What Do We Think About Climate Change

I think there was some attempted meaning in there somewhere, but it's so muddled that I gave up trying to decipher it.

No, we are definitely not going to talk more tomorrow. I'm going to ignore your sorry butt for about 24 hours. I'm planning to have a peaceful and pleasant day, with no hostility, fear and paranoia from the wings.

 

Mark, you have actually stumbled onto an interesting point. So, herewith to satisfy your request for remote temperature measurement is an attached image, not taken from the moon as you would ideally want, but taken from the next best thing: satellites.

The graph compares average temperatures taken by near-surface measurements to temperatures taken by satellite measurements. Actually, the satellite measurements are not direct measurements. They can't be because a satellite cannot place a thermometer in direct thermal contact with the earth. (This is a matter of thermodynamic rigor.) Instead, the satellite temperature measurements are calculated temperatures inferred from spectroscopic measurements.

Anyway, as you can see, the two kinds of measurements superimpose almost perfectly.

Oh, one more thing, did you notice that the temperature is trending upward?

 

But the point that you are missing is that your favored companies are no more "pure" than your hated GE.

 

Oh, you must mean things like insisting on data to support points, attempting to stay on topic, avoiding of name calling (with perhaps a few unfortunate lapses), avoiding profanity, avoiding unsupported comments regarding other people's politics or sexual practices, attempting to write coherent paragraphs, checking on credentials or expertise of sources, actually naming sources for information, actually knowing some science beyond freshman chemistry, using actual scientific arguments in discussions, often supported by mathematical analysis, avoiding libelous statements,... you know, malignant stuff like that.

 

Troy...as already provided by others in the Denmark windmills debate, their approach to fuel independence comes at an impossible cost. The "we are cleaner than you" cost them dearly and they have to sell their surplus when no one wants it at a loss and still run proper commercial generators for when the energy is actually needed.

The issue of independence from imported fuel is a worth while cause and as you well say it is country specific. Obviously the Danes don't have much to burn besides money and so they went the wind way at ridiculous expense, and at great environmental cost. Yes environmental because humans have to live on this earth too and the noise, visual pollution and light pollution are a very high cost to pay. If some limping frog's environment would have been disrupted in stead of humans, all windmill would be brought down tomorrow.

The point I make despite Alan's ridiculous accusation of me being a Dane hater of sort that deserves no answer, (I hate idiots of all classes and do not discriminate race religion or country of origin), the point is that if the Danes have windmills, that does not mean windmills are the way to go for either Australia or the US or the Principality of Monaco for that matter.
Australia does not need to become "independent" for electricity generation since we have vast reserves of coal and uranium. Yet our resident green idiots want us to build windmills because the Danes can do it so can we.

It is proven beyond doubt that if you want to reduce the CO2 emissions, (and lets be clear I don't believe it is necessary for a minute) and you take into account the emissions of producing all the hundred of tons of steel and aluminium and copper and plastic and who know what else goes into those monstrosities, and the cost of replace them after less than 30 years, and compare it to a modern coal fired plant, the coal generator wins hand down every time, and the same goes for solar and ocean waves and running squirrel cages and all the other toys put together.

I am all for independence from oil and would like to see electric cars or compressed air cars in numbers on the road the sooner the better. After all they will all plug into the grid and you can not get a cheaper source of electricity and cleaner than coal fired generators. Particularly if it is coal from our own mines.

 

you and Marco are trying to invalidate Denmark's achievements in enegy independence simply by sneering at it for its size

Well...perhaps one would first want to define "achievement" let alone in the plural form. It seems that the Danes themselvs don't see this as an achievement at all. I like Danes, particularly great danes, they make wonderful pets, but they eat a lot...
Furthermore we have an investment in the Dane Royal family don't we?

 

"Believe in the wind"
Vesta

 

However, if you really want to play with wind generation, why not do it in your backyard and leave it at that?
It is fairly easy ... apparently...

And it goes on and one, fairly comprehensive itseems, read all on this link
http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/

Next I will post a generator fuelled by butterfly farts as seen on national TV in Burkina Faso.

 

Err...really? In which graph? Someone placed a stright line that points upwards, ignoring the downward trend on the last ~8 years or so on that very graph... just like a hokey stick stopping the ball before a strike.

 

Marco1,

Let me simplify this for you, taking it a step at a time:

1) Go back to post #7441.
2) Next, look at the figure attached to the post.
3) Next, notice that the temperatures were measured by several different methods.
4) Next, notice that there is nearly a perfect concordance in temperatures measured by those several different methods.
5) Next, look at the general trends and trend lines in the data going back the last 28 years. Are the trend lines positive? Good, you pass the eyesight test.
6) Next, look at the statistical variability around the trend lines.
7) Next, thinking back to your statistical training (you do have at least some training in statistics don't you?) and ask yourself, what is more statistically significant, a short term fluctuation that is comparable in magnitude to other short term fluctuations in the data, both above the trend line (such as the time from 1990 to 1998) and below the trend line (such as the time from 1980 to 1988), or the long term trend line? (Strong hint... the long term trend line is more statistically significant than short term fluctuations.)
8) Ask yourself if 28 years is enough time to look at a trend.
9) If the answer is no, then since you can't go forward in time, look backward in time.
10) You can go back by about 35 years on this graph. Is there anything in this longer period of time that would indicate that there is a general deviation from the 28 year trend line. (Strong hint... there is nothing to indicate a general deviation from the 28 year trend line.)
11) Next, consider going even further back in time (Data not available on the figure attached to post #7441.)
12) Find temperature data going back additional decades. (I suggest going back a century or so.)
13) Repeat the general procedure indicated above.

Marco1, the temperature trend is unmistakable, and there is nothing in the last 8 years that would allow one to argue that there is a statistically significant break in the trend line. To make such an argument you will need to come back later, probably in another 20 years or so, and look for a break in the trend using new data, but for now there is nothing in the trend line indicating a strong break in the trend.

 

Actually, last time I checked (about 3 years ago) the local zoning commission in my town would not allow windmills in backyards, so it is a moot point at the moment.

 

I think most of the time IT DOES trend upward, tho - preceding CO2.
They superimpose almost perfectly? Which stations - All of them? No. Select ones.
"...everything malignant in this society." - actually, progressivism, in general. Malignancy is an uncontrolled growth feeding upon its host. Sounds familiar, huh?


This is in Troy's backyard.
Boston ought to appreciate a sight like this...



It is the Tehachapi windfarm
That's right, they are all inoperative.
They were Enron (remember them?) built with government subsidies. Enron windpower is now GE.

 

Alan, your sarcasm is noted yet uncalled for ... again.
The graph in question has a DOWNWARD trend in the last 8 years , clear as light to anyone with basic high school training.

I gather you did not read the post about the Oh so great danish accomplishments of course.

Care to tone down your replies to me in particular? Abuse the rest that don't agree with you at will, but spare me the patronising since I have yet to reply in kind

 

Marco1,

I don't know if you hate the Danes or not, but I do know that in this thread you have been making disparaging remarks about the Danes. That is clear enough in your posts, and I have pointed this out. However, I don't think I have provided a speculation on your state of mind in when you made those disparaging remarks (love, hate, admiration (I'm joking of course), disgust, or whatever).

 

Marco1, Sarcasm? Patronizing? Well then, let me be a little bit more direct and point out that you need to go back to statistics 101 and learn something about statistical significance in time series data.