Change-over to enewable energy

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 5:26 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 26, 6:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 9:59 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 12:53 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:06 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:31 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:26 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 26, 4:20 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 26, 6:22 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
 Even a small error overshadows the entire alleged AGW signal.(**)

But most of the models predict roughly the right amount of cloud, and
fit the the sort of AGW we've seen so far.

Your own linked expert said the opposite.

Some of the range of models tested didn't predict the right amount of
cloud, most did.

 o "Right amount"?

      "...one of my
       runs ended up with no clouds, other
       people had all the water precipitate
       as ice at the poles, etc.)."

  Yep, they've got it nailed all right.

 o Models were gauged by hindsight, not successful predictions.

 o "...most did"?  Where'd you find that?

In the bit of the quote that you first posted, then snipped when you
reposted it above.

Then you mistook what he said.

He said they ran a spread of models with various parameters, then
selected the model runs that correlated with PAST data.  Producing
correlation with past events was the parameter-selection criterion.

That's adaptive curve-fitting.

In fact adaptive curve fitting involves adjusting the value of a
particular set of parameters to fit a particular set of data (which
can be quite large).

The spread of models with various parameters are a variety of
different models, rather than a single model being adjusted to fit
historical data.

You've failed to understand what's going on, and on the basis of your
imperfect understanding have written off a large chunk of academic
research on the basis that it's something simpler - and totally
inadequate - which you do think you understand. It's distinctly
comical.

You're lost in the details.  If the model doesn't accurately reflect
the physical system, tweaking a bunch of unrelated coefficients
doesn't rehabilitate it.  

You don't understand the details. No model accurately represents a
phyiscal system - they are all more or less useful simplications.

You can artificially make it reproduce
arbitrary historical data, and pretend you've modeled reality, while
conferring zero actual power of prediction.

That is the sort of mistake a beginner can make, if they don't
undestand what they are doing. The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

The same methodology, applied, could extract the pertinent parameters
w.r.t. to fires, fire intensity, and historical data regarding red
trucks.  A model would quickly emerge showing strong correlation, with
coefficients capable of roughly predicting the size of the fire based
on the number and size of the trucks, plus other data.

I imagine it could. Nobody in their right mind would take it
seriously, or waste time concoting such a model, but it does make a
comical straw man.

But, model or no, it's wrong--red trucks don't cause fires.

Perfectly correct, and perfectly irrelevant.

As I said, you are effectively claiming that a large chunk of academic
research can be written off on the basis that you think that they are
making the kind of mistake that you presumably made when you were a
wet-behind-the-ears newby in modelling business.

It's definitely comical, and entirely pathetic.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 4:13 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 6:24 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

It is sad that you do not expect conclusions to be objective.

It's a good deal sadder that you can't realise quite how stupid this
observation is.

And the same about you.

At least I do undertand that there's nothing magical about the word
"conclusion". If every document conformed to some kind of rigid
rhetorical formula you might be saying something sensible, but as it
is you are parroting a context-dependent phrase that you don't
actually understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 4:24 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 6:44 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



Not so much right, as little too far to the right. The American media
has been lying about socialism for more than a century now - to the
point where most Americans think that socialism and communism are
interchangable - and it seems that you can fool enough of the people
enough of the time.

The average citizen isn't an idiot - any more than you are - but can
be misinformed - as you all too frequently are - if right-wing
interests control enough of the newspapers and the television
stations.

I really enjoy reading your posts.  It is interesting to see how wrong
your  view of the U.S. media is.  For instance you believe right wing
interests control much of the newspapers and television stations.

Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in
favour of the left.

Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers
aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks
right-wing to everybody over here.

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Sep 27, 3:05 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 5:26 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

You're lost in the details.  If the model doesn't accurately reflect
the physical system, tweaking a bunch of unrelated coefficients
doesn't rehabilitate it.  

You don't understand the details. No model accurately represents a
phyiscal system - they are all more or less useful simplications.

You can artificially make it reproduce
arbitrary historical data, and pretend you've modeled reality, while
conferring zero actual power of prediction.

That is the sort of mistake a beginner can make, if they don't
undestand what they are doing.

That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.

The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

Which there's almost zero chance they've done. Your expert describes
shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.

Culling horrendously bad models from a vast herd of models in no way
guarantees the correctness of those that remain.

To make the model work it has to reasonably approximate the behavior
of the actual processes, for example CLOUDS. CLOUDS are more 10x
influential than CO2. A small error in CLOUD behavior completely
swamps, buries, and fossilizes AGW CO2. Monte Carlo + curve-fits
offer no guarantee of correctness.

Jiggling the coefficients doesn't make it right, doesn't make it
predictive. But, that's what they do.


--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 27, 3:18 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:24 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

I really enjoy reading your posts.  It is interesting to see how wrong
your  view of the U.S. media is.  For instance you believe right wing
interests control much of the newspapers and television stations.

Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in
favour of the left.

Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers
aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks
right-wing to everybody over here.

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Socialism tottered on a bit longer--reaching an inflection point
around the turn of the 21st century--before imploding in the early
2010's.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 12:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:05 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 5:26 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're lost in the details.  If the model doesn't accurately reflect
the physical system, tweaking a bunch of unrelated coefficients
doesn't rehabilitate it.  

You don't understand the details. No model accurately represents a
phyiscal system - they are all more or less useful simplications.

You can artificially make it reproduce
arbitrary historical data, and pretend you've modeled reality, while
conferring zero actual power of prediction.

That is the sort of mistake a beginner can make, if they don't
undestand what they are doing.

That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.

In fact it isn't. You just don't understand enough of what they are
doing to appreciate the difference between trying to over-optimise one
model and checking out a variety of appreciably different models -
incorporating a variety of of different simplifications - in order to
find a sample which capture useful information without being
excessively computationally demanding

http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gkv/history/dahan-dalmedico-histmetor01.pdf

addresses exactly this point, but you don't have the kind of insight
that lets you understand this.

The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

Which there's almost zero chance they've done.  Your expert describes
shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.

That not the way he puts it, and it isn't the way anybody with any
understanding of what was going on would put it either.

Culling horrendously bad models from a vast herd of models in no way
guarantees the correctness of those that remain.

So what?

To make the model work it has to reasonably approximate the behavior
of the actual processes, for example CLOUDS.  CLOUDS are more 10x
influential than CO2.

From what point of view? A reasonable simplication is to say the the
sky has a 50% cloud content - air moving upwards or away from the
equator gets cooler and any water-vapour present condenses out as
water droplets or ice crystals, producing clouds while air moving
downwards or towards the equator is getting warmer and won't contain
cloud. This implies that cloud cover is pretty much constant and
independent of of CO2 levels. Water vapour is also much more important
than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, but because water vapour levels in the
atmopshere equilibate with the oceans with a time constant of a few
weeks, vapour vapour lelves can be treated as a dependent variable.

Denialist idiots have frothed at the mouth about climatologists
"ignoring" water vapour, in just the same way as you are complaining
mouth about the "cloud problem" which you don't actually understand
but imagine to be useful as a stick to beat climatologists.

 A small error in CLOUD behavior completely
swamps, buries, and fossilizes AGW CO2.  Monte Carlo + curve-fits
offer no guarantee of correctness.

Unfortunately for this proposition, clouds are disciplined by the laws
of physics and perform as the CO2 levels require them to. Lindzen was
the last serious climatologist to claim that changes in cloud cover
could compensate for rising CO2 levels, and his theory was falsified
by experimental data in very short order. He seems to have given up on
serious climatology since then.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/01/11/205326/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/

Jiggling the coefficients doesn't make it right, doesn't make it
predictive.  But, that's what they do.

Do try to get it into your head that they aren't "jiggling the
coefficients" in a single over-simplified model, but optimising a
whole range of different models, incorporating a wide range of
different simplifications. Try re-reading the Princeton paper with a
few of your juvenile preconceptions turned off.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:24 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
I really enjoy reading your posts.  It is interesting to see how wrong
your  view of the U.S. media is.  For instance you believe right wing
interests control much of the newspapers and television stations.

Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in
favour of the left.

Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers
aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks
right-wing to everybody over here.

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

Socialism tottered on a bit longer--reaching an inflection point
around the turn of the 21st century--before imploding in the early
2010's.

European socialism is doing fine. A bunch of countries which spent
appreciable periods under right-wing control - by Salazar in Portugal,
Franco in Spain , Mussolini in Italy and the colonels in Greece - are
now doing badly, precisely because their populations haven't had the
time to internalise the socialist world view, and are correspondly
less willing to pay their taxes and think about the common good.

You see this as a constraint on the invisible hand of the free market,
where political advantage (as in tax loopholes) is one more commodity
to be bought and sold.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 27, 4:11 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

At least I do undertand that there's nothing magical about the word
"conclusion". If every document conformed to some kind of rigid
rhetorical formula you might be saying something sensible, but as it
is you are parroting a context-dependent phrase that you don't
actually understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

I am still sorry for you. And making statements saying that I do not
understand seems to be the best you can do.

Dan

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 27, 4:18 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 2:07 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:18 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

No. And I think you've just confirmed what I thought.

James Arthur's entry in the competition was also graded D.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 2:03 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:11 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

<snipped a lot of context>

At least I do undertand that there's nothing magical about the word
"conclusion". If every document conformed to some kind of rigid
rhetorical formula you might be saying something sensible, but as it
is you are parroting a context-dependent phrase that you don't
actually understand.

I am still sorry for you.  And making statements saying that I do not
understand seems to be the best you can do.

You can take a horse's ass to water, but you can't make it think.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Rich Grise]

dcaster@krl.org wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:18 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

It's not that hard, Dan. A communist is a socialist who lives in a

commune. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 11:41 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

dcas...@krl.org wrote:
On Sep 27, 4:18 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

It's not that hard, Dan. A communist is a socialist who lives in a
commune. ;-)

Wrong. A communist believes in "the leading role of the party" which
is to say, communist societies were oligarchies. Socialists believe in
democracy (not to mention motherhood and apple pie). The split dates
back to about 1880.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 27, 9:28 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

No. And I think you've just confirmed what I thought.


Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

You mean you thought I was too lazy to jump to reply to a pointless
question?

Dan

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 27, 5:41 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

It's not that hard, Dan. A communist is a socialist who lives in a
commune. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

What I am really saying is that Bill Sloman asks pointless
questions. I know the answer, Bill knows the answer. Asking me is
pointless. He just wants me to waste my time doing a bunch of
typing.

Dan

 

[Jamie]

On 9/27/2011 12:20 AM, Rich Grise wrote:

Jamie wrote:
On 9/26/2011 2:16 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:

My idea exactly. Most studies assume people and cities will stay where
they are. They couldn't be more wrong. The city I live in didn't exist
30 years ago and currently its one of the 10 largest cities in the
country. IOW: when pieces of land get flooded or get too dry people
will move!

There is a weird sense of protectionism which probably stems for being
afraid of change. For those people: look at how face of the world has
changed in the past couple of hundred years. Our planet doesn't need
to stay the same. In fact it doesn't even 'want' to stay the same.

Solar panel prices are extremely low right now due to oversupply and
lower demand, $1.34/watt at this website:

http://www.sunelec.com/sv-solar-panel-190-watts-2670-vmp-p-1658.html

And how much of that cost is covered by money extracted from the working
stiffs in the form of taxes for subsidies?

As far as I know that price is before any government subsidies. If you
go through their checkout from Canada (no photovoltaic subsidies) the
price stays the same.

cheers,
Jamie

Thanks,
Rich

 

[NT]

On Sep 26, 8:46 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 5:40 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 26, 3:40 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 26, 1:28 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 25, 2:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

snip

and. More of their solar power - 20% of the capacity needed - is
thermal solar, which can store energy as heat.

What do you think the cost would be Mr.Sloman, and the implications
of spending it?

It's Dr.Sloman, if you want the correct honorific and I'll refer you
to

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

better researched cost figures than I could possibly come up with..

Hmm, I couldn't find a total cost figure anywhere in those pdfs. Do you
have one?

A total cost of what?

implementing what he proposes

There are two authors. Are you looking for a total cost of getting
what they both have in mind?

Yes. this is key

    3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent
of the projected total global power demand

A off-shore 5MW wind turbine might cost $10 million, so that's in the
ball-park of $38 trillion.

    49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20
percent

A 300MW solar thermal station might cost $900 million, so that's a
ball-park of $44 trillion

    40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent

Presumably 200 MW., where each one would cost some $900 million for
$36 trillion

    1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6
percent
    5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent
    900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent
are already in place, supplying 4 percent
    720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent
    490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

It's a lot of money.

Oh yes. If you want to put figures to those other things and add em
all up, then we're getting somewhere. We can look at what impact it
would have on society.

Don't forget the worldwide distribution system too.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 28, 2:44 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 9:28 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:



No. And I think you've just confirmed what I thought.

BillSloman, Nijmegen

You mean you thought I was too lazy to jump to reply to a pointless
question?

No. Either too much of a coward to risk getting it wrong, or - more
likely - too ignorant to be able to confidently pick out a salient
difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 28, 2:40 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 5:41 pm, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:

Are you saying that you do not know the difference between socialism
and communism and want someone to explain the difference?

It's not that hard, Dan. A communist is a socialist who lives in a
commune. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

What I am really saying is that Bill Sloman asks pointless
questions.

Not that pointless - look at the "answer" that James Arthur came up
with, which ignores history and reality at once.

 I know the answer,Bill knows the answer.

Actually, you know an answer, I know an answer and James Arthur though
he knew an answer - which happens to be obviously wrong.

 Asking me is pointless.

Not really. I was genuinely interested to learn whether you'd managed
to read enough outside the US media box to be able to produce an
answer with some kind of objective validity. James Arthur utterly
failed, basically producing Tea Party propaganda of the more
unthinking sort.

He just wants me to waste my time doing a bunch of typing.

It wouldn't have taken a lot of typing. You've probably output more
characters failing to answer the question than it would have taken to
produce an answer. "Communist state are oligarchies while socialists
states are democracies - the proto-communists split from the socialist
mainstream around 1880 for this very reason" doesn't take much typing.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:24 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
I really enjoy reading your posts. It is interesting to see how wrong
your view of the U.S. media is. For instance you believe right wing
interests control much of the newspapers and television stations.

Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in
favour of the left.

Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers
aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks
right-wing to everybody over here.

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies! Pass this bill! Pass this bill! (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

Both believe in taking what you've made and spreading it to those who
haven't, and act surprised when this doesn't encourage you to work
harder, hire, or expand the economy.

But, like Gore, Obama, Rangel, Geithner, Daschle, Buffett [...], they
don't want it applied to themselves. They don't want to pay a cent
more, and half the time don't want to pay their share.

Socialism tottered on a bit longer--reaching an inflection point
around the turn of the 21st century--before imploding in the early
2010's.

European socialism is doing fine.

A bunch of countries which spent
appreciable periods under right-wing control - by Salazar in Portugal,
Franco in Spain , Mussolini in Italy and the colonels in Greece -

That sure explains Germany, star of Europe.

are
now doing badly, precisely because their populations haven't had the
time to internalise the socialist world view, and are correspondly
less willing to pay their taxes and think about the common good.

Translation: "Common good" = "we own you and your work" = "gimme."

You see this as a constraint on the invisible hand of the free market,
where political advantage (as in tax loopholes) is one more commodity
to be bought and sold.

No, that's a separate misconception.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur