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

[NLXSK1]

Ok, after reading this thread...

Ginga immediately started attacking the article as an opinion piece.

Now, the guy who's OPINION is the one we are discussing has a proven record of finding errors in IPCC scientific papers and having the IPCC issue corrections.

These same scientific papers are THEORIES in themselves as they include ASSUMPTIONS on what will happen. The only way to test these is to compare the THEORY to the data. This is known as the scientific method.

Now, what the person who has provably made the IPCC change papers is saying is that based on the DATA that is now available the MODEL based on the THEORY of global warming is not following the data. He is using the scientific method to disprove the scientific papers that had THEORIES about what would happen with the climate. Those THEORIES seem to have been partially or totally wrong.

The globe is warming, that is not in debate. The globe constantly warms and cools in cycles that have been proven by data from the past. I hope nobody debates the previous sentence.

What we are debating is the amount of effect that humans are having on this temperature.

Why do the global warming alarmists want to point to data and scientific papers that are provably wrong as shown above when it appears the globe is warming due to humans but deny the data when it doesnt fit the global warming model created by scientist based on assumptions?

 

[cannabineer]

Ok, after reading this thread...

Ginga immediately started attacking the article as an opinion piece.

Now, the guy who's OPINION is the one we are discussing has a proven record of finding errors in IPCC scientific papers and having the IPCC issue corrections.

These same scientific papers are THEORIES in themselves as they include ASSUMPTIONS on what will happen. The only way to test these is to compare the THEORY to the data. This is known as the scientific method.

Now, what the person who has provably made the IPCC change papers is saying is that based on the DATA that is now available the MODEL based on the THEORY of global warming is not following the data. He is using the scientific method to disprove the scientific papers that had THEORIES about what would happen with the climate. Those THEORIES seem to have been partially or totally wrong.

The globe is warming, that is not in debate. The globe constantly warms and cools in cycles that have been proven by data from the past. I hope nobody debates the previous sentence.

What we are debating is the amount of effect that humans are having on this temperature.

Why do the global warming alarmists want to point to data and scientific papers that are provably wrong as shown above when it appears the globe is warming due to humans but deny the data when it doesnt fit the global warming model created by scientist based on assumptions?

Replace attacking with exposing.

And fitting models is a fraught enterprise no matter who does it. You cannot use models to support phrases like "provably wrong". cn

 

[desert dude]

Replace attacking with exposing.

And fitting models is a fraught enterprise no matter who does it. You cannot use models to support phrases like "provably wrong". cn

If a model predicts a 5 degree rise in temperature and actual data shows only a 3 degree rise in temperature, then the model has been proven wrong. A good model maker would fix his model in such a case.

 

[cannabineer]

If a model predicts a 5 degree rise in temperature and actual data shows only a 3 degree rise in temperature, then the model has been proven wrong. A good model maker would fix his model in such a case.

The models are horrifically complex. They cannot be "fixed" even by "good" model makers. I don't see computer modeling of climate as a mature reliable technique. Much of the current animus against climate science is a result of taking models as definitive predictions. They're elaborate "what if" but are treated as more serious, as grounds for overreactions like legal action. cn

 

[desert dude]

The models are horrifically complex. They cannot be "fixed" even by "good" model makers. I don't see computer modeling of climate as a mature reliable technique. Much of the current animus against climate science is a result of taking models as definitive predictions. They're elaborate "what if" but are treated as more serious, as grounds for overreactions like legal action. cn

Yeah, exactly. That is my beef with the whole AGW crowd who argue that the world is supposed to reinvent itself because the climate models say the average global temperature will rise 3 degrees centigrade by 2100. Nic Lewis has shown that the model got it wrong over the last twenty years or so. Why would I agree to take a vow of poverty based on climate predictions that are demonstrably wrong?

For Ginja to claim this is an opinion piece shows a basic ignorance of peer review of scientific publications, or more likely a shoot the messenger response.

 

[abandonconflict]

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

After Obama invested in Solyndra, the Chinese flooded the market with cheap high quality panels. It is likely the reason why Solyndra failed. What ever the case on that, I'm sure has been debated, but I can tell you that you ought to shop a bit. You may find that the cost of panels is 10% to 20% of what it would have been a few years ago, not only because they are simply cheaper, but so much more efficient that you need fewer. Furthermore, if you own your home, it is a wise investment, not a loss at all as it will increase the value of your home more than it will cost. Some counties even subsidize part of that cost.

I could be wrong in your case, but I would urge you to shop around again.

 

[doublejj]

Didn't FOX's computer models predict a win for Romney?..........Not all models are accurate!

 

[NoDrama]

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.

The utility company is FORCED to pay for any excess energy you may produce from "Green Energy." Its the LAW.

 

[NLXSK1]

The utility company is FORCED to pay for any excess energy you may produce from "Green Energy." Its the LAW.

The LAW in Arizona allows them to pay you 5% of what they charge you for power... The reasoning is that they provide all the infrastructure.

 

[ChesusRice]

Yeah, exactly. That is my beef with the whole AGW crowd who argue that the world is supposed to reinvent itself because the climate models say the average global temperature will rise 3 degrees centigrade by 2100. Nic Lewis has shown that the model got it wrong over the last twenty years or so. Why would I agree to take a vow of poverty based on climate predictions that are demonstrably wrong?

For Ginja to claim this is an opinion piece shows a basic ignorance of peer review of scientific publications, or more likely a shoot the messenger response.

Remember back in the late 70s and thru the 80s when it actually used to snow a lot

i dont see that anymore

 

[desert dude]

Remember back in the late 70s and thru the 80s when it actually used to snow a lot

i dont see that anymore

Psst... look out your window.

 

[NLXSK1]

Psst... look out your window.

He forgot the car he was living in in the 70's and 80's didnt have a roof...

 

[canndo]

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.

The one I drove was a souped up Karma. I think it focused too heavily on acurtaments and ultra luxury - all of it costing electricity. The one I drove had all wheel drive and must have weighed two tons and significan change.there was plenty of room in the passenger compartments but not so much for trunk space as the battery is big. This may never become a production model but as I said it was blindingly fast and that accelerationi neve let up.

I didn't get a chance to blow through any turns so I don't know how it handled but I suspect not very well - owing to the weight . There are some models that have tiny internal combustion engines with a half or a gallon fuel tank that could charge the car and of course that solar array on the roof.


Like it or not, in production or not these are still experimental cars and they are very spendy but as I said, I would put them against about any 8 banger ut there currently for everything but range. Cycle time is a dismal 6 hours from 120 and not much better at 210. the batteries are rated for the life of the car.


If I had 400k lying around I'd pick one up and it might pay for itself in a couple of hundred years - but the point is that this stuff is coming and that the American public is not going to compromise what they have come to view as their birthright - powerful, sleek and BIG cars.

 

[cannabineer]

View attachment 2453928


The one I drove was a souped up Karma. I think it focused too heavily on acurtaments and ultra luxury - all of it costing electricity. The one I drove had all wheel drive and must have weighed two tons and significan change.there was plenty of room in the passenger compartments but not so much for trunk space as the battery is big. This may never become a production model but as I said it was blindingly fast and that accelerationi neve let up.

I didn't get a chance to blow through any turns so I don't know how it handled but I suspect not very well - owing to the weight . There are some models that have tiny internal combustion engines with a half or a gallon fuel tank that could charge the car and of course that solar array on the roof.


Like it or not, in production or not these are still experimental cars and they are very spendy but as I said, I would put them against about any 8 banger ut there currently for everything but range. Cycle time is a dismal 6 hours from 120 and not much better at 210. the batteries are rated for the life of the car.


If I had 400k lying around I'd pick one up and it might pay for itself in a couple of hundred years - but the point is that this stuff is coming and that the American public is not going to compromise what they have come to view as their birthright - powerful, sleek and BIG cars.

I read an article about the Fisker Karma. The model in question had a small four-banger as its "real" power source, essentially a plug-in hybrid. I wasn't aware of electric-only models.

But really, up against any eight-banger? The Karma tops out at 125mph, which is weak for any performance car incl. the heavy four-doors. And a non-truck with a V8 is automatically a performance car imo.

Electrics have inherent issues with energy density. Even if a quantum leap in energy density can be achieved, it will bring with it a unique liability: explosive power packs. A battery that can store enough power to match or exceed a fuel/engine combination can also heat itself to thousands of degrees. cn

 

[Mindmelted]

I read an article about the Fisker Karma. The model in question had a small four-banger as its "real" power source, essentially a plug-in hybrid. I wasn't aware of electric-only models.

But really, up against any eight-banger? The Karma tops out at 125mph, which is weak for any performance car incl. the heavy four-doors. And a non-truck with a V8 is automatically a performance car imo.

Electrics have inherent issues with energy density. Even if a quantum leap in energy density can be achieved, it will bring with it a unique liability: explosive power packs. A battery that can store enough power to match or exceed a fuel/engine combination can also heat itself to thousands of degrees. cn

You are way too logical my friend.

 

[canndo]

Yeah, exactly. That is my beef with the whole AGW crowd who argue that the world is supposed to reinvent itself because the climate models say the average global temperature will rise 3 degrees centigrade by 2100. Nic Lewis has shown that the model got it wrong over the last twenty years or so. Why would I agree to take a vow of poverty based on climate predictions that are demonstrably wrong?

For Ginja to claim this is an opinion piece shows a basic ignorance of peer review of scientific publications, or more likely a shoot the messenger response.

NOW I get it.


It is this "vow of poverty" that makes it all clear to me.


You believe that climate models are wrong because they don't conform to the specificity you demand.


So you don't like the climate prediction but you have no problem with the predictions of effects to the economy that state that you (and everyone else) will be forced into some neo catastrophic economic cave dwelling future as a result.

Of course the economy is as complex as the weather but you are assuming without even the same level of model as the climate model that any attempt to address global warming issues will destroy the economy. You claim that 3 degrees in 100 years isn't so bad and that any other projection is wrong. I am requesting that you show us all the methods and data you use to calculate that were we to contend with global warming the economy would come crashing down about our heads.


Strange how things work. We all seem to be making projections.

 

[canndo]

Didn't FOX's computer models predict a win for Romney?..........Not all models are accurate!

Actually, the problem was that they ignored the computer models that said that Romney was going to lose. They opted instead to rely on wishful thinking - something the right is given to more and more lately.


For instance they really really wish that the results of this fiscal cliff thing they are precipitating will be blamed on Obama.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ok, after reading this thread...

Ginga immediately started attacking the article as an opinion piece.

as the bear said its "exposed"

Now, the guy who's OPINION is the one we are discussing has a proven record of finding errors in IPCC scientific papers and having the IPCC issue corrections.

no its an opinion piece of someone discussing their opinion of the ipcc and show me some links to said "ipcc issue corrections"

These same scientific papers are THEORIES in themselves as they include ASSUMPTIONS on what will happen. The only way to test these is to compare the THEORY to the data. This is known as the scientific method.

Now, what the person who has provably made the IPCC change papers is saying is that based on the DATA that is now available the MODEL based on the THEORY of global warming is not following the data. He is using the scientific method to disprove the scientific papers that had THEORIES about what would happen with the climate. Those THEORIES seem to have been partially or totally wrong.

yeah he can say what ever he wants but unless its backed up but numbers and data its full of shit

lets not forget he's claiming to be an "expert reviewer" on this and that he's party to the said studies before they are publicized

so he's claiming to be one of the "peers" that reviews before publication now he's not doing what should be done in this case which is sending the the study back to its authers with a note telling them exactly what they were doing wrong.
or in worst scenario if the paper was due to be published regardless of his complaints written a counter paper detailing his problems to be published the same day as the offender?

but oh no he wrote a blog which was commented on in an opinion piece with the important facts hidden from us because of scary "secrets"

seriously is this the shit you guys want to lap up and proudly present yourself to the rest of us with it still steaming round your lips?

The globe is warming, that is not in debate. The globe constantly warms and cools in cycles that have been proven by data from the past. I hope nobody debates the previous sentence.

and here we find agreement

What we are debating is the amount of effect that humans are having on this temperature.

Why do the global warming alarmists want to point to data and scientific papers that are provably wrong as shown above when it appears the globe is warming due to humans but deny the data when it doesnt fit the global warming model created by scientist based on assumptions?

all the evidence points to this current warming being from us

 

[ginjawarrior]

Yeah, exactly. That is my beef with the whole AGW crowd who argue that the world is supposed to reinvent itself because the climate models say the average global temperature will rise 3 degrees centigrade by 2100. Nic Lewis has shown that the model got it wrong over the last twenty years or so. Why would I agree to take a vow of poverty based on climate predictions that are demonstrably wrong?

For Ginja to claim this is an opinion piece shows a basic ignorance of peer review of scientific publications, or more likely a shoot the messenger response.

it is an opinion piece and for you to pretend that blogs is where science happens just shows what a fucking idiot you are

 

[canndo]

I read an article about the Fisker Karma. The model in question had a small four-banger as its "real" power source, essentially a plug-in hybrid. I wasn't aware of electric-only models.

But really, up against any eight-banger? The Karma tops out at 125mph, which is weak for any performance car incl. the heavy four-doors. And a non-truck with a V8 is automatically a performance car imo.

Electrics have inherent issues with energy density. Even if a quantum leap in energy density can be achieved, it will bring with it a unique liability: explosive power packs. A battery that can store enough power to match or exceed a fuel/engine combination can also heat itself to thousands of degrees. cn

This one had a very tiny internal combustion engine. I was wrong about the weight (I spent yesterday with someone from the company smoking cigars and discussing employment options in the event I decide the commute is worth the trouble). It is an experimental model and btw, they had a pickup in the lab. You aren't going to get your wish just yet.

Yes energy density is a tough nut and I quietly, don't believe we will ever manage the energy density of gasoline - ever, except if we go to some of the extraordinary measures I discussed with you involving 10 to 15k pounds per square inch containers. But if we realize that these engines operate at about 25 percent efficiency where electric motors can convert up to 90 percent of their energy input into useable mechanical energy a new vista emerges. A whole lot of the density of gasoline is only necessary because the engine itself is so inefficient.

I think I mentioned the torque produced by some of these motors and that, my friend explained is why I experienced such unbelievable acceleration. That the car will only go 125 miles per hour is somewhat irrelevant here - the limitations are because of the gearing (or lack of it) in the car. How fast would you like your electric car to be able to go? I would be quite satisfied with 120 mph, especially if I could get there in 4 or 5 seconds. I would be even more satisfied if I could achieve that velocity going up hill, and starting at any speed - mind you I am not quoting real numbers and I gather that I am not even supposed to (If I actually knew them).


There are problems with all electrics that are inherent with many alternative fuel vehicles. I have several friends who own gaseous fuel cars. The fueling infrastructure for CNG vehicles is spotty and they often find themselves in pioneer land, new adventures in driving where they must plot their trips around available fueling stations. They can't simply go to places they don't know about, their Iphone apps are unreliable, some of the fueling stations are not available to the public. Some of the older stations don't pump at the higher rated capacities and so if they plan on a given range from a full tank they might not make it. (there are two different delivery pressures). If you do run out of fuel, you have no option but to be towed to a fueling location - even if you find you have run out of fuel in your own driveway. Some of the same problems will be present for all electrics. I know there is some work being done on "explosive" generation of electricity - enough so that you would "detonate" your portable one use charging device in order to put enough electricity in your car to get you a dozen miles or so but I know little about them, otherwise you will need to be towed. It can take some amount of time to get a full charge in your garage, the Karma solar roof is a tiny trickle (no matter what they say to the contrary btw).

But consider the disadvantages of the Model T. it was underpowered and needed to be pulled by horse up some hills, tires blew out constantly, gas was difficult to find as well, early on. If we are to wait until everything is perfect before we begin we will wait forever.