Wind and Solar don't like the cold

As the big freeze over runs Europe we find wind and solar are not much good in cold weather. Germany had all its wind turbines freeze solid only a day ago and the solar panels were coated in ice. With no RE working, Germany who has made much ado about how good the RE is had to use, Oh no! fossil fueled energy, importing much of it from other countries who haven't gone so far down the one way RE road.

It is actually beginning to look as if the 1970's predictions of a new ice age is coming true. It was predicted that while the weather would cool for a few years, as it did, the weather would then warm up for a couple of decades, as it has done, before temperatures would again dip, but with each dip the temperature would go even lower, as it has done.

An ice age would do far more damage than global warming. Even the little ice age that hit Europe in the 1700's caused major famine in northern countries. You can grow food in warmer weather but not much in the cold, as the Vikings found out when Greenland refroze over.

Interesting times we live in

Interesting times ahead (or should I say way ahead) Granite. Maybe this is exactly what the world needed as an example, in order to reconsider other forms of power options, before trying to put a stop to the current power options we currently have at hand.
This generation might not happen to see the comings of an Ice Age period at its height, but generations down the track, better brace themselves for what's to come.

Kon.

granite2 wrote:

It is actually beginning to look as if the 1970's predictions of a new ice age is coming true. It was predicted that while the weather would cool for a few years, as it did, the weather would then warm up for a couple of decades, as it has done, before temperatures would again dip, but with each dip the temperature would go even lower, as it has done.

None of this is true!
A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

Kon61gold wrote:Interesting times ahead (or should I say way ahead) Granite. Maybe this is exactly what the world needed as an example, in order to reconsider other forms of power options, before trying to put a stop to the current power options we currently have at hand.
This generation might not happen to see the comings of an Ice Age period at its height, but generations down the track, better brace themselves for what's to come.

Kon.

Global warming  could cause some places like USA to get colder and have much  more severe winters due to the slowing down of  AMOC like the gulfsteam. This is already being observed: Caesar, Levke, et al. "Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation." Nature 556.7700 (2018): 191.

So PC, you don't believe the reports of wind and solar freezing over in Germany while there were two states in the U>S where this also happened during their last winter. You only depend on modelling, which has proven to be so inaccurate that even school kids have written papers on the unreliability of warming and cooling modelling.

You are old enough to remember the propaganda surrounding the predictions of a new ice age, so far a fail. Also the energy crisis where we were going to have no more oil by 1985, another big fail. Then the Millennium Bug predictions where the world's banks would fail, planes would fall from the sky and life as we know it would be over, another gigantic fail but one that cost the world 7 trillion dollars. Now we come to global warming and the same eminent scientists who had at least three gigantic Fails are trying to convince the world they are right... this time. No wonder I am a sceptic.

But as with anything where there is so much money to be made, in this case trillions of dollars, per year if you want find the truth you follow the money. And with so much money at stake don't you think there might just be a chance that the RE mob are doing everything they can to make anything that might harm their cause seem useless and even dangerous?

PC you can continue trying to convince the world you are right but there are a heckova lot of sceptics like me out there because they have also lived through the biggest scams in history.

The ball is now in your court but I doubt I'll bother to return the serve if you are only going to scatter scientific predictions of what may be, might be and could possibly be. Predictions are what you get when you look in a crystal ball.

Either way planetcare, it is to little a time span (from the last Ice Age) to accurately predict, what events may occur, 100 or 500 years from now, with the little known scientific data/information, gathered over say the last 70 odd years or so.
It somehow reminds of a certain desalination plant being built here in Victoria, during a time of extreme water shortage & no sooner had it been built, the heavens decided to open up & down came the rain, putting the plant back to a standby. But, as they say "better to have in storage for that time of need, than not to have, in a time of crises"
What amazes me most, is that how quick we all are (not just the sciences) to predict future events (including me) when in reality, no one knows/can predict for certain, what one day to the next will bring?
Put it to you this way (for you are a man of the sciences) If the world & the people in it, were to cop a sudden unpredictable life threatening event, what would the sciences say then? (whoops, somehow we didn't happen to factor that one in ) This is why we must also try to factor in, or make room for the unpredictable.     
Best thing man can do, is to keep gathering "proven" scientific facts & figures & then apply them "accordingly" to mans future needs.

Kon.

Maybe we might have to end up producing more greenhouse emissions to warm the planet,start digging up coal again now wouldn't that be something.

Kon61gold wrote:Either way planetcare, it is to little a time span (from the last Ice Age) to accurately predict, what events may occur, 100 or 500 years from now, with the little known scientific data/information, gathered over say the last 70 odd years or so.
It somehow reminds of a certain desalination plant being built here in Victoria, during a time of extreme water shortage & no sooner had it been built, the heavens decided to open up & down came the rain, putting the plant back to a standby. But, as they say "better to have in storage for that time of need, than not to have, in a time of crises"
What amazes me most, is that how quick we all are (not just the sciences) to predict future events (including me) when in reality, no one knows/can predict for certain, what one day to the next will bring?
Put it to you this way (for you are a man of the sciences) If the world & the people in it, were to cop a sudden unpredictable life threatening event, what would the sciences say then? (whoops, somehow we didn't happen to factor that one in ) This is why we must also try to factor in, or make room for the unpredictable.     
Best thing man can do, is to keep gathering "proven" scientific facts & figures & then apply them "accordingly" to mans future needs.

Kon.

Again I disagree. The planet is warming faster and C02 levels are rising faster than at any time over the last 800, 000 years. C02 levels ( a greenhouse gas ) are already 40% higher than at any time since the Pliocene when sea levels were about 10 meters higher and the global temperature was 1.8 °C to 3.6 °C warmer than preindustrial temperatures, If we continue business as usual then by the end of this century C02 levels will be 600ppm or more a level not seen for 53 million years ,when based on geological and fossil evidence sea levels were up to 50m higher than now, global temperatures were 6 deg C hotter than present and their was a mass extinction! The desalination plant will be required as will others because as predicted by climate models rainfall in SE has declined by about 20% since the 1970's

deutran, know that I do my part by producing green house emissions, for every morning I wake up, I let them rip like there's no tomorrow, fully aware I'm contributing, to keeping us all warm.  

Kon.

PC those figure look a little rubbery. Do you know how old the present great barrier reef is? Ten thousand years, that is all. It only began to form on top of at least 3 previous reefs after the last ice age ended about 10,00 years ago. Water levels have been rising and warming ever since, it is a natural cycle and to say that co2 levels have never been higher is wrong unless you don't believe your own scientists. Our earth is far more resilient than most people think. It has never been in a static state but constantly changes. Anyone who thinks our world is ever going to stay static is in a world of denial.

Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."

For goodness sakes folks, keep farting it looks like we may need to

granite2 wrote:Climate Myth: CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."

For goodness sakes folks, keep farting it looks like we may need to

Not telling the full story again!

Your value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine  biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A  period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.


What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine  biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A  period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

So your scientists top my scientists. But after that huge dump you still ignore most of the more interesting parts of my posts such as Germany losing their RE for a day or three? What do you think can be done to avoid that?

granite2 wrote:So your scientists top my scientists. But after that huge dump you still ignore most of the more interesting parts of my posts such as Germany losing their RE for a day or three? What do you think can be done to avoid that?

Your "scientists" are simply wrong as you are!
to answer your question
perhaps solar thermal, a national energy conservation policy, battery storage, pumped hydro storage and move to a hydrogen economy.

I think we just need a few more nuclear reactors and all will be fine.

Cheers

Doug

I won't disagree with you there planetcare, for the oceans as well as CO2 are rising, but how can one say faster than at any time over the last 800,000 years? Man were not there collecting data for such occurrences, over that period of time, so there's a chance the sciences could be way off the mark. As a matter of fact, man can't get things accurately right, of what were happening or happened 10 thousand years back, not alone accurately predict what happened or were happening 800,000 years back.
I am not against the sciences. If only these scientific facts, laid down by the sciences, were to be agreed upon by all other scientist, leaving no room for error/doubt or dispute, then & then only, can I say or we say, that one can fully trust in the sciences all of the time & not some of the time.

Kon.

If as has been stated that CO2 levels were extremely high many moons ago, what was the O2 and Nitrogen levels at that time.
What caused the high CO2.
Were the jungles and plant life lush back then, plants rely on CO2 to survive and give of O2.. What was the Nitrogen level?

Something I have noticed in fossil records is that when a mammoth  or mastodon  remains are found the tusks are very long and curved.
These tusks were primarily used to rook/dig around in the ground and dig for roots and plants. Yet these found tusks are very long and cumbersome. Does this mean that these creatures were living during a time outside their normal living grounds of plants and trees and jungle. If there had been food a plenty then the tusks would be worn down to a more useful length through constant use. The climate must have changed to a much colder or hotter one that destroyed these creatures normal feeding grounds and so they trudged far and wide through desert and ice in search of food  that no longer existed and so their tusks grew longer and longer until they curved back significantly.They then had to resort to pulling twigs and branches from whatever trees and bushes were remaining This would not have been  a long time ago at all really maybe just 5,000 or 10,000 years.

Just pointing out that the planets climate changes have little to do with our activity alone.

Kon61gold wrote:I won't disagree with you there planetcare, for the oceans as well as CO2 are rising, but how can one say faster than at any time over the last 800,000 years? Man were not there collecting data for such occurrences, over that period of time, so there's a chance the sciences could be way off the mark. As a matter of fact, man can't get things accurately right, of what were happening or happened 10 thousand years back, not alone accurately predict what happened or were happening 800,000 years back.
I am not against the sciences. If only these scientific facts, laid down by the sciences, were to be agreed upon by all other scientist, leaving no room for error/doubt or dispute, then & then only, can I say or we say, that one can fully trust in the sciences all of the time & not some of the time.

Kon.

The answer is ice core data.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/core-questions-an-introduction-to-ice-cores/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-tech/climate-core-how-scientists-study-ice-cores-reveal-earth%E2%80%99s-climate

adrian ss wrote:If as has been stated that CO2 levels were extremely high many moons ago, what was the O2 and Nitrogen levels at that time.
What caused the high CO2.

Tectonic activity ,primarily massive volcanismn combined with oceanic out gassing.Have no data on what the N2 and 02 levels were at the time.

Its not so much that our planets natural climate changes, have little to do with our own contributions to the planets change Adrian, but more so, how much of man made contribution, is contributed in way of CO2 gas emissions, on top of what the current planet has been naturally contributing (say over the last century).  Some people are saying to much, others to little as to be compared to the earths natural contributions & this is where the dilemmas of what precautions should be taken today in order to sustain a foreseeable future, come undone.
If only the Almighty Dollar were not used for the sole purpose of self interest (darkening the way to true progress), maybe then & then only, man would see a lot clearer in way of choosing what's best, for both man & nature.

Kon.

adrian ss wrote:
Just pointing out that the planets climate changes have little to do with our activity alone.

This is true but the overwhelming body of evidence now shows that mans activities are becoming the dominant driver of climate change.

Body of evidence manufactured by those with the most gain. All those scientists supporting climate are paid from the public purse and those companies making billions from RE without solving any problems are the problem not the answer.

granite2 wrote:Body of evidence manufactured by those with the most gain. All those scientists supporting climate are paid from the public purse and those companies making billions from RE without solving any problems are the problem not the answer.

wrong again!  Those opposite is true!  The opposition to RE and the climate change deniers are from the private sector with a huge financial stake in the fossil fuels!

The three-minute story of 800,000 years of climate change with a sting in the tail
https://theconversation.com/the-three-minute-story-of-800-000-years-of-climate-change-with-a-sting-in-the-tail-73368

granite2 wrote:Body of evidence manufactured by those with the most gain. .

Can you show any examples of where the "body of evidence" has been manufactured by climate scientists?

Ice Core Data yes, but here it is mentioned again by Professor Eric Osterburg. Quote, "We have some evidence that "may" have happened but we "aren't sure"
Here's another one. "After analysing enough ice core slices, which may each represent anywhere from a "week" to a "year" of time, a researcher then can look for patterns to track changes in the atmospheres composition & temperature & what activity on earth shaped it.
And another one, "Osterburg even "thinks" ice cores will help figure out Antarctica's western Ice sheet melted 125 thousand years ago, the last time Earths climate warmed to the temperatures the planet is "predicted" to reach, in the next two centuries.
Now tell me planetcare, do all other scientific theoretical write ups, fall under the same type of predictions?  If so, there will be no need for me to dissect certain other passages from.
As I said, I'm not against the sciences, for it is through the sciences, man has acquired what he has today, but it would help immensely, if their interpretation of data results, were to be, a little more spot on/accurate.  
Go science go

Cheers Kon.

Kon61gold wrote:Ice Core Data yes, but here it is mentioned again by Professor Eric Osterburg. Quote, "We have some evidence that "may" have happened but we "aren't sure"
Here's another one. "After analysing enough ice core slices, which may each represent anywhere from a "week" to a "year" of time, a researcher then can look for patterns to track changes in the atmospheres composition & temperature & what activity on earth shaped it.
And another one, "Osterburg even "thinks" ice cores will help figure out Antarctica's western Ice sheet melted 125 thousand years ago, the last time Earths climate warmed to the temperatures the planet is "predicted" to reach, in the next two centuries.
Now tell me planetcare, do all other scientific theoretical write ups, fall under the same type of predictions?  If so, there will be no need for me to dissect certain other passages from.
As I said, I'm not against the sciences, for it is through the sciences, man has acquired what he has today, but it would help immensely, if their interpretation of data results, were to be, a little more spot on/accurate.  
Go science go

Cheers Kon.

Their is other data from bore holes,ocean sediment analysis and fossil and other proxy data that show that the recent warming is unprecedented in the recent geological record. As well we have the known physics of a greenhouse gas which says that if we raise the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas then the earth will warm in response. This was first predicted by Svante Arrhenius.
Svante Arrhenius, the Man Who Foresaw Climate Change
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/svante-arrhenius-the-man-who-foresaw-climate-change/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/

We are all doomed if you read what one is spruking here.
Seagulls walking on the Thames for the first time in decades tells me something different.
The East coast of Australia recording unusually low summer temperatures....................
Season change yes, climate change bulls**t.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticl%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR17c3Vw40_ftE2JeEMGfYwZbbp8M5AHsrFd_65TOUzObUPJpZZTN84FUbg&h=AT30P9UVELJJ043Q27zwAxUSNzhmtczfHgUxJRcNXjY2sARH3pSZEe_zP5ObCF3Opd6nDtC526iXfqLMzgqx1BaasvfSwtkF6EgP1UxZ2ZsvIRwxWjBTzmakTbbKq2rZlcnq74xtQ2Jz

Nightjar wrote:We are all doomed if you read what one  is spruking here.
Seagulls walking on the Thames for the first time in decades tells me something different.
The East coast of Australia recording unusually low summer temperatures....................
Season change yes, climate change bulls**t.

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticl%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR17c3Vw40_ftE2JeEMGfYwZbbp8M5AHsrFd_65TOUzObUPJpZZTN84FUbg&h=AT30P9UVELJJ043Q27zwAxUSNzhmtczfHgUxJRcNXjY2sARH3pSZEe_zP5ObCF3Opd6nDtC526iXfqLMzgqx1BaasvfSwtkF6EgP1UxZ2ZsvIRwxWjBTzmakTbbKq2rZlcnq74xtQ2Jz

You don't know the difference between climate and weather!!!

Ha ha ha so weather has nothing to with climate

Now, now gentlemen, lets all stay calm & civil. We can't afford losing any member on here, who through frustration, lets one off to many, causing self detonation.

Kon