Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Punx0r]

I was explaining that I did not waste my life watching the video, so I am unable (and unwilling) to quote specific examples of wrong claims. This isn't unreasonable or lazy because, on the balance of probability, it is reasonable to assume everything claimed in the video is wrong, unless proven otherwise.

I admire the patience of Bill's approach, but experience tells me such effort is wasted.

 

[billvon]

So this guy has a history of being a paid climate denier. I am glad to know that. But what I originally asked was if anything he said in the video was blatantly wrong.

Sure. Here's one. "The climate is nowhere near as warm as it is supposed to be. The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors."

In fact the temperatures are coming quite close to the models. The first IPCC assesment, in 1990, predicted warming of between .1C and .35C per decade. Actual rate has been .22C per decade during that time period. Every model since then has become more accurate.

If you have any other specific statements you want to discuss, let me know and I will address them.

 

[Hillhater]

So this guy has a history of being a paid climate denier. I am glad to know that. But what I originally asked was if anything he said in the video was blatantly wrong.

Sure. Here's one. "The climate is nowhere near as warm as it is supposed to be. The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors."

In fact the temperatures are coming quite close to the models. The first IPCC assesment, in 1990, predicted warming of between .1C and .35C per decade. Actual rate has been .22C per decade during that time period. Every model since then has become more accurate.
.

You must have a "personalised" copy of that 1990 IPCC report bill ?

1990 IPCC FAR:..
“Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).”....

But Reality is.....
..Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990...whilst CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. ...
And that is still using the highly suspect , and much discretited, "official" temperature database which has been "corrected" at various times to give better madel results.

 

[billvon]

..Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990...

Let's go with the GIS database, since it's the most commonly referenced:

Temperature anomaly in 1990: .42C (actual) .37C (smoothed)

Temperature anomaly in 2017: .9C (actual) .95C (smoothed)

That is 27 years. Agreed?

So we divide. An actual difference of .48C in 27 years, or a smoothed difference of .58C in 27 years. Or .018/.021 per year. With me so far?

That means we are warming between .18C and .21C a decade. Take your pick. Using the actual data seems more precise, but then you get year to year variations. Using the 5 year smoothed data gives you a number that better tracks average increases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

 

[sendler2112]

So is this wrong or cherry picked? From the Michaels interview. Measured vs predicted by models in red.
.
.

.
.

 

[sendler2112]

Here is the NASA data.
.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?fbclid=IwAR0F53fWhJ6-i4yFvRPBJmXZwlPXC7SVjvWwpOUKtd3H1p1sCBA1DF5daEA
.
.

 

[billvon]

So is this wrong or cherry picked? From the Michaels interview. Measured vs predicted by models in red.

Yes. Rather than use GISS or HADCRUT data he is using 4 balloon datasets (which does not measure surface temperature) 3 satellite datasets (which does not measure surface temperatures) and 3 "reanalyses" whatever they are. Together they give you a .11 degree rise per decade, considerably lower than the NASA surface ground/ocean averages.

Note that the upper atmosphere is predicted to get colder as the surface warms. So depending on what altitude the balloons were at, you'd expect to see less, or even contrary, signal.

 

[Hillhater]

..Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990...

Let's go with the GIS database, since it's the most commonly referenced:

Temperature anomaly in 1990: .42C (actual) .37C (smoothed)

Temperature anomaly in 2017: .9C (actual) .95C (smoothed)

That is 27 years. Agreed?

So we divide. An actual difference of .48C in 27 years, or a smoothed difference of .58C in 27 years. Or .018/.021 per year. With me so far?

That means we are warming between .18C and .21C a decade. Take your pick. Using the actual data seems more precise, but then you get year to year variations. Using the 5 year smoothed data gives you a number that better tracks average increases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Neat result bill...
But if you avoid the known "El nino" excursion of 2015-2017, and use the same data, but over the 24 yr period,..
... you will find that the figure come down to 0.12C/decade !
I do not think you can realisticly (or statisticly) include a single abnormal event in a trend calculation like that.
Unless of course you are suggesting that the IPCC predicted an Elnino 25 years in advance
But either way, the rate is way below the IPCC prediction of 0.3C, and even outside the lower limits of their expectations.
PS.. I think you will find the IPCC use the hadCrut database most often..
.....and that indicates even less rate of warming over that period.

 

[Hillhater]

So is this wrong or cherry picked? From the Michaels interview. Measured vs predicted by models in red.

Yes. Rather than use GISS or HADCRUT data he is using 4 balloon datasets (which does not measure surface temperature) 3 satellite datasets (which does not measure surface temperatures) and 3 "reanalyses" whatever they are. Together they give you a .11 degree rise per decade, considerably lower than the NASA surface ground/ocean averages.

How do you figure that bill ?
Those satelite temp records (the blue squares). indicate 0.4 C temp increase between 1990 and 2015. Which is almost exactly what GISS data also shows, and you were using previously.
All the other "models" are indicating 0.7 C (average) increase....obviously no where near the actual reality and totally wrong .!

 

[jimw1960]

Here is the NASA data.
.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/?fbclid=IwAR0F53fWhJ6-i4yFvRPBJmXZwlPXC7SVjvWwpOUKtd3H1p1sCBA1DF5daEA
.

I trust the NASA data, and I suppose you do, too, since you link to it. The NASA data shows over 0.9C temperature rise from the pre-1980 mean. That is right in the range of model predictions from your previous post, unlike the bogus temperature data sets that your graph is comparing the models to. So, the models to a very good job of estimating the expected trend.

 

[billvon]

Neat result bill...
But if you avoid the known "El nino" excursion of 2015-2017, and use the same data, but over the 24 yr period,..
... you will find that the figure come down to 0.12C/decade !

Yes. If you massage the data, and exclude inconvenient data, you can make it say what you like.

I do not think you can realisticly (or statisticly) include a single abnormal event in a trend calculation like that.

Of course you can. It's part of our climate.

There are also la ninas, periods of colder ocean water. Shall we exclude them, too? Then average temperature rise goes way up.

Best, IMO, to be honest and include all years.

 

[billvon]

How do you figure that bill ?
Those satelite temp records (the blue squares). indicate 0.4 C temp increase between 1990 and 2015. Which is almost exactly what GISS data also shows, and you were using previously.

No. GISS showed between .48 (exact temps) and .58 (averaged temps) in a period 3% longer. Both are significantly greater than .4C.

All the other "models" are indicating 0.7 C (average) increase....obviously no where near the actual reality and totally wrong .!

And which models are you referring to? Which IPCC scenario, exactly?

 

[cricketo]

Climate argument is really a distraction. Is it a good thing to put poison into the air, water, land ?

 

[Hillhater]

Climate argument is really a distraction. Is it a good thing to put poison into the air, water, land ?

The "climate debate" , is mainly around AGW,..CO2 based discussion.
CO2 is not a poision, ......it is essential to life on this planet ..

 

[Hillhater]

Neat result bill...
But if you avoid the known "El nino" excursion of 2015-2017, and use the same data, but over the 24 yr period,..
... you will find that the figure come down to 0.12C/decade !

Yes. If you massage the data, and exclude inconvenient data, you can make it say what you like.

I do not think you can realisticly (or statisticly) include a single abnormal event in a trend calculation like that.

Of course you can. It's part of our climate.

There are also la ninas, periods of colder ocean water. Shall we exclude them, too? Then average temperature rise goes way up.

Best, IMO, to be honest and include all years.

Massaging data !!
Remember , all this data has already been "adjusted", "corrected", "normalised" and generally messed with by numerous parties and computer programmes, before we get to see it.
So picking the single hottest period in the data set as a end point for calculation of your "average rate" ...is not massaging the data to skew the result ??
For the preceeding 24 years, the rate averaged 0.12C, ..then by including the next 3 years it jumps to 0.18C.
Thats a 50% increase due to just 3 data points from 27...even you cannot pretend that is a statisticly viable result.
It is called an "anomally" ..with a known cause (Elnino) , which skews the results, and should not be included.
And , yes, any "anomally" data with known causes, should ideally be excluded.

 

[billvon]

The "climate debate" , is mainly around AGW,..CO2 based discussion.
CO2 is not a poision, ......it is essential to life on this planet ..

Like anything else, it's a good thing - in the right amounts.

And since some more-sensitive people here don't like talking about climate change all the time, here's an effort to train veterans as solar installers to address the growing needs in the solar industry:
=======================================================
New DOE funding will support solar careers for veterans and underserved communities
By Kelsey Misbrener | October 24, 2018

The Solar Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to accelerating solar energy growth, was selected to receive a $2 million award from the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) to support an advanced and highly qualified solar workforce.

This new program will include a groundbreaking effort to support solar industry apprenticeships for hundreds of transitioning military veterans, preparing them for leadership roles in a rapidly growing industry. The program will also provide expert assistance to help the solar industry leverage workforce development resources and hire more workers from underserved communities.

The Solar Foundation was selected as a part of the Energy Department’s FY2018 SETO funding program, an effort to invest in new projects that will lower solar electricity costs and support a growing solar workforce. The Solar Foundation will work alongside other projects in the funding program to develop training programs that prepare the solar workforce for a more digital electric power system and enable veterans and transitioning military personnel to join the solar workforce.

This new program will expand on The Solar Foundation’s current and previous efforts to help build a pipeline of qualified solar workers across the country, through initiatives such as the Solar Training Network, Solar Ready Vets and the National Solar Jobs Census.
============================

 

[billvon]

So picking the single hottest period in the data set as a end point for calculation of your "average rate" ...is not massaging the data to skew the result ??
For the preceeding 24 years, the rate averaged 0.12C, ..then by including the next 3 years it jumps to 0.18C.
Thats a 50% increase due to just 3 data points from 27...even you cannot pretend that is a statisticly viable result.
It is called an "anomally" ..with a known cause (Elnino) , which skews the results, and should not be included.
And , yes, any "anomally" data with known causes, should ideally be excluded.

OK. I will remove the el nino data as long as you are OK with removing the la nina data, and I will recalculate. Fair?

 

[Hillhater]

How do you figure that bill ?
Those satelite temp records (the blue squares). indicate 0.4 C temp increase between 1990 and 2015. Which is almost exactly what GISS data also shows, and you were using previously.

No. GISS showed between .48 (exact temps) and .58 (averaged temps) in a period 3% longer. Both are significantly greater than .4C.

All the other "models" are indicating 0.7 C (average) increase....obviously no where near the actual reality and totally wrong .!

And which models are you referring to? Which IPCC scenario, exactly?

Where are you getting your data from bill ?
The GISS data posted earlier has 1990 at 0.44C, and 2015 at 0.86C... That is a rise of 0.42C
Pretty much what can be seen from the satelite data over that period on that graph.
The "other models" showing an average of 0.7C, are the one you were refering to in your dismissal of the graph posted earlier, from the video.

 

[Hillhater]

OK. I will remove the el nino data as long as you are OK with removing the la nina data, and I will recalculate. Fair?

Recalculate what exactly ?
You cannot just eliminate data from the middle of a time series data set.
You would have to substitute in some sort of "corrected" value, ?
Which years do you suggest are significantly ElN/LaN influenced ?

 

[cricketo]

The "climate debate" , is mainly around AGW,..CO2 based discussion.
CO2 is not a poision, ......it is essential to life on this planet ..

Well, where does that CO2 come from ? It just happens to come mostly from combustion of various complex chemicals that also happen to produce various toxic byproducts both due to their chemical composition and the heat (NO2?). On top of that, one needs to factor in how those original chemicals are obtained and refined. I think my argument stands.

 

[billvon]

Recalculate what exactly ?
You cannot just eliminate data from the middle of a time series data set.

You just demanded I do exactly that - eliminate the El Nino data from the instrumental data. Make up your mind!

 

[Punx0r]

I think my argument stands.

Your argument stands very well. The problem is Hillhater finds it convenient to claim that burning coal is, in fact, mankind's only possible deliverance from global famine, by dint of a supposed universal fertilising quality and the principal of "if a little is good, a lot must be better!".

Using the same argument I propose adding large amounts of cobalt to Hillhater's food on the basis that it is an essential trace element for humans. If a little keeps him alive, then a lot ought to make him superhuman. Or deaf.

 

[Hillhater]

Recalculate what exactly ?
You cannot just eliminate data from the middle of a time series data set.

You just demanded I do exactly that - eliminate the El Nino data from the instrumental data. Make up your mind!

Another time wasting dodge ??
I did not demand anything .
I did say that the known 2015-2017 GISS data is distorted by a known cause and should be excluded from your calculation. Dropping that data from the end of the time series is simple...unlike removing data from the middle of a series.

 

[Hillhater]

..The problem is Hillhater finds it convenient to claim that burning coal is, in fact, mankind's only possible deliverance from global famine,...

Yet again your memory fails you .
I have stated several times what my issues are with AGW, solar etc,...and your statement is far from any of them.
Do not attribute false claims to me !

 

[cricketo]

Yet again your memory fails you .
I have stated several times what my issues are with AGW, solar etc,...and your statement is far from any of them.
Do not attribute false claims to me !

I could probably go back in the thread to figure out what your issues are specifically, but I think it's not necessary since I am a huge proponent of photovoltaics, large battery systems and high voltage DC transmission lines. It is unlikely we would have a constructive conversation