How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Wild Bill]

It is following the same curve, just stretched out in time. It's still exponentially accelerating, just like computer technology. Almost any performance measure of state-of-the-art technology follows the same characteristic curve. Whether it is computer performance, miniaturization of mechanical components, energy storage, material properties, biotech, nanotech, etc. Individual technologies mature and stop progressing, but are soon displaced by new technologies that continue the exponential growth of the underlying performance measure.

We're not really disagreeing, Bonam! "just stretched out in time" is an important variable. It fits with my premise that non-technical or practical people take it for granted that we will see electric car battery technology just as quickly as we saw computer improvements.

I mean, scale the time axis on a graph over several centuries and that progress is almost a certainty. To expect it within a decade or so is just a wild ass guess that warrants careful consideration before investing large sums of money.

And BC2004 is also quite right that we must account for how we power these vehicles, with necessary infrastructure that is not presently in our home garage. We also have to consider how much power the grid has available. If your car runs out of juice on the way to work will you have to wait until after 9:00 pm before you can afford to re-charge it?

[Saipan]

Difficult to predict future precisely. But it wasn't really that long ago when most people resisted to steam engine transport. It was well known that human organism cannot handle speeds over 30 mph.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Well, if we have seen anything here at MLW, it is the consistent bleating of conspiracy theorists. What they won't tell you is that the "pollution" footprint for manufacturing a shiny new hi-tech electric vehicle is far greater than buying a small used ULEV/PZEV gas/diesel engined car.

I like how you conveniently ignore that the footprint of the electric vehicle is actually lower over the lifespan of the vehicle.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/06/lowcvp-20110608.html

Edited August 23, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Michael Hardner]

Did you even read what I wrote! I explained that temperature data CANNOT be used because that is the data you are regressing with. It is like asking a company to audit itself - sure there is a chance that the company will do fine but without an independent audit you can't know. Why is this concept so hard to understand? There is no real data that tells us the data is wrong. There is only speculation and hypothesis.

I do get what you're saying, and theoretically you're correct. However, if we were to be exact, the data isn't "thrown out" it's eliminated by adding another variable into the equation - the "trick" to reduce the correlation factor for this variable since 1960.

[TimG]

I do get what you're saying, and theoretically you're correct. However, if we were to be exact, the data isn't "thrown out" it's eliminated by adding another variable into the equation - the "trick" to reduce the correlation factor for this variable since 1960.

There was no other variable added. All they did is was what you are doing now: assume the data is good before 1960 but bad after 1960 because the correlation broke down. It bad science. Hiding the trunctation in the graphs like they did is dishonest and deceptive. It would be called fraud if some could prove that the data is, in fact, junk because these tree rings are not temperature proxies. Unfortunately, that is impossible to do. This is an example of how group think leads to subjective interpretations of data that are likely wrong.

[Michael Hardner]

There was no other variable added. All they did is was what you are doing now: assume the data is good before 1960 but bad after 1960 because the correlation broke down. It bad science. Hiding the trunctation in the graphs like they did is dishonest and deceptive. It would be called fraud if some could prove that the data is, in fact, junk because these tree rings are not temperature proxies. Unfortunately, that is impossible to do. This is an example of how group think leads to subjective interpretations of data that are likely wrong.

Calling it fraud is complete hyperbole. The methods are well known.

[TimG]

Calling it fraud is complete hyperbole. The methods are well known.

What methods are those? Waving your arms and mumbling something about how pollution might have caused growth to stop in 1960? You like you throw out definitive generalizations because you hope to hide that fact that, in this case, there is no justification for what they did. It is dishonest and deceptive. And yes, it would be called fraud if someone in the future can definitively prove that these tree rings are not temperature proxies (an unlikely event proof of anything is impossible to obtain). Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is dishonest and deceptive. And yes, it would be called fraud if someone in the future can definitively prove that these tree rings are not temperature proxies (an unlikely event proof of anything is impossible to obtain).

I disagree. The papers were published for review.

In any case, if the tree ring data is rejected doesn't it just mean that the MWP was as warm as the current era ? I don't think that discounts the current warming. And if you just use modern temperature readings, don't we still have a warming trend correlated to CO2 ?

[waldo]

Hiding the trunctation in the graphs like they did is dishonest and deceptive. It would be called fraud if some could prove that the data is, in fact, junk because these tree rings are not temperature proxies. Unfortunately, that is impossible to do. This is an example of how group think leads to subjective interpretations of data that are likely wrong.

like this, in your latest series of posts within this thread, you've quite liberally applied the use of the labels/accusations, "fraud", "dishonesty", "deceptive"...

although we've danced this dance before, be precise, be very, very precise: identify your basis for such applied labels/accusations.

you also have, quite liberally, attached the logical fallacy of "group think"... in such a wide scatter-gun approach that it's hard to recognize just who/what groups you don't actually include as your targets... well, other than that your targets, apparently, according to you, all accept the theory of AGW. Of course, even if one were to give your views on "group think" even the minimum, the barest, the slightest of consideration, one can only surmise that group think doesn't exist in denialTown! Nope... no one of a denier/skeptical persuasion, in TimG's most select use of the term, could ever be considered to hold and/or express views that might be subject to the presumed TimG group think influences. How selectively applied, hey?

Edited August 23, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

I disagree. The papers were published for review.

Your are simply moving the pea under the thimbles. This issue is not about the peer reviewed literature where the data was shown. It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

In any case, if the tree ring data is rejected doesn't it just mean that the MWP was as warm as the current era ? I don't think that discounts the current warming. And if you just use modern temperature readings, don't we still have a warming trend correlated to CO2 ?

So what? The entire issue shows how climate scientists manipulate data in order to promote the conclusions they want to promote and why group think is a serious problem even though you deny it. Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

TimG... since you won't respond to the challenge directly... as always, you continue to exhibit tell-tale signs of denier group think, ala your lapdog syndrome to the never-ending, McIntyre self-styled, "hockey-stick slayer" extraordinaire!!!

like this, in your latest series of posts within this thread, you've quite liberally applied the use of the labels/accusations, "fraud", "dishonesty", "deceptive"...

although we've danced this dance before, be precise, be very, very precise: identify your basis for such applied labels/accusations.

This issue is not about the peer reviewed literature where the data was shown. It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

The entire issue shows how climate scientists manipulate data in order to promote the conclusions they want to promote and why group think is a serious problem even though you deny it

as I said, be precise... be very precise: What graphs? What data manipulation by climate scientists?

IPCC TAR WG1 SPM (Summary for PolicyMakers): Page 3 - graphic b as titled, "Variations of the Earth's surface temperature for: the past 1000 years":

Additionally, the year by year (blue curve) and 50 year average (black curve) variations of the average surface temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1000 years have been reconstructed from “proxy” data calibrated against thermometer data (see list of the main proxy data in the diagram). The 95% confidence range in the annual data is represented by the grey region. These uncertainties increase in more distant times and are always much larger than in the instrumental record due to the use of relatively sparse proxy data. Nevertheless the rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely7 that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium. [based upon Chapter 2, Figure 2.7c and Chapter 2, Figure 2.20]

per a previous MLW post, IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 – Palaeoclimate - 6.6.1 Northern Hemisphere Temperature Variability

If you don't think the graph is deceptive......then there's nothing that can be done for you. Your efforts to pull in all sorts of counter arguments to excuse the deception are valiant but the fact is - the graph is deceptive....period. It tries to deceive....period. Science should be better.

oh ya -

so deceptive

- to morons who wish to purposely push doubt and uncertainty. You just won't read the exact printed report words - will you?

a footnote? Oh… you want an explanatory footnote! Well skippy, there was much more than your called for “footnote”. The actual IPCC report graphic itself presents 12 reconstructions and the available instrumental temperature record, all colour-code labelled and all superimposed overtop of each other – the Briffa2001 reconstruction being one of the 12. The graphic, Figure 6.10 as referenced in the following quote, clearly shows the post-1960 period point where the Briffa reconstruction ended… while also showing all 11 of the other various scientist’s reconstructions continuing uninterrupted – continuing to show increased warming. The actual accompanying IPCC AR4 report text itself reads:

Several analyses of ring width and ring density chronologies, with otherwise well-established sensitivity to temperature, have shown that they do not emulate the general warming trend evident in instrumental temperature records over recent decades, although they do track the warming that occurred during the early part of the 20th century and they continue to maintain a good correlation with observed temperatures over the full instrumental period at the interannual time scale (Briffa et al., 2004; D’Arrigo, 2006). This ‘divergence’ is apparently restricted to some northern, high-latitude regions, but it is certainly not ubiquitous even there.

In their large-scale reconstructions based on tree ring density data, Briffa et al. (2001) specifically excluded the post-1960 data in their calibration against instrumental records, to avoid biasing the estimation of the earlier reconstructions (hence they are not shown in Figure 6.10), implicitly assuming that the ‘divergence’ was a uniquely recent phenomenon, as has also been argued by Cook et al. (2004a)

. Others, however, argue for a breakdown in the assumed linear tree growth response to continued warming, invoking a possible threshold exceedance beyond which moisture stress now limits further growth (D’Arrigo et al., 2004). If true, this would imply a similar limit on the potential to reconstruct possible warm periods in earlier times at such sites. At this time there is no consensus on these issues (for further references see NRC, 2006) and the possibility of investigating them further is restricted by the lack of recent tree ring data at most of the sites from which tree ring data discussed in this chapter were acquired.

so… again… most emphatically, “

hiding in plain sight

”. I trust this will (finally) end another one of the baseless Riverwind parroted Hackergate denier talking points.

[Michael Hardner]

This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

What science is published for policy makers ? You're attributing a political motive here, which you need to prove. I think scientists have different political motives and beliefs, even in the climate science community.

So what? The entire issue shows how climate scientists manipulate data in order to promote the conclusions they want to promote and why group think is a serious problem even though you deny it.

Please show me something that proves that climate scientists are working for a specific political cause.

[TimG]

What science is published for policy makers ? You're attributing a political motive here, which you need to prove. I think scientists have different political motives and beliefs, even in the climate science community.

It is in the climategate emails. A lovely discussion about the need to ensure a "tidy" story for policy makers and, of course, talking of using a "trick" to deceive people by "hiding the decline". Of course the apologists would like people to believe that "hiding" something with a "trick" is not an attempt to deceive. It is complete BS and you would not even consider defending it if it was done it the name of any other cause. The ONLY reason you even consider defending this crap is because you feel a need to defend the CAGW faith.

Please show me something that proves that climate scientists are working for a specific political cause.

Read the bloody emails. It full of discussions about how they needed to promote the IPCC political cause.

[waldo]

It is in the climategate emails. A lovely discussion about the need to ensure a "tidy" story for policy makers and, of course, talking of using a "trick" to deceive people by "hiding the decline". Of course the apologists would like people to believe that "hiding" something with a "trick" is not an attempt to deceive. It is complete BS and you would not even consider defending it if it was done it the name of any other cause. The ONLY reason you even consider defending this crap is because you feel a need to defend the CAGW faith.

Read the bloody emails. It full of discussions about how they needed to promote the IPCC political cause.

nonsense! You can't even parrot properly

again, what graphs... what data manipulation - precisely. Per your words:

It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

[Michael Hardner]

It is in the climategate emails. A lovely discussion about the need to ensure a "tidy" story for policy makers and, of course, talking of using a "trick" to deceive people by "hiding the decline".

If that's the basis, then you need to understand that people use the term 'trick' to refer to a clever mathematical application, or technique. It's all over the literature - it's used elsewhere.

Read the bloody emails. It full of discussions about how they needed to promote the IPCC political cause.

I haven't seen that quoted.

[waldo]

If that's the basis, then you need to understand that people use the term 'trick' to refer to a clever mathematical application, or technique. It's all over the literature - it's used elsewhere.

that... is most certainly... not the basis!

- one refers to applying instrumental temperatures to proxy data to form a composite reconstruction... something described explicitly within peer-review papers. This relates to the trumped up basis behind TimG's unsubstantiated claims of "fraud, deceit and deception". You know, the challenge he now runs from... as he stated:

It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

- the other refers to the actual decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960; i.e., the so-called divergence problem.

as I stated in my most previous post, TimG can't even properly parrot as he conflates these 2 distinct items.

Edited August 23, 2011 by waldo

[TimG]

If that's the basis, then you need to understand that people use the term 'trick' to refer to a clever mathematical application, or technique. It's all over the literature - it's used elsewhere.

A trick may have that connotation when used on its own. When combined with the word "hide" it means an intent to deceive. Anybody who is not a AGW partisan understands this.

[Saipan]

Please show me something that proves that climate scientists are working for a specific political cause.

As much as 'Big Oil'.

[Michael Hardner]

that... is most certainly... not the basis!

You misunderstand - I mean the basis for his suspicions.

People think the term 'trick' is something sneaky, but it's used all the time in the literature.

The hackers who selectively published that phrase knew how it would sound to the general public.

[TimG]

the other refers to the actual decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960; i.e., the so-called divergence problem.

I generally ignore you because you go off on irrelevant tangent that add to the discussion.

The "decline" in "hide the decline" refers post 1960 divergance which they needed to hide in a graph prepared for the WMO. The trick which was apperantly used in 'Mike's nature paper' was to chop off the adverse data, attach the instrumental record and smooth the result. The net result is a "tidy" graph that looked great for alarmists peddling panic but dishonestly presented the data.

IOW - it is the same issue. You don't know what you are talking about.

[Michael Hardner]

A trick may have that connotation when used on its own. When combined with the word "hide" it means an intent to deceive. Anybody who is not a AGW partisan understands this.

Hiding the decline in temperatures from the tree ring proxy...

As in "he used a mathematical trick to hide the [false] decline in temperatures from the data".

There's nothing wrong with that sentence.

[Michael Hardner]

As much as 'Big Oil'.

Big Oil doesn't need a conspiracy - they openly work for themselves, for profits - that is their goal. Scientists live or die on what they produce, what they add to the body of knowledge.

[Saipan]

If that's the basis, then you need to understand that people use the term 'trick' to refer to a clever mathematical application, or technique. It's all over the literature - it's used elsewhere.

That's true.

I remember Paul Martin's 'balanced budget'.

[waldo]

I generally ignore you because you go off on irrelevant tangent that add to the discussion.

The "decline" in "hide the decline" refers post 1960 divergance which they needed to hide in a graph prepared for the WMO. The trick which was apperantly used in 'Mike's nature paper' was to chop off the adverse data, attach the instrumental record and smooth the result. The net result is a "tidy" graph that looked great for alarmists peddling panic but dishonestly presented the data.

IOW - it is the same issue. You don't know what you are talking about.

even if one gave anything you said any credence... which I most certainly do not... that WMO graph was for the cover of a 'newsletter' that had absolutely nothing to do with your applied emphasis on policymakers. I showed/linked you to 2 IPCC graphs specifically targeted towards policymakers - 2 graphs within the confines of physical science as pertains to the WG1 reports of the respective 3rd and 4th IPCC assessment reports. The very fact you hang your hat (rather... hang McIntyre's hat for him) on that relatively obscure WMO newsletter is quite telling, particularly given it's coincident presence as compared/contrasted with peer review papers and IPCC reports. More precisely, again, you improperly conflate the 2 distinct items into one.

- one refers to applying instrumental temperatures to proxy data to form a composite reconstruction... something described explicitly within peer-review papers. This relates to the trumped up basis behind TimG's unsubstantiated claims of "fraud, deceit and deception". You know, the challenge he now runs from... as he stated:

It is about graphs prepared for policy makers which failed to show the data. This was a deliberate attempt to deceive policy makers.

- the other refers to the actual decline in tree-ring density at certain high-latitude locations since 1960; i.e., the so-called divergence problem.

[TimG]

As in "he used a mathematical trick to hide the [false] decline in temperatures from the data".

Why did he need to hide it? To deceive naive readers into believing that the data was more reliable that it is.

No matter how you attempt to rationalize it the data is not "known to be bad". It is "assumed to be bad". There is peer reviewed literature that documents non-linear growth in trees as temperature rises and it is quite likely that any peak in past temperatures would have produced the same decline. IOW - this dataset is probably useless as a temperature proxy and they needed to hide the information that would have told a reader that something is suspicious.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG