Global warming

[Sxotty]

Mint,
From what I read recently I think you are mistaken about the total cost for wind. I posted the response in the other thread though to quit taking this one off on the tangent.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54295&page=8

 

[Frank]

You do realize that ID is not a scientific view by any measure, right? Though I guess then it does make a pretty good analogy for your views on AGW

You got it in one go

For other storage methods (flywheels, compressed air, regular batteries, lifting rocks etc) see this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/. Hint: they are far worse than pumped water in terms of efficiency.

The main problem with using a global energy exchange (which would work) instead of storage is, that nations want to be independent. "If we go to war..."

It works quite well here in NW Europe. Most of our energy is cheap and green, even if we don't have the green power plants ourselves. I would be surprised if the Netherlands creates enough energy by itself to fill demand. Even with the natural gas bubble.

 

[Frank]

*sigh*

These superficial similarities are completely and utterly irrelevant. The really important similarities are the ones that evolution and climate science have in common:

Ok, let's have a look at them

1. The science for both relies solely upon evidence-based reasoning.

Are you familiar with "hand-wavium"? It's a Force of (human) Nature. Let me explain:

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

As Sxotty so nicely posted, things happen and theories are vented. The main problem with all those theories is, that they are NOT testable. We'll know in a century or longer if they have merit.

In the mean time, they're just "theories", NOT "Theories".

2. The evidence for both rests not upon one or two facts, but upon a wide variety of mutually-supporting pieces of evidence.

No, they're not. Simply because we don't know how they interact. See above. If you take the margin of error into account, it's just so much hot air.



Modelling Chaotic systems is impossible within the current state-of-the-art, and will remain so for a long time.

3. There has, as yet, been no evidence collected which clearly contradicts either evolution or climate science.

I don't know about you, but I stumble upon it quite often.

Then again, that might be because I read those articles. And yes, I agree that most of them are bogus.

But then again, that's what I think about most AGW reports as well.

4. Nearly all scientists support both, most especially scientists currently working in the relevant fields.

Yes, I know.

I was almost fired two days ago, because I was a disruptive influence. I had a different opinion and didn't "know my place".

Fortunately, I saw it coming and made sure to be as humble and ass-licking as possible, for the two days before that. It worked.

Your point?

 

[Frank]

Btw, if you are a geek and want real science, check out Atomic Rockets

If you're a sci-fi buff and rather like the stories you read, don't go there.

 

[Gubbi]

It's not that stable, even in Denmark:
http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.or...f-wind-power-on-the-power-market-dk-case.html

You know what I meant :smile:

Not stable as in meeting all of demand all of the time. But stable as in being economically viable and supply a non-trivial fraction of yearly consumption.

Denmark produced 21% of electricity consumption from wind power in 2007, last year it was 25.9%.

Cheers

 

[Grall]

Are you familiar with "hand-wavium"?

Seems to me the one who's constantly hand-waving is you, since you're dead-set on global warming not existing (in the sense that its major contributing effect is caused by humans, anyway), based on absolutely nothing (credible, anyway) whatsoever.

Correlation does NOT imply causation.

Nor does it disprove it.

Anyway, correlation doesn't have to imply causation, since we have actual evidence to provide the correlation bit.

In the mean time, they're just "theories", NOT "Theories".

Logic fallacy. Global warming's not any less of a theory than anything concerning say, astrophysics for example. Why don't you go on a ranting spree raving about how that's all bunk, and that astronomers are a bunch of liars just because we can't replicate the formation of stars, solar systems and entire galaxies in practical experiments here on earth?

Modelling Chaotic systems is impossible within the current state-of-the-art, and will remain so for a long time.

Wrong... We can model anything just fine. ANYTHING. Model everything 100% accurately? No, but we CAN model it.

But then again, that's what I think about most AGW reports as well.

Yeah, that's what you get for having pre-concieved notions about something.

 

[Mintmaster]

As Sxotty so nicely posted, things happen and theories are vented. The main problem with all those theories is, that they are NOT testable. We'll know in a century or longer if they have merit.

Is that really the bottom line, though? Evolution - at least large scale evolution - is not truly testable either, but do you want to deny it as well? It passes every near-test we come up with, and so does AGW.

If you want to see some really stunning evidence supporting AGW, look here:
http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
They factored out all the major natural effects that skeptics could come up with: volcanoes, El Nino, and sun output variance. They use a bunch of different temperature sets, including satellites. There are other studies eliminating the more whack skeptic theories like cosmic rays. This removes a lot of the natural variation, and so it creates a prediction that is easier to test. 5-10 years is enough to verify the trend.

The presence of AGW is well established. What hasn't been justified, however, is the need for urgent action, or spending way more to fight AGW than what is put into foreign aid.

 

[epicstruggle]

Another simple question(s). We look/debate one side of the equation, but equality important is the question of population control. Should that ever be debated/considered? I remember the first episode of Terra Nova, where they had a saying "A family is four". So is population control part of the equation or not?

 

[Gubbi]

A sciencetific hypothesis doesn't have to be testable, it has to be verifiable. Whole scientific fields would disappear otherwise: Cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology and indeed climate science.

We can't do Big Bang in a lab. After Hubble discovered red shift, there were two hypotheses formulated to explain it, Big Bang and steady state. The background microwave radiation verified the Big Bang hypothesis as does the distribution of hydrogen, deuterium and helium in the universe (ie. big bang nucleo-synthesis.

Cheers

 

[Mintmaster]

Another simple question(s). We look/debate one side of the equation, but equality important is the question of population control. Should that ever be debated/considered? I remember the first episode of Terra Nova, where they had a saying "A family is four". So is population control part of the equation or not?

That's one of the reasons we need to focus on sustainable development. I think every country that developed in the last 100 years has drastically slowed down population growth. Western countries almost have zero growth, and Europe is going negative, IIRC

Some people use population growth as an excuse not to pursue sustainable development, claiming that pop has to get under control first, but it always works the other way around.

 

[AlphaWolf]

US and Canada are both pretty far from 0 growth, but immigration accounts for a lot of that.

I saw a 2011 chart somewhere Russia had moved to positive growth and Germany had fallen from 0.

 

[Mintmaster]

I don't know what kind of units that's in, but the US and Canada are around 1% per year. India is 1.3%, China is 0.5%, and most of Europe is well below 1%.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...t=1265961600000&hl=en&dl=en&icfg&iconSize=0.5

 

[AlphaWolf]

It says on the bottom it's % and I guess it doesn't say but it's over 5 years.

From 2006 to 2011 Canada's went up to 5.9%, the US down to 4.4%, but 2/3rds of Canada's growth was immigration, the other 1/3 natural, while the US was closer to the reverse of that with mostly natural growth.

I just don't think 1% is all that close to 0 when talking about population, it's not the UAE or whatever other country might be having a huge surge of 3-5%, but you're still talking about the US increasing by 100m people by the middle of this century. Canada could increase to over 50m. Lots of developed countries (Japan/Western Europe) are much lower in growth for sure with many being negative.

 

[Frank]

Seems to me the one who's constantly hand-waving is you, since you're dead-set on global warming not existing (in the sense that its major contributing effect is caused by humans, anyway), based on absolutely nothing (credible, anyway) whatsoever.

When would anything I come with be credible to you? When the AGW authorities agree with it?

Nor does it disprove it.

Anyway, correlation doesn't have to imply causation, since we have actual evidence to provide the correlation bit.

Well, that "actual evidence" isn't very credible to me.

Logic fallacy. Global warming's not any less of a theory than anything concerning say, astrophysics for example. Why don't you go on a ranting spree raving about how that's all bunk, and that astronomers are a bunch of liars just because we can't replicate the formation of stars, solar systems and entire galaxies in practical experiments here on earth?

I don't agree. While the basic theories are far-fetched and sound incredible, they're actually tested and proven experimental many times.

Wrong... We can model anything just fine. ANYTHING. Model everything 100% accurately? No, but we CAN model it.

Ok, that's true. But, are they valid models if their accuracy is less than, say, 50%?

 

[Frank]

Is that really the bottom line, though? Evolution - at least large scale evolution - is not truly testable either, but do you want to deny it as well? It passes every near-test we come up with, and so does AGW.

Actually, evolution is pretty good testable. Why would large scale be a requirement?

If you want to see some really stunning evidence supporting AGW, look here:
http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
They factored out all the major natural effects that skeptics could come up with: volcanoes, El Nino, and sun output variance. They use a bunch of different temperature sets, including satellites. There are other studies eliminating the more whack skeptic theories like cosmic rays. This removes a lot of the natural variation, and so it creates a prediction that is easier to test. 5-10 years is enough to verify the trend.

Well, you need at least two, 30 year averages for trending climate, but I do agree that in ~10 years from now we should see more divergence.

There are three things that bother me about the chart you linked:
1. Where is the error margin? It is never stated.
2. Without a margin of error, it becomes arbitrary how they calculated the adjustments.
3. What would be the baseline? Without that, we don't know how much it diverges.

The presence of AGW is well established. What hasn't been justified, however, is the need for urgent action, or spending way more to fight AGW than what is put into foreign aid.

I agree that the presence of AGW is well established. But I have my doubts if Nature is aware of it, or that it is mostly a popular (and profitable) meme.

 

[Grall]

When would anything I come with be credible to you? When the AGW authorities agree with it?

If it has widespread support from people knowledgeable in the field, of course. The link you posted in the start of this discussion has been widely panned and debunked; it's just repetition of the same falsehoods about global warming that have been posted many times before.

The nonsense about "AGW authorities", which is just a silly bit of nonsense, just makes you look like the AGW-equivalent of Xxx, and lowers your credibility.

Well, that "actual evidence" isn't very credible to me.

Yeah, because you've already decided beforehand that it isn't credible, regardless of actual facts. If you were actually objective, you'd see the arguments you rely on now are largely bunk.

While the basic theories are far-fetched and sound incredible, they're actually tested and proven experimental many times.

AGW relies on experimental evidence as well...

But, are they valid models if their accuracy is less than, say, 50%?

Generally, everything starts off less accurately, and then progresses more and more. Before Johannes Kepler formed his laws of planetary motion, we believed the universe was arranged in spheres with the Earth in the center. Kepler realized that the planets circle our sun, and not the Earth, but because he was a religious nutter he believed the orbits were perfectly circular, until he was forced to abandon that and concluded they're actually elliptical. Well, mostly anyway.

More specifically, why are you stating a figure of less than 50%, do you have any basis for that?

 

[Frank]

Grall, let me tell you a story.

So, a year ago I got a new job with a boss who totally understood me. And he send me to work at ASML. Which was terrific, in as ASML only hires the best of the best, and the smartest of the smartest, globally. You need to be able to do everything in English, and a masters or university degree to be allowed to assemble those machines at the production line in shifts. Something where every other company hires uneducated people for. Well, if you're in IT you're probably not in assembly, but at the IT department or at headquarters (like me). Although I wonder what I would have liked best.

I felt totally at home at ASML headquarters, which is something extremely rare for me.

Really, it was like "coming home". My co-workers were all extremely smart and very nerdy engineers. Just like me. I could just be myself and was accepted as such, for the first time in my life.


Unfortunately, after two such projects, I got an extended contact and was put "somewhere safe".

The difference is HUGE. Instead of creating and running a very large and challenging project against all odds (what I do best), my opponents are now my own co-workers (and the project lead among them). They're not very smart, very right-wing (of course) and see me first and foremost as a thread that has to be killed. And the company that pays for the project is very conservative and adverse of any risk.


So, first I have been harassed and humiliated for most of my life, and just when I tasted how it could have been, I have been thrown back into humiliation and harassment. In as: if I don't do it myself, my co-workers will make sure it will happen to me.

Story of my life.


Being smarter makes you into a big target. You're competition that has to be removed, even if you don't care or fancy being boss.

Simply because the people who are or want to become boss, write you down as their major opponent. Because you could, if you wanted to.


GEE, fight everyone at the same time, why don't I???

I am an Engineer. My main concern is that things work as advertized. Period.


I'm probably too smart for my own good, even after the large quantities of alcohol I consumed, I still score "best" in any IQ test.

Probably because those tests aren't designed to test someone like me.


And for a recent benchmark of me, re-read the Skyrim thread, where I have answered most of the questions before they are asked.


Oh, and I almost forgot: screw you too!

 

[Sxotty]

ROFL congrats dude.

 

[arjan de lumens]

Story of my life.

As it looks to me, smart people with 150+ IQs who never get to realize their potential in any meaningful way is something that is just all too common in this world. In many ways, you remind me about Christopher Langan, the "smartest man in America" with an IQ of 195+; much like you, he had an abusive upbringing, grew up to get dismissed as an idiot on the internet, and generally not achieved much of anything.

If you're so incredibly smart, I'd suggest you pick up something to do that actually requires some significant smarts and that would actually be notable if you did it:

• Solve some known outstanding math problem (e.g. the kobon triangle problem, just to pick a problem that is easy to describe)
• IQ tests: if you're as smart as you claim, try the Titan Test or any of the other tests that qualify for the Mega Society.
• Code up something nontrivial that does not appear to have been done before (something like a GPU-accelerated AAC encoder, or an x86 version of Dynamo, or a snes emulator with GPU mode 7, or an audio compression program that outperforms optimfrog, or a thousand other things)
• Since you evidently care about AGW (even though you are seeing it as a hoax), join ClearClimateCode or some similar effort.

I mean, seriously: as it looks right now, you are holding up a Skyrim discussion thread as proof of your intellect - as if the most noteworthy achievement of your life is to have defeated Dagoth Ur or something.

 

[FUDie]

As it looks to me, smart people with 150+ IQs who never get to realize their potential in any meaningful way is something that is just all too common in this world. In many ways, you remind me about Christopher Langan, the "smartest man in America" with an IQ of 195+; much like you, he had an abusive upbringing, grew up to get dismissed as an idiot on the internet, and generally not achieved much of anything.

One of my best friends in high school was "diagnosed" with an IQ over 180. He went to an Ivy League school, majored in math and physics, eventually dropping physics because it was too much work carrying two majors. And then went on to grad school at a prestigious university... and had a nervous breakdown.

Being smart is great, but you have to have balance. That means socializing, sports, whatever, in order to get some balance in your life. As far as careers go, find something you enjoy that you can be passionate about. I find I take work too personally, which is bad as it leads to more stress than necessary.

-FUDie