Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[Charles Stucker]

They're in the damn desert...Of course solar is going to work better for them.

The US has plenty of desert.

What are you supposed to to in more moist and temperate climates and/or places where it can snow two feet at a time?

Hope the people in the Desert change to Solar so your heating oil is cheaper from lower overall demand.

Oh no hope and change again.
Damn.

 

[Oddball]

America's desert areas are largely powered via hydro....Y'konw, the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams and like that.

If you hope that solar can supplement and/or supplant traditional generation methods, how 'bout you pull the money out of your pocket to invest in it and let me put my money where I choose to?

 

[Old Rocks]

They're in the damn desert...Of course solar is going to work better for them.

The US has plenty of desert.

What are you supposed to to in more moist and temperate climates and/or places where it can snow two feet at a time?

Hope the people in the Desert change to Solar so your heating oil is cheaper from lower overall demand.

Oh no hope and change again.
Damn.

Well, Charlie, Hope and Change are not bad things. Here is an ongoing example of some thing that may solve the problem of the cost of production and materials in solar cells. Enough so that $1 solar cells may be considered expensive by 2012.

Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com

Beaverton firm will produce cheaper quantum dots
By Chris Spitzer
August 10, 2009, 5:12PM
The price of dust is about to drop.

Not exciting, you say? This isn't ordinary dust - look very close, and you'll see billions of identical crystals, each speck just one-thousandth the width of a human hair. These "quantum dots" efficiently convert between light and electricity. They will play a key role in next-generation solar panels, photodetectors, video displays and lighting.

Voxtel Inc., a private Beaverton company just 10 years old, has developed a new manufacturing process that promises to significantly decrease the cost of dots. Their aim is to grab a role, for themselves and Oregon, in the emerging quantum dot market, projected to grow to more than $700 million by 2013.

Quantum dots are extremely flexible and efficient when it comes to gathering sunlight for cheap, clean solar energy. Voxtel's breakthrough could pack the power-generating potential of large traditional solar panels into packages small enough to carry. Imagine discreet solar panels woven in to your shirt or handbag. Dead cell phone and iPods would be a thing of the past.


"Solar power is exciting because you can create the energy where it's needed," says Brian Bower, who handles technical communications.

The high cost of quantum dots, $5,000 per gram at the low end, has been a barrier for two decades. Dots are conventionally made by a chemist one batch at a time.

Voxtel invented a continuous system that automatically pumps out dots in large quantities, and even works with materials more environmentally friendly than those before. Their target is around $10 per gram with the capacity to fabricate kilograms of dots per week from a single production line. It takes about a tenth of a gram to make a square foot solar panel.

 

[Charles Stucker]

If you hope that solar can supplement and/or supplant traditional generation methods, how 'bout you pull the money out of your pocket to invest in it and let me put my money where I choose to?

I think we're sending crossed messages here.
I started in an effort to remind you that even if someone is generally an idiot, sometimes they can stumble over the truth.

I'm stating let the Israeli's make the investment and the US gets the benefit wherever we can as soon as it is economical.
You're right the government does not need to spend tons of money pushing solar power. Either industry tales a risk and invests (on spec) or we wait for it to come from somewhere else.

Either way I'm all for anything to lower my (real) electric bill. I include the real because taxing someone else is not lowering the real bill, it's just stealing from someone else.

 

[Oddball]

I'm all for that, as long as it's privately funded.

All taxpayer funding for such R&D does is subsidize inefficiency and failure.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, just like the example of the government funding some nonsense about semi-conductors in 1948.

 

[mdn2000]

solar sucks especially in a desert, the line loss transmitting power from the desert to population centers will reduce the amount of power already coming from this extremely weak source of energy. What about the water needed just to run a solar power farm, where does that come from in a desert. Are we going to pump water from the city, from the colorado, people are already fighting over water now we will compete with the solar farms for water, will the solar farms pay full price for the water, if so how will solar ever pay for itself.

What about the fact to make solar as in the photovoltaic takes tremendous amounts of energy, electrical energy, more than a solar farm can supply.

CO2 is damaging the earth, why build wind or solar when these types of energy destroy the earth at a rate 10,000 times greater than fossil fuels. I thought the idea was to save the earth. How come nobody can why their solution is worst than the problem

 

[Oddball]

Ah yes, just like the example of the government funding some nonsense about semi-conductors in 1948.

1948?!?!?!?? ...I'd ask if you were serious if I didn't already know you were.

You gotta know the list of unarguable "accomplishments" of gubmint research is pretty thin if you have to go back 60 years!

 

[mdn2000]

Hmmm........ Every time someone does a serious study on this, the Hockey Stick Graph just gets more confirmation.


Novel Analysis Confirms Climate "Hockey Stick" Graph: Scientific American

The “hockey stick” graph has been both a linchpin and target in the climate change debate. As a plot of average Northern Hemisphere temperature from two millennia ago to the present, it stays relatively flat until the 20th century, when it rises up sharply, like the blade of an upturned hockey stick. Warming skeptics have long decried how the temperatures were inferred, but a new reconstruction of the past 600 years, using an entirely different method, finds similar results and may help remove lingering doubts.

The hockey stick came to life in 1998 thanks to the work of Michael Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University, and his colleagues (and many other climate scientists who subsequently refined the graph). Reconstructing historical temperatures is difficult: investigators must combine information from tree rings, coral drilling, pinecones, ice cores and other natural records and then convert them to temperatures at specific times and places in the past. Such proxies for temperature can be sparse or incomplete, both geographically and through time. Mann’s method used the overlap, where it exists, of recent proxy data and instrument data (such as from thermometers) to estimate relations between them. It calculates earlier temperatures using a mathematical extrapolation technique [see “Behind the Hockey Stick,” by David Appell, Insights; Scientific American, March 2005].

FRAUD, OLD CROCK IS A FRAUD

Gateway Pundit

Friday, November 20, 2009, 11:52 AM
Jim Hoft
Dr. Michael Mann co-authored the famous graph of temperature trends dubbed the “hockey stick graph.”
Today, Mann was implicated in the global warming email and document conspiracy.

Mann’s controversial work has been challenged in the past.

Dr. Mann was implicated in the global warming email conspiracy. It was reported on several websites today that classified emails and files prove that the junk scientists behind the global warming movement knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the global community. Mann’s name came up in several of the emails. The posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU’s director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

Dr. Mann was questioned later in the day and he spoke out about the documents and emails:

Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”

Things don’t look good for Dr. Mann.

 

[Oddball]

* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

- Bishop Hill blog - Climate cuttings*33

Warmist conspiracy exposed? | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

 

[konradv]

The REAL hockey stick. No fudging this one and it's from this that all the others follow.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ideal climate.. Improving communications and food resources --- perfect breeding ground..
If that doesn't please you -- call an exterminator..

 

[Crick]

You think food resources are improving? What does the San Joaquin Valley look like in your universe?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ideal climate.. Improving communications and food resources --- perfect breeding ground..
If that doesn't please you -- call an exterminator..

Science and medical cures It is wonderful! It will also be used to save us from any climate change and take humanity to the stars.

 

[IanC]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

I just wanted to bump this prediction of 5.2C by 2100 made by MIT. Still sound reasonable?

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, it is 2015, and we will probably hit 1 degree this year. I sincerely hope that we will not get anywhere near 5.1, even 2 degrees will be way too much. Some of my favorite places are burning right now.

 

[flacaltenn]

Atmospheric CO2 has almost doubled in the last 200 years.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in 600,000 years.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice cap and the glaciers continue to melt.

We continue to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

These are the facts.

And yet NO ONE can actually connect them with any real scientific data, GO FIGURE. But hey thanks for playing.

The boys at MIT can....

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

I just wanted to bump this prediction of 5.2C by 2100 made by MIT. Still sound reasonable?

Are you the one that necroed this thread?? My favorite line from that abstract is..

Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

What Climate models themselves are not tough enough for MIT?? Gotta roll in a global economics model AND and energy model ON TOP OF IT????

That's just showin' off right there.. I don't think the 5.2degC is anywhere near correct. But actually --- I'm more interested in the performance of their economic and energy model part of it.. That may be worse by 2100 than the climate projections..

Wonder if the feedbacks in their economics model use the climate effects of drowning Miami and Boston in the year 2085...

 

[flacaltenn]

You think food resources are improving? What does the San Joaquin Valley look like in your universe?

The outlook is absolutely FABULOUS for raisins.. And that's one of BIG crops for the Valley. Whatsamatter Bullwinkle? You run out of artichokes or something?? When God brings you drought, make raisins and dried prunes..

And for god's sake -- get them to quit voting in leftists...

 

[Wyatt earp]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_19_2_deming.pdf

Global Warming, the Politicization of Science,
and Michael Crichton's State of Fear

A direct attack on Mann et al. (1999) appeared later in 2003. Two Canadian
scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, tried to replicate the results of
Mann et al. (1998), but were unable to do so. In a paper published in Energy &
Environment, they claimed:
The data set of [Mann et al., 19981 . . . contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation
or extrapolation of source data obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect
calculation of principal components, and other quality control defects. (McIntyre &
McKitrick, 2003: 751)
McIntyre and McKitrick also found that Mann et al.'s (1998) results could not
be supported by the data.
The particular "hockey stick" shape derived in the [Mann et al., 19981 proxy
reconstruction . . . is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and
incorrect calculation of principal components. (McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003: 751)
An even more serious critique of the Mann et al. (1998, 1999) climate
reconstructions appeared in Science in October, 2004. Von Storch et al. (2004)
Global Warming and State of Fear 25 1
pointed out that the methodology used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was flawed.
Their reconstruction technique tended to dampen out, and thus obliterate, past
temperature changes. Although the analysis by von Storch et al. (2004)
published in Science was damning, the language was diplomatic.
The centennial variability of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is underestimated

SMFH

6 years latter he is still spouting the same crap from his high priest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well someone is resurrecting the Mann Lie and failed predictions 101 class.. I had forgotten how utterly ridicules the Mann predictions and MIT crap was back then...