2014 hottest year on record

What we have here is a left wing communist liberal loony toon plot to turn the world into a nanny state while lining someone's pockets. Being contradicted by a right wing fanatical wingnut conspiracy to line the pockets of someone else instead.

Meanwhile, the rest of us reasonable people are stuck surrounded by bull****.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
What we have here is a left wing communist liberal loony toon plot to turn the world into a nanny state while lining someone's pockets. Being contradicted by a right wing fanatical wingnut conspiracy to line the pockets of someone else instead.

Meanwhile, the rest of us reasonable people are stuck surrounded by bull****.
Click to expand...

Actually it's an attempt to wrest the energy industry out of the 19th Century and create something sustainable with our near 8 fold increase in population since we first came up with our current energy use and management system.
 
Henning said:
Again I ask, do you deny the measured temperatures in the NOAA report are accurate?
Click to expand...

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

Watts’ accusation of NOAA climate data manipulation comes after reports that the agency had been lowering past temperatures to create a warming trend in the U.S. that does not exist in the raw data.

The ex-post facto data manipulation has been cataloged by climate blogger Steven Goddard and was reported by the UK Telegraph earlier this month.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.

“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”

“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/n...s-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/
 
CharlieTango said:
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

Watts’ accusation of NOAA climate data manipulation comes after reports that the agency had been lowering past temperatures to create a warming trend in the U.S. that does not exist in the raw data.

The ex-post facto data manipulation has been cataloged by climate blogger Steven Goddard and was reported by the UK Telegraph earlier this month.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.

“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”

“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/n...s-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/
Click to expand...

If you can't trust NOAA, who can you trust?
 
CharlieTango said:
NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

Watts’ accusation of NOAA climate data manipulation comes after reports that the agency had been lowering past temperatures to create a warming trend in the U.S. that does not exist in the raw data.

The ex-post facto data manipulation has been cataloged by climate blogger Steven Goddard and was reported by the UK Telegraph earlier this month.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.

“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”

“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/n...s-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/2/
Click to expand...

Meh..... the ends justifies the means.............:rolleyes:
 
Henning said:
So do you believe that NOAA is lying about measured temperatures given in the report I cited?
Click to expand...

NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.



Fig.D.gif (525×438)

But NASA and NOAA have a little problem. The EPA still shows that heatwaves during the 1930s were by far the worst in US temperature record.

ScreenHunter_556 Jun. 20 05.14high-low-temps-figure1-2014

Heat waves in the 1930s remain the most severe heat waves in the U.S. historical record (see Figure 1).

High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change | US EPA

George Orwell explained how this worked.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell, 1984

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/
 
Henning said:
Do you deny this report as factual: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/?
Click to expand...

"The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as," Goddard told FoxNews.com. He's not the only one to question NOAA's efforts.

"Every time NOAA makes adjustments, they make recent years [relatively] warmer. I am very suspicious, especially for how warm they have made 2012," Spencer said.

The newly adjusted data set is known as "version 2.5," while the less adjusted data is called "version 2.0."

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013...-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/
 
Waaaahhhh no one respects and trusts scientists anymore waaaaahhhhhh!!!!!:lol:
 
I'm trying to wrap my head around how historic data can have "versions". It's already happened. Too late to change it.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Waaaahhhh no one respects and trusts scientists anymore waaaaahhhhhh!!!!!:lol:
Click to expand...

It is because they are solely motivated by government funding, so their outcomes are based on what the conclusions the government wants. Pure greed at the taxpayers expense, just like public sector unions.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Veterans get preferential Federal hiring. Created a whole new class of royalty, do twenty in the service take your pension and go do another easy 20 with the Federal government retire with possibly 40 more years to live having two pensions and gold plated bennies. No problem the empire can afford it.
Click to expand...

Only if you were enlisted. Officers cannot collect their pension while working for Uncle Sugar. The additional time in government service does count, however.
 
Anthony said:
It is because they are solely motivated by government funding, so their outcomes are based on what the conclusions the government wants. Pure greed at the taxpayers expense, just like public sector unions.
Click to expand...

Best post of the tread.....:yes:.....:thumbsup:
 
Ghery said:
Only if you were enlisted. Officers cannot collect their pension while working for Uncle Sugar. The additional time in government service does count, however.
Click to expand...

Officers just go on permanent disability, collect that perk TAX FREE... and then get another guvmint job....
 
N801BH said:
Best post of the tread.....:yes:.....:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

And one of the most ignorant, too. Government does not typically get involved in the selection of basic science research projects. Government supplies much of the cash, but the grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by committees made up primarily of other researchers.

If someone came up with a compelling line of research that disproved the current concept of AGW, they would be shoving money down his throat to get the project funded.

If you don't understand how research projects operate, you really shouldn't make wild speculations.
 
write-stuff said:
And one of the most ignorant, too. Government does not typically get involved in the selection of basic science research projects. Government supplies much of the cash, but the grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by committees made up primarily of other researchers.

If someone came up with a compelling line of research that disproved the current concept of AGW, they would be shoving money down his throat to get the project funded.

If you don't understand how research projects operate, you really shouldn't make wild speculations.
Click to expand...
Silence peasants! How dare you wildly speculate about the king's men. When the king's alchemists succeed we will be the richest kingdom the world has ever seen, no one dare discount alchemy.
 
write-stuff said:
And one of the most ignorant, too. Government does not typically get involved in the selection of basic science research projects. Government supplies much of the cash, but the grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by committees made up primarily of other researchers.

If someone came up with a compelling line of research that disproved the current concept of AGW, they would be shoving money down his throat to get the project funded.

If you don't understand how research projects operate, you really shouldn't make wild speculations.
Click to expand...



Hmmmm..

Care to expand on the "vibrant Solar industry" that Obama claims is the future.....

The Feds have thrown 25 BILLION into that failed venture.....

Just make a phone call to Solyndra.... They will answer all your questions.... And that fiasco only cost the US taxpayers 600 million.. :rolleyes::rolleyes:.......:mad2:
 
N801BH said:
Hmmmm..

Care to expand on the "vibrant Solar industry" that Obama claims is the future.....

The Feds have thrown 25 BILLION into that failed venture.....

Just make a phone call to Solyndra.... They will answer all your questions.... And that fiasco only cost the US taxpayers 600 million.. :rolleyes::rolleyes:.......:mad2:
Click to expand...

Non sequitur. The previous poster suggested that basic science research grants were rigged by the government. Solyndra wasn't a research project.

And solar energy will very likely become the preferred energy producer sooner rather than later.
 
write-stuff said:
Non sequitur. The previous poster suggested that basic science research grants were rigged by the government. Solyndra wasn't a research project.

And solar energy will very likely become the preferred energy producer sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
When will they be able to make solar panels in a plant powered by solar panels?
Hint: Never. Not enough energy density. Total waste of money.
 
Having a new off-grid property, I've been investigating solar energy. It's a fact that PV prices have tumbled in the past 3-6 years. Each year I would check it, the PV pricing became more attractive. However, they have a long, long, long, long, long way to go before it will be more than a passing effort.

The things I've learned in the past month about solar make me laugh pretty hard when I hear someone say it's going to be a preferred anything in the future. Since I cannot attach anything, here's a snippet of my calcs for off grid:

Load Watts time in hours example 15 minutes = .25 hours watt hours Concurrent use in watts
Lights 24 4 96 48
TV 100 4 400 100
Computer 40 2 80
Well pump Use daily average run time(*wind *) 0 0 0
Microwave(*none*) 0
toaster(*propane on stove*) 0
refrigeration (*propane*) 0
Freezer (*propane*) 0
coffee maker(*percolater*) 0
Washing machine, One cycle per two day 700 0.6 420
Vacuum(* or washer, either but not both*) 1200 0.5 600 1200
Power tools(*hard to calc daily use!*) 250 0.12 30
Total daily load (Watt hours) 1626
Inverter efficiency (use midpoint on efficiency curve) ex 80% enter .8 0.8

Total daily load (Watt hours including inverter losses) 2032.5
Maximum load (to inverter) 1348

Lowest daily insolation for area and time of year the system will be used 2.4
Use PV watts to determine insolation or http://www.gaisma.com/en/
Amp hour capacity Max charge current FLA Max charge current AGM
Battery bank @12 V (AH 20% daily DOD) 846.88 105.86 211.72
Battery bank @24 V (AH 20% daily DOD) 423.44 52.93 105.86
Battery bank@48V (AH 20% daily DOD) 211.72 26.46 52.93
Amp @12V Amp @24V Amp@48V
Panel wattage required PWM controller 1693.75 141.1 70.6 35.3
Panel wattage required MPPT controller 1270.31 105.86 52.93 26.46



Maximum amps to inverter @12V 112.3
Maximum amps to inverter @24V 56.2
Maximum amps to inverter @48V 28.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Presuming that the average person in the US consumes about 15MEGAWatts per year, making enough power for us via solar will require that every square inch of non-populated states of Texas, NM, OK, and most of AZ have to be covered in PV to power the nation. I think those states might object to that, but - I could be wrong. :lol:
 
write-stuff said:
And one of the most ignorant, too. Government does not typically get involved in the selection of basic science research projects. Government supplies much of the cash, but the grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by committees made up primarily of other researchers.

If someone came up with a compelling line of research that disproved the current concept of AGW, they would be shoving money down his throat to get the project funded.

If you don't understand how research projects operate, you really shouldn't make wild speculations.[/QUOTE]

And you think those researchers don't know how to keep their pockets lined with taxpayer cash by providing the results the government wants?

Naive.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
When will they be able to make solar panels in a plant powered by solar panels?
Hint: Never. Not enough energy density. Total waste of money.
Click to expand...

Now there's a very clever argument. How many generators does it take to build one generator? How many coal plants does it take to build one coal plant? This energy in vs. energy out is a canard in this case.

Let's say 10 solar panels produce enough electricity to build one solar panel. The original 10 don't disappear after the construction of that first panel - they're still there producing more panels. So 10 solar panels might create, say, 10,000 solar panels before they are spent.

Tell Elon Musk that you think its a total waste of money.
 
Norman said:
write-stuff said:
And one of the most ignorant, too. Government does not typically get involved in the selection of basic science research projects. Government supplies much of the cash, but the grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by committees made up primarily of other researchers.

If someone came up with a compelling line of research that disproved the current concept of AGW, they would be shoving money down his throat to get the project funded.

If you don't understand how research projects operate, you really shouldn't make wild speculations.[/QUOTE]

And you think those researchers don't know how to keep their pockets lined with taxpayer cash by providing the results the government wants?

Naive.
Click to expand...

Ok, why don't you explain how scientific research funding works. If I'm naive, you must have some better information than I do. What is it? Do you actually know any scientific researchers who have described the process to you?
Click to expand...
 
write-stuff said:
And solar energy will very likely become the preferred energy producer sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation on your part, and really nothing based in fact. For every unit of solar energy generated, another unit of fossil, hydro, or nuke must be created as solar can not be relied upon as uninterruptable. Sometimes the sun does not shine, and solar produces ZERO energy.

When you mean sooner, you mean several millenia from now, right?
 
There ain't enough solar panels in the world to refine metal. 11 watts per square foot is all the sun gives. If I had Elon Musk's tax liabilities damn straight I'd be throwing money away on gov loved stupid solar projects.:lol:
write-stuff said:
Now there's a very clever argument. How many generators does it take to build one generator? How many coal plants does it take to build one coal plant? This energy in vs. energy out is a canard in this case.

Let's say 10 solar panels produce enough electricity to build one solar panel. The original 10 don't disappear after the construction of that first panel - they're still there producing more panels. So 10 solar panels might create, say, 10,000 solar panels before they are spent.

Tell Elon Musk that you think its a total waste of money.
Click to expand...
 
write-stuff said:
Let's say 10 solar panels produce enough electricity to build one solar panel. The original 10 don't disappear after the construction of that first panel - they're still there producing more panels. So 10 solar panels might create, say, 10,000 solar panels before they are spent.

Tell Elon Musk that you think its a total waste of money.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets say that. If you knew anything about the process of making a PV cell, this would be hilarious. I won't go into specifics, but the first thing you need to do is to make the pure Si crystal. You do this by 'growing' a crystal from small grain Silica and applying a carbon arc to the media. OBTW - this is done in a furnace at about 1400deg C.

I will leave the calculations to raise a furnace to 1400C via PV panel to the class. I expect the number will have a rather large exponent involved. :yes:
 
docmirror said:
Ok, lets say that. If you knew anything about the process of making a PV cell, this would be hilarious. I won't go into specifics, but the first thing you need to do is to make the pure Si crystal. You do this by 'growing' a crystal from small grain Silica and applying a carbon arc to the media. OBTW - this is done in a furnace at about 1400deg C.

I will leave the calculations to raise a furnace to 1400C via PV panel to the class. I expect the number will have a rather large exponent involved. :yes:
Click to expand...


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:...:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:...... Too funny.....
 
docmirror said:
Ok, lets say that. If you knew anything about the process of making a PV cell, this would be hilarious. I won't go into specifics, but the first thing you need to do is to make the pure Si crystal. You do this by 'growing' a crystal from small grain Silica and applying a carbon arc to the media. OBTW - this is done in a furnace at about 1400deg C.

I will leave the calculations to raise a furnace to 1400C via PV panel to the class. I expect the number will have a rather large exponent involved. :yes:
Click to expand...


LOL, that's a furnace big enough to do a large lot of panels, not just one...... is that theory or Theory??:rolleyes:
 
PaulS said:
LOL, that's a furnace big enough to do a large lot of panels, not just one...... is that theory or Theory??:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

None of it is theory or Theory. This is empirical result. I used to make semi-conductors for a living, including a short stint at Argon Diffusion labs which made Si-111 ingots. I assure you, to get it fired, and get the carbon arc running would require thousands of PV panels.
 
docmirror said:
None of it is theory or Theory. This is empirical result. I used to make semi-conductors for a living, including a short stint at Argon Diffusion labs which made Si-111 ingots. I assure you, to get it fired, and get the carbon arc running would require thousands of PV panels.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with you. 10 solar panels would not be able to produce to much of anything, never mind another solar panel.
 
PaulS said:
I was agreeing with you. 10 solar panels would not be able to produce to much of anything, never mind another solar panel.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree..... It has fueled a massive and idiotic frenzy of federal spending from the liberal politicians in DC...:mad2::mad2::mad2:.......:mad:
 
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree..... It has fueled a massive and idiotic frenzy of federal spending from the liberal politicians in DC...:mad2::mad2::mad2:.......:mad:
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, thank you, I should have said much of anything useful.
 
N801BH said:
I respectfully disagree..... It has fueled a massive and idiotic frenzy of federal spending from the liberal politicians in DC...:mad2::mad2::mad2:.......:mad:
Click to expand...

Now that's enough hot air to fire a whole slew of diffusion furnaces. All we need to do is capture it and convert it to heat, sorta like that plan to harvest cow farts for energy. Now that I think about it, that's a rather apt simile. :yesnod:
 
docmirror said:
Ok, lets say that. If you knew anything about the process of making a PV cell, this would be hilarious. I won't go into specifics, but the first thing you need to do is to make the pure Si crystal. You do this by 'growing' a crystal from small grain Silica and applying a carbon arc to the media. OBTW - this is done in a furnace at about 1400deg C.

I will leave the calculations to raise a furnace to 1400C via PV panel to the class. I expect the number will have a rather large exponent involved. :yes:
Click to expand...

The 10 to 1 example was nothing more than a metaphor. The previous poster made this silly statement and I pulled the 10 to 1 example out to demonstrate the mistake in his logic. It could be 100 to 1 or 1000 to 1 and the message would have been unchanged.

"When will they be able to make solar panels in a plant powered by solar panels? Hint: Never. Not enough energy density. Total waste of money."

The fact is that solar PV technology is plummeting in cost and there is no reason to not expect this trend to continue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...r-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar.html
 
Here's a very new solar farm recently constructed by Georgia Power near the airport at Covington (CVC). The day I shot this photo, I flew up to Chattanooga (CHA). I didn't take a picture, but right off the end of RWY 2 was a fairly large solar array.

solar-farm.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top