Arkane posted:

Isn't the unexpected/low probability nature of the hiatus a signal to you that the models are perhaps tuned incorrectly? I imagine this would be intuitive to a naive, unbiased observer. The resistance to questioning the theoretical assumptions of the models seems the position contrary to the science of global warming. Thankfully there are a lot of scientists who don't share that ideological intransigence, including many who believe in the worst case scenarios but are open to being wrong, unlike this thread.

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

You know you're on the wrong side of an argument when even loving Reddit actually bans it..

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

Arkane posted:

I think the most persuasive arguments for me points to 1-1.5. I'm biased obviously. For it to be below 1, there would need to be negative feedbacks. ECS will be a bit higher than TCR, most likely.

The thing is, though, regardless of the bias....a paper published in let's say 2005 has 9 years less data than one published in 2014. That may seem like a trivial amount, but when you're talking about a period of time as defined by (approximately) 1940 onward when we really began cranking out carbon dioxide and a human signal is present, 9 years is a pretty drat big increase in your observations. You don't you think it is correct to put weight onto newer analyses of sensitivity that incorporate the hiatus?

For instance, this was published a few weeks ago: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2573.html You can see that the hiatus reduces their most likely estimates from 2.8C for ECS to 2.5C. That's a big difference. They find a 10% chance of it being below 2C, and a .02% chance of it being above 4C.

Isn't the unexpected/low probability nature of the hiatus a signal to you that the models are perhaps tuned incorrectly? I imagine this would be intuitive to a naive, unbiased observer. The resistance to questioning the theoretical assumptions of the models seems the position contrary to the science of global warming. Thankfully there are a lot of scientists who don't share that ideological intransigence, including many who believe in the worst case scenarios but are open to being wrong, unlike this thread.

Evil_Greven posted:

Hi again Arkane.

Do you remember how much the temperature has risen in the last few years?
2010: +0.66 °C
2011: +0.55 °C
2012: +0.57 °C
2013: +0.60 °C
2014: +0.67 °C

Do you recall that this is a scale based on the 1951-1980 mean temperature of 14.0 °C? How quickly do you suppose this means things have changed?

Series DD Funding posted:

Congrats on confusing total anomaly with trend.

Der Luftwaffle posted:

Pretty sure this hasn't been posted, but apparently Audi have come up with a better synthetic diesel? I guess the reduction of emissions is still contingent upon the manufacturing process using green energy, and synthetics aren't really new, but it seems like this could be pretty huge if it's being backed by a big car company and ends up being economical enough to warrant mass production.

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

Dahn posted:

That is the best reason to be on the wrong side.
Global warming crowd is not really sure what is going on, they keep redefining things to fit their model.
Hugging trees is not going to fix things, population reduction is the answer, but ouch, we love everyone.
"Science" has been corrupted and is vomiting bad data, everything is suspect.
I saw the hockey stick graph, that is now a joke, we are on a temp hold\the oceans are holding heat\jesus willed it to be that way.The data was not predictive of what happened (bottom line, credibility shot).
The historical fact is that the climate changes, and there is very little we can do to stop it.
Drive a Prius, drive a Hummer, drive your mom over to see me on Saturday night. The cow that just busted rear end, erased everything you have worked for in one glorious flatulent exhale.

CommieGIR posted:

SKELETONS posted:

this cartoon is dumb as gently caress, there is a massive cost to rebuilding the entire global energy grid at a cost of trillions of dollars and that cost is only justified if ACC is severe. That capital could be far better used directly to achieve those ends rather than as a trickle down effect of building wind turbines.

SKELETONS posted:

this cartoon is dumb as gently caress, there is a massive cost to rebuilding the entire global energy grid at a cost of trillions of dollars and that cost is only justified if ACC is severe. That capital could be far better used directly to achieve those ends rather than as a trickle down effect of building wind turbines.

SKELETONS posted:

this cartoon is dumb as gently caress, there is a massive cost to rebuilding the entire global energy grid at a cost of trillions of dollars and that cost is only justified if ACC is severe. That capital could be far better used directly to achieve those ends rather than as a trickle down effect of building wind turbines.

SKELETONS posted:

this cartoon is dumb as gently caress, there is a massive cost to rebuilding the entire global energy grid at a cost of trillions of dollars and that cost is only justified if ACC is severe. That capital could be far better used directly to achieve those ends rather than as a trickle down effect of building wind turbines.

SKELETONS posted:

this cartoon is dumb as gently caress, there is a massive cost to rebuilding the entire global energy grid at a cost of trillions of dollars and that cost is only justified if ACC is severe. That capital could be far better used directly to achieve those ends rather than as a trickle down effect of building wind turbines.

CommieGIR posted:

Senate just voted down AGW.

Tanreall posted:

Elon Musk is at it again. Taking existing ideas to the next level. Using proven battery technology from Tesla Motors to not only supply home battery packs but also to power nations. I don't know if this can really change the world but it inspires hope that it can change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k&feature=youtu.be
http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall

blowfish posted:

huih?

Claverjoe posted:

On the other hand, older, and cheaper AGM batteries have more tolerant operating ranges and half the self discharge rate... at a cost of weight and volume, but who gives a poo poo when you are looking at a static application? Dude is betting on the power of marketing to blast past those obvious drawbacks. Doesn't mean that he won't succeed, but it does mean it looks like pouring mercury down your junk instead of taking antibiotics to cure the syphilis.

Claverjoe posted:

On the other hand, older, and cheaper AGM batteries have more tolerant operating ranges and half the self discharge rate... at a cost of weight and volume, but who gives a poo poo when you are looking at a static application? Dude is betting on the power of marketing to blast past those obvious drawbacks. Doesn't mean that he won't succeed, but it does mean it looks like pouring mercury down your junk instead of taking antibiotics to cure the syphilis.

Arkane posted:

can you walk me through this...what exactly would I need to get installed to power a solar system from an AGM standpoint to match the Tesla product? How bulky would it be, and how much would it cost? Finding it a bit hard to believe that they are making a big fanfare out of a poo poo product.

Tanreall posted:

Li-Ion have higher energy density, require less maintenance, have approximately twice the lifespan, are less hazardous to the environment, perform better in the cold, and will require less energy to ship all over the world due to it's lower weight and volume. There could be other factors I am not aware of as well but the usual knock on Li-Ion is cost.

Here is a AGM competitor:
http://www.bluepacificsolar.com/home-solar/home-battery-backup.html
Note that the batteries on this product only have a 1 year warranty while Tesla has a 10 year warranty for the whole thing.

Arkane posted:

can you walk me through this...what exactly would I need to get installed to power a solar system from an AGM standpoint to match the Tesla product? How bulky would it be, and how much would it cost? Finding it a bit hard to believe that they are making a big fanfare out of a poo poo product.

Claverjoe posted:

On the other hand, older, and cheaper AGM batteries have more tolerant operating ranges and half the self discharge rate... at a cost of weight and volume, but who gives a poo poo when you are looking at a static application? Dude is betting on the power of marketing to blast past those obvious drawbacks. Doesn't mean that he won't succeed, but it does mean it looks like pouring mercury down your junk instead of taking antibiotics to cure the syphilis.

Necc0 posted:

He already lost his bet. He believed they'd be able to pull the cost of their cars down enough to enter a mass-market and began building the batteries pre-emptively. Now he's stuck with all these batteries and trying to find something to do with them.

Arkane posted:

Say what now? The Gigafactory that is going to mass produce batteries isn't going to be online until 2016, and the plan to build a mass market electric vehicle has always been 2017.

They're not even able to sell these PowerWalls for months: earliest delivery is August, and there'll probably be a lag where supply catches up with demand.

Placid Marmot posted:

Check out this quality climate reporting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/06/global-temperature-down-in-april-just-7100ths-of-a-degree-above-normal/

"Global Temperature down in April"













(just 0.07 degrees above the 1981-2010 average)

pathetic little tramp posted:

I've been looking for this clip from The Jerk on youtube for years whenever I see this kind of cherry picking and finally "carnival scene" did the trick:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6DtzRUF5U