I imagine archeometeorologists can get it from tree rings or whatever. Still, a quick Google search didn't give me any hits regarding a '160-year cycle'.
The definition of 'competent modeler' is 'can make the model tell him anything he wants'. I know, I'm a competent modeler.
Right up there with "Lies, damn lies, and statistics", eh? It reminds me, too, of watching a boss take a balanced decision matrix, and change the weightings until he got the answer he wanted.
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Yes. Experts typically think that their area of expertise is more important than other areas. I've seen it in others; I've seen it in myself.
" shamelessly cut up his quote"? The first and third quotes are the sentences verbatim. The 2nd was shortened, possibly for brevity, and didn't make any difference. And the source material is one posting above, so it's easy to verify.
Oops, didn't go far enough, it *was* on the wiki page: American Mathematical Society/Bill Casselman (2009), animated JAVA simulation based on Kelvin's Tide Predicting Machine (the animation shows computing 7 harmonic components).
Highlight a term that you want to look up, such as "Kelvin's Predictor". Right-click, and select "search google" from the popup menu. A new tab will open up, and google will present various hits. Wikipedia entries are typically at the top of the list and often gives and adequate explanation of the term. If not, a review of all the hits and what the links point to gives an idea of what the term is. Total time spent to find the information should be under 5 seconds, longer if there is no wiki page.
Anyways, it appears, from the wiki anyways, that they don't actually use the term "Kelvin's Predictor", as you mentioned. I'm somewhat amazed that google was able to find it. Nevertheless, I was informed and read up a bit about something I didn't know, so kudos to all.
Liberals always use that word: externality. It's as if life is so complex they have no evidence for any of their conclusions but we are to believe through faith that they are right.
Your second sentence does not seem to follow the first.
It's been estimated if the US were to power everything with wind it would cost somewhere around 100 TRILLION dollars. This is serious Dr. Evil bullshit. Thanks to the Dems we continue to pour our tax dollars down the drain of liberalism.
Strawman with a side-helping of a ad-hominem non-sequitor.
While the thought of wind power is wonderful. But reality shows it's not cost effective nor reliable.
What about this reality?
"Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Still, it's remarkable that in every major region of the world, the lifetime cost of new coal and gas projects6 are rising considerably in the second half of 2015, according to BNEF. And in every major region the cost of renewables continues to fall."
When the wind stops you use a natural gas power plant. Duh. DUH!
Well, but then you have to add the cost of the gas power plant to the cost of the wind power plant in order to calculate the actual cost of wind power.
So, GPP + WPP = WPP?
The way my municipality does it, is that they add the costs of different sources together to get the total cost of power. Wind, fossil, solar, hydro, thermal...all get added together. They calculate the total power needed, then select from different sources to provide that power. They've done it in a way that balances perceived benefits with costs.
Let's see, one can choose from the various prisoner numbers in all the jails and prisons. One can bet on if they'll get parole, or get into trouble, or...
Slashdot Mirror
Depends which side of the pissing contest you are on.
Depends on if you're the pisser or the pissee.
Yep, now we know: the weather blows.
I imagine archeometeorologists can get it from tree rings or whatever. Still, a quick Google search didn't give me any hits regarding a '160-year cycle'.
The definition of 'competent modeler' is 'can make the model tell him anything he wants'. I know, I'm a competent modeler.
Right up there with "Lies, damn lies, and statistics", eh? It reminds me, too, of watching a boss take a balanced decision matrix, and change the weightings until he got the answer he wanted.
Conclusion: People are a problem.
sr
The whole debate is exactly what you just said, "Extent and impact!".
No, if I remember right, it's "Embrace, extend, and exterminate".
What the AC failed to do, though, was explain why a climate scientist is more qualified to talk about relative scales of problems than anybody else is. Climate scientists are better at what they do than anyone else, but that doesn't mean they're good public policy makers, sociologists, economists... all of whom will need to be involved in determining what public policy should be.
Yes. Experts typically think that their area of expertise is more important than other areas. I've seen it in others; I've seen it in myself.
sr
" shamelessly cut up his quote"? The first and third quotes are the sentences verbatim. The 2nd was shortened, possibly for brevity, and didn't make any difference. And the source material is one posting above, so it's easy to verify.
Your argument is weak.
Oops, didn't go far enough, it *was* on the wiki page: American Mathematical Society/Bill Casselman (2009), animated JAVA simulation based on Kelvin's Tide Predicting Machine (the animation shows computing 7 harmonic components).
Here's how you do it:
Highlight a term that you want to look up, such as "Kelvin's Predictor". Right-click, and select "search google" from the popup menu. A new tab will open up, and google will present various hits. Wikipedia entries are typically at the top of the list and often gives and adequate explanation of the term. If not, a review of all the hits and what the links point to gives an idea of what the term is. Total time spent to find the information should be under 5 seconds, longer if there is no wiki page.
Anyways, it appears, from the wiki anyways, that they don't actually use the term "Kelvin's Predictor", as you mentioned. I'm somewhat amazed that google was able to find it. Nevertheless, I was informed and read up a bit about something I didn't know, so kudos to all.
I see you caught a few.
Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading them.
"if you want to rely entirely on wind power" - i don't think anyone is suggesting "only relying" on any single form of power generation...
Yeah, I noticed that too. I looked all over the place for any poster that seriously claimed "we can rely entirely on wind power". Couldn't find it.
So I guess we'll just have to huff, and puff, and blow that strawman down.
Thousands of birds vs. well-being of billions of humans.
Liberals always use that word: externality.
It's as if life is so complex they have no evidence for any of their conclusions but we are to believe through faith that they are right.
Your second sentence does not seem to follow the first.
It's been estimated if the US were to power everything with wind it would cost somewhere around 100 TRILLION dollars.
This is serious Dr. Evil bullshit. Thanks to the Dems we continue to pour our tax dollars down the drain of liberalism.
Strawman with a side-helping of a ad-hominem non-sequitor.
While the thought of wind power is wonderful.
But reality shows it's not cost effective nor reliable.
What about this reality?
"Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Still, it's remarkable that in every major region of the world, the lifetime cost of new coal and gas projects6 are rising considerably in the second half of 2015, according to BNEF. And in every major region the cost of renewables continues to fall."
Yeah, I think it came off as sarcastic.
But what do I know?
signed, 'Nother 'Murican.
Well, but then you have to add the cost of the gas power plant to the cost of the wind power plant in order to calculate the actual cost of wind power.
So, GPP + WPP = WPP?
The way my municipality does it, is that they add the costs of different sources together to get the total cost of power. Wind, fossil, solar, hydro, thermal...all get added together. They calculate the total power needed, then select from different sources to provide that power. They've done it in a way that balances perceived benefits with costs.
"rebels, masonic regicidors, anti-establishment conspirators, naval draft dodgers and ordinary run-of-the-mill criminals"
So *that's* how to start up first-rate country!
See the Twilight Zone episode, "To Serve Madmen".
I've gone one step further, I don't even use Internet anym... d'oh!
Log in to my BBS! You can socialize, and download, and play games, and all sorts of stuff!
Just call this number, and...
@#$%@^ NO CARRIER
"Fantasy Prison"!
Let's see, one can choose from the various prisoner numbers in all the jails and prisons. One can bet on if they'll get parole, or get into trouble, or...
bbl, I have a business plan to write up.
It's unethical to leave the fool with his money.
PT, is that you?
I don't believe that the link answers his questions:
"How is this not the same as placing bets on real sports?"
"How is it any different that an online casino?"
Yes, I read the law in the link. It shows the "what", not the "why".
BINGO!
I know, let's let the mafia regulate this line of business....
Good idea. My understanding is that they have very high ethical standards which are stringently enforced.
Why the "jackass" in reply to what looks like a reasonable posting? Do you have some kind of history with the OP, or am I missing something?