StanFirewings

Looking for freedom and at stars. Interested in tech and energy. Tracking Europe's power grids | Charts & Insights

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

Interesting, so the Bogus/Bonus climate "scientist" blocked me the moment I wrote some argumented critique on the article he/they were promoting. Well, here is the article in question. https://t.co/3v9oSB588i
@cremieuxrecueil @JeremyTColes only if you find it interesting?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

An article on measuring the effect of CO2 increase from space have surfaced on my timeline. The article, as I understood, is cherished and cited by climate scientists as a direct evidence of CO2 causing temperature increase on the Earth. Well, since I am scientist myself (not the climate, but energy) I've decided to have a look on the methodology, data, results and assumptions.
So my critique would only apply to general scientific methods, data processing, and fundamental physics and cannot go beyond that obviously. 🕵️‍♂️

1) There is no formal statistics. Only standard deviations reported but no confidence intervals whatsoever on the difference between theory and observation. Further, all channels are correlated, and in statistics this means that there are no sufficient independent confirmations. At one point, the standard deviation reported in the paper (0.025) was larger than observed noise. Actually it's unclear to me at all how SD was taken.
2) There is a mean-versus-mean comparison which seems to be quite a weak test, e.g. the theory used CO2 set to the 2003-2012 mean increase. It is not stated how multi-year differences were converted into an annual mean. So why not plotting radiance difference against delta CO2 for every year? 🤔 That could be quite stronger test.
3) The authors state that the temperature and humidity changes over 2000-2020 amount to only ~25% of the CO2 signal. If analogue matching had failed completely, the observed curve would still be within 25% of theory. So any unmatched radiance could also agree with theory? But this defies the method's claim that it can separate CO2 from temperature?
4) Theory CO2 uses July values, but analogue search profile of temperature and humidity spans June-August. But CO2 shifts across months and seasons, how can these be matched? The difference can be exactly the paper looks for.

Other points are difficult for me to judge on and require deeper knowledge.

To conclude, I think this the paper is a valid feasibility demonstration but as the evidence is weak on above points. What do other nerds think?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@7Kiwi As they said, it was not enough and they need to double down. Message received.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

France looks a little more uncertain but that is also because of the different generation composition (nuclear) for which my model not completely tuned, yet. Though €104/MWh is possible already on 15th November.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

Expecting some relieve in electricity prices in the next 7 days after the roller-coaster week of record high prices. Forecasts below for Germany and the Netherlands. €110-117/MWh is very much possible

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

the Netherlands

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@Venu_7_ @CulperResearch I would like to buy your $78 plan

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@wangqq1981 @Tesla_Megapack Wouldn't strike me something like "oh we've built our own proprietary" from these guys 😅

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@Handre I thought Jews were great , but last two rows prove otherwise?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@meetblueice Did you even read what they wrote?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@top1percentile @clim8resistance I can't grasp anymore why energy engineering among all is flooded with absolute idiot leaders across Europe. Why not medicine, physics, or space industry for a change? How did this happen?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

That's exactly the problem I noticed recently. The uncertainties are simply not quantified and hypotheses are not tested. Large amounts of aggregated data are used with no clue how the aggregation was exactly performed, at best they would call it just "annual mean" and uncertainty narrows down to "standard deviation" with no hints on what was meant by that exactly. Sad.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@latimeralder Those who attend already threw ridiculous commitments with taxpayers money. So it is still pretty much harmfull.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@mgshanks GB leaders can't even speak out full sentences anymore. Just a set of gibberish keywords.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@HuhtasaariSaara Has he been cancelled yet?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

"FSD in Finland has been approved" 😂

[Dr Eam Co Ding @xDreamCoding]

@Raitziger You poor bastards

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

Just yesterday I was reviewing myself one of such scientific papers which tried to bring up correlation between C02 and radiation. Weakly argumented, quite frankly. Oh, and I was immediately blocked by climate guru who promoted it. They can't even hold an argument. https://t.co/woDvcGc1n7

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

An article on measuring the effect of CO2 increase from space have surfaced on my timeline. The article, as I understood, is cherished and cited by climate scientists as a direct evidence of CO2 causing temperature increase on the Earth. Well, since I am scientist myself (not the climate, but energy) I've decided to have a look on the methodology, data, results and assumptions.
So my critique would only apply to general scientific methods, data processing, and fundamental physics and cannot go beyond that obviously. 🕵️‍♂️

1) There is no formal statistics. Only standard deviations reported but no confidence intervals whatsoever on the difference between theory and observation. Further, all channels are correlated, and in statistics this means that there are no sufficient independent confirmations. At one point, the standard deviation reported in the paper (0.025) was larger than observed noise. Actually it's unclear to me at all how SD was taken.
2) There is a mean-versus-mean comparison which seems to be quite a weak test, e.g. the theory used CO2 set to the 2003-2012 mean increase. It is not stated how multi-year differences were converted into an annual mean. So why not plotting radiance difference against delta CO2 for every year? 🤔 That could be quite stronger test.
3) The authors state that the temperature and humidity changes over 2000-2020 amount to only ~25% of the CO2 signal. If analogue matching had failed completely, the observed curve would still be within 25% of theory. So any unmatched radiance could also agree with theory? But this defies the method's claim that it can separate CO2 from temperature?
4) Theory CO2 uses July values, but analogue search profile of temperature and humidity spans June-August. But CO2 shifts across months and seasons, how can these be matched? The difference can be exactly the paper looks for.

Other points are difficult for me to judge on and require deeper knowledge.

To conclude, I think this the paper is a valid feasibility demonstration but as the evidence is weak on above points. What do other nerds think?

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

The frequency of British power system is all over the place and barely inside the operational band. It is the worst in its kind control of synchronous system in the WHOLE Europe. That cost you dearly in terms of balancing actions and reserve capacity of CCGT (gas) and yet you throw subsidies at wind? Are you out of your mind completely? Wake up, the system is 1 contingency away from the total collapse!

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@xDreamCoding @Raitziger They like free things. That's what socialism about.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

20-year Contract for Diference (CfD) with strike price £91.20 per MWh, inflation adjusted. How is this called an investment? It's a fat multi-decade subsidy for the wind lobby, again. The government will cover any difference between that strike price and the spot price of electricity. It's a fucking theft. When will it stop?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh @Miatsf]

We've secured £12 billion of investment from @RWE_AG, alongside £1bn public money, for two major UK offshore wind farms off the coast of Norfolk - powering millions of homes and supporting thousands of jobs.

This is another vote of confidence in British homegrown, clean energy.

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

@JeremyTColes Mostly the statistical methods are questionable 🤔 Well, 13 citations in just 3 years for such niche topic is something. I just see this paper was thrown around as supporting argumentation here on X. Apparently it was very sensitive since I got blocked

[StanFirewings @StanFirewings]

An article on measuring the effect of CO2 increase from space have surfaced on my timeline. The article, as I understood, is cherished and cited by climate scientists as a direct evidence of CO2 causing temperature increase on the Earth. Well, since I am scientist myself (not the climate, but energy) I've decided to have a look on the methodology, data, results and assumptions.
So my critique would only apply to general scientific methods, data processing, and fundamental physics and cannot go beyond that obviously. 🕵️‍♂️

1) There is no formal statistics. Only standard deviations reported but no confidence intervals whatsoever on the difference between theory and observation. Further, all channels are correlated, and in statistics this means that there are no sufficient independent confirmations. At one point, the standard deviation reported in the paper (0.025) was larger than observed noise. Actually it's unclear to me at all how SD was taken.
2) There is a mean-versus-mean comparison which seems to be quite a weak test, e.g. the theory used CO2 set to the 2003-2012 mean increase. It is not stated how multi-year differences were converted into an annual mean. So why not plotting radiance difference against delta CO2 for every year? 🤔 That could be quite stronger test.
3) The authors state that the temperature and humidity changes over 2000-2020 amount to only ~25% of the CO2 signal. If analogue matching had failed completely, the observed curve would still be within 25% of theory. So any unmatched radiance could also agree with theory? But this defies the method's claim that it can separate CO2 from temperature?
4) Theory CO2 uses July values, but analogue search profile of temperature and humidity spans June-August. But CO2 shifts across months and seasons, how can these be matched? The difference can be exactly the paper looks for.

Other points are difficult for me to judge on and require deeper knowledge.

To conclude, I think this the paper is a valid feasibility demonstration but as the evidence is weak on above points. What do other nerds think?