IPCC Admits Apocalyptic Climate Scenarios Are "Implausible" – Meaning Most Media Scare Stories Over Last 15 Years Are Officially...
In a major development, the IPCC has finally admitted its apocalyptic RCP8.5 climate scenarios are "implausible", meaning most media scare stories over the last 15 years are officially junk, says Chris Morrison.
This is something we Skeptics have known since the very beginning.
IPCC isn't a neutral entity. It was created to sell the public that AGW is real. AGW theory says humans are 100% responsible for all warming since... some ever-changing date, usually 1850. Sometimes 1880, 1900 or 1950 or 1980 even.
But their reports are generally proper analysis of other scientific reports which may or may not be credible.
The trick is: the in-depth analysis is scientific, they use accurate terms like "unlikely" or "highly unlikely" which have specific % chances attached to them. "Lowest confidence" iirc is the last step before "no way Jose" and represents around 2%.
BUT when the "summary" of the report is given? The Overview? It makes it sound like these low chances are MUCH higher because non-scientific language is used on purpose to obfuscate their findings. So a 7% chance ("low confidence" iirc) suddenly becomes "could happen" or "is predicted to happen" which sounds like a high % chance. Maybe even over 50%... to the idiot Alarmists, "journalists" and Leftists who refuse to hear anything but their own dogma.
IPCC has wildly implausible doomsday scenarios, but no wildly optimistic ones. That's how you know it's political.
Where's the scenario where we develop fusion and have -4 C by 2100?
Or even the one where we get 1/4 price nontoxic sodium batteries and it's cheaper to power every home with solar than just maintaining an electric grid? Roofing materials that reradiate heat at wavelengths not reflected back? Sonic solid-state heat pumps?
It's just crazy to think technology won't radically change the outcomes, but they don't mention technology at all except in delivering current tech to poor countries.
They're effectively professional Malthusian economists. "Everyone will run out of food, and starve to death in a generation at most. Total doom of the species. Why live, just to suffer? What do you mean, minor technological improvements disprove our entire thesis?! Stop making minor incremental improvements to processes and infrastructure, you're making me look a fool!"
IPCC has always been a crock. They use phony accounting formulas to estimate carbon emissions rather than actual carbon emissions... accounting formulas that every regulatory body has held are criminal fraud because of how phony they are.
On top of that, the IPCC refuses to set a target CO2 PPM. They claim it would be improper because they say themselves that they're not a scientific body, merely an intergovernmental panel. It's a pure crock of shit. They were always a scam.
I know all this climate change stuff is fake because they’d all be staunch nuclear supporters otherwise.
Seriously. An energy source that is more powerful than anything else we have, that is cheaper long term than gas or coal, is infinitely more reliable than renewables, doesn't require nearly as much strip mining for solar panel materials, and on top of it all, releases less radiation to the population than flying on a plane.
Of course they wouldn't support it. It would solve the problem, and then they wouldn't have anything to whine about.
It also has infinite fuel. Breeder Reactors can turn spent fuel rod material into good-as-new material. Quickly (in comparison to mining it) safely AND generates electricity while doing so.
You are correct! Like most leftist "plans" if it ever fixed the problem? They'd be out of work 🙀 so the "fix" is always more money to repeat the same failed policies.
And they wouldn’t be buying up oceanfront properties, either.
Never mind that they have manufactured, altered and hid raw temperature data for many years, and that none of their computer models can be regressed minus 100 years into the past and produce accurate temperature predictions for present day.
The entire edifice is a grift, all of it, from top to bottom, and when it finally sinks in with joe normie out there, these frauds will be lucky if they just lose their comfortable university and/or government sinecures.
We better keep paying more taxes just to be sure though!
Fucking globohomo faggots.
5 or 10 years ago when they revised their warming projections down because the actual temperatures had fallen off below their projection graph, instead of saying ''sorry, we can tone-down the apocalyptic propagada and revise our taxings and restrictions on your liberties now'', they instead moved the goalpost from ''limiting to 2C warming'' to ''limiting to 1.5C warming'' and increased the apocalyptic language.
I'd give the whole climate thing some credibility if it wasn't for the fact that they've been consistently wrong for decades like this. Or literally fudged the data.
Like yeah, we thought there would be acid rain everywhere because it was slowly becoming a problem. All the coal fired plants were making acidic rain. Which, while it sucks, isn't super dangerous, but still would suck.
Meanwhile they wanted millions and millions a year in funding for bullshit.
During that time, we lost dozens of species of helpful insects, we almost obliterated the bees, which are our chief pollinators. Chinese insects and fish are invading all over the world.
Like, wouldn't that fuck with the world far worse? nature abhors a vacuum. Some of the insects were probably holding their ground and keeping something far worse away.
I'd give it more credibility if any of them supported nuclear power.
But they don't. Instead many now support electric vehicles which have a list of problems as long as a 5 day fire.
Because thats how long the cars burn for.
For most of my life already, the ''record hottest years! SCARY!'' have barely managed to tickle the bottom low of their warming predictions.
Add to that the fact the politicians and powerful people arguing this is a mankind ( sorry, ''peoplekind'' ) ending existential threat still fly their private jets : it's a scam.
An allegedly humanity-ending level threat is met with taxes rather than actual bans, never grounding their oh-so-beloved planes they fly all over the world for their luxury political meetings.
A threat so pressing it apparently dosen't matter that China and India have large numbers of freshly-built coal powerplants set to operate for the next 50 - 100 years, but your private car is the real problem.
The people most concerned and ''educated'' about this ''crisis'' have no shame flying from all over the world for their climate conferences, burning through the yearly ''GHG budget'' of a large city instead of using video-conference.
A fucking joke.
their new favorite thing is coloring the maps all scary red when summer comes around , but you go back like 5 years and the same temperatures are just treated as normal
All that grant money went to mortgages.
After Covid i dont believe anything any authority tells me.
There are four scenarios: 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5.
8.5 was the scenario for what happens if humans keep accelerating their rate of petroleum extraction consistent with what we've done over the past century.
The IPCC is now saying it's "implausible" because that would create a situation where petroleum was significantly more expensive than renewables, and who would want to extract petroleum to create a power plant that was more expensive than a solar plant?
Someone who needed electricity during Winter or at night?
Grad-scale batteries (Li-ion, LFP, etc.) has changed that. Check out the Edwards & Sanborn solar/battery installation that's partially on Edwards Airforce base land.
Australia is another example where grid-scale storage plus renewables plus traditional energy sources have all been built out together to provide greater grid stability and cheaper costs.
It's not a green issue (solar panels, the batteries, rare earths, etc., are not exactly green!), but a cost and efficiency issue.
I installed solar panels on my house a bit shy of 10 years ago. I've seen roughly 80-90% of my electrical usage covered purely by my solar, and I've replaced several appliances with pure electric. I broke even around year 6-7. At some point I am planning to get a large Li-ion battery installed so I can flip a switch and go off grid if needed.
I agree Solarpanels make amazing sense for Australia (most electricity is used for AC)
But If you moved all the batteries from Australia to a Northern Hemisphere country like Ireland- it would power their grid for only a few hours.
Ireland can go many weeks without sunlight during winter…
I've spoken to several neighbours (Canada) and the break even point here is about 20 years.
And that's only because the government pays a massively inflated price for the power fed back to the grid.
Yup! A SK farmer put in some solar panels, good ones that self-aim at the sun (one array of 2 did) and kept detailed records. He blogged about it for 2 years.
They almost never hit 100% of capacity which is critical. A 10MW Solar array will NOT generate an average of 10MW in a day, but a maximum in perfect conditions for an hour. He did know that, he did his homework, but he never expected 40% which was his 2 year average.
They will never pay for themselves, especially considering how much hands-on maintenance they require. A light dusting of dust or snow can knock the output in half. Most winter mornings were spent sweeping off the panels in addition to all his chores :/
Absolutely. I would not argue for largescale solar in Ireland! Wind, perhaps, but I find the turbines really obnoxious.
offshore wave generators make sense on an island
Parts of Australia have embraced renewables, specifically Wind & Solar. You can tell what % is W&S by how high their electric bills are. More W&S = higher bills. Why? Because when those don't work properly, which is often, they have to import electricity from neighboring districts. At the highest possible premiums since their W&S isn't working either!
They "plan to have" various "grid storage" eventually, but every time they field test these they are abject failures.
An example was a "pumped water" test site. They'd use excess W&S power to pump water from down low to up high, then send that higher water down to generate power when needed. Sounds great!
It cost (these numbers are iirc, of course, but not off by much) 3x as much as "estimated" to construct the test equipment. All their "estimates" turned out to have been made by policy makers, not engineers. The water turned out to be 2x as energy demanding to pump us as estimated, and produced 1/4 as much power when sent down.
Had the large-scale plan been carried out? Each gW/h would easily cost 20X the estimate and provide a few hours of back-up, not days! And this was one of the best sites available.
Seems like you might be talking about home rooftop panels. Large-scale power plants solve that problem by using thermal energy storage - usually molten salt.
If you're using molten salt anyways, have I got an idea for you: Thorium salt fission reactors! Nuclear is king: No emissions, high energy, high safety, low public health costs, reliable, 24/7 energy, all-seasonal, and long-lasting!
Sure, Thorium seems to have a lot of promise, although I've read that certain groups are really overhyping it past what it can actually accomplish.
Most experts think that our ultimate energy solution is going to have to be balanced and multi-sourced.
Cool, which cities are powered exclusively by solar/renewables?
Burlington, VT, Georgetown, TX, and Basel, Switzerland are powered entirely by renewables with an emphasis on solar.
The biggest renewable-exclusive cities are Oslo and Reykjavík, though in their cases it's mostly geothermal.
Those cities are not run on 100% renewables. They have the capacity to run entirely on renewables, if the wind blew constantly & it was sunny overnight. In reality they depend heavily on outside electricity. Perhaps over a year they "balance out" input & output? But there'd be days & weeks with little or no power without outside sources.
There is no current battery tech to store power for 4+ months until needed. Add to that how the current "battery farms" tend to go up in flames on a regular basis, just like EV batteries.
Oslo and Reykjavik are unique in their access to ample geothermal. A few towns in Cali are too, up in the mountains.
You're never going to have four months without sunlight or wind. Power plants don't need battery banks. Battery banks are for portable stuff like cars. Solar plants simply heat nitrate salts to as high as 600 C, and then that energy is released throughout the night, boiling water and running turbines. Calibrated correctly, you can have 24/7 output on just nine hours of sunlight a day.
It's not optimal to try to run a city or country on a single renewable source - which is why you want multiple kinds of plants, each filling in any gaps left by the others. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, and biomass.
That isn't how it works. W&S make "excess power" in the Summer months, primarily. The grid dumps those extra volts into the batteries then. The grid needs the most back-up in the winter months, it can rarely add power during the Spring or Fall, and almost never in the Winter.
Thus the power goes in in the Summer & is needed to be drawn out in the winter, some 4 months later. Same exact thing for thermal salt, which afaik hasn't been done on more than a very small scale. Nothing remotely close to a power grid.
There are no more large hydroelectric sites available in the developed world. None. Any small sites would be cost prohibitive. Geothermal is VERY location specific. As is tidal, (Edit: which includes "wave generation" too, right?) which has failed every test so far AND would cause massive disruption to shipping and nature if installed in anything approaching grid scale (Edit: that's for wave power, IDK how pure tidal power could possibly generate enough power to make a difference). Even as much as 20% of a local grid would be both expensive and disruptive.
Biomass = burning things. Sure it's a pretty good way to get rid of some trash & waste materials. But it stinks, people hate that, and it is limited by how much very heavy materials you have stored to be burned. In Europe they import wood pellets from the USA as back-up material to their trash. They cut down trees, ship them by diesel (Well, dirty bunker oil actually, which is, iirc, 3x more polluting) across the ocean and ship them to the Biomass sites by train & truck. Not green by any measure.
Just a reminder: every single kW/h of Wind, Solar or other "renewables" must have 100% backup. That backup cannot reasonably be hydro or nuclear, those are "baseline" sources. That leaves FF and batteries, or thermal salt, but that's not proven to work on a large scale yet.
Without backup there would be regular brown and black-outs. Those are hugely destructive to industry and commerce. Many companies left Ontario during the Liberal Party reign there because of their "Green Policies" making electricity 3x more expensive. If regular, random blackouts were added in? The flight would be huuuuge.
They shut down Nuclear reactors & coal, "replacing" them with Solar mostly, and Wind. For "backup" they import expensive electricity from Quebec or the USA. Manitoba is 600km away from the demand, eh? There's only 1-2 power lines connecting MB with Western Ontario, which is largely unpopulated until you hit Thunder Bay :/
vermont? really nigga? a mountainous new england state? a region famous for its sunny weather?