Dear rasw:ers,
This is important news...
https://youtu.be/Xa665wL7Tcg
current globalist financed climate models are wrong and we do in fact not have a problem with the climate. It is natural changes all the way.
In article <61fd7c93-15b9-abc0-7c98-065a570208b1@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Dear rasw:ers,
This is important news...
https://youtu.be/Xa665wL7Tcg
current globalist financed climate models are wrong and we do in fact not
have a problem with the climate. It is natural changes all the way.
Really? Are they arguing that there hasn't been significant warming in
the last 40 years? Warming that is not beyond any natural variation in
the last million years for periods between glacial advances?
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
This is important news...
https://youtu.be/Xa665wL7Tcg
current globalist financed climate models are wrong and we do in fact not
have a problem with the climate. It is natural changes all the way.
Really? Are they arguing that there hasn't been significant warming in
the last 40 years? Warming that is not beyond any natural variation in
the last million years for periods between glacial advances?
Dear rasw:ers,
This is important news...
https://youtu.be/Xa665wL7Tcg
current globalist financed climate models are wrong and we do in fact not >have a problem with the climate. It is natural changes all the way.
Enjoy the video!
Mad Hamish wrote:
Christy and Spencer responded to the critiques by adjusting their
calculations, and by 1998, they had backed off their cooling finding,
reporting a global warming trend apparent in their data, albeit a
slight one."
A few months before things came crashing down, one of Christy's
co-workers gave a seminar at Texas A&M.
Their method of isolating mid-tropospheric temperature signals from the
rest of the IR being measured (some from the surface, the lower
troposphere, the upper, and the stratosphere) seemed suspect to me, but >clarification of such issues often comes later in the seminar, so I kept >quiet, waiting for the end of the seminar to ask questions if I still
had them.
Not so one of our graduate students. He ripped into the speaker quite >fiercely, giving no quarter. The calculations given, he said, would
without doubt include some stratospheric signal in their "mid
tropospheric" temperature estimates. And as the stratosphere was known
to be cooling, this would seriously compromise their accuracy. Every >argument the speaker raised was shot down. It was a massacre.
And my question was answered.
I sometimes wonder if that speaker, who seemed perturbed rather than
angry, didn't drop by Christy's office the next day and say "we have a >problem". Shortly thereafter they acknowledged it in public.
“The history of the UAH tropospheric temperature data sets is a
history of serious scientific error,” said Benjamin Santer, a climate
researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, referring to
the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “Most of the serious errors
in UAH temperature data have been detected by other research groups,
not by UAH scientists.”
No less than three serious errors were made, each of which tending to
show the world as cooler than it is. None of these errors are
particularly subtle, see above.
ExxonMobil George W. Bush to appoint him to review IPCC submissions
because he suited their desires to keep selling fossil fuels
Here's quotes showing either his dishonesty or his stupidity about
power sources
“I try to tell people about why there’s just not enough energy there,
I can stand in the sunlight. It doesn’t bother me at all. If the wind
is blowing, doesn’t bother me at all. That tells you right there, it
has very little energy.
Who said this? It's monumentally stupid.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2025 2:01 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...
BTW, Texas, the King of the so-called renewables, will not allow more
than 30% of the so-called renewables in the electric generation mix
for ERCOT. Above 30% is the loss of control region for ERCOT.
Well, in the first place the expertise of Texas power regulators is
open to question.
But even if the upper limit for them is in fact 30%, that's a lot.
Throw in some nuclear power and the greenhouse emissions from
electrical generation are dramatically reduced.
I live in a promise where on any given day at most 10% of the
generation comes from fossil fuels, the rest being Hydro, Nuclear, and
to a much lesser extent wind and solar.
William Hyde
Right now at this moment, Texas is using electric power from:
1. Solar: 23,469 MW
2. Wind: 2,272 MW
3. Hydro: 0 MW
4. Batteries: 237 MW
5. Other: 0 MW
6. Natural Gas: 11,480 MW
7. Coal: 5,278 MW
8. Nuclear: 5,107 MW
=========================
Total: 47,843 MW
I think that I was wrong about the max of the so-called renewables. The
max of 30% may just apply to wind power since the wind power ebbs and
flows with the wind. When cold fronts come through Texas, the wind
turbines will actually go to zero power as they rotate the wind turbines
to face the wind, not a very quick process.
That sounds more reasonable, and directly contradicts Christy.
I know that LBJ was first elected to congress so that he could obtain
legal permissions to carry on with a flood control/hydro power dam that
had been begun illegally. I guess that if it's still around, that dam
is not contributing 0.5%.
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise. Maybe it's a promising >province. So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
jdnicoll@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
In article <vq0mjl$kq3f$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise. Maybe it's a promising >>>province. So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
Well, they're promising four more years of Ford, anyway.
Which one? Ah, I see Rob has passed. Doug sounds like a
trump clone, sadly.
On 3/1/2025 10:24 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2025 2:01 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...
BTW, Texas, the King of the so-called renewables, will not allow
more than 30% of the so-called renewables in the electric
generation mix for ERCOT. Above 30% is the loss of control region
for ERCOT.
Well, in the first place the expertise of Texas power regulators is
open to question.
But even if the upper limit for them is in fact 30%, that's a lot.
Throw in some nuclear power and the greenhouse emissions from
electrical generation are dramatically reduced.
I live in a promise where on any given day at most 10% of the
generation comes from fossil fuels, the rest being Hydro, Nuclear,
and to a much lesser extent wind and solar.
William Hyde
Right now at this moment, Texas is using electric power from:
1. Solar: 23,469 MW
2. Wind: 2,272 MW
3. Hydro: 0 MW
4. Batteries: 237 MW
5. Other: 0 MW
6. Natural Gas: 11,480 MW
7. Coal: 5,278 MW
8. Nuclear: 5,107 MW
=========================
Total: 47,843 MW
I think that I was wrong about the max of the so-called renewables.
The max of 30% may just apply to wind power since the wind power ebbs
and flows with the wind. When cold fronts come through Texas, the
wind turbines will actually go to zero power as they rotate the wind
turbines to face the wind, not a very quick process.
That sounds more reasonable, and directly contradicts Christy.
I know that LBJ was first elected to congress so that he could obtain
legal permissions to carry on with a flood control/hydro power dam
that had been begun illegally. I guess that if it's still around,
that dam is not contributing 0.5%.
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise. Maybe it's a
promising province. So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
William Hyde
Most of the hydroelectric dams in Texas run less than 20% capacity
factor per year. We do not get enough rain in Texas to keep them
running at full power for very long. The biggest dam in Texas that I
know of is the dam north of Sherman, Texas on the Red River, two 40 MW turbines.
In article <vq0mjl$kq3f$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise. Maybe it's a promising >>province. So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
Well, they're promising four more years of Ford, anyway.
On 3/1/2025 9:00 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2025 10:24 PM, William Hyde wrote:I remember that the Hoover Dam in the US considers water users, mostly >farmers, as their "customers". Generating electricity is just a little >bonus.
Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 3/1/2025 2:01 PM, William Hyde wrote:
...
BTW, Texas, the King of the so-called renewables, will not allow
more than 30% of the so-called renewables in the electric
generation mix for ERCOT. Above 30% is the loss of control region >>>>>> for ERCOT.
Well, in the first place the expertise of Texas power regulators is >>>>> open to question.
But even if the upper limit for them is in fact 30%, that's a lot.
Throw in some nuclear power and the greenhouse emissions from
electrical generation are dramatically reduced.
I live in a promise where on any given day at most 10% of the
generation comes from fossil fuels, the rest being Hydro, Nuclear,
and to a much lesser extent wind and solar.
William Hyde
Right now at this moment, Texas is using electric power from:
1. Solar: 23,469 MW
2. Wind: 2,272 MW
3. Hydro: 0 MW
4. Batteries: 237 MW
5. Other: 0 MW
6. Natural Gas: 11,480 MW
7. Coal: 5,278 MW
8. Nuclear: 5,107 MW
=========================
Total: 47,843 MW
I think that I was wrong about the max of the so-called renewables.
The max of 30% may just apply to wind power since the wind power ebbs >>>> and flows with the wind. When cold fronts come through Texas, the
wind turbines will actually go to zero power as they rotate the wind
turbines to face the wind, not a very quick process.
That sounds more reasonable, and directly contradicts Christy.
I know that LBJ was first elected to congress so that he could obtain
legal permissions to carry on with a flood control/hydro power dam
that had been begun illegally. I guess that if it's still around,
that dam is not contributing 0.5%.
By the way, I live in a province, not a promise. Maybe it's a
promising province. So they have been saying my entire life, anyway.
William Hyde
Most of the hydroelectric dams in Texas run less than 20% capacity
factor per year. We do not get enough rain in Texas to keep them
running at full power for very long. The biggest dam in Texas that I
know of is the dam north of Sherman, Texas on the Red River, two 40 MW
turbines.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 05:51:12 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,801 |