PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[magetoo]

Mojo Chan, I doubt that facts will convince you but since you asked here is one (there are many more):

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

Try to read that with a critical eye.  The first paragraphs, the ones about reductionism and climate models, quote a piece that seems to be in favor of the thesis at the blog.  Here's from the blog:

In spite of the inability of weather models to forecast more than about 10 days ahead, the climate modelers have deluded themselves, their employers, the grant giving agencies, the politicians and the general public into believing that they could build climate models capable of accurately forecasting global temperatures for decades and centuries to come.  Commenting on this naive reductionist approach, Harrison and Stainforth say ...

What do Harrison and Stainforth say?  Well, basically they say that climate change is a threat, and we need better climate models.  Here's a snippet (apologies for any typos):

The Holocene (the past ~10,000 years) has so far been a period of relative climatic stability; there has been no change in climatic forcing comparable to the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations above preindustrial levels that we are likely to see by the middle of this century.  Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are now higher than they have been for at least the past 650,000 years; human influence on the global climate is profound.  That there are severe risks in the future is clear; their details and character are not.

Ok, so human influence on the climate is profound, and nothing in the past ten thousand years is comparable to the change we are likely to see.  Does this support the assertions made at the climate skeptic's blog?  Not at all.  In fact it says the exact opposite that the author would have us believe.

And that's just first paragraph.  Maybe there are some truths further in, but that sort of misrepresentation right at the start makes me skeptical.  Perhaps you should be too.

[dannyf]

but getting there isn't going to be pretty.

But is it prettier than not getting there?

The only thing constant about our climates is that it changes. Has always been so and will always be, billions of years in the past and hopefully billions of years in the future.

Changes are natural. Trying to prevent changes is not. Especially when those trillions on climate changes can be used somewhere else, on more worthy causes, like saving kids, fighting cancer, bettering education, etc.

The fact that something isn't pretty doesn't by itself means you should spend all your money fight it: because fighting it could be even uglier.

A bad outcome can be your best outcome.

[Simon]

Changes are natural. Trying to prevent changes is not. Especially when those trillions on climate changes can be used somewhere else, on more worthy causes, like saving kids, fighting cancer, bettering education, etc.

You could say the same about money spent on armaments and war finally we often stop talking about the cost of those. Certain thing is that money is always wasted on the wrong thing. It is only now that the UK government has cut the ridiculous payouts to people with solar panels that the costs of installing said solar panels has crashed, how funny isn't that a coincidence. It's easy to criticise the money spent on any particular endeavour by a government. Usually the problem is that the money is being misspent not that it does not need spending. Whilst the price of solar panels plummeted by 30% per year the costs of installations was extortionate. Then the government pulled the plug on the payouts, I pay less than 20p per kilowatt for my electricity yet if I had solar panels and I was selling it back to the grid a few years ago I would be paid 50p per kilowatt. This is an unsustainable model and a complete farce but because of these huge returns nobody cared about the cost of the systems and the government was handing out money hand over fist to pay for them with due criticism. Now that the laws have been changed and owning solar panels is not so lucrative the cost of the installations has also plummeted I wonder if there just happens to be a connection. I'm sure that much of the weaponry that our government buy is very very overpriced. I get a slight whiff of the sort of costs which are involved working for a company that supplies military equipment but very very far down the line still we will buy something and resell it for quite a bit of profit quite often to another company who then sells it to the military making even more profit and wasting even more money when the military could simply go out and buy the same product straight from the manufacturer or their distributor rather than involving another two lines of distribution.

If the investment in combating climate change and rationalising the way we consume energy was in the private sector I'm sure it will be done much more efficiently. Fact is whether or not you want to believe in climate change or rather global warming as climate change is something you cannot deny I have been able to witness it over my short life which is nothing in comparison to the global scheme of things it would be a very good idea that we seek out cleaner and more efficient methods of obtaining energy because the fossil fuels we depend on are not infinite.

As I pointed out to a guy at work recently who was also saying he could not understand how people can't see the change in the climate, during the ages of the dinosaurs we know that there was global warming or what we call global warming at the time it was the natural state of the earth the temperature was very hot things grew very big and very quickly and it was not a climate we could have survived in easily, but the Earth was covered in forests and greenery and the atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide we know. So what happened? All of that greenery that was growing absorbed the carbon dioxide out of the air and turned it into wood and then what happened to those trees? They died and became buried and then what? They became coal! And the temperature of the Earth reduced because the amount of carbon dioxide that had been taken out of the atmosphere. What are we doing right now? Oh yes that's right, we are digging up all of this carbon that used to be in the atmosphere when there was global warming millions of years ago and we are burning it and putting it back into the atmosphere and going back to the climate we had during the age of the dinosaurs, global warming!

Maybe it's my slight dyslexia that allows me to put two and two together and see the overall picture because most people seem to get endlessly lost in detail and argue about non-arguments.

[magetoo]

The only thing constant about our climates is that it changes. Has always been so and will always be, billions of years in the past and hopefully billions of years in the future.

Sort of true.  Like the guys I quoted above said, the Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.

Sure it changes, but only over very long timescales.  Now we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time, and timescales matter.  Slow change is much easier to adapt to.

The fact that something isn't pretty doesn't by itself means you should spend all your money fight it: because fighting it could be even uglier.

Like I say all the time, we can have disagreements on how to fix the problem; I don't think that subsidies towards solar and wind is the way to go, but don't let the availability of politically acceptable solutions dictate whether the problem exists in the first place.  Better solutions can be found.

A bad outcome can be your best outcome.

Or it might not.  Feel free to pursue the bad outcomes, if that's what seems right to you.  Most people won't joining you in burning down their houses because "hey, something good might come of it".

[dannyf]

the Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.

A period of climatic stabilty means climate instability over a longer horizon. As you pointed out, timescales matter.

Now we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time,

Taking your advice earlier, if you look over a short enough period of time, you have climatic stability! Guaranteed.

and timescales matter.

Absolutely correct. Extrapolating based on a few decades' experience over a horizon of millions / billions of years isn't probably wise, especially among other competing priorities.

For example, who's to say that we / the earth wouldn't thrive in a hotter climate? You sure will help cure famine for example.

We should pay attention to climate changes, as it impacts our long-term well beings and the survival of all of us as a being. However, we should have a rationale and honest discussion, we should evaluate all of our options and get everyone behind it.

The current global warming discussion is anything but that, because it is dominated by a bunch of religious bigots who refuse to let science and rationale work its magic, or who are more interested in lining their pockets with other people's money.

[zapta]

Like I say all the time, we can have disagreements on how to fix the problem; I don't think that subsidies towards solar and wind is the way to go, but don't let the availability of politically acceptable solutions dictate whether the problem exists in the first place.  Better solutions can be found.

If the problem does exists, it's magnitude and implications wee greatly exaggerated. It's not science anymore, it's religion and politics.

[magetoo]

the Holocene has been a period of climatic stability.

A period of climatic stabilty means climate instability over a longer horizon. As you pointed out, timescales matter.

Exactly.  And over a long enough period, we have time to adapt.  But, like I believe I have said earlier, it is not the long timescale we are worried about.  In the long term, we're all dead, and all that.

Now we're seeing change over a much shorter period of time,

Taking your advice earlier, if you look over a short enough period of time, you have climatic stability! Guaranteed.

Of course.  And if you look at a short enough period of time, Zeno can show that Achilles can never catch up with the turtle.  But we all know that Achilles still outruns the turtle every time, and we're not interested in arbitrarily short spans of time that are "short enough" to make a clever argument on a forum either.

We, as in "the people who live on this planet", do worry and should worry about what will happen to the generations ahead.

and timescales matter.

Absolutely correct. Extrapolating based on a few decades' experience over a horizon of millions / billions of years isn't probably wise, especially among other competing priorities.

Agreed.  But that is not what happens in climate science.  What is actually done is closer to extrapolating a couple of hundred of years of increasing CO2 and temperatures to about 50-100 years forward.  And that's when we see a problem, in the medium term.

For example, who's to say that we / the earth wouldn't thrive in a hotter climate? You sure will help cure famine for example.

And who's to say you wouldn't thrive if your house burned down?  Doesn't mean you shouldn't change the batteries in the smoke detectors.

I mentioned exactly this point.  At some point in time, we reach a new equilibrium and we adapt.  But that doesn't mean that everything is fine if agriculture and ecosystems crashed in the time leading up to that point.

We should pay attention to climate changes, as it impacts our long-term well beings and the survival of all of us as a being. However, we should have a rationale and honest discussion, we should evaluate all of our options and get everyone behind it.

The current global warming discussion is anything but that, because it is dominated by a bunch of religious bigots who refuse to let science and rationale work its magic, or who are more interested in lining their pockets with other people's money.

I agree with those two paragraphs 100%.  Of course, we disagree on who the bigots are, but if we can agree to go where the data leads us there is at least hope.

[magetoo]

If the problem does exists, it's magnitude and implications wee greatly exaggerated. It's not science anymore, it's religion and politics.

It's politics in the US and the English speaking world, it seems.  There is pretty broad political agreement on the science of AGW in most of Europe though (but not on what the solution is, that is definitely where politics and green dogma come in).  China also adopted new climate targets recently.  Why would they do that, if it's so obvious there are no negative effects from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

And consider, if a noob like me could pick apart that link you posted earlier in fifteen minutes, how good are the sources of information you have?  Are you sure you're on the right side of the fence?

[Zero999]

Frankly, I'll take the conclusions of peer reviewed papers by multiple independent groups over a random blog post.

Exactly.

I wonder how many people here are truly qualified to comment on the climate change?

Does anyone here have a degree in climatology?

I doubt it. Just because you're good at electronics, physics and maths, it doesn't make you a climate scientist.

[zapta]

And consider, if a noob like me could pick apart that link you posted earlier in fifteen minutes, how good are the sources of information you have?  Are you sure you're on the right side of the fence?

Pick apart? You must be kidding.

[zapta]

Mojo Chan, I doubt that facts will convince you but since you asked here is one (there are many more):

Sorry, I was referring to the claim that the Florida based group were raising money fraudulently.

As for your graph, a few seconds with Google reveal some evidence that the models are correct:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Frankly, I'll take the conclusions of peer reviewed papers by multiple independent groups over a random blog post.

Look at the observed data (red, below) in the link you posted and compare to IPCC's hokey stick predictions. As I said, grossly exaggerated.

[magetoo]

Pick apart? You must be kidding.

Go ahead and read the paper linked in the introduction for yourself and see whether it supports the assertion made in the blog post.  I dare you.

[zapta]

Pick apart? You must be kidding.

Go ahead and read the paper linked in the introduction for yourself and see whether it supports the assertion made in the blog post.  I dare you.

You completely ignored the data shown in that graph. Huge discrepancy between the hockey stick behavior that the alarmists claim and reality.

Happy new year!

[magetoo]

Look at the observed data (red, below) in the link you posted and compare to IPCC's hokey stick predictions. As I said, grossly exaggerated.

Um.  The famous "hockey stick" graph has nothing to do with predictions, it is a graph of historical data.

And you are inviting us to compare a graph over a thousand years that shows warming in recent times with a graph over forty that shows warming in recent times.  Can you put some numbers to it so I can at least understand what you are disagreeing with?

You completely ignored the data shown in that graph. Huge discrepancy between the hockey stick behavior that the alarmists claim and reality.

What graph?  If you mean something from the blog post, tell me which one.

(Also I already explicitly said that I stopped after seeing that the first paragraph misrepresented the article it was quoting for support.)

[zapta]

Look at the observed data (red, below) in the link you posted and compare to IPCC's hokey stick predictions. As I said, grossly exaggerated.

Um.  The "hockey stick" graph has nothing to do with predictions, it is a graph of historical data.

And you are inviting us to compare a graph over a thousand years with a graph over forty.  Why would anyone expect the shape to be the same?

Magetoo, you keep going around the main point. The huge discrepancy between IPCC predictions and reality. Look at that graph.

[magetoo]

Looks like our posts crossed there - I rewrote much of mine.  Just mentioning it in case there's confusion.

[tom66]

Magetoo, you keep going around the main point. The huge discrepancy between IPCC predictions and reality. Look at that graph.

The discrepancy is less than one kelvin.  Pretty close, all considered.

[Galenbo]

That's also a country where its solar power market is collapsing due to the unexpected cut in subsidies to the solar power generators.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I do. Belgium. You just had to want to take a look at bancrupcy sellers like https://www.troostwijkauctions.com/ and you saw every week some new entries about the typical 20-50 employees company. Most are down now because the day they closed the oversubsidies, was also the day of their last sale.

There's a huge hidden extra cost of the greenwashing industry: The money al these bancrupt companies still had to pay to other companies and banks.

[zapta]

Notice how the observations follow the prediction when you remember to include ocean temperatures.

20 20 hindsight. Predicting the past is easy. I can predict last week's lottery numbers.

[magetoo]

Predicting the past is easy.

And predicting the future is hard.  Which is why models have to be tested against past data to see that they don't give nonsense results.  That's common sense.

[zapta]

Not if you apply the strictest definition of the word "predict"  you can't.

I am using Bohr's notion of predictions

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nielsbohr130288.html

[miguelvp]

Don't encourage him, we won several posts back.

The ones that won and have been extracting a lot of our hard earned money are the so called 'GIGO' Scientists:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/documented-billion-dollar-climate-models-cant-predict-squat.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/a-spectacular-failure-latest-hadcrut-nasa-temperatures-significantly-below-ipcc-climate-model-predic.html

More here:

http://www.c3headlines.com/

Or google "Hide the decline"

Alarmists, Meh.

[zapta]

Don't encourage him, we won several posts back.

Baghdad Bob, is it you?

[tom66]

Or google "Hide the decline"

This is the first result for me, and it seems to make quite a bit of sense:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

[dannyf]

The ones that won and have been extracting a lot of our hard earned money are the so called 'GIGO' Scientists:

People who don't know science tend to consider it to be 100% objective, and they tend to treat scientists as "saints". In real life, it couldn't have been more divorced from the truth. Scientists are humans and as such, they are impacted by humanly biases, like funding, power, .....

Many of those "climate models" are not subject to the minimal amount of validation and their "predictions" are heavily influenced by assumptions about mechanisms we don't have good understanding of. For example, modeling of water vapor in atmosphere is just starting, yet 90%+ of the green house effect on the earth is caused by water vapor (which is not considered a green house gas, incidentally).

It wouldn't surprise me that if you perform an out-of-sample or out-of-time validation on those models, they will fail.

Anyone with basic knowledge on model risk management would recognize the issues we have with those models.