Latest Breaking News

hoosierlib

(710 posts)

43. And the scientist in question...

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #42)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 10:55 AM

Apr 2014

Are continously having to update their predictive models because actual temperatures are not behaving as they expect. This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature variations. AGAIN CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUATE TO CAUSATION!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

69 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

US Navy 'Game-Changer': Converting Seawater into Fuel [View all] kpete Apr 2014 OP

Not a CO2 neutral fuel if I'm reading it correctly. Fearless Apr 2014 #1

Perhaps not CO2 nuetral... its not quite clear on that point, however... Veilex Apr 2014 #6

True it may be cleaner. Fearless Apr 2014 #10

You can convert methane to Navy distillate using the Fischer-Tropsch process jmowreader Apr 2014 #26

The point is to make jet fuel -- jets can't carry nuclear reactors. eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #49

The first article on this clearly talked about fueling ships jmowreader Apr 2014 #50

Except for Carriers and Submarines, the Navy presently use only oil burning ships happyslug Apr 2014 #52

If you're going to do that, you'd be better off putting the fuel maker in its own ship jmowreader Apr 2014 #53

Such a ship will have to have a nuclear generator happyslug Apr 2014 #55

Pretty crappy journalism not to address the carbon pollution issue AAO Apr 2014 #11

They didn't address any science. Gore1FL Apr 2014 #22

Sounds like it. AAO Apr 2014 #23

Carbon isn't the point; not carrying around tons of oil is (nt) Recursion Apr 2014 #35

The world isn't an either/or we can have both. Fearless Apr 2014 #38

Oh, I agree, I just meant that's what makes this a game-changer for the Navy Recursion Apr 2014 #39

Imagine if we used this research towards non-defense utilization... Earth_First Apr 2014 #2

If works as they say, I'd say it's safe to assume it will be used in the civilian world too penultimate Apr 2014 #4

Let's hope... Earth_First Apr 2014 #5

This isn't it. This is premium-price fuel. $6/gal, accepting their rosy projections. nt eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #47

And the microwave oven! Invented from WW2 radar technology. nt 7962 Apr 2014 #27

Koch brothers not going to like this lobodons Apr 2014 #3

:) tofuandbeer Apr 2014 #7

This is ridiculous. Let me explain ... aggiesal Apr 2014 #8

It's not a 'solution to our energy needs'; you need electricity to run it muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #16

"Inventions" like that come up all the time, reported by less than reputable sources. pffshht Apr 2014 #37

If anyone knocked on his door, they didn't know shit about chemistry ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #48

guessing... Locrian Apr 2014 #9

I believe that would defeat the purpose, no? penultimate Apr 2014 #12

From a naval point of view, it allows them to remain at sea longer muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #15

That makes sense for making jet fuel, but they seem to penultimate Apr 2014 #17

I think they're saying an aircraft carrier could produce fuel for its escort ships (nt) muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #19

Ahhh, that makes more sense and seems far less sci-fi. penultimate Apr 2014 #21

No, the purpose is to not have to carry around oil everywhere Recursion Apr 2014 #36

I think that's right muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #13

that assumes CO2 is a problem... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #25

About 150 years of science does point to CO2 causing atmospheric warming muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #40

Take a stats class...there is no statistical significance, just a correlation... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #41

The warming effect of carbon dioxide is about physics, not statistics muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #42

And the scientist in question... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #43

Bollocks. muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #44

and your college major was? hoosierlib Apr 2014 #57

Specifically, "This suggests other variables (more statistucally significant) influence temperature" muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #59

It is relevant... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #61

Are you saying that *you* understand, while the Royal Society and NAS don't? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #64

Yes... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #65

So you think you're smarter than every scientist that works at a university anywhere in the world muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #66

Models are like that, approximations, at best. That doesn't mean they are wrong. bemildred Apr 2014 #45

Well gee hoosierlib Apr 2014 #58

So are you saying, "Correlation cannot indicate causation?" immoderate Apr 2014 #51

Sigh... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #56

So it appears that a correlation CAN indicate a causalty. immoderate Apr 2014 #60

Yes, it can indicate causality, but... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #62

A mathematical relationship does exist. It's called a correlation. immoderate Apr 2014 #63

You obviously know nothing of statistics analysis hoosierlib Apr 2014 #68

Just enough to compute a "least squares." immoderate Apr 2014 #69

Nothing from nothing, means nothing. AAO Apr 2014 #14

With reactors on board you wouldn't need to go around your elbow with this seawater scheme jmowreader Apr 2014 #28

Link to 2010 Navy Technical Report which covers this Bosonic Apr 2014 #18

Thanks - that says it's a little over 50% efficient muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #20

The technical details... hoosierlib Apr 2014 #24

Damn, I read that and understood every word - scary! groundloop Apr 2014 #32

Lots of Navy ships use jet engines for propulsion. oldbanjo Apr 2014 #29

Thermodynamically, more like Converting Electricity into Jet Fuel cthulu2016 Apr 2014 #30

Right. GeorgeGist Apr 2014 #31

It's a start. Not perfect, but anything that frees us from defending ffr Apr 2014 #33

This is indeed good news. daybranch Apr 2014 #34

over $1 BILLION per plant to produce $6/gal fuel, ASSUMING ... eppur_se_muova Apr 2014 #46

When the present Fracking oil bubble breaks around 2017-2018, $6 a gallon will be cheap. happyslug Apr 2014 #54

how much energy does it take to do this, and where does it come from? yurbud Apr 2014 #67