Search results

80% of energy consumption in the UK comes from fossil fuels.

You are using the wrong units! MW is a unit of power. MWh is a unit of energy. That was 649 MWh that wind energy had dropped to after producing over 8,000 MWh just 24 hours prior to that. There is no way that was predicted days in advance. Plus, the icing effects on the wind turbines were not...

By the time the revised forecast was issued, it was too late. ERCOT planned the energy load 6 days in advance. They had a meeting with Gov. Abbott and assured him that they were ready for the Arctic blast. I assure you, no wind forecast will be that accurate 6 days out from the event. ERCOT was...

As a matter of fact, the UK uses fossil fuels for 80% of their energy consumption. https://www.worldometers.info/energy/uk-energy/

Coal burning hasn't been phased out of the UK. It has declined over the years, but by no means has it been phased out! https://www.worldometers.info/coal/uk-coal/#coal-consumption

Your perspective is severely distorted by your green energy fanaticism. We lost almost 8,000 MWh of wind energy during the Arctic blast event. There was plenty of wind available because it was a powerful and windy cold front that passed through Texas. We counted on that wind energy to be...

The Geologic Survey of Norway believes the Arctic may have been free of ice at times between 6000-7000 years ago. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020095850.htm You don't need CO2 forcing to do that!

Our wind energy in Texas completely recovered within a week. Boosting coal for a week in Texas will not destroy the earth!

Because the Northern Hemisphere went through a similar warming period in the early 20th Century without CO2 forcing. There were newspaper articles written about it. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_05_07_05_25_24-down.png...

Wrong. This tells the story. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/balancing_authority/ERCO/GenerationByEnergySource-14 Click ERCO Go down to third graph down - electricity generation by energy source - click the gear in upper right hand corner Set the...

No. Look at the real scientific data from EIA. Liberals hate looking at real data.

Click ERCOT to get to the Texas data.

Check the EIA data. Those numbers don't lie.

The Houston comical is a liberal newspaper.

Go to energy source and click on the graph. Adjust the dates under custom.

You can adjust the times on this energy graph. If you look at 12 Feb to 20 Feb, you can clearly see the wind energy getting knocked out on 15 Feb. Coal and nuclear were the most steady...

All liberal news magazines and newspapers cover up the 93% loss of wind energy during the Arctic blast in Texas.

The late, great CSU Tropical Meteorologist Dr. William Gray explained the way this issue should have been handled right from the beginning in the 1980s. He said that 50% of atmospheric research funding should have gone to study natural climate variation, and the other 50% gone to anthropogenic...

For the next Arctic blast, Texas will know to boost coal-powered energy before it arrives, because wind turbines freeze with our relatively high dewpoint temperatures.

Knock yourselves out. We have a lot of solar in Texas too.

Since your short answer was no, then from my perspective, you and me are in 90% agreement. We can have a disagreement over what causes the global mean temperature to change over the decades. Where I get cross with people is when they get fanatical with their human-caused global warming belief...

By the way, not everywhere in America has the sunlight Las Vegas has.

My liberal sister just recently bought solar panels for her home in Alubquerque, NM. Initial cost 30K. I noticed you left your initial cost out.

I don't quote. I surmise. Now tell me this. Did I surmise correctly about your beliefs in climate-based political activism? I consider the pro AGW advocates to have faulty arguments because they ignore what has happened in the past. Much of what is happening now has already happened in the...

Not denying anything. There is a real scientific debate going on amongst atmospheric researchers today about how much of an effect CO2 has on our climate. They argue over the equations and feedback. If you don't believe me, just go to Dr. Spencer's blog page and you can see the pro and con AGW...

The reason why I call you global warming zealots is because you inject political action into your beliefs about the climate. I am not the one trying to mandate what kind of car you should drive, or what kind of electric power plan you should buy. I believe the free market plus the consumer...

64 year old and retired. My portfolio follows the Harry Browne (former Libertarian candidate for President of US) model. I roughly have 25% cash, 25% bonds, 25%stocks, and 25% gold. I'm sure my mutual funds and ETFs have some energy stocks. By the way, it was just discovered John Kerry owned oil...

Trump got us off of Middle Eastern oil and got us on to Canadian oil, as well as our own. Apparently Biden doesn't like Canadian oil for some reason. He wants to load up oil tankers from the Persian Gulf and bring them back through the Gulf of Mexico to offload their crude at Texas and Louisiana...

There is only one side that is distorting, and that is the side which claims the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and will lead to a climate catastrophe. By the way, have any of you global warming zealots taken a look at the latest global mean temperature anomaly? Here, have a look...

I have studied it. I am not a climate research scientists, but I have done operational weather forecasting for 40 years. Climate goes through natural cycles. Humans are basically just a pimple on a gnat's ass.

Trump just about accomplished getting us out of shooting wars in the Middle East over oil.

One of the authors of the Quantitative Attribution paper is Phil Klotzbach. He was a student of the late great Dr. Bill Gray. So I know the paper is a well written and well thought out paper. If you note in the conclusion, they mentioned post 1980 warming with a slight emphasis on human-caused...

Think of what humans used for our fuel source before fossil fuels. Now, think what would have happened to our forests if we did not develop and use fossil fuels as our source of energy. You think that might have affected our environment just a tad? I think fossil fuels have done more to help our...

I wasn't trying to get anybody to feel sorry for me. I was simply just trying to make a point to my fellow Tesla owners how lucky I was that my Model-S P85D made it through the Harvey flood unscathed. And that my house was just a secondary concern by comparison. The reaction by my fellow Tesla...

I can surmise.

You can do all kinds of fun things with a graph - especially with the ordinate to dramatize a parameter you are interested in. Please note that you are attaching the Keeling instrument measured data to the end of proxy data. Proxy data will never pick up the short-term fluctuations that...

OK, so you want to play that silly game about trolls? I have something for all of you. Starts with a story. Back in 2017 during the Tesla Forum days, I announced to the Tesla Forum that my house flooded during Hurricane Harvey, but my Tesla made it through. A couple of inches of flood waters...

Spencer wasn't caught at anything. He and Christy are constantly trying to improve the algorithms they write to measure global mean temperature. There is no 100% accuracy in measuring such a thing. But apparently it is accurate enough for NOAA. I bet that pisses you off!

Spencer is a "luke-warmer." He does believe there is some CO2 forcing in the recent multi-decadal warming trend. But he does not believe this means climate catastrophe. And for that, he is castigated by global warming zealots. Here is a BBC article on a prediction of an ice-free Arctic by 2013...

Oh, my goodness. Look at you sitting on top of your moral high horse looking down your snooty nose upon somebody with phony outrage. Slandering an atmospheric scientist is by far worse than calling somebody a pipsqueak, But that is just how the liberal-woke mind works - slander is good...

Oh, yes. There was consensus the Arctic would be free of ice in 2012! https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-19-at-7.17.30-AM-down-1.gif Notice how they mentioned 2040, but could be as early as 2012! Sounds kind of like AOC's "the world will end in 12...

Correction - Antarctic ice core data.

You are absolutely going nowhere with this. I already pointed out to you the parameters of both graphs were different. This will give the curves a different appearance (although you can see the spikes). You just keep digging your own hole deeper and deeper. I showed you a way out. Confront...

The Holocene, or that goofy "Anthropocene" as you call it is actually quite mild compared to the previous interglacial period. Have a look at Greenland ice core data: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/49ff5-6a010536b58035970c0134840e51fd970c-pi.png As you can see, 120,000 to...

You don't understand greenhouse gasses and/or natural climate variation at all.

Then why is Biden proposing 170 billion to produce BEVs!!!!! If that isn't a market distortion, I don't know what is.

The data did not come from Tony Heller! All he did was document the data that is already there. In this case, the data comes from MASIE - Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent. Here is the link. Yes, they are legitimate. https://nsidc.org/data/masie I've always noticed this about you democrat...

The world warms and cools, warms and cools, warms and cools. Global warming zealots like you think it only warms.

The Anthropocene is nothing more than a fabrication by the global warming worshippers.

I'm not protecting anybody from anything. I just wish everybody would allow our scientists and engineers to develop the sources of energy our general public demands. Also, BEVs should grow by consumer choice, not government force.