Off Topic The Science Only Thread
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Same ****, here is the start of PJ's argument to my breakdown of the Hockeystick.
deniers
Ryan Cooper
Why would I read further
Great argument PJ, try understanding the subject ffs man
deniers
You must log in or register to see images
Ryan Cooper
You must log in or register to see images
Why would I read further
Great argument PJ, try understanding the subject ffs man
Given the same nitwits are doing the exact same thing on this thread. Have your climate change debate amongst yourselves. "deniers" 
It's already beginning to pollute this thread, which is what ye want of course.
So carry on without me
[HASHTAG]#leavemeoutofit[/HASHTAG]
It's already beginning to pollute this thread, which is what ye want of course.
So carry on without me
[HASHTAG]#leavemeoutofit[/HASHTAG]
Given the same nitwits are doing the exact same thing on this thread. Have your climate change debate amongst yourselves. "deniers"
It's already beginning to pollute this thread, which is what ye want of course.
So carry on without me
[HASHTAG]#leavemeoutofit[/HASHTAG]
You don't need to make multiple posts about how you refuse to read an article
You could just not read it and not comment about it
You don't need to make multiple posts about how you refuse to read an article
You could just not read it and not comment about it
Says the bloke who is too afraid to respond to my actual posts and points
Plus his link in no way addresses what I said in my post
Swansea bay will generate nearly 500,000 MWh of juice a year.
http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/the-project/faqs/59/
Hardly small change and doesn't require inland lakes to be formed on a small island
http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/the-project/faqs/59/
Hardly small change and doesn't require inland lakes to be formed on a small island
Keep it civil, I suspect it's about 120,000 kettles in the local area that it would supply. The whole Swansea bay are......approx 115,000 houses with capacity depending on turbine placement/average efficiency to 130,000
I am not up on tidal tbth. I worked in the past for a renewable company Mainstream Renewable power. Ocean flood todal power generation so I have some idea of the costs, which are immense compared to other renewables
But what do I know compared to Astro, who is referring to wind power when you are talking tidal
You never explained how your link addresses my points about the Hockeystick chart and uncertainty
My personal favourite project from recent renewables is the Open Hydro one. I designed low speed bearings to give great wear life at boundary lubrication conditions(sea water) and hydrodynamic lift and zero friction at generating water flow speeds even with a 16M hubless runner.
And I even managed to pass the bearing production to a specialist Uk composite manufacturer local to me in the UK.
And I even managed to pass the bearing production to a specialist Uk composite manufacturer local to me in the UK.
Cos I am not sure how anything in your link, I skimmed it, relates to probability modeling or the 1209 proxies spliced throughout that chart. Or how the uncertainty is ignored as if it doesn't exist
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/dnl-ebc012816.php
As I mentioned before I sat in a meeting with Vestas and Boeing at Farnbrough a few years ago talking composites and materials for on shore wind power. However this has progressed to large diameter deep water offshore wind, the U.K. Is looking at the old North Sea oil/gas field sites as a potential spot.
The problem comes with materials, mooring, servicing and installation.
Siemens have already started to invest in facilities in and around Hull in a move that tells me offshore wind and deep water wind will be a big part of the UKs future power generation
As I mentioned before I sat in a meeting with Vestas and Boeing at Farnbrough a few years ago talking composites and materials for on shore wind power. However this has progressed to large diameter deep water offshore wind, the U.K. Is looking at the old North Sea oil/gas field sites as a potential spot.
The problem comes with materials, mooring, servicing and installation.
Siemens have already started to invest in facilities in and around Hull in a move that tells me offshore wind and deep water wind will be a big part of the UKs future power generation
Ok I'm reading two different things here.
One very interesting part that PJS posted on renewables
And
One very dull climate change arguement that's a holdover from the last thread.
Can we (and I'm asking not telling) forget the last thread and say ok we all know each others views and move on.
I find the discussion on renewable very interesting and irrespective of whether it's to save the planet from fossil fuels or to save the west from the middle east oil dependency it's a very interesting topic.
I think personally having seen the largest wind farms in Germany and here that there's so many people anti wind and anti cables and just about anti anything near them that off shore is indeed the way to go.
One very interesting part that PJS posted on renewables
And
One very dull climate change arguement that's a holdover from the last thread.
Can we (and I'm asking not telling) forget the last thread and say ok we all know each others views and move on.
I find the discussion on renewable very interesting and irrespective of whether it's to save the planet from fossil fuels or to save the west from the middle east oil dependency it's a very interesting topic.
I think personally having seen the largest wind farms in Germany and here that there's so many people anti wind and anti cables and just about anti anything near them that off shore is indeed the way to go.
I'm not getting drawn into a discussion on climate, this is a science thread and I posted my beliefs on that subject and that's it.
But without brilliant Engineers the scientists are just making good paper based ideas, it's my profession that makes the world tick over and Engineering impacts on every single aspect of everyone's daily life.
All praise the Engineer!
I'm open for any discussion on renewables, but my main area is hydro and tidal. I must see 6-7 concepts a year and all but a few fail in the real world
All of which ignores the salient point of his post.So lets break down this post of yours. Note how many times you talk about me directly, which points out exactly what you are about, transparent.
Starting off, I said
"I downloaded it and zoomed in and put a trend line at the upper boundary of uncertainty of this chart"
To which you respond
"So you commited [HASHTAG]#fraud[/HASHTAG] then by assuming every value from a long time ago had its maximum expected value, knowing that plotting "temperature + error" would hide the recent rise in temperature because temperature increases but error decreases.
Well at least doing the same thing for the lower bound would demonstrate the clear effect of recent heating..."
What I actually said..
I downloaded it and zoomed in and put a trend line at the upper boundary of uncertainty of this chart, a chart I disagree with anyway, the BBC claim is unscientific nonsense. Hyperbole to be exact
Now you understand uncertainty right? So if I drew another trend line at the lower boundary of uncertainty (the actual temp could be anywhere within at any given point) and beyond the boundary of upper or lower uncertainty, that means obviously the range of uncertainty is huge."
What I demonstrated that both you and the BBC omitted was the uncertainty. The line (I drew with MSpaint ffs) was not science or a claim of science it was to show that the temperature could be anywhere in that upper range, my line was not a suggestion those were the temps, I was pointing out they "could have been" seeing as we are dealing with probability, I never bothered to line the low end probability because I made my point. A point you still dont understand, it's called uncertainty, which you never pointed out when you posted that chart did you? Who's trying to fool who now?
The two bits of my post you quoted belong in the same context, you split it into two to try attack each on it's own out of context.
The attack on the second part. I said, it doesn't even make sense that you split this up as it is completely relative to the first bit you singled out, and I note you left the vast majority of what I said out, especially about probability modeling. Convenient. Plus now, you and I are talking about what each other is doing instead of the subject, this is your area of nonsense not mine.
"So if I drew another trend line at the lower boundary of uncertainty (the actual temp could be anywhere within at any given point) and beyond the boundary of upper or lower uncertainty, that means obviously the range of uncertainty is huge."
To which you replied
"...except you ignore this point completely, refuse to plot the corresponding graph like you did with the upper bound, and change your reasoning completely to now considering that the point can be anwhere in between the bounds.
Yes it can be anywhere in between, so how about for consistency we take the middle point? Oh wait, that's already drawn by the thick line on the graph and shows recent heating so we can't do that."
I made the point yet I ignored it? that doesnt make sense at all
First of all what corresponding graph? I could have drawn the low probability on the same graph, but it is there, you can see it, I dont need to draw it.
Do you not understand the argument, I suspect you do not. The point is the uncertainty portrayed as fact, and that the uncertainty is greater than the chart shows, this is supported in my post, most of which you conveniently ignored.
Also note your wording, "I completely refuse to". Can you show me where I completely refused to do anything? Why do you even use such language.. it seems emotionally charged
I pointed out the flaws in the chart and the science behind it I never came to any conclusions of my own.
So in short, you are not even discussing my post. Just bits you think you can pick at, after you just slapped a link up with no point to make other than try rile me
Bottom line? You used that link and chart as proof that CAGW theory is accurate, but it is not evidence in any sense of the word
[HASHTAG]#uncertainty[/HASHTAG]
The fact that the error percentage decreases as the time advances and you've taken the maximum error rate for the pre- industrial era and extrapolated it across the piece, but at the most recent - where the temperature rise is at its most prominent - the error rate is at its smallest. Which therefore gives the impression that the recent warming is not that prominent.
As he rightly said you didn't produce the converse version as it would have shown an even more pronounced rise in recent years.
So therefore why not merely take the mean? i.e the original graph..........
The Swansea bay project is fascinating.
I've had an interest in tidal since it was first mooted, as it seems such an obvious source of relatively unobtrusive power generation.
Kudos that you've been involved in its infancy, it must be extremely gratifiying to be involved in such a ground breaking field.
My lad is studying engineering and I'd love him to get involved in this particular sphere, once he finishes his degree.
Where is he studying and what course is he doing?
I would advise on lower paid summer work in engineering if he hasn't taken a course with a placement year option. I dropped lucky getting various jobs post graduation and falling on my feet at certain points.
All the big employers are looking at graduates with practical experience, moving away from the norm of high class graduates from red brick universities
