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.
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.
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 🙂
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2/ We check ourselves. The ClimDiv curve is even cooling 1.37C compared with the stable USCRN sites.
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.
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
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”).
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.