17, 2018 in […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close