@Interesting

We're providing sources to our information, you're replying with unverified rumours. I think YOU need to come up with some source to verify your claim. Not Dandy.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@BrianK

Quote:

And profits. Germany is one of the leading green manufactures in the world. They are seeing employment and profits in the green energy.

Any official numbers to share? Your "green manufactures" are running from the 'dirty' powers (f.e. in US) for 87% in Germany: "green energy" is minor in the production cycle. In addition your "green energy" is so much subsidized (I also embedded a plot with costs some time ago for the USA, here) that it is not profitable (see Spain and UK businesses drastically cutting or stopping investments this year in 'green energy'). "Green", "sustainability" are just marketing words used by politically correct businesses as a response to the scaring memes of eco-fascists and related pseudo-scientists: you don't have to scratch much to see the underlying hypocrisy.

Quote:

So, you're now embracing politicalization?

The alarmists have abandoned Science to Politics long ago. Pr Lindzen has correctly replaced the current debate in an historical and scientific perspective in a few crucifying sentences. Of course, that alarmists are crying wolves after reading such untenable revelation is as predictable as an apple falling through a gravity field.

Quote:

he retains CO2 being an impact in the Greenhouse.

That was the hypothesis (remember this is Science). After Pr Lindzen demonstrated it (one more time) to be wrong when tested against real world measurements (sensitivity deduced from ERBE data), the rest of your flimsy § has to follow the falsified AGW hypothesis:

Quote:

The ends, yes. The means, NO.

No need to howl, I am not impaired. The beautiful thing with Science is that you can reach similar conclusion by different ways: but a bogus hypothesis will always remains bogus -- no matter how perfidiously modified as Science progresses. Hypothesis is like an onion: the more scientists peel, the less it remains. AGW hypothesis has no more resilience against peeling that any other hypothesis: using unverifiable models -- a drawback even recognized by most prominent scientists of both sides --, is just Science short circuiting: in short BS.

Quote:

The quotes you provided indicate there are things we don't know. Which is of course true, but in degrees. The science, GASP, continues to learn.

You have used before this fallacy (ie relying on generalization) to defend a point: still not an argument.

Quote:

It's your strawman no one said that.

You said:Quote:

Because the near and mid-term Climate predictions have been pretty darn accurate.

Modellers said simply the opposite recently (full quoting here) while real scientists have said it since a long time. Alarmists are now forced to retract as the real world temperatures have notably diverged from the very short term model predictions. I also questioned the reliability of long term predictions (because of non linearities) to what you claimed such predictions are also precise with great certainty (according to IPPC). So the obvious question was "what are those heavy arguments supporting the belief that long term predictions are more accurate than shorter ones (near and mid terms)?". You once again fallaciously avoid to respond -- by trumpeting fallacy where there is none -- because there exists no argument to support such absurd idea: bottom line, predictions are more and more uncertain as long as term increases.

Quote:

Even so the predictions have been fairly accurate in the near and mid term.

Only 2-3 year have passed since the last predictions by IPCC (2006-2007) so this is very short term: I was sure you had a time machine because it is currently not possible to compare near and mid term predictions with real world temperatures when the very measurements have not been done yet (and will not before long). Even if you were thinking of predictions from previous IPCC reports (which I doubt), the last paperresolves this issue quite nicely by showing that IPCC models did not perform well: Quote:

The errors from the projections were more than seven times greater than the errors from the benchmark method.

Quote:

You stated the IPCC is not related to statistical calculations.

I was merely restating the subjective IPCC procedures.

Quote:

The relationship is there.

What do you not understand in "assign a confidence level", "degree of belief" and "expert judgment"? Any sane person knows that these words do not reflect quantitative statistics but subjective appreciations (what IPCC did): in short there is no statistical calculations of the uncertainty as described by IPCC (as you forcefully claimed before) other than speculative guesswork: this is not Science but darts.

Quote:

Why would we want to cherry pick a couple of months in the year?

Perhaps because alarmists are always scaring people with Artic ice melting at the same period of the year each year? If temperatures do not change much between 150 and 250 days, melting will not change much too. That is why I suggest "one" to look also at the periods before and after. A change in temperature when it is already below -35°C is not scaring at all.

Quote:

This clearly shows why less winter ice exists and things continue to shrink.

The most recent explanation is wind pattern changes. Note also the questioning of models' reliability completely in agreement to what I said before: Quote:

"[D]ramatic [arctic ice] changes in the past three years are the result of shifting winds. Enormous amounts of ice have 'been exported from the Arctic,' driven by winds that are shifting. [...] The guys who are running the long-term climate models have a tough problem. They're looking at really long time scales, and as result they can't look at a lot of details for each year. In order to get the results before you die, you have to fudge some things. And what they fudge is the small-scale stuff. But it turns out that probably the small-scale stuff is important and fudging it gives you wrong answers."

Jane Eert, Oceanographer and Arctic researcher at the Canadian Three Oceans Project

Quote:

And for your comment of the massive amount of the earth's surface needed for solar.

My comment from when/where?

Quote:

The earth is ~510 M square km.

Reduce that by a mere 71% as solar panels do not float, remove forests, mountains, deserts and uninhabited surfaces (no grid connexion here). Probably will not change much the % though.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A new paper: Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making, dealing with *real* statistics to see how well/bad perform IPCC models' projections.

This seems to be poorly done. They create some naive model and compare it against IPCC. I call it naive as they don't really explain how they did this and clearly fail to prove any validity to the real world. Leads one to wonder if they cherry picked data to fit their arguement.

They use EPICA ice core data. The vast majority (I'd have to count but 80-90% area is a fair guess) of the timeframes are on a scale of greater than a century. None are on the decade scale they try and use here. You claimed real statistics. They don't show how they derived the decade scale nor explain the statistical error in the method they've choosen. Not real statistics...smoke and mirrors.

They misquote the IPCC. The prediction isn't .3C/decade. It a bounded. .2-.5C/decade. There's also an included information on the 1992 IPCC report they site for that temperature change of being 'without aresols'. They fail to mention or handle that condition.

Also they misquote as a 'smooth trend'. The prediction is a rise with CO2. However, the actual yearly temps are not predicted to lose variability. They further use the incorrect assumption of a smooth trend to cherry pick 2 years to compare against each other.

Then there is this silly claim "“It is not unreasonable, then, to suppose for the purposes of our validation illustration that scientists in 1850 had noticed that the increasing industrialization of the world was resulting in exponential growth in “greenhouse gases” and to project that this would lead to global warming of 0.03°C per year". This would assume the IPCC prediction is not bounded by the present situation and would be from creation of the planet to some infinite future. This is, of course, not what is happening here. And well in 1850 they didn't have the knowledge on climate we possess today. Not all, but most, has come since the 1970s.

This report is poor. It appears to be recently published. As it's still 2009 so the report is fresh. There are likely deeper issues than the one's I found in my readings. Debunking in science doesn't happen overnight. I expect it to be forthcoming.

EDIT: Cleaned up some extra whitespace.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Sep-2009 at 04:42 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Nuclear power is an expensive, dangerous and non-sustainable technology. There is still no solution in sight for the treatment of the hazardous waste produced.

Nuclear has the smallest delivery cost, is not more dangerous than anything else when reduced as a risk, and reuse of current wastes as fuel is planned in upcoming new generation nuclear power plants: clearly a misinformed opinion you quote. When basic facts are intentionally omitted, I see no point reading the rest of your politically driven garbage.

An analysis of why nuclear is a sustainable energy source here.

Edit: added the link

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 09-Sep-2009 at 04:16 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Any official numbers to share?

I've posted a couple of articles about Germany and Green Energy in the past. I don't have them off hand. As you've recommended others to look at past threads, feel free.

Quote:

The alarmists have abandoned Science to Politics long ago.

Do you wipe the crap off your mouth before you kiss your Mom?

Quote:

The beautiful thing with Science is that you can reach similar conclusion by different ways

Possibly each way has to be demonstrated to be valid. And even then you have to demonstrate some relationship to each other to explain how they support. Claiming your method is right because an unrelated method is right is wrong. One may simply be a false positive. You've not proven either to support one another. You're simply dancing the politic -- They reached the same conclusion. Shared psychosis is psychosis afterall.

Quote:

Modellers said simply the opposite recently (full quoting here)

They said nothing of the sort. There is no science here. There is your cherry picked quote politics.

Quote:

predictions are more and more uncertain as long as term increases.

And the science reflects this as the interval increases (read is less exact) and the probablity decreases.

Quote:

was sure you had a time machine because it is currently not possible to compare near and mid term predictions with real world temperatures when the very measurements have not been done yet

I stole yours when you were at work to verify your mid term predictions have failed claims.

Quote:

Perhaps because alarmists are always scaring people with Artic ice melting at the same period of the year each year? If temperatures do not change much between 150 and 250 days, melting will not change much too

You included the work from WUWT. The fact remains the change is small in July, about 1/2 a degree. And rather large in winter, in the area of 5 degrees. Claiming there is no change here and directing people to look at the hump only is again cherry picking. You're making lots of pies I guess.

Quote:

The most recent explanation is wind pattern changes.

Keep going.. the wind pattern changed because...

Quote:

Reduce that by a mere 71% as solar panels do not float,

The creativity is not strong with this one...

@BrianK

Quote:

I call it naive as they don't really explain how they did this

It appears you have once again read the paper in diagonal. They state: Quote:

We used each year’s mean global temperature as a forecast of each subsequent year’s temperature, and calculated the errors relative to the measurements for those years.

It is subtraction and test against a null hypothesis...

Quote:

They use EPICA ice core data.

Just used to ascertain the appropriateness of the benchmark. European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica is recent deep ice core drilling project.

Quote:

They misquote the IPCC.The prediction isn't .3C/decade. It a bounded. .2-.5C/decade.

Bounded with a mean of 0.3°C/decade.

Quote:

There's also an included information on the 1992 IPCC report they site for that temperature change of being 'without aresols'. They fail to mention or handle that condition.

The discussion of the IPCC's assumptions or errors is not the primary goal of the paper.

Quote:

Also they misquote as a 'smooth trend'

There is no 'smooth' word in the paper. So I don't really know where you find it.

Quote:

However, the actual yearly temps are not predicted to lose variability.

Sure, that is why IPCC defined bounds. Nevertheless the mean has also been defined as a linear increase in time.

Quote:

They further use the incorrect assumption of a smooth trend

As said before, the mean trend (0.3°C/decade) is given by IPCC itself.

Quote:

Then there is this silly claim. “It is not unreasonable, then, to suppose for the purposes of our validation illustration that scientists in 1850 had noticed that the increasing industrialization of the world was resulting in exponential growth in “greenhouse gases” and to project that this would lead to global warming of 0.03°C per year".

You forgot the previous sentences: Quote:

The IPCC (2007) authors explained, however, that “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750” (p. 2). There have even been claims that human activity has been causing global warming for at least 5000 years (Bergquist, 2008).

Thus given these premises, and as they carefully noted "for the purposes of our validation illustration", one has not to take the argument literally but as a validation exercise. I agree though the phrasing is somewhat misleading if not read carefully (because they only "suppose").

Quote:

This would assume the IPCC prediction is not bounded by the present situation

Projected temperatures are bounded by the situation (including CO² level) at projection's time, not by the situation at the time the projection is build.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

I've posted a couple of articles about Germany and Green Energy in the past.

I doubt it.

Quote:

As you've recommended others to look at past threads, feel free.

Sure, sure...

Quote:

Do you wipe the crap off your mouth before you kiss your Mom?

Your toilet-paper-thin argument smells not good. Wash your finger before typing.

Quote:

Possibly each way has to be demonstrated to be valid.

"As always in Science" said emphatically BrianK. Against the AGW case, the preponderance of evidences just let marginal uncertainty about the invalidity of the issue.

Quote:

They said nothing of the sort.

Then reread.

Quote:

There is no science here.

I do not disagree, but no one states otherwise (your homework: name the fallacy of doing so): scientists' opinions compliment well the somewhat de-personalized work they publish, especially when opinions about the uncertainty of model predictions contrast so hard with lack of citing such shortcomings in their papers.

Quote:

Keep going.. the wind pattern changed because...

Keep blowing, you will soon reach the circular trap of AGW.

Quote:

The creativity is not strong with this one...

Not intended to, only showing calculation and logic are not your cup of tea.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Against the AGW case, the preponderance of evidences just let marginal uncertainty about the invalidity of the issue.

Ahh the old arguement of creationists again. Evolution hasn't proven every case so therefore it's wrong and you must accept our answer God. GW hasn't proven ever case of every temp ever so therefore it's wrong and we must accept it's wrong. Laughable.

Quote:

Not intended to, only showing calculation and logic are not your cup of tea.

By claiming solar panels don't float? It's said the French love absurbist comedy. Thanks for the demonstration. As for logic problems. I was nice enough to back off on showing your bathing us in fallacious logic. If you like I can pick up that torch again.

Last edited by BrianK on 09-Sep-2009 at 11:40 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Just used to ascertain the appropriateness of the benchmark

Which doesn't work. The ice cores don't have the resolution they are trying to analyze.

Quote:

There is no 'smooth' word in the paper. So I don't really know where you find it.

They treat the predictions of the IPCC as a linear fashion. A smooth line. The predictions of the IPCC allow for variability per year. The change is per decade. Thus any attempt to compare single years is not a valid test.

Quote:

The discussion of the IPCC's assumptions or errors is not the primary goal of the paper.

If one is going to prove or disprove the IPCC correct they must also handle the assumptions and errors within the IPCC work. Since the IPCC excludes aersols then their work must also exclude aersols. They've failed to demonstrate this handling. It should be looked into if the IPCC not handling aersols and the paper handling aersols are a factor into the differences.

Quote:

As said before, the mean trend (0.3°C/decade) is given by IPCC itself

Sorry read the work it's .2 to .5 C/ decade. By using .3 they are assuming an average of IPCC prediction. Then they don't do the extra work to suss out the differential from the average.


Quote:

Projected temperatures are bounded by the situation (including CO² level) at projection's time, not by the situation at the time the projection is build

And here's a large problem of your misunderstanding. The IPCC is handling the last what couple thousand years. Their work in no way can be projected to be the state of climate always on the planet.

@BrianK

As usual there is no one approach. I will muse on benefits and issues.

Quote:

Something I've seen is claims that solar would consume massive amounts of land.

Rather depends on where the land is and it's ecological status - in near equatorial desert areas of very low or zero biological activity, where solar energy is greatest, and which USA has a fair proportion of, tracking solar concentrators in large arrays are an optimum approach. The installations need to be massive to justify transmission costs. Nevertheless, the land area covered is trivial in desert environments.

Quote:

We have much more land covered by buildings. Why would one not put the solar collectors on top of the buildings whenever possible? This would 'dual purpose' the land, working & energy production.

Already in hand almost everywhere in the world to various degrees. Here non-tracking thermal and PV panels are more appropriate, or at least usual.
Benefits:

1. minimal transmission costs
2. better positioning, in many cases, within cities compared to land surface installations
3. scaling to local needs
4. diverse sources of finance

1. reduction of efficiency because of nearby sources of polution - this problem would reduce somewhat with reduction in coal use.
2. subject to vagaries of ownership in implementation and maintenance - some do some don't.
3. unless integrated with roofing they can be rather ugly

Time lapse photography of glaciers LINK

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Nuclear power is an expensive, dangerous and non-sustainable technology. There is still no solution in sight for the treatment of the hazardous waste produced. Nuclear has the smallest delivery cost,

I was not discussing the delivery costs - I stated "Nuclear power is an expensive...technology."
That does certainly not mean what one has to pay per kw/h, it rather means ALL costs of this technology - ranging from research and development via the costs fo ultimate waste disposal (and we're talking about safe waste deposal here - not ocean dumping as you seem to prefer in France) to costs for the reparation of contaminated environment and medical expenditures and compensation for victims of nuclear diseasters.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Nuclear ... is not more dangerous than anything else when reduced as a risk,

Tell that to the people that were killed at Chernobyl or caught the radiation syndrome there or at "Three Miles Island"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: and reuse of current wastes as fuel is planned in upcoming new generation nuclear power plants: clearly a misinformed opinion you quote.

You forgot to mention that this still leaves the question for safe ultimate waste deposal unanswered, as even reprocessing plants produce nuclear waste that cannot be further recycled:

Nuclear Fuel Cycle:

"...
Waste disposal
Main articles: Radioactive waste and Spent nuclear fuel
A current concern in the nuclear power field is the safe disposal and isolation of either spent fuel from reactors or, if the reprocessing option is used, wastes from reprocessing plants. These materials must be isolated from the biosphere until the radioactivity contained in them has diminished to a safe level.
..."

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: When basic facts are intentionally omitted, I see no point reading the rest of your politically driven garbage.

The question here really is who omitted basic facts.
Did I intentionally "forget" to mention that the question for safe ultimate waste deposal is still unanswered or did you?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: An analysis of why nuclear is a sustainable energy source here.

Lies (in the form of a paper payed for by the US nuclear lobby - the author Bernard L. Cohen is/was member of the "American Nuclear Society" and won the American Nuclear Society "Walter Zinn"-Award) of Jan. 1983 are not going to contain any more truth if you repeat them in 2009.

In strong contrast to you I worked on the fast breeder back then and have a deeper insight in what happened than you will ever have...


EDIT:
empasis fixed...

Last edited by Dandy on 10-Sep-2009 at 10:30 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Time lapse photography of glaciers

I have just this minute finished watching it, linked from another source. It is quite stunning. The mp4 I downloaded unzipped to 76 MB but included a totally unrelated presentation of a new BMW car.

Noel

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... In addition your "green energy" is so much subsidized ...

Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons:
"...
In contrast to nuclear energy, alternative technologies have almost no lobbying organizations. The development of alternative technologies has therefore mainly been financed by private investors. They have received only very little subsidies, if any at all.
..."

EDIT:
Fixed URL

Last edited by Dandy on 10-Sep-2009 at 11:31 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Quote: TMTisFree wrote: In addition your "green energy" is so much subsidized Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons: "... In contrast to nuclear energy, alternative technologies have almost no lobbying organizations. The development of alternative technologies has therefore mainly been financed by private investors. They have received only very little subsidies, if any at all. ..." EDIT: Fixed URL

In the USA there has been some government subsidization of alternative energies. Most of it is for research and a very small amount is for home owners. Matural technologies such as coal and oil are still subsidized and to much greater amounts. Nuclear is subsidized too. In fact Nuclear is one of the most heavily subsidized. Plant construction costs are so expensive the businesses argue they can't do it on their own and need government monies. Insurance for nuke plants is so expensive only the government can afford it. And of course the high cost of disposing of waste exists.

Now TMTisFree has cited IFR reactors. Good idea in theory but let's not dance the dance of perfection until we actually see one in operation. We need to match up the theoretical to the actual.

If the idea is that subsidazation is bad then all energy is at fault.

Alternative energies can have a stablizing impact on the energy markets. New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina. Many homes are being rebuilt with solar panels. When put into new construction costs the cost of including some energy production is easier to handle as it's part of one's home loan. They are seeing electric costs reduce from slighly more than $100 to around $30, on average. Assuming electric rates don't increase for the next 18-20 years the homeowner will break even. Likely rates will increase and home owners will save even more.

Here in Minnesota we have lots of cold winters. Installing geothermal heating for a home is $25-$35K. The savings is large compared to propane about $2000/year. If one can find the cash for install the payback is a decade. Again that assumes energy rates don't increase. They will and again payback is even quicker.

Yet we're told that this will bankrupt nations? I really don't see how. We see lower amounts of investment on a per KW/hr basis by the government. Alternative energy reduces their burden. A win. We see lower and more predictable costs for the homeowner. Again a win for the individual. The only loss I see here is the corporate coal and oil companies will need to maintain smaller profit margins and be more competitive due to a diversified marketplace.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Already in hand almost everywhere in the world to various degrees.

Here in Minnesota the amount of energy made by solar is statistically small enough to claim it's zero. California and Hawaii on the other hand have quite a bit more. Not sure the amounts but one can visually see the differences. A requirement should be for all new businesses is an include of some type of self generating power.

Not sure what ownership problems you run into? Here the building owner is the one that owns the solar. Now they can contract out the maintenance of the system to a 3rd party if they like.

Quote:

I have wondered over one attractive way of integrating a solar concentrator into architecture

I've seen solar collecting windows, not sure the cost. Also, solar cells built into shingles for the roof.

Quote:

Although I imagine power collection while in transit, automated roadside charging stations are an immediately and practical probabilty and may be all that is necessary

Not sure how much power collection in transit in feasible. Power transfer is always lossy so one will never get more power in than what they take out.



Glad you liked the glacier photographic link. IMO it answers anyone's question if they truly believe the world is cooling.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Quote: Dandy wrote: Nuclear power phase-out pros and cons: "... In contrast to nuclear energy, alternative technologies have almost no lobbying organizations. The development of alternative technologies has therefore mainly been financed by private investors. They have received only very little subsidies, if any at all. ..." EDIT: Fixed URL In the USA there has been some government subsidization of alternative energies. Most of it is for research and a very small amount is for home owners. Matural technologies such as coal and oil are still subsidized and to much greater amounts. Nuclear is subsidized too. In fact Nuclear is one of the most heavily subsidized. Plant construction costs are so expensive the businesses argue they can't do it on their own and need government monies. Insurance for nuke plants is so expensive only the government can afford it. And of course the high cost of disposing of waste exists. Now TMTisFree has cited IFR reactors. Good idea in theory but let's not dance the dance of perfection until we actually see one in operation. We need to match up the theoretical to the actual. If the idea is that subsidazation is bad then all energy is at fault. Alternative energies can have a stablizing impact on the energy markets. New Orleans was destroyed by Katrina. Many homes are being rebuilt with solar panels. When put into new construction costs the cost of including some energy production is easier to handle as it's part of one's home loan. They are seeing electric costs reduce from slighly more than $100 to around $30, on average. Assuming electric rates don't increase for the next 18-20 years the homeowner will break even. Likely rates will increase and home owners will save even more.

Fully agreed.

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Here in Minnesota we have lots of cold winters. ...

As you're just talking about cold winters (here cold winters were equally quite common when I was a young boy) - I already heard some moaning that photovoltaic installations would only make sense in equatorial countries.

This is not true.

We have several so called "zero energy homes" - even here in North Rhine-Westphalia/Germany ( Zero Energy Homes ).

A while ago I saw a documentation abou one of those "zero energy homes" which even clarified its effluents by leading them through a special reed planting.
Photovoltaik installation delivered all needed electrcity, and solar heat collectors delivered enough heat (that was stored in an big isolated tank - 95.000 liters) to heat the house and to deliver warm water during the winter. At the end of the heating period the temperature in the storage tank still was 39 degrees Celsius - here in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Yet we're told that this will bankrupt nations? I really don't see how. We see lower amounts of investment on a per KW/hr basis by the government. Alternative energy reduces their burden. A win. We see lower and more predictable costs for the homeowner. Again a win for the individual. The only loss I see here is the corporate coal and oil companies will need to maintain smaller profit margins and be more competitive due to a diversified marketplace.

Fully agreed...

EDIT:
Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 11-Sep-2009 at 06:08 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

Evolution hasn't proven every case so therefore it's wrong

You have it backward here: preponderance of evidences supports the evolution theory, nothing else.

Quote:

By claiming solar panels don't float?

My subtility-o-meter detects a 0/20 mark for BrianK: are solar panels usually located on seas/oceans? The response is no. Then your Earth surface is wrongly calculated.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Perhaps because alarmists are always scaring people with Artic ice melting at the same period of the year each year? If temperatures do not change much between 150 and 250 days, melting will not change much too.

Are you truly this ignorant about basic physics, or are you just desperately trying to avoid admitting your screwup?

In case it is the former (a scary idea, considering that you were throwing around terms like "Einstein coefficients" and "permissivity of empty space" not so long ago), here is a handy little experiment which you can perform in your home (which, presumably, has both a fridge and a way of making ice cubes):

* Put a 500ml (or so) jug of clean water into the fridge. Also, create ice cubes from three quarters of a litre of water.
* Obtain a digital thermometer with a cabled "outside" sensor. These sensors are typically water proof and connected to the thermometer through a very thin cable.
* Leave the jug and the ice cubes overnight, for them to reach a steady temperature.
* Pick a tall glass, or a bowl, capable of holding about half a litre of water. Put the glass on your kitchen scale, and tare the scales.
* Get some (350g) ice from your freezer, return the rest of the ice to the freezer immediately.
* Working quickly, crush the 350g of ice thoroughly. Put 300g of it into your glass/bowl, inserting the thermometer probe in the middle of it.
* Add 200g of the fridged water to your glass/bowl. Put the jug back into the fridge.
* For the next hour, leave the glass/bowl on the kitchen bench.
* Note down the temperature in the ice slush at regular intervals (say every 2 minutes. Or every 5, depending on how keen you are).
* After an hour, tare your scales again, then drain all liquid water from the glass/bowl, while holding back the remaining ice.
* Note down the weight difference between before-draining and after-draining weight. That, minus the 200g of liquid water you started out with, is how much ice melted during the hour.

And now comes the fun part --- do it all again, exactly the same way (which is why the instructions told you to put he ice and the jug of water back into the freezer/fridge --- the starting conditions are supposed to be the same!), only *this* time, don't leave the glass/bowl on the kitchen bench, but rather stick it in the fridge. The sensor cable can easily fit through a fridge seal without causing any problems, so you can keep the thermometer outside and note down the temperature without having to open your fridge all the time.
(Of course, if you have two thermometers, you could do the two glasses/bowls at the same time, which would be even better, because you would avoid potential differences in starting conditions).


After you have done that, and looked at the results, I encourage you to report back whether you still believe the sentence quoted above. If not, I further encourage you to find a physics student at a local university who provides year 11 high school level tutoring, and get her to explain the reasons for the (apparently, to you, unexpected) result.

Quote:

That is why I suggest "one" to look also at the periods before and after.

I'll gladly do your data analysis for you, if you pay me for my time. 50 Euro per hour, billed in 15 minute intervals, minimum of one hour per job. This would be a one hour job. My paypal account is amithlon@amithlon.net.
Personally, I'd recommend investing the money in obtaining an education (i.e. physics tutoring), rather than an unnecessary analysis, but it's your money, so if you want me to actually crunch the numbers to confirm that physics actually works even north of the 80th parallel, just let me know when you have transferred the funds.

Quote:

A change in temperature when it is already below -35°C is not scaring at all.

Why would that be? You don't believe that higher temperatures lead to increased sublimation? Or that higher temperatures result in a higher ability of the air to carry humidity, and thus in reduced precipitation? You also don't believe that it takes less absorbed energy for -35C ice to start thawing once temperatures go up than for -32C ice? Or is it just that reduced deposition, increased losses, and earlier onset of melting are somehow not scary?

Last edited by umisef on 10-Sep-2009 at 05:41 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

The ice cores don't have the resolution they are trying to analyze.

Irrelevant argument. The ice cores are not used to calibrate model here, only to show that known temperatures display no specific pattern and are then the result of the climate system itself. Thus the correct test to use in such case is the null hypothesis. I don't see much troubles here.

Quote:

They treat the predictions of the IPCC as a linear fashion.

IPCC defined its predictions as linear trends. They used what IPCC reported.

Quote:

If one is going to prove or disprove the IPCC correct they must also handle the assumptions and errors within the IPCC work.

All assumptions and errors of IPCC are supposed to be included in the trends IPCC put in its 1992 report. Thus authors used IPCC projection as IPCC calculated it in 1992. Had they modified IPCC number a bit, one would have heard you shouting 'manipulation!'. Aerosols were accounted for in the 1995 report (SAR).

Quote:

Sorry read the work it's .2 to .5 C/ decade.

You should really read the work: the actual bounds are 1.5°C and 4.5°C/century as defined in the 1992 IPCC Supplementary Report at figure Ax.3 on page 174.

Quote:

By using .3 they are assuming an average of IPCC prediction.

The value they used is the exact average of the IPCC bounds. So what? You are seeing problems where none exists.

Quote:

The IPCC is handling the last what couple thousand years. Their work in no way can be projected to be the state of climate always on the planet.

Not sure what you mean here.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".