The graph pretty much says it all.

https://i.postimg.cc/028LTyZ4/IMG-3049.jpg

A natural event that happens in only "decades"


https://youtu.be/JCt2MhOzWVE?si=Gzx_dTD4f5jHGpiE

https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo...339/DP1007.pdf

In this paper we have reviewed data on climate and temperatures in the past and ascertained that there have been large (non-stationary) temperature fluctuations resulting from natural causes.
Subsequently, we have summarized recent work on statistical analyses on the ability of the GCMs to track historical temperature data. These studies have demonstrated that the time series of the difference between the global temperature and the corresponding hindcast from the GCMs is non-stationary. Thus, these studies raise serious doubts about whether the GCMs are able to distinguish natural variations in temperatures from variations caused by man-made emissions of CO2.
Next, we have updated the statistical time series analysis of Dagsvik et al. (2020) based on observed temperature series recorded during the last 200 years and further back in time. Despite long trends and cycles in these temperature series, we have found that the hypothesis of stationarity
was not rejected, apart from a few cases. These results are therefore consistent with the results obtained by Dagsvik et al. (2020). In other words, the results imply that the effect of man-made CO2 emissions does not appear to be sufficiently strong to cause systematic changes in the pattern of the temperature fluctuations. In other words, our analysis indicates that with the current level of knowledge, it seems impossible to determine how much of the temperature increase is due to emissions of CO2.

They are finally coming around to face reality. Helluva lot better idea than cutting down trees to save the planet.

US, UK Lead Pledge to Triple Nuclear Power by 2050 at COP28

Countries to support new tech, like small modular reactors
Nuclear power has seen a resurgence in interest recently


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...op28#xj4y7vzkg

However, Small Nuclear Reactors (SMR) hzave jzst face d setbabck when some ociensing or permission to operate them was refuse din the US, its a news 10-14 days old or so. Also, these reactors tend to suffer from more neurton leakage than bigge rreactors, studies oif the past 3-4 years found, I recall.


I do not mean this as a death bell ringing on SNR technology, which is in use in military contexts (ships, submarines) and in Russian ice breakers since decades, but right now it probaly iitll is not the silver bullet causingn miracles and wonder. However, we are probably closer to succeed with this tech than we are with succeeding with fusion reactors, which imo still are several - many - decades away: if they will ever become economically operational (which I do not rule out, but no longer take as a certainty).

Good thing AI is coming along so there's "someone" smart enough to run a nuclear reactor in the future. I'm not one of them, I flunked out in Orlando. :D

https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/solars..._x_tr_pto=wapp

If the energy transition in Switzerland is to succeed, we have to say goodbye to some clichés. Calculations by the energy company Axpo show: Wind energy and even new nuclear power plants are cheaper than photovoltaics – if all costs are taken into account.

If you ask the devil for a dance, don't complain if your soles catch fire.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-67508331

Change of comment-Did not see Skybird had posted the same link above ^
I have therefore removed my comment and link.

Markus

Tis hardly surprising when you look at the state of the energy markets of late.

Click on "Ich unterstütze bereits" to pass. Its just a harmless support request.

https://www-tichyseinblick-de.transl..._x_tr_pto=wapp

A neverending source of reasons for mockery and laughter. I stick to my old view of all this: in general it seems to get warmer for sure, but we will not prevent that, and so have to adapt to a warmer world in a meaning of evolutionary theory. Wanting to turn he clocks back like the Greens want, will not save us, neither will a hysterical witch hunt against technology. Climate science is, like nutrition science, a hotspot of corruption in science. The intention is not so much saving the climate, but "marxistically" redistributing wealth from the haves to the havenots, and to keep the rabble in a never-ending scare in order to be able to drive them more easily in the desired radical left direction. Not to mention that many a stupid monkey would look pretty hilarious if he were to admit now that he has spent his academic career spreading nothing but drivel, so that he can have absolutely no self-interest in helping to form this enlightening historical moment of ending this nonsense. And all the activist organizations and their babbling figureheads would also have to weep bitter tears after their sudden loss of significance and donations. Life is not fair! :har:

https://think-again.org/global-warming-halb-so-schlimm/

------------------

Satellites have been measuring the Earth's temperature for half a century. There should now be enough data to be able to compare it with the forecasts of computer models. Several teams of meteorologists have done this, and their results are (not) surprising.

The temperature of the earth

Why can a satellite even measure the earth's temperature? This happens very indirectly. One uses a property of air, more precisely that of oxygen, whose molecules emit more or less infrared radiation depending on the temperature. The satellites have spectrometers on board, which are measuring devices that are precisely calibrated for this radiation, which is invisible to the eye. You can then draw conclusions about the temperature from their data.

Let me illustrate this with an example: There is a big festival taking place near your apartment. From midday onwards there is a level of noise that reaches you. To find out how many visitors are currently at the fair, analyze this sound. There are voices of children, men and women together, laughing, singing or ordering a beer. There are also noises from carousels, ghost trains and radio strips.

They install a microphone on the balcony and connect it to a “spectrometer for sound”, which measures the pitches and volumes that make up the noise. They observe all of this very closely and find a window in the spectrum of sound frequencies in which man-made sound lies. Using the rule of thumb “the louder, the more” you can now determine the current number of visitors.


Infrared noise

Our meteorologists also face a similar task. Satellites look at the intensities in a specific window of the spectrum from the infrared “noise” generated by a wide variety of physical processes in the atmosphere and on the ground. They then calculate a temperature from this. But what temperature is that? After all, the atmosphere is many kilometers thick, and with every kilometer of altitude it gets around 6 °C colder. The spectrometers look into a huge mixture of different temperatures. A lot of calculations have to be done in order to come up with a realistic statement about the temperature near the earth. This should then be within a tenth of a degree in order to be relevant when it comes to climate change.


The interplay of the elements

The measurement results from NASA and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), which have been accumulated since satellite measurements began, were recently analyzed very carefully and came to the following conclusion: Since the 1970s, the atmosphere has changed by 0.13 to 0 per decade .18 °C warmed. If this continues, global warming would be 1.2 °C by the end of the century. The University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) satellites, in turn, observed a cooling of 0.016 degrees for the seven years 2015-2022.

This is not in line with the “official” news reported by mainstream media, and so we should take a closer look at it.

In order to identify the causes of possible global warming, you have to look at all the processes that could influence the earth's temperature. These are factors such as variations in solar activity, clouds, changes in the Earth's orbit, spread of vegetation, composition of the atmosphere and much more. A “model” can then be created from this, i.e. with the help of a wealth of mathematical equations that describe the respective effect, one simulates which temperatures would arise in the interplay of these influences.


Complicated models

Computers are conveniently used for such calculations, and so the term “computer model” has become established. A number of institutions have taken on this very demanding task, most of which work under the umbrella of the UN agency IPCC. There is now the suspicion that they are not looking for the true causes of warming, but that it is established a priori: it is man-made CO2 in the air. All observations are intended to prove precisely this one hypothesis, and they are intended to prove that the end of the planet is imminent. It's like a doctor making a diagnosis before examining the patient. He assumes malaria a priori and then uses the fever curves only to confirm his claim.

The IPCC-compliant computer models predict warming of 2.4 degrees by the year 2100, in contrast to the 1.2 degrees mentioned above. Can you believe that? What is more plausible?


Theory and truth

You can test the models for their suitability by setting them to reproduce the temperature curves of the past. For example, you could feed the computer program with temperature data from 1980 to 2000 and use it to calculate a forecast for the years 2001 to 2020. These can then be compared with the actually measured values.

Something like this has been done, and instead of the actual, measured warming of 0.15 to 0.18 degrees per decade, the simulation results in values of around 0.25 degrees. This significant deviation must make one very skeptical. When theory and reality differ, it is wise to believe reality more than theory. And so one has to question the 2.4 degree forecast for the year 2100 and the associated end of the world. The political and economic sanctions justified by this prophecy in question would ruin our civilization sooner than Earth's temperature could.

Are they intentionally trying to deceive us? You might object that no scientist would give in to such a set-up, just as doctors wouldn't diagnose malaria in series. No? Malaria maybe not, but Corona more likely; and perhaps some doctors and some climate scientists have a similar motivation.

Which might just be their real intention from the start. :hmmm:

Indeed. The German Greens were founded as a party in 1980, and I finsihed school in winter 1985. Sicne those school years I say that the Greens are less about ecology and more about being anti to "Atomkraft", America, market economy, liberalism, and especially want a radical destruction of the hated burgeoise society model and its replacement with far left-leaning collectivistic society models and centralised state planned economy. Significant parts of them always sympathized with left terror organisation in Africa and Latin America. The Greens have a very deep-rooting mistrust for freedom and self-responsibility and want to command people. Choice the yonly leave to people if people uses that choice to choose what the Greens demand them to choose. A No to their demands is never taken as an answer.

Dangerously close to the concepts described in "1984". The example of German and EU language policing as a tool of mind mutilation is just one but not the only example, it follows Orwell's description to the last letter and point. And they want it.

[Tichy's Einblicke] [The author] Prof Dr sc. techn. Thomas Koch has been Head of the Institute of Reciprocating Engines at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) since 2013 and is responsible for internal combustion engine matters in the areas of research, teaching and innovation.
----------------------------
Fraudulent calculations are the only way to claim that electric cars are "cleaner" than diesel cars. In fact, the emissions of diesel vehicles are lower than the emissions of comparable electric vehicles at all times, Thomas Koch calculates:

Around 10 years ago, the well-known economist Professor Hans-Werner Sinn published his article "Energy transition to nowhere". Today we know that unimaginable implementation rigour, unprecedented failure on the part of German elites, decision-makers ducking away, huge public pressure built up by non-governmental organisations and unfortunate events such as the reactor disaster in Fukushima have created conditions that make Germany increasingly unattractive as an industrial location.

In addition to the failed energy transition with industrial electricity prices that will be around five times higher in Germany than in China in 2023, the mobility transition has also been driven forward with equally unimaginable vigour. The top priority in recent years has been the unconditional ban on the combustion engine. The CO2 advantage of the electric car was cited as the reason for this. The mantra of balance sheet fraud, repeated like a prayer wheel, convinced the majority of non-expert and therefore vulnerable decision-makers in the legislature of this mantra. A simple example illustrates the perfidious deception that has almost destroyed a German technological paradiscipline.

A hiker undertakes an excursion with a length of 6 kilometres. The first kilometre is on level ground. For the second kilometre, the path climbs steadily for 10 metres. On the third kilometre the gradient is a steady 20 metres, on the fourth kilometre 30 metres, on the fifth 40 metres and on kilometre 6 the path climbs 50 metres. The gradient therefore becomes steeper and steeper. In total, the hiker covers an altitude difference of 150 metres. The average gradient is 25 metres per kilometre, resulting from 150 metres over 6 kilometres.
After a snack and a beer, the hiker now walks back 100 metres. By how many metres is his altitude reduced? If you take the average gradient of 25 metres per kilometre, he should have lost exactly 2.5 metres in height after 100 metres of the return journey. In reality, however, he loses 5 metres in altitude, i.e. twice as much. The difference between the average gradient (mean value of 25 metres/km) and the marginal gradient (marginal value of 50 metres/km) is obvious. The mean value (25m/km) alone does not allow a mathematically correct solution.

This example can be directly transferred to the German electricity system. The distance travelled by the hiker can be compared with the electrical energy required by the German electricity system. The gradient of the hiking trail is comparable to the CO2 footprint of the energy sources required. If, for example, the electrical energy demand in today's Germany were at a pre-industrial level and therefore extremely low (e.g. 1 kWh), the so-called regenerative energies, such as hydropower, photovoltaics and wind power, would require an extremely low gradient of, for example, 50 gr O2/kWh. The index ä contains equivalent emission components such as CH4 or N2O, which are converted to CO2.

The more the amount of electrical energy required increases, in analogy to the hiking trail that continues, the more the gradient increases. The addition of lignite-fired power plants ultimately results in a gradient of around 1100 gr CO2/kWh. With a typical German electricity demand of around 600 TWh in Germany, i.e. 600,000,000,000 kWh, fossil-fuelled power plants are in use almost continuously. Just as the total height of a hike is 150 metres after covering a distance of 6 kilometres, the Climate Protection Act for Germany gives a total height of 257 million tonnes of CO2ä in 2022 for the energy sector. This corresponds to an average value of 427 gr CO2/kWh. The Federal Environment Agency gives a comparable value of 434 gr CO2/kWh.

The following question is crucial for correctly balancing the CO2 emissions generated by electrical consumption: "How big is the impact on emissions if you have one less electrical consumer connected to the grid?" Comparable to the return journey of the hike, the saving of 1 kWh of electrical energy does not mean the saving according to the average value of 427g CO2ä. This value is just as incorrect as the above altitude difference calculation of 2.5 metres per 100 metres at the start of the return journey. Rather, the reduced CO2ä emissions would be 1100g, for example, if a lignite-fired power plant had been connected to the grid the entire time and this was no longer needed when a consumer was switched off.

The discrepancy of 427g to 1100g is smaller in reality for the German electricity grid with gas and hard coal shares. In Germany, a factor of 2 is a good approximation between the mean value and real emissions according to the marginal approach. A physical reason for the underestimation of real emissions in the mean value approach is obvious: wind and solar power continue to make an insufficient contribution, quite independently of the number of electrical consumers. The wind does not blow any less when a consumer is switched off and the sun does not shine any brighter when it is switched on.

The word "balance sheet fraud" should be chosen because the actual CO2 emissions are significantly higher and have to be paid for by society via the CO2 price. Future expenditure is thus concealed.
According to the latest VDI balance sheet analysis on the CO2 emissions of various drive concepts, taking into account the production volumes, a diesel vehicle causes total emissions of 34.1 tonnes of CO2 after 200,000 kilometres in motorway operation. Using the mean value approach, which misrepresents reality, a battery-powered vehicle would produce far too low a figure of 27.5 tonnes of CO2. Using the mathematically correct marginal approach results in 40.8 tonnes of CO2, whereby other favourable assumptions such as achieving the target of the failed "Climate-neutral Germany 2045" strategy, avoiding charging predominantly at night or not using vehicle heating were included in this cross-comparison.

At all times during vehicle operation, the emissions of the diesel vehicle are therefore lower than the emissions of comparable electric vehicles.

Fortunately, there are increasing signs that politicians have seen through the gigantic balance sheet fraud. There is a chance that after the misguided energy turnaround, at least the mobility turnaround will not completely drive the cart into the wall. An alternative to pure electromobility must be made possible, otherwise all credibility will be lost and our competitiveness completely pulverised.

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/135...ya_LqKrUfZ_I4=



Love the newest line-up of EV's coming out. Their available in full size, and compact models!

They burn less fuel, therefore are economically competitive with all forms of power driven engines, and
far more reliable, as thus far there have been zero documented instances of spontaneous combustion explosions,
and their travel range is far superior to all other competitors, having to stop and recharge with a
mere bucket of oats about twice a day.

Let us ignore for a moment the fact that there are thousands of scientists who reject the beliefs enforced with merciless severity regarding the CO2 issue, but who are being silenced and sanctioned by the state media and the censored mainstream media, while science is being ground down. Let's simply compare the relevance of the industrial self-destruction policy in Europe and Germany derived from this (in the sense of a curious snapshot) to the bigger, whole picture, and enjoy the intellectual mind games that the sight triggers in our brains, provided we have not already fallen prey to the completely filthy ideology of green socialism, whose own goal is not so much ecology as the creation of the homo socialisticus through endless pedagogical instruction, indoctrination, scaremongering and manipulative re-education measures.


https://i.postimg.cc/VsWJt66p/annual...er-country.png
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/11/b...ing/index.html
:D

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/09/c...ate/index.html

The scientists used a supercomputer to run complex climate models over a period of three months, simulating a gradual increase of freshwater to the AMOC — representing ice melt as well as rainfall and river runoff, which can dilute the ocean’s salinity and weaken the currents.
As they slowly increased the freshwater in the model, they saw the AMOC gradually weaken until it abruptly collapsed. It’s the first time a collapse has been detectable using these complex models, representing “bad news for the climate system and humanity,” the report says.