Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Proof that wind and solar are disasters


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

On 5/18/2024 at 9:26 AM, Doug1066 said:

Past ecosystems are poor analogues for our current climate.  We want to protect OUR ecosystem, not make the earth better for T. rexes.

Doug

I argue that certain epochs are indeed okay analogues to our current climate. But, correct. Since we are on Earth now, we want to optimize for ourselves.

Anyways, enjoy your retirement, my man! Hope it's filled with fun, as it were.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2024 at 11:27 AM, Antigonos said:

And some of those geniuses will believe it unfortunately.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-record-amount-of-global-power-in-2022.html#:~:text=An analysis published Wednesday by,global electricity generation in 2021.

I didn't read the Fox piece but I think it is perfectly true to say that solar and wind aren't a viable substitute for hydrocarbon-driven power, now or for the forseeable future.  I recall the post Yom Kippur war Arab oil embargo and all of the excitement about solar and wind (primarily) being a source that would eventually replace oil.  That was roughly 50 years ago.  As of 2021, it still only replaces about 12% of the global needs for power.  That said, if I could afford to power my home with a solar system, I'd do so immediately.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2024 at 9:55 PM, docyabut2 said:

They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they're inherently unreliable, since the wind isn't always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

Please explain to me how the 'better' energy sources don't require significant land use etc etc

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2024 at 3:55 PM, docyabut2 said:

They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they're inherently unreliable, since the wind isn't always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

Wind farms use about 2% of the land occupied by the farm.  The rest is used for agriculture, mainly grazing.

If the wind isn't blowing right where you're standing, throw a few switches and bring power from some other part of the farm.  OR, if the entire farm is in the doldrums, throw a few switches and bring power from a different farm, or from three states away.  Under a heat dome, an entire state could be becalmed.  That's why we have power grids:  so we can move power from where it's being generated to where it is needed.  Computers actually throw the switches as people aren't fast enough. 

Nexterra is generating wind power with gas back-up.  The wind farms are located in a gas field.  The same transmission lines serve both.

In 2021 it was Texas' gas-powered generators that failed when their lubricating oil gelled.  Wind turbines kept working.  Texas needs MORE windmills, not fewer.

The no-wind problem was solved years ago.  It's only a problem if all you have is one windmill.  Oklahoma has 3736 windmills.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2024 at 11:22 AM, Trelane said:

Has anyone mentioned the affects of the sun on earth's climate as well as the earth's position in the ecliptic and how that also factors in? 

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. I would just like all factors to be considered. 

The solar cycle explains about 0.3C fluctuation in global temperatures.  The Milankovitch Cycles describe the effects of orbital mechanics on climate over 100,000, 40,000 and 10,000-year cycles..  They explain the ebb and flow of ice ages.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/30/2024 at 4:56 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Weird stuff that you've mentioned has always happened. 

I've seen snow in June in UK, this time last year it was 22 degrees. Suddenly now it's all down to catastrophic climate change which is lucrative for funding in you're a scientist.

My question remains, how many years before all this nonsense stops? 

It's a difficult lie for governments to get out of without egg on their faces and worse for scientists.

 

 

Climate science is a game of averages.   A cold day or two is nothing.  A cold century is worth noting.  I've seen snow on June 21st - of course, it was at an elevation of 9000 feet.

All you have to do to confirm climate change is compute the 30-year running average for temperature or precip.  If that number is changing, then climate is changing.  You can get the data to do that for any given station from the National Climate Data Center.  Additional data is available from the National Archives and from the University of Illinois' Forts data set.  Oklahoma data goes back to 1826.  What was the temperature like at the Battle of the Little Bighorn (It was in the 70s)?  The Army had a guy measuring temperatures in most of its frontier posts.  Some European city records go back 400 years.  And there was Thomas Jefferson's diary.  Lots of sources.

We can prove climate has changed in just the short time we've been keeping records.  Once you understand that, it isn't so hard to accept that climate will change in the future.  Temps have been going up since 1842 (the end of the Little Ice Age).  It could be that CO2-induced warming was what ended the Little Ica Age.

The "nonsense" will stop when climate quits changing.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I argue that certain epochs are indeed okay analogues to our current climate. But, correct. Since we are on Earth now, we want to optimize for ourselves.

Anyways, enjoy your retirement, my man! Hope it's filled with fun, as it were.

We could probably accept past climates for the past 12 million years or so (since the beginning of the ice ages).  Before that ocean basins had different shapes (the Isthmus of Panama was open), there was more O2 in the air; winds blew from different directions, etc.  Go back to the coal forests and we had no fungi to recycle carbon - that was a completely different ecosystem. 

We also have fewer data points back that far, meaning less confidence in our results.  And we have to rely on proxy data, which adds another complication.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

Climate science is a game of averages.   A cold day or two is nothing.  A cold century is worth noting.  I've seen snow on June 21st - of course, it was at an elevation of 9000 feet.

All you have to do to confirm climate change is compute the 30-year running average for temperature or precip.  If that number is changing, then climate is changing.  You can get the data to do that for any given station from the National Climate Data Center.  Additional data is available from the National Archives and from the University of Illinois' Forts data set.  Oklahoma data goes back to 1826.  What was the temperature like at the Battle of the Little Bighorn (It was in the 70s)?  The Army had a guy measuring temperatures in most of its frontier posts.  Some European city records go back 400 years.  And there was Thomas Jefferson's diary.  Lots of sources.

We can prove climate has changed in just the short time we've been keeping records.  Once you understand that, it isn't so hard to accept that climate will change in the future.  Temps have been going up since 1842 (the end of the Little Ice Age).  It could be that CO2-induced warming was what ended the Little Ica Age.

The "nonsense" will stop when climate quits changing.

Doug

Climate always changes. The lie is that these changes will kill us. Those changes won't kill us, no matter how many plastic straws people drink from. Humans just don't affect climate that much. That's the lie.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

The solar cycle explains about 0.3C fluctuation in global temperatures.  The Milankovitch Cycles describe the effects of orbital mechanics on climate over 100,000, 40,000 and 10,000-year cycles..  They explain the ebb and flow of ice ages.

Doug

Influences nonetheless and cannot be disregarded.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2024 at 1:49 PM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Climate always changes. The lie is that these changes will kill us. Those changes won't kill us, no matter how many plastic straws people drink from. Humans just don't affect climate that much. That's the lie.

Climate is always changing.  Easily provable.

The maximum temp above current is 2.7C., if the Beer-Lambert Equations are relevant, which they may not be.  We are currently at about 1.2C above pre-industrial temps.  Those two together mean that we will never reach the 4.0C temps predicted as the threshold of climate disaster.  However, we can and are doing a lot of damage to our ecosystems, even though we haven't reached the theoretical maximum.  We are already losing fruit production in Michigan as a result of the relocation of the Polar Vortex.  In the southern plains we have had three severe droughts since I moved here in 2001, resulting in much higher beef prices (or haven't you noticed?).  In Texas a severe freeze in 2011 killed 246 people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis).  Winter Storm Uri (2022) was linked to climate change, not just relocation of the Polar Vortex.  For an hour-by-hour account of the 2022 freeze, see (ttps://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/articles/the-texas-freeze-timeline-of-events/ ).  It is safe to predict that Oklahoma and Texas will see about one climate-related freeze every ten years for the foreseeable future and a Texas-sized heat dome with about the same frequency.

Most of Texas' problems were the result of failure to prepare; they had plenty of warning in 2011.  But, Greg Abbott doesn't believe in climate change and left his citizens exposed to it.

Climate change is here and happening right now.

 

BTW:  Federal agencies and many states are preparing, even though the politicians lie about it.  Even the liars occasionally vote for climate-change mitigation.  Keystone Dam's storage capacity will be increased by ten feet at a cost of billions in a five-year project to mitigate the results of climate-induced flooding.  With luck, the expected increase in flooding will be contained and you'll never hear about it.  In 2019 water came to within 19 feet of over-topping the dam, resulting in dam failure.  The Corps released water from the dam, flooding out a subdivision in Tulsa.   The Corps said that was better than the dam failing completely.  The subdivision was in a flowage easement:  damage was covered by insurance companies or not covered at all.  The govt is under no obligation to pay for damages in a flowage easement.  Should the dam fail, my daughter's office has a life-expectancy of seven seconds.  She plans to be somewhere else if water starts getting less than ten feet below the top of the dam.

We recently had a drill on what to do to release more water than usually from upstream dams.  It's complicated; no fewer than 17 different dam authorities have to sign off.  Even then, should water be threatening to overtop a dam, managers may just open the gates without authorization.  That is better than a total dam failure.

 

Manhattan's Big U has been authorized - a coffer dam around the lower half of New York City.  Think that will be expensive?  Climate change is already affecting Federal expenditures, even though Republicans try to blame it all on Democrats.

 

I have three hours to go to retirement.  Then I'm out of here.  Probably won't be doing many more posts on UM.

Doug

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2024 at 10:09 AM, and-then said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-record-amount-of-global-power-in-2022.html#:~:text=An analysis published Wednesday by,global electricity generation in 2021.

I didn't read the Fox piece but I think it is perfectly true to say that solar and wind aren't a viable substitute for hydrocarbon-driven power, now or for the forseeable future.  I recall the post Yom Kippur war Arab oil embargo and all of the excitement about solar and wind (primarily) being a source that would eventually replace oil.  That was roughly 50 years ago.  As of 2021, it still only replaces about 12% of the global needs for power.  That said, if I could afford to power my home with a solar system, I'd do so immediately.  

Good comment.  I think it doesn't take 100 % replacement. Likely 20% would affect the price of crude on the world market.   I know we disagree on many things, but I want solar for my home because I don't want to be a captive of a large multistate power company.  Especially in times of trouble and unrest.

%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2024 at 11:49 AM, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Climate always changes. The lie is that these changes will kill us. Those changes won't kill us, no matter how many plastic straws people drink from. Humans just don't affect climate that much. That's the lie.

Prove it with incontrovertible data. Peer reviewed data. Flapping your gums means nothing. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Prove it with incontrovertible data. Peer reviewed data. Flapping your gums means nothing. 

Once you can prove that greenhouse emissions change the climate and how a 1.5C increase at the equator increases exponentially at the poles. I mean... lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

Climate is always changing.  Easily provable.

The maximum temp above current is 2.7C., if the Beer-Lambert Equations are relevant, which they may not be.  We are currently at about 1.2C above pre-industrial temps.  Those two together mean that we will never reach the 4.0C temps predicted as the threshold of climate disaster.  However, we can and are doing a lot of damage to our ecosystems, even though we haven't reached the theoretical maximum.  We are already losing fruit production in Michigan as a result of the relocation of the Polar Vortex.  In the southern plains we have had three severe droughts since I moved here in 2001, resulting in much higher beef prices (or haven't you noticed?).  In Texas a severe freeze in 2011 killed 246 people. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis).  Winter Storm Uri (2022) was linked to climate change, not just relocation of the Polar Vortex.  For an hour-by-hour account of the 2022 freeze, see (ttps://environmentamerica.org/texas/center/articles/the-texas-freeze-timeline-of-events/ ).  It is safe to predict that Oklahoma and Texas will see about one climate-related freeze every ten years for the foreseeable future and a Texas-sized heat dome with about the same frequency.

Most of Texas' problems were the result of failure to prepare; they had plenty of warning in 2011.  But, Greg Abbott doesn't believe in climate change and left his citizens exposed to it.

Climate change is here and happening right now.

 

BTW:  Federal agencies and many states are preparing, even though the politicians lie about it.  Even the liars occasionally vote for climate-change mitigation.  Keystone Dam's storage capacity will be increased by ten feet at a cost of billions in a five-year project to mitigate the results of climate-induced flooding.  With luck, the expected increase in flooding will be contained and you'll never hear about it.  In 2019 water came to within 19 feet of over-topping the dam, resulting in dam failure.  The Corps released water from the dam, flooding out a subdivision in Tulsa.   The Corps said that was better than the dam failing completely.  The subdivision was in a flowage easement:  damage was covered by insurance companies or not covered at all.  The govt is under no obligation to pay for damages in a flowage easement.  Should the dam fail, my daughter's office has a life-expectancy of seven seconds.  She plans to be somewhere else if water starts getting less than ten feet below the top of the dam.

We recently had a drill on what to do to release more water than usually from upstream dams.  It's complicated; no fewer than 17 different dam authorities have to sign off.  Even then, should water be threatening to overtop a dam, managers may just open the gates without authorization.  That is better than a total dam failure.

 

Manhattan's Big U has been authorized - a coffer dam around the lower half of New York City.  Think that will be expensive?  Climate change is already affecting Federal expenditures, even though Republicans try to blame it all on Democrats.

 

I have three hours to go to retirement.  Then I'm out of here.  Probably won't be doing many more posts on UM.

Doug

The problem is, the core issue of greenhouse gases create climate change is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Once you can prove that greenhouse emissions change the climate and how a 1.5C increase at the equator increases exponentially at the poles. I mean... lol

You made the claim, prove it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mexico Stage Collapse Kills 9, Hurts 63

May 23, 2024

A strong gust of wind caused a stage to collapse at a political rally outside of Monterrey in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. At least nine people were killed and more than 60 others injured. Here’s what we know so far.

https://weather.com/news/weather/video/mexico-stage-collapse-kills-9-hurts-63

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

Mexico Stage Collapse Kills 9, Hurts 63

May 23, 2024

A strong gust of wind caused a stage to collapse at a political rally outside of Monterrey in Nuevo Leon, Mexico. At least nine people were killed and more than 60 others injured. Here’s what we know so far.

https://weather.com/news/weather/video/mexico-stage-collapse-kills-9-hurts-63

you started a post about solar/wind energy.  How is this relevant to that?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

You made the claim, prove it.

The whole climate change BS is made on the claim of 1.5C irrevocable change caused by the greenhouse effect, that is not my claim.

That is their claim.

The climate change sector is a scam.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

The problem is, the core issue of greenhouse gases create climate change is false.

Incorrect.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

Once you can prove that greenhouse emissions change the climate and how a 1.5C increase at the equator increases exponentially at the poles. I mean... lol

The spruces are dying off in the lower Northeast because it's too hot now. I know I've had to remove whole groves of them after thinning them for years so they would get more air. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/26/2024 at 9:26 AM, Antigonos said:

The two most natural forces on the planet since time immemorial are disasters.

Makes perfect sense.

Nature will kill without thinking twice about it, though. 

It's been trying to kill us all ever since we were conceived. 

As long as we're alive, we're in peril of death.

Edited by GlitterRose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Piney said:

The spruces are dying off in the lower Northeast because it's too hot now. I know I've had to remove whole groves of them after thinning them for years so they would get more air. 

Well that's sad, and anecdotal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • glorybebe