Bombogenesis
Active member
13379085:.frenchy said:
FWIW I think cruz is way too much of a tea party nut to get very far. Republicans already have a harder chance nowadays, nevermind one wayyyy to the right like cruz.
Ted Cruz is running for President and is targeting the the lowest common denominator voters
- Thread starter Good_Deed
- Start date
FWIW I think cruz is way too much of a tea party nut to get very far. Republicans already have a harder chance nowadays, nevermind one wayyyy to the right like cruz.
Bombogenesis
Active member
13379172:VinnieF said:ok, so I'll admit I didn't look up what he said or any of the data about warming not happening until now. I'm not an expert in the field of climate change but did take a healthy number of related classes over my university career. I do, however, know a thing or two about statistics. Now that I've actually looked at the data and what he said I can point out the massive flaw. (besides what I've already said about not being able to use a short term trend as a substitute for long term results)
So. I really have nothing better to do here so I'll make this take an embarrassing amount of time.
Here's a fictional data sequence to work with:
View attachment 763378
random sequence of numbers between 0 and 30 sorted from lowest to highest. there's no disagreeing about the trend.
Now let's put an anomaly in the data.
View attachment 763379
If one sill looks at the data as a whole a single outlier won't really make much difference to a large data set, the r2 value will be lower, but that's about it. You can still safely assume the trend you see to be correct.
The danger is then when you focus in on one small section of a data set and say that the trend you see in that area is correct without looking at any of the data to either side. So if you focus in on the the section starting from the outlier and onwards it will look something like this:
View attachment 763380
Look the data shows there is no more upward trend. The slope of the regression is pretty much zero.
Does this mean the trend seen over the whole of the data has stopped? Of course not. 1 anomaly just makes it appear that way when looking at the data from that point forward.
A better way to represent the data (which is used in climate sciences) might be to do a moving average. So for each point along the x-axis an average will be represented for the past x amount of y values. For our data let's use 5. This is what you'd use to more or less smooth out data, primarily data over time, so it gets rid of the noise of short term trends caused by anomalies and such.
Then you get something like this:
View attachment 763381
So we can zoom in on any particular range we want and still get a far more accurate representation of the trend at that point. For instance we can now focus on the last portion of the data and get a good idea of what the trend is actually doing at this point.
So how does all this matter at all? Well turns out 1998 is an anomaly year. An El Nino year that just doesn't fit in since it was far warmer than one would expect. So, like in our example, you can start looking from 1998 onwards and make it seem like there is no warming trend.
To rectify this you can just look at the moving average (10 years is pretty common in climate science I just found out), and you can get something like this:
look from 1998 onwards.
It also helps explain why 9 of the last 10 hottest years on record have been since 1998. 1998 filling out the 10 at number 4. Also that the 2000's has been the hottest decade on record.
It's really a matter of data interpretation. It's super easy to lie with statistics, and saying warming has stopped because you're looking at data starting from 1998 is a good example of how to do that.
Anyways, take this as you will. Just wasting my time on the internet, it was between this or porn.
I think everyone knew this already lol. Of course a 15 year pause shows nothing to a long term trend. At the end of the day though Sen. Cruz's statement was true. It's semantics, this argument sucks. Everyone knows what he was insinuating.
13379178:plyswthsqrrls said:
Of course I said she would be better. I'm a liberal. I think she's better. Obviously that's just an opinion and I can't prove that. I wasn't trying to state that as a fact, just as my opinion. I don't get my news from a totally nonbiased source. I don't think one exists. I try to get my news from the least biased source, usually the paper and online. Also, my dad has had the opportunity to talk to several members of congress, so I hear some about politics without any part of the media influencing it. And no, plane tickets are too expensive.
OGHolliday
Active member
13377439:.frenchy said:
you're clearly a staunch republican which probably means you believe in economics over everything. if you had any basic economic understanding in the slightest, you'd realize how fucking stupid "fuck the immigrants" is. They create competition which makes the economy stronger, more efficient and more competitive on a global scale. Just cuz lazy rednecks down south lose their jobs to people who are willing to work hard for low pay, doesn't mean the immigrants are "stealing jobs" they're just getting them because they work harder.
OGHolliday
Active member
13379692:.frenchy said:
nothin like avoiding an obviously superior argument by correcting one insignificant piece of it.
redneck=white trash=uneducated white person=the problem with this country
Im not sure if you're aware but you can also get a sunburn sitting in a lawn chair crushing brewskis. and as far as rednecks working harder than me..... similar to most of your arguments, you're speaking on a topic you know absolutely nothing about
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13379082:.frenchy said:
Do girls find you attractive?
unsteezedmachine
Member
topic:Good_Deed said:
If you can't master simple grammar then why should I trust your political views?
milk_man
Active member
13383598:Uglyboy said:
I am truly all for living simple lifestyles. In 30 years I plan to be living almost completely off the land in the woods. No joke.
But with the lifestyle we as Americans live today, we HAVE to have fossil fuels. We use such a ridiculous amount of energy.. I honestly don't think it's possible for us to go completely or even mostly renewable, unless we start consuming A LOT less energy.
S.J.W
Active member
13383648:milk_man said:
Pretty much. The UN can pass all its protocols and international law it wants. People can go green and stop driving cars. But the second coal becomes more expensive than green energy will be used. This is why I think the only way to combat climate change on a global level is to tax coal. And this is coming from an Australian whose economy avoided recession due to mining. Money is the only factor that will affect peoples decision to green on the mainstream level.
In Australia we had the carbon tax and everyone used less electricity. It was great. But then he repealed it and we're basically fucked again
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13383665:Uglyboy said:
How did your government get more retarded right wing than ours so fast?
cobra_commander
Active member
13383640:Uglyboy said:
13383648:milk_man said:
Most of the time Government's subsidize shit, the cost goes up in the long run.
The biggest problem with solar is the wrong idiots are subsidizing shit. Germany subsidizes the shit out of solar energy. This creates a large demand for solar panels in Germany. Only Germany gets fuck all for sun. It does however, jack up the price of solar in places where it would make some fucking sense. Like Australia or Arizona. Stupid fucking Germans in the desire to be 'green.'
13383640:Uglyboy said:
boy
you sure spend a lot of time pretendin to be an all knowing adult
have had solar panels on the crib for a year and 1/2
due to net metering we only recieve an $8 electric bill
and instead of giving rocky mountain burn coal for electricity $$$
and being part of the shitty air problem
i have a home equity loan on the syste whose payment is less than the average of our lectric bill
that shit started payin off day 1
and has added value and equity to our crib
it's similiar to the paying rent for something you will never own
vrs. getting your shit togather and purchasing a house and paying a mortgage
Yaraelpoof.png
Active member
13377485:milk_man said:
#letsgetbillbackinoffice
Huck_Norris
Active member
13384026:Uglyboy said:
Lol give it up retard.
S.J.W
Active member
13384135:SFB said:
It's generally stated that it takes 10 years for them to "pay for themselves". But the concept of "paying for themselves" is a primitive concept used by those who do not understand finances. You're still losing money when it "pays for itself". A more appropriate analysis would be the "Internal Rate of Return" calculations, Excel makes this calculation easy. Overall, solar power is expensive power and works out about 38 cents per kwh ( proper economic estimates typically place it between 23 cents to 45 cents per kwh ). Some idiot here will insist solar doesn't cost that much per kwh, it does unless you're uneducated in finance.
Note, it's also not clear if the energy produced by solar panels exceeds the energy required for their manufacture, delivery and installation. It takes a lot of energy to melt silicon and the costs triple if you try to recycle the toxic wastes which is why the panels are made where it's still possible to dispose of the toxic wastes. They could very well be causing more environmental damage then they save.
With the Europeans what happens is the feed in tariffs makes the solar panels worthwhile. They still don't really pay for themselves but they allow you to take some of the tax money from your neighbors, a bit of an ethical dilemma really but ethics never stopped Europeans.
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384202:Uglyboy said:
annnddd youre wrong. Here in the USA, we have a tax credit that pays for 90% of your solar panel costs, but you still have to have the cash to buy it in the first place. So within one year, you get almost all of your money back. On top of that, you are reimbursed for any excess power you make that goes back into the grid. Its usually only $5-20 a month, but you also have no electricity bill.
And tax credits are used for a shit ton of different causes, if you think every use of taxes is somehow unethical, you should love Tony Abott.
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384636:Uglyboy said:
all energy is solar energy
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384638:Lord_Byron said:
13384648:stucci said:
*all energy we use on earth to power everything, was originally solar energy.
Other than geothermal, which we're not 100% on.
also that, you can't create energy u nub.
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384735:zzzskizzz said:
13384736:zzzskizzz said:
its an energy converter, not a source
miroz
Active member
13384797:zzzskizzz said:
It depends on how you define "energy" and "create." Technically, because energy cannot be created or destroyed, you can't create energy, you can only convert it from one form to another. Some forms are more readily recognized as "energy" like heat and electricity, but there are other forms too - energy exists in chemical bonds, in motion, and in mass, as Einstein showed us (E = mc^2).
In terms of usable energy, though, yes fusion creates usable energy, because heat is useful for our purposes and mass is largely not.
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384797:zzzskizzz said:
It all boils down to e=MC^2
Every single atom has the ability to change from Mass (M) into pure energy (e).
Its easier to understand if you look at nuclear fission first. In fission, the atom's nucleus is split apart, releasing massive amounts of energy. This energy is about .00001% or some other small ass number of the potential energy the atom has. That's pretty efficient compared to a combustion engine burning gas, which is estimated to be something like .00000000000001% of the potential energy converted.
In fusion the goal is 1-3% efficiency, which is what the sun is doing right now. It is fusing 2 Hydrogen atoms nuclei together creating Helium. Due to the electron changing energy levels, (very simply put it gets blown off and flies around until it can find something new to attach itself to), a photon is released. That photon carries a small amount of energy we see as sunlight. Per atom, theres a lot, but not a ridiculous amount of energy released for every fusion. About enough to power a big city for a year. But add that up between trillions on trillions of atoms, and you get the Sun.
Our goal is to input a massive amount of energy using a giant laser simulating the crushing gravity of the sun's core, and fuse one pair of hydrogen atoms, capturing the photon released in the process, and its energy. The first fusion would require so much power, and our capture methods are so weak, it could cost 10x more energy to start the fusion than we would get out of it.
The next step though, is smart. We use the gained energy to re-fire the laser, this time requiring a smaller portion of man-made energy, and repeat this until its running on its own, and eventually capture all the excess. However this would require tech we aren't even close to having, as of right now we can kind of sort of maybe fuse one pair of atoms.
And even if the chain of fusion was started, it would follow the law of conservation of energy and mass, thereby it wouldn't "create" energy. It would be converting potential energy from the mass of the Hydrogen fuel it would use, which we have a lot of and is cheap as fuck. Especially by the atom.
The energy itself, and the process of how a photon comes out of an electron, isn't very well understood. We know how it relates to mass, but we don't really get the how or why. The large hadron colider in Cern in Switzerland, recently confirmed the existance of the Higg's Boson particle, which is located in protons and neutrons, and is believed to be the actual bridge between energy and mass. Also maybe the source of gravity. It was a big deal.
Realistically, we could fuse atoms and release energy within about 2 years. But the financial investment, energy needed, and effort wouldn't be worth the payout. We could see the first energy chain within 20 years, and possibly see fusion powering homes within 50.
And its still (kind of) solar energy.
miroz
Active member
13384823:Lord_Byron said:
"Fusion energy is always 50 years away." We've got a longgggg way to go with laser confinement fusion to make energy. The problem that NIF has now is that the laser isn't providing perfectly even compression of the target and so it doesn't stay confined long enough to produce enough energy to reach the necessary threshold.
...but seriously, did you write this (or copy/paste)? Pretty thorough explanation. There's also magnetic confinement fusion, hence all the research into tokamaks. The latest foray in this direction is ITER. It'll be really interesting if it ever works; already, it's a pretty neat glimpse into intercontinental large-scale research.
Byron_tha_gr8
Active member
13384845:miroz said:
i wrote it lol
13384043:Huck_Norris said:
sometimes it's best to remain silent and be thought of as a simpleton moron
than post and remove all doubt
Rocky mountain power has built an infrastructure that relies on
consumers purchasing coal fired electric plants energy
that is how they make $$$. they don't make money on solar energy
and makin $$$ is what their bullshit hokey burn fossil fuels pokies is about
in the 2 decades ive been here they manage to jack their rates 7-14 % yearly
i'm done they get $8 a month from me
that's it.
my note on the solar panels never changes and
they are scared to the bejeebus of solar energy and use their $$$ to pay lobbyist to poo poo it because it doesn't make them $$$ and allow for their overpaid exects to garner hudge bonuses
They tried to double the $8 grid service charge but were soundly shut down because people are sick of our shitty air and are starting to realize
you don't need to pay for sumthin mother nature provides for free.
Teddies hoosier homophobic religious right bigots watchin the $$$ go elsewhere
buddy now?
#boycottindy
