wattsupwiththat--2020-12-26--An Upbeat Look at Nuclear with Rod Adams

Robert Bryce ’ s Power Hungry podcast has a excellent interview with longtime nuclear energy blogger and podcaster Rod Adams .
It ’ s almost two hours and has rather few views so I thought I ’ d post a little bit of background and highlights .
Rod Adams is a slightly gruff looking Annapolis graduate ( a ring knocker as he calls himself ) and former submarine nuclear officer .
His voice sort of reminds me of the late great James Gandolfini .
He ’ s certainly the world ’ s most prominent blogger and podcaster on nuclear energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of nuclear energy for human well being .
His podcasts start with a catchy jingle , .
He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and his blog posts and podcast can get rather technical .
Bryce does a great job of making this an accessible overview .
Lately , Michael Shellenberger has been getting a lot of attention promoting nuclear .
He sort of gives the impression that too much attention is being paid to newer reactor designs and that large AP1000 type designs are the way to go , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shellenberger is admittedly not a STEM person , but he has educated himself and has a good overview of the basic concepts .
Adams pretty much lives and breaths this stuff and follows the industry and new developments very closely .
He ’ s excited about a new generation of driven people who see an opportunity to transform the future .
BTW Adams has a great podcast interview with Shellenberger about his new book .
Adams is very optimistic about the potential of Nuscale ’ s upcoming small modular reactors .
He ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations .
Yes , they won ’ t be ready until 2027 , but there are a lot of intriguing aspects .
The biggest one is that they are designed to be meltdown proof .
He has a recent post on economy of scale ( republished from 1996 ) that has an interesting twist for light water reactors : For example , one assumption explicitly stated in the economy of scale model is that the cost of auxiliary systems does not increase as rapidly as plant capacity .
In at least one key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nuclear plants .
Since the reactor core continues to produce heat after the plant is shutdown , and since a larger , more powerful core releases less of its heat to its immediate surroundings because of a smaller surface to volume ratio , it is more difficult to provide decay heat removal for higher capacity cores .
It is also manifestly more difficult , time consuming and expensive to that the requirements for heat removal will be met under all postulated conditions without damaging the core .
For emergency core cooling systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , seem to have increased rapidly than plant capacity .
There are also a lot of intriguing prospects for siting .
They will fit very nicely at existing coal plant sites .
Coal plant sites are not likely to have gas pipelines and additional pipelines are being blocked .
There should also be a lot more electricity demand coming with electric cars and gas heating being exchanged for heat pumps and such .
One fascinating thing he points out is that nuclear costs have not actually gone up .
It ’ s just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grid pricing from wind and solar .
One interesting new design is the Natrium from Terrapower and GE Hitachi .
It will have a molten salt buffer between the core and the steam turbines .
This will allow it to spool electricity generation up and down fast to deal with intermittent wind .
Yes , nuclear power is so good it will enable the blight of wind turbines and stick us with them forever .
Adams sees a need for cutting CO2 emissions and says he thinks the best way to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks this will help make prices more predictable and make planning easier for energy companies .
He criticizes wind farm tax credits being the same for all locations , even where there ’ s already congestion .
He credits Daniel Yergin ’ s book , , with showing how important it is to keep energy supply and demand balanced .
I ’ ve included a minute guide to help those interested to check out various parts without having to go through the whole thing , but it ’ s all worth listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prefers term ‘ atomic ’ to ‘ nuclear ’ 50:00 to 1:00:00 – Prospects for nuclear in US 1:04:00 to 1:07:00 – New reactors and sites 1:07:00 to 1:08:00 – Rod is now a venture capitalist 1:13:00 to 1:17:00 – Getting nuclear to work 1:20:00 – Navy expertice should be declassified and utilized

Reposted from Climate Scepticism
Posted on 16 Dec 20 by MIKE DOMBROSKI
Robert Bryce’s Power Hungry podcast has a excellent interview with longtime nuclear energy blogger and podcaster Rod Adams. It’s almost two hours and has rather few views so I thought I’d post a little bit of background and highlights.
Rod Adams is a slightly gruff looking Annapolis graduate (a ring knocker as he calls himself) and former submarine nuclear officer. His voice sort of reminds me of the late great James Gandolfini. He’s certainly the world’s most prominent blogger and podcaster on nuclear energy. He cares very deeply about the importance of nuclear energy for human well being. His podcasts start with a catchy jingle, There’s a Better Way. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject and his blog posts and podcast can get rather technical. Bryce does a great job of making this an accessible overview.
Lately, Michael Shellenberger has been getting a lot of attention promoting nuclear. He sort of gives the impression that too much attention is being paid to newer reactor designs and that large AP1000 type designs are the way to go, especially with Russia and China moving ahead. Shellenberger is admittedly not a STEM person, but he has educated himself and has a good overview of the basic concepts. Adams pretty much lives and breaths this stuff and follows the industry and new developments very closely. He’s excited about a new generation of driven people who see an opportunity to transform the future. BTW Adams has a great podcast interview with Shellenberger about his new book.
Adams is very optimistic about the potential of Nuscale’s upcoming small modular reactors. He’s very familiar with licensing and siting locations. Yes, they won’t be ready until 2027, but there are a lot of intriguing aspects. The biggest one is that they are designed to be meltdown proof. He has a recent post on economy of scale (republished from 1996) that has an interesting twist for light water reactors:
For example, one assumption explicitly stated in the economy of scale model is that the cost of auxiliary systems does not increase as rapidly as plant capacity. In at least one key area, that assumption is not true for nuclear plants. Since the reactor core continues to produce heat after the plant is shutdown, and since a larger, more powerful core releases less of its heat to its immediate surroundings because of a smaller surface to volume ratio, it is more difficult to provide decay heat removal for higher capacity cores. It is also manifestly more difficult, time consuming and expensive to prove that the requirements for heat removal will be met under all postulated conditions without damaging the core. For emergency core cooling systems, overall costs, including regulatory burdens, seem to have increased more rapidly than plant capacity.
There are also a lot of intriguing prospects for siting. They will fit very nicely at existing coal plant sites. Coal plant sites are not likely to have gas pipelines and additional pipelines are being blocked. There should also be a lot more electricity demand coming with electric cars and gas heating being exchanged for heat pumps and such. One fascinating thing he points out is that nuclear costs have not actually gone up. It’s just that they have to deal with congested grid pricing from wind and solar.
One interesting new design is the Natrium from Terrapower and GE Hitachi. It will have a molten salt buffer between the core and the steam turbines. This will allow it to spool electricity generation up and down fast to deal with intermittent wind. Yes, nuclear power is so good it will enable the blight of wind turbines and stick us with them forever.
Adams sees a need for cutting CO2 emissions and says he thinks the best way to do it is with a carbon tax. He thinks this will help make prices more predictable and make planning easier for energy companies. He criticizes wind farm tax credits being the same for all locations, even where there’s already congestion. He credits Daniel Yergin’s book, The Prize, with showing how important it is to keep energy supply and demand balanced.
I’ve included a minute guide to help those interested to check out various parts without having to go through the whole thing, but it’s all worth listening to.
Minute Guide
4:00 to 5:00 – Why he prefers term ‘atomic’ to ‘nuclear’
7:00 to 14:00 – AP1000
13:00 to 15:00 – Natural gas availability
15:00 to 25:00 – Nuscale
25:00 to 29:00 – General Electric boiling water reactors
29:00 to 32:00 – Westinghouse
33:00 to 37:00 – Oklo
37:00 to 45:00 – Terrestrial Energy, Thoricon — molten salt reactors
45:00 to 46:00 – Nuclear powered ships
46:00 to 50:00 – Advanced reactor projects
50:00 to 1:00:00 – Prospects for nuclear in US
1:01:00 to 1:02:00 – Natrium with molten salt buffer
1:03:00 to 1:04:00 – Regulation and policy
1:04:00 to 1:07:00 – New reactors and sites
1:07:00 to 1:08:00 – Rod is now a venture capitalist
1:08:00 to 1:10:00 – Existing fleet
1:10:00 to 1:13:00 – Congested pricing due to wind
1:13:00 to 1:17:00 – Getting nuclear to work
1:17:00 to 1:23:00 – Navy, Rickover
1:24:00 to 1:26:00 – Waste
1:27:00 to 1:29:00 – Jimmy Carter
1:29:00 to 1:31:00 – Waste issue as strategy
1:31:00 to 1:35:00 – Rod’s motivation
1:34:00 to 1:40:00 – Oppostion to nuclear
1:41:00 to 1:44:00 – Books
1:45:00 to 1:49:00 – Concluding optimism
Interesting Points
56:00 – Nuclear plant costs have not increased
58:00, 1:13:00 – Carbon price
1:04:00 – 2027 should be interesting year
1:20:00 – Navy expertice should be declassified and utilized
1:38:00 – Coal interests fought against nuclear
1:43:00 – Praise for Daniel Yergin’s The Prize
5 4 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-27--Late fall polar bear habitat 2020 compared to some previous years

It ’ s time to look at sea ice habitat at 15 December ( Julian Day 350 ) , now that virtually all bears except pregnant females throughout the Arctic are either out on the sea ice attempting to hunt for seals or hunkered down against the darkness .
As is usual at this time of year , the Canadian Archipelago , the Beaufort , East Siberian and Laptev Seas are well covered in ice ( see regions on map below ) .
As for the rest , despite what one polar bear specialist has implied there is no evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other peripheral seas of the Arctic negatively affects polar bear health or survival .
In fact , because of the attractiveness of the ice edge for seals in the fall , as I discussed last month , it ’ s possible that the longer the ice edge persists in fall , the more successful polar bears will be in hunting seals – except those above the Arctic Circle where lack of daylight from early November may cause polar bears to hunker down and rest rather than try to hunt through the darkness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure , because bears have never been studied at this time of year – experts simply make assumptions about what happens ( e.g .
Stirling and Oritsland 1995 ) .
Sea ice thickness also varies year to year throughout the season but does not matter much to polar bears , who hunt most successfully in first year ice less than 2m in thickness , which comprises all of the regions currently purple in the ice thickness chart below .
This year at mid-December , there was more ice than usual in central and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat less than usual in the eastern portion .
However , the ice is forming so fast now that by 18 December there was hardly any open water remaing over Hudson Bay and the ice to the north was solidifying ( below ) .
Recall that a similar freeze-up pattern left a pod of a dozen or so killer whales stranded in mid-January 2013 and killed four others in 2016 .
Such ice-entrapment suggests that despite a ‘ warming ’ Arctic , freeze-up patterns would have to change very dramatically for Hudson Bay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whales .
A recent DFO report concluded : Compare Hudson Bay weekly stage of development charts ( below ) for this year back to 2014 , from the Canadian Ice Service archives .
You ’ ll see that this year appears to have more extensive 1st year ice ( light green , ca .
30-70 cm ) than any other year ( although last year had almost as much ) and that 2016 was notable as being a very late freeze-up year : Western Hudson Bay polar bears with collars or tags deployed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alberta crew ( below ) are spread out over the ice of the bay ( two on land are denning females ) , a number are on the thickest ice in the north but others are on thinner ice to the south and east : Ice covereage in the Canadian Eastern Arctic at mid-December is about average this year , according to CIS charts – only a bit of red and pink indicating ‘ below normal ’ in the east ( off of Greenland ) : Pack ice has moved down from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( below ) and will soon be off the coast of Labrador , which has somewhat less ice than usual this year at mid-December : The ice off Labrador at this time is shorefast ice developing and thickening in place ( below ) .
As far as we know , few polar bears summer on the northern Labrador coast , so this late ice development is unlikely to affect local bears .
However , pack ice will move down during January and February until it engulfs the area north of Newfoundland , bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Greenland Sea is progressing a bit faster than usual for the last five years ( below ) , but not remarkably so : Ice cover in the Barents Sea ( below ) has been slow so far but has been progressing faster over the last few weeks .
There is now ice off the east coast of Novaya Zemlya , shorefast ice that should allow any bears summering there to hunt for seals just as Western Hudson Bay bears do during early freeze-up stages .
Within the next few weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the Kara Sea , allowing bears to move more freely.Ice off Svalbard has been much below normal ( below ) , as it has been for years now , which is why virtually all Barents Sea pregnant females currently make maternity dens in Franz Josef Land or on the sea ice to the north .
These alternative areas for safely giving birth is the primary reason that the much reduced sea ice around Svalbard in recent years has not impacted Barents Sea polar bear health or survival .
Ice cover in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is lower compared to the last five years but it ’ s unclear how much effect this will have on local polar bears .
Animals that have opted to spend the ice-free season on Novaya Zemlya or on the Russian mainland will have had a long wait for ice , but those that spent the summer on the Severnya Zemlya archipelago to the east had access to sea ice before the end of November .
There has been no word from Belushaya Guba on whether the polar bear problems they had because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 that went on until February 2019 have recurred this year .
Despite what Andrew Derocher claims ( below ) , there is no evidence that slightly less sea ice in the fall is detrimental to polar bear health or survival in the Kara Sea or elsewhere .
It is possible that it might but no one has studied it , so to suggest that low sea ice cover is ‘ trouble ’ for polar bears at this time of year is very misleading .
Sea ice cover over the Chukchi Sea is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last few years , about as low as it was in 2017 ( below ) .
Chukchi Sea polar bears at 14 December ( below ) had abundant sea ice habitat .
In 2016 , when Chukchi polar bears were counted for the first time , there was a similar amount of ice at this time of year ( below ) : Stirling , I. and Øritsland , N. A .
1995 .
Relationships between estimates of ringed seal ( ) and polar bear ( ) populations in the Canadian Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : //www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f95-849 # .VNep0y5v_gU

Reposted from Polar Bear Science
Posted on December 22, 2020 |
It’s time to look at sea ice habitat at 15 December (Julian Day 350), now that virtually all bears except pregnant females throughout the Arctic are either out on the sea ice attempting to hunt for seals or hunkered down against the darkness.
As is usual at this time of year, the Canadian Archipelago, the Beaufort, East Siberian and Laptev Seas are well covered in ice (see regions on map below). As for the rest, despite what one polar bear specialist has implied there is no evidence that a slower-than-usual fall freeze-up in the other peripheral seas of the Arctic negatively affects polar bear health or survival.
In fact, because of the attractiveness of the ice edge for seals in the fall, as I discussed last month, it’s possible that the longer the ice edge persists in fall, the more successful polar bears will be in hunting seals – except those above the Arctic Circle where lack of daylight from early November may cause polar bears to hunker down and rest rather than try to hunt through the darkness. But we’ll never know for sure, because bears have never been studied at this time of year – experts simply make assumptions about what happens (e.g. Stirling and Oritsland 1995).
Sea ice thickness also varies year to year throughout the season but does not matter much to polar bears, who hunt most successfully in first year ice less than 2m in thickness, which comprises all of the regions currently purple in the ice thickness chart below.
HUDSON BAY
This year at mid-December, there was more ice than usual in central and southern Hudson Bay (below) and somewhat less than usual in the eastern portion.
However, the ice is forming so fast now that by 18 December there was hardly any open water remaing over Hudson Bay and the ice to the north was solidifying (below). Recall that a similar freeze-up pattern left a pod of a dozen or so killer whales stranded in mid-January 2013 and killed four others in 2016. Such ice-entrapment suggests that despite a ‘warming’ Arctic, freeze-up patterns would have to change very dramatically for Hudson Bay to be an attractive place for killer whales. A recent DFO report concluded:
Killer whale ice entrapments are almost always fatal and can wipe out entire family groups, with long-lasting demographic impacts. Ice entrapments could therefore slow Arctic killer whale range expansions, particularly in areas where killer whales that are unfamiliar with sea-ice patterns fail to exit prior to ice formation in winter.
Compare Hudson Bay weekly stage of development charts (below) for this year back to 2014, from the Canadian Ice Service archives. You’ll see that this year appears to have more extensive 1st year ice (light green, ca. 30-70 cm) than any other year (although last year had almost as much) and that 2016 was notable as being a very late freeze-up year:
Western Hudson Bay polar bears with collars or tags deployed by Andrew Derocher and his University of Alberta crew (below) are spread out over the ice of the bay (two on land are denning females), a number are on the thickest ice in the north but others are on thinner ice to the south and east:
BAFFIN BAY, FOXE BASIN, AND DAVIS STRAIT
Ice covereage in the Canadian Eastern Arctic at mid-December is about average this year, according to CIS charts – only a bit of red and pink indicating ‘below normal’ in the east (off of Greenland):
Pack ice has moved down from the north through Baffin Bay into Davis Strait (below) and will soon be off the coast of Labrador, which has somewhat less ice than usual this year at mid-December:
The ice off Labrador at this time is shorefast ice developing and thickening in place (below). As far as we know, few polar bears summer on the northern Labrador coast, so this late ice development is unlikely to affect local bears. However, pack ice will move down during January and February until it engulfs the area north of Newfoundland, bringing some polar bears with it.
GREENLAND AND BARENTS SEA
Freeze-up in the Greenland Sea is progressing a bit faster than usual for the last five years (below), but not remarkably so:
Ice cover in the Barents Sea (below) has been slow so far but has been progressing faster over the last few weeks. There is now ice off the east coast of Novaya Zemlya, shorefast ice that should allow any bears summering there to hunt for seals just as Western Hudson Bay bears do during early freeze-up stages. Within the next few weeks, the Arctic pack ice will move south into the Kara Sea, allowing bears to move more freely.Ice off Svalbard has been much below normal (below), as it has been for years now, which is why virtually all Barents Sea pregnant females currently make maternity dens in Franz Josef Land or on the sea ice to the north. These alternative areas for safely giving birth is the primary reason that the much reduced sea ice around Svalbard in recent years has not impacted Barents Sea polar bear health or survival.
KARA SEA
Ice cover in the Kara Sea at 15 December (below) is lower compared to the last five years but it’s unclear how much effect this will have on local polar bears.
Animals that have opted to spend the ice-free season on Novaya Zemlya or on the Russian mainland will have had a long wait for ice, but those that spent the summer on the Severnya Zemlya archipelago to the east had access to sea ice before the end of November. There has been no word from Belushaya Guba on whether the polar bear problems they had because of poorly maintained garbage dumps in December 2018 that went on until February 2019 have recurred this year.
Despite what Andrew Derocher claims (below), there is no evidence that slightly less sea ice in the fall is detrimental to polar bear health or survival in the Kara Sea or elsewhere. It is possible that it might but no one has studied it, so to suggest that low sea ice cover is ‘trouble’ for polar bears at this time of year is very misleading.
High temperatures => low sea ice cover & trouble for polar bears. We know little about the Kara Sea polar bears but we have many studies showing negative effects of warming on polar bears in other areas. The problems all start with declining sea ice. pic.twitter.com/qlFilxrtHm — Andrew Derocher (@AEDerocher) December 14, 2020
CHUKCHI/BERING SEA
Sea ice cover over the Chukchi Sea is a bit lower than it has been over the last few years, about as low as it was in 2017 (below).
Chukchi Sea polar bears at 14 December (below) had abundant sea ice habitat.
In 2016, when Chukchi polar bears were counted for the first time, there was a similar amount of ice at this time of year (below):
REFERENCES
Stirling, I. and Øritsland, N. A. 1995. Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52: 2594 – 2612. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f95-849#.VNep0y5v_gU
4.7 3 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-26--Inside The Bayesian Priory

Inside The Bayesian Priory

Here are a few random quotes and thoughts about the paper called An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100 .
This was the first statement that caught my eye : I always get nervous when someone says that they are using “ Bayesian inference ” .
The problem is not with the Bayesian theory , which is correct .
It basically says that the probability of something happening depends in part on what went before , called the “ Bayesian Priors ” .
And clearly , in many situations this is true .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priors .
This depends on human judgement , plus some pre-existing theory as to what is going on … I ’ m sure you can see the problems with that .
First , human judgment is … well … let me call it and leave it at that .
And next … just what pre-existing theory of climate are we supposed to use when we are investigating the theory of climate ?
Then came this statement .
This one makes the sweat break out on my forehead , because it is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host of theories … but it is rarely supported by even the flimsiest of evidence .
It is just stated as undeniable truth , as in this paper .
They do not make even the slightest attempt to justify it .
Every realistic description that I ’ ve read about the gradual warming over the last three centuries or so contains some verifiable facts : • Things are warmer now than during the Little Ice Age .
• In general that increased warmth has been a benefit for man , beasts , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no “ climate catastrophes ” from that warming .
Couple that with the following data … … and it becomes very difficult to believe that “ the ecological consequences of global warming could be dire ” .
Confronted with these facts , the fallback position of the alarmists is usually … however , as I ’ ve shown over and over , even the longest sea level records don ’ t show any acceleration due to the warming .
So we are starting out from way behind , crippled by false assumptions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bayesian priors ” are driven by the initial mistake made by the IPCC , what I ’ ve termed the “ Picasso Problem ” .
Picasso said At first I didn ’ t either understand this or believe it .
I mean , I ’ m a computer guy , why is a painter questioning my computer use ?
… but eventually I saw that looking for the right answers is not what we should be doing .
What we should be focusing on instead is looking for the right questions .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the IPCC at its inception was asked the wrong question .
When IPCC was first set up , it was tasked to answer the question : In fact , they should have been tasked to answer the question : And obviously , the current paper suffers from the same problem—it is answering the wrong question … and not only that , it is answering the question with computers … For the next issue , let me preface it with a few definitions from the paper : With those definitions , they go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they say it as though it was a good thing … when in fact it is a clear indication that they are operating on false assumptions .
In fact , as they are clearly unwilling to admit , the likely range has increased , not stayed the same .
You can see this issue below : And this increase in the range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity should be a huge danger signal .
I mean , in what other field of science has there not only been no advance in forty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact the uncertainty has increased ?
I know of no scientific field other than climate science in which this is true .
There are a couple of problems with this .
First , these assumptions of future forcings form another part of the Bayesian priors discussed above .
And given that these priors are based on “ “ , they are infinitely adjustable to match the desires and theories of the investigators .
A more fundamental problem , however , is the relationship between the forcings and the response of the models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade ago in “ Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity ” : This is a crucial paper which has been conspicuously ignored by scientists in the field .
It says that if you assume larger forcings , the model shows a smaller climate sensitivity , and vice versa .
Not only that , but as I showed in Life Is Like A Black Box Of Chocolates , the relationship between the forcings and the model output is both linear and ridiculously simple , viz : The outputs of the climate models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lagged and scaled version of the inputs .
Here is an example of my analysis showing how well the model output can be emulated by that absurdly simple formula : This formula has only three tuned parameters—lambda ( the scaling factor ) , tau ( the lag factor ) , and a volcanic adjustment .
( Curiously , the current paper agrees that there needs to be a volcanic adjustment , saying “ the instantaneous temperature response [ to the eruptions ] is weaker than expected using linear response theory.
” ) This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the outcome of the climate models can be almost perfectly emulated by a simple formula .
And another implication is that the calculations of equilibrium climate sensitivity ( ECS ) and transient climate response ( TCR ) from the outputs of these models are completely meaningless … as supported by the fact that there has been no progress made in refining the estimates of ECS and TCR over the last forty years .
In continuing to read , I finally lost both the plot and all further interest in the paper when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To translate that , they are defining reality on the basis of whether or not their description of reality matches the output of computer models … and at that point , I quit reading .
Seriously , I could go no further .
Any study claiming that a description of reality is only worthwhile if it matches the output of absurdly simplistic climate models is not worth my time to investigate .
Best holiday regards to all on this day after Christmas ,

Here are a few random quotes and thoughts about the paper called An observation-based scaling model for climate sensitivity estimates and global projections to 2100. This was the first statement that caught my eye:
We estimate the model and forcing parameters by Bayesian inference which allows us to analytically calculate the transient climate response and the equilibrium climate sensitivity as: 1.7+0.3−0.2 K and 2.4+1.3−0.6 K respectively (likely range).
I always get nervous when someone says that they are using “Bayesian inference”. The problem is not with the Bayesian theory, which is correct. It basically says that the probability of something happening depends in part on what went before, called the “Bayesian Priors”. And clearly, in many situations this is true.
The problem is in the choice of the priors. This depends on human judgement, plus some pre-existing theory as to what is going on … I’m sure you can see the problems with that. First, human judgment is … well … let me call it “not universally correct” and leave it at that. And next … just what pre-existing theory of climate are we supposed to use when we are investigating the theory of climate?
Then came this statement.
The ecological consequences of global warming could be dire; therefore, better constraining climate sensitivity is of utmost importance in order to meet the urgency of adjusting economical and environmental policies.
This one makes the sweat break out on my forehead, because it is one of the fundamental building blocks of a whole host of theories … but it is rarely supported by even the flimsiest of evidence. It is just stated as undeniable truth, as in this paper. They do not make even the slightest attempt to justify it.
Every realistic description that I’ve read about the gradual warming over the last three centuries or so contains some verifiable facts:
Things are warmer now than during the Little Ice Age.
In general that increased warmth has been a benefit for man, beasts, and plants alike.
There have been no “climate catastrophes” from that warming.
Couple that with the following data …
… and it becomes very difficult to believe that “the ecological consequences of global warming could be dire”.
Confronted with these facts, the fallback position of the alarmists is usually “But mah sea level! Mah sea level is gonna drown everyone” … however, as I’ve shown over and over, even the longest sea level records don’t show any acceleration due to the warming.
So we are starting out from way behind, crippled by false assumptions. And these false assumptions, these “Bayesian priors” are driven by the initial mistake made by the IPCC, what I’ve termed the “Picasso Problem”. Picasso said
“What good are computers? They can only give you answers …
At first I didn’t either understand this or believe it. I mean, I’m a computer guy, why is a painter questioning my computer use? … but eventually I saw that looking for the right answers is not what we should be doing. What we should be focusing on instead is looking for the right questions. As the old saying goes, “Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.”
And tragically, the IPCC at its inception was asked the wrong question. When IPCC was first set up, it was tasked to answer the question:
“What level of CO2 is dangerous to humanity??”
In fact, they should have been tasked to answer the question:
“Is increasing CO2 a danger to humanity?”
And obviously, the current paper suffers from the same problem—it is answering the wrong question … and not only that, it is answering the question with computers …
For the next issue, let me preface it with a few definitions from the paper:
Emergent properties of the Earth’s climate, i.e. properties which are not specified a priori, are then inferred from GCM simulations. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is such a property; it refers to the expected temperature change after an infinitely long time following a doubling in carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric concentration. Another is the transient climate response (TCR), which is defined as the change in temperature after a gradual doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration over 70 years at a rate of 1% per year.
With those definitions, they go on:
Since the United States National Academy of Sciences report (Charney et al. 1979), the likely range for the ECS has not changed and remains [1.5,4.5] 𝐾.
The problem with this is that they say it as though it was a good thing … when in fact it is a clear indication that they are operating on false assumptions. In fact, as they are clearly unwilling to admit, the likely range has increased, not stayed the same. You can see this issue below:
And this increase in the range of the equilibrium climate sensitivity should be a huge danger signal. I mean, in what other field of science has there not only been no advance in forty years on a central question, but in fact the uncertainty has increased? I know of no scientific field other than climate science in which this is true.
They continue:
Future anthropogenic forcing is prescribed in four scenarios, the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), established by the IPCC for CMIP5 simulations : RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 (Meinshausen et al. 2011). They are named according to the total radiative forcing in Wm−2 expected in the year 2100 and are motivated by complex economic projections, expected technological developments, and political decisions.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, these assumptions of future forcings form another part of the Bayesian priors discussed above. And given that these priors are based on “complex economic projections, expected technological developments, and political decisions“, they are infinitely adjustable to match the desires and theories of the investigators.
A more fundamental problem, however, is the relationship between the forcings and the response of the models. As Kiehl pointed out over a decade ago in “Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity”:
It is found that the total anthropogenic forcing for a wide range of climate models differs by a factor of two and that the total forcing is inversely correlated to climate sensitivity. Much of the uncertainty in total anthropogenic forcing derives from a threefold range of uncertainty in the aerosol forcing used in the simulations.
This is a crucial paper which has been conspicuously ignored by scientists in the field. It says that if you assume larger forcings, the model shows a smaller climate sensitivity, and vice versa. Not only that, but as I showed in Life Is Like A Black Box Of Chocolates, the relationship between the forcings and the model output is both linear and ridiculously simple, viz:
The outputs of the climate models are very well emulated by a simple lagged and scaled version of the inputs.
Here is an example of my analysis showing how well the model output can be emulated by that absurdly simple formula:
This formula has only three tuned parameters—lambda (the scaling factor), tau (the lag factor), and a volcanic adjustment. (Curiously, the current paper agrees that there needs to be a volcanic adjustment, saying “the instantaneous temperature response [to the eruptions] is weaker than expected using linear response theory.”)
This shows that with all of their complexity, the outcome of the climate models can be almost perfectly emulated by a simple formula. And another implication is that the calculations of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR) from the outputs of these models are completely meaningless … as supported by the fact that there has been no progress made in refining the estimates of ECS and TCR over the last forty years.
In continuing to read, I finally lost both the plot and all further interest in the paper when they said (emphasis mine):
In order to make progress, Hasselmann et al. (1997) proposed a response function consisting of a sum of N exponentials – effectively an N box model (although without using differential equations: the boxes were only implicit). Nevertheless, they ultimately chose 𝑁=3 out of practical necessity—so as to fit GCM outputs.
To translate that, they are defining reality on the basis of whether or not their description of reality matches the output of computer models … and at that point, I quit reading.
Seriously, I could go no further. Any study claiming that a description of reality is only worthwhile if it matches the output of absurdly simplistic climate models is not worth my time to investigate.
Best holiday regards to all on this day after Christmas,
w.
4.9 39 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-26--National Journal on Possible Trump Submission of Paris Climate Treaty to Senate

Speaking at a virtual G-20 summit last month , President Trump championed his decision to bow out of the Paris climate accord .
“ I withdrew the United States from the unfair and one-sided Paris climate accord , a very unfair act for the United States , ” Trump told leaders of the globe ’ s biggest economies , all of whom are currently party to the pact.
“ It was designed to kill the American economy , ” he said .
Only months after taking office in 2017 , Trump , accompanied by then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative fanfare in the White House Rose Garden .
According to the terms of the pact , the U.S. formalized that withdrawal a day after Americans wrapped up voting in the 2020 electoral cycle .
But now conservative critics of the accord , both on and off Capitol Hill , want more from Trump in the waning weeks of his presidency…The push for Trump to submit the ratification documents is sparking a messaging war over whether it would actually have any legal bearing on Biden ’ s engagement with the pact .
Paris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carry legal weight , but conservative attorneys argue it would hamstring Biden ’ s justification for regulatory measures at the EPA and other agencies designed to pare down greenhouse-gas emissions .
“ Transmitting Paris as the treaty it is thoroughly neuters any of the certain 2021 claims that Paris is the reason for EPA to do anything , or for any ruling that we are compelled to undertake any particular action or inaction , ” said Chris Horner , a longtime Washington D.C. attorney and current board member at Government Accountability & Oversight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Any claim that Paris compels U.S. action or inaction would now confront doubt that a U.S. commitment to Paris was anything but a political commitment , ” Horner said .
“ The commitment will not be ‘ settled ’ but inarguably ambiguous and obviously weakened .
It is a political question , and transmittal severely undermines adventurous courts or commissions from the desired and otherwise certain rulings grounded in that Paris commitment .
”

Reposted From Government Accountability & Oversight
CHRIS HORNER
Brian Dabbs @BRIANDABBS Dec. 22, 2020, 8 p.m.
Speaking at a virtual G-20 summit last month, President Trump championed his decision to bow out of the Paris climate accord.
“I withdrew the United States from the unfair and one-sided Paris climate accord, a very unfair act for the United States,” Trump told leaders of the globe’s biggest economies, all of whom are currently party to the pact.“It was designed to kill the American economy,” he said.
Only months after taking office in 2017, Trump, accompanied by then-Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, launched the Paris withdrawal process to conservative fanfare in the White House Rose Garden. According to the terms of the pact, the U.S. formalized that withdrawal a day after Americans wrapped up voting in the 2020 electoral cycle.
But now conservative critics of the accord, both on and off Capitol Hill, want more from Trump in the waning weeks of his presidency…The push for Trump to submit the ratification documents is sparking a messaging war over whether it would actually have any legal bearing on Biden’s engagement with the pact.
Paris supporters say the move wouldn’t carry legal weight, but conservative attorneys argue it would hamstring Biden’s justification for regulatory measures at the EPA and other agencies designed to pare down greenhouse-gas emissions.
“Transmitting Paris as the treaty it is thoroughly neuters any of the certain 2021 claims that Paris is the reason for EPA to do anything, or for any ruling that we are compelled to undertake any particular action or inaction,” said Chris Horner, a longtime Washington D.C. attorney and current board member at Government Accountability & Oversight, a nonprofit conservative law firm. “Any claim that Paris compels U.S. action or inaction would now confront doubt that a U.S. commitment to Paris was anything but a political commitment,” Horner said. “The commitment will not be ‘settled’ but inarguably ambiguous and obviously weakened. It is a political question, and transmittal severely undermines adventurous courts or commissions from the desired and otherwise certain rulings grounded in that Paris commitment.”
Read the entire piece here.
4.6 8 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-27--Capturing 40 years of climate change for an endangered Montana prairie

Though cooler and wetter springs drive an increase in grass production compared to 1978 levels , hotter summers mean all that green goes brown faster–and plants have a harder time reinitiating production in the fall Over 40 years of monitoring , an endangered bunchgrass prairie became hotter , drier and more susceptible to fire annually–but dramatic seasonal changes ( not annual climate trends ) seem to be driving the biggest changes in plant production , composition , and summer senescence .
Gary Belovsky and Jennifer Slade of The University of Notre Dame , Indiana , present these findings in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bunchgrass prairie is one of North America ’ s most endangered ecosystems , now covering less than 1 percent of the area it once did .
Over the past century , bunchgrass prairies have become warmer and drier , and human-driven climate change is expected to continue that trend , with potential impacts on bunchgrass ecosystems .
However , bunchgrass is often overlooked in studies of grasslands .
To better understand the effects of climate change on bunchgrass prairies , Belovsky and Slade studied the National Bison Range , a bunchgrass prairie in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made repeated observations of plant growth and production , abundances of different plant species , and availability of nitrogen ( an important nutrient for plants ) , generating a comprehensive timeline of ecosystem changes .
Over the course of the study , annual temperatures rose and precipitation declined in the prairie , making it more susceptible to fire .
Surprisingly , the researchers found that annual aboveground primary production–the amount of plant material produced every year–rose by 110 percent , associated with increased precipitation and cooler temperatures during the important growth period of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was associated with a change in plant composition , with a 108 percent increase in invasive species , more drought-tolerant species being favored overall , and declines in dicot non-grass plants ( decreasing by 65 percent ) over the 40-year study period .
The researchers also found that other ecosystem changes followed seasonal climate trends , instead of annual trends .
For instance , summer temperatures were higher than might be expected from annual trends , boosting summer senescence– the yearly “ browning ” of green plant material .
These findings highlight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes when forecasting the effects of climate change on a given ecosystem .
The authors report that intermountain bunchgrass prairie could be morphing into a different type of grassland that may be previously unknown .
Dr. Belovsky adds : “ Forecasting climate change effects on plant production based on expected average annual increased temperature and decreased precipitation may not be appropriate , because seasonal climate changes may be more important and may not follow average annual expectations.
” Funding : Funding to 1st author GEB : National Science Foundation : NSF – http @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , NSF DEB-93-17984 , NSF DEB-97-07564 , NSF DEB-04-15390 , NSF DEB-09-18306 , NSF DEB-1456511 National Geographic Society Grant FY79 – https : //www.nationalgeographic.org ; University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School – https : //rackham.umich.edu/ ; University of Michigan Vice-President of Research Grant – https : //www.research.umich.edu ; USDA/GHIPM ( 1989-1994 ) – http : //www.ars.usda.gov ( GHIPM program ended in 1994 ) ; Utah State University Agricultural Experiment Station ( 1992-1996 ) – https : //uaes.usu.edu/ ; USDA/ARS and USDA-CSREES/NRICGP ( 00-35101-9267 ) – http : //www.csrees.usda.gov/ The funders had no role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis , decision to publish , or preparation of the manuscript .
Competing Interests : The authors have declared that no competing interests exist .
In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in https : //journals.plos.org/plosone/article ?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243496

Though cooler and wetter springs drive an increase in grass production compared to 1978 levels, hotter summers mean all that green goes brown faster–and plants have a harder time reinitiating production in the fall
PLOS
Research News
IMAGE: THE INTERMOUNTAIN BUNCHGRASS PRAIRIE AT THE NATIONAL BISON RANGE, MONTANA, USA AT ONE OF THE STUDY AREAS. view more CREDIT: GARY BELOVSKY
Over 40 years of monitoring, an endangered bunchgrass prairie became hotter, drier and more susceptible to fire annually–but dramatic seasonal changes (not annual climate trends) seem to be driving the biggest changes in plant production, composition, and summer senescence. Gary Belovsky and Jennifer Slade of The University of Notre Dame, Indiana, present these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on December 23.
Intermountain bunchgrass prairie is one of North America’s most endangered ecosystems, now covering less than 1 percent of the area it once did. Over the past century, bunchgrass prairies have become warmer and drier, and human-driven climate change is expected to continue that trend, with potential impacts on bunchgrass ecosystems. However, bunchgrass is often overlooked in studies of grasslands.
To better understand the effects of climate change on bunchgrass prairies, Belovsky and Slade studied the National Bison Range, a bunchgrass prairie in Montana, for 40 years. They made repeated observations of plant growth and production, abundances of different plant species, and availability of nitrogen (an important nutrient for plants), generating a comprehensive timeline of ecosystem changes.
Over the course of the study, annual temperatures rose and precipitation declined in the prairie, making it more susceptible to fire. Surprisingly, the researchers found that annual aboveground primary production–the amount of plant material produced every year–rose by 110 percent, associated with increased precipitation and cooler temperatures during the important growth period of late May through June. However, this was associated with a change in plant composition, with a 108 percent increase in invasive species, more drought-tolerant species being favored overall, and declines in dicot non-grass plants (decreasing by 65 percent) over the 40-year study period.
The researchers also found that other ecosystem changes followed seasonal climate trends, instead of annual trends. For instance, summer temperatures were higher than might be expected from annual trends, boosting summer senescence– the yearly “browning” of green plant material.
These findings highlight the importance of considering local and seasonal changes when forecasting the effects of climate change on a given ecosystem. The authors report that intermountain bunchgrass prairie could be morphing into a different type of grassland that may be previously unknown.
Dr. Belovsky adds: “Forecasting climate change effects on plant production based on expected average annual increased temperature and decreased precipitation may not be appropriate, because seasonal climate changes may be more important and may not follow average annual expectations.”
###
Citation: Belovsky GE, Slade JB (2020) Climate change and primary production: Forty years in a bunchgrass prairie. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0243496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243496
Funding: Funding to 1st author GEB: National Science Foundation: NSF – http://www.nsf.gov NSF DEB-78-02069, NSF BSR-83-07352, NSF DEB-93-17984, NSF DEB-97-07564, NSF DEB-04-15390, NSF DEB-09-18306, NSF DEB-1456511 National Geographic Society Grant FY79 – https://www.nationalgeographic.org; University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School – https://rackham.umich.edu/; University of Michigan Vice-President of Research Grant – https://www.research.umich.edu; USDA/GHIPM (1989-1994) – http://www.ars.usda.gov (GHIPM program ended in 1994); Utah State University Agricultural Experiment Station (1992-1996) – https://uaes.usu.edu/; USDA/ARS and USDA-CSREES/NRICGP (00-35101-9267) – http://www.csrees.usda.gov/ The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
In your coverage please use this URL to provide access to the freely available article in PLOS ONE: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243496
From EurekAlert!
5 3 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-28--LA Times: Children “literally organizing out of climate anxiety”

LA Times reports that children are so distressed by what they have been taught about the alleged climate crisis , some are committing suicide .
Others are embracing radical climate activism as a coping mechanism for their climate mental health crisis .
For young Californians , climate change is a mental health crisis too Without reducing those emissions , climate change will make natural disasters , food shortages and rising sea levels even worse , experts say .
The world is not yet on track to make the changes necessary to ameliorate its worst effects .
Climate depression played a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political awakening , and according to Varshini Prakash — executive director of youth-focused climate activism group the Sunrise Movement — it ’ s not uncommon for her group to meet kids who have contemplated suicide over the climate crisis .
Lifestyle changes “ empower individuals to feel like they can act , ” said Abby Austin , 23 , the political lead for the Sunrise Movement ’ s L.A. branch — echoing medical professionals who say that even small personal actions can help people feel like broader change remains possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar function .
Many young Californians said volunteering with climate advocacy groups like the Sunrise Movement or for politicians who have made climate change a central plank in their platforms has given them a sense of purpose .
“ A lot of the people who are in Sunrise , ” Austin said , “ are literally organizing out of climate anxiety.
” Feed kids a constant diet of climate anxiety ; some commit suicide , some turn to radical activism , some choose to become vegans or withdraw from life or vow to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they believe will be a ruined world .
The solution is obvious .
Stop frightening the children .
Parents in a war zone don ’ t take young children out every day to see a bloody parade of all the mutilated corpses , they try to shield their kids from the horror , to give their children as normal a childhood as possible , even in the most impossible circumstances .
But climate activists don ’ t seem to behave that way .
Activists seem to delight in “ preparing kids for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as much horror and misery as they can pack into a school day .
When the kids get home , the indoctrination is far from over .
The kids get to tune into often government funded climate documentaries , to reinforce the unhappiness they learned at school .
No wonder the kids end up so messed up .
Even if you believe that the climate crisis is real and imminent , even if you believe we are all going to die in the next few decades , taking joy from the lives of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
LA Times reports that children are so distressed by what they have been taught about the alleged climate crisis, some are committing suicide. Others are embracing radical climate activism as a coping mechanism for their climate mental health crisis.
For young Californians, climate change is a mental health crisis too By BRIAN CONTRERASDEC. 27, 20205 AM … Without reducing those emissions, climate change will make natural disasters, food shortages and rising sea levels even worse, experts say. The world is not yet on track to make the changes necessary to ameliorate its worst effects. Climate depression played a central role in teenage activist Greta Thunberg’s political awakening, and according to Varshini Prakash — executive director of youth-focused climate activism group the Sunrise Movement — it’s not uncommon for her group to meet kids who have contemplated suicide over the climate crisis. … Lifestyle changes “empower individuals to feel like they can act,” said Abby Austin, 23, the political lead for the Sunrise Movement’s L.A. branch — echoing medical professionals who say that even small personal actions can help people feel like broader change remains possible. Getting involved with activism can serve a similar function. Many young Californians said volunteering with climate advocacy groups like the Sunrise Movement or for politicians who have made climate change a central plank in their platforms has given them a sense of purpose. “A lot of the people who are in Sunrise,” Austin said, “are literally organizing out of climate anxiety.” Read more: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-12-27/for-young-californians-climate-change-is-a-mental-health-crisis-too
Feed kids a constant diet of climate anxiety; some commit suicide, some turn to radical activism, some choose to become vegans or withdraw from life or vow to never bring children of their own into what they believe will be a ruined world.
The solution is obvious. Stop frightening the children.
Parents in a war zone don’t take young children out every day to see a bloody parade of all the mutilated corpses, they try to shield their kids from the horror, to give their children as normal a childhood as possible, even in the most impossible circumstances.
But climate activists don’t seem to behave that way. Activists seem to delight in “preparing kids for the future”, by feeding them as much horror and misery as they can pack into a school day. When the kids get home, the indoctrination is far from over. The kids get to tune into often government funded climate documentaries, to reinforce the unhappiness they learned at school.
No wonder the kids end up so messed up.
Even if you believe that the climate crisis is real and imminent, even if you believe we are all going to die in the next few decades, taking joy from the lives of children is an unspeakable act of cruelty.
4.8 58 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-27--EU Turns to Magic to Progress their Clean Energy Agenda

Energy scams come and go .
Electricity too cheap to meter is here to stay .
No really , I will explain .
You need a meter to tax old denseless people for the energy they need to hear and cool our homes .
I hate to think how much it is costing for goverment to tell me to wash my hands .
My dream job of designing new reactor went away the day POTUS elect Clinton announced his secretary of energy .
Nuclear power was officially dead .
One of my subsequent jobs that was fun was developing biomass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to be an engineer .
In renewable energy , I had to learn to write business plans .
The ways goverment taxes energy is amazing .
When the power company sends you a bill who do you blame , the power company or your elected taxing authority ?
Also worked on the geological repository .
I learned how government spends money .
The only thing the US DOE is good at spending money .
In the US , rate payers fund storage of spent nuclear fuel .
I also learned that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spent nuclear fuel .
I already knew this being an expert of short storage but by then I had reviewed computer printouts for the next three glacial maximums .
Our planet is still in the same ice age pattern that it has been for millions of years .
Spent nuclear fuel should not be left in the path of glacial Lake Missoula .
So was my house .
Should I have disclosed that to the new owners .
During the nuclear is dead period , I also learned about lawyers .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crackpot is against and will file a restraining order to stop it .
This will kill a small renewable energy projects .
Turns out nuclear was not dead .
A few years after POTUS was elected I was working as a design engineer in new reactors .
Even worked in China .
So here is the deal with fusion .
The world does not need a infinite supply of energy energy .
I finite supply of energy will do do nicely for our wonderful lifestyle .
No matter what the energy source , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to energy to more useful electricity .
This requires engineers to design , operators to run , and a staff to maintain .
We like to get paid so we can buy power too cheap to meter .
Fusion and fission produce heat by converting mass to energy to make steam .
The steam plant will be the same .
Power plants that convert a small amount of mass to a huge amount energy are small .
Smaller than a Walmart .
While fusion is always 30 years in the future , fission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
The most significant change I have seen is large containment buildings protected and an outer shield building .
Expensive to build with a large equipment hatch but reduces maintenances cost over the life of a power plant .
Bottom line is that producing the power that is needed is not a problem .
Energy scams are based on ignorance .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The European Union is so desperate for their clean energy push to yield a viable solution, they have just given €3,999,870 to a Palladium electrolysis cold fusion research team.
EU announces funding for four next-gen clean energy solutions December 24, 2020 HERMES – hydrogen-metal systems for clean energy The HERMES project is revisiting the cold fusion concept, which emerged back in 1989 with the claimed discovery by the electrochemists Martin Fleischmann from Britain and Stanley Pons from France of excess heat production during electrolysis of heavy water (deuterium oxide) using a palladium electrode at room temperature. At the time, the discovery was thought to offer a pathway to cheap clean energy but the finding remained controversial due to lack of replicability. Recently interest in the topic has revived with the scientific advances of the intervening years. HERMES intends to draw on these to study the effects of hydrogen and deuterium loaded in palladium at room and intermediate (up to about 800oC) temperatures. Such modern characterisation techniques also allow reproducibility. … Read more: https://www.powerengineeringint.com/renewables/eu-announces-funding-for-four-next-gen-clean-energy-technologies/
From the project website;
Breakthrough zero-emissions heat generation with hydrogen-metal systems Project description In pursuit of the cold fusion dream as a solution to the world’s energy needs In 1989, electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons made headlines with their claim to have produced excess heat using a simple apparatus working at room temperature. Their experiment involved loading deuterium in a palladium metal. As many experimenters failed to replicate their work, cold fusion remains a controversial topic in the scientific community. Nevertheless, a vociferous minority still believes in this elusive phenomenon. Since 2015, Google has been funding experiments into cold fusion. Although no evidence has been found for this phenomenon, it is clear that much pioneering research remains to be conducted in this poorly explored field. The EU-funded HERMES project will employ advanced techniques and tools developed over the last few decades to investigate anomalous effects of deuterium-loaded palladium at room and intermediate temperatures. Objective Disruptive energy generation technologies are urgently required to stave off catastrophic climate change. Now, more than ever, is the time to also to consider unconventional options. The subtopic c. Breakthrough zero-emissions energy generation for full decarbonisation of this call aims to answer this need. All of the research areas identified by the call are highly unconventional. As electrochemists, we will contribute to this call by working on hydrogen-metal systems. We propose to study hydrogen (and deuterium) evolution in unconventional conditions, i.e. on metal-hydrides and the main motivation for this work is based on the recent Nature perspective “Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion”. When loading deuterium into the Pd lattice, there is a chance that something very interesting will happen, resulting in production of excess heat. The first report of such reaction was published 30 years ago, but quickly dismissed by the scientific community. But what if there is really something? Can we afford to not to investigate this further, considering the current climate crisis? Google has recently funded a research project in this area, getting some interesting results but failing to produce excess heat. However, the team concluded that it was very difficult to achieve the required conditions reported for starting the excess heat production, and that “there remains much interesting science to be done in this underexplored parameter space.” This is a high risk/high reward project, but with aid of all the improved techniques and tools developed in the last 30 years, we believe that it is worth revisiting the topic. We will use state-of-the-art technologies to prepare, characterize and study electrochemical Pd-D system, both at room temperature and at temperatures up to 1100 K. We will focus on method development, with the special emphasis on reproducibility. If no nuclear effects are observed, we will gain information of the isotope effects for hydrogen evolution. Read more: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/952184
The Nature article “Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion” on which this snowball of research funding is based was published in May this year.
At least with hot fusion there is a measurable release of energy and fusion neutrons. Nobody has to argue about whether you were squinting at the calorimeter just right.
I guess if you have a burning urge to investigate ways of extracting zero point energy from empty space, or a plan to send a robotic mission to the forest moon Pandora to retrieve a sample of unobtanium, now might be a good time to ask the EU for funding. Remember to mention the climate crisis.
4.5 20 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-28--Autumn In United Kingdom, Ireland Has Not Warmed Since 1995 …Cooling Tendency

Global warming activists like to remind us how so many places on the globe are warming faster than anywhere else .
And if every region is warming , then we would expect the spring season to be arriving earlier and fall starting later , meaning an extended summer season .
Today we look at fall ( Sept – Nov ) mean temperatures at stations across United kingdom and Ireland .
We use data from Japan Meteorological Agency at the stations for which there are enough data going back to 1995 or earlier .
These data are untampered , unlike the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with fall mean temperature data from 14 stations scattered across the United Kingdom : Taken as a whole , above we see no real warming having taken place in the United Kingdom since 1995 .
Eight of the 14 stations in fact show cooling or no warming trend .
Though the mean fall temperature rose over the course of the 20th century , it hasn ’ t risen this century .
This defies the often heard media claims of warming by the climate alarmists .
Next a plot of the mean fall temperature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : no real change in over 30 years .
Here we have 6 stations for which the JMA has data going back to 1989 .
Four of Ireland ’ s 6 stations show cooling temperatures .
Two are warming , but not significantly by any measure .
So why have the mean fall temperatures stalled in the United Kingdom and Ireland ?
Global warming alarmists don ’ t want you to know this , but there are so called oceanic cycles that dominate regional climates on a decadal scale .
For Western Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No wonder fall temperatures have stalled .
The warm phase of the AMO has peaked and has been heading down since 2008 .
CO2 is not what is driving the climate .

Reposted from NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 27. December 2020
By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin
Global warming activists like to remind us how so many places on the globe are warming faster than anywhere else. And if every region is warming, then we would expect the spring season to be arriving earlier and fall starting later, meaning an extended summer season.
Today we look at fall (Sept – Nov) mean temperatures at stations across United kingdom and Ireland. We use data from Japan Meteorological Agency at the stations for which there are enough data going back to 1995 or earlier. These data are untampered, unlike the NASA GISS data.
United Kingdom: 8 of 14 stations cooling, no longer warming
First we start with fall mean temperature data from 14 stations scattered across the United Kingdom:
Data source: JMA
Taken as a whole, above we see no real warming having taken place in the United Kingdom since 1995. Eight of the 14 stations in fact show cooling or no warming trend. Though the mean fall temperature rose over the course of the 20th century, it hasn’t risen this century. This defies the often heard media claims of warming by the climate alarmists.
Ireland
Next a plot of the mean fall temperature for Ireland also shows the same story: no real change in over 30 years. Here we have 6 stations for which the JMA has data going back to 1989.
Data source: JMA
Four of Ireland’s 6 stations show cooling temperatures. Two are warming, but not significantly by any measure.
So why have the mean fall temperatures stalled in the United Kingdom and Ireland? Global warming alarmists don’t want you to know this, but there are so called oceanic cycles that dominate regional climates on a decadal scale. For Western Europe especially the AMO has an impact:
No wonder fall temperatures have stalled. The warm phase of the AMO has peaked and has been heading down since 2008. CO2 is not what is driving the climate.
4.8 32 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-28--A Social Conscience Is Nice, But Business Is Business!!

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT an attempt by climate activists to halt Arctic oil exploration by Western Europe ’ s biggest petroleum-producing nation .
The Nordic government beat back a lawsuit by environmental groups in the country ’ s Supreme Court , which ruled on Tuesday the authorities had acted lawfully by awarding exploration licenses in the Barents Sea to companies including Greenpeace and Nature and Youth , a local environmental organization , argued in the lawsuit that the 2016 license award in the Arctic Barents Sea breaches Norway ’ s constitution and its commitments under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is great news that the world will have some more oil reserves , if the exploration is successful .
But I do find it slightly ironic , because we are constantly being told how “ green ” Norway is .
After all , they are getting rid of all their petrol cars , building wind farms in the North Sea ( with the help , of course , of oil money ) .
Yet , when it comes to down to petrol dollars , all of that goes out the window !

Reposted from NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
DECEMBER 27, 2020
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
Good news from Bloomberg:
Norway’s top court dismissed an attempt by climate activists to halt Arctic oil exploration by Western Europe’s biggest petroleum-producing nation.
The Nordic government beat back a lawsuit by environmental groups in the country’s Supreme Court, which ruled on Tuesday the authorities had acted lawfully by awarding exploration licenses in the Barents Sea to companies including Equinor ASA, Aker BP ASA and Lundin Petroleum AB.
Greenpeace and Nature and Youth, a local environmental organization, argued in the lawsuit that the 2016 license award in the Arctic Barents Sea breaches Norway’s constitution and its commitments under the Paris Agreement.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/norway-top-court-rules-against-climate-activists-over-arctic-oil
Of course, it is great news that the world will have some more oil reserves, if the exploration is successful.
But I do find it slightly ironic, because we are constantly being told how “green” Norway is. After all, they are getting rid of all their petrol cars, building wind farms in the North Sea (with the help, of course, of oil money).
Yet, when it comes to down to petrol dollars, all of that goes out the window!
4.7 18 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-29--Wind and solar are losing ground to gas

Wind and solar are losing ground to gas

The subsidies that never die — for wind and solar power — are back .
With Christmas coming on the Lame Duck Congress elected to throw untold additional billions at renewables .
What is amusing is that gas-fired power generation , a fossil fuel with no subsidy , is still growing faster than wind and solar .
Far from taking over , wind and solar are actually losing ground to fossil fuels in the American power capacity mix .
The last year we have comprehensive construction data for is 2018 , from the U.S. Energy Information Administration .
This was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a bit of a race on to build renewables before the subsidies stopped , which they were then scheduled to do .
( Unfortunately , due to the Lame Ducks this is no longer true . )
First we will look at the basic numbers , followed by some interesting factors .
We are talking about what is called electric power generating capacity , which is measured in megawatts or MW for short .
This is the ability to generate a million watts of juice .
A large power plant may run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 we built about 19,000 MW of gas fired generators , 9,000 MW of wind powered and 7,000 MW of utility scale solar .
( So-called “ behind the meter ” typically tiny solar is not included . )
So right away we built more gas , at 19,000 MW than the 16,000 MW of renewables .
Thus wind and solar ’ s fraction of America ’ s generating capacity actually went down , not up .
Renewables lost ground .
But this is just the tip of the difference .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce under ideal conditions , which is called “ nameplate capacity ” .
For solar these ideal conditions are basically a clear sky , with the sun overhead and no snow or dirt , etc.
, on the collector .
For wind they are typically a sustained air flow exceeding 30 miles per hour or so .
Note that these crucial conditions do not occur all that often .
This is why wind and solar are called “ intermittent ” , because they frequently produce far less power than their nameplate capacity ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In contrast , gas fired power runs most of the time , although it does need a certain amount of downtime for maintenance .
The difference between actual power generation and nameplate is called the “ capacity factor ” or CF for the generator .
The typical capacity factors for different generating technologies are pretty well known , although they can vary from machine to machine .
To be generous to renewables , let ’ s say that solar has a CF of 15 % and wind 40 % .
( The standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 80 % .
Applying these factors to our construction numbers gives the following actual generating capacities : So our new gas capacity is around 15,200 MW while new renewables are just 4,650 MW , which is 31 % or less than a third as much actual generating capacity .
Put another way , America increased its fossil fuel generating capacity by three times as much as it did for renewables .
Clearly renewables are falling behind fossil fuels , and by a lot .
Nor is 2018 unique .
Looking at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every case the actual generating capacity ( including CF ) added for gas fired generation has exceeded that for wind plus solar .
Renewables never gain ground over fossil fueled power , they always lose it .
Then there are grid scale battery systems , which are supposed to someday provide our juice when the intermittent renewables do not do so .
Total capacity added in 2018 was around 200 MW , or basically nothing .
Same for the prior years .
At this point batteries are just a specialized tiny contrivance used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need has arisen because of the unpredictably erratic nature of wind and solar generation .
As actual power supply systems , batteries do not yet exist , and may never exist because they are very expensive .
America is not moving toward wind and solar for power generation ; we are actually moving away from renewables .
You would never know this listening to the press and the politicians .

By David Wojick
The subsidies that never die — for wind and solar power — are back. With Christmas coming on the Lame Duck Congress elected to throw untold additional billions at renewables.
What is amusing is that gas-fired power generation, a fossil fuel with no subsidy, is still growing faster than wind and solar. Far from taking over, wind and solar are actually losing ground to fossil fuels in the American power capacity mix.
The last year we have comprehensive construction data for is 2018, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. This was a good year to use because there was a bit of a race on to build renewables before the subsidies stopped, which they were then scheduled to do. (Unfortunately, due to the Lame Ducks this is no longer true.)
First we will look at the basic numbers, followed by some interesting factors. We are talking about what is called electric power generating capacity, which is measured in megawatts or MW for short. This is the ability to generate a million watts of juice. A large power plant may run around 600 MW.
For starters, in 2018 we built about 19,000 MW of gas fired generators, 9,000 MW of wind powered and 7,000 MW of utility scale solar. (So-called “behind the meter” typically tiny solar is not included.)
So right away we built more gas, at 19,000 MW than the 16,000 MW of renewables. Thus wind and solar’s fraction of America’s generating capacity actually went down, not up. Renewables lost ground.
But this is just the tip of the difference. These numbers are just what the generators can produce under ideal conditions, which is called “nameplate capacity”.
For solar these ideal conditions are basically a clear sky, with the sun overhead and no snow or dirt, etc., on the collector. For wind they are typically a sustained air flow exceeding 30 miles per hour or so. Note that these crucial conditions do not occur all that often.
This is why wind and solar are called “intermittent”, because they frequently produce far less power than their nameplate capacity; often they produce none at all. In contrast, gas fired power runs most of the time, although it does need a certain amount of downtime for maintenance.
The difference between actual power generation and nameplate is called the “capacity factor” or CF for the generator. The typical capacity factors for different generating technologies are pretty well known, although they can vary from machine to machine.
To be generous to renewables, let’s say that solar has a CF of 15% and wind 40%. (The standard numbers are lower.) Gas easily has 80%. Applying these factors to our construction numbers gives the following actual generating capacities:
Gas: 19,000 x 0.8 = 15,200 MW
Wind: 9,000 x 0.4 = 3,600 MW
Solar: 7,000 x 0.15 = 1,050 MW
So our new gas capacity is around 15,200 MW while new renewables are just 4,650 MW, which is 31% or less than a third as much actual generating capacity.
Put another way, America increased its fossil fuel generating capacity by three times as much as it did for renewables. Clearly renewables are falling behind fossil fuels, and by a lot.
Nor is 2018 unique. Looking at the six years 2013 thru 2018, in every case the actual generating capacity (including CF) added for gas fired generation has exceeded that for wind plus solar. Renewables never gain ground over fossil fueled power, they always lose it.
Then there are grid scale battery systems, which are supposed to someday provide our juice when the intermittent renewables do not do so. Total capacity added in 2018 was around 200 MW, or basically nothing. Same for the prior years.
At this point batteries are just a specialized tiny contrivance used to maintain grid stability. Ironically this need has arisen because of the unpredictably erratic nature of wind and solar generation. As actual power supply systems, batteries do not yet exist, and may never exist because they are very expensive.
America is not moving toward wind and solar for power generation; we are actually moving away from renewables. You would never know this listening to the press and the politicians.
4.9 37 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-28--Blowing Hot And Cold

Blowing Hot And Cold

My mind runs to curious things .
Today it went to this one of Aesop ’ s Fables : A man and a satyr once poured out libations together in token of a bond of alliance being formed between them .
One very cold wintry day , as they talked together , the man put his fingers to his mouth and blew on them .
On the satyr inquiring the reason of this , he told him that he did it to warm his hands , they were so cold .
Later on in the day they sat down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scalding .
The man raised one of the dishes a little towards his mouth and blew in it .
On the satyr again inquiring the reason of this , he said that he did it to cool the meat , it was so hot .
“ I can no longer consider you as a friend , ” said the Satyr , “ a fellow who with the same breath blows hot and cold.
” What brought this to mind was looking at the temperature trends for the planet .
I ’ ve always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varied somewhat around the world .
But I was surprised to see how much of the world was cooling .
Here ’ s a Pacific and a corresponding Atlantic centered view of the cooling , in degrees C , using the CERES satellite data starting in March of 2000 .
Some of this I expected .
The Southern Ocean , for example .
But I certainly wouldn ’ t have guessed that most of South America is among the fastest cooling areas of the planet .
Here , the oddity is that almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t see that coming .
Same thing for the middle of the Indian Ocean .
Intrigued by that , I thought I ’ d take a corresponding look at the hot spots .
Here are the same views , but this time showing the areas which are warming faster than 0.25°/decade .
The entirety of the eastern Pacific is warming fast … as is the center of the southern Indian Ocean .
And Australia has it in spades .
Part of Eastern Brazil is warming fast … and western Brazil is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … and southern Africa is cooling .
And all of Siberia is warming … say what ?
I draw no overarching conclusions about this , except that I was surprised to find out that a quarter of the world is cooling … My best to all .
Me , I ’ m gon na stay up late on New Year ’ s Eve , but not to welcome 2021 in .
I ’ m doing it to make sure that 2020 leaves …

Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2022, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. (Miriam O’Brien aka slandering “Sou” from Hotwhopper, that means you.)
For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-28--SCMP: China’s Power to “Marshal” Private Savings into Climate Mega Projects will Leave the West Behi

SCMP: China’s Power to “Marshal” Private Savings into Climate Mega Projects will Leave the West Behind

How will Joe Biden marshal the private savings of US citizens to address the climate crisis ?
The UN thinks half of the $ 75 trillion required to save the world from climate change must come from private investors .
The South China Morning Post thinks China ’ s authoritarian control of private savings will give China an advantage of the West when it comes to green investments , though they believe Biden could catch up with China by appointing a financial system tsar .
As Joe Biden prepares to rejoin the global fight against climate change , who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary funds to combat climate change , the US needs a financial system tsar who can push Wall Street to come up with products linked directly to long-term investment in individual US President-elect Joe Biden has promised to go full tilt into action against climate change from the first day of his presidency on January 20 .
But , in fighting an impending climate crisis , he and other advanced-nation leaders may encounter The two things are closely connected , but this fact does not appear to have dawned yet on policymakers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into battle against climate change and other existential threats .
Saving the planet is going to cost money , and no one is sure where it will come from .
So , unless capital markets can come up with some radical new ideas on how to into the colossal amounts needed to save the planet and its inhabitants , and do so quickly , to bypass markets almost certainly .
( among which China ’ s is by far the biggest ) seem likely – by virtue of their ability to marshal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – to leave market economies behind in the race to “ go green ” and contribute to saving life on Earth .
Attaining the goals , the UN said , was going to be very costly .
The total bill could amount to US $ 5 trillion per year over the 15-year life of the SDG implementation period up to 2030 , or – roughly equal to one year ’ s global gross domestic product .
It is customary for governments to finance public goods , but the UN suggested that governments would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire bill .
The public sector would be unlikely to supply more than around a half , leaving savers and investors in capital markets to provide the rest .

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
How will Joe Biden marshal the private savings of US citizens to address the climate crisis? The UN thinks half of the $75 trillion required to save the world from climate change must come from private investors. The South China Morning Post thinks China’s authoritarian control of private savings will give China an advantage of the West when it comes to green investments, though they believe Biden could catch up with China by appointing a financial system tsar.
As Joe Biden prepares to rejoin the global fight against climate change, who will foot the bill?
To garner the necessary funds to combat climate change, the US needs a financial system tsar who can push Wall Street to come up with products linked directly to long-term investment in individual UN Sustainable Development Goals
Anthony Rowley
Published: 3:30am, 28 Dec, 2020
US President-elect Joe Biden has promised to go full tilt into action against climate change from the first day of his presidency on January 20. But, in fighting an impending climate crisis, he and other advanced-nation leaders may encounter an unexpected enemy – a crisis of market capitalism.
The two things are closely connected, but this fact does not appear to have dawned yet on policymakers, investors and others who are raring to go into battle against climate change and other existential threats. Saving the planet is going to cost money, and no one is sure where it will come from.
…
So, unless capital markets can come up with some radical new ideas on how to translate private savings into the colossal amounts needed to save the planet and its inhabitants, and do so quickly, state intervention to bypass markets will almost certainly become necessary.
State-dominated financial systems (among which China’s is by far the biggest) seem likely – by virtue of their ability to marshal savings behind mega social and economic projects – to leave market economies behind in the race to “go green” and contribute to saving life on Earth.
…
Attaining the goals, the UN said, was going to be very costly. The total bill could amount to US$5 trillion per year over the 15-year life of the SDG implementation period up to 2030, or around US$75 trillion in total – roughly equal to one year’s global gross domestic product.
…
It is customary for governments to finance public goods, but the UN suggested that governments would not be able to foot anything like the entire bill. The public sector would be unlikely to supply more than around a half, leaving savers and investors in capital markets to provide the rest.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-29--New Covid-19 Outbreak in Beijing, China

New Covid-19 Outbreak in Beijing, China

On the same line at Stephen Skinner .
“ There have been many sporadic outbreaks .
The epidemic control situation is very severe , ” a spokesman for the Beijing government said on Sunday .
When we talk COVID , are we really talking about a flu strain ?
For the following I can not find the original source , but maybe someone here can find it .
Andrew Wye I have a PhD in virology and immunology .
I ’ m a clinical lab scientist and have tested 1500 “ supposed ” positive Covid 19 samples collected here in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I did the testing through Koch ’ s postulates and observation under a SEM ( scanning electron microscope ) , we found NO Covid in any of the 1500 samples .
What we found was that all of the 1500 samples were mostly Influenza A and some were influenza B , but not a single case of Covid , and we did not use the B.S .
PCR test .
We then sent the remainder of the samples to Stanford , Cornell , and a few of the University of California labs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we did , NO COVID .
They found influenza A and B .
All of us then spoke to the CDC and asked for viable samples of COVID , which CDC said they could not provide as they did not have any samples .
We have now come to the firm conclusion through all our research and lab work , that the COVID 19 was imaginary and fictitious .
The flu was called Covid and most of the 225,000 dead were dead through co-morbidities such as heart disease , cancer , diabetes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the flu which further weakened their immune system and they died .
I have yet to find a single viable sample of Covid 19 to work with .
We at the 7 universities that did the lab tests on these 1500 samples are now suing the CDC for Covid 19 fraud .
the CDC has yet to send us a single viable , isolated and purified sample of Covid 19 .
If they can ’ t or won ’ t send us a viable sample , I say there is no Covid 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research papers that do describe the genomic extracts of the Covid 19 virus never were successful in isolating and purifying the samples .
All the four papers written on Covid 19 only describe small bits of RNA which were only 37 to 40 base pairs long which is NOT A VIRUS .
A viral genome is typically 30,000 to 40,000 base pairs .
With as bad as Covid is supposed to be all over the place , how come no one in any lab world wide has ever isolated and purified this virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they ’ ve never really found the virus , all they ’ ve ever found was small pieces of RNA which were never identified as the virus anyway .
So what we ’ re dealing with is just another flu strain like every year , COVID 19 does not exist and is fictitious .
I believe China and the globalists orchestrated this COVID hoax ( the flu disguised as a novel virus ) to bring in global tyranny and a worldwide police totalitarian surveillance state , and this plot included massive election @ @ @

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Breitbart; According to SCMP, Beijing has gone into “emergency response mode” to contain a new Covid-19 outbreak, which has been detected near Beijing International Capital Airport.
New controls introduced in the Chinese capital as the city authorities warn the epidemic control situation is ‘severe’Mass testing carried out in two districts where new Covid-19 cases have been detected
Zhuang Pinghui in Beijing
Published: 9:00pm, 27 Dec, 2020
eijing has gone into “emergency response mode” after five more Covid-19 cases were confirmed in the Chinese capital on Saturday.
A further positive case has yet to be officially confirmed because the patient has not yet shown symptoms.
The latest cases all came from the north of the city, in Nanfaxin township in the city’s Shunyi district, near Beijing International Capital Airport.
In total, thirteen infections have been detected in Beijing since the first local infection in 152 days was reported on December 18.
“There have been many sporadic outbreaks. The epidemic control situation is very severe,” a spokesman for the Beijing government said on Sunday.
…
Beijing Happy Valley, a theme park in southern Beijing, said in a statement that all night sessions would be cancelled from Monday and a live New Year’s Eve concert has also been called off.
…


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-30--Stargate Atlantis and “The Cause”

Stargate Atlantis and “The Cause”

Many if not most readers will be familiar with the short , rather unscientific phrase , “ the cause ” repeated in multiple Climategate emails .
“ The Cause ” for want of a better definition was to push the theory of potentially catastrophic global warming against any and all academic or political dissension .
Here are some examples .
< 3115 > By the way , when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction ?
?
?
It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They will ( see below ) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example , referring to the J. Cimate paper ( which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft ) , so that should help the cause a bit .
Almost exactly a year before the first Climategate email story broke on this website , the science fiction series Stargate Atlantis aired an episode called “ Brain Storm ” , season 5 , episode 16 .
Guest starring in this episode were two well known Climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was even presented as competent .
Dave Foley plays the part of the overconfident global savior .
But here is the interesting part .
In the introduction to this episode , Tunney ( Dave Foley ) , has a conversation with his funder about the safety of the project and its goal , being “ The Cause ” , more than a year before the Climategate emails were revealed to the public .
Take a look .
Now with Nye and Tyson on the set , both buddies of recent Inconvenient Truth Academy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ curious how this particular phrase got into the script .
What was the connection of Hollywood , Gore , and our lovely Climategate crew ?
I ’ m sure we will never know , but it is curious .
Remember those days of yesteryear were there still a smidgeon of self-awareness left ?

Many if not most readers will be familiar with the short, rather unscientific phrase, “the cause” repeated in multiple Climategate emails. “The Cause” for want of a better definition was to push the theory of potentially catastrophic global warming against any and all academic or political dissension.
Here are some examples.
<3115> By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.
<0810> I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause
Almost exactly a year before the first Climategate email story broke on this website, the science fiction series Stargate Atlantis aired an episode called “Brain Storm”, season 5, episode 16. Guest starring in this episode were two well known Climate Change activist experts in everything
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.
Bill Nye was even presented as competent.
Harry Anderson Dave Foley plays the part of the overconfident global savior.
But here is the interesting part. In the introduction to this episode, Tunney ( Harry Anderson Dave Foley), has a conversation with his funder about the safety of the project and its goal, being “The Cause”, more than a year before the Climategate emails were revealed to the public. Take a look.
Now with Nye and Tyson on the set, both buddies of recent Inconvenient Truth Academy Award winner Al Gore, it is curious how this particular phrase got into the script. What was the connection of Hollywood, Gore, and our lovely Climategate crew?
It is unlikely we will never know, but it is curious.
Remember those days of yesteryear were there still a smidgeon of self-awareness left?
I miss those days.
4.9 12 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...


wattsupwiththat--2020-12-29--And Lockdown Crazy California Jumps Into the Lead

I wonder if lockdowns in California is a particularly ineffective due to the demographics of the state .
Cost of living and cost of real estate is very high and people of modest means likely live in pretty tight quarters .
During a lockdown , essential employees are still permitted to go to work in jobs like retail , food delivery , cleaning and maintenance .
Those people interact with a lot of other people so their chance of catching the disease from a stranger is high and then return to a cramped household with lots of people and little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are working similar types of service jobs ) .
I suspect if one member of a household like that were to get sick other household members who have no symptoms of the illness will just keep on working .
Then throw in the fact that 10 % of LA county ’ s population is undocumented and never received Cares Act benefits and likely won ’ t get much from the new bill .
They will continue to work service jobs to get by .
In essence , a stay at home order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and affluent that can work from home but has no effect on the rate of transmission for the less educated and less well off in service jobs , particularly those who might be undocumented immigrants .
This might explain why Latinos have double the Covid infection rate of other ethnic groups .

State/Territory Average Daily Cases per 100k in Last 7 Days
California 97 Tennessee 92.9 Arizona 80 Oklahoma 68.8 Alabama 67.5 West Virginia 66.7 Delaware 65.2 Nevada 62.9 Arkansas 62.6 Indiana 62.6 Utah 62 New York* 61.1 Pennsylvania 60.5 Mississippi 60.4 Georgia 59.7 Ohio 58.3 Rhode Island 57.4 Massachusetts 57.2 New Mexico 54.3 North Carolina 51.3 New York City* 51.1 Idaho 50 Kentucky 47.1 New Jersey 46.1 Florida 45.7 Kansas 45.4 New Hampshire 44.8 South Carolina 43 South Dakota 43 Missouri 42.9 Texas 42.8 Illinois 42.3 Virginia 42.3 Louisiana 41.7 Nebraska 41.3 Colorado 40 Connecticut 39.9 Wisconsin 38.9 Maryland 38.1 Wyoming 38 Alaska 36.5 Iowa 35 Montana 34.9 District of Columbia 32.4 Maine 32.3 Minnesota 29.7 Michigan 29 North Dakota 26.9 Washington 23.8 Oregon 23 Puerto Rico 21.5 Vermont 13.4 Virgin Islands 9.1 Guam 7.6 Hawaii 7.5 Northern Mariana Islands 1.5 American Samoa 0 Federated States of Micronesia 0 Palau 0 Republic of Marshall Islands 0 Data source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
Just more evidence of some of the biggest policy failures in history.
Likely the French Laundry dinner was the super spreader event that put it all in motion.
4.7 10 votes Article Rating
Share this: Print
Email
Facebook
Twitter
GETTR
Telegram
Like this: Like Loading...