Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
robinessex said:
A perfect example of Durbs reiterating/bending what someone has said and then claiming they have a complete misunderstanding of the subject:-
....................they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily.........................
b
ks Durb. I've said many times that wet timber won't ignite, the moisture content needs to be 15%-20%, timber needs to be heated to 250 degrees C to ignite, 95% of 'wildfires' are directly blamed on human action.
95% on average. ....................they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily.........................
b
ks Durb. I've said many times that wet timber won't ignite, the moisture content needs to be 15%-20%, timber needs to be heated to 250 degrees C to ignite, 95% of 'wildfires' are directly blamed on human action.robinessex said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
My 2 grandchildren are doing their A-level Maths. They saw the same interpretation OF THAT GRAPH as me instantly. So did their school tutor. I've been ignoring your belief dogma since I've been here.
And to no surprise, he still doesn't understand.One more attempt.
I am not disputing the lack of correlation on the graph (I assumed that was obvious, but apparently not). What I'm saying is this does not prove that there is no relationship between CO2 and temperature, as you mistakenly believe it does. As the bloke who made the graph explained, there is undoubtedly a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
The bit you seem unaware of that CO2 is one of many factors that affect the temperature, and a relatively small one at that. You seem to think a Stegosaurus was breathing the exact same air as we are, but that's not true. The Earth and its atmosphere have changed over the period covered by the graph; CO2 is not the only variable. There was much less oxygen in the air, for example.
I also note you aren't prepared to explain why you're happy with a graph made entirely of concepts that you normally reject. It says a lot.
I realise it's futile trying and educate somebody so far out that they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily; gravity isn't predictable; the mathematical concept of average isn't valid; and that statistics and probability is no better than "guessing", but this thread is already ridiculous so here we are.
Here's another graph of the same thing from a recent paper that shows a better correlation for much of the period than the ones you've posted
robinessex said:
In my 60 years of work in engineering analysis, I've probably produced more graphs than you've had dinners. They serve two purposes, both Visual. One shows a trend, the other is to visibly show any correlation between signals, especially for those without any mathematical skills to understand the numbers. That graph depicts two signals, CO2 and Planet temperature. They don't need any other mathematical tweaking or consideration, they stand up in their own right. Otherwise, they're not worth making in the first place.
So you didn't use any metrics to prove or disprove correlation in your engineering job? You just used to look at it? Did you not use the best fit line to make future predictions of the behaviour in the engineering job? How confident were you in the predictions?mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
In my 60 years of work in engineering analysis, I've probably produced more graphs than you've had dinners. They serve two purposes, both Visual. One shows a trend, the other is to visibly show any correlation between signals, especially for those without any mathematical skills to understand the numbers. That graph depicts two signals, CO2 and Planet temperature. They don't need any other mathematical tweaking or consideration, they stand up in their own right. Otherwise, they're not worth making in the first place.
So you didn't use any metrics to prove or disprove correlation in your engineering job? You just used to look at it? Did you not use the best fit line to make future predictions of the behaviour in the engineering job? How confident were you in the predictions?Nomme de Plum said:
Apart from we currently have near full employment and many jobs with skill shortages. Perhaps there are opportunities for those people in the sustainable technology sector.
What do you consider is a reasonable amount to fund mitigation measures necessitated by more extreme weather disrupting agriculture and impacting properties and business? Of course this adds to food costs and such things as insurance and local and central taxes.
The first sentence is not accurate as the UK has 5.8 million people on out of work benefits.What do you consider is a reasonable amount to fund mitigation measures necessitated by more extreme weather disrupting agriculture and impacting properties and business? Of course this adds to food costs and such things as insurance and local and central taxes.
A reasonable amount to find mitigation measures? I would allocate zero until the balance between government spend and revenue is over +1% not at a 120bn a year net loss every year.
The watermelons won't like it but until the UK learns to live within it's means, vanity is not something that is affordable.
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
In my 60 years of work in engineering analysis, I've probably produced more graphs than you've had dinners. They serve two purposes, both Visual. One shows a trend, the other is to visibly show any correlation between signals, especially for those without any mathematical skills to understand the numbers. That graph depicts two signals, CO2 and Planet temperature. They don't need any other mathematical tweaking or consideration, they stand up in their own right. Otherwise, they're not worth making in the first place.
So you didn't use any metrics to prove or disprove correlation in your engineering job? You just used to look at it? Did you not use the best fit line to make future predictions of the behaviour in the engineering job? How confident were you in the predictions?The beauty of a graph is the information you can glean from it, if the graph and excel functions can be understood. Left in the hands of someone who does not understand the graph, it can completely mislead what it is conveying.
In my 'engineering' career it is amazing how easy misinterpretation (and manipulation) of data to those less aware. And I include many qualified engineers in multinational companies who never understood the difference between total std dev and pooled std dev and how they work in calculating cpk and ppl indices.... In fact, on this point, I never got caught
Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 30th November 07:48
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
In my 60 years of work in engineering analysis, I've probably produced more graphs than you've had dinners. They serve two purposes, both Visual. One shows a trend, the other is to visibly show any correlation between signals, especially for those without any mathematical skills to understand the numbers. That graph depicts two signals, CO2 and Planet temperature. They don't need any other mathematical tweaking or consideration, they stand up in their own right. Otherwise, they're not worth making in the first place.
So you didn't use any metrics to prove or disprove correlation in your engineering job? You just used to look at it? Did you not use the best fit line to make future predictions of the behaviour in the engineering job? How confident were you in the predictions?The beauty of a graph is the information you can glean from it, if the graph and excel functions can be understood. Left in the hands of someone who does not understand the graph, it can completely mislead what it is conveying.
In my 'engineering' career it is amazing how easy misinterpretation (and manipulation) of data to those less aware. And I include many qualified engineers in multinational companies who never understood the difference between total std dev and pooled std dev and how they work in calculating cpk and ppl indices.... In fact, on this point, I never got caught
Edited by mike9009 on Saturday 30th November 07:48
robinessex said:
We've wandered off the title of this posting now, it is time we killed it.
One last thing - will you be showing the graph I posted to your grandchildren and their teacher? You don't have to answer thatJust in case you have a little bit of genuine interest in the subject here's a full version link to the paper:
https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/SCIENCE.pdf
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
We've wandered off the title of this posting now, it is time we killed it.
One last thing - will you be showing the graph I posted to your grandchildren and their teacher? You don't have to answer thatJust in case you have a little bit of genuine interest in the subject here's a full version link to the paper:
https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/SCIENCE.pdf
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
We've wandered off the title of this posting now, it is time we killed it.
Just in case you have a little bit of genuine interest in the subject here's a full version link to the paper:https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/SCIENCE.pdf
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
robinessex said:
We've wandered off the title of this posting now, it is time we killed it.
One last thing - will you be showing the graph I posted to your grandchildren and their teacher? You don't have to answer thatJust in case you have a little bit of genuine interest in the subject here's a full version link to the paper:
https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/SCIENCE.pdf
Just in case you're really interested like
Futher reading and more graphs here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/201...
Judd et al discussion here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/202...
Carl_VivaEspana said:
The first sentence is not accurate as the UK has 5.8 million people on out of work benefits.
A reasonable amount to find mitigation measures? I would allocate zero until the balance between government spend and revenue is over +1% not at a 120bn a year net loss every year.
The watermelons won't like it but until the UK learns to live within it's means, vanity is not something that is affordable.
You think it is vane to endeavour to mitigate weather impacts? So you'd be happy to accept even more expensive food going forward or maybe we import more.A reasonable amount to find mitigation measures? I would allocate zero until the balance between government spend and revenue is over +1% not at a 120bn a year net loss every year.
The watermelons won't like it but until the UK learns to live within it's means, vanity is not something that is affordable.
There maybe but there are not 5.8M vacancies are there, it's nearer 850,000 and about 1.5M classed as unemployed. There is also the issue of skills and geography.
So no sea defences in the areas like Portsmouth with a population over £200K. As it happens they've already spent a few hundred million and there are plenty of other populated areas of the UK are suffering because the changing nature of weather.
I'm not sure why's you'd bring an American racist slur into the conversation.
Nomme de Plum said:
You think it is vane to endeavour to mitigate weather impacts? So you'd be happy to accept even more expensive food going forward or maybe we import more.
The governments plan is for more imported food and higher prices, go look at Harry's Farm on YouTube, he talks about being paid to set fields aside and also switch from food crops to bird seeds.mike9009 said:
robinessex said:
A perfect example of Durbs reiterating/bending what someone has said and then claiming they have a complete misunderstanding of the subject:-
....................they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily.........................
bks Durb. I've said many times that wet timber won't ignite, the moisture content needs to be 15%-20%, timber needs to be heated to 250 degrees C to ignite, 95% of 'wildfires' are directly blamed on human action.
95% on average. ....................they'll argue that dry things don't catch fire more easily.........................
b
ks Durb. I've said many times that wet timber won't ignite, the moisture content needs to be 15%-20%, timber needs to be heated to 250 degrees C to ignite, 95% of 'wildfires' are directly blamed on human action.-2 deg C to 15 deg C in days (locally) = scorchio. Microtrenders may say we'll be boiling soon. It'd be interesting to have the fuil UK picture of this weather not climate change from the network of 302 Mystic Met reporting stations, particularly the 103 which don't exist. The Met Office has refused to reveal exactly how (or from where) the alleged ‘data’ provided by these 103 non-existent sites arises. Those that exist are barely better than those which don't. 78% of Mystic Met's temperature station network sensors are in junk classes 4 and 5 which can have errors from 2 up to 5 deg C. Result: no realistic picture available, thank goodness for UAH LTT.
Forgot to mention this beaut. Spot the politics.
ETA https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2024/when-soundi...
Forgot to mention this beaut. Spot the politics.
ETA https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2024/when-soundi...
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 30th November 17:25
turbobloke said:
-2 deg C to 15 deg C in days (locally) = scorchio. Microtrenders may say we'll be boiling soon. It'd be interesting to have the fuil UK picture of this weather not climate change from the network of 302 Mystic Met reporting stations, particularly the 103 which don't exist. The Met Office has refused to reveal exactly how (or from where) the alleged ‘data’ provided by these 103 non-existent sites arises. Those that exist are barely better than those which don't. 78% of Mystic Met's temperature station network sensors are in junk classes 4 and 5 which can have errors from 2 up to 5 deg C. Result: no realistic picture available, thank goodness for UAH LTT.
Forgot to mention this beaut. Spot the politics.
ETA https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2024/when-soundi...
It is interesting to follow the data and science, see link below.....Forgot to mention this beaut. Spot the politics.
ETA https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2024/when-soundi...
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 30th November 17:25
But undermining science and data is a popular trait. Mystic Met....what is that trying to achieve? Just embarrassing.
<Waits retort with a load of quoted papers which are largely nonsense, and fall at the first hurdle of 'scientific' rigour>
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperat...
Looks like a wipe out for the Greens in Ireland.........
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/01/gre...
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/01/gre...
dickymint said:
Looks like a wipe out for the Greens in Ireland.........
https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/01/gre...
I suppose as the 'mainstream' parties become greener (which they have been), the relevance of the green party becomes less relevant. Political objectives achieved.https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/12/01/gre...
<Except for the out and out non green parties>
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff