Akin to pushing on string, you can keep building these things ad infinitum and add nothing in terms of meaningful power generation capacity.

It doesn’t matter whether a wind power fleet comprises a hundred, a thousand or a million wind turbines, when the wind stops blowing, they will deliver an almighty, collective doughnut. And it’s their frequent zero output efforts that bring us to the current net-zero madness.

For those who think that the world needs saving from carbon dioxide gas, a net-zero carbon oxide gas emissions target is, apparently, the only game in town. And despite the colossal failure of wind power to deliver during 2021, those pushing net-zero targets are pushing zero reliability targets, too.

Eric Worrall takes a look at what satisfying net-zero might look like.

Tony Blair Institute: New 1.2GW Offshore Wind Farm Every 10 Weeks to Hit Net Zero
Watts Up With That?
Eric Worrall
4 December 2021

The Tony Blair Institute has calculated that a wind farm equal to the largest offshore wind farm ever built must be completed every 10 weeks, to hit Net Zero by 2050.

UK ‘must build equivalent of worlds biggest wind farm every 10 weeks for next 20 years’ to hit net zero targets
Independent
Harry Cockburn
1 December 2021

Under existing framework, 90 per cent of all electricity generation in Britain will be on a government-backed contract, stifling competition, warns Tony Blair Institute.

The UK must build the equivalent of a 1.2-gigawatt offshorewind farm – the largest ever built – every 10 weeks for the next 20 years in order to hit its legally binding net-zero targets, a report from the Tony Blair Institute claims.

The report highlights how the current energy crisis, which has resulted in numerous small energy providers going bust, has exposed “profound problems of design and regulation in the retail and wholesale energy markets”, and says without major adaptation, the energy market is heading towards a greater level of centralisation and higher costs for consumers.

It warns that without an overhaul, up to 90 per cent of all electricity generation in the UK will be on a government-backed contract.

As a result of prolonged government support, the report’s authors warn that by 2035 energy providers will have “limited incentives” to respond to supply and demand.

Instead, the report urges a new effort to adapt to deliver a flexible, affordable system.
Independent

According to the Dogger Bank Wind Farm website, their 1.2GW wind farm cost £3 billion (USD $4 billion). So 52 weeks in a year, 52 ÷ 10 x £3 billion = £15.6 billion per year.

Having said that, the cost would likely rise over time, the Dogger Bank wind farm is a over 100km offshore. If you need to go 100km+ offshore for a good wind farm site, how long will the extension cord stretch, after a a few years of building an equivalent new site every 10 weeks?

Of course, you won’t truly get to net zero unless someone also builds battery backup for all that wind power, in case of another prolonged wind drought. But let’s leave them in their happy place, it would be a shame to spoil their moment with some basic economics.
Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; The NASA role of senior climate advisor has been combined with the role of Chief Scientist, with Dr. Katherine Calvin replacing Dr. Gavin Schmidt (former senior climate advisor) and Jim Green (former Chief Scientist), though Schmidt will retain his role as director of NASA GISS.

RELEASE 22-003

NASA Announces New Chief Scientist, Senior Climate Advisor

Dr. Katherine Calvin, NASA chief scientist and senior climate advisor.Credits: NASA/Bill Ingalls

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced that Dr. Katherine Calvin will serve the agency in dual roles as chief scientist and senior climate advisor effective Monday.

Calvin succeeds Jim Green, who retired from his role Jan. 1 as chief scientist after more than 40 years of service at NASA, and Gavin Schmidt, who has served as senior climate advisor in an acting capacity since the position was created in February 2021. NASA established the senior climate advisor position to ensure effective fulfillment of the Biden-Harris Administration’s climate science objectives for the agency. Schmidt will maintain his role as director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

“I’m thrilled to welcome Kate to the NASA family, where she will bring her expertise in integrated human-Earth system modeling to help ensure the Biden Administration has the data needed to achieve the critical goal of protecting our planet.” Nelson said. “I also want to thank Jim and Gavin for their invaluable leadership to NASA and the world as chief scientist and senior climate advisor.”

As chief scientist and senior climate advisor, Calvin will serve as principal advisor to the administrator and other agency leaders on NASA science programs, strategic planning, and policy. She will also represent the agency’s strategic science objectives and contributions to the national and international science communities.

“Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing our nation – and our planet,” Calvin said. “NASA is a world leader in climate and Earth science. I’m excited to be a part of the team that is helping to advance this important science mission.”

Previously, Calvin was an Earth scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland. She worked on the institute’s Global Change Analysis Model, a system for exploring and analyzing the relationships between human and Earth systems, and the Department of Energy’s Energy Exascale Earth System Model, a system for analyzing the Earth system.

Calvin holds master’s and doctoral degrees in management, science, and engineering from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in computer science and mathematics from the University of Maryland.

In February 2021, NASA joined the National Climate Task Force established by President Biden, which encourages a governmentwide approach to address climate change. NASA has issued a climate action plan aimed at continuing critical Earth science and climate research and averting mission impacts due to climate. With more than two dozen satellites and instruments observing key climate indicators, NASA is the premier agency in observing and understanding changes to Earth.

For more information about NASA’s programs, missions, and activities, visit:

-end-

Jackie McGuinness / Tylar Greene
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1600 / 202-358-0030
jacqueline.f.mcguinness@nasa.gov / tylar.j.greene@nasa.govLast Updated: Jan 11, 2022Editor: Robert Margetta

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-new-chief-scientist-senior-climate-advisor

I don’t know much about Dr. Katherine Calvin, but her background is climate modelling, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt is still in charge of GISS, so I don’t expect this shuffle of senior NASA people to calm NASA’s ongoing obsession with climate alarmism.

Watch this trailer for Topher Field’s latest documentary, then tell others about it.

An important film is about to be released in Australia. Battleground Melbourne is directed by the brave and indomitable Topher Field. The official description explains:

The last 18 months has seen Melbourne, Australia, fall from ‘Most Liveable’ to ‘Most Locked-down’ city in the world. It’s an astonishing fall which has brought with it previously unthinkable levels of civil unrest and government repression and sparked protests around Australia and throughout the world as scenes reminiscent of the USSR or CCP have gone viral.

The fact that these scenes are playing out on the streets of a city in a wealthy and ‘free’ country makes this an ominous warning for all. If it can happen here, it could happen anywhere.

Battleground Melbourne tells this story from the perspective of the activists and journalists who tried to save the city of Melbourne.

This is our story.

The Government and the media have already told their twisted and dishonest side of the story, Battleground Melbourne is our reply. This is how we set the record straight and ensure the world will forever know the truth.

We have been smeared with false accusations, called every name you can imagine, assaulted, arrested, imprisoned. But even after all this, they haven’t defeated us. Our love for freedom, and our love for our once wonderful city, compels us to battle on.

Battleground Melbourne is a story of men and women who love freedom. It’s a story of courage in the face of fear, of triumphs and failures, and ordinary people giving everything to change the course of history for the city they love. [all bolding in original]

The full-length documentary film will premiere at 7:30 pm this Thursday (tomorrow) Melbourne time. To be part of that premiere, click this ‘save my seat’ button

and join the email list.

Topher says the trailer is itself being shadow-banned by Big Tech. This means that obscenely wealthy multinational corporations based in California are conniving behind the scenes to prevent people everywhere from hearing about it.

Additional info:

film website: https://battlegroundmelbourne.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TopherField/videos/328119179027695

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-p_nE9spqA

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CYifn9yp2uM/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TopherField/status/1480511538528022528

\

This blog isn’t cluttered with intrusive ads –
which means no income is earned in that manner.
If what you’ve just read is useful or helpful,
please consider making a donation

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientists Bruce Glavovic, Iain White and Tim Smith have called for tools down on future IPCC climate assessments and a refusal to accept more public funding, until governments recognise they must do what they are told.

Scientists call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments take real action

January 11, 2022 6.12am AEDT

Bruce Glavovic Professor, Massey University

Iain White Professor of Environmental Planning, University of Waikato

Tim Smith Professor and ARC Future Fellow, University of the Sunshine Coast

Decades of scientific evidence demonstrate unequivocally that human activities jeopardise life on Earth. Dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system compounds many other drivers of global change. 

Governments concur: the science is settled. But governments have failed to act at the scale and pace required. What should climate change scientists do?

…

Where to from here for climate change scientists?

The first option is to collect more evidence and hope for action. Continue the IPCC process that stays politically neutral and abstains from policy prescriptions. A recent editorial in Nature called on scientists to do just that: stay engaged to support future climate COPs. 

…

The second option is more intensive social science research and climate change advocacy. As Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes recently observed, the work of the IPCC’s Working Group I (WGI, on the physical science basis of climate change) is complete and should be closed down. Attention needs to focus on translating this understanding into action, which is the realm of WGII (on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) and WGIII (on mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions).

…

Halt on IPCC work until governments do their part

The third option is much more radical, but unpalatable. We call for a moratorium on climate change research that does little more than document global warming and maladaptation. 

Attention needs to focus on exposing and re-negotiating the broken science-society contract. Given the rupture to the contract outlined here, we call for a halt on all further IPCC assessments until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and mobilise action to secure a safe level of global warming. This option is the only way to overcome the tragedy of climate change science.

Readers might agree with our framing of this tragedy but disagree with our assessment of options. Some may want greater detail on what a moratorium could encompass or worry it may damage the credibility and objectivity of the scientific community. 

However, we question whether it is our “duty” to use public funds to continue to refine the state of climate change knowledge (which is unlikely to lead to the actions required), or whether a more radical approach will serve society better. 

We have reached a critical juncture for humanity and the planet. Given the unfolding tragedy, a moratorium on climate change research is the only responsible option for revealing and then restoring the broken science-society contract. The other two options are seductive but offer false hope.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/scientists-call-for-a-moratorium-on-climate-change-research-until-governments-take-real-action-172690

I believe the government funded climate scientists calling for a climate strike have completely misunderstood their social contract. In my opinion the true purpose of government funded research is to help politicians win elections. Politicians actually acting on the research “product” of the scientists whose work they fund was never part of the deal.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” – H. L. Mencken.

I doubt the climate scientists will go ahead with this strike. A commitment to refuse government funding is unlikely to fly with their colleagues – unless I have misread, and they plan to keep taking the money anyway. But I’d love to see them try. The experience would be educational.