F1technical.net

I hate to break the bad news to certain people posting in this forum, but weather forecasting and climatology are two completely different disciplines. Competence in one does not correlate with competence in the other. Discussions about global warming are in the realm of climatology (including palaeoclimatology and some elements of atmospheric physics). There are a lot of meteorologists pretending to be climate scientists. Most of them are totally unqualified to discuss the subject.
Piers Corbyn's forecasting and prediction methods are also somewhat hit-or-miss, as is explained in this Wikipedia article. A number of his "big ticket" predictions have proved incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

this week we UK people have seen proclamations that .....

the Environment Dept is to ban wood-fired heating as it's now officially a major source of particulate pollution in cities
(after a huge public subsidy programme of private heating conversion from 'carbon-bad' fossil fuel to 'carbon-good' wood)

the Mayor of London is to attack them with taxes - ironic as his party (when in government) started this lunatic incompetence

a publicly-funded 'expert' says diesel car makers have 'blood on their hands' - having 'caused many deaths by air pollution'
of course it's the publicly-funded EU vehicle emission regulators who are at fault - but mysteriously they don't resign

RETRO-EDIT
the 'expert' is the professional naive ignoramus Blair-regime Chief Scientific Adviser Sir David King
who presided over the UK carbon cut by x percent on total energy thinking it was agreeing to x percent on electrical energy
so causing the huge panic programme of paying people to burn wood (which btw has destroyed government in N.I.)
King also seems to have been responsible for the policy of paying people to buy diesel cars
so appears to be now desperately trying to divert attention from his culpability



the health effects of air pollution haven't changed
our city air is cleaner now than ever before and this was 'safe'
but now it's 'unsafe'
(because the medics can imagine more mechanisms adverse to health than they could 10 years ago)

the only thing that has actually changed is the Government's word

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2018, 13:24

this week we UK people have seen proclamations that .....

the Environment Dept is to ban wood-fired heating as it's now officially a major source of particulate pollution in cities
(after a huge public subsidy programme of private heating conversion from 'carbon-bad' fossil fuel to 'carbon-good' wood)

the Mayor of London is to attack them with taxes - ironic as his party (when in government) started this lunatic incompetence

a publicly-funded 'expert' says diesel car makers have 'blood on their hands' - having 'caused many deaths by air pollution'
(of course it's the publicly-funded EU vehicle emission regulators who are at fault - but mysteriously they don't resign)

the health effects of air pollution haven't changed
our city air is cleaner now than ever before and this was 'safe'
but now it's 'unsafe'
(because the medics can imagine more mechanisms adverse to health than they could 10 years ago)

the only thing that has actually changed is the Government's word

Don't worry, you're leaving the EU anyway

But a bit more serious: we're seeing it here in Germany too, and the reason is target previously set which aren't being reached through sitting back and waiting for old cars and ovens to be replaced. The technology improves, which leads to new targets, but on certain things like wood-burning overs, they simply don't need replacing, so the old ones remain in operation. Cars, on the other hand, have been reduced to an expected life of 10 years, so you can get the old, "dirty" ones off the road [disclaimer: that is only a result of the crap quality we're being sold at exorborant prices, and we idiots accept it]. But, looking at all the diesel gate companies, it'll be another 8 years before all those cars are off the road, because our health isn't worth that much...

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

01 Feb 2018, 13:24

the only thing that has actually changed is the Government's word

That shouldn´t be a surprise, they´re politicians after all

As CBeck pointed, better knownledge brings new targets. Add to that politicians need to show theirselves as some sort of world savers, and you get things like this. Nothing new I´m afraid

Here's a handy little chart I grabbed from the AEMO data dashboard. It was taken at 11am on a hot sunny day.

SA claims to be ~50% renewable (almost entirely wind). As you can see, it isn't generating anything much from wind (it wasn't windy). Therefore you HAVE to have 100% deployable backup power. Or switch customers/voters off. In this case yes, if they'd had lots of PV then they would have been OK.

globally we are in need of renewable water sources rather than renewable energy sources

Very true. Between our waste and Nestle buying up all the sources you'll be begging for water long before fuel.

strad wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2018, 21:30

globally we are in need of renewable water sources rather than renewable energy sources

Very true. Between our waste and Nestle buying up all the sources you'll be begging for water long before fuel.

Nestlé? How about livestock?

btw this week the UK TV news included wte that .....

onshore windfarms are to have at replacement time their turbine units increased from 60 m diameter to 120 m
(when most of the time there's to little or too much wind for them to work)

Leicester Uni says vegetable oils should not be used for cooking as aldehydes produced cause cancers and heart disease
(the NHS is spending our money telling us to use vegetable oils for cooking)

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2018, 14:20

Leicester Uni says vegetable oils should not be used for cooking as aldehydes produced cause cancers and heart disease
(the NHS is spending our money telling us to use vegetable oils for cooking)

This actually is OT, but the main thing is to not overheat it. Once oil reach around 190ºC (the temperature it starts smoking) it´s degraded and produce a lot of carcinogenic substances. It´s also very important to never re-use it.... wich is the main problem of fast food restaurants, they don´t care about temperature, and they re-use oil several times

From the son of two pharmacists, one of them a surviving of a breast cancer who´s been learning even more about cancer for around 6 years.

We got rid of our deep fryer years ago, and now only fry food from time to time and always with new oil at controlled temperature... more or less as you need it to be close to 190ºC

Coconut oil is reckoned to be healthful, & has a high 'smoke point' temp-wise,
but for my taste, chips cooked in beef lard are unbeatable..

Andres125sx wrote: ↑

03 Apr 2018, 09:11

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

02 Apr 2018, 14:20

Leicester Uni says vegetable oils should not be used for cooking as aldehydes produced cause cancers and heart disease
(the NHS is spending our money telling us to use vegetable oils for cooking)

This actually is OT, but the main thing is to not overheat it. Once oil reach around 190ºC (the temperature it starts smoking) it´s degraded and produce a lot of carcinogenic substances. It´s also very important to never re-use it.... wich is the main problem of fast food restaurants, they don´t care about temperature, and they re-use oil several times

From the son of two pharmacists, one of them a surviving of a breast cancer who´s been learning even more about cancer for around 6 years.

We got rid of our deep fryer years ago, and now only fry food from time to time and always with new oil at controlled temperature... more or less as you need it to be close to 190ºC

I've seen an acrylamide warning on a bag of potato chips (in the US), but only once. Not a problem for most crisp/chip manufacturers to avoid, it would seem.

our (UK) high-status University College London yesterday announced that the UK climate 'may' become cooler ....

because the North Atlantic Gyre (current circulation) is weaker than any time for 1000 years
we will get less Gulf Stream warmth so 'global' warming is cancelled in NW Europe
(this has been known for 40 years)

what happened before 1000 AD ? - natural climate difference more than the manmade climate change claimed ?
given that 1/3rd of our current claimed CC is admitted to be natural should we believe the manmade 2/3rds claimed ?

should NW Europeans cut their economic throats attempting to save the globe from warming that won't affect NW Europe ?
or should we welcome manmade CC as helping us against natural climate cooling ?

The time period is 1600 years, not 1000. They didn’t go back further because their core samples didn’t go deep enough to reach beyond 1600 years ago. So the answer to what happened before is, we don’t know. I’m not sure what relevance this new study has on the question of man made contribution other than that he rate of slowing has increased since 1850.

Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑

13 Apr 2018, 16:38

natural climate difference more than the manmade climate change claimed ?
given that 1/3rd of our current claimed CC is admitted to be natural should we believe the manmade 2/3rds claimed ?

Sorry but complete BS, we can´t know what part is manmade and what part is natural, but we know this:



Now we can continue ignoring the impact of manmade CC and assuming it´s natural to elude our responsabilities, but we actually know it´s not

Oh great, it's random graph time. So, what temperature is that, how was it obtained?

To answer my own question, it is global temperatures estimated by tree rings up to 1880, and then thermometers from then on. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... re_1ka.png

This is the famous trick as described by Phil Jones in the climategate emails.

"From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."