71 posts • joined 26 Oct 2009
Re: RE:".....so that the rock shot first..." No, no, that's not how they'll do it.
Soft on rocks: soft on the causes of rocks.
Re: Data collection in the *field* and data reduction to the latest *international* standards
context seems to be everything.
They lop off all the sites they don't like, and end up with a number (notably, at least in this piece, without error bars. So somewhere in the 0.13-0.14 per decade with their picked numbers, purely for the US land)
What's that? Surprisingly low? Let's check:
"On 25 November 2010 the UK Meteorological Office in a pre-Cancun press conference stated that it believed the increase in average global surface temperatures has been around 0.16C per decade between 1970 and 2000 but has ranged between 0.05C and 0.13C in the last ten years. The Met Office said that the trend figures for the period between 2000-2009 were based on data from three different source; one from NASA (0.13C), one from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (0.07C) and one from HadCRUT3 (0.05C) - the dataset managed by the Met Office and by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit"
So basically, a group of sceptics have looked at the data, and come out with something that still shows climate change, and in a range which is comparable to other studies, albeit non worldwide so it's apples to oranges.
But if you read the spin on this article, you'd think they'd proved that no warming was happening.
In Orlowski's world
8.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent is miniscule.
I call it a start. Yes, it needs to be higher. Yes, it can get higher. Yes, it needs supporting, and pushing, and developing more.
But in Orlowski's world, it's virtually nothing, and this means we shouldn't do anything to develop it further.
Re: Temperature rises before CO2
No, this report confirms that in the time period studied, it is likely that CO2 rises lagged heat rises.
Those heat rises were probably caused by Milankovitch cycles or some such: haven't read the actual report yet.
However, their report implies that natural feedback effects are likely to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, making the likely impact worse.
Re: woah there! ...
not just writing, now editor I believe.
Re: Lewis biased, again
the missing part in your above is where you say
A = communication strategy.
What it should be is
A1 = current communication strategy
A2 = alternate communication strategy
(A1/A2 to keep your other letters the same)
C = other information outside of 'sound scientific' Venn diagram bubble = !B
This could include, for instance, sound economic (economic != scientific).
so presenting sound economic arguments using either A1 or A2 could = D.
presenting sound scientific arguments using A2 could = D
He isn't simply reporting someone elses conclusions, because he is presenting their conclusions in a twisted form. That's what people have spotted. Orlowski does it far more mind, but they are both pretty shoddy in this regard on climate change. At least Page actually writes well on other subjects (I think, anyway), whereas Orlowski, he's just shit.
Re: Lewis biased, again
I'm loving the thumbs down from someone who hasn't challenged the logic. It's like "I don't like the logic! It is against my personal likes and dislikes! I will downvote!"
It's logic. It doesn't care about your personal likes and dislikes. Deal with it.
Re: Seems a bit like....
actually, it sounds like they did a test, the results weren't what they expected so they examined the data more closely to see why their prediction was wrong.
Then they published the results that explain the discrepancy.
I've heard of this kind of thing, where you look into a subject more deepy and examine further, and when a hypothesis is wrong you find out why....it''s called 'science'.
Re: Lewis biased, again
Hi Roger, let me make it simpler
Lewis states "thus it is....that the us government should seek to fund a communication stategy...which is not focussed on sound scientific information"
Spot the NOT. We're talking and/or/not gates here.
If we look at the piece he quotes
" ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. "
spot the only. That's an AND in the way this is used.
The opposite of AND is not NOT, as I'm sure most reg readers know.
So basically what we have here is a logical fail by Page where he basically can't parse a simple sentence correctly, and summarises it incorrectly.
Yep. The weird thing is that Page is actually fairly well educated yet seems wilfully obtuse.
Lewis biased, again
""One aim of science communication, we submit, should be to dispel this tragedy ... A communication strategy that focuses only on transmission of sound scientific information, our results suggest, is unlikely to do that. As worthwhile as it would be, simply improving the clarity of scientific information will not dispel public conflict ..."
Thus it is, according to the assembled profs, that the US government should seek to fund a communication strategy on climate change which is not focused on sound scientific information."
a does not equal b. Your "thus it is" is twaddle.
Re: woah there! ...
you might want to read the *actual* nature article rather than Lewis's take on it before sneering.
It normally shows the complete opposite from whatever Lewis says it does.
Re: Currently, Renewables Are NOT Sustainable
@Boring Hun Coder
"Besides, "renewable" energy from solar and wind is at least a factor of 10 more expensive than power from fossile or nuclear fuels"
No, it isn't. Unfortunately you are displaying an extremely poor grasp of the subject.
Re: Renewable energy a possiblity
Itzman, how can you have worked on this for 3 years and still have wrong numbers?
Ignoring hydro, wind & biofuels for the moment, we have more than enough solar potential in desert areas to power our current electrical needs.
Then look at biofuels. For instance, burning wood, if it's grown sustainably, is fine, using up all the available wood is not. Hence why Page's nonsense about stopping using wood as a fuel is just that - nonsense. But you can't burn up all your forests twice, they need to be managed properly so they can provide a perpetual supply.
Then there is hydro, in all it's various forms. Massive oceans with wave and tidal, big rivers, small rivers. Lots of power available there.
Then there is wind. Not for every country, but for many it can provide a huge amount of electricity.
But somehow your numbers say 100 million across the planet. Methinks you are an incompetent engineer if the highest you can perceive is 100 million supported by Renewables.
Lewis (and Orlowski) are so completely biased on this it's untrue. It just comes dripping through anything they write on the subject, they are completely incapable of an objective argument.
Unfortunately this also means they are bad journalists. A shame.
from the article
"The new results were derived by scientists including Professor John Wahr of Colorado uni. According to the new boffinry, glaciers and ice caps in places other than Antarctica and Greenland lost only 148 billion tons of ice each year from 2003 to 2010. This is some 30 per cent lower than had been previously estimated."
148 billion tons, not including Greenland or Antarctica, is very small?
Please, bog off.
I have nothing against linux at all. But why do you feel the need to drop your pro-linux droppings all over an article talking about windows administration? Does it make you happy?
For my money, half the tools on the list aren't tools at all, but a list of the free software which is handy to have for the user longterm (as a fix, why do you need to create pdf's for instance?)
A BartPE disk is my weapon of choice if it's so nerfed I can't get into it at all. A lot of the other stuff is extra gubbins not required for any fix itself.
"My problem is that an increase in atmospheric temperature cannot cause an increase in temperature in currents that is three times larger (than the atmospheric change)."
Don't think of it as temperature, think of it as radiation. Greenhouse gases lead to absorption and re-emission of some infrared radiation that was heading spacewards. The infrared radiation that heads back down earthwards *may* be absorbed by the atmosphere - or may be absorbed by the land/water underneath.
Or to put it another way: convection, conduction, radiation. It's the 3rd of these that is the overwhelming aspect imparting addional heat energy into the oceans in this case.
Aye. First thing I thought when reading it - sadly, one stupid statement ruins the whole piece. Shoddy jounalism frankly.
Netbooks are not dead.
Tablets are not a long term replacement.
What is happening is twofold:
1) A saturated market is only slowly replacing existing kit, as the existing kit is still good enough, and not really growing massively, and;
2) The new shiny has had a massive bump which will not last.
BOTH will need processors.
your figures do not add up
I've just looked on the O2 website. You can get 900 minutes, unlimited texts & 500mb data for £42 per month + £50 cash. Insurance is £5 per month I believe.
Over 2 years, your rental just cost you 55*24 = £1320
Over 2 years, the 900 minute option cost £47*24 + 50 = 1178.
Resale value of an iPhone 4s in 2 years will be about £250 I reckon. £1178-£250 = £928.
So why exactly would any sane company throw away £400?
I would also note that O2 regularly do deals where you could knock an extra £50-£120 off the purchase price of a standard contract (fo4r instance, you don't have to pay the £50 excess if you buy before the end of dec). And that 900 minutes is more than 750.
Only a fool or a company who knew they were going out of business soon - or say, a traveller - would buy this. For a serious company? Not unless they are bloody stupid.
you don't sell them
you create a shell company, transfer the licenses to said shell company "Borders IP" for nothing, then sell the company.
The licenses themselves are then irrelevant, as long as you own "Borders IP".
I smell something bad....in the neighbourhood
" I have seen no evidence of change with a figure of around 311 ppm."
Well, that just says you are talking nonsense, as CO2 figures vary between summer and winter anyway by about 3-9 ppmv.
councils - the clue is in the s, which is a plural.
From this you may deduce that I was not just referring to Southwark Council.
I've worked in both private and public.
People complain about the costs of government, especially IT. One of the reasons is that all the extra paperwork etc involved in trying to keep things secure costs a lot of extra money and time.
One laptop went missing? Councils use millions of them, and ONE went missing.
One book went missing, from a locked room?
Whilst neither situation is good, we need to get this into perspective: when you have millions of employees, and millions of laptops, and tens of millions of other documents, it is beyond the wit of man to protect everything. The closer you get to protecting everything, the more costs rise.
clearly I'm missing something
This should explain
so how have cosmic rays made so much difference again?
3up, 3 down
(and counting) for a post which accurately summarises current thought on the subject.
Truely, el reg has some idiots who will vote against anything their beliefs don't allow.
Because 3 famous scientists from centuries ago, when scientific knowledge on the earth's history was much less advanaced, are a great set to choose.
Aerosols, particulates, gases etc in the atmosphere can have 3 main effects on temperature (I am simplifying)
1) Increase - CO2, Methane
2) Nothing - Nitrogen
3) Decrease - Sulphur Dioxide
What has been discussed is why the temperature appeared to largely plateau in the 2000's (albeit, still at historically very high temperatures).
It looks as though the main reason is sulphur emissions by the Chinese.
So what you have are multiple different effects, on top of each other, with different causes. This doesn't mean that the effects do not exist, just that they can mask each other.
Essentially, that means that when the chinese clean up their coal production, temperatures are predicted to jump rapidly, as happened after Europe and the US cleaned up their coal in the late 70's and early 80's.
A) Yes, other planets have had comparisons done, some have gone up in temp slightly, some down slightly. Mostly explainable by orbital differences. And by slightly, I mean an order of magnitude less than on earth.
B) Somewhere in the range of 0.1-0.2 degrees c.
1) The repeated use of windmill (they are not: they are wind turbines, and if you don't understand the distinction you know nothing about the subject)
2) The ignorance of the difference between fuel and plant capacity, and why that means that wind energy reduces our fossil fuel use.
The first one isn't a major flaw, more a sign that you don't really know the subject, but the second one is a pretty major problem.
more than 1 in 4
is >25%. How come for all 3 countrires on the graph, none of them reach 25%?
I smell deliberate falsehood and/or stupidity,
I read Lewis's summary - that's the report I was refering to, and skimmed the beginning of the actual John Muir report.
I got to this part
"During the study period, wind generation was:
• below 20% of capacity more than half the time.
• below 10% of capacity over one third of the time.
• below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve.
• below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and
often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis."
And stopped reading. Because if you know Weibull functions, this isn't an "unexpected result".
For a Mean Wind Speed of 6.5ms-1 and a Weibull Shape Factor of 2, 34% of the time the Mean Wind Speed will be 4ms-1 or lower.
Only someone who doesn't know the subject would put in that this is an unexpected result.
Having since flicked through the rest, these parts stand out:
"This Report set out to test a few assumptions. One hypothesis which seemed likely is that if windfarms generate at 30% of their rated capacity on average, then it might be reasonable to expect that they will generate over 30% for about half the time and under 30% for about half the time. However, it is now clear that wind behaviour is not so simple."
Well, it wouldn't be so simple because only someone who can't remember their GCSE maths thinks that mean is the same as median.
"Over 30% rated capacity
10 to 20%
5 to 10%
2.5 to 5%
1.25 to 2.5%
Less than 1.25% of rated capacity."
Bias obvious here. Let's have 6 bands for under 30%, but only one band for over 30%.
Then you have their numbers (Appendix C)
2009 AND 2010 23.63%"
(27.18+21.14)/2 = 24.16
Sure there are more, but I have work to do.
But he's still far better than one other writer on this site - you know the one, the one who normally disables comments as he doesn't like people saying what an idiot he is.....
what a pile of crap
Lewis is getting worse.
A lot of turbines are linked up to on-site useage, with the remainder going to the grid. No mention of this is even made in this report.
The John Muir group are anti-wind, and produce an anti-wind study. Amazing surprise!
Neither is any mention made of the fact that you DON'T AIM FOR HIGH CAPACITY FACTORS. It isn't one of the pillars of wind energy. What you are aiming for is COST EFFICIENT PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY..
Basically, Lewis is biased as hell about pretty much everything to do with energy use, and worse, he's biased as hell while not understanding the subject. I find it embarassing for him that he makes so many basic mistakes, repeatedly, when he really could learn this stuff to a much higher level within a month if he so chose.
"At this level of utilisation it sounds as though the amount of energy generated by a wind turbine over it's lifetime could be dangerously close to the energy cost entailed in building it..."
not unless a couple of months = 25 years. Which it may do in some weird alternate reality, but not in this one....
Gas alone can power everything, apparently. What's that skippy? Gas is only currently about 20% of current energy consumption, so gas being 250 years means that if we only burnt gas it would only last 50 years at current consumption rates? Or that in the last 50 years the worldwide energy consumption has nearly trebled, and this shows no sign of slowing?
Say it ain't so, gas supplies have fixed the energy crisis for 250 years, the writer told us. He's a writer, so that makes it true.
what a useless article
"If you've ever wondering how much it costs to show MPs and their staff how to use their computers, the answer is in - £1.22m."
If you think this is all IT support does, how are you in any way qualified to right on this topic?
"Twenty years ago, a friend of mine....
....completed her Environmental Science degree....."
She might know what she's talking about - but the words you are putting into her mouth are nonsense, and if "she" really exists she clearly doesn't understand her subject well.
yet more elreg inaccuracies
"about 4.8 per cent of present-day UK electricity demand, or approximately half a per cent of the UK's total energy requirements."
it's not a 10:1 ratio of electricity:energy use in the uk, as a lot of the primary energy use goes to create - you've guessed it - electricity.
Also, according to Lesters figures, it cost £5 billion to build enough nuclear to match (where does he get this figure?). Our current level of energy use is somewhere around 50GW, so Lester is building 2.5GW of nuclear @ £2,000 per kW.before running costs, that means that nuclear is more expensive than wind. Thanks Lester!
Regardless, the scheme was too big, too expensive, and has rightly been shelved for the moment.
are you taking the mickey?
"mild 2.2 degrees Celsius"
seriously, if you think that an average change of 2.2° is mild, when it varies across the planet and in some cases is going to be colder, and in some places massively hotter, you really shouldn't be talking about this.
Yet another sceptical article from elreg, what a surprise!
"For the record, your correspondent simply doesn't know whether they're right or not."
not according to the opinions you present, which are unrelentingly sceptical.
4 pages of discussion
and not a mention of terrorism or the threat of nuclear hijackings (unless I missed it?).
Or a mention that this means nuclear being available to every country in the world - bye bye any non-proliferation treaty.
let me guess
US good UK bad?
but again, an example of elreg's confirmation bias, where only articles that throw doubt on global warming get any articles.
"Regardless of whether or not the OP is "utterly clueless", could you be more specific on what's actually wrong with his claim? I'm not taking sides here - I'm just interested."
It doesn't take a couple of days to turn on a coal fired power plant - it's generally given as taking about 3 hours to go from zero to full capacity (sorry, I haven't got a link to hand, but I have studied this in depth). Or to put it more simply - if it takes a couple of days to turn coal on and off, how come we already turn coal on anf off every single day as our consumption varies from ~25GW to ~50GW in each day?
Wind varies too, of course, but you can predict wind pretty accurately if you're only looking 3 hours away, so you already know if those plants need to come on. You could happily run a full wind/coal mix with no other energy inputs. In addition, you don't run coal fired power stations at capacity anyway (have a look at the variance in the uk's power consumption if you want more info).
simple isn't true
having extra electricity flowing into the grid does indeed mean you can turn off some plants, and run others at lower capacity factors - which means less gas/coal is used, a LOT less in fact.
I do wonder, when I read so many comments from people that obviously don't understand the science - why don't you educate yourselves, THEN post?