More climate change uncertainty. The models don't fit the actual observations

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
Others poke holes in other people's published papers when those papers have mistakes in them. Nic Lewis is published in the "Journal of Climate".

Gore is a mediocre, bloated, hypocritical bureaucrat, hence I have a problem with Gore breathing. Like it or not, Gore is your side's poster boy.

"Biosketch. Nic Lewis’ academic background is mathematics, with a minor in physics, at Cambridge University (UK). His career has been outside academia. Two or three years ago, he returned to his original scientific and mathematical interests and, being interested in the controversy surrounding AGW, started to learn about climate science. He is co-author of the paper that rebutted Steig et al. Antarctic temperature reconstruction (Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre and Jeff Condon, 2011, Improved methods for PCA-based reconstructions: case study using the Steig et al. (2009) Antarctic temperature reconstruction, Journal of Climate"
Click to expand...

I don't quote Gore, I don't read Gore and I don't talk to people who use him as a reference. My statement stands, when the nay sayers produce their own data they will be much more believable.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
By the way, your author only mentions a single feedback mechanism and presumes that if the feedback from water vapor is questionable that addresses all other mechanisms and that is false. He does not mention warming oceans being less able to absorb co2 (even if CO2 does not have the warming first speculated), it does not mention methane which is as much, if not more powerful a warming substance than c02 OR water vapor.


This "discovery" has a long way to go before it becomes the source of a collective sigh of relief
Click to expand...
I agree with you about methane. What do we do about that?

The point is, your side is proposing societal changes that will disrupt the economy of the planet. To justify that, you damn well better have a strong, defensible case and you don't. When the economic upheaval proposed is based on climate models that are demonstrably wrong, and your side simply shrugs and says, "big deal" you can expect me and people like me to call bullshit on the whole enterprise. It's not about science, its about politics.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I agree with you about methane. What do we do about that?

The point is, your side is proposing societal changes that will disrupt the economy of the planet. To justify that, you damn well better have a strong, defensible case and you don't. When the economic upheaval proposed is based on climate models that are demonstrably wrong, and your side simply shrugs and says, "big deal" you can expect me and people like me to call bullshit on the whole enterprise. It's not about science, its about politics.
Click to expand...


Alter our society. We are in agreement that pollution is bad, much pollution will be curtailed with the limiting of the burning of fossil fuels. I contend that we are at or beyond Hubert's peak - falling off of that peak will affect society far more profoundly than any attempt to curtail carbon emissions. The fact is that global warming or not, we have to change and that change will bring with it global upheaval. The fact is that the age of fossil energy is about over and you can go kicking and screaming or you can accept it. The earlier the status quo folks accept it the easier it will be on all of us. Global warming or not, it makes sense to move on.


If it is about politics, then it is about the politics of the status quo - as I said, the science didn't become poltical until the GCC initiated it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
Alter our society. We are in agreement that pollution is bad, much pollution will be curtailed with the limiting of the burning of fossil fuels. I contend that we are at or beyond Hubert's peak - falling off of that peak will affect society far more profoundly than any attempt to curtail carbon emissions. The fact is that global warming or not, we have to change and that change will bring with it global upheaval. The fact is that the age of fossil energy is about over and you can go kicking and screaming or you can accept it. The earlier the status quo folks accept it the easier it will be on all of us. Global warming or not, it makes sense to move on.


If it is about politics, then it is about the politics of the status quo - as I said, the science didn't become poltical until the GCC initiated it.
Click to expand...
Fossil energy is, in a sense, the future as well as the past. The current grail is fusion, which will use mined nuclei. A possible intermediate stage is to revive fission as an accepted source of energy, but this will require getting a processing and waste depot infrastructure established.

Wind, solar and biofuel are all players on the team as well, but I consider it axiomatic that, unless we want to settle into a pretechnical or oligotechnical stasis, we need to increase the energy available per capita. Low-energy-density processes like the Green Three are fine for residential needs, but to power industry, fixed high-powered generating stations will still be needed. And since a direct vacuum-energy tap hasn't been found and might be a dream as impossible as time travel or hyperdrive ... fusion is "it". cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Fossil energy is, in a sense, the future as well as the past. The current grail is fusion, which will use mined nuclei. A possible intermediate stage is to revive fission as an accepted source of energy, but this will require getting a processing and waste depot infrastructure established.

Wind, solar and biofuel are all players on the team as well, but I consider it axiomatic that, unless we want to settle into a pretechnical or oligotechnical stasis, we need to increase the energy available per capita. Low-energy-density processes like the Green Three are fine for residential needs, but to power industry, fixed high-powered generating stations will still be needed. And since a direct vacuum-energy tap hasn't been found and might be a dream as impossible as time travel or hyperdrive ... fusion is "it". cn
Click to expand...


You have never seen the spark a high energy photo voltaic array causes - it is pretty damn impressive. I notice as well that you don't include hydro. While I dont contend that we could operate some of the aluminum smelting operations we need with arrays on their rooftops I think you underestimate the capacity of some of these new systems.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
You have never seen the spark a high energy photo voltaic array causes - it is pretty damn impressive. I notice as well that you don't include hydro. While I dont contend that we could operate some of the aluminum smelting operations we need with arrays on their rooftops I think you underestimate the capacity of some of these new systems.
Click to expand...
Once one gets their hands on some good PV equipment and realizes they can be free from the electricity bill forever I think they tend to "see the light". The point was made in another thread, berated endlessly actually, that it will not suit everyone's needs, namely the people in highly urban ares where there is just no place to keep a panel secure and for industry. As much as I love solar, I'll be the one to try to keep the thread from going in that direction.

The technology has great potential though and maybe there is plenty of development to be done to make it serve those who it can't currently.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you're either a really shitty consumer of information, brainwashed, or retarded. there is no other explanation for the depths of your idiocy.
Click to expand...
Another Hypothesis

He enjoys trolling and goes to the lowest common denominator as far as bullshit he can use to spew

Tea Party Blogs
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Once one gets their hands on some good PV equipment and realizes they can be free from the electricity bill forever I think they tend to "see the light". The point was made in another thread, berated endlessly actually, that it will not suit everyone's needs, namely the people in highly urban ares where there is just no place to keep a panel secure and for industry. As much as I love solar, I'll be the one to try to keep the thread from going in that direction.

The technology has great potential though and maybe there is plenty of development to be done to make it serve those who it can't currently.
Click to expand...

The point is lost on many who are sure that the technology cavalry will come charging to the rescue in the nick of time. Some technologies are not subject to breakthroughs. Batteries and solar are two, slow and steady.

The longer solar is sniffed at the longer we will have to wait.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The point is lost on many who are sure that the technology cavalry will come charging to the rescue in the nick of time. Some technologies are not subject to breakthroughs. Batteries and solar are two, slow and steady.

The longer solar is sniffed at the longer we will have to wait.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Im building a garage in the spring. Against convention it will have a shed roof. And on top of that a solar panel array.
I want to put a windmill up as well but city zoning says the tower can only be half as tall as your lot is wide which limits me to 20 feet. Not even as high as my roof on my house
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Im building a garage in the spring. Against convention it will have a shed roof. And on top of that a solar panel array.
I want to put a windmill up as well but city zoning says the tower can only be half as tall as your lot is wide which limits me to 20 feet. Not even as high as my roof on my house
Click to expand...
Are you going to do grid tie? A lot of municipal governments have laws against "bootleg power". Even if the panels don't provide all of your power, your meter will slow down. With grid tie though in most cases the utility company won't pay you for what you put into the grid. The panels pay for themselves. Not only by reducing or even eliminating your power bill, but by increasing the value of your home.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Are you going to do grid tie? A lot of municipal governments have laws against "bootleg power". Even if the panels don't provide all of your power, your meter will slow down. With grid tie though in most cases the utility company won't pay you for what you put into the grid. The panels pay for themselves. Not only by reducing or even eliminating your power bill, but by increasing the value of your home.
Click to expand...
I can tie into the grid or have the whole thing offline if I want. I havent worked everything out yet. There is some funding available to help subsidize it. And indeed any surplus can be sold back to the Power Company. But I do not expect any surplus to be generated.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
I can tie into the grid or have the whole thing offline if I want. I havent worked everything out yet. There is some funding available to help subsidize it. And indeed any surplus can be sold back to the Power Company. But I do not expect any surplus to be generated.
Click to expand...
Yeah if you have a big grow and a lot of other usage you would need a big expensive array to cover it. In that case imo you should just grid tie. That way if your usage does ever dip low enough for surplus, you can get paid and also because in order to work offline, you would need an inverter and some batteries to store DC. That is extra cost. It can be added later though.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Yeah if you have a big grow and a lot of other usage you would need a big expensive array to cover it. In that case imo you should just grid tie. That way if your usage does ever dip low enough for surplus, you can get paid and also because in order to work offline, you would need an inverter and some batteries to store DC. That is extra cost. It can be added later though.
Click to expand...
If I ever did grow it would definatly hide my power usage.
Maybe one day they will make it legal and I'll try it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
You have never seen the spark a high energy photo voltaic array causes - it is pretty damn impressive. I notice as well that you don't include hydro. While I dont contend that we could operate some of the aluminum smelting operations we need with arrays on their rooftops I think you underestimate the capacity of some of these new systems.
Click to expand...
On the first point ... conceded. However I still think that enough PV to run my house is still deep five figures just for the panels. And the storage problem is acute.

As for hydro, that was an omission largely due to my impression that there's little available geography left available for hydro. Canada, with many mountains, much rain and low population density, is the ideal hydro case. Jmo. cn
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
On the first point ... conceded. However I still think that enough PV to run my house is still deep five figures just for the panels. And the storage problem is acute.

As for hydro, that was an omission largely due to my impression that there's little available geography left available for hydro. Canada, with many mountains, much rain and low population density, is the ideal hydro case. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

Well hydro has far from a "light" footprint on the environment. And you will get no argument from me over cost - step by step is all we have when it comes to solar and batteries. I am reminded of the unknowing folks who scoff at electric cars as being weak, slow provisions for tree huggers and real men insist on internal combustion engines. Tell them that most modern heavy earth moving equipment is actually electric and that most modern ships use electric motors.


You would be very impressed if you drove a modern electric car - I know I was. All we need is better batteries but the one I drove had a 150 mile range - helped along by a solar roof.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
canndo said:
Well hydro has far from a "light" footprint on the environment. And you will get no argument from me over cost - step by step is all we have when it comes to solar and batteries. I am reminded of the unknowing folks who scoff at electric cars as being weak, slow provisions for tree huggers and real men insist on internal combustion engines. Tell them that most modern heavy earth moving equipment is actually electric and that most modern ships use electric motors.


You would be very impressed if you drove a modern electric car - I know I was. All we need is better batteries but the one I drove had a 150 mile range - helped along by a solar roof.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the heavies were Diesel-electric. (All I know is from locomotives.) I know that some superheavies (like the giant scoop in Wyoming) are true-electric, but that one has a captive coal-fired generating plant and a really big extension cord.

As for electric cars, when they make an electric pickup that'll take me over the ridge empty and back with a load (and won't cost me the full marginal rate of 37¢/kWh to recharge) ... i'll pay attention. I see current (!) electrics with their short range and limited cargo capacity as good urban commuter machines, competing for public transit in its natural environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top