Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Guam said:
Jasandjules said:
It is really not worth my effort or health watching anything on BBC about this, after all, there are pensions to be protected.
Indeed I got a phonecall tipping me off about this last night, I declined to watch it as I don't need to be going to PC world for a new TV right now!

Those who have followed this stuff for years know the numbers are screwed (even if the science was correct).

The BBC is not going to fully admit that imho, so wasn't worth the cognitive disruption to watch it!
I had to check it wasn't April 1.

Two presumptions:

(1) Presenters were cretins, so were unaware of the guff broadcast
(2) Presenters were geniuses, and broadcast 'the guff behind climate science' operating covertly

Not sure that any of the science was correct!

Kalman Filtering relies (as far as I am aware) on an algorithm which uses prediction and actual + noise to provide a better actual. Not sure where the prediction fits in to surface temp measurements (hopefully not time based!).

Arrhenius has been debunked a long time ago iro surface temp proportionality to CO2 concentrations - otherwise we would not still be having a debate where observations do not stack up to predictions.

Bigger/more expensive computers to improve results overlooks chaotic systems and some fundamentals in computation re discretisation/step-size/operations to compute and time available...

All good fun!

Until politicians claim to know more and take decisions which affect peoples lives.

Ah yes - the precautionary principle!

rolleyes

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Now you know why "they" like to get the EU (probably under the direction of a higher supranational standards body) to introduce legislation that forces a reduction in per capita electricity usage - at least in so far as they can achieve that.

LED lights for all.

Why?

Gives the disturbines half a chance to be of some use some of the time and may just free up a little capacity for charging all the electric cars once in a while.

As for high long term generation prices ... so many reasons but I think they hope that people won't notice because they will have become used to the restricted consumption and so their bills will not alter much. They hope.

In theory the maths for LED lights seem OKish. Over the long term. Maybe.

But then it was the same for Halogen and CFL until the the life expectancy claims of the relatively expensive items were found wanting once mass manufacturing had taken off and prices were under pressure.

Still, less carbon consumption so all is well with the world ....
You have a point, but the cynic in me sees European LED manufacturers slipping fat brown envelopes into the Swiss bank accounts of several EU officials to promote the use of LEDs.

It might be of interest here that all the street lights in Sheffield are being replaced over five years with white LED street lights.

They're crap, by the way. Dimmer than the orange ones and you can't see approaching headlights the other side of blind bends and T junctions now, so you have no advance warning of the approach of oncoming vehicles.


Edited by mybrainhurts on Tuesday 3rd March 15:51

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Good 'ol Arrhenius (yet again) determines the global surface temp change as being proportional to the log of the change in concentration of CO2. Apparently four degrees for each doubling of concentration!

weeping
Don't tell me the idiot forgot to factor in the square root of the ripening cycle of the Cavendish banana?

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Blib said:
Heads up.

BBC4 tomight @ 9pm. "Climate Change by Numbers"

'A debate surrounding climate change, as mathematicians and scientists discuss three key numbers to help clarify what is happening to Earth amid public confusion"..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/2/countdown-to-alarm-josh-317.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/2/co...



clap

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Ali G said:
Good 'ol Arrhenius (yet again) determines the global surface temp change as being proportional to the log of the change in concentration of CO2. Apparently four degrees for each doubling of concentration!

weeping
Don't tell me the idiot forgot to factor in the square root of the ripening cycle of the Cavendish banana?
Arrhenius could not even have envisaged quarks, strangeness and charm (although someone once made a song along these lines...)

silly
music
smile

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Guam said:
Indeed I got a phonecall tipping me off about this last night
thumbup

Guam said:
I declined to watch it as I don't need to be going to PC world for a new TV right now!

Those who have followed this stuff for years know the numbers are screwed (even if the science was correct).

The BBC is not going to fully admit that imho, so wasn't worth the cognitive disruption to watch it!
Interestingly, what I got from not declining to watch was that the models are all fine and working perfectly, they even used fast cars to illustrate this.

Frankly, through out the program you could have almost thought they were going to finally turn around and say the numbers are ste, but no there were more holes in their arguments and the leaps to assumption were painful.

Unless you're on a managed dose of beta-blockers it's probably better that you didn't watch it.

I advised my old man to watch it and he flatly refused too hehe

Even my (proper) A-level stats knowledge got my piss so hot that I was left thinking 'Do people really believe this?'.

So in summary - the models are perfectly fine. Reality should not be confused with the models which are fine.






turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
Ali G said:
Good 'ol Arrhenius (yet again) determines the global surface temp change as being proportional to the log of the change in concentration of CO2. Apparently four degrees for each doubling of concentration!
Quite incredible that this duff theory got air time and was presented as fact.

Ali G said:
Telly nearly achieved escape velocity...
Nice self-control there Ali G.

turbobloke

103,741 posts

259 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Blib said:
Heads up.

BBC4 tomight @ 9pm. "Climate Change by Numbers"

'A debate surrounding climate change, as mathematicians and scientists discuss three key numbers to help clarify what is happening to Earth amid public confusion"..
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/2/countdown-to-alarm-josh-317.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/3/2/co...



clap
clap

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
.... and you can't see approaching headlights the other side of blind bends and T junctions now, so you have no advance warning of the approach of oncoming vehicles.
Ah, part of the plan.

Excluding fog and rain the thinking is that most people slow down when they are unsure about what they are seeing, right?

So remove white lines and other guidance and traffic goes slower (and if the planning has gone well will eventually stop in some sort of perpetual gridlock).

So with night lighting (and forgetting that the sodium lights were installed to deal with fog (allegedly) which of course we never have not due to climate change) removing the different lighting types and making everything, including the cars, LED lit gives much the same effect by removing differentiators that help people make decisions of some sort.

I await the single colour traffic light where there are two LED bulbs both with red lenses. The top one means stop. The lower one go. But you won't be able to tell which is active until you are 10mtrs away. Thus all traffic will be slowed to the pace of the most cautious driver. Or a speed monitored council vehicle.

Shortly after self driving cars will become compulsory and none of that will matter.

At that time, on a positive note, a lot of street clutter and all the signs could be removed.

Long journeys will be routed according to the availability of replacement powerpacks with that factor be strongly influenced by where the wind has been blowing in the previous 24hrs.

This will demand be managed to fit the available supply.

Next - meals on wheels for all on the basis that centralised tractor production food preparation is more e-effecient and the cost of a self navigating food delivery drone would be negligible compared to the negative fiscal effect of shopping trips.

You know it all makes sense. Plus, apparently, they NEED to rebuild the Houses of Parliament so the savings would be handy. £3Bn estimate apparently. I'm sure Mr. Fawkes could have done it for less.



mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Tuesday 3rd March 2015
quotequote all
hehe

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
The BBC reporting (Harrabin) on Yeo's Energy costs report.

Warning - probably not safe for those with a irascible disposition.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31719350

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
"MPs are not the only ones puzzled at the government's apparent determination to push coal policy in opposite directions at once."

"...power generation firms are to receive close to £1bn to ensure their plants stay open and prevent blackouts, which will add £11 to an average household electricity bill."

You plug a shed load (nominal ideal) of 'green' capacity into the grid and tell everyone it's brilliant, but know it doesn't deliver reliably.

No wonder the energy policy looks conflicted!

That £11 is just another inevitable cost of green lunacy.

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
For those of a robust constitution, a further party political broadcast in favour of The Team on BBC4 9 pm tonight.

"Dr Helen Czerski delves into the Horizon archive to chart the transformation of a little-known theory into one of the greatest scientific undertakings in history"

Air-traffic control should be advised of very identifiable unguided flying objects between 9 and 10 pm GMT.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
Ali G said:
For those of a robust constitution, a further party political broadcast in favour of The Team on BBC4 9 pm tonight.

"Dr Helen Czerski delves into the Horizon archive to chart the transformation of a little-known theory into one of the greatest scientific undertakings in history"

Air-traffic control should be advised of very identifiable unguided flying objects between 9 and 10 pm GMT.
Called Helen...? hehe

Ali G

3,526 posts

281 months

Wednesday 4th March 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Called Helen...? hehe
Why waste a besom on leaves? Says Helen - allegedly.

wink

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Thursday 5th March 2015
quotequote all
The 'lump it in with something else' propaganda technique.

I've noticed this increasingly, e.g. people stating look how brilliant wind/solar is - e.g. 35% of our energy came from carbon free sources last year (unsaid is that 32.5% was from nuclear).

And now a BBC gem, Global flood toll to triple by 2030, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3173...

"Much of this is attributed to climate change and socioeconomic development." So, no proportion given, we can assume 99.9% is attributable to too many people breeding and living in the wrong places then!

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 5th March 2015
quotequote all
Mr GrimNasty said:
"Much of this is attributed to climate change and socioeconomic development." So, no proportion given, we can assume 99.9% is attributable to too many people breeding and living in the wrong places then!
Cheap housing requires cheap land from the land bank and planning permission that does not require rigorous standards.
Building on Flood plains can be accomplished when both of those aspects coincide.

It would be interesting to know where the builder's existing stock of "land bank assets" are and compare them to planned flooding mitigation plans.

vournikas

11,682 posts

203 months

Thursday 5th March 2015
quotequote all
Met Office admits "the pause" and suspects that it may continue

Natural variability mentioned often, as well.

Didn't see that coming.

Just keep up those climate change payments to the government, though. Just in case.



dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Thursday 5th March 2015
quotequote all
vournikas said:
Met Office admits "the pause" and suspects that it may continue

Natural variability mentioned often, as well.

Didn't see that coming.

Just keep up those climate change payments to the government, though. Just in case.
That is an absolute diamond of a find (and a crock of st) - will be ripped to shreds I'm sure in the coming weeks.

I'll start with '15 years' where's the other couple?

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Thursday 5th March 2015
quotequote all
Study of GIGO models gives equally GIGO result
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED