COP26

[Dave78]

Just now, thplinth said:

As opposed to dave’s clit…

It's a real axis of evil in that photo. Sturgeon, Cortez, and reduced sugar Irn Bru. Not sure which is worse.

[aaid]

21 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

Aaaaand thplinth's head just exploded.......



 

 

She seemed to like it,

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CWGlRqhFEy5/?utm_source=ig_embed

[exile]

8 hours ago, Alibi said:

Yes, she probably has a point there.  Women's voices should be heard in debate. Obviously that doesn't include transwomen as they are in fact men and should be accounted for as such. She should have made that clear...

Do all threads eventually become trans threads? 🤔

[exile]

2 hours ago, aaid said:

She seemed to like it,

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CWGlRqhFEy5/?utm_source=ig_embed

Great promotion for Kola Champagne and Inca Kola too!  😅

[hampden_loon2878]

Finally some common sense 

[phart]

The average carbon dioxide coefficient of distillate fuel oil is 430.80 kg CO₂ per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2020). The fraction oxidized to CO₂ is 100 percent (IPCC 2006).

for 800,000,000 barrels. That's a lot of carbon to capture. If they can't invent novel ways to do it then it won't be extracted since perdition isn't a viable business model.

If they can pull it off would be great. The carror and the stick approach might work. Neccesity is the nother of incention after all. Need a quantum leap in technology though.

[aaid]

2 minutes ago, phart said:

The average carbon dioxide coefficient of distillate fuel oil is 430.80 kg CO₂ per 42-gallon barrel (EPA 2020). The fraction oxidized to CO₂ is 100 percent (IPCC 2006).

for 800,000,000 barrels. That's a lot of carbon to capture. If they can't invent novel ways to do it then it won't be extracted since perdition isn't a viable business model.

If they can pull it off would be great. The carror and the stick approach might work. Neccesity is the nother of incention after all. Need a quantum leap in technology though.

A lot of hand waving in that interview and of course it’s only a neutral position - assuming it’s possible - whereas what’s required is to actually move into a positive position, eg., don’t open up Cambo and also invest in carbon capture.  

[thplinth]

On 11/9/2021 at 4:18 PM, hampden_loon2878 said:

 What an embarrassment, shes off her bloody rocket 

She has big problem with men that is obvious. So many full on bigoted comments it is ridiculous.

[hampden_loon2878]

On granting licences one necessity is for a decommissioning fund, tgere should be a carbon capture tax introduced,, a win win,, 

[Grim Jim]

6 hours ago, thplinth said:

As opposed to dave’s clit…

'kin'hell, that takes me back  ...about 40 years.   On vote night, Charles Kennedy was on stage leading the debate that women should be admitted to the Glasgow University Union.   A guy whose name I don't remember led for the other side, but I do remember his splendid oratory to the hall, "You're just a bunch of clitty lickers!"

Kennedy carried the day.

[Grim Jim]

6 hours ago, thplinth said:

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by Grim Jim
Double post. Place is acting up.

[thplinth]

1 hour ago, phart said:

Just doing my own research.

It's the classic Stewart Lee point.

 

I don't want to take the coronavirus thread any further off topic than Lamia and phart have done thus far so I will comment on that video title above here. (No problem with youtube videos now I see, strange...)

Firstly I was very glad to see it has seemingly nothing to do with the title "Climate Change Deniers". Because anyone using the 'denier' add-on is a complete knob for obvious reasons and I like Stewart Lee.

But 'Climate Change Denier' is also very funny (for me) in itself. Because they have changed that over the years from 'Global Warming Deniers' to 'Climate Change Deniers'. And the reason they have done that is that the Global Warming stopped a good few years back. 😀 So they just changed it to Climate Change and in doing that they admitted the global warming 'deniers' were were in fact correct. 

So now seamlessly the 'global warming deniers' are 'climate change deniers'. oh nooooos. 😀 I cant think of a single scientist, in any field!, who would say the climate does not change. It has done continuously through earth's history. You could not make it up, you really couldn't. it is just these empty headed slogans that appeal to enough people to bully through policies which will be very damaging to our economies and change nothing that actually really matters like loss of wild habitats, forests and the human triggered mass extinction event currently underway. Instead all we get is dodgy Al Gore bogus science about CO2... why, it's bollocks. If the truth was really on their side they would not have to label people 'deniers'. What an absolute circus the environmental movement has become as we have just seen in Glasgow.

[phart]

He's making an allegory about folk with no expertise thinking their opinions are in anyway equal with experts in a field. That's the joke it appears to have whooshed you.

Why don't you write a paper saying, climate is always chaging what are you worrying about ROFL. I'm sure the physicists who won the nobel prize in physics this year for their climate models will not have taken that into account with their dire warnings about temperature increase. Once they realise that and in fact despite the amazing predictive powers of the models over decades that's actually just a co-incidence cause the science about CO2 is actually bogus. Global warming actually stopped (even though it didn't at all) and the folk who made that bet a decade ago lost the best and the hottest 5 years in record all occurred in the last decade etc etc etc etc.

Dunning-Kruger in full effect and person wo can't pass a higher maths paper confidently stating complex models with decades of real world predictive power are wrong, and don't worry cause climate always changes.

You must be trolling now?

[phart]

2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows

 

NOAA found that the average temperature of meteorological summer - June, July, and August - was 2.6°F (1.45°C) above the 20th century average, a troubling sign as global temperatures continue to increase faster than previously thought.

All seven of the warmest years on record have been the last seven years, and 19 of the 20 warmest years have occurred since 2000. More than 18% of the contiguous U.S. experienced record heat this summer, and several states, including California, Nevada, Utah and Oregon had their hottest temperatures on record.

https://www.ecowatch.com/summer-2021-record-heat-noaa-2654965484.html

Edited November 11, 2021 by phart

[phart]

The latest data confirms 2020 concludes the earth’s warmest 10-year period on record.

The HadCRUT5 global temperature series, produced by the Met Office, University of East Anglia and UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science, shows that the average for 2020 as a whole was 1.28±0.08°C above pre-industrial levels, taken as the average over the period 1850-1900. This makes 2020 nominally the second warmest year in the dataset’s record.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2021/2020-ends-earths-warmest-10-years-on-record

Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to Scientists Who Warned the World of Climate Change

Early Tuesday morning, three scientists received the Nobel Prize in Physics for their decades of work studying the hidden forces that govern Earth’s complex atmosphere. Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the prize for their independent, groundbreaking research that provides the basis for current climate models and helped sound an early alarm on human-caused climate change.

“The discoveries being recognized this year demonstrate that our knowledge about the climate rests on a solid scientific foundation, based on a rigorous analysis of observations,” said Thors Hans Hansson, chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics. “This year’s Laureates have all contributed to us gaining deeper insight into the properties and evolution of complex physical systems.” 

[thplinth]

Actually it was an extremely misleading and dishonest label to put on the content of the video, not sure Stewart Lee would appreciate it either but that is just my guess.

I was relieved watching it, as I was dreading seeing him call people 'deniers' etc... thankfully it was just a very misleading label and had fuck all to do with the actual sketch, just what someone had tried to plaster over it to score a win' in some 'meme war' or whatever (or in this case the youtube video you posted over on the coronavirus thread).

I'd be a bit sad if Stewart Lee stooped to that level. I generally like his stuff.

[phart]

I love how the title of the video is the main concern as opposed to the physics of climate models, guess everyone find their own level.

[phart]

or the content of the video which is how folk with no expertise think they know better than folk who have spent decades studying something. but yeah what about that title.

[Orraloon]

41 minutes ago, phart said:

The latest data confirms 2020 concludes the earth’s warmest 10-year period on record.

The HadCRUT5 global temperature series, produced by the Met Office, University of East Anglia and UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science, shows that the average for 2020 as a whole was 1.28±0.08°C above pre-industrial levels, taken as the average over the period 1850-1900. This makes 2020 nominally the second warmest year in the dataset’s record.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2021/2020-ends-earths-warmest-10-years-on-record

Nobel Prize in Physics Awarded to Scientists Who Warned the World of Climate Change

Early Tuesday morning, three scientists received the Nobel Prize in Physics for their decades of work studying the hidden forces that govern Earth’s complex atmosphere. Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann and Giorgio Parisi were awarded the prize for their independent, groundbreaking research that provides the basis for current climate models and helped sound an early alarm on human-caused climate change.

“The discoveries being recognized this year demonstrate that our knowledge about the climate rests on a solid scientific foundation, based on a rigorous analysis of observations,” said Thors Hans Hansson, chair of the Nobel Committee for Physics. “This year’s Laureates have all contributed to us gaining deeper insight into the properties and evolution of complex physical systems.” 

I'm less skeptical about the climate change science than I used to be about 10 years ago, or before that, but I'm still not totally convinced. One of the reasons for that is this bit

"1.28±0.08°C" 

I just don't believe that we have the technology to measure the temperature of a planet to that level of accuracy. I've worked on temperature mapping projects in the past and we would never dream of quoting that level of accuracy. And we were working on well defined spaces with well defined boundaries much, much smaller than the size of a planet. 

I would need to read up a lot of stuff to find out how they actually measure it, and like the majority of folk, I just don't have the time or the inclination to do it.   

I'll probably be long dead before we find out for sure anyway. Which is, I suppose,  just another obstacle in the way of those people trying to convince us to change our habits.

[phart]

11 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I'm less skeptical about the climate change science than I used to be about 10 years ago, or before that, but I'm still not totally convinced. One of the reasons for that is this bit

"1.28±0.08°C" 

I just don't believe that we have the technology to measure the temperature of a planet to that level of accuracy. I've worked on temperature mapping projects in the past and we would never dream of quoting that level of accuracy. And we were working on well defined spaces with well defined boundaries much, much smaller than the size of a planet. 

I would need to read up a lot of stuff to find out how they actually measure it, and like the majority of folk, I just don't have the time or the inclination to do it.   

I'll probably be long dead before we find out for sure anyway. Which is, I suppose,  just another obstacle in the way of those people trying to convince us to change our habits.

You don't think they can use settelites to measure temperature to 3 significant figures? Or just measure temperature on surface with other means.

Why is that? What is the technological stumbling block?

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by phart

[phart]

I've just done a project using met office historical data from their weather stations and they have data with 3 significant figures (or 1 decimal place) for temperature.

[Hertsscot]

The 'problem' with science is that it is an inductive activity so can never give 100% certainty. The problem with climate prediction is it so complex and also dependent on actions that governments and businesses or individuals might (or might not) take.

Having said that it strikes me that the majority of scientists are saying the climate is changing due to human activity and that the results, which are already being felt now, will be catastrophic in the future for many of the most vulnerable people in the planet.

And if remarkably all these climate scientists who've devoted their life to the subject turned out to be wrong I 'm not sure it would be a disaster, greener fuels, better insulation, slower pace of life, less waste, more appreciation of nature. On the other hand if the climate scientists are right and we don't take adequate action, then we are in serious trouble.  Pascal's wager revisited.

[Orraloon]

11 minutes ago, phart said:

You don't think they can use settelites to measure temperature to 3 significant figures? Or just measure temperature on surface with other means.

Why is that? What is the technological stumbling block?

 

Sorry I probably worded that badly. Temperatures can be measured to that level of accuracy and much more accurate than that. What I don't understand is how they can do it for an entire planet with that level of accuracy. The mapping exercises I mentioned were for spaces the size of a few thousand litres up to about 200,000 litres. We would take thousands of readings and only quote to + or - 0.5C. I think about how many readings that would need for something the size of a large could (which is changing its shape, mass and volume constantly), or the surface of an ocean, and then multiply the potential error margins up to the size of a whole planet. I find it hard to get my head round how they can quote that level of accuracy.

[thplinth]

Watched this a few years ago now but it is a good intro to the subject. It is a complex problem.

https://www.corbettreport.com/what-is-the-average-global-temperature/

[phart]

1 hour ago, Orraloon said:

Sorry I probably worded that badly. Temperatures can be measured to that level of accuracy and much more accurate than that. What I don't understand is how they can do it for an entire planet with that level of accuracy. The mapping exercises I mentioned were for spaces the size of a few thousand litres up to about 200,000 litres. We would take thousands of readings and only quote to + or - 0.5C. I think about how many readings that would need for something the size of a large could (which is changing its shape, mass and volume constantly), or the surface of an ocean, and then multiply the potential error margins up to the size of a whole planet. I find it hard to get my head round how they can quote that level of accuracy.

You can measure the motion of the planets/solar system/galaxy etc without measuring the momentum of each of the individual particles that make up the planet.

The entire fluid dynamics field you ignore the individual atoms as well and there is great accuracy and precision as well.

You can measure the charge without counting the electrons/ protons.

You can't get exact values with these techniques but you can get them good enough to launch something into space and have it land on another planet 9 months later. Accurately map ocean currents, stellar evolution etc

Their methodology is included in each of the papers. You break up the earth into sections take hundreds of readings in each sector each day and then sort it from there, use various different measuring techniques to calibrate etc. They're not even one order of magnitude more precise than you were able to do and they have millions of points of data, billions of dollars of budget, an entire array of satellites and hundreds of various scientists working on it. If you can get 0.5 then i'm even more convinced 0.08 is doable.