There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[brenthutch 444]

I like using his full name

Robert Hutchings Goddard 

[JerryBaumchen 1,354]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Fortunately we kept trying

Hi Bill,

This should be the mantra of anyone involved in R & D; it is costly and you must be prepared for failure(s).

Back in the 80's I was witnessing some testing of parts; and the results just were not very good.  And this was a company with an excellent reputation.  It was about 6:30 in the evening; the QA Mgr ( who was running the testing ), their chief engr ( a great guy & very competent ), the owner ( who had a PhD in Mech Engr ), and I ( representing the Gov't - the 'buyers' ) were there wondering what was wrong.  I said to the owner, 'This is the only time this job gets interesting, when I can be involved with some failure analysis.'  He looked me right in the eyes and said, 'That all depends if you're buying or selling.'

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  In the summer of '79, while testing for TSO certification, we suffered two, back to back near-total harness failures ( TSO Strength Test - 400 lbs @ 200 MPH ).  That is when you simply sit down & say, 'WTF?'

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, given that "blind faith" in the "experts" gave us airplanes, computers, the Internet, spaceflight, and pretty much every technological advance we enjoy today - that's not such a bad thing.  That same "blind faith" also saved the ozone layer, despite predictions that the Montreal Protocol would mean the end of air conditioning and refrigeration.

There was (and is) a lot more than just 'blind faith'. 

 

For engineering R&D, there has to be some sort of progress shown. Or at least strong potential for progress.

 

For science, there has to be evidence. And any theory has to be defended against detractors and opponents (sometimes very vigorous ones). And if the evidence shows that a competing theory is more accurate, then it's usually adopted eventually.

 

Evolution theory is a good example of this. It's grown and evolved (pun not intended) since Darwin first came up with it.  As new research uncovers more information, the theory is changed. Yet, despite all of the efforts of the religious deniers, no evidence of any 'supernatural' influence has been able to stand up to scientific scrutiny. None. Zero.

Those folks are the ones operating on 'Blind Faith.'

Climate change denial is essentially the same. None of the denials have stood up to scientific scrutiny. Some of the claims haven't either, but that's the scientific process.

 

You want a Nobel Prize? Show, in a manner that stands up to real scrutiny, that AGW is a scam. Or that evolution is.

[billvon 2,990]

4 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

There was (and is) a lot more than just 'blind faith'. 

Yeah, I put "blind faith" in quotes to differentiate it from blind faith (i.e. faith in something with no scientific basis.)  Brenthutch said that we shouldn't put "blind faith in the 'experts' " - referring to the people who were spending taxpayer money to develop human flight.  That wasn't really blind faith, because at the point Langley was successfully flying unmanned, powered aircraft - and other people (Cayley) had already demonstrated manned, unpowered flight.  That was a very informed faith, a faith that turned out to be correct.  Man really could fly in powered aircraft.  The Wrights just beat Langley to it.

[kallend 2,026]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You should read before you post.  The expert, backed by government funds, FAILED

The Wrights were funded by the US Army.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

29 minutes ago, kallend said:

The Wrights were funded by the US Army.

I thought it was Langley who was funded by the government.
The Wright Bros were self funded. Their bicycle business had done fairly well, and they had everything they needed to build their plane at the shop.

Being self funded made them efficient. They found serious flaws in the aerodynamic 'formulas' that were accepted science at the time. They first did tests on airfoils attached to bikes (they had a good source for those ). And later built their own wind tunnel. Langley OTOH, had lots of money. So he just built stuff and then tried to figure out why it didn't work.

The Wrights couldn't even get the Army interested in their plane after it flew. The first customers were the French.

The Army didn't pay the Wrights anything until 1909.

[kallend 2,026]

8 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I thought it was Langley who was funded by the government.
The Wright Bros were self funded. Their bicycle business had done fairly well, and they had everything they needed to build their plane at the shop.

Being self funded made them efficient. They found serious flaws in the aerodynamic 'formulas' that were accepted science at the time. They first did tests on airfoils attached to bikes (they had a good source for those ). And later built their own wind tunnel. Langley OTOH, had lots of money. So he just built stuff and then tried to figure out why it didn't work.

The Wrights couldn't even get the Army interested in their plane after it flew. The first customers were the French.

The Army didn't pay the Wrights anything until 1909.

Correct.  And before that the Wright's designs, although they flew, were impractical and do NOT form the basis of modern aircraft.  Curtis and Bleriot had far more influence in how aircraft evolved than the Wrights did.

All of which is fascinating but doesn't in any way support brenthutch's implication that expert opinion is useless, especially when that opinion is not that of a single person but rather the consensus of the members of the National Academies of Science and Engineering and equivalent organizations in other nations (such as The Royal Society in the UK).

[turtlespeed 220]

Quote

but doesn't in any way support brenthutch's implication that expert opinion is useless, 

That's not what he is implying.

[DJL 235]

10 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

That's not what he is implying.

He was implying that the Government funded guy wasted money and didn't get any results.  We showed that Langley's program DID actually get results and that while the Wrights take credit for using the free market they're one out of MANY who did not.  That's a pretty good ratio on behalf of Govt' funding the "Experts".  While Langley's airplane was garbage his program did yield the first actual generation of aircraft engines.  That is a damned phenomenal outcome as far as putting your money in the right place.

To take another case, what do we think would've happened if the Manhattan Project didn't happen and we left development of the nuclear bomb to the free market.  Where would rocket technology and consequently telecommunications be if we didn't engage in the space race?

There are many aeronautical advancements resulting from governments funding experts.  The list is long but distinguished.

Edited May 24, 2019 by DJL

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

34 minutes ago, DJL said:

He was implying that the Government funded guy wasted money and didn't get any results.  We showed that Langley's program DID actually get results and that while the Wrights take credit for using the free market they're one out of MANY who did not...

^This.

The Wright Bros and Musk/Space X are often held up as 'poster children' for free market R&D (one article I found when making sure of my info was from the National Review). Unfortunately, that ignores the reality of how much R&D that is essential to reaching where we are now has been government funded.
The Manhattan Project and nuclear energy, the CDC and all the medical research, NACA/NASA and all the aerodynamic research (Musk wouldn't get off the ground without all of that).

And before anyone puts the Wrights up 'on a pedestal', they weren't in it for anything but the money.

They wanted to get rich. They completely ignored the civilian market, thinking it wouldn't generate enough profit. They wanted all the government money.

They also tried to develop a monopoly. Despite the 'dead end' of their control system (pelvic saddle & wing warping), they wrote their patent broad & vague enough that just about any other system fell within it, including Curtiss' control stick & ailerons. 
They then basically abandoned the idea of improving their plane and spend most of their time chasing patent infringement lawsuits.

[turtlespeed 220]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

^This.

The Wright Bros and Musk/Space X are often held up as 'poster children' for free market R&D (one article I found when making sure of my info was from the National Review). Unfortunately, that ignores the reality of how much R&D that is essential to reaching where we are now has been government funded.
The Manhattan Project and nuclear energy, the CDC and all the medical research, NACA/NASA and all the aerodynamic research (Musk wouldn't get off the ground without all of that).

And before anyone puts the Wrights up 'on a pedestal', they weren't in it for anything but the money.

They wanted to get rich. They completely ignored the civilian market, thinking it wouldn't generate enough profit. They wanted all the government money.

They also tried to develop a monopoly. Despite the 'dead end' of their control system (pelvic saddle & wing warping), they wrote their patent broad & vague enough that just about any other system fell within it, including Curtiss' control stick & ailerons. 
They then basically abandoned the idea of improving their plane and spend most of their time chasing patent infringement lawsuits.

Sounds to me like they would have made the perfect set of bureaucrats.

[billvon 2,990]

6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Sounds to me like they would have made the perfect set of bureaucrats.

Probably.  Although inventors without the ability to work with bureaucracies generally fail; politicians with no other skills than that of a bureaucrat often do just fine.

[DJL 235]

I'm trying to picture what it was like for the human who is basically traditionalism-in-flesh trying to explain to the President of the United States that he's not being a conservative, he's being an idiot:

Trump says 'climate change goes both ways'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48531019

Edited June 5, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,990]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

I'm trying to picture what it was like for the human who is basically traditionalism-in-flesh trying to explain to the President of the United States that he's not being a conservative, he's being an idiot:

Trump says 'climate change goes both ways'

Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly explaining the physics behind tides:

“I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion.  Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in. . . .The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.” 

[kallend 2,026]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly explaining the physics behind tides:

“I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion.  Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in. . . .The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.” 

I'm sure his audience couldn't explain it.

Newton could, and did, back in 1685.

[billvon 2,990]

Some bad news this morning:

=================

Scorching weather kicks off wildfire season

JUN 9, 2019

CBS News

A heatwave in the west marked an early start to the wildfire season. Evacuations are already underway in some communities.

==================

 

And some good news:

====================

More water+wind+solar capacity than coal

FERC’s monthly Energy Infrastructure Update reveals that renewable electricity generation capacity online exceeded coal capacity for the first time in April.

JUNE 10, 2019 JOHN WEAVER

It was projected that this past April, and possibly even May, that we’d see renewable electricity sources temporarily out-generate coal across the whole of the United States. Last year, we saw CO2-free generation from renewables beat CO2-free generation from nuclear for the first five months of 2018. A bit over a month ago we saw California run for over an hour on clean electricity. And if we hop across the pond we’ve seen the UK run coal-free for 18 days straight and Germany run on 47% renewables through the end of May.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has released the Energy Infrastructure Update for April of 2019 (pdf), which reveals that the sum of capacity online of renewable electricity sources – hydro, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal – totaled 21.56%, while coal continued its downward trend falling to 21.55%.

======================

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

It was projected that this past April, and possibly even May, that we’d see renewable electricity sources temporarily out-generate coal across the whole of the United States. Last year, we saw CO2-free generation from renewables beat CO2-free generation from nuclear for the first five months of 2018. A bit over a month ago we saw California run for over an hour on clean electricity. And if we hop across the pond we’ve seen the UK run coal-free for 18 days straight and Germany run on 47% renewables through the end of May.

Are you telling me this happened without bread lines, starvation, draconian laws and with no weeping and gnashing of teeth?

[billvon 2,990]

15 minutes ago, DJL said:

Are you telling me this happened without bread lines, starvation, draconian laws and with no weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Ironically we're seeing a lot more suffering from drought and wildfires.  And from power outages - not because there's no power, but because they have to shut down power lines on hot, windy days to prevent wildfires.  This is driving a lot of sales of solar + battery in distant areas of the West.

[turtlespeed 220]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Ironically we're seeing a lot more suffering from drought and wildfires.  And from power outages - not because there's no power, but because they have to shut down power lines on hot, windy days to prevent wildfires.  This is driving a lot of sales of solar + battery in distant areas of the West.

And that isn't a bad thing.  Smaller, self-contained, efficient, and cheap means its going the right way.

[kallend 2,026]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

Are you telling me this happened without bread lines, starvation, draconian laws and with no weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Oh, I bet there's gnashing of teeth going on in some quarters.

[DJL 235]

27 minutes ago, kallend said:

Oh, I bet there's gnashing of teeth going on in some quarters.

A solar array went up in a local rural county near me where I like to go for some weekends.  I'm on their facebook page and there was much gnashing of teeth over it as it was such an unsightly thing to be installed.  I suggested that if the biggest issue they had with it could be fixed by planting a hedgerow then we're probably talking small potatoes.

[brenthutch 444]

On 6/12/2019 at 11:58 AM, billvon said:

And some good news:

while coal continued its downward trend falling to 21.55%.

Sorry to be Captain Buzz Kill, but GLOBALLY, coal production and usage is rising.  Renewables just can’t keep pace.

[gowlerk 2,190]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Sorry to be Captain Buzz Kill, but GLOBALLY, coal production and usage is rising.  Renewables just can’t keep pace.

The rate of increase and the proportion of energy production from coal is decreasing. I'm not sure why dead enders are always so negative.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The rate of increase and the proportion of energy production from coal is decreasing. I'm not sure why dead enders are always so negative.

Because something in them needs it to be false. 
It doesn't matter if it's something like 'they work in the fossil fuel industry and need it to be false for their job' or 'they hate liberals and cannot stomach the idea that the environmentalists are right about anything' or they want to believe that the 'climate types' are fabricating the entire narrative in order to control us and take our money (this type generally believes the 'illuminati' garbage too).

It's not all that different from the religionists that 'need' evolution to be false to maintain their belief that the Bible is factually accurate. 
I keep remembering the 'debate' between Ken Hamm & Bill Nye. They were both asked what would change their views. Hamm said "nothing". Nye said "evidence". 

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They were both asked what would change their views. Hamm said "nothing". Nye said "evidence". 

Some Stanford studies suggest that the evolution of reason developed more so for social cohesion rather than the search for truth.  Apparently nobody is immune to ignoring facts/evidence.

I found these awhile back but they're still relevant/interesting:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts