Google does not have a valid argument here. The current driving tests build on the assumption of a somewhat functional/thinking human being at the controls. The tests are certainly not comprehensive for all situations that might be encountered on the road.
"GMO is not an ingredient." No, it's an adjective telling you something about the ingredients, similar to "organic" (if applied consistently). If "wheat" or "corn" meant something consistent up until about 20 years ago, then it would be go to know if something quite different is being used.
There's no justification in not providing information to consumers. I prefer to know whether the food my family purchases is locally grown, from the US, Canada, south of the border or elsewhere. The long term environmental consequences of GMOs are yet clear (e.g. more pesticide/herbicide use leading to resistance, etc.; see, for example: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-s...)
Did you actually read the article? It clearly states wind and nuclear as alternatives to fossil fuels. Stating capacities and increases in 2015 is not pushing an agenda.
Everyone knows wind is intermittent, but clearly the technology has advantages over nuclear in real ways: the time from starting a wind farm to actually generating power is short, returns start with the first tower connected to the grid, not 10 years and a billion dollars or more later as with a nuclear plant. No one is suggesting only wind, but rather a wide variety of power sources that complement each other. Adding storage capacity and interconnecting larger grids also enable more consistent wind and solar generation. Wind and nuclear both have environmental and NIMBY problems. There is a bigger, more nuanced picture here if you care to look.
Where do you get 1978 from? You clearly have never read any of the literature. Go enlighten yourself. An IPCC report or the NOAA sites are good starting points.
>>> by looking at a weather map and trying to identify a day when there is no wind at all over a region large enough to be covered by a national grid
>>No need for that: this is physically impossible... at least for Germany
Good thing Germany is tied in to a larger grid...
http://www.amprion.net/en/euro... "However, the interconnected system does not end at the German border. International tie-lines from Germany to neighboring foreign countries as well as tie-lines between foreign partners link the subsystems to form a synchronous European extra-high-voltage system. Today's extra-high-voltage system is heavily meshed. "
WTF? Every engineering article I've read about renewables points out how the grid is a critical part. What do you think the industry is working on? Sheesh.
Gas turbine peaker plants have ramp rates on the order of 20MW to 50MW per minute. See an example below. Also, on the intermittency of wind and solar being a problem, you can't ignore the grid and assume a single plant in isolation. With the grid power can be generated elsewhere and transmitted to where it's needed. This is not new, and is part of how the power systems are able to handle adding renewable capacity. Adding battery backup is another way to load level, and is probably required to increase renewable use beyond something like 20% of the generated power.
For example: "Single-shaft gas turbine designs can accept greater step loads, varying from 50 percent to 100 percent depending on the model, rating and site conditions. In the case of a 50MW single-shaft gas turbine, it is possible to load the unit from zero to full load in two steps within 30 seconds." http://www.power-eng.com/artic...
Yes, criminals disregard laws - no one suggests otherwise, so that's not the end of the discussion. Because criminals disregard gun laws, in order to have lower gun related homicide and injury rates the U.S. needs a) fewer guns in circulation and b) fewer people allowed to have guns legally (e.g. mentally unstable types and known criminals).
This means: - strict background checks and oversight of mental condition of gun owners - no loopholes for sales without checks (e.g. gun shows) and no straw purchases - consequences for owners that don't properly store their guns
Do these things impinge the rights of lawful gun owners? Or just put a dent in firearms sales...?
I don't know the answer to that, but we have to move the discussion beyond these lame talking points that are constantly trotted out.
There are two big problems with the "other countries with more guns have fewer mass shootings" line of argument: 1) Countries like Switzerland with high percentages of gun ownership also have much stricter oversight and evaluation of the gun owners, e.g. because it's part of military service requirements. 2) Total rates of gun homicide and injury are what really matter, not just the sensational mass shootings. Other countries like Finland that had a mass shooting still have far lower gun homicide and injury rates than the U.S. (about 3:1 in this case according to Wikipedia) In other words, mass shootings are a distraction and red herring when comparing the U.S. to other countries.
The problem in the U.S. is that the country is awash with firearms coupled with a lack of strict oversight. - Legal guns are stolen and used in crimes. Owners are not held accountable for locking up their guns. The more legal guns there are then naturally the more guns that can be stolen and used in crimes. - Many legally owned guns are used in suicides and in response to short-tempered arguments. If a gun is at hand then the chances of using one is much higher...
The conclusion I draw is that reducing the overall number of guns in the U.S. would directly reduce gun homicide, injury and mass shootings by reducing access to guns for both crime and "unplanned" events. Having more oversight would have a similar effect on reducing cases of legal guns being stolen and used in crimes and for unstable people having access.
If the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to reduce the number, then they should get on board with stricter oversight and responsibility for owners. This argument about other countries' situations should be followed through to the natural conclusion that we would have to act similarly to obtain similar results.
It's not clear you read or understood the Science article. I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm encouraging you to read up on the subject for yourself before posting that something you don't understand is written by kooks.
The inaccuracies fall into two categories: offset errors and variations. The offset errors are what need to be taken out between different sets of measurements from different types of instruments. Where the data sets overlap in location and time then the offsets can be estimated and used to align the data sets. The article explains this, and it's a very common thing to do. It's not about resolution or solely variation. (How did you come to that conclusion?)
Not sure what your point is. The models are useful, but don't pay attention to them because they have (what would seem to be typical) modeing issues,... so they're not useful? Seems muddled.
As you say yourself, the models are useful for understanding trends and influences, and continue to improve.
Note that the reason you're able to point out a citation on this is because the IPCC (and others) are pointing it out for all to be aware of. It's not like they're not aware of this or trying to hide it.
By your statement, "You can't take a variable you've hand tuned and claim anything about it's predictive powers," you may be missing the point. If the TOA adjustment is to align the model state at some point in time or points in time to real data by "adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds," then how does that invalidate trend and sensitivity predictions of the overall model?
What do you think could be done better? Is there a better method to set these parameters other than TOA balance?
And, more importantly, do you have evidence that the model predictions are heavily sensitive to the sort (or magnitude) of adjustments being made? (I don't know myself, but you seem awfully concerned about the TOA adjustment in particular, so is there an analysis of this you can point to?)
Of course there are inaccuracies in the data. We'd be foolish to assume they're perfectly accurate to sub 0.1degC, no? And no one said the warming rate was constant over the last 100 years. Read again.
As to your last statement... Geez. You really should read up on the techniques and methods used in climate science rather than assuming you know what's going on and assuming the worst. There is a lot to read out there if you want to get into it. The Science article, it's supplemental materials and references are a starting point.
Second: Can you point these out specifically and what indicates this is the authors' "goal" ? Their stated goal is to review the temperature data set. They're reporting what they found. And the data is there to see.
Finally: You're confusing the estimate of the warming in the 20th century with the IPCC's forward estimate of warming in the 21st century. The authors of the paper are stating that the revisions to the data set based on aligning buoy with other temperature measurements mainly affects the period from 1998 forward, where significantly more buoy data was added to the set, that the data for the prior period isn't affected much by these adjustments, and that the resulting trends are similar throughout the period, thus the "hiatus" was an artifact of misaligned data in the data set.
Perhaps you should read up on how the data sets are merged and aligned before assuming it's "massaging." It should all be open and published for review. For example, ERSST version 4 is available here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/d...
Alignment of temperature measurements has been part of the analyses for a long, long time. Do you have a better suggestion as to how to deal with large data sets collected by different types of instruments?
Maybe, just maybe you should read the original article and references and think for yourself, rather than relying on any of "the media" to present the science?
Why do you think there would be a "system-wide calibration'' in the first place? It's a freaking huge set of instruments and what they're doing is reviewing the gathered data and checking the alignment where there are overlapping observations between types of instruments. The new buoys are probably the most accurate (in an absolute sense) of the SST instruments out there, and even the article notes that the variation (tolerance) of the buoy measurements is the tightest yet.
What would you propose they do differently, exactly?
You can make the adjustment either way. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but keeping the trendlines aligned where they overlap. The old data set is huge, so you could either adjust all the non-buoy data or all the buoy data. Doesn't matter which, in the end, since we're interested in the trend.
"First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). "
Well, they'd better have something to show... From the release: "Cambridge Consultants is demonstrating Pizzicato at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, March 2-5, stand 7B21 in Hall 7."
Slashdot Mirror
Without a patent or trademark the original seller has no leg to stand on. The market has competition. Who would have thought?
Thumbs up on Broil King.
Google does not have a valid argument here. The current driving tests build on the assumption of a somewhat functional/thinking human being at the controls. The tests are certainly not comprehensive for all situations that might be encountered on the road.
"GMO is not an ingredient." No, it's an adjective telling you something about the ingredients, similar to "organic" (if applied consistently). If "wheat" or "corn" meant something consistent up until about 20 years ago, then it would be go to know if something quite different is being used.
It may be perfectly healthy to consume GMO foods, but the environmental consequences of them are not clear.
There's no justification in not providing information to consumers. I prefer to know whether the food my family purchases is locally grown, from the US, Canada, south of the border or elsewhere. The long term environmental consequences of GMOs are yet clear (e.g. more pesticide/herbicide use leading to resistance, etc.; see, for example: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-s...)
>> Indeed, strictly speaking, Earth itself should not exist, according to the computer model,
Their model based conclusion has a rather obvious counter example: Earth.
Hard to miss that detail.
Did you actually read the article? It clearly states wind and nuclear as alternatives to fossil fuels. Stating capacities and increases in 2015 is not pushing an agenda.
Everyone knows wind is intermittent, but clearly the technology has advantages over nuclear in real ways: the time from starting a wind farm to actually generating power is short, returns start with the first tower connected to the grid, not 10 years and a billion dollars or more later as with a nuclear plant. No one is suggesting only wind, but rather a wide variety of power sources that complement each other. Adding storage capacity and interconnecting larger grids also enable more consistent wind and solar generation. Wind and nuclear both have environmental and NIMBY problems. There is a bigger, more nuanced picture here if you care to look.
Where do you get 1978 from? You clearly have never read any of the literature. Go enlighten yourself. An IPCC report or the NOAA sites are good starting points.
You really should read up on the methodologies. It's not like these are unknown issues. And, no, airport sited stations are not the only data sources.
It's all available. You have to click on the link in the article... See the other posts in this thread with more links to raw data, etc.
>>> by looking at a weather map and trying to identify a day when there is no wind at all over a region large enough to be covered by a national grid
>>No need for that: this is physically impossible ... at least for Germany
Good thing Germany is tied in to a larger grid...
http://www.amprion.net/en/euro...
"However, the interconnected system does not end at the German border. International tie-lines from Germany to neighboring foreign countries as well as tie-lines between foreign partners link the subsystems to form a synchronous European extra-high-voltage system. Today's extra-high-voltage system is heavily meshed. "
WTF? Every engineering article I've read about renewables points out how the grid is a critical part. What do you think the industry is working on? Sheesh.
Gas turbine peaker plants have ramp rates on the order of 20MW to 50MW per minute. See an example below. Also, on the intermittency of wind and solar being a problem, you can't ignore the grid and assume a single plant in isolation. With the grid power can be generated elsewhere and transmitted to where it's needed. This is not new, and is part of how the power systems are able to handle adding renewable capacity. Adding battery backup is another way to load level, and is probably required to increase renewable use beyond something like 20% of the generated power.
For example:
"Single-shaft gas turbine designs can accept greater step loads, varying from 50 percent to 100 percent depending on the model, rating and site conditions. In the case of a 50MW single-shaft gas turbine, it is possible to load the unit from zero to full load in two steps within 30 seconds."
http://www.power-eng.com/artic...
Yes, criminals disregard laws - no one suggests otherwise, so that's not the end of the discussion. Because criminals disregard gun laws, in order to have lower gun related homicide and injury rates the U.S. needs a) fewer guns in circulation and b) fewer people allowed to have guns legally (e.g. mentally unstable types and known criminals).
This means:
- strict background checks and oversight of mental condition of gun owners
- no loopholes for sales without checks (e.g. gun shows) and no straw purchases
- consequences for owners that don't properly store their guns
Do these things impinge the rights of lawful gun owners? Or just put a dent in firearms sales...?
I don't know the answer to that, but we have to move the discussion beyond these lame talking points that are constantly trotted out.
There are two big problems with the "other countries with more guns have fewer mass shootings" line of argument:
1) Countries like Switzerland with high percentages of gun ownership also have much stricter oversight and evaluation of the gun owners, e.g. because it's part of military service requirements.
2) Total rates of gun homicide and injury are what really matter, not just the sensational mass shootings. Other countries like Finland that had a mass shooting still have far lower gun homicide and injury rates than the U.S. (about 3:1 in this case according to Wikipedia) In other words, mass shootings are a distraction and red herring when comparing the U.S. to other countries.
The problem in the U.S. is that the country is awash with firearms coupled with a lack of strict oversight.
- Legal guns are stolen and used in crimes. Owners are not held accountable for locking up their guns. The more legal guns there are then naturally the more guns that can be stolen and used in crimes.
- Many legally owned guns are used in suicides and in response to short-tempered arguments. If a gun is at hand then the chances of using one is much higher...
The conclusion I draw is that reducing the overall number of guns in the U.S. would directly reduce gun homicide, injury and mass shootings by reducing access to guns for both crime and "unplanned" events. Having more oversight would have a similar effect on reducing cases of legal guns being stolen and used in crimes and for unstable people having access.
If the pro-gun lobby doesn't want to reduce the number, then they should get on board with stricter oversight and responsibility for owners. This argument about other countries' situations should be followed through to the natural conclusion that we would have to act similarly to obtain similar results.
It's not clear you read or understood the Science article. I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof. I'm encouraging you to read up on the subject for yourself before posting that something you don't understand is written by kooks.
The inaccuracies fall into two categories: offset errors and variations. The offset errors are what need to be taken out between different sets of measurements from different types of instruments. Where the data sets overlap in location and time then the offsets can be estimated and used to align the data sets. The article explains this, and it's a very common thing to do. It's not about resolution or solely variation. (How did you come to that conclusion?)
Not sure what your point is. The models are useful, but don't pay attention to them because they have (what would seem to be typical) modeing issues,... so they're not useful? Seems muddled.
As you say yourself, the models are useful for understanding trends and influences, and continue to improve.
Note that the reason you're able to point out a citation on this is because the IPCC (and others) are pointing it out for all to be aware of. It's not like they're not aware of this or trying to hide it.
By your statement, "You can't take a variable you've hand tuned and claim anything about it's predictive powers," you may be missing the point. If the TOA adjustment is to align the model state at some point in time or points in time to real data by "adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds," then how does that invalidate trend and sensitivity predictions of the overall model?
What do you think could be done better? Is there a better method to set these parameters other than TOA balance?
And, more importantly, do you have evidence that the model predictions are heavily sensitive to the sort (or magnitude) of adjustments being made? (I don't know myself, but you seem awfully concerned about the TOA adjustment in particular, so is there an analysis of this you can point to?)
Of course there are inaccuracies in the data. We'd be foolish to assume they're perfectly accurate to sub 0.1degC, no? And no one said the warming rate was constant over the last 100 years. Read again.
As to your last statement... Geez. You really should read up on the techniques and methods used in climate science rather than assuming you know what's going on and assuming the worst. There is a lot to read out there if you want to get into it. The Science article, it's supplemental materials and references are a starting point.
First: There is additional supplemental material linked from the article, e.g. http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Second: Can you point these out specifically and what indicates this is the authors' "goal" ? Their stated goal is to review the temperature data set. They're reporting what they found. And the data is there to see.
Finally: You're confusing the estimate of the warming in the 20th century with the IPCC's forward estimate of warming in the 21st century. The authors of the paper are stating that the revisions to the data set based on aligning buoy with other temperature measurements mainly affects the period from 1998 forward, where significantly more buoy data was added to the set, that the data for the prior period isn't affected much by these adjustments, and that the resulting trends are similar throughout the period, thus the "hiatus" was an artifact of misaligned data in the data set.
Perhaps you should read up on how the data sets are merged and aligned before assuming it's "massaging." It should all be open and published for review. For example, ERSST version 4 is available here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/d...
Alignment of temperature measurements has been part of the analyses for a long, long time. Do you have a better suggestion as to how to deal with large data sets collected by different types of instruments?
Maybe, just maybe you should read the original article and references and think for yourself, rather than relying on any of "the media" to present the science?
Why do you think there would be a "system-wide calibration'' in the first place? It's a freaking huge set of instruments and what they're doing is reviewing the gathered data and checking the alignment where there are overlapping observations between types of instruments. The new buoys are probably the most accurate (in an absolute sense) of the SST instruments out there, and even the article notes that the variation (tolerance) of the buoy measurements is the tightest yet.
What would you propose they do differently, exactly?
You can make the adjustment either way. It's not the absolute numbers that matter, but keeping the trendlines aligned where they overlap. The old data set is huge, so you could either adjust all the non-buoy data or all the buoy data. Doesn't matter which, in the end, since we're interested in the trend.
"First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). "
Well, they'd better have something to show... From the release:
"Cambridge Consultants is demonstrating Pizzicato at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, March 2-5, stand 7B21 in Hall 7."