Winter depression anyone?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,257
Location
CT, USA
....America has spent many billions on wars about fuel security, maybe spending a similar amount to reduce the need for imported energy is a lot smarter even if it just creates Jobs and reduces your trade deificit- you know- that thing that has cost Trillions to prop up dodgy banks.
That, we can agree on.

I've followed the field quite a lot and also know some climate modelers who are good and honest people. Most of the reasons to be "skeptical" of climate chance are really badly founded if you examine them a bit more closely.
I'm not skeptical about climate change; it's clear the planet is warming. The question is, how fast, why, and what should we do about it? That's where the hysterical demands of the AGW True Believers start to wear thin.

Yes, ice cores and historical data support the theory that the planet is warming. However, they're not accurate to the fractional degree accuracy necessary to make meaningful predictions, or to decide what we should do about it. We may very well do the wrong thing! Just what is the average temperature of the planet? How do you measure it? The computer climate models blithely spit out conclusions based on assumed triple digit input accuracy. Computer models are great for helping to understand the behavior of a system with well defined starting conditions; they're far less useful for making meaningful predictions based on real world data.

In spite of pro vs con in the climate debate, with 10,000,000,000 tons and ever increasing amounts of carbon being moved every year...
Hopefully biofuels, solar, wind and other non fossil energy will balance the equation.
C02 is a weak greenhouse gas, far weaker than water vapor. It only makes a difference in areas that are already hot and dry. I agree that we should be leery of cutting down forests and spewing stuff into the air, but crap like "carbon trading" just makes some politicians very wealthy while raising eergy costs for the rest of us.

Biofuels, solar, and wind are a drop in the bucket. The only energy sources that can make a signifficant dent in our consumption of non renewable fuels are nuclear and in the longer term, perhaps, space based solar.

-Dana

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side,
and it binds the universe together.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,390
Location
Fresno, California
The optimist in me says that we if we have global warming and global carbon accumilation, then all we need is global pressure and we'll get global diamonds! :gig:
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,390
Location
Fresno, California
Solar cells, Photovoltaic.
Once the cost is is low enough, PV could be the main source of electric production.
Already used on residential roofs.
Ah, of course. Thanks.

I recall reading a recent article saying that an accidental discovery shows the promise of cheap (silica) solar cells that convert a much wider spectrum of light. That's the last, and only, that I heard about it... wonder if there has been any progress?
 

Rom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
489
Location
Medina, Ohio
The problem with silica based solar cells is the cost per watt. There are several schemes out there from polymer based to metal oxides that may be cheaper to produce when scaled up. Though the efficiency of these materials is not quite to the level of silicon, the cost per watt could be much lower.
I think that on a solar powered aircraft, watt per area will probably be more important, so improved effeciency of the cell would be the deciding factor.
 

mz-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Finland
That, we can agree on.

I'm not skeptical about climate change; it's clear the planet is warming. The question is, how fast, why, and what should we do about it? That's where the hysterical demands of the AGW True Believers start to wear thin.
Hysterical?

Yes, ice cores and historical data support the theory that the planet is warming. However, they're not accurate to the fractional degree accuracy necessary to make meaningful predictions, or to decide what we should do about it. We may very well do the wrong thing! Just what is the average temperature of the planet? How do you measure it? The computer climate models blithely spit out conclusions based on assumed triple digit input accuracy. Computer models are great for helping to understand the behavior of a system with well defined starting conditions; they're far less useful for making meaningful predictions based on real world data.
Nah, the models actually converge from slightly different starting positions in about 20 years. It's not that chaotic.

We live in an imperfect world where every day and every year we must do decisions that are not based on three decimal point accurate data, because there is no such data available.

Even big decisions.

You have to use the best data and best science available. It has strongly been indicating global warming for a few decades now.

C02 is a weak greenhouse gas, far weaker than water vapor. It only makes a difference in areas that are already hot and dry.
Where did you learn this? It's wrong, based on what I know. I think you should change where you get your information.

Take a source, Spencer Weart's excellent "The Discovery of Global Warming" that's available for free online, recommended reading to everyone:
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance."

And in the 1800s they thought that the spectra of CO2 and water vapor were similar, but with new measurements with better spectral resolution in the 1970:s, it was found how CO2 and water vapor have different absorption spectra after all.

The science of climate physics is somewhat complex and advanced and I don't think I can easily invent things that "duh, they didn't think of [the sun / water vapor / simple thing X]!". I just refer to the experts who have gone through all that trouble of actually learning how the thing works.

I agree that we should be leery of cutting down forests and spewing stuff into the air, but crap like "carbon trading" just makes some politicians very wealthy while raising eergy costs for the rest of us.

Biofuels, solar, and wind are a drop in the bucket. The only energy sources that can make a signifficant dent in our consumption of non renewable fuels are nuclear and in the longer term, perhaps, space based solar.
These things don't have anything to do with the science though.

If you get the science wrong, then you can't get the policy right no matter how much goodwill or competence you have there. Well, unless you're really lucky.

I think this subject is a test too - if someone repeats oft debunked myths about climate as facts, how much do they do it on other aspects involving physics? An overconfidence trial of sorts.
 

Mac790

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,529
Location
Poznan, Poland
wow what a brain storm we got here;)
Alan Waters said:
I understand they are having a little trouble getting snow for the winter olympics in Canada.
I just heard that they are going to organize Summer Olympic Games instead. :roll:
litespeed said:
I would love some of your snow.
No problem, that snow at the front of the house is ready to pick up, but it's a little bit dirty (pic2), that one at the back of the house is much cleaner. (pic1). You have to decide.:)

As our average temp here rises the fire season gets more intense and firestorms become more regular and much more deadly- last year over 200 died and a million acres destroyed including whole towns in one of our cooler southern states- Victoria. The firefront at one stage moved at up to 250kph.
I've heard some strange theory about it from one of our tutors, he said that some of those fires were set for purpose (special in Greece last year), that was off topic discussion but he was talking something about developers and ground prices.

Dana said:
The computer climate models blithely spit out conclusions based on assumed triple digit input accuracy. Computer models are great for helping to understand the behavior of a system with well defined starting conditions; they're far less useful for making meaningful predictions based on real world data.
It's also about equations involved in those models, there to many unknowns...
It reminds me one of Tesla's sentence.
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality
With so many unknowns it's hard to create an accurate computer climate model. (it's only my assumed theory)
pie_row said:
Well was your country covered with ice in the last ice age?
Seems it wasn't

Ice age map of northern central Europe.
Red: maximum limit of Weichselian ice age; from ~110,000—10,000 years ago,
yellow: Saale ice age at maximum (Drenthe stage); started 352,000 years ago and ended 130,000 years ago
blue: Elster ice age maximum glaciation started about 478,000 years ago and ended about 424,000 years ago

Seb
 

Attachments

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Science is easy.

You have a situation, think about it, make a model and test whether your model fits reality and then refine it.

The current models don't predict the outcome of the past if you fill in those conditions, not at all in fact. They don't predict the small ice age (late dark ages) when most of our seas were covered with ice for months.

That draws me to a simple conclusion, those models aren't correct enough to give any useful prediction for the future, or as is frequently said here "garbage in, garbage out".


Here an interesting article about the cooling since 1998 (and after 2nd world war, despite the huge oil burns then):

Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years.
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.


Article
 

Rom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
489
Location
Medina, Ohio
Science is easy.

You have a situation, think about it, make a model and test whether your model fits reality and then refine it.

The current models don't predict the outcome of the past if you fill in those conditions, not at all in fact. They don't predict the small ice age (late dark ages) when most of our seas were covered with ice for months.

That draws me to a simple conclusion, those models aren't correct enough to give any useful prediction for the future, or as is frequently said here "garbage in, garbage out".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
Since we don't enough data points to make an accurate model, as I have previously stated we are in a
global experiment that has been running for the past 100 years. Lets keep increasing the atmospheric carbon and see what happens.
To bad we don't have a spare earth to use as a control in the experiment. Then we can use real world data to tell if our models are correct.
 

mz-

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Finland
Science is easy.

You have a situation, think about it, make a model and test whether your model fits reality and then refine it.

The current models don't predict the outcome of the past if you fill in those conditions, not at all in fact. They don't predict the small ice age (late dark ages) when most of our seas were covered with ice for months.

That draws me to a simple conclusion, those models aren't correct enough to give any useful prediction for the future, or as is frequently said here "garbage in, garbage out".
Hmm, tell me more about this. Do we even know the cause of the little ice age?

Wiki: "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the flow of ocean currents, an inherent variability in global climate, and decreased human populations due to the Black Death and the Columbian Exchange."

How would you "fill in the conditions" then? Sorry, this seems bogus.


Climate models predicted the short time cooling from the eruption Pinatubo (verifying water vapor feedback from the radiative forcing), the observed stratospheric cooling and reproduce hadley cell circulation and many other things.

Here an interesting article about the cooling since 1998 (and after 2nd world war, despite the huge oil burns then):



Article
The decade after 1998 has been clearly warmer than before 1998. It's just that warming is not continuous so there are short periods with flat and even negative trends.

Here's a nice tool you can work with to get a handle on the temperature data (from thermometers and satellites).
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Here's a linear satellite data trend from 1987 to present so 1998 is in the middle:
Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
It's not meaningful to say global warming stopped in 1998 since the trend is about 0.1 to 0.2 C per decade.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,390
Location
Fresno, California
If you get the science wrong, then you can't get the policy right no matter how much goodwill or competence you have there. Well, unless you're really lucky.
Somewhat true, but even without the science to justify it, who among us can't appreciate the beauty of drawing energy from relatively non-polluting, non-consumptive or non-depleting source such as solar, wind, or maybe even nuclear.
 

vortilon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
453
Location
Marana AZ USA
Al Gore told me to take the bus.

When I saw that beautiful 1966 MC-5A Greyhound I said " I'll Take it".

Smokes like a Messerschmitt going up hills just like they did in the sixties. I had a Harley pass me and the lady on the back turned around holding her nose as to make me feel guilty (ya right) so I put my fingers in my ears to make her feel bad for the loud engine. HA!!
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Somewhat true, but even without the science to justify it, who among us can't appreciate the beauty of drawing energy from relatively non-polluting, non-consumptive or non-depleting source such as solar, wind, or maybe even nuclear.
Well, if you know how extremely polluting silicium, lithium or rare earth metal mining is one would appreciate nuclear and fossil fuels much more...
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
Location
Sydney
As the largest source of yellow cake, we mine a lot of it and it is a very pollutting extraction, incredibly large tailings dams of radioactive and arsenic soup. Ask a local aborigine what they feel now thier water system is polluted and the family dies of cancer or poison. It is all mined in very remote areas so no media gets out. Yes nuclear reactors do make power that is efficient so longs as. You don't care to clean up come decommision time, the true costs Are hidden through the military, special laws and the fact no operator is held responsible for any big problems- they are get a free ride- indemnified by government. Here we disscussed a nuclear industry for Australia and the costs were incredible far cheaper to put solAr panels on every home, wind turbines and gas fired plants.

As far as china moving to gAs, yes but we export bigger amounts of coal every year to china and mainly for power, Australia didn't get effected by the global recession cause china and other still bought our coal etc.

Anyone who wants global temps to rise might want to think a bit more, ask a bangladeshy what they think is good, or maybe a southern ocean island that been swamped by rising oceans!

Just because temp rises started before the steam engine means bugger all, what did people use for heat and cooking or metal smelting for centuries before- trees and coal.

Most climate sceptics have a axe to grind because they are paid by the fossil fuel industry, directly or indirectly. A scientist came to my sons school and said the glaciers are not melting at all but growing, who was his last employer- the minerals council of Australia.

Say you were diagnosed with cancer by 99 doctors and one said no it's all good, you can keep smoking. Who would you believe? The loner with good news or the realistic 99? Sure we want to feel good but is that realistic? what do you say on your death bed to your children, who you convinced smoking was cool so they got hooked.

Think about this!
 

litespeed

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
1,557
Location
Sydney
As the largest source of yellow cake, we mine a lot of it and it is a very pollutting extraction, incredibly large tailings dams of radioactive and arsenic soup. Ask a local aborigine what they feel now thier water system is polluted and the family dies of cancer or poison. It is all mined in very remote areas so no media gets out. Yes nuclear reactors do make power that is efficient so longs as. You don't care to clean up come decommision time, the true costs Are hidden through the military, special laws and the fact no operator is held responsible for any big problems- they are get a free ride- indemnified by government. Here we disscussed a nuclear industry for Australia and the costs were incredible far cheaper to put solAr panels on every home, wind turbines and gas fired plants.

As far as china moving to gAs, yes but we export bigger amounts of coal every year to china and mainly for power, Australia didn't get effected by the global recession cause china and other still bought our coal etc.

Anyone who wants global temps to rise might want to think a bit more, ask a bangladeshy what they think is good, or maybe a southern ocean island that been swamped by rising oceans!

Just because temp rises started before the steam engine means bugger all, what did people use for heat and cooking or metal smelting for centuries before- trees and coal.

Most climate sceptics have a axe to grind because they are paid by the fossil fuel industry, directly or indirectly. A scientist came to my sons school and said the glaciers are not melting at all but growing, who was his last employer- the minerals council of Australia.

Say you were diagnosed with cancer by 99 doctors and one said no it's all good, you can keep smoking. Who would you believe? The loner with good news or the realistic 99? Sure we want to feel good but is that realistic? what do you say on your death bed to your children, who you convinced smoking was cool so they got hooked.

Think about this!
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,751
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
As the largest source of yellow cake, we mine a lot of it and it is a very pollutting extraction, incredibly large tailings dams of radioactive and arsenic soup. Ask a local aborigine what they feel now thier water system is polluted and the family dies of cancer or poison. It is all mined in very remote areas so no media gets out. Yes nuclear reactors do make power that is efficient so longs as. You don't care to clean up come decommision time, the true costs Are hidden through the military, special laws and the fact no operator is held responsible for any big problems- they are get a free ride- indemnified by government. Here we disscussed a nuclear industry for Australia and the costs were incredible far cheaper to put solAr panels on every home, wind turbines and gas fired plants.
I don't know for Australia but worldwide, fission is cheaper than oil power generators if the price of uranium mining goes up by a tenfold compared to current prices...
 
Top