Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[kcshocker11]

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Mullerwas partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

[WstateU]

@kcshocker11: - I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt on this one. Brother, you need bars.

[kcshocker11]

I notice ur pic has a flat earth in it.:pirate: lol

[Kung Wu]

Most REAL scientists have never, ever said that global temps aren't rising. They have agreed they are rising in a natural cyclical pattern. They are also laughing at the idiots saying it's MAN MADE. Tell anybody on the left that global temperatures aren't man made and you are instantly a "global warming denier", which is simply not true.

[SB Shock]

[kcshocker11]

Most REAL scientists have never, ever said that global temps aren't rising. They have agreed they are rising in a natural cyclical pattern. They are also laughing at the idiots saying it's MAN MADE. Tell anybody on the left that global temperatures aren't man made and you are instantly a "global warming denier", which is simply not true.

Perhaps the Kochs should fund to see if this guy will test if its man made.Wouldnt u want to know?

[1972Shocker]

the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research.

Sounds like they will be looking into the cause or causes and, of course the Koch Foudnation is not the only group studying climate change. In all probability they will find both naturally occurring and man-made activities have contributed. Then the argument will become which causes are primary and which are secondary or less of a factor. Maybe scientist will be able to apportion blame among causes and maybe they won't. In any case, the conclusions need to be based on unbiased scientific facts. The fact that this thread was posted in the Political forum and not the Off Topic forum is symptomatic of the politicalization of this issue and I wonder whether this will ever become a purely scientific endeavor.

[SB Shock]

The following that was taken from Los Alamos National Laboratory paper entitled "Our Calibrated Model has no predictive Value

http://library.lanl.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc?event=SAMO2004&document=samo04-45.pdf

It is often assumed that once a model has been calibrated to measurements then it will have some level of predictive capability, although this may be limited. If the model does not have predictive capability then the assumption is that the model needs to be improved in some way.

Using an example from the petroleum industry, we show that cases can exist where calibrated models have no predictive capability. This occurs even when there is no modelling error present. It is also shown that the introduction of a small modelling error can make it impossible to obtain any models with useful predictive capability. We have been unable to find ways of identifying which calibrated models will have some predictive capacity and those which will not.

from

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/31/a-modest-proposal%E2%80%94forget-about-tomorrow/#more-50379

In this regard, a modest proposal. Could climate scientists please just stop predicting stuff for maybe say one year? In no other field of scientific endeavor is every finding surrounded by predictions that this “could” or “might” or “possibly” or “perhaps” will lead to something catastrophic in ten or thirty or a hundred years. Could I ask that for one short year, that climate scientists actually study the various climate phenomena, rather than try to forecast their future changes?

I would think that after the unbroken string of totally incorrect prognostications from Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren and James Hansen and other failed serial doomcasters, the alarmists would welcome such a hiatus from having to dream up the newer, better future catastrophe. I mean, it must get tiring for them, seeing their predictions of Thermageddon™ blown out of the water by ugly reality, time after time, without interruption. I think they’d welcome a year where they could forget about tomorrow.

[kcshocker11]

ok so they cant get precise prediction, also study was oil related try again SB

[SB Shock]

ok so they cant get precise prediction, also study was oil related try again SB

I knew this was casting pearls among the swine. Even though the study was on geological model predictions, the moral of the story is relevant for case where u are trying to model a system. Just because your model has been "correlated" doesn't mean it is "predictive". I assume they chose geological model due to it simplicity.

I actually ran into this the other day - A guy built a finite element model for a part that is having issues with in the field. The prediction based on this fem was going to drive some significant changes. We choose to go out and do a quick test to validate and correlate the model. We then tested te configuration that the model was showing was deficient. The test data showed that model even though correlated (low error) for the baseline configuration, it did not do a good job in predicting (had a high error) changes from baseline.

It is the same with the mathematical models of the environment - just because they have been correlated to a particualr time and space doesn't mean they have any predictive capability. When these models continue have high error on their predictions, then you have to try and understand what parameters are you missing that is causing your model to fail. Because it likely means there are some other parameters that are significant that you are not accounting for that is driving up this predictive error.

I have looked at some climate model output data. In general it looks like random noise with inherent instability in their model. They end up doing a bunch of averaging and filtering to make any sense of the numbers.

[Maggie]

I knew this was casting pearls among the swine. Even though the study was on geological model predictions, the moral of the story is relevant for case where u are trying to model a system. Just because your model has been "correlated" doesn't mean it is "predictive".

Correlation is not causation, right SB?

You would think, in light of everything that has been revealed about the research into global warming, cooling, climate change, or whatever it might be called next. People, if they are so inclined – if this issue is of such importance – would take the time to gather as much information as possible rather than attaching themselves to some pre-packaged conclusion.

[kcshocker11]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

There will never be enough evidence for deniers. The sad part is the science is overwheming. Even your own people are saying its alarming.

[SB Shock]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

There will never be enough evidence for deniers. The sad part is the science is overwheming. Even your own people are saying its alarming.

What is your claim?

[1979Shocker]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's interesting that the "end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago" fits in perfectly with the Genesis account of the earth being covered with water.

Genesis 1:2: "...And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." [NKJV]

[kcshocker11]

What is your claim?

I think you already know:pirate: