JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
Wind and Solar are bludgers, leaners not lifters
Lars Schernikau wrote, “The grid-scale build-out of wind and solar to replace oil, coal and gas is probably one of the greatest mistakes that humanity has ever made.”
https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/german-energy-expert-says-energy-transition-a-mistake-2024-10-18
Wind and solar power are unreliable energy providers. They lean on more productive providers, like children who never leave home, they stay on rent-free, they use your car, they don’t do cleaning and they don’t put their things away. And they say they are doing it to save the planet!
Lars Schernikau with his colleague William Smith have demonstrated that in many cases and at system levels the “unreliables” consume more energy than they produce and a state like South Australia or a country where the energy supply is moving towards domination by wind and solar will eventually suffer from energy starvation.
They have produced a brilliantly illustrated video to promote their book,
https://youtu.be/j3d4348UxvY
20
Bad Models and Worse Science in WA
Within government, academia and the media in Western Australia it is now virtually an undeniable “truth” that rainfall in the southwest of the state is in permanent decline, and that this is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The premise is that only Net Zero by 2050 will correct the situation.
However, this is a deception, based on flawed models and failure to consider long-term rainfall records. Rainfall data collected over a period of 160 years support an alternative hypothesis: rainfall patterns follow multi-decadal cycles, and there have been many periods in our history when the climate has been wetter or dryer than average. As I will outline below, my attempts to discuss this alternative scenario with model-makers and government have been fruitless. Simply put, ‘climate modellers’ and proponents of “climate change” are in the ascendancy, and they choose to ignore the empirical data because their models cannot explain it.
In this discussion, I start with four things about which the model-makers and I agree. I do not dispute that carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the greenhouse gases, although by far not the most dominant. I agree that rainfall has been generally below long-term averages over recent decades. I also agree that without greenhouse gases our Earth would be inhospitably cold, and humans would not have evolved. Finally, CO2 is not a dangerous pollutant, it is a key ingredient in the process of photosynthesis, without which all humans would die.
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/doomed-planet/bad-models-and-worse-science-in-wa/
10
Frank Batinii might agree with model makers about 4 things but many here do not.
I was meaning to address the misconception that the world would be a frozen ice ball in the sbsence of radiative (greenhouse) gases.
I will do so down thread when I am properly awake.
00