How Global Warming Really Works

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-poised-to-upset-130-billion-green-drive.html



UN-FUCKING-BELIEVABLE

The goddamned morons accomplished absolutely nothing and consumers ended up paying at least $134 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS for the failed experiment of the dumbass motherfuckers.

I swear to god; you can't make this shit up. It's something right out of Kafka or Joseph Heller.







Merkel’s Taste for Coal to Upset $130 Billion Green Drive

By Julia Mengewein
September 22, 2014
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-poised-to-upset-130-billion-green-drive.html

When Germany kicked off its journey toward a system harnessing energy from wind and sun back in 2000, the goal was to protect the environment and build out climate-friendly power generation.

More than a decade later, Europe’s biggest economy is on course to miss its 2020 climate targets and greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants are virtually unchanged. Germany used coal, the dirtiest fuel, to generate 45 percent of its power last year, its highest level since 2007, as Chancellor Angela Merkel is phasing out nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima atomic accident in Japan three years ago.

The transition, dubbed the Energiewende, has so far added more than 100 billion euros ($134 billion) to the power bills of households, shop owners and small factories as renewable energy met a record 25 percent of demand last year. RWE AG, the nation’s biggest power producer, last year reported its first loss since 1949 as utility margins are getting squeezed because laws give green power priority to the grids.

Confronting Coal

“Despite the massive expansion of renewable energies, achieving key targets for the energy transition and climate protection by 2020 is no longer realistic,” said Thomas Vahlenkamp, a director at McKinsey & Co. in Dusseldorf, Germany, and an adviser to the industry for 21 years. “The government needs to improve the Energiewende so that the current disappointment doesn’t lead to permanent failure.”

Slumping Prices

While new supplies sent wholesale power prices to their lowest level in nine years, consumer rates are soaring to fund the new plants. Germany’s 40 million households now pay more for electricity than any other country in Europe except Denmark, according to Eurostat in Brussels. A decade ago, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy all had higher bills than Germany.

“Politicians are often trying to kid us,” Claudia Fabinger, a 65-year-old self-employed marketing manager, said in between shopping for groceries on Leipziger Strasse in Frankfurt. “Our power bills keep rising and rising to fund clean energies; on the other hand, we are still polluting the air with old coal plants.”

The annual increase in residential rates has accelerated since 2011, when the nation boosted solar and wind subsidies in response to closing down eight of its oldest nuclear reactors. The annual increase is now 7 percent, compared with 4.3 percent between 2005 and 2010, according to Eurostat.

Consumers paid 106 billion euros between 2000 and 2013 to renewable energy producers, according to the nation’s four grids. To stem gains, the government cut green subsidies last month by 29 percent on average to 120 euros a megawatt-hour, according to the Economics and Energy Ministry’s website.

2008 Peak

German power for next year, a European benchmark, traded at 34.95 euros a megawatt-hour today in the wholesale market, or 60 percent below its 2008 peak, broker data compiled by Bloomberg show.

The average day-ahead German power price will probably drop to the lowest in 12 years this year amid the boost of renewable energy and a glut of capacity at conventional plants, Johannes Mayer, researcher at Fraunhofer-Institut fuer Solare Energiesysteme ISE, said today by phone from Freiburg, Germany.

The contract has averaged 31.40 euros this year and is at its lowest level since 2002, adjusted for inflation, Mayer said.

The price slump -- coupled with the surge in renewable energy into the market where the biggest power generators also sell the output from their coal, nuclear and gas plants -- cut the average operating margin at the eight biggest producers in Germany to 5.4 percent on average last year from 15 percent in 2004, company data compiled by Bloomberg show.

‘Black Gold’

Even as margins slid, the burning of coal rose 68 percent from 2010 to provide a steady supply of electricity. Fossil-based power plants, including those fired by hard coal and lignite, are “indispensable for the foreseeable future,” reads the agreement between Merkel’s conservatives and the Social Democratic Party that helped form her current government. “The ‘black gold’ is still an important factor in the energy generation mix,” the government says on its website.

While utilities make around 5 euros a megawatt-hour by burning coal, they lose more than 17 euros generating power from gas, according to Bloomberg calculations based on current prices for the electricity, fuels and emissions costs. On the other hand, gas only emits about half as much carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas scientists say cause global warming.

‘Dirtier and Dirtier’

“The share of renewable energy is rising and is at nearly 30 percent now, but the remaining 70 percent is getting dirtier and dirtier,” Carsten Thomsen-Bendixen, a spokesman at EON SE, Germany’s biggest utility, said Aug. 20 by phone from Dusseldorf. “That’s an obvious flaw in the system that needs to be put to an end.”

With nuclear plants typically running at full throttle all the time, gas is the only other large-scale alternative to coal. At current prices, gas-fired plants will lose money until at least 2018, Bloomberg calculations show.

“Yes, we are burning more coal; on the other hand it is also true that Germany still plays a leading role when it comes to emission reductions in Europe,” Beate Braams, a spokeswoman for the German Economics and Energy Ministry, said by phone on Sept. 4.

Germany reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 through 2012, according to the European Commission. The U.K. and Denmark also reduced pollution by the same percentage, more than any other major European economy.

Nuclear Phaseout

The nation’s current green ambitions date back to June 2000. The decision to boost renewable energy amid plans to phase out nuclear by about 2020 was forged by the coalition between Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats and the Greens.

Among the lawmakers who worked on that first version of the renewable energy act was Juergen Trittin of the Greens, then Germany’s environment minister. Still a member of parliament, he now says that while the government has the means to meet its greenhouse-gas reduction target of 40 percent by 2020 from 1990’s levels, it lacks the will.

As well as taking the lead in reviving Europe’s market for emission permits, Germany could introduce a national minimum price for the securities as an emergency measure, he said by phone from Berlin on Aug. 27. That would increase costs for coal generators and make gas more attractive. The government could also boost energy efficiency in buildings or cars, he said.

“But nothing is happening right now because there are some decisions Germany doesn’t want to make,” he said. “It would take some courage to take on sectors such as the car or construction industry and I currently don’t see this courage in the government.”

Missing Target

The country’s carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants fell one percent on average every year between 2005 and 2010, only to rise by the same number from 2011 through last year, data from the environment agency UBA in Berlin show.

The 40 percent target may be missed by as much as 7 percentage points if no further steps are taken, the government said last year. The Environment Ministry said in April it would seek additional means of cutting emissions.

“It’s true that not enough has been done so far and we said that in April after taking stock of Germany’s progress,” Nikolai Fichtner, a spokesman for the Environment Ministry said by phone from Berlin Sept. 8. “All ministries have to do their share and make suggestions as the emissions reduction target is part of the government’s coalition agreement.”

No Suggestion

The Economics and Energy ministry, which oversees the Energiewende and the German power market design, hasn’t made any official suggestions yet, according to Braams.

“We can’t exit coal and nuclear plants at the same time,” she said. “We need to consider the security of power supply.”

The share of power from hard coal and lignite plants in Germany rose to 45 percent last year, the highest level since 2007, according to data from AG Energiebilanzen e.V., a group of energy lobbies and economic research institutes.

Germany can lead the way and help revive the emissions market, according to Vattenfall AB, the Sweden-owned utility and Germany’s second-biggest emitter after RWE.

Over time, the market will direct investments toward low-emission technologies, Stefan Dohler, head of asset optimization and trading at Vattenfall in Hamburg, said Aug. 22 by phone. Until then, coal plants will still provide power in Germany at times when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, he said.

“Lignite is the only cheap, domestic source available in great quantities in Germany that delivers power around the clock,” Dohler said. “Every day, every night, every week and every weekend.”






 
“The government needs to improve the Energiewende so that the current disappointment doesn’t lead to permanent failure.”

...because for now it is only a temporary, abject failure.

What is it with the greenie loons that precludes their ability to do math? It isn;t as if the kilowatt demands of the area served was not very much a known quantity.

Did they think it was going to get windier?

Did they think the sun was going to shine more hours of the day?

No one serious about carbon emissions would shut down a functioning reactor.
 
Drudge Headlines:

DEEP FREEZE BLANKETS USA...

Coldest November Morning Since 1976...

1,360 RECORDS SHATTERED IN ONE WEEK!

5-FEET OF SNOW IN BUFFALO?

Cuomo deploys National Guard...

THE CHILL MAP...

'Global Warming' Activists Huddle Together In Capitol...
 
Drudge Headlines:

DEEP FREEZE BLANKETS USA...

Coldest November Morning Since 1976...

1,360 RECORDS SHATTERED IN ONE WEEK!

5-FEET OF SNOW IN BUFFALO?

Cuomo deploys National Guard...

THE CHILL MAP...

'Global Warming' Activists Huddle Together In Capitol...

But, but, but, it's warm somewhere.

Ishmael
 
Warmest summer since records were kept according to Frodo and KO...

;)

July refused to cooperate though.

Fireworks kill CO2.

:nods:
 
How come you didnt get praised for having just the one global warming thread?
 
Drudge Headlines:

DEEP FREEZE BLANKETS USA...

Coldest November Morning Since 1976...

1,360 RECORDS SHATTERED IN ONE WEEK!

5-FEET OF SNOW IN BUFFALO?

Cuomo deploys National Guard...

THE CHILL MAP...

'Global Warming' Activists Huddle Together In Capitol...

Aberrations. All of them. :D
 
Warmest summer since records were kept according to Frodo and KO...

;)

July refused to cooperate though.

Fireworks kill CO2.

:nods:

Some "experts" have opined that these cold winters are an expected feature of 'Global Warming.' If one buys into that reasoning I suppose we could conclude that the Little Ice Age was, in reality, Global Warming. Would it then follow that the Medieval Warming was really an ice age?

Ishmael
 
Some "experts" have opined that these cold winters are an expected feature of 'Global Warming.' If one buys into that reasoning I suppose we could conclude that the Little Ice Age was, in reality, Global Warming. Would it then follow that the Medieval Warming was really an ice age?

Ishmael

Perfect example of liberal Bizarro World logic!
 
the maddening thing is you have a hot couple of DAYS it's "You see, you SEE!??"

Show an entire season of cooling? "That's just weather, not climate, you dumbass!"

Thats why I am announcing that my space heater is currently causing my climate to change.
 
Some "experts" have opined that these cold winters are an expected feature of 'Global Warming.' If one buys into that reasoning I suppose we could conclude that the Little Ice Age was, in reality, Global Warming. Would it then follow that the Medieval Warming was really an ice age?

Ishmael

:cool:
 
Some "experts" have opined that these cold winters are an expected feature of 'Global Warming.' If one buys into that reasoning I suppose we could conclude that the Little Ice Age was, in reality, Global Warming. Would it then follow that the Medieval Warming was really an ice age?

Ishmael

It's something called "Arctic Oscillation". It's been known to scientists since before even YOU were born.
 
the maddening thing is you have a hot couple of DAYS it's "You see, you SEE!??"

Show an entire season of cooling? "That's just weather, not climate, you dumbass!"

Thats why I am announcing that my space heater is currently causing my climate to change.

That's pretty much exactly the opposite of reality. It's those that deny climate change that come screeching into a thread talking about how COLD it is this week or how much snow they got in late November.

An entire season? You mean like the whole eighteen years you claimed earlier vs the general upward trend over the past century not to mention the general upward trend that's been going on even before that based on arctic core samples? Fallacy of a small sample.
 

You’re a climate denier if:


  • You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 18+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

  • If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.

  • If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.

  • If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

  • You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.

  • You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.

  • If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.

  • You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.




https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ipcc_ransom_note.jpg

 
You’re a climate denier if:


  • You believe that the atmosphere has continued to warm for the last 18+ years despite rapid growth of CO2. 97% of real climate scientists acknowledge that it hasn’t. They call it the “pause” or “hiatus” although there is no scientific evidence that warming will pick up again or when.

  • If you believe that Antarctica is melting. NASA satellite data shows that the sea ice extent around Antarctica in 2014 is the largest in recorded history.

  • If you believe that the observed West Antarctica warming is caused by warming of the atmosphere. Recent studies show that the heat is coming from volcanoes below the glacier. Besides, air temperatures in the area are far below zero. Ice doesn’t melt in subfreezing air.

  • If you believe that 97% of climate scientists support the claim that global warming is driven directly by man-made CO2. It is true that 97% believe in climate change, which is the question they were asked, which is like asking them if the sun rises in the morning. Far fewer agreed with the man-made warming question and few of them agree on the details.

  • You believe that climate models accurately represent the climate of the earth. They don’t. Even the scientists who run them and the IPCC agree that they cannot predict the future of the climate. This is now obvious to everyone since they totally failed to predict the leveling off of atmospheric temperatures since 2000.

  • You think that climate models accurately model the behavior of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. They don’t. They are completely unable to model the behavior of 97% of the greenhouse gas, water vapor and clouds. The dire predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 were based on the conjecture that water vapor would amplify the effects of CO2. The lack of recent warming while CO2 continues to increase shows clearly that water vapor is either neutral or in fact suppresses the warming from CO2.

  • If you believe that around 2000, CO2 magically changed its mind and decided to warm the oceans instead of the air. Some scientists speculate that this is the case but there is little or no hard science to support the notion. Some even speculate that the heat is going into the deep oceans, even though there is no way to measure it or find it.

  • You believe that man-made global warming is causing climate disasters. The International Red Cross reports that natural disasters are at a ten year low. Tornado and hurricane activity have also been at near record lows.


Re. the above emboldened. The Argos project was specifically designed to measure near surface (approx. 6000ft.) oceanic warming. The results showed a slight cooling. So naturally the heat has moved to where they can't measure it. :)

Ishmael

Edited to add 'measure'.
 
Last edited:


For at least the last 15 years, the CO2 Klimate Krazies, the eco-nutters and the climate fascists have been jumping up and down screaming that CO2-driven "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Warming" was solely responsible for destroying the world's coral reefs.


Well, they were WRONG.




"...Reports about the harmful environmental effects of certain chemicals in the water have been circulated for years, but according to the authors of a new study released Tuesday, the chemicals in even one drop of sunscreen are enough to damage fragile coral reef systems. Some 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions wind up in coral reefs around the world each year.

The ingredient oxybenzone leaches the coral of its nutrients and bleaches it white. It can also disrupt the development of fish and other wildlife..."

Chemicals In Sunscreen Are Harming Coral Reefs Says New Study




 
Nope. The only approved methodology in the orthodox Church of Climatology is correlation of CO2 increases are causation for any and all observed effects over any given span of time.

This is how science is done in our more moder times. First decide on a culprit. Then look for undesirable changes in ones environ. Look for statistical linkage and construe that as evidence. When such linkage is proposed, the science is settled.
 


For at least the last 15 years, the CO2 Klimate Krazies, the eco-nutters and the climate fascists have been jumping up and down screaming that CO2-driven "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Warming" was solely responsible for destroying the world's coral reefs.


Well, they were WRONG.




"...Reports about the harmful environmental effects of certain chemicals in the water have been circulated for years, but according to the authors of a new study released Tuesday, the chemicals in even one drop of sunscreen are enough to damage fragile coral reef systems. Some 14,000 tons of sunscreen lotions wind up in coral reefs around the world each year.

The ingredient oxybenzone leaches the coral of its nutrients and bleaches it white. It can also disrupt the development of fish and other wildlife..."

Chemicals In Sunscreen Are Harming Coral Reefs Says New Study





Speaking of chemicals, think of all the human related stuff, chemicals included, being poured into the oceans constantly via rivers and streams worldwide. Think about urban pollution, agricultural runoff, industrial waste, etc. But no, it's CO2, CO2, CO2, CO2. Crazy motherfuckers.
 


by Donna Laframboise
Author, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World's Top Climate Expert

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/11/11/the-naked-climate-change-emperor/




The Naked Climate Change Emperor


...A few weeks ago, a Paris-based company specializing in mathematical modelling released a 195-page white paper. Absolutely free of charge, the Société de Calcul Mathématique (SCM) provides an alternative perspective on the same questions the IPCC has spent 27 years examining.

Unlike many members of the public, the authors of this paper are well equipped to understand the IPCC’s charts and calculations. They declare that there “is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed.”’ Rising sea levels, they say, are a “normal phenomenon” that have “nothing to do with so-called global warming.” Moreover, while they admit humanity has had some effect on the climate, they consider human influence to be:
tiny, quite negligible in comparison with natural causes. Nature makes major changes, human beings make small ones, which our natural arrogance lends a significance they simply do not have. [p. 4]


One third of this white paper is devoted to the IPCC, and ‘scathing’ doesn’t begin to describe that section. The IPCC’s methodology, says the SCM, is “highly biased” and “arbitrary.” IPCC statements and conclusions are dismissed as being entirely meaningless, logically flawed, totally absurd, intellectually dishonest, and in violation of scientific norms.

The SCM accuses the IPCC of relying on “entirely hypothetical” mechanisms and “nonvalidated mathematical models.” Using such models to guide political decisions, it says, is “dishonest and illogical.”


more...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/11/11/the-naked-climate-change-emperor/


 
Back
Top