Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture
Mar 28, 2023 6 tweets 3 min read Read on X
200 ha. 20MW average power (random, not at night).

We need +70 of those parks to paper match Isar 2 reactor (which runs 24/7). With storage? 150x

The lifetime ~30 years. Then it is waste. New mining / resource exploitation needed with fossils.

Net zero or insanity? ImageImage
So lets add storage (50% efficiency). 150 such parks. Makes 150x200=30.000 ha (min). That is the total area of Munich. PVs is trash in 30 years and needs continuous replacement (fresh fossil powered mining + industry) somewhere in the world.

A "sustainable" plan. #greenwashing Image
The total primary power need for Germany is 460 GW. You would need 460/1.4*30.000 ha ~ 1.5x Bavaria (1.5 times red here) as PV park surface. Sounds like a plan. Image
The Great Wall is the largest man-made project in the world. 20,000 km (~2000km2). Germany will beat this by 50x with the Great Solar Park, 100.000km2. 50 times the Great Chinese Wall. Life time 30 year only.

1M km of 100 m PVs. Earth-Moon back twice.

Wir schaffen das 🙂 Image
A NL engineer showed a calculation that NL does not have sufficient area (incl. the complete Dutch North Sea sector) to produce sufficient energy. The RE Amish utopia only works if Randstad emigrates to Africa and only the farmers stay. Without fossils or nuclear, no NL society.
To the moon and back. That will be generation 2 (you need to make one every 30 years) of the Great Solar Wall. Generation 3 will be on the moon (problem: night is 15 days long there).

The Tower of Babel (to reach the god of the sun) project can begin. Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Orwell2024🏒

Orwell2024🏒 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @orwell2022

May 27
The red areas are fully man-made—built or cultivated.
You cannot measure climate anywhere near them.
And MODIS still misses a lot.
In reality, it’s worse.

When we inspected what @BerkeleyEA calls “rural”?
Almost all those stations are worthless Image
Imagine a field looks like it does on the left…alive.
And later, like the right. Dead and brown.
Still think you'll measure the same 2m temperature?
Or might that just—possibly—have a major impact as the surroundings changed? GPT estimates 3C. It's not wrong. Image
Image
Image
We now combine MODIS 🟥 and P2023A 🟪 (10m resolution).

Look: MODIS misses entire urban zones— Ireland. Or Liverpool.

And yet @hausfath and @BerkeleyEarth built their “rural” claims on MODIS junk.
Shameful deception.
The paper needs a retraction.
Image
Read 6 tweets
May 23
Maybe some still don’t grasp the novelty here. This shows what the “climate consensus” is built on: MODIS — a coarse, fully outdated DB.

Now compare that to P2023A.

So—@BerkeleyEarth @hausfath—still think your pick is better? Let me know. And explain why. Image
Thanks to this trick, they labeled urban sites as “rural”—then obviously saw no difference.
That paper must be retracted.
Back then: resolution limits.
Today? Ignoring P2023A is agenda.
Anyone can open Google Earth and see houses where MODIS finds none.

Image
In a nutshell: using decades-old MODIS (500m, binary) to argue “nothing’s there” versus P2023A 10m high res color is like claiming your iPhone 1 low-light photo proves the room was empty—
while the iPhone 16 Pro with AI sees everything.
Only dishonest clowns run that defense.
Read 9 tweets
May 9
1/ April resists warming.
Remember: warming causes cooling.
If you’re freezing, you're actually warming.
Colder weather confirms it’s warmer.
We must prevent cooling to stop warming.
Yes, it still was the warmest April in SW models.
Now pay your CO2 tax please and eat vegan. Image
2/ We check ourselves. The ClimDiv curve is even cooling 1.37C compared with the stable USCRN sites. Image
3/ Expand the range to 115 years.
Stable USCRN sites show nothing.
ClimDiv now shows warming—entirely from adjustments.
Wrong ones: cooling rural, not towns.
Signal upside down.
That's not science—it’s appalling. Image
Read 6 tweets
May 5
1/ This proxy is the most dishonest narrative in the entire climate agenda.
Anyone pushing it isn’t doing science — they’re signaling allegiance.
If you still treat them seriously, that’s on you.
They’re not analysts. They’re ideological fools. #ClimateScam Image
Image
2/ Last week of April 2025. Rural Nagano. ~700m elevation. Full bloom.
I challenge the town-proxy scammers to show us blooming in late May or June a hundred years ago.
Go ahead— make fools out of yourself by failing.
👉The consensus now = defund climate activists (“academics”). Image
Image
Image
Image
3/ …been cultivated in Japan since the Edo and Meiji periods. Bloom timing is widely celebrated, recorded, and scheduled for festivals.. There are no records of cherry festivals here occurring in late May or June. That would have been seen as “weirdly late,” even then… Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
Apr 12
1/ I was told non US GHCN “raw” is adjusted already.

-----TRUE-----

Now I see it. Gosh.

Composite. 2x adjusted. NOAA doesn’t even know where non-US stations are—or what they’re measuring. Their own US data (USCRN) is light-years better. But for “global”? It’s clown-tier level. Image
2/ And here it is—the DOUBLE-adjusted COMPOSITE.
Not raw. I doubted @connolly_s at first—like someone denying their 2nd-hand car is stolen, crash-salvaged, and repainted twice. Turns out he was right.
NOAA’s “global” QCU (non-US): not raw.
Image
Image
3/ Credit where due.
Normally I block on first bad-faith signal.
But intuition said: bait him back.
Let’s see what he hands over.
And he did:
✔ Clown location
✔ 120% urbanized
✔ Composite
✔ Adjusted twice
Thanks for the assist.
Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 10
1/ The WMO’s temperature station classification study isn’t a glamorous reading —but it’s the bare minimum anyone aggregating climate data should know about every single station. They don’t.

Scandal hiding in plain sight Image
2/ Class 1 is “bare minimum” for climate-grade weather station suitability. One means maybe ok.
met.no/publikasjoner/…
I’ll be counting impressions. I’ll know if you didn’t read.
(you’re allowed to LLM TlDR it.)
Next up: NOAA climate site requirements (HLR). 👇 x.com/orwell2022/sta…
3/ The NOAA HLR system makes WMO classes look gentle.
Most stations? Fail spectacularly.

Here a flow-down from high-level requirements into practical criteria:
orwell2024.substack.com/p/quality-requ
(Use LLMs to TLDR.)
x.com/i/grok/share/u…
Ok, so ready for real fun after boring reading? x.com/orwell2022/sta…
Read 27 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(