* Posts by Dodgy Geezer

1142 posts • joined 27 Jul 2007

Mobile tech destroys the case for the HS2 £multi-beellion train set

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Surely there ARE ways to cost benefits?

Costing work on trains is pointless, but there MUST be advantages in better rail links which can be evaluated.

Producing a more comfortable and convenient journey must be worth something. Also, once a journey drops below a critical time, you get many extra people taking advantage of it.

I'm not saying that these figures would justify the HS2. But they would at least be useful.

I understand that the real reason for HS2 anyway is that it was ordered by the EU. So we have to do it - we have no option. Might as well face facts...

0
0

Better Place electric car outfit goes titsup

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Trollface

Just one in a string of highly successful subsidy-gatherers...

...saying the combination of clever software and a startup mentality were needed to kickstart an electric car industry.

Actually, the Electric Car industry is doing just great.

Set up a company, gather massive subsidies from taxpayers, pay yourself a healthy wage and pension pot as director, run it a few years and then go bankrupt when the subsidy people start looking for a return.

What's not to like? Post-modern commerce!

2
1

Phones for the elderly: Testers wanted for senior service

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Coffee/keyboard

... Many studies suggest that if people with Alzheimer's are surrounded by the trappings of their youth - interior decor, music etc* - they are happier and less likely to be confused, so replicating the familiar 'Hello operator, please connect me to...' experience of their youth is a good idea.

*There is a elderly care home /community in Holland, I believe, with an entire street set out as it might have been several decades ago. The shops are real, but with products and layouts reminiscent of the 1950s,..

So, when we're old, we'll be provided with cramped apartments strewn with empty beer-cans and X-Boxes....?

12
0

Paul Allen buys lovingly restored vintage V-2 Nazi ballistic missile

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Redirecting V1s

If you were flying a Tempest V, with 2,500 HP of Sabre engine up front and a decent wing section without compressibility problems, interception speeds from behind weren't that much of an issue. Given that the V1 was a very small target, engaging from behind with matched speeds offered the best chance of a hit.

Flying through the explosion wasn't too bad either - much of the debris went sideways. One point of interest - as you went through the pressure bubble caused by the detonation your aircraft encountered marked variations in gas density, including a partial vacuum. With the torque from the 4-bladed prop, and no air to bite on, the aircraft would often emerge from the fireball upside down....

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: Google and Apple must be worried

...I doubt they would sell a fully working one...

I see no reason why not. The internals are fairly simple items anyway, which could easily be reproduced nowadays.

Of course, it depends on what you mean by 'fully working'. They would not sell one fueled up, with a functioning warhead. And damage may have occurred to the items during the elapsed years - for instance, any battery inside would be long past its best. But I don't suppose they intentionally broke all the fins off the turbo pumps and drilled holes in the fuel tanks.

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Fired in Anger?

..Maybe it was fired from Angers?..

And probably AIMED at Ongar.....

0
0

Woolwich beheading sparks call to REVIVE UK Snoopers' Charter

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Childcatcher

...imagine terrorists and pedos working in conjunction. we need to do something before this happens....

If anything cried out for a 'Won't somebody think of the children! this is it...

Terrorists and Pedos, eh? How about Terrorists VERSUS Pedos? Terrorist Ninjas Vs Pedo Pirates? I think we have a film title here somewhere. Or at least an internet meme....

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: This one isn't going away

...Any terrorists who kill people will be in breach of their employment contract and could be given a disciplinary warning....

Actually, if we give everybody a 'dounle-0 number', then they'll ALL have a license to kill, and we won't need to worry at all...

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: This one isn't going away

...Surely it would be better to increase the numbers of MI5 officers who would then be able to maintain surveillance on "persons of interest", rather than decide happily to monitor the entire electronic spectrum (exaggerating for effect) on the off-chance of finding something? ...

They don't want that. And they really don't have a great interest in monitoring everyone in the UK either. What would be the point?

Basically, what they want is to be able to do anything they like, without any barriers, checks or controls. The easiest way to achieve this is to put through a law saying that they can snoop on anyone, and then there is no need to produce a reason every time they want to snoop on a person they think might be dodgy.

After that law, they'll want a law saying that they can pick up and hold anyone they want without charge... Oh, sorry - I forgot - they already did that....

So long as you have done nothing wrong, or don't look as if you're going to do anything wrong, or don't get accidentally confused with someone who might possibly be looking as if they might do something wrong, you are quite safe....

(N.B.) The words 'Something Wrong' are generally defined to mean anything that a person in authority thinks should be stopped from happening...

3
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Angel

Re: The ones who should be monitored

...I can’t remember ever seeing anything about sending Catholics back to where they came from...

Um... The Garden of Eden?

(Pause for obligatory Joni Mitchell Woodstock riff....)

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Re: The guys were already known to the authorities

...Wouldn't surprise me if the spooks let a few known terrorists run loose to help them revive the fear and demand more powers. 7/7 did after all happen many years ago, the plebs need to be scared again....

That was near enough what was done with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. They were wars with no specific achievable aim in mind, but they DID stir up a lot of bad feeling in the Middle East. And bad feeling in the Middle East is ALWAYS good for the intelligence and military budgets...

Remember that the Berlin Wall had come down ten years earlier, and the Cold War had finished. That was VERY BAD for said budgets and career paths. They were frantic for a reason to continue to exist, and really needed a 'single really powerful enemy' - as anyone who watches James Bond films knows. That's why all these occasional random attacks by various groups or individuals pissed off by what is happening in the Middle East are 'really coordinated by the shadowy master-minds of Al-Qaeda'...

4
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: Here we go again...

...The chances of being killed by a terrorist or other nutter is substantially less than that of being killed by a police car * - are we terrified of police cars? Do we call for them all to be locked up?...

These are, at least, mostly accidents - though few policeman ever get done for 'due care and attention'..

Of more interest is the total number of police-related deaths: 121 for last year alone. The greatest number of these (62, or about 50%) are deaths in or after police custody - many related to police 'restraint', tasering or incapacitant spray. The next largest number (32, or about 25%) is of 'suicides in custody'. RTAs are about 15% of the total...

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/Documents/research_stats/Deaths_Report2011-12.PDF gives more data

3
0

EU boffins in plan for 'more nutritious' horsemeat ice cream

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Childcatcher

...Seemingly the horsemeat ice-cream or other products would be ideal as a dietary supplement for those needing "specialised protein products", such as "sick people, the elderly and athletes"....

Why does it only seem 'ideal' as a supplement for people who may not have much choice about what they are given to eat? They could have added baby food....

I am looking for EU funding to make a nutritious gruel out of mud, to be served at orphanages...

4
0

Climate scientists agree: Humans cause global warming

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them

Umm...this was mentioned two posts (about 3 hours) ago....

But it bears repeating. A few known sceptical scientists who did not believe in AGW have been found to have their papers included in the 97%.

Apparently the categories worked by counting ANY mention of AGW as explicitly supporting it, unless this was followed by outright rejection of ANY human influence at all. From Cook's own methodology:

..."To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone....

So, unless you wrote a paper saying "ALL AGW is completely wrong", you were counted as supporting it. A paper that said: "This basic aspect of AGW is disproven" would count as supporting it....

Rik Myslewski should be ashamed of himself. It was his job to ensure that the story was a valid one, and not a propaganda scam. It would be nice to have his excuses in these comments....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Pint

Re: This may be a dumb question

...*Which makes you seem amazingly smug...

Yes, that is correct. I am. That is an unfortunate by-product of knowing everything... :)

...You see I was asking whether there's a site that helps people analyse this data, without bias. I'm not exactly sure where to start, and it would be helpful methinks to have somewhere that tries to sort it out without having its own agenda, apologies for wishing we could have some sort of scientific neutrality in the hope of maybe getting the reasonable truth or giving people the tools to help make some sense of it all....

This is a highly politicised subject. You really will NOT get one site which everyone agrees is balanced. Your best bet is to read one side, then the other, and decide for yourself who you think is telling the truth. Be prepared for brickbats along the way. I have provided a start for you, but I didn't hear any thanks...

...that's obviously why I am asking questions you muppet.

I want to be Statler or Waldorf.....

P.S - there IS a site which provides temperature data. It's Wood for Trees The data collections themselves may be biased, but this gives you a look at the raw data. No need to thank me again, your effusive protestations are just too embarrassing....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Lets get this straight

Some interesting news just coming out at Popular Technology.

Apparently the lad who runs that blog was surprised at the findings of this paper, so he emailed a couple of scientists whose papers had been categorised as supporting AGW, but whom he thought opposed it.

Sure enough, they both emailed back to say that their papers did NOT support AGW theory. Both papers were pointing out an error in the AGW hypothesis, but because they mentioned the hypothesis and said that 'this bit is wrong', they were counted as 'endorsing it 50%'

Link is HERE

I suggest that this news renders your attempt to justify Cook's bit of propaganda rather pointless....

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Proof?

...That's the difference between scientists and you: They are willing to revise their beliefs based on evidence, observations, and data. You, on the other hand, have chosen to believe something -- regardless of evidence, observations, and data...

I see that you are commenting on a subject you know nothing whatsoever about. Let me correct you, and anyone else who thinks that the point you have made is valid.

These examples are NOT ones of scientists 'finding out mistakes'. They are examples of establishment scientists SUPPRESSING the truth, closing down discussions and ruining the careers of anyone who dared to disagree with them.

The truth about these topics was suppressed for varying lengths of time, as documented in the table below. Global Warming will be joining that list shortly.

Heliocentric view of the Solar System - some hundreds of years

Peptic Ulcers - around 20 years

Plate Tectonics - around 40 years

Piltdown Man - around 40 years

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...Well surely its more sensible than saying give me a massively biased site that lies and obscures truth behind bullshit and statistics? How are you supposed to work out what's the truth if you already know they are biased?...

You appear to be amazingly unintelligent. If a balanced site does not exist, the best that can be done is to provide the leading sites from both sides and allow someone to make up their own mind.

I presume that your view is that all your beliefs are perfect, and everyone else is 'massively biased'? Congratulations.

0
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: A new idea - thinking about the data...!

@Anonymous Coward

Permit me the opportunity to correct that last sentence for you: "And that the deniers of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it...."

Permit me to correct your correction. Rather than follow my normal approach of providing appropriate data and reasoning for my assertions, I will use your AC approach:

1 - You are wrong because I say so.

2 - AGW is wrong because I say so.

I think that covers it nicely....

Incidentally, as a follower of the Pastafarian persuasion, I'm surprised to find you supporting establishment 'scientists'. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes it quite clear that they are a bunch of liars. I suggest that you re-read the first few chapters to re-kindle your faith, and provide a reference here:

The Holy FSM Gospel

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: For God's sake ,...people...!

.."Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs"

No they were asked to rate their own papers. They were not asked for their beliefs.

You are seriously trying to argue that an author's own paper does NOT contain his beliefs? What kind of planet do you come from?

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Bored

".... We now know that the increased strength of the greenhouse effect is causing hurricanes to be stronger...

Shame that the data shows that they're becoming weaker, then, isn't it... :)

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: This may be a dumb question

...With that in mind if anyone can recommend good sites that do look at it dispassionately and are happy to criticise claims on both sides by just sorting through the facts then please let me know ta....

Hmmm. That's a bit like saying that I'm not sure whether to vote Conservative or Labour - give me a nicely balanced site to help me chose...!!

There is, actually, a site which sits scrupulously in the middle. It's called "Climate Debate":

Climate Debate

As you may have gathered, I'm 'anti-AGW', so I look at sites like these below:

Watts up with that

Climate Audit

Climate Resistance

Far be it for me to advise on the 'best' pro-AGW sites, but these are often mentioned. Perhaps some pro-AGW type would like to put down their selection?

Tamino's Open Mind

Real Climate

Skeptical Science

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...we DO know that ocean temperatures are rising everywhere,..

No, we don't. All the northern ocean basins are cooling. Unless you can produce a Global Warming theory which works separately in the two halves of the planet, you're going to have problems with that one...

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: For God's sake ,...people...!

...the correct interpretation is that 69% of the papers expressed no conclusions regarding the truth of ACC. That is not at all the same as neutrality. That means only that none of the 69% can be used to determine what scientists believe. They mean "no data", not "neutral". It would be incorrect to enter ANY numeric value for them into a statistical analysis. ..

This is almost complete nonsense. Remember that these authors were then asked for their own beliefs. If you do the sums with authors who bothered to mark their own papers (the only way to ensure that you get what they think), you get this data (the original data is insufficient for 100% coverage, so does not add up to 100%) :

764 offered no position

412 authors endorsed

47 reject

24 not sure

I make that around 70% who do not think that AGW is proven, and 30% who think it is. A long way from 97% consensus. That is a huge vote for 'the science is not clear yet. Pretending that this data represents 97% of scientists voting FOR AGW by just taking the middle two figures is simply lying propaganda.

The best you could say for this study is that, of the scientists whose minds were made up about AGW, 97% believe in it. And I would like to study the methodology much closer before agreeing that that was a firm finding...

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: so.what do we do....

...Fair cop, for some reason I confused 20,000 for 12,000, mea culpa (in my defence I mention 12,000 above, a case of mathematical dyslexia I fear). But you've not really answered anything, the fact remains that of any papers that expressed an opinion on agw, 97% agree with a human cause...

I'm sorry to hear that you have mathematical dyslexia. But really, if that is a problem for you, you should not be discussing statistics...

Luckily, I am able to help you with some of the sums. Very little information is given (which is suspicious in itself), but here is the basic data which can be gleaned from the figures given.

Papers by 8547 authors were studied, marked, and then the authors were asked for their comments.

Of those authors, 1184 replied.

Of that 1184:

786 said they had no position

412 accepted AGW

47 rejected it

24 were not sure

So, in total, out of 8547 authors, 412 cared about AGW sufficiently to say that they supported it. I make that around 5% of all authors.

However, if you just take the 412 and the 47 as the only 'important' people, you can say that around 90% of 'the scientists who expressed a preference' were for AGW.

Myself, I would say that the main finding was that 95% of scientists didn't think that responding to this survey was very important. You might hazard a guess as to why - I have no opinion...

4
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: This may be a dumb question

...In fact, the data show a clear overall warming trend. Most of the heat is going into the ocean below 700 meters. ...

Why are the northern hemisphere oceans ALL cooling, then? Global Warming's taking a summer break in New Zealand, perhaps?

I'll give you a tip. Looking for SOMETHING in the world that is warming, and claiming that that's because of CO2 in the air isn't going to cut it. In this case, you have to explain how the deep sea is being warmed by the air, while the air and the shallow seas are staying the same temperature or cooling. Just sheepishly repeating ScepticalScience or RealityDrops isn't going to persuade anyone....

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

Re: Self-referential meta-rubbish

...This paper is a bit like taking stories from church newsletters and asking the congregation: if this story contains Jesus, do the authors believe in Jesus? I'm sure >97% of them would agree. The icing on the cake is then putting this story back into the newsletter as an self-congratulatory affirmation of faith.

Actually, I understand that most historians believe that Jesus bar-Joseph was a historical person who was killed in Judea around 30AD. The question of whether he was the Son of God is a separate one, of course.

So the paper is actually a bit like asking the question "Did Jesus exist? " and, finding a majority of people agreeing, claiming that therefore they are all Christian. This is a very common trick amongst 'true warmist believers' - they often say "Do you accept that in a lab, air with some CO2 in it gets hotter than air with no CO2 in it?". And when you say: "Yes,but...", they then say "So you must believe in dangerous CO2 heating caused by humans, then, and the need to close down all our power stations!"

3
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

A new idea - thinking about the data...!

"...The rebuttal you link to fits the contradiction behaviour I outlined yesterday. Ie it tries to push these two contradictory arguments:..."

This whole argument is nonsense - based on a blatant piece of propaganda which would not deceive a primary school pupil.

The figures are taken from papers identified with the words 'climate change' or 'global warming'. They looked for agreement or disagreement with the AGW hypothesis. Taking round numbers, they show:

- 70% of papers give no indication

- 30% agree

- A small number (around 1% ) disagree.

These figures were obtained from about 12,000 papers. These had around 8,000 authors. The authors were then asked to 'validate' the opinions of the examining team, around 1,000 responded.

There is no way that this data can say ANYTHING about the opinions of "97% of scientists". For a start. we don't know how many scientists wrote each paper. Although this is an extreme illustration which is almost certainly not true, it is possible, with this methodology, for ONE scientist to have written the 3,600 papers which are claimed to support AGW, and for 5,000 scientists to have written the 120 papers which disagree.

All that can be said is that, of the published papers on Global Warming at present in the literature (and we don't have the timescale for this either), about 1/3 support the hypothesis and 2/3 express no opinion either way. Many of these papers may be disproven by later ones, of course - we simply aren't told enough to know.

And that the supporters of AGW are so frantic for some supporting data that they will descend to these levels in an attempt to obtain it....

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re: This may be a dumb question

"...certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.

Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer?..

Er, WHY are you looking at this data to find out if the oceans are getting warmer or colder? We have perfectly good direct temperature measurement of all the Earth's oceans. Look at that.

If you're interested, it will tell you that some layers of water are warming up, and others are cooling down. It does not support the theory that increased CO2 concentrations are causing damaging warming.

The use of proxy data like this reminds me of a similar occasion where the warmists tried to find the tropospheric hot-spot that their theory said must exist. There is good temperature data for the upper atmosphere, and it is clear that there is no hot-spot. So the warmists took wind data, manipulated it statistically, and claimed that there had to be a hot-spot to drive the wind variations they obtained from their stats.

When people start doing this kind of thing it is pretty obvious that they are trying to cheat...

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: This may be a dumb question

...This may be a dumb question But I am asking it genuinely so can some one explain it to me.

There seems to be some evidence that a marine and animal life is starting to migrate to areas outside of there norm, for example corals near Japan now seem to be establishing themselves further North where its cooler, certain Mediterranean species are starting to be found off our coast, coral bleaching, things like this.

Is this not an indication of waters getting warmer? BTW it may sound it but I am not asking a rhetorical question to prove a point...

A few points:

1 - evidence of biological changes driven by temperature happening in an area are usually good evidence that the temperature in that area is changing.

2 - this whole field of 'science' has now become an activist political arena, so ALL papers on this subject need to be looked at quite cautiously. One common trick that both sides have been accused of is 'cherry-picking' - that is, selecting data to support their hypothesis while ignoring other data which is just as reliable, but which tends to disprove their preferred position.

3 - In this case you would need to look at ALL the world's ocean temperature data to see whether ALL of it was rising. If not, this may be a series of isolated incidents and not a major world change.

4 - The world's ocean currents and temperatures are changing all the time. Some follow cycles which we know about, some changes we do not understand. It is quite possible that corals near Japan may be growing further north if a warm current in that area grows stronger, and for that to be nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

1
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Lets get this straight

"You wouldn't expect all papers to offer an opinion. Most biology papers won't offer an opinion on the theory of evolution for example."

Indeed. The only papers which would be 'offering an opinion' would be those who were actively engaged in some controversy on the theory of evolution.

Exactly as is the case here. For most people it isn't an issue one way or another. There is a group of scientists who are pushing their agenda, and a much smaller group criticising it. But the sum total is not great.

You can't claim 97% of scientists with this data...

3
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

For God's sake ,...people...!

...look at the data!!!!

The claim that the writer makes here:

...an overwhelming percentage agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global warming..

Is terribly misleading. In round figures, the data is:

Of papers using the term 'Global Warming':

69% gave no opinion

30% said it was caused by humans

1% said it wasn't.

This does NOT equate to 97% support for 'Global Warming'. What it looks most like to me is a situation where the majority of scientists are having second thoughts, a fair number still hold to the 'old orthodoxy', and a small minority are out on a limb saying that it's not true. Exactly the situation indicated in Kuhn's 'Paradigm' theory of scientific development, in fact.

As an example of the misleading nature of this piece, consider the same study being done using the words 'Intelligent Design'.

It is quite conceivable that the majority of papers (70%?) would simply mention it without addressing its truth or not - they might be sociological papers describing belief systems. A smaller number (30%) might be papers from true believers asserting that it is true. And a very small fraction might be papers written by non-believers attacking the concept. Quite how you move from that data to an assertion that 97% of people believe in Intelligent Design escapes me....

4
3

Last time CO2 was this high, the world was underwater? NO, actually

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Scientific Theory

...I do believe that we should work to lower carbon emmisions, and we should work towards more carbon neutral or greener forms of energy production where capable. But this is simply for a health point of view...

Why? Lower CO2 emissions are nothing to do with health!

I would be with you if you said that we must stop emitting chemicals which are provably shown to cause damage. I think that it is likely that, other things being equal, we should work towards lowering emissions of chemicals which are alien to the local environment and might cause unwanted side effects, even if these are not fully understood yet.

But our biosphere runs a major CO2 cycle. Just like the Water cycle. It's not an alien chemical, it's totally benign and, in fact essential for life. Put a bit more into the environment - the plants eat a bit more. Nobody is claiming that we should cut back on water vapour - CO2 is similar. It's only the activists who are trying to make CO2 into some kind of poison gas...

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Scientific Theory

...I think you mis-understand how science works. I know quite a few climate scientists and every one of them would love to be able to prove that Global Warming isn't happening, why? Well, when you publish that paper, with definitive proof, you're made for life...

You may be 'made for life', but you'll be out of a job!

Of course, there ARE a number of climate scientists busily publishing papers showing that Global Warming theory has major holes in it. Lewis has just put a piece up advertising three of them. But they don't seem to be 'made for life'.

And the Cook piece about 97% of scientists supporting AGW? Popular Technology blog has two of those scientists pointing out that their papers were classified as supporting AGW when in fact they were pointing out big errors in it.

So I'm not sure I believe you when you say the Climate Scientists really want to disprove AGW. It rather looks as if any disproof of AGW will simply not be accepted....

0
0

Global perils of dirt, glaciers and lizardocalypse overblown, say boffins

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Holmes

...yet the data don't show that it's stopped...

Ah, well, I can only go by what the scientists at the UEA say, and what Pachauri, the head of the IPCC says. If you have data which seems to show different, I'm sure they'll be very interested to study it. AR5 is due soon, and your new data will be really useful for that - they were going to have to put graphs out showing the actual warming dropping out off their predictions...

1
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: @Dodgy Geezer

...If you have any papers in particular you'd like me to look at, i'd be more than happy to do so....

Not at all - you already seem to be well on top of the subject. Noticing the difference between North and South will already indicate to you that this is not a simple case of heat from the air flowing straight into the water - as will the lack of warming in the shallow ocean. Pay attention to the error bars - and consider whether the claimed accuracy is likely to be achieved in practice. Note the many other explanations there might be for small variations in temperature. And come to your own conclusions.

I still have basic thermodynamic difficulties with the idea that CO2 can constantly increase, while the air temperatures heat up, flatline and then decrease, and the ocean conveniently in the meantime soaks up enough heat to maintain the upward curve as predicted. Hansen talks about 'Climate Inertia' - I think that's just shorthand for 'find something which might be getting hotter and claim that that is where the heat is going without bothering to establish a mechanism'...

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
FAIL

I very much dislike these most recent articles that seem to be implying that global warming doesn't exist at all. Sure maybe it's not happening exactly like we first imagined it. But to imply that it is not happening at all and never will just isn't cricket.

I haven't heard that argument before. Are you seriously saying that if the data show that warming has stopped that we should continue to believe that it's going up because that would be 'sporting'?

...Besides regardless of if it is or isn't 'real' the pursuit of more efficient machines, renewable resources etc can only be a good thing...

No it's not. Please learn a bit more about the balance of efficiency and utility. And consider how the forced application of renewable energy to a system like the Grid which is not able to accept it will damage the entire infrastructure. Why do you think that the Czechs are building blocking transformers between their Grid and the German one?

2
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

... However the balance of analysis i've seen thus far, which includes deep ocean temperatures, still seems to indicate a warming trend in total...

You have already read the papers which show global warming to be halting.

Read them again, paying particular attention to the suggestion that deep ocean temperatures are maintaining a warming trend. You will find that the data does not bear this out, and what the papers are doing is taking sparse, highly error-prone data and torturing it until they think that they can make assertions about it. The 'deep-ocean' temperature is essentially unknown at present, and highly-error-prone proxies like sea-level figures are being used to estimate it. It is an act of faith to believe in continued warming at present - not a judgement based on good data...

4
2
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Sigh

...For some part I agree. However the CO2 debate also has a lot of positive side effects. Pushing for more efficient energy usage is not such a bad thing. More efficient engines, heating and light, for example....

Actually, it can be a bad thing. Human development and economics are not zero-sum games, but exercises in balance in a constantly changing environment. Efficiency is generally advantageous, but there can easily be such a thing as too much efficiency, if the by-products of this cause problems. For instance, we could insulate houses to a far greater degree than we do at present. We could make the walls much thicker, remove all windows and use an airlock to enter. But this would be considered extreme - in fact we prefer to insulate ourselves to a degree, insulate the house to a degree, and then use energy to maintain a decent temperature.

It is the market place which determines where this balance lies. Monkeying around with the market place by putting 'behaviour-modification' taxes on may improve insulation levels, but will distort other things which may be equally, or more, important. And, since the market-place usually produces the optimum balance, any distortion usually produces a net loss....

6
1

Half of youngsters would swap PRIVACY for... cheaper insurance

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: "privacy is only a problem for the last generation"

...Maybe the question being asked was so biased that the results are probably a waste of time?...

Almost certainly. You don't spend money on a survey unless you know that you are going to get the right answer...

..More than half of UK youngsters think being tracked is a small price to pay for cheaper car insurance, and 26 per cent will be actively seeking a pay-by-the-mile policy in the hope of saving a few quid....

Not exactly. At the price that youngsters insurance currently is, coupled with the fact that they have restricted money, we are talking about being able to afford insurance, or not. In other words, being able to drive, or not.

That's why lots of them are in favour of it....

5
0

'Liberator': Proof that you CAN'T make a working gun in a 3D printer

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Headmaster

Re: Idiot

...Erm? Name me a State of the US which was a country before joining the US. Most of them were colonies of other countries, Great Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands etc...

Not that difficult. Texas.

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

...Why not just simplify that to "Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine = Fully Working Gun"? What part of a gun can you make with a 3D printer and not a CNC Milling Machine?...

Actually, the full equation would read:

"Metalworking Lathe + CNC Milling Machine+ considerable skill+fully equipped workshop+lots of money = Fully Working Gun" - as against:

"3D printer+ bedroom +bored teenager with internet access=Fully Working Gun"

0
2
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: All very true, but..

..It's a first go, and it's a proof of concept....

Indeed. A similar piece back in 1905 would be claiming that the Wrights had just shown that air travel was pointless. I mean, all that time and effort to glide a few hundred yards at 6 ft high...?

6
0

Penguins in spa-a-a-ce! ISS dumps Windows for Linux on laptops

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

...reaction mass tanks...

I'm not sure what these are meant to be? Are you confused with the lack of heat radiators , which were specifically left off for the reason mentioned below?

0
0
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge

"...one of the few things Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick got right in the book and film of the same name..."

Given the huge amount of technical study they did on every aspect of the equipment, I prefer to think of them getting EVERYTHING right except one thing - the economics.. And that just means that the date when it really happens wouldn't be 2001, but perhaps 2051...

5
0

Standard Model goes PEAR-SHAPED in CERN experiment

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Coat

I am currently looking for funding...

... for my theory that the fundamental particles of matter are all fruit-shaped.

I believe that this can be determined if we re-configure the LHC into the shape of a banana, and fire pomegranate seeds through it into a melon....

0
0

Secret UN 'ZOD' climate deliberations: UK battles to suppress details

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Meh

...No intelligent person should have to waste his own time, or anyone else's time, defending the indefensible...

I fully agree with the general tone of the piece - Climate Change IS a scam perpetrated by activists masquerading as scientists, and the IPCC needs to be exposed for what it is.

But, given the essentially bureaucratic processes that go on in our current society, and the principle of collective responsibility,. I wonder if anyone can devise a method of living a modern life which does not require, on occasions, intelligent people to defend the indefensible?

After all, people still support QPR...

4
1
Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: as a scientist

...I would like to advise you all that reading any of the early drafts of anything I write is unlikely to help understanding, unless you happen to be some sort of science-process archaeologist or suchlike....

Depends what kind of understanding we are looking for.

No one would be surprised at typos and incorrect statements in a draft. However, the IPCC now have a track record of producing drafts which gain agreement from the world's scientists, and which are then changed on final draft to reverse the original meaning. This has been noticed before.

They get away with this by claiming that it would be too cumbersome to circulate the final draft to everybody for comment, and that all earlier drafts (the only ones that are fully agreed) must be kept secret.

I suggest that, if you had a similar track record, people might be interested in pinning you down on some of the earlier drafts that you wrote.

8
0

The UK's copyright landgrab: The FAQ

Dodgy Geezer
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Two sides to the orphan issue?

No problems - we're in this for the long haul. Interestingly, one of the biggest issues with operating the proposed orphan copyright process is that of language. At the moment I'm having to make myself understood to the remains of a small toy company in Czech - Swedish would be yet another tongue to translate my request emails into.

I wish people still used Latin as an international language.... :)

0
0

Forums