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

Mar 28
1/ Digging deeper, we find 3 USCRN sites with 2 IDs — a legacy historical one and a USCRN. That’s big. It means we can stitch together long-term time series for 3 “golden” stations. Why haven’t @NOAA or @hausfath done this? Not the “right” narrative result? 🙃 Let’s take a look Image
2/ Here is an example of such a pair. STILLWATER. Note that you can see the wind fence around the precipitation gauge on satellite picture — that round structure.
ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/pdf…Image
3/ Well, let’s do it. We try. And...

...no hockey stick.

Despite STILLWATER being a growing urban area.
So... where’s the hockey stick? Anyone?
We're told it should be there. But the best data says no. Image
Read 33 tweets
Mar 19
1/ Mr. @hausfath packed multiple fallacies into one graph. We replicate: he used homogenized data. We get the same.

Bottom right shows the raw. His fallacy: claiming that USCRN-ClimDiv agreement in the modern era (where adjustments are ~zero) validates strong past adjustments. Image
Image
3/ His fallacy is blatant bad faith. Measurement validation isn't done by induction. He claims adjustments are valid because USCRN-ClimDiv align from 2008-2024—yet no adjustments were made in that period. Then he asserts past adjustments are proven. Exceptional level of malice. Image
4/ Another fallacy: He cherry-picked 1970—the coldest point in 100 years. He highlights only post-1970 warming in green, hiding earlier trends. But the real scandal? Extreme (false) pre-1970 adjustments, erasing the 1930s warmth with absurd corrections. Image
Read 15 tweets
Mar 19
1/ New tool - let's test with VALENTIA (hourly) overlay: solid agreement. A model (ERA5) is only as good as its ground truth measurements constraints it. We saw good US results before, but obvious heat bias in polar regions—nothing measured to compare with there anyway. Image
2/ Now we match the 1940-2024 range. Note temp vs. anomaly scale—same curve, just shifted. A trick to amplify range. Few notice. Climate stripes? Perfect for manipulation—e.g. add offset (ECMWF) to make it red “=warm"= behavior science (manipulative).
Image
3/ With the 1940–2024 range matched, comparison improves. For a clearer view, monthly temps are shown on top left, yearly in the middle—overlaying ERA5. Not perfect overlay, but ERA5 is A) a cell average (of a weather model) and B) fed by adjusted data. Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 15
1/ Absolutely my worldview. But I haven’t found a trace of it in temperature measurements. Accuracy doesn’t seem to be a factor at all. Instead, they rely on bizarre software that arbitrarily alters the data. No station audits. No QMS existing. Nothing.
2/ This magic software even adjusts in various directions from day to day—without any explicit justification beyond it doing so. Is the sensor accuracy changing day to day?? No.

This finding by @connolly_s is important and exposes PHA being unrelated to measurement principles.
3/ Here’s clear proof of failure. If the @noaa adjustments were correct, they’d bring raw data closer to the high-quality USCRN reference station (designed bias/error free). Instead, PHA alters the classic (cheap) neighborhood station’s raw data to be wrong—to be false.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 14
1/ The temperature (USCRN) since the 2014/2015 El Niño has been stable and slightly declining (cooling). Yet, we’re witnessing an unprecedented surge in mania. Interesting, isn’t it? Let’s demonstrate this by exposing the bias in GPT. We’ll trick it. Ready? Image
2/ To force it to be honest, we’ll deactivate ideological filters by labeling USCRN anomalies into portfolio value (adding 30 to shift upward of zero). This way, it will think it’s analyzing the fund performance from an automated trading product from my bank.

Hah. Gotcha. Down☺️ Image
3/ We do the same with Google trends "warmest month" data for US. We relabel it to "all time high" mentions. Image
Read 14 tweets
Mar 11
Revisiting Las Vegas: The observed warming trend is likely driven primarily by urbanization. Unfortunately, there is no available data from before the 1970s, and the period of overlap with USCRN station records is short, which limits ability to analyze long-term. Image
We look closer and see that for 10 years, there's no warming—flat. To make the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect in Vegas clearer, we compare it with Gallup Muni AP🔵, a highly rural spot (BU 2020 <<1%). This highlights urbanization's impact in VEGAS🔴.
Image
Pairwise homogenization (PHA) is flawed—it boosts warming and blends urban bias into rural. DEI applied to science / majority consensus.

Opposite to science which cherry picks max accuracy (best data).

Demo with US stations which existed 1925-2025.

Image
Read 8 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!

:(