.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

No it started in 2014 which is when the solar peak occurred and bottomed out in 2019. We are actually heading towards the peak now. I appreciate the open question is about how high that peak will be. 

Have a word with your programmer - there is clearly some sort of a glitch. 

 

This is how science works, we will see which model has the better prediction. So far the global warming models missed the cold snap, but the new solar models had it right on the money.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

12 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

This is how science works, we will see which model has the better prediction. So far the global warming models missed the cold snap, but the new solar models had it right on the money.

$20 billion per year goes to fund the "flawed" models, which agree with each other 97% of the time, and not coincidentally are wrong 97% of the time. On the occasional lucky time they manage to get something close they trumpet that from the rooftops while like carnival hucksters distract you from the thousands of model runs that were hopelessly wrong. 

The challenger models are often self-funded or receive a pittance from a think tank. Thousands of dollars versus tens of billions but still kicking their assess. Makes one proud doesn't it? 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ward Smith

[turbguy + 1,543]

30 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Here is the link

All you folks blaming gas need to explain to us why doubling  your output counts as failure? I'll wait right here…

It was the loss of that doubling that is the failure, not the doubling itself.

Edited February 22, 2021 by turbguy

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

17 minutes ago, turbguy said:

The generator breaker opened due to my action, simultaneously with all main and reheat steam valves snap shut (which, I also got to watch as my stomach sunk).

And the fires went out, and, and, and....

In the after action report, you needed to claim you performed a surprise inspection of the system crash safety components, which performed as expected… 😅

[NickW + 2,714]

21 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Coast down, 45 minutes, or longer or shorter.  Depends on condenser vacuum.  Nuke units are more massive, but run slower (1800 RPM v 3600 RPM) for 60 HZ systems. Either way, the last 20 RPM seems to take FOREVER!

Heavy duty gas turbine(s) can start and reach full load in say, 10 minutes (aeroderivatives, which are basically aircraft engines with a "load wheel", much faster say 30 seconds).  Bringing the bottoming steam cycle up adds the final amount of time. 

Can you physically brake these units rather than use rheostatic braking? 

[turbguy + 1,543]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

In the after action report, you needed to claim you performed a surprise inspection of the system crash safety components, which performed as expected… 😅

...and change my underwear.

[turbguy + 1,543]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Can you physically brake these units rather than use rheostatic braking? 

No loads are imposed on a steam turbine (or a gas turbine) during coastdown, other than bearing and windage losses.  No brakes.  No resistance loads.

Hydro (and wind turbines) do have mechanical brakes, however.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

19 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

This is how science works, we will see which model has the better prediction. So far the global warming models missed the cold snap, but the new solar models had it right on the money.

Earlier this month? 

Your programmer needs to understand that I am not refuting Veras editorial and it may well be correct however it is not a climate model. Its a predictive tool regarding solar irradiance levels over several decades which is only one part of the climate equation. 

If she is correct then over the period mentioned this will moderate temperature over a back drop of rising temperatures due to increasing concentrations of GW gases. 

Other factors which could affect climate include changes to albedo of the earths surface (ie growing / melting ice caps), increases or decreases in Volcanic activity (possible the main factor at work during the Maunder Minimum) . All of these need to be factored into a climate model and Veras work doesn't do this as its more narrowly a solar irradiance model. 

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

No loads are imposed on a steam turbine (or a gas turbine) during coastdown, other than bearing and windage losses.  No brakes.  No resistance loads.

Hydro (and wind turbines) do have mechanical brakes, however.

 

The best brake would be reversing the polarity of the dynamo. 😉

[turbguy + 1,543]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

The best brake would be reversing the polarity of the dynamo. 😉

And if your reason for needing a brake is an internal dynamo failure? 

I like people who do not motor a generator.

Edited February 22, 2021 by turbguy

[surrept33 + 609]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

$20 billion per year goes to fund the "flawed" models, which agree with each other 97% of the time, and not coincidentally are wrong 97% of the time. On the occasional lucky time they manage to get something close they trumpet that from the rooftops while like carnival hucksters distract you from the thousands of model runs that were hopelessly wrong. 

The challenger models are often self-funded or receive a pittance from a think tank. Thousands of dollars versus tens of billions but still kicking their assess. Makes one proud doesn't it? 

it's very easy to "p-hack". but if a predictive model was actually used to predict things ends up breaking a lot of other physics (for example, g=9.23 in the galilean frame -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth people aren't going to take it seriously), even using the concept of a barycenter should sound kind of fishy, think for example, of a relativistic correction due to the gravity not only of the sun and how it wobbles around its nucleus (which we can just observe these days), but also the wobbling of each of the planets as they have an effect on each other, which is important for everything till jupiter.

Here's a very comprehensive review article that fits within the researcher's niche (the sun as a dynamo):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6

They note that the sun's cycle prediction appears to be stochastic in nature. If it is (I have no clue), then PCA would be absolutely the wrong methodology to use (a good analogy would be that correlation doesn't imply causation, especially if the original casual model would break other things we can easily measure if it were true, implying some form of reductio ad absurdum), in a stochastic system, at least initially, these are invariably modeled as a poisson process (waiting times) sort of like this: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...471..301U/abstract

Edited February 22, 2021 by surrept33

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Earlier this month? 

Your programmer needs to understand that I am not refuting Veras editorial and it may well be correct however it is not a climate model. Its a predictive tool regarding solar irradiance levels over several decades which is only one part of the climate equation. 

If she is correct then over the period mentioned this will moderate temperature over a back drop of rising temperatures due to increasing concentrations of GW gases. 

Other factors which could affect climate include changes to albedo of the earths surface (ie growing / melting ice caps), increases or decreases in Volcanic activity (possible the main factor at work during the Maunder Minimum) . All of these need to be factored into a climate model and Veras work doesn't do this as its more narrowly a solar irradiance model. 

 

 

No, her model claims to explain 97% of observed temperature and changes in  temperature. That is a much higher explanatory power than the standard global warming models. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

No, her model claims to explain 97% of observed temperature and changes in  temperature. That is a much higher explanatory power than the standard global warming models. 

In an editorial

No it doesn't - bot😀

Its a plausible study of the variation in solar variance. That isnt the whole picture as regards climate. If she is right its good news because it buys a few decades

Edited February 22, 2021 by NickW

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

18 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

it's very easy to "p-hack". but if a predictive model was actually used to predict things ends up breaking a lot of other physics (for example, g=9.23 in the galilean frame -  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth people aren't going to take it seriously), even using the concept of a barycenter should sound kind of fishy, think for example, of a relativistic correction due to the gravity not only of the sun and how it wobbles around its nucleus (which we can just observe these days), but also the wobbling of each of the planets as they have an effect on each other, which is important for everything till jupyter.

Here's a very comprehensive review article that fits within the researcher's niche (the sun as a dynamo):

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41116-020-00025-6

They note that the sun's cycle prediction appears to be stochastic in nature. If it is (I have no clue), then PCA would be absolutely the wrong methodology to use (a good analogy would be that correlation doesn't imply causation, especially if the original casual model would break other things we can easily measure if it were true, implying some form of reductio ad absurdum), in a stochastic system, at least initially these are invariable modeled as a poisson process (waiting times) sort of like this: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007A%26A...471..301U/abstract

According to the author, this discussion is not relevant to her model, it was a side issue which does not have any effect on her calculations, and therefore should not be any grounds for retracting the article.  She registered her disagreement with the retraction and complained about the violation of standard article procedure in this process. She was not given any opportunity to amend her article or to discuss the supposed problems with it.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

In an editorial

No it doesn't - bot😀

Not an editorial, but a published article outlining a model. She did the calculations, and now we see that her predictions were dead accurate.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

In an editorial

No it doesn't - bot😀

Its a plausible study of the variation in solar variance. That isnt the whole picture as regards climate. If she is right its good news because it buys a few decades

More than a few decades. She predicts a 2 degree increase in earth temperature over a period of six HUNDRED years.

[turbguy + 1,543]

So, the "Solar Constant", isn't?

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, turbguy said:

So, the "Solar Constant", isn't?

Solar is remarkably constant.

The editorial is simply about variations in solar variance with are actually quite minor between peaks and troughs. It references the Maunder Minimum but no mention of the fact that this period coincided with a long period of extensive volcanic activity which is actually thought to have been the main factor behind the cooler conditions in addition to lower solar variance. 

During the maunder minimum emissions of CO2 from human sources  were maybe a few million tonnes of Coal plus net deforestation. Roll forward to today and its 40bn tonnes of GWG going up every year. 

Add in changes in albedo effects - rapidly retreating ice sheets and fewer days on average of snow cover and you have another positive feedback not present 350 years ago. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by NickW

[surrept33 + 609]

13 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

According to the author, this discussion is not relevant to her model, it was a side issue which does not have any effect on her calculations, and therefore should not be any grounds for retracting the article.  She registered her disagreement with the retraction and complained about the violation of standard article procedure in this process. She was not given any opportunity to amend her article or discuss the supposed problems with it.

I saw her changes in arxiv (which is a preprint dump so not subject to peer review). However, these days, one may be be able to reproduce research (automatically) without too much pain via arxiv' apis, but unfortunately she did not release her data or analysis code, which is becoming more and more common in some cross section of physics and computer science (which usually leads to a lot of cross pollination and much quicker innovation - see also https://paperswithcode.com/latest).  it took people who reconstructed her plots with the simulation software she was using, then figured out what unphysical but perfectly mathematical assumptions she was assuming. unfortunately, realistic physics doesn't really work like that. 

see also (assuming too much naivety😞

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JASTP.21105465R/abstract (despite the title, they also looked at time-frequency domain with wavelets). you almost have to always regularize stuff to make it physically plausible or pose the problem in a more robust way. 

[NickW + 2,714]

15 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

More than a few decades. She predicts a 2 degree increase in earth temperature over a period of six HUNDRED years.

Has your programmer taught you to tell fibs. She states at the end of the editorial

The reduction of a terrestrial temperature during the next 30 years can have important implications for different parts of the planet on growing vegetation, agriculture, food supplies, and heating needs in both Northern and Southern hemispheres. This global cooling during the upcoming grand solar minimum 1 (2020–2053) can offset for three decades any signs of global warming and would require inter-government efforts to tackle problems with heat and food supplies for the whole population of the Earth.

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

2 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

I saw her changes in arxiv (which is a preprint dump so not subject to peer review). However, these days, one may be be able to reproduce research (automatically) without too much pain via arxiv' apis, but unfortunately she did not release her data or analysis code, which is becoming more and more common in some cross section of physics and computer science (which usually leads to a lot of cross pollination and much quicker innovation - see also https://paperswithcode.com/latest).  it took people who reconstructed her plots with the simulation software she was using, then figured out what unphysical but perfectly mathematical assumptions she was assuming. unfortunately, realistic physics doesn't really work like that. 

see also (assuming too much naivety😞

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JASTP.21105465R/abstract (despite the title, they also looked at time-frequency domain with wavelets). you almost have to always regularize stuff to make it physically plausible or pose the problem in a more robust way. 

Again, you miss the point.  The discussions she included about Sun/Earth distance were a side issue, and did not impact her calculations of temperature and climate.  The article and its conclusions were not dependent on those calculations.

Here is the explanation she provided in responses at the bottom of this article,

https://nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, surrept33 said:

I saw her changes in arxiv (which is a preprint dump so not subject to peer review). However, these days, one may be be able to reproduce research (automatically) without too much pain via arxiv' apis, but unfortunately she did not release her data or analysis code, which is becoming more and more common in some cross section of physics and computer science (which usually leads to a lot of cross pollination and much quicker innovation - see also https://paperswithcode.com/latest).  it took people who reconstructed her plots with the simulation software she was using, then figured out what unphysical but perfectly mathematical assumptions she was assuming. unfortunately, realistic physics doesn't really work like that. 

see also (assuming too much naivety😞

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020JASTP.21105465R/abstract (despite the title, they also looked at time-frequency domain with wavelets). you almost have to always regularize stuff to make it physically plausible or pose the problem in a more robust way. 

It appears to me that she assumes the temperature of the earth is entirely driven by solar irradiance with no other factors coming into play. 

A common observation I recall is to point out the absurdity of this is that Venus has lower solar irradiance at the surface than the Earth but is 450 degrees C hotter. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Again, you miss the point.  The discussions she included about Sun/Earth distance were a side issue, and did not impact her calculations of temperature and climate.  The article and its conclusions were not dependent on those calculations.

Here is the explanation she provided in responses at the bottom of this article,

https://nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3

If solar irradiance is the only factor influencing the temperature of a planet why is Venus 450 degrees C hotter than Earth. 

Venus gets less solar radiation at the surface than Earth.

Edited February 22, 2021 by NickW

[Ecocharger + 1,473]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

If solar irradiance is the only factor influencing the temperature of a planet why is Venus 450 degrees C hotter than Earth. 

Venus gets less solar radiation at the surface than Earth.

Where does she claim that solar factors are the "only" factors?  You are in the grip of hyperbolia, that sad affliction which the global warming supporters seem to have the market cornered on.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, turbguy said:

I like people who do not motor a generator.

Yet those railroad locomotive motormen seem to do it all the time.  Saves on the brakes, and on a long grade, it is the only option, or so it would seem.....