The BBC has a bit about statistics..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142

Quote

So what are Tyler Vigen's tips to make sure the statistical wool isn't
being pulled over your eyes?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see
2.Look for a causal link or mechanism
3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a
strong, statistically significant correlation

Something to bear in mind next time a sensational headline catches your eye.

quote.

So why dont they do that for man made warming?

Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its
the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the
issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in
climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.
Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the complexity
of the climate system.
What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case, and
also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should
it show signs of getting unmanagable.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
The BBC has a bit about statistics..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142

Quote

So what are Tyler Vigen's tips to make sure the statistical wool isn't
being pulled over your eyes?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see
2.Look for a causal link or mechanism
3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a
strong, statistically significant correlation

Something to bear in mind next time a sensational headline catches your
eye.

quote.

So why dont they do that for man made warming?

On 26/05/2014 09:43, Brian Gaff wrote:
Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its
the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the
issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in
climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.
Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the complexity
of the climate system.
What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case,



and
also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should
it show signs of getting unmanagable.
Brian



Defcon one?

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this,

Snip
Would they be statistics?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see
2.Look for a causal link or mechanism
3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a
strong, statistically significant correlation

--
bert

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its
the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the
issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in
climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.

Yes.

Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the
complexity of the climate system.

Yes.

What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case, and
also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should
it show signs of getting unmanagable.

That's basically impossible something as massive as the world climate.

I think its better to realise that the world climate has varied
immensely over time from the ice ages to the opposite
extremes and that the system has handled that fine, so
it should handle man made effects fine too.

It would certainly make sense to change to nukes to
avoid putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than
we have to, but its also obviously going to be difficult
to do that given Chernobyl and fukushima, even tho
neither had as much effect as what coal fired power
stations have put into the atmosphere radioactivity wise.


"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
The BBC has a bit about statistics..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142

Quote

So what are Tyler Vigen's tips to make sure the statistical wool isn't
being pulled over your eyes?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see
2.Look for a causal link or mechanism
3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a
strong, statistically significant correlation

Something to bear in mind next time a sensational headline catches your
eye.

quote.

So why dont they do that for man made warming?

On 26/05/2014 09:43, Brian Gaff wrote:
Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its
the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the
issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in
climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.
Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the complexity
of the climate system.
What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case, and
also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should
it show signs of getting unmanagable.
Brian

While "worst cases" are sometimes interesting to think about, in the
*real* world we normally take decisions on "most likely" or "best
estimate" scenarios, not "worst case". And while terms like "worst case"
are often bandied about, you can usually find a case worse than that by
changing assumptions.

On Tue, 27 May 2014 07:49:27 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Man made warming? What about the ladies!
Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its
the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the
issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in
climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.

Yes.

Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the
complexity of the climate system.

Yes.

What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case, and
also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should
it show signs of getting unmanagable.

That's basically impossible something as massive as the world climate.

I think its better to realise that the world climate has varied
immensely over time from the ice ages to the opposite
extremes and that the system has handled that fine, so
it should handle man made effects fine too.

It would certainly make sense to change to nukes to
avoid putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than
we have to, but its also obviously going to be difficult
to do that given Chernobyl and fukushima, even tho
neither had as much effect as what coal fired power
stations have put into the atmosphere radioactivity wise.


Since we have all the weapons grade plutonium we're sensibly ever
going to need already, there's no longer any need to build any more
Nuclear Power Stations based on Cold War Legacy design requirements
where the required safety feature add on costs are so extremely
exhorbitent yet not quite adequate enough.

Once The LFTR based nuclear fission reactor designs have been
developed into a mature product, this next generation of nuclear power
station will be a few orders of magnitude safer than the best current
legacy designs with the costs of "Add On Safety" eliminated by virtue
of such hazardous failure modes being absent by design.

Indeed, an LFTR power station will be far less hazardous than a
conventional coal fired power station to operate to the extent that
the exisiting coal fired power stations would become prime targets for
upgrading to LFTR operation. No need to look for "out of the way"
locations for such facilities.

The exisitng land used by coal fired stations could be put to good
use to produce the liquified hydrogen required to support a zero
carbon emmissions transportation system (waste heat put to good use to
improve electrolysis conversion efficiency of water into hydrogen fuel
makes LFTR sites the best place to produce liquified hydrogen).

The major objection to the use of liquified hydrogen as a passenger
jet fuel is the energy cost of producing a fuel with a 2.5 times
better energy to weight ratio than existing jet fuels. Once we have an
extremely cheap source of 'limitless' energy, such objections
disappear from the equation. Similarly for objections to the costs of
'renewables' such as solar power generation costs.

As things stand, the high costs of energy and the limited
availability is the real choke on creating substantial solar power
stations in places like the Sahara desert. Once we've built up a
worldwide fleet of safe nuclear power stations to supply us with very
cheap and copious quantities of energy, only then will we be able to
consider the luxury of 'renewable energy'. Right now, we seem to have
our priorities 'arse about face'.
--
Regards, J B Good

On 28/05/2014 16:55, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Johny B Good
wrote:

The major objection to the use of liquified hydrogen as a passenger
jet fuel is the energy cost of producing a fuel with a 2.5 times
better energy to weight ratio than existing jet fuels.

The energy to weight ratio might be in our favour, but what about the
energy to volume ratio? Wouldn't you need to have larger - much larger
- tanks?

And the volatile nature of hydrogen leaks. Not to mention the need for
either aggressive cryogenic containment for LH2 or a pressure vessel.

As things stand, the high costs of energy and the limited
availability is the real choke on creating substantial solar power
stations in places like the Sahara desert.

I'd have said it was distance and instability in the countries
concerned.

Instability will certainly be a factor as would having a technology that
would really pay its way on an industrial scale.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 28/05/2014 15:09, Johny B Good wrote:
The major objection to the use of liquified hydrogen as a passenger
jet fuel is the energy cost of producing a fuel with a 2.5 times
better energy to weight ratio than existing jet fuels. Once we have an
extremely cheap source of 'limitless' energy, such objections
disappear from the equation.

Actually volume is also significant. You'd want to redesign the planes
with more volume and less strength.

Andy

Johny B Good wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Brian Gaff wrote

Man made warming? What about the ladies!

****em.

Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really
its the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case
which is the issue I think. People and their activities have always
caused
changes in climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc.

Yes.

Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what
due to the complexity of the climate system.

Yes.

What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst
case, and also some ways to actually make a difference quickly
the other way, should it show signs of getting unmanagable.

That's basically impossible something as massive as the world climate.

I think its better to realise that the world climate has varied
immensely over time from the ice ages to the opposite
extremes and that the system has handled that fine, so
it should handle man made effects fine too.

It would certainly make sense to change to nukes to
avoid putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than
we have to, but its also obviously going to be difficult
to do that given Chernobyl and Fukushima, even tho
neither had as much effect as what coal fired power
stations have put into the atmosphere radioactivity wise.

Since we have all the weapons grade plutonium we're sensibly
ever going to need already, there's no longer any need to build
any more Nuclear Power Stations based on Cold War Legacy
design requirements where the required safety feature add on
costs are so extremely exhorbitent yet not quite adequate enough.

That wasn't really the problem with Fukushima

Once The LFTR based nuclear fission reactor designs have been
developed into a mature product, this next generation of nuclear
power station will be a few orders of magnitude safer than the best
current legacy designs with the costs of "Add On Safety" eliminated
by virtue of such hazardous failure modes being absent by design.

Sure, but it is still going to be a very hard sell given Chernobyl and
Fukushima.

Indeed, an LFTR power station will be far less hazardous than a
conventional coal fired power station to operate to the extent
that the exisiting coal fired power stations would become
prime targets for upgrading to LFTR operation. No need
to look for "out of the way" locations for such facilities.

Sure, but it is still going to be a very hard sell given Chernobyl and
Fukushima.

The exisitng land used by coal fired stations could be put to good
use to produce the liquified hydrogen required to support a zero
carbon emmissions transportation system (waste heat put to good
use to improve electrolysis conversion efficiency of water into hydrogen
fuel makes LFTR sites the best place to produce liquified hydrogen).

Makes more sense to use coal seam gas and fracking for a transport
fuel one the power generation system has been changed from coal
to nuke.

The major objection to the use of liquified hydrogen as a passenger
jet fuel is the energy cost of producing a fuel with a 2.5 times better
energy to weight ratio than existing jet fuels. Once we have an
extremely cheap source of 'limitless' energy, such objections
disappear from the equation. Similarly for objections to the
costs of 'renewables' such as solar power generation costs.

Sure.

As things stand, the high costs of energy and the limited
availability is the real choke on creating substantial solar power
stations in places like the Sahara desert. Once we've built up a
worldwide fleet of safe nuclear power stations to supply us with
very cheap and copious quantities of energy, only then will we
be able to consider the luxury of 'renewable energy'.

And that really only makes much sense off grid.

Right now, we seem to have our priorities 'arse about face'.

Sure, but its easy to see how that has happened, although
harder to see how the French managed it fine. It will be
fascinating to see if they can exploit the situation they
have got into power generation wise in the future.