Climate models wrong

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

I have heard that some of the new designs are supposed to be "very safe."  But I'm wondering:  have any of these "very safe" designs actually been built, or are they just somebody's pipe dream on paper?  And as I said above, some of our worst nuclear disasters were in plants that were "very safe" when they were built.  How can we actually judge their safety?

And I'm not opposed to nuclear power, per se.  There may even be justification for building a fast-breeder, like Detroit Fermi.

 

Losing my case?  What case is that?  Climate science does not rest on climate modeling.  It never has.  I can demonstrate climate change without using a climate model.

Doug

AGW depends COMPLETELY on models, there is no other proof for it other than through models and that is all I am arguing.  This study and many others discussed here have questioned the validity of the models and pointed out their flaws and each time you have adamantly denied but the fact remains that they have not accurately modeled the temperatures over the last two decades plus and that is a problem that must be addressed.     Even your beloved IPCC admits that.  I agree that we should continue reducing emissions but zero emission is not possible in the short term without devastating economic consequences and the fact that you can't see that speaks volumes for your bias.  

[Merc14]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

How about that?  We used the same page!  117 BTUs is 57% of 205.7 BTUs for bituminous coal.

But, like I said above:  this is using methane as the standard of comparison and natural gas has a lot of CO2 in it.  The CO2 content is rather variable, ranging between 2 or 3% to upwards of 40%.  Because of this and the lack of good data on exactly what sources of natural gas are being used, most people make their estimates based on methane.  It's a convenience thing.

Doug

Keep arguing doug it looks ridiculous.  You said NG is no cleaner than coal (I assume you are talking about CO2 output) and the above shows you are clearly wrong even if I give you hat ridiculous 40% figure.  You are about two posts from gong back on ignore

[Doug1029]

21 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Doug's arguments I won't even address as anyone who says gas is no cleaner than coal and immediately moving to 100% zero emissions wouldn't irrevocably harm the US economy is obviously too far gone on the subject to reason with.   To doug, nothing but immediate zero emissions is acceptable and that is not a person acting rationally  any longer.

Merc won't answer me because he doesn't have an answer.

And he doesn't read my posts or he wouldn't say stupid things like:  "To doug, nothing but immediate zero emissions is acceptable and that is not a person acting rationally  any longer."

At the moment we could increase the rate of windmill installation, but that's about all that can be done immediately.  In Oklahoma we are currently installing about one new windmill per day.  But anything more will have to await technological improvements that aren't quite ready for market yet.

Doug

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Merc won't answer me because he doesn't have an answer.

And he doesn't read my posts or he wouldn't say stupid things like:  "To doug, nothing but immediate zero emissions is acceptable and that is not a person acting rationally  any longer."

At the moment we could increase the rate of windmill installation, but that's about all that can be done immediately.  In Oklahoma we are currently installing about one new windmill per day.  But anything more will have to await technological improvements that aren't quite ready for market yet.

Doug

I have answered you countless times in this thread, in fact my inbox is overflowing with your BS.  Once again you are lying.  One more inane post doug.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Merc14

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Keep arguing doug it looks ridiculous.  You said NG is no cleaner than coal (I assume you are talking about CO2 output) and the above shows you are clearly wrong even if I give you hat ridiculous 40% figure.  You are about two posts from gong back on ignore

Feel free to hit ignore.  Your arguments don't seem to have anything to do with reality, anyway.

Doug

[Merc14]

Just now, Doug1o29 said:

Feel free to hit ignore.  Your arguments don't seem to have anything to do with reality, anyway.

Doug

Don't like it when you are losing huh doug, even your beloved IPCC is against you lately.  

[Doug1029]

Just now, Merc14 said:

I have answered you countless times in this thread, in fact my inbox is overflowing with your BS.  Once again you are lying.

Example:  you seem to think modeling is all there is to climate science.  That is but a tiny part.  Why don't you try citing some scientific papers if you want to convince somebody.  Just quoting newspapers, especially the denialist New York Times and Wall Street Journal, doesn't prove anything at all.

Doug

[Merc14]

5 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Example:  you seem to think modeling is all there is to climate science.  That is but a tiny part.  Why don't you try citing some scientific papers if you want to convince somebody.  Just quoting newspapers, especially the denialist New York Times and Wall Street Journal, doesn't prove anything at all.

Doug

I only concentrate, and have only commented on, AGW as that is what drives the politics of this situation and that is 100% dependent on models.  I have never argued about general climate science so am wondering why would you post that?   Are you trying to change the subject?  

Edited September 20, 2017 by Merc14

[toast]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

You posted the entire US and said nothing about smart locations ...

Merc, I`m sorry but thats nitpicking. I repeat myself: there is enough space on US soil to produce more electricity by wind than the US can consume. The general problem that windpower isnt forced that much in your country is your own oil and the lobby behind it.

Quote

... neither did you mention how incredibly remote much of the west is and the incredible, massive expense it would take to string power and way stations to those locations.

I`m aware of the grid costs involved and of course these would be a part of the multi billion investment that would made your country more independant from foreign gas+oil in the future. Since the start of the Energiewende here in Germany we pay add-ons with the electricity bill to finance the expansion of the grid infrastructure. When the project is finished, there will be no add-ons by consumers anymore and we will benefit from lower prices for electricity as we will be much more independent from oil+gas based electricity production.

Quote

 In other words you exaggerated and cherry picked and intentionally deceived to make your point.  

No I dont.

Quote

I agree that a world run completely by zero emissions would be wonderful but even your country won't go beyond 30% and your needs are far smaller than the US and the difficulties in logistics far less.  

You dont need a cable from Seattle to Key West as windparks can be placed near to the locations of need.

Quote

We do not need zero emissions tomorrow or even in the next decade, a gradual shift to cleaner sources that won't break the bank is very doable and an increase in fusion research should be a priority if it would help.  

We dont even know when fusion will be ready to use and energy is needed now.

Quote

No matter what, China and India will not abide by any of these restrictions and bankrupting the US to get to utopia will not change that.

The first steps must be done to start a process and also China and India will go the path. The investments of the western world into China`s and India`s development are to the benefit of the investors as well even if the amount of money to be paid may hurt at the moment.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

AGW depends COMPLETELY on models, there is no other proof for it other than through models and that is all I am arguing. 

Flat out WRONG!

I am currently working on a summary of climate temperature anomalies for Oklahoma City and Fort Sill, maybe Norman and Stillwater, too.  When done, it will show temperature changes month by month.  All I will do is take the monthly average for each month since 1875, subtract the corresponding baseline value from it and multiply by 100.  That will show what has happened over the last 142 years and no climate models at all will be involved.  This is a history of climate change in Oklahoma.  I have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight.  Since April 1, 1897 I have the day-by-day temperature and rainfall records.  I know what happened.  All I have to do is lay it out so it can be seen.  And that will be the proof that it happened (or didn't happen, if that's what the data show).

On that subject:  I just discovered a treasure trove of data for 19th-century Oklahoma, so that is where I will be concentrating my efforts for a few months, so please pardon me if I don't answer your posts very often.

Doug

[Merc14]

42 minutes ago, toast said:

Merc, I`m sorry but thats nitpicking. I repeat myself: there is enough space on US soil to produce more electricity by wind than the US can consume. The general problem that windpower isnt forced that much in your country is your own oil and the lobby behind it.

You are now making things up with zero research and are refusing to acknowledge the massive costs .

42 minutes ago, toast said:

I`m aware of the grid costs involved and of course these would be a part of the multi billion investment that would made your country more independant from foreign gas+oil in the future. Since the start of the Energiewende here in Germany we pay add-ons with the electricity bill to finance the expansion of the grid infrastructure. When the project is finished, there will be no add-ons by consumers anymore and we will benefit from lower prices for electricity as we will be much more independent from oil+gas based electricity production.

We need to rebuild the grid we have rather than go after a boondoggle such as 100% wind  power.Honestly, I have never read a more absurd recommendation than this.  If it is such a panacea why has Germany only accomplished 30%?

Id din't bother with the rest.

This thread has descended into the ridiculous and once again has been overrun by zealots.  See ya.

 

[Michelle]

I'm sorry, but I hate the sight of windmills. There are also many areas they wouldn't be viable at all. I'm surprised a more feasible and aesthetically pleasing option like Raccoon Mountain has been ignored, which produces a great deal of electricity for the region.

 https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Hydroelectric/Raccoon-Mountain

Wind is not an option and I don't relish using protected national park property as a source for power.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Michelle

[toast]

11 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If it is such a panacea why has Germany only accomplished 30%?

Only? I provided you a link with full details of the project and also mentioned the future steps of if but it seems that you are generally uninterested on the subject.

Edited September 20, 2017 by toast

[Doc Socks Junior]

38 minutes ago, Michelle said:

I'm sorry, but I hate the sight of windmills. There are also many areas they wouldn't be viable at all. I'm surprised a more feasible and aesthetically pleasing option like Raccoon Mountain has been ignored, which produces a great deal of electricity for the region.

 https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Hydroelectric/Raccoon-Mountain

Wind is not an option and I don't relish using protected national park property as a source for power.

Got some vans stuck at Raccoon Mountain about a year and a half back. People don't know how to drive on mud (I just didn't enter the mud - go figure). Of course, 15 passenger vans don't handle well in much of anything. But they're good for ferrying youths around.

[Michelle]

13 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Got some vans stuck at Raccoon Mountain about a year and a half back. People don't know how to drive on mud (I just didn't enter the mud - go figure). Of course, 15 passenger vans don't handle well in much of anything. But they're good for ferrying youths around.

They not only created a source of electricity, but a beautiful recreation area. It's a win win either way you look at it. Using this technology makes windmills obsolete while people are still touting the windmill benefits. We should be way beyond the technology of windmills by now, and Raccoon Mountain proves it.

I hope you had a good time visiting the area otherwise. It's great four wheeling! 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Michelle

[Doc Socks Junior]

1 minute ago, Michelle said:

They not only created a source of electricity, but a beautiful recreation area. It's a win win either way you look at it. Using this technology makes windmills obsolete while people are still touting the windmill benefits. We should be way beyond the technology of windmills by now, and Raccoon Mountain proves it.

I hope you had a good time visiting the area otherwise. 

A strong hydroelectric system isn't something that can go everywhere though. Look at West Texas. The barren nothingness. They have lots of windmills there, and that makes sense to me. But hydroelectric projects in many places are feasible. I enjoy going by the TVA complexes when I'm up that way.

I certainly did! I'm up usually twice a year without fail, but had to skip this fall (last weekend in fact) to take care of business in the laboratory. Quite a bit of other travel later in the fall so have to make hay (or collect zircons) while the sun shines, as they say. I'll be back in the spring though. Such a great place to start a Southern Appalachian transect. From the Cumberland Plateau to the exotics terranes of North Carolina. Orogenic belts are good.

[Derek Willis]

In the UK the vast majority of homes are heated with gas from the North Sea. Similarly, most stoves use gas for the burners (though many have electric ovens). Gas costs about £0.05 per kWh. Electricity costs about £0.16 per kWh, over three times more than gas. I can see how using wind and other renewable means to supply electricity for lighting and appliances would be viable. However, if houses were to use electricity for heating and cooking, will the suppliers be reducing the price by a factor of three? I wonder if in the future when utility bills rise massively, will the promoters of human-made climate change hold up their hands and say "We did that"? I doubt it.

[Michelle]

9 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

A strong hydroelectric system isn't something that can go everywhere though. Look at West Texas. The barren nothingness. They have lots of windmills there, and that makes sense to me. But hydroelectric projects in many places are feasible. I enjoy going by the TVA complexes when I'm up that way.

I certainly did! I'm up usually twice a year without fail, but had to skip this fall (last weekend in fact) to take care of business in the laboratory. Quite a bit of other travel later in the fall so have to make hay (or collect zircons) while the sun shines, as they say. I'll be back in the spring though. Such a great place to start a Southern Appalachian transect. From the Cumberland Plateau to the exotics terranes of North Carolina. Orogenic belts are good.

Raccoon Mountain hydroelectric plant has recently opened back up for tours, in case you are interested. They stopped for a long while after 9/11.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Michelle said:

I'm sorry, but I hate the sight of windmills. There are also many areas they wouldn't be viable at all. I'm surprised a more feasible and aesthetically pleasing option like Raccoon Mountain has been ignored, which produces a great deal of electricity for the region.

 https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Hydroelectric/Raccoon-Mountain

Wind is not an option and I don't relish using protected national park property as a source for power.

Would you prefer smoke-belching coal plants?  I grew up next to a Cleveland Illuminating Company plant - four stacks.  The whole town stunk of coal smoke.  It even became a Superfund site, but that was Union Carbide's doing.  The plant is now closed and being torn down.  Thank god for windmills.

Doug

[Michelle]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Would you prefer smoke-belching coal plants?  I grew up next to a Cleveland Illuminating Company plant - four stacks.  The whole town stunk of coal smoke.  It even became a Superfund site, but that was Union Carbide's doing.  The plant is now closed and being torn down.  Thank god for windmills.

Doug

My city was once dubbed the "dirtiest city in the US" when I was a kid. Now we are one of the cleanest and not a windmill in sight. Why does it have to be from one extreme to the other? And why focus only on windmills when they aren't viable in a lot of regions? I can look out the window, on any given day, and not a single leaf on any tree is moving.

[Doug1029]

The A in AGW stands for anthropo-, meaning "human-".  How do we know it's man-made?  Not from climate models.  They don't tell us anything about where the pollution is coming from.

The earth's primordial carbon is carbon12.  It has been here since the earth formed and was probably around a lot longer than that.  Carbon14 forms in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen atoms are struck by cosmic rays.  Eventually (5000-yr half-life), carbon14 decays to carbon13.  Plants absorb all kinds of carbon when they conduct photosynthesis.  Carbon14 gets absorbed too where the carbon14 decays to carbon13.  A few million years later the coal formed from that plant still has that carbon13 in it.  When the coal is burned, the carbon13 is released to the atmosphere, increasing the amount of carbon13 present in the air.  By measuring changes in carbon13/carbon12 ratios in the air, we can determine how much carbon13 entered the air.  After that, it is simple arithmetic to figure out how much coal was burned.

So how do we know coal is the source?  There isn't enough biomass to supply that much carbon, except from coal and oil.  So if it started out in coal, how did that carbon13 get into the air unless somebody burned it?

And that's called an isotope study.  It does not use climate models, but without it, the A part of AGW doesn't happen.

Doug

[Doug1029]

5 minutes ago, Michelle said:

My city was once dubbed the "dirtiest city in the US" when I was a kid. Now we are one of the cleanest and not a windmill in sight. Why does it have to be from one extreme to the other? And why focus only on windmills when they aren't viable in a lot of regions? I can look out the window, on any given day, and not a single leaf on any tree is moving.

I don't know where your power is coming from, but what makes you so sure it's not wind?  Oklahoma wind is powering Florida and Iowa wind is running Chicago.

Somewhere in the US, the wind is always blowing.  All we need is a windmill at that location and we can send its power anywhere.  But you're right about wind not being feasible everywhere.  That's why we need those DC grid lines - to move power from where it is being generated to the place it is needed.  It doesn't matter if the wind is blowing in your town, because it is blowing in Oklahoma - nearly all the time.  Several such lines are under construction.  In five years, most should be in service.  By that time, there will be another 1500 windmills in northern Oklahoma - if construction continues at the current rate.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

15 hours ago, toast said:

Climate change means temperature fluctuations in both directions and just a butt on the balcony cant be an indicator for the global situation.

So does Natural Variability. 

[SHaYap]

Bye bye Florida ...
 

Quote

 

~

The Nightmare Scenario for Florida's Coastal Homeowners - Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/.../the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeow...

Apr 19, 2017 - On a predictably gorgeous South Florida afternoon, Coral Gables Mayor .... a small Louisiana town sinking into the Gulf of Mexico, the first such ...

~

South Florida Is Sinking. Where Is Marco Rubio? - Newsweek

www.newsweek.com/.../marco-rubio-climate-change-denier-south-florida-flood-crisis...

Jan 28, 2016 - 02_05_Rubio_01 Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida and 2016 Republican presidential candidate, is a climate change denier.

~

Florida Map - Global Warming Sea Level Rise Map - Geology.com

geology.com › Global Sea Level Rise Map

Map of Florida showing areas to be flooded if sea level rises.

~

BBC - Future - Miami's fight against rising seas

www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise

Apr 4, 2017 - Just down the coast from Donald Trump's weekend retreat, the residents and businesses of south Florida are experiencing regular episodes of ...

~

Study Finds East Coast Of America Is Sinking Into The Atlantic Ocean

https://www.forbes.com/.../study-finds-the-east-coast-of-america-is-sinking-into-the-at...

Sep 12, 2017 - 11, 2017, in Jacksonville, Florida. (Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images). The east coast of the United States is slowly but steadily sinking into ...

~

 

 

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

And that's called an isotope study.  It does not use climate models, but without it, the A part of AGW doesn't happen.

Look we all know we burn Fossil fuels. This does add trace amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. But does that cause artificial Global Warming? No one seems to be able to give a clear and simple explanation as to the mechanism. No one can even say how long it takes for a CO2 molecule to re-emit an IR photon.