This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

Post

The power grid will fail on a too hot or too cold day in Germany or California, where rates are about $300 / MWh ($0.3 / kWh) to consumer

image credit: Generic display of the universe.

I have three (3) predictions for 2020:

1. The "climate change" hoax / scam will hit the fan and spread its bogus idea and lies all over.

Metaphor: A fly (earth) on the ox’s ass (sun) is saying: “WE are plowing the field.”   An oxymoron???

The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. But of course, according to “Climate Deniers”, the fly is actually plowing the field, screw the ox who weighs about 333,000 times as much as the fly... It is so large that about 1,300,000 flies could fit inside of it...

Still, it is the fly (earth) who causes the "Climate Change"...  an oxymoron???

I was wrong once. I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong.

2. The power grid will fail on a too hot or too cold day in Germany or California, where rates are about $300 / MWh ($0.3 / kWh) to consumer, due to "free renewable energy" - a no-brainer.

3. The all electric vehicles (EV's) will go away - again, a no-brainer. Having added batteries weight to any vehicle in order to save energy is an oxymoron. Minor supporting evidence: It will require a lot of fossil-fueled power generation...

Posted on LinkedIn.com:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/noam-mayraz-pe-4603563_i-have-three-3-pre...

Discussions

Donald Osborn's picture
Donald Osborn on Jan 10, 2020 6:51 pm GMT

I am not sure why this foolishness is creaping in to what is supposed to be a professional level area for discussions. Perhaps this is a Russian bot or maybe sophificated satire. Clearly it is not serious, well thought out and fact based post.

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Jan 16, 2020 8:02 pm GMT


1. Professor Ivar Giaever  https://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/meeting-2015

ABSTRACT

Because of the following statement from the American Physical Society:

“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

I resigned from the society in 2011. First: nothing in science is incontrovertible. Second: the “measured” average temperature increase in 100 years or so, is 0.8 Kelvin. Third: since the Physical Society claim it has become warmer, why is everything better than before? Forth: the maximum average temperature ever measured was in 1998, 17 years ago. When will we stop wasting money on alternative energy?

Ivar Giaever explains why he left the American Physical Society in 2011, and what is the relevance of the State of the Art of Research in Climate Sciences.  2. Dr. Patrick Moore  Here is an interesting viewing, 15:27 minutes, do not miss this, it will not come soon to a theater near you (as do Gore, Moore and DiCaprio's misrepresentations)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYQ6eZDXXRE Digital Exclusive: Dr. Patrick Moore TEARS APART The Green New Deal | Huckabee  3. Dr. Patrick Michael  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ&feature=youtu.be Mark Levin interviews Dr. Patrick Michael – 32 computer modules.  4. John Coleman (Weather Channel) That section, 3:08 to 5:08 minutes out of 10:24minutes - has it all, including what motivates 97% of the climatologists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhX2KQs3v5w&feature=youtu.be Excerpts: There is no consensus in science, science isn’t a vote, science is about the facts, if you get down to the hard cold facts, there is no question about it, climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect anything in the future, there’s a whole lot of baloney, and yes it has become a big political point of the Democrat party and part of their platform and I regret it’s become political instead of scientific.   The government puts out about two and a half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democrat Party of position so they don’t have any choice if you’re going to get the money you’ve got to support their position.   5. For the icing on the cake watch this piece / clip about the guy that started it all, listen carefully to every word: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9R0JVCy578  6. For supporting evidence watch the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I5RLbbXgPc  #Tucker  - Stossel: Why climate change alarmists get it wrong (4:53 minutes).

Jeffery Green's picture
Jeffery Green on Jan 17, 2020 7:52 pm GMT

If you go right to the studies themselves as data, Naomi Oreskes found zero disagreement of every paper she looked at. Its a batting average of zero if this was a baseball game. If you are saying these guys and women are lying, how are you going to show that in a science manner?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus#Politicization_of_science

For example, the scientific consensus on the causes of global warming is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.[16][17][18] The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science reporting that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[16] In an editorial published in The Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus.[19] Oreskes's findings were replicated by other methods that require no interpretation.[6]

Jeffery Green's picture
Jeffery Green on Jan 10, 2020 8:41 pm GMT

 

Scientific consensus is quite high on global warming. I just can't take this guy seriously though. LOL

 

Noam Mayraz's picture
Noam Mayraz on Jan 16, 2020 8:05 pm GMT

Jeff, Newton’s 3rd Law states that your town-clown response reflects on you.  I do engineering using facts and figures, not by “consensus”.

Funny enough, Columbus and Galileo also faced people like you, Jeffery Grreen, who, as it turned out, were correct.  The Earth is still flat and the sun rotates around the earth daily.  Wath and read:

John Coleman (Weather Channel)

That section, 3:08 to 5:08 minutes out of 10:24 minutes - has it all, including what motivates 97% of the climatologists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhX2KQs3v5w&feature=youtu.be

Excerpts:

There is no consensus in science, science isn’t a vote, science is about the facts, if you get down to the hard cold facts, there is no question about it, climate change is not happening. There is no significant man-made global warming now, there hasn’t been any in the past, and there’s no reason to expect anything in the future, there’s a whole lot of baloney, and yes it has become a big political point of the Democrat party and part of their platform and I regret it’s become political instead of scientific. 

The government puts out about two and a half billion dollars directly for climate research every year, it only gives that money to scientists who will produce scientific results that support the global warming hypothesis of the Democrat Party of position so they don’t have any choice if you’re going to get the money you’ve got to support their position. 

Jeffery Green's picture
Jeffery Green on Jan 17, 2020 7:34 pm GMT

Scientists do vote on what the fact or facts are. If the other science fields do it, is there any reason that climate science can't do this?

So are these other fields wrong for doing so also?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.[1]

 

I have been paying attention to the climate field for a long time now. John Coleman? He is a well proven climate denier like yourself. LOL.

Jeffery Green's picture
Jeffery Green on Jan 17, 2020 7:57 pm GMT

3. The all electric vehicles (EV's) will go away - again, a no-brainer.

 

The electric cars will become the majority of miles driven on earth in about 20 years. I am coming up on 19,000 miles now in my first year of ownership of my electric car. Actually it is the fossil fuel cars that will leave the earth this century. The IPCC pretty much has the science consensus showing ghg's gotta go. We will have a world of 100% renewable energy just as close as we can get it. After that we have to do negative carbon emissions.

Jeffery Green's picture
Jeffery Green on Jan 17, 2020 8:15 pm GMT

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2020/01/16/what-it-means-when-the-worlds-largest-asset-manager-rings-a-warning-bell-about-the-financial-risks-of-climate-change/#11e461f30863

 

BlackRock, with nearly $7 trillion in assets under management, said it would put sustainability at the core of its investment decision-making, stating that “climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.” 

 

Its a pretty strong direction taking place in the world in how society is moving on accepting climate change. Black is just one of many asset managers taking climate change seriously into account in their portfolios.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »