Bridenstine, Climate Scientists Are Not Noble, Stop Paying Them

Possible answers to your questions regardless of the erroneous premise.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38513740

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207

 

right its the dots... ah yes they thought they were getting away with it but the dots gave them away.

here's a place you might learn some things from on CMS.
https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/climate-modeling

 

Your first reference says: "But new analysis in the journal Science Advances replicates findings that scientists have underestimated ocean temperatures over the past two decades."

And yet we are finding out that the newest, most accurate sea measurement devices show that scientists have OVERESTIMATED ocean temperatures!

go here: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...a-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

go here: wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/26/nasa-giss-caught-changing-past-data-again-violates-data-quality-act/

go here: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-version-4

"One of the most significant improvements involves corrections to account for the rapid increase in the number of ocean buoys in the mid-1970s. Prior to that, ships took most sea surface temperature observations. Several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that buoy measurements are systematically cooler than ship measurements of sea surface temperature. This is particularly important because both observing systems now sample much of the sea surface, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage of observations by up to 15%. In ERSST v4, a new correction accounts for ship-buoy differences thereby compensating for the cool bias to make them compatible with historical ship observations."[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

In other words you have nothing of import to offer to refute that the dots do *NOT* indicate the margin of error.

I already gave you this reference.

Do you not remember me talking about T42 and T85 resolutions?

"Scientific sources of uncertainty are addressed in IPCC reports (see this week's reading about the IPCC) by reporting the findings of many similar, but different, climate models. In the Fourth Assessment Report, results from 23 different climate models were reported in most cases."

This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding concerning margins of error. When all the climate models use the very same three sets of data for inputs then it doesn't matter how many models you have. The number of models cannot compensate for the margin of error in the data!

Here is the articles definition of scientific uncertainty:

• Though observations, theory, and climate models continue to improve, Earth's climate is an immensely complex system. Any attempt at predicting future climate is bound to have at least a few uncertainties about the science involved. (bolding mine, upside)

Then the article states: "Most of the big unknowns about how Earth's climate will change in the future are due to the fact that we are not sure how humans will change their behaviors in the future. "

ROFL!! They admit in their definitions that there are uncertainties in the science but then say the BIGGEST unknown is humans?

In other words they think they have the science down when they can't even predict a twenty year hiatus? Unfreakingbelievable.

 

A. No Link. What are their backgrounds? Are they climatologists?
B. Even if there are links, it's 2 deniers versus thousands of real scientists.

 

Most are probably recycled. This is your justication for hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste? What a joke! But I'm not laughing.

 

Political heh? So these are the authors, reviewers, and scientific experts of the 2014 National Climate Assessment. All lying? A big conspiracy against upside222?

The National Climate Assessment summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future. A team of more than 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee produced the report, which was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

You don't know how to use the internet, much less google? You think scientists are deniers? Sounds like you have a few issues.

 

Nope. They are not recycled. They probably never will be. Do your due diligence in research!

 

The scientists didn't have the last say on what the report says. The politicians did!

Sorry to burst your bubble on how government works!

 

Oh, I see. So now your conspiracy tells you that hundreds of scientists drafted a report. Hundreds of others reviewed the report, and then the evil government changed the results. Uh-huh...

 

Even if they aren't recycled. This is your justication for hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste? What a joke! But I'm not laughing.

BTW, I have solar panels and a wind turbine, and I ZERO batteries. But you'll continue with your conspiracy theories, and FOX rhetoric.

 

It happens all the time in the federal government. Wake up and smell the roses!

 

Then what do you do when teh sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow - like it did here last week?

Do you depend on the fossil fuel grid for your electrical needs? Or do you just do without? How many coal oil lanterns do you have?

 

Actually, that is what they do with the IPCC report too. It is final reviewed by politicians for suitability.

 

Er, no! I said it's there - I didn't go on to say 'and we should get rid of it'?

 

If it is there and we can do nothing about it then how does it apply as a support for any assertion you made?

 

I'm an Electrical Engineer. What degree do you have? Perhaps you dont realize that Solar is a peak-load producer. It produces most during hot summer and fall days, when the sun is shining. Large numbers of residential solar installations prevent Utilities from the need to construct new power plants. New plants are the primary driver of increased electrical utility rates. Solar helps to hold this cost down for all Electrical customers. You're welcome.

 

Link please, Mr Hoosier?

 

I am also an Electrical Engineer. I *do* realize solar power is a peak load producer unless significant battery storage is provided to hold over sunless periods.

I use solar panels to keep the emergency batteries for my amateur radio station charged and ready - using a homebuilt regulator to prevent overcharging and a raspberry pi to monitor voltage and current loads which are saved in monthly data sets so I can download them and produce load graphs. When correlated with the data collected from my weather station you can estimate approximate backup time based on date, time, and station usage.

Residential solar installations that do not provide at least 72 hour storage backup do *NOT* prevent utilities from having to construct new power plants. Those plants are needed to handle the base load AND peak load when the sun doesn't shine and battery storage is exhausted! As population goes up base and peak power generation requirements go up as well - even with intermittent residential solar installation. That load *must* be handled, including by new plants, or brown-outs and black-outs will occur.

This is the black hole that alternative energy proponents *never* want to talk about. And you *are* correct, it is the costs of building and maintaining the plants that cause most of the rate increases, not peak loads.

They also *never* want to talk about all the batteries that would be required in everyone's basement or crawl space or what kind of maintenance, repair, and replacement costs would be involved let alone the costs of disposal. They *never* want to talk about the fire hazard and insurance costs to use lithium or sodium batteries in a residential environment.

I asked whether you are off-grid or still depend on the grid when the sun doesn't shine. I don't remember ever getting an answer to that question! Is that question too revealing for you to answer?

 

From the IPCC home page:

"As an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. "

Do you *ever* research anything on your own before asking someone to do your research for you?

 

I am on the grid with Netmetering, and you are wrong about peak loading and Solar PVs.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19111

 

No, I am not wrong and the fact that you can provide nothing to refute anything I posted proves it.

Do you *EVER* bother to actually read the references you use or do you just go by headlines?

"This capacity does not include smaller-scale (e.g., residential) distributed photovoltaic (PV) capacity that does not participate directly in CAISO's market."

In addition this graph is a MONTHLY average and is useless for determining *daily* load requirements - such as on days the sun doesn't shine!

And you call yourself an Electrical Engineer? You can't even read a simple graph for meaning!

 

Do you happen to have any good links to how to connect a small solar panel to an RV that only has the RV motor itself as an electric source? I have a small 1986 motor home and a small solar panel I'd like to hook up to it, but I'm afraid I'll burn out the other electronics if I hook it up wrong. My system is 30 amp. I also don't know how to hook the RV up safely to an electric source in an RV park.

Additionally, I'd like to find out how to keep the battery charged better so the thing will start for me after standing unused for years.

Thanks for any help---

 

I would really need to know more details to actually make a recommendation. If you have a small solar panel meant for trickle charging it probably has a reverse diode protection in it and all you need to do is hook it to your battery with alligator clips. It will only charge the battery when you are not drawing a load from the battery. These panels shouldn't provide enough current to damage other electronics as long as you know enough to hook positive to positive and negative to negative.

If you have a larger solar panel then you probably need a charging controller like this one: http://www.campingworld.com/shopping/item/nature-power-solar-battery-charge-controllers-8-amp/56011

This controller will keep you from overcharging your battery. It is probably similar to the one I built for my own batteries.

I sincerely doubt you have a large enough panel to handle a 30 amp load. It would probably be bigger than the roof of your motor home.

I can't tell you much about how to hook up in an RV park. The one my father-in-law had many years ago just plugged into a normal 120v outlet.

If you are going to let it sit for years I would take the battery out of it. Your biggest problem in this case will be pack rats and mice eating up the wiring in the RV! If it is going to sit for months then I would get something called a battery tender. Go to a local motorcycle place and ask them what the motorcycle riders in your area use. It will work for your RV battery as well.