"Climate Gate" Debunked

[livehard]

time for you to do a little research, google "technical anaysis"

So I am guessing nobody has the model or equation that relates temperature to human greenhouse emissions, and the empirical data that has proved the relationship? i dont see any, i havent seen a proof yet, im not going to take it as a scientific law.  Once theyve done what is required by the scientific process, then you'll have a much better argument.  I dont see how people aren't skeptics though, to me that seems very anti-science.

[rumborak]

time for you to do a little research, google "technical anaysis"

Jesus Christ, could you be any more condescending? Time for you to look up "cross-validation" it seems.

The fact that financial modeling is unsuccessful in cases doesn't mean validation of models through historical data is flawed overall. Also, your inherent Libertarian bias tells me you have a strong interest in rejecting any modeling per se, no matter its predictive power.
Cross-validation (and "backtesting" is one type of it) has proved its value over hundreds of scientific branches.

So I am guessing nobody has the model or equation that relates temperature to human greenhouse emissions, and the empirical data that has proved the relationship?

Like that one? It is the formula for radiative forcing, which lets you calculate the temperature increase through the amount of radiative forcing, which is caused by greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere.
Is that what you were asking for?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

I think he wants us to somehow get a hold of the full climate models being used by climate scientists, posting that with a full explanation of every process involved, and why it's being used, and showing how this correlates with past temperatures, and what it predicts as future temperatures.

Livehard, you admit that the climate is a complex system, but then at the same time demand that this complex system be reduced in a way whereby everything can be predicted using a simple equation. If it could be reduced to a simple equation, then it wouldn't be a complex system.

[livehard]

Also, your inherent Libertarian bias tells me you have a strong interest in rejecting any modeling per se, no matter its predictive power.

My political beliefs are related to my strict adherence to logic. I also think a lot about models and equalities and use them, everyday.  I dont mind using backtesting, depending on how the model was developed.  I dont irrationally reject models. I dont reject Newton's model of gravity (for everyday use), I just think that it needs to be empirically proven before we call it science. I'm not being unfair to global warming.  I hope its not true, but im not going to irrationally reject the idea.  Im just not going to take it for gospel either.

[livehard]

Livehard, you admit that the climate is a complex system, but then at the same time demand that this complex system be reduced in a way whereby everything can be predicted using a simple equation. If it could be reduced to a simple equation, then it wouldn't be a complex system.

No no thats the thing.  I am not demanding that, I accept that these models will be exteremly complex.  But thats part of my point- this is an extremely complex system.  It is so incredibly chaotic, that for someone to say that they can predict the ins and outs, and show the effect of 1 variable out of 5 million of them, is a incredibly difficult task.  I am not saying that it cant be done, or it wont be done, but the fact is that its purely rational to be skeptical of it.

Simply because it is a difficult task doesn't mean that those who put forth the theory are off the hook when it comes to having to do the ardous task of testing, verifying, etc...

I am not knocking on global warming ether, this would go for any scientific theory.

[rumborak]

Also, your inherent Libertarian bias tells me you have a strong interest in rejecting any modeling per se, no matter its predictive power.

My political beliefs are related to my strict adherence to logic.

I think that's one of the most full-of-yourself statements I've read in a long time. Sorry dude, you aren't Spock or something.

I just think that it needs to be empirically proven before we call it science.

You admittedly haven't looked into the subject matter at all (otherwise you would know of all the formulas involved). How can you honestly say you're not rejecting this just out of gut feeling?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Livehard, you admit that the climate is a complex system, but then at the same time demand that this complex system be reduced in a way whereby everything can be predicted using a simple equation. If it could be reduced to a simple equation, then it wouldn't be a complex system.

No no thats the thing.  I am not demanding that, I accept that these models will be exteremly complex.  But thats part of my point- this is an extremely complex system.  It is so incredibly chaotic, that for someone to say that they can predict the ins and outs, and show the effect of 1 variable out of 5 million of them, is a incredibly difficult task.  I am not saying that it cant be done, or it wont be done, but the fact is that its purely rational to be skeptical of it.

Simply because it is a difficult task doesn't mean that those who put forth the theory are off the hook when it comes to having to do the ardous task of testing, verifying, etc...

Yaaa... but people have put forward those models, with the backing of a lot of scientific rigor, and you still demand it be done. You're not saying it cant' be done, but you don't accept that anyone done it, despite evidence to the contrary.

[GuineaPig]

Also, your inherent Libertarian bias tells me you have a strong interest in rejecting any modeling per se, no matter its predictive power.

My political beliefs are related to my strict adherence to logic. I also think a lot about models and equalities and use them, everyday.  I dont mind using backtesting, depending on how the model was developed.  I dont irrationally reject models. I dont reject Newton's model of gravity (for everyday use), I just think that it needs to be empirically proven before we call it science. I'm not being unfair to global warming.  I hope its not true, but im not going to irrationally reject the idea.  Im just not going to take it for gospel either.

Rejecting the greenhouse effect is about as rational as rejecting gravity.

[Super Dude]

A good Krugman article that actually also highlights the "environmental protectionism" thing:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/krugman-here-comes-solar-energy.html

Quotes of note:

Economics 101 tells us that an industry imposing large costs on third parties should be required to “internalize” those costs — that is, to pay for the damage it inflicts, treating that damage as a cost of production. Fracking might still be worth doing given those costs. But no industry should be held harmless from its impacts on the environment and the nation’s infrastructure.

So it’s worth pointing out that special treatment for fracking makes a mockery of free-market principles. Pro-fracking politicians claim to be against subsidies, yet letting an industry impose costs without paying compensation is in effect a huge subsidy. They say they oppose having the government “pick winners,” yet they demand special treatment for this industry precisely because they claim it will be a winner.

And for those who like to pick on Solyndra:

But Solyndra’s failure was actually caused by technological success: the price of solar panels is dropping fast, and Solyndra couldn’t keep up with the competition. In fact, progress in solar panels has been so dramatic and sustained that, as a blog post at Scientific American put it, “there’s now frequent talk of a ‘Moore’s law’ in solar energy,” with prices adjusted for inflation falling around 7 percent a year.

[Scheavo]

Speaking of which..

https://www.pcworld.com/article/241152/3m_film_turns_windows_into_transparent_solar_panels.html

3M has developed a see-through film that turns ordinary windows into solar panels. It will go sale next year.

The product currently generates only about 20 percent of the electricity that a traditional silicon solar panel does, and will cost about half as much, though the final price has not been decided.

But it is also far easier to install and takes up no additional space. 3M has strong expertise in adhesives, where its less technical products include Scotch tape and Post-it sticky notes.

Holy balls that's awesome.

[rumborak]

The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light and over 90 percent of infrared light, so it also acts as a sunshade.

That means you would use it instead of your regular shades, right? Because plastering those things for good on your windows is gonna make your whole room dark.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

I thought we've already had heat- and energy-trapping windows for a while now?

[rumborak]

I guess the difference here being that those things directly output a voltage.

rumborak

[rumborak]

[Super Dude]

Yep, exactly. I swear, I just posted that some picture last week or something, I'm almost certain of it.

[AcidLameLTE]

You did

[Scheavo]

The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light and over 90 percent of infrared light, so it also acts as a sunshade.

That means you would use it instead of your regular shades, right? Because plastering those things for good on your windows is gonna make your whole room dark.

rumborak

I thought we've already had heat- and energy-trapping windows for a while now?

That tape is easier to install, and cheaper.

But really... we can make fucking TAPE that creates energy from the sun now. That's show a very high level of knowledge and mastery over the field, if you ask me, and really shows you just how far we've come with solar power. I'd like to know if you have to put this on a window, or if it would work equally well on just a wall. Also, you could like line a window with it, creating a smaller box window, or something. You don't have to cover up the entire window. Especially if you put this on every window in a huge skyscraper or any big building, and you're talking about some quick and easy power production.

[Super Dude]

Nuclear is cleaner, but don't mistake that for clean. Instead of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and thus heating the planet indirectly, it directly adds heat to the system.

How so?

I finally got around to asking my professor (the nuclear physicist) and this is what he said (written by him): "Even the most efficient nuclear power plants are 40% efficient. So the rest of the energy goes out as in all power plants." I'm not completely sure what that means, but I think it's just what I said: that in the production of fission energy, some of it escapes the plant system and is added to the atmospheric system, only that instead of adding greenhouse gasses it releases energy in the form of heat. That's my best guess.

[Fiery Winds]

Nuclear is cleaner, but don't mistake that for clean. Instead of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and thus heating the planet indirectly, it directly adds heat to the system.

How so?

I finally got around to asking my professor (the nuclear physicist) and this is what he said (written by him): "Even the most efficient nuclear power plants are 40% efficient. So the rest of the energy goes out as in all power plants." I'm not completely sure what that means, but I think it's just what I said: that in the production of fission energy, some of it escapes the plant system and is added to the atmospheric system, only that instead of adding greenhouse gasses it releases energy in the form of heat. That's my best guess.

I'm not sure what you mean by waste heat.  I'm pretty sure most fission reactors (could be wrong) use the reaction to generate heat, to boil water, to create steam, to spin a turbine, to generate electricity.

[Super Dude]

Yes they do, but as with all energy, some energy does inevitably go to waste, usually in the form of heat. There is no such thing as a power generator that uses all the energy put into it usefully, and we'll never come close. I think it's something like every unit of energy produced requires that three units of energy be put in. I mean, just look at a regular lightbulb: it produces light but it also produces a good amount of heat. That heat is the non-usable energy that is a byproduct of putting in the necessary energy to make that lightbulb produce light.

So yes, heat is used to make that fission reactor go, but the energy produced from that fission process in turn produces heat. While some of that heat can be put back into the fission process, not all of it usable.

[Fiery Winds]

Ok, I misunderstood what you said previously.

[rumborak]

Am I the only one who thinks that, despite being able to fission materials together, our way of converting that energy to electricity (heating up water that turns turbines) is distinctively 19th century?

rumborak

[Super Dude]

It does sound like it when you put it that way. Is there a different, more sophisticated way of doing it?

[rumborak]

No idea, I guess not. It's just one of those thing I always scratch my head at. Our ability to convert types of energy is not that sophisticated.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

No idea, I guess not. It's just one of those thing I always scratch my head at. Our ability to convert types of energy is not that sophisticated.

rumborak

I do remember someone found a way to use solar panel technology to convert infrared electromagnetic waves into energy, but I don't know how efficient it is.

But really, the combination of solar panels / hydrogen fuel cells are gonna be the future. People have found rather cheap catalysts to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water, using the power of the sun; so it's just a matter of storing the hydrogen, and using fuel cells for electricity on demand.

[GuineaPig]

The future is fusion.

[Scheavo]

Fusion is an unproven technology really, so it seems a little early to say that fusion is the future. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe we still don't know if we can get more energy out of fusion than we put into it; there are several prototypes and experiments being built to test it, tweak it, etc, but it's actual feasibility hasn't yet been proven?

Meanwhile solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells are already proven technologies, and they come with a host of other advantages. 

[Fiery Winds]

The future is fusion.

A statement that will forever be true. 

[rumborak]

Exactly.

I mean, they are making slow and painful progress, but nobody can foresee when, or if, there will be that breakthrough. There's also other unsolved problems lined up (e.g. what do you make the jacket of?)

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Fusion is an unproven technology really, so it seems a little early to say that fusion is the future. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe we still don't know if we can get more energy out of fusion than we put into it; there are several prototypes and experiments being built to test it, tweak it, etc, but it's actual feasibility hasn't yet been proven?

Meanwhile solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells are already proven technologies, and they come with a host of other advantages.

I mean, technically that's true with every form of energy production, as I said above.

On the topic of fusion itself, as the same professor once said, if the steps to developing feasible fusion plants were listed from A to Z, we'd be on G.

[Scheavo]

Fusion is an unproven technology really, so it seems a little early to say that fusion is the future. Correct me if I"m wrong, but I believe we still don't know if we can get more energy out of fusion than we put into it; there are several prototypes and experiments being built to test it, tweak it, etc, but it's actual feasibility hasn't yet been proven?

Meanwhile solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells are already proven technologies, and they come with a host of other advantages.

I mean, technically that's true with every form of energy production, as I said above.

If this were technically true, I wouldn't have the ability to use my computer, to write this message, becuase there wouldn't be the excess energy available for my computer to run. Every form of energy has inefficiencies, but not every form of energy has it's inefficiencies cancel out what it's able to produce. In the case of fusion, at this point, we have to throw more energy into the reactor than we get out of the reaction.

[Super Dude]

I never said its inefficiencies cancel out what it's able to produce.

But the manipulation and use of energy is, by nature, inefficient. Although granted, computers are one of the most efficient pieces of commercial technology in existence.

[jsem]

The future is fusion.

A statement that will forever be true. 

[Fiery Winds]

Exactly.

I mean, they are making slow and painful progress, but nobody can foresee when, or if, there will be that breakthrough. There's also other unsolved problems lined up (e.g. what do you make the jacket of?)

rumborak

The National Ignition Facility located just a half hour from me in Livermore, CA is worried about funding come Fall of 2012.  Like you said, progress is being made, but they still aren't sure if/when they'll be able to achieve "ignition".  That's even after successfully firing a 1.6MJ shot in a few nanoseconds.  Problems with optics and uniform implosion (among others) continue to hamper their progress.

[Scheavo]

I never said its inefficiencies cancel out what it's able to produce.

I'm so confused right now. I don't see how your quoting of me and what you said is leading to this?

I think we're talking past each other.