On 06/01/2016 10:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 08:29, RJH wrote:
On 05/01/2016 21:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/01/16 19:19, RJH wrote:
Yes, but these people aren't your mates and relatives. They're top of
the tree scientists.


Mmm. do you think I don't know given the university I attended, more
than a few top of the tree scientists?

And I am sorry to disappoint you, but the scientists in on the climate
change bandwagon are, sadly, anything but top of the tree, but they run
the peer process - you review my paper, i'll review yours, and they like
the attention and the grants.


Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research

The moment I hear someone who knows little about science saying 'peer
reviewed' as if it actually meant something I know I am in the presence
of a warmist troll.


Ridiculous. I haven't time/energy/ability to establish an informed
opinion, so I rely on things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...Climate_models

And I listen to people like you.

There are dozens of papers saying basically 'global warming stopped
happening 20 years ago, CO2 is still rising, AGW is therefore a busted
flush' but as soon as you mention one of them the warmists start
screaming 'Funded by the Koch brothers' 'Data is made up' 'heat is
hiding in the deep oceans' 'its weather, not climate'

It frankly is pointless -


So, I think you're saying that there isn't a single piece of valid and
reasonably free from bias research that's been published, and supports
what you're saying here. OK.

I won't say that's not a problem, because it is. But you could mobilise
your ideas more convincingly if you came at it from a view that 'the
masters make the rules for wise men and fools' (too use Dylan in context
for once ;-)), and look at the motivation of the masters.

But then you seem transfixed by some weird conspiracy relating to
lefties-in-charge. And who knows what informed that.

that
supports your views?

Not my views at that level. Its the data. The data refutes the AGW
thesis. Its that simple.


The AGW thesis. That humans contribute to global warming? The data
(insofar as I understand the data) simply doesn't refute it. But I'd
agree that mischief might be at hand to overstate it, and support action
that benefits certain interests.

So, FWIW, I remain (healthily) sceptical about the whole issue of
climate change.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


--
Cheers, Rob

On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.

99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a fag
packet.

The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.




--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.

99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a fag
packet.

The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.

I've got the first 2, but I used to smoke a pipe; that didn't give you
anything to write on. Back of an envelope, for me.

--
Please note new email address:

On 07/01/2016 08:02, Chris Hogg wrote:

Thousands of miles of transmission lines - one extremist with a bomb -
end of story!

Build a ship, move the molten salt?

On 06/01/16 19:17, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 10:59, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-06, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And guess what. In every case since WWII its been lefty**** ideology,.

Now firmly allied with globalism and Big Corporate and Big Green

Because they all want the same thing. To make it easy for them to
control the world. Which they are well on the way to doing

This is a classic case of political paranoia.
According to you there is a conspiracy between "lefty**** ideology"
(which you explained earlier was a term you use for Marxism),
"Big Corporate" and "Big Green". Oh, and "globalism".

The Hard Left have hollowed out the Green movement. That's why people
refer to them as watermelons; green on the outside and red in the middle.


Basically the hard left have hollowed out anything that looks either
potentially usable to foment revolution - Unions, anything with students
in or near it, and so on, or anything that is concerned with the media.

The takeover of Greenpeace and the ousting of Patrick Moore is typical.
Once any organisation has any kind of following, it becomes a target for
infiltration. That's the Marxist way, and it always has been.

Its mirrored by a similar process with the so called corporate right -
anything that has traction with the masses will in the end become a
marketable product. So what started as kids strumming guitars in their
bedrooms, and then became the 'rock' scene and spread naturally
eventually got taken over and the soul ripped out of it in order to
generate marketable product. By contrast Punk was designed as a
marketable product from the outset, like the Tin Pan Alley pop factories
of the 50s.

Green is interesting because its been subject to both takeovers,
corporate marketing seeing it as a route to government guaranteed profit
via renewable energy fraud, and the hard left seeing it as ultimately
destructive of society, via ruinous green policy initiatives, And its
also a prime excuse fir more government, which they see as the next step
on the way to the perfect communist state.

Which is the precursor to no state at all and perfect communism by the
people. Or that's the theory.


So the game plan there is infiltrate existing institutions, and pervert
them into either instruments of state (ore left) control or destroy them
altogether, and place all the power in central governments on a bigger
scale - that is essentially the EU, which was founded by a communist .

Once the populations are essentially under a huge police state, the
theory is that the state itself will no longer be required, people will
have been indoctrinated to do the right thing and become willing slaves,
via whatever version of political correctness they have imposed.





Yeah, yeah, it's all some gigantic conspiracy that only you have noticed.

Excuse me, thousands of people have noticed. And its not a conspiracy -
its just a way of thinking about things that people have become
accustomed to use.

Is - say - Christianity, a conspiracy? Do the priests and the Bishops
and the kings conspire to feed drivel to their subjects?

Not really,. its just that it works and keeps them all in power, so they
just go along with it.

Marxism is the dominant faith in the West today, except its not called
that. You will hear Keynesian economics, or social justice, or political
correctness, or liberal ideals or progressive thought bandied about.
They all go back to Marx, and their effect is to undermine the status
quo, and replace it with what amounts to a police state, in the name of
the people.

Lets see if wiki can offer a better definition of Marxism.

"According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises
due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized
and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private
ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of
surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the
bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat,
social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies,
culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of
this revolution would be the establishment of socialism €“ a
socioeconomic system based on social ownership of the means of
production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production
organized directly for use. As the productive forces and technology
continued to advance, Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually
give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a
classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the
principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs"."

That's what they believe, that's what that way of looking at the world
leads to. A perpetual struggle to overthrow private wealth and move all
property to state ownership, which means of course that those who run
the State get to play with everyone else's money.

It is of course wrong.

"highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the
proletariat"

The proletariat don't do ANYTHING much these days. Robots do.

However the thought of doing nothing, but being entitled to the wealth
created by better people than you as a basic *right* is very attractive
to a certain sort of 'person'.


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
sounds wonderfully fair, until you realise that in fact if that's the
game, the best strategy is to sit there, whine and be as needy as
possible, and basically anyone who actually exerts their ability to
supply the whining parasites around him, is a complete mug.

This is something hordes of immigrants have realised, and most of the
stupid Lefty****s have not, which is why in all probability the
immigrants will take over and kill the lefty****s. Before dying
themselves from an inability to run anything, either.

I wouldn't call a way of thinking about things that is taught at
practically every school and university as pretty much the only RIGHT
way of looking at things, is a conspiracy. Its a ****ing mistake, sure,
but its not a conscious conspiracy. On the contrary Marxism fits exactly
into the hole left when you remove Christianity, as I suspect it was
designed to, and so those who felt that the new materialism really was
inconsistent with the idea of God, fell naturally for Marxism to restore
their moral compass.

"Born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian
Rhineland, Marx...was exiled and moved to London together with his wife
and children, where he continued writing and formulating his theories
about social and economic activity. He also campaigned for socialism and
became a significant figure in the International Workingmen's
Association...Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max
Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science..."

(He was exiled for being a pain in the arse, and he was exactly from the
bourgeoisie he railed against. He was the prototype champagne socialist.)

Inadequate people who can't think for themselves and work stuff out and
who have pretensions towards intellectualism - the 'useful idiots' -of
Marxism just LOVE Marx. It appeals to their sense of jealousy, their
fear on being intellectually inferior, and all that stuff.

If you are a loser, why wouldn't you follow a religion that says 'losers
are only losers because some fascist chauvinistic White Male with
inherited money has dominated you'. And if that religion promises that
'come the revolution, we will all (as a Zulu mate informed me years ago
in Jo'burg) Have a Mercedes and a swimming pool!

Yes, that's what the Cuban agitators of the ANC were saying in the
townships.

And of course in any society there are always way more losers than
winners, and enough have chips on their shoulders to Join The Cause.

And they don't need to be explicitly organised. They know what the enemy
is, anyone who is a winner. So if you have a 4WD, they will key it or
slash the tyres. If you park your Jag for a microsecond longer than the
'proscribed' time (sic!) they will slap a ticket on it. etc.

It is in short the politics of laziness, greed, envy and hatred,and it
succeeds everywhere because we have built a society where we could
actually tolerate laziness, greed, envy and hatred.

Could being the operative word. Times are changing. And we cant tolerate
Marxist lefty****s anymore. They are not just a danger to themselves,
they threaten the whole of civilisation.

It is of course possible that the West will fall, to Islamic barbarians
or preferably the Chinese. If so it will have deserved it, for being
(after being so smart as to rule the world) so stupid as to believe in
'socialism' and show compassion to people who regard it as a sign of
weakness alone.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 07/01/2016 10:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


I'm not sure what you mean. With insulation heat loss can be minimal. If
you mean 70% loss from theoretical solar energy to night time
electricity generation, well that sounds good.

The top photovoltaic cells are only 40% efficient.

Anyway efficiency isn't what counts, cost and availability are.

What is the efficiency of a standard non breeder Nuclear in terms of
total Uranium converted. Something in the 1% region? I don't say that to
belittle Nuclear just to show it isn't a primary concern.



Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.


There may be many reasons. But those reasons may change with time.

So you may be right. But we may be getting to a point where technology
and political stability allow it.


99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a fag
packet.


Most new ideas are rubbish but the 1% change the world.


The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.


I have A level maths.

On 07/01/16 07:43, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 10:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 08:29, RJH wrote:
On 05/01/2016 21:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/01/16 19:19, RJH wrote:
Yes, but these people aren't your mates and relatives. They're top of
the tree scientists.


Mmm. do you think I don't know given the university I attended, more
than a few top of the tree scientists?

And I am sorry to disappoint you, but the scientists in on the climate
change bandwagon are, sadly, anything but top of the tree, but they run
the peer process - you review my paper, i'll review yours, and they
like
the attention and the grants.


Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research

The moment I hear someone who knows little about science saying 'peer
reviewed' as if it actually meant something I know I am in the presence
of a warmist troll.


Ridiculous. I haven't time/energy/ability to establish an informed
opinion, so I rely on things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...Climate_models


You are aware that a very very small group of people took over all
climate related topics on Wikipedia and rewrote history?

If you look carefully you will find completely different 'facts'
depending on which exact subject you are researching. For example I was
looking into geological evidence on temperature and CO2, and in an
obscure article I found a reconstruction of temperature and in another I
fiund a reconstruction of atmospheric gases. They weer absolutely
completely different from a graph of the pair of them presented in a
'climate change' article.


And I listen to people like you.

There are dozens of papers saying basically 'global warming stopped
happening 20 years ago, CO2 is still rising, AGW is therefore a busted
flush' but as soon as you mention one of them the warmists start
screaming 'Funded by the Koch brothers' 'Data is made up' 'heat is
hiding in the deep oceans' 'its weather, not climate'

It frankly is pointless -


So, I think you're saying that there isn't a single piece of valid and
reasonably free from bias research that's been published, and supports
what you're saying here. OK.

What I am saying is that free from bias research doesn't get published
widely when your government funding goes to other forms. Of course there
is research - tons of it - if you actually READ the IPCC reports most of
the research is actually very ambiguous, and doesn't support many of the
'conclusions' that are pushed in the summary. The IPCC reports are very
dodgy dossiers indeed.
#
This doesnt matter, because its not necessary to have facts or good
science to achieve the political result, which is to have a general
impression in the public mind that anthropogenic climate change is
real, dangerous and justifies extra taxation and handouts to e.g.
renewable energy companies.

And to do that you just need the right chums in the media, and te
performing arts, to repeat the on message mantra over and over.



I won't say that's not a problem, because it is. But you could mobilise
your ideas more convincingly if you came at it from a view that 'the
masters make the rules for wise men and fools' (too use Dylan in context
for once ;-)), and look at the motivation of the masters.


Well of course I look at the motivation of the masters, and it is of
course what it always has been ever since people of private means were
ousted from politics. More money and more power.

But then you seem transfixed by some weird conspiracy relating to
lefties-in-charge. And who knows what informed that.

Its a conclusion that anyone who researches things long enough comes to.

Leftism is electable because the world is full of chippie losers. Ergo
you can get into power on the backs of selling them nonsense, and Green
is just the latest bit of nonsense.

Once in power of course they need more power to be safe, and they cant
resist a few extra taxes either to up their salaries.And some nice
expense accounts.




that
supports your views?

Not my views at that level. Its the data. The data refutes the AGW
thesis. Its that simple.


The AGW thesis. That humans contribute to global warming? The data
(insofar as I understand the data) simply doesn't refute it.

That is not the AGW thesis. The AGW thesis is that that majority of 20th
century warming is down to man made CO2 emissions.

This is simply not borne out by the data.



But I'd
agree that mischief might be at hand to overstate it, and support action
that benefits certain interests.

So, FWIW, I remain (healthily) sceptical about the whole issue of
climate change.


Well try a few sceptical sites like wattsupwiththat.com. Where both
sides are allowed to argue.




--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 07/01/16 07:51, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


There are many who still think its wrong, but of course that is never
the point with science at that level. Either it produces predictable
accurate results, or it doesn't. The truth content of science is
actually zero.

Science is a model of the world of our experience,and I would actually
argue strongly that the world of our experience itself is only a model
of 'whatever is the case' - or that at leaat that is an interesting and
useful model to apply to it! Its models all the way down, and we can
only assume that behind it all there is some order and reality beyond
our experience, out of which it is formed..

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear picture,
and it seems illogical.

Its exactly the *opposite* of the AGW hypothesis, which provides a very
simple clear logical picture. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work.

I cant think of any predictions AGW has made that are unambiguous, that
has actually come anywhere near true.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 07/01/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 07:51, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


There are many who still think its wrong, but of course that is never
the point with science at that level. Either it produces predictable
accurate results, or it doesn't. The truth content of science is
actually zero.

Science is a model of the world of our experience,and I would actually
argue strongly that the world of our experience itself is only a model
of 'whatever is the case' - or that at leaat that is an interesting and
useful model to apply to it! Its models all the way down, and we can
only assume that behind it all there is some order and reality beyond
our experience, out of which it is formed..

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear picture,
and it seems illogical.

Its exactly the *opposite* of the AGW hypothesis, which provides a very
simple clear logical picture. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work.


It is not the exact opposite. We use the best model we have. It is silly
to compare real world situations which can be approximated accurately
and effectively deterministically with situations which are more chaotic
and for which we have massively less experimental data.

For most real life situations we do not know what is going to happen in
the future. That does not mean we should not use our best guess. We use
probabilistic models. They do not have the same accuracy but they can
provide some insight. Organisations which use such insight will tend to
outperform those that do not.

Unfortunately a lot of the statistical math used in the real world is
not taught at A Level. Hence less educated people find uncertainty in
science confusing.




I cant think of any predictions AGW has made that are unambiguous, that
has actually come anywhere near true.

On 07/01/16 09:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 06/01/2016 10:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 08:29, RJH wrote:
On 05/01/2016 21:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/01/16 19:19, RJH wrote:
Yes, but these people aren't your mates and relatives. They're top of
the tree scientists.


Mmm. do you think I don't know given the university I attended, more
than a few top of the tree scientists?

And I am sorry to disappoint you, but the scientists in on the climate
change bandwagon are, sadly, anything but top of the tree, but they
run
the peer process - you review my paper, i'll review yours, and they
like
the attention and the grants.


Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research

The moment I hear someone who knows little about science saying 'peer
reviewed' as if it actually meant something I know I am in the presence
of a warmist troll.


Ridiculous. I haven't time/energy/ability to establish an informed
opinion, so I rely on things like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...Climate_models

And I listen to people like you.

There are dozens of papers saying basically 'global warming stopped
happening 20 years ago, CO2 is still rising, AGW is therefore a busted
flush' but as soon as you mention one of them the warmists start
screaming 'Funded by the Koch brothers' 'Data is made up' 'heat is
hiding in the deep oceans' 'its weather, not climate'

It frankly is pointless -

So, I think you're saying that there isn't a single piece of valid and
reasonably free from bias research that's been published, and supports
what you're saying here. OK.

Bit hard to say, I'd have thought. Thing is this: any *top* scientist
can turn his hand to many different areas of research, and some have.
IOW, there's no need whatever for peer review to mean "peer review by
others in the same field".
Peer review should involve an examination of methodology, assumptions,
errors (both systematic and random), reasoning, methods of analysis and
measurement, author's use of statistics, and probably other things I've
forgotten or it's too early in the morning.


Well the point is simple. Assumptions.

AGW starts with an assumption, and that assumption is that the majority,
the overwhelming majority of warming that occurred in the second half of
the 20th century was due to man made CO2.

And if you strip out the other stuff (sun wobbles, el ninos, volcanoes
Atlantic decadal wotsits), you get a simple equation that is never ever
mentioned, but which lies at the heart of it all.

ΔT= λ.Δ(log(CO2))

The change in temperature is proportional to the chhange in the log of
CO2 *times* a constant lambda - the 'climate sensitivity.

You will note, that there is an unknown there. Lambda. The climate
sensitivity.


But what is not unkown, is the *assumption* that the unknown
*multiplies* the direct effect of CO2 . The 'positive feedback'

Now the log(CO2) is where the physics is all agreed. At some level CO2
is a GHG and will absorb and re-radiate or whatever according to that
law, but without lambda in there to multiply it, the effect is non
scary, and hardly worth bothering with. And if lambda is less than
unity, the net result is that bothering about carbon dioxide is a
monumental waste of time, because the effect is insignificant.

Now if you are seriously interested in this, pay attention. If not skip
to the next article about debugging your central heating..


The implications of having a larger than unity lambda were that various
hot spots would be found - they were not. The implications were that
temperature, once the other knowns were stripped out - would broadly
follow the CO2 increase,. They didn't. ~1970 to ~1990, rapid global
warming. ~1990 till today, Almost no global warming.

Now lets examine te assumptions again.

WE have CO2, which we know has an effect, and lambda, which we assume to
be a multiplier, but which we do not know the value of. But if we adjust
it to fit 1970-1990 data we get a really scary projection. If we adjust
it to fit 1990 - 2016 data, we yawn and switch channels. Nothing to see
here. Move on.

Why was lambda - representing an unknown, chosen to be a *multiplier*??

Why not an additional effect

So inread of

ΔT= λ.Δ(log(CO2))

we have

ΔT= Δ(log(CO2)) + λ

I.e. we incorporate CO2, in a non scary way, because we understand the
physics, but instead of multiplying it, we *add* in another unknown to
account for all the temperature variation we cant assign to CO2.


Philosophically, we still have a single unknown. Its no more difficult
to understand than the first equation, and in fact it actually fits the
data better.

Yes, CO2 cause a bit of climate change, but the majority comes from
somewhere else..


Scientifically of course, it says some unfortunate things.
- the sciences is so far from settled we cant rely on it at all
- human activity may have an impact on climate change, but CO2 is
largely innocent.
- ergo all the measures undertaken with respect to emissions are
completely and utterly pointless.


Can you imagine the IPCC - an organisation whose remit is to investigate
and advise on the impact of "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming"
endorsing that?

Its a bit like asking the society for the abolition of pixies to endorse
research saying that there are no pixies..


Supposing that equation were as I describe, what is Naomi Klein going to
do for a living, why would the EU continue to fund the Green party,
would anyone even LISTEN to Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Roger Harrabin,
Caroline Lucas, Michael Mann. Would they even keep their jobs?


And worse than that, what would the electorate think of a succession of
governments who has poured trillions into 'renewable energy' when there
was in fact no need to do so, as well as it not actually working.


I want people who have open minds to imagine the impact of it becoming
widely accepted that in fact, lambda shouldn't be a multiplier, it
should be an independent variable.


WE have global political movements and a trillion dollar industry based
on a single variable in a single equation, that assumes something that
doesn't in the end fit the data.


No doubt some authors will bleat about how you need someone in the same
field so they know all the relevant papers and research to form an
opinion, but this is too important.


I have tried to show that you do not. If the very form of the CAGW
equation is wrong, no amount of peer review will show up the fundamental
a priori flaw in the whole thesis. And you only need a basic
understanding of equations as being models of unknown processes to see
that the one the climate change community picked on which the whole
thing is based, is not the only one they might have picked, but it is
the one that produces the right political and commercial results.


Despite what the green bigots say, no one denies climate change. The
issue is absolutely one of how much of it is down to CO2 and how much
down to stuff we don't actually yet understand, and the data is saying
that probably around 90% of climate change is not down to CO2.


Man may still be responsible. Aerosols. Aircraft contrails modifying
cloud cover. Or it may be Cosmic rays modifying cloud cover, Or it may
simply be that climate is a chaotic system that has internal feedbacks
that cause erratic and unpredictable swings in temperature all by
itself. In fact is all of the above we just don't know how important
each one is, and guess what, few of them appear in the standard 'climate
change models' and when they do, is a massively crude approximation.

Why you should consider, in the light of my explanation here being
possibly closer to the truth than the 'accepted' view. is what the
people who are dependent on green issues for their livelihoods and
careers would do, if they even suspected this was the case.

Climate change, the myth, is the most *convenient lie* the world has
ever seen. Climate change, the truth is the most inconvenient truth
there ever was, and the repercussions of exposing it would literally
rock the whole world economy and the UN itself.

So we see in the scientific community a slow managing down of climate
sensitivity, to the point where they will all heave a sigh of relief
and say 'we were all wrong, but really we were all right, we just
overstated a bit of it and left a teeny bit out' and hope no one notices
how much money they made in the process.

Politically - well politicians move on to the next issue, and will
forget they ever voted for it. And so too will the greens, It will be
fracking and nuclear power and sod the power stations.


Already the daily telegraph has sacked Louise Gray and Geoffrey Lean,
and admitted openly its because the Green advertisers no longer were
paying them to write!

The big problem is the huge commercial interests that haven't actually
gone bust and stashed the government cash off shore somewhere. And the
third world banana republics getting huge 'Mercedes' grants in repayment
for the nasty West causing climate change.


And of course to Europe's power infrastructure. Merkel and chums having
basically wrecked Germany's grid in order to remain electable.

Everyone except the most useful of idiots who is actually inside the
climate change game, knows the emperor has no clothes. That is simply
irrelevant. The problem they face, is - well face! How to basically deal
with the fact that they have been promoting a load of gob****e, which
*might* have been true, as if it was 'settled science'...

And you know I can predict with 97% accuracy what they will say:

"Well it *might* have been true, and if it *had* been true we would have
been doing the right thing".

Exactly the excuse Blair used over Iraqi WMD.

Except he knew at the time there were none.

Which is why there are legal cases involving climate scientists going on
right now, and Blair has managed to delay the inquiry yet another year.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 07/01/16 09:33, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?

Unlikely. I'd call the photo-electric effect and the observed energy
distribution in black body radiation plenty of evidence. Both
inexplicable by classical physics, both explained neatly by quantum
theory.

And several others, but quantum theory worked well enough..


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 07/01/16 10:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/01/2016 08:02, Chris Hogg wrote:

Thousands of miles of transmission lines - one extremist with a bomb -
end of story!

Build a ship, move the molten salt?


Good lord Dennis, are you displaying signs of a sense of humour?

Heavan forfend that you are actually serious..


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 07/01/16 11:00, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 10:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


I'm not sure what you mean. With insulation heat loss can be minimal. If
you mean 70% loss from theoretical solar energy to night time
electricity generation, well that sounds good.



The top photovoltaic cells are only 40% efficient.


No I menat 70% loss from molten salt to electricity.
So with your figure we have an overall efficiency of 12%.

Anyway efficiency isn't what counts, cost and availability are.

I just read what you wrote, and my jaw just dropped.

What do you think efficiency is, if not the most direct modifier of cost?

Oh. I forgot. You dont think.



What is the efficiency of a standard non breeder Nuclear in terms of
total Uranium converted. Something in the 1% region? I don't say that to
belittle Nuclear just to show it isn't a primary concern.

It isnt a promary coincern, because uranioum is so cheap iut doesnt
nmatter how inefcicint it is.#



However the thermal efficiency of the heat engine is around 35%, which
is a major factor in cost. However to get it more efficient would cost
more money to build.

One tends to build engineering projects to get the best overall
cost-benefit ratio., And with the technology of the times a PWR reactor
sits at about the peak of that.

I really am appalled at how little you seem to understand of how
engineering actually works.

Take your molten salt. Iw would probably have a turnaround efficiency of
around 30% at best. Compare that with pumped storage at 70%. Is a molten
salt battery one third the cost to build? Would it be possible to buy
electricity when the sun shone sat less than a third of the price one
can sell it ant night?

Thats part ofg te stotry,. but te real killer is thius.

If you have tow identical as far as you are concerned - lets say - smart
phones - and one has a price tag of $500, and one is $250, why would you
ever want to buy the one for $500? The salesman says 'you need a second
phone that works differently in case the first one breaks?

Purlease. Are you that stupid? (don't answer).

Basically if technology A is cheaper than technology B by as much as 5%,
it doesn't mean that the world will have 95% technology A and 5%
technology B, it means that technology B will vanish without trace in
short order.

Renewable energy has to offer more and cost less, and right now it
doesn't. And there are sound theoretical reasons to claim that it never
ever will.

So unless it has some feature that fits it for niche markets it will
never be a mainstream player.

All you have to do is ask one simple question. Is it, overall, analysed
holistically, cheaper and better than a nuke' .

If the answer is 'no' then its pointless moving ahead. Build the nuke
instead.




Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.


There may be many reasons. But those reasons may change with time.

I'm sorry, ohms law dies not change with time.

I am sick of green handwavy 'may' 'might' 'could' 'should'

WE have right now a crisis. The forward projections at BM reports show
that the winter of 2016 there will be negative capacity versus demand on
the grid. That's right, the numbers show there will not be enough
electricity next winter.

I have never seen that before, and nor has anyone else in the game.

Could an may are not good enough and neither are windmills and solar
molten salt plants. There isn't time to build power stations, and I hope
we manage to keep some coal going beyond its hour limits and tell the EU
that its 'force majeure' and we cant afford to shut them down.

People like you are directly responsible for taking this country to the
edge of ruin, and frankly, you ought to be shot.




So you may be right. But we may be getting to a point where technology
and political stability allow it.


No we are not. WE are nowhere near it, and if you had any honesty and
any engineering nous, you would admit that we never ever can be.


99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a fag
packet.


Most new ideas are rubbish but the 1% change the world.


None of the 1% have ever come from the Greens however, and none of them
have happened completely against the laws of physics.


The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.


I have A level maths.

Try an apply it to real world problems then



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 07/01/16 11:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nick
wrote:

So you may be right. But we may be getting to a point where technology
and political stability allow it.

Political stability? Like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, South Sudan,
Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent Egypt, you mean?

Oh its just another handwavy green academic idiot.

Who has calculated teh very simple bit, that there is enough solar
energy in teh deserts of north africa ti run the whole of Europe.

But hasn't calculated, because he cant even visualise, what sort of
engineering structures would be needed to utilise it, what they would
cost, or the political and environmental implications of deploying them.

De Gaulle built Nukes because he didn't want to be in hock to the arabs
for oil and gas.

This **** hasn't learnt his lesson. How much do you think they would
charge for their sunlight?


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 07/01/16 11:37, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 07:51, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least
in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


There are many who still think its wrong, but of course that is never
the point with science at that level. Either it produces predictable
accurate results, or it doesn't. The truth content of science is
actually zero.

Science is a model of the world of our experience,and I would actually
argue strongly that the world of our experience itself is only a model
of 'whatever is the case' - or that at leaat that is an interesting and
useful model to apply to it! Its models all the way down, and we can
only assume that behind it all there is some order and reality beyond
our experience, out of which it is formed..

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear picture,
and it seems illogical.

Its exactly the *opposite* of the AGW hypothesis, which provides a very
simple clear logical picture. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work.


It is not the exact opposite.

It is in terns of utility and clarity.

Quantum physics is opaque, but works. AGW is transparent, but doesn't.

We use the best model we have.

No, we don't. Not in the case of AGW. There are much better models, but
unfortunately none of them lead to any conclusions that would mean any
climate scientist was worth granting a bent nickel to.

It is silly
to compare real world situations which can be approximated accurately
and effectively deterministically with situations which are more chaotic
and for which we have massively less experimental data.


Well, exactly, which us largely why AGW is such a crock of ****.

For most real life situations we do not know what is going to happen in
the future. That does not mean we should not use our best guess. We use
probabilistic models. They do not have the same accuracy but they can
provide some insight. Organisations which use such insight will tend to
outperform those that do not.

Unfortunately a lot of the statistical math used in the real world is
not taught at A Level. Hence less educated people find uncertainty in
science confusing.


Go tell it to the IPCC, not me. Engineers deal with statistical
tolerances all the time.


When all you know are linear differential equations, all the world looks
like a linear differential equation.




I cant think of any predictions AGW has made that are unambiguous, that
has actually come anywhere near true.





--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 07/01/16 12:20, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear
picture, and it seems illogical.

It's only illogical in that it appears to contradict common sense. But
that's only because our common sense is rooted in the macro world, in
objects the size and scale of which we can actually see. It works well
at the scale of the atom.

However, it is already known that it is incomplete as a theory, because
it has nothing to say about gravity.

Mmm. That's a bit like saying that A political parties manifesto is
incomplete, because it has nothing to say about gay marriage..



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 07/01/2016 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 11:37, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 07:51, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least
in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're
some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and
deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


There are many who still think its wrong, but of course that is never
the point with science at that level. Either it produces predictable
accurate results, or it doesn't. The truth content of science is
actually zero.

Science is a model of the world of our experience,and I would actually
argue strongly that the world of our experience itself is only a model
of 'whatever is the case' - or that at leaat that is an interesting and
useful model to apply to it! Its models all the way down, and we can
only assume that behind it all there is some order and reality beyond
our experience, out of which it is formed..

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear picture,
and it seems illogical.

Its exactly the *opposite* of the AGW hypothesis, which provides a very
simple clear logical picture. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work.


It is not the exact opposite.

It is in terns of utility and clarity.

Quantum physics is opaque, but works. AGW is transparent, but doesn't.

We use the best model we have.

No, we don't. Not in the case of AGW. There are much better models, but
unfortunately none of them lead to any conclusions that would mean any
climate scientist was worth granting a bent nickel to.


Better models? Known only to you?

It is silly
to compare real world situations which can be approximated accurately
and effectively deterministically with situations which are more chaotic
and for which we have massively less experimental data.


Well, exactly, which us largely why AGW is such a crock of ****.

For most real life situations we do not know what is going to happen in
the future. That does not mean we should not use our best guess. We use
probabilistic models. They do not have the same accuracy but they can
provide some insight. Organisations which use such insight will tend to
outperform those that do not.

Unfortunately a lot of the statistical math used in the real world is
not taught at A Level. Hence less educated people find uncertainty in
science confusing.


Go tell it to the IPCC, not me. Engineers deal with statistical
tolerances all the time.


When all you know are linear differential equations, all the world looks
like a linear differential equation.

How about non linear stochastic differential equations?

On 07/01/2016 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 11:00, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 10:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


I'm not sure what you mean. With insulation heat loss can be minimal. If
you mean 70% loss from theoretical solar energy to night time
electricity generation, well that sounds good.



The top photovoltaic cells are only 40% efficient.


No I menat 70% loss from molten salt to electricity.
So with your figure we have an overall efficiency of 12%.


??? Thermal solar energy, doesn't use photovoltaics. They use mirrors to
heat the salt directly. That what the "thermal" means.

Anyway efficiency isn't what counts, cost and availability are.

I just read what you wrote, and my jaw just dropped.

What do you think efficiency is, if not the most direct modifier of cost?

Oh. I forgot. You dont think.


Well in a Nuclear power plant clearly it isn't, because fuel cost is not
a dominating factor. Similarly in a Solar plant the cost of solar energy
is not the factor that determines cost effectiveness.



What is the efficiency of a standard non breeder Nuclear in terms of
total Uranium converted. Something in the 1% region? I don't say that to
belittle Nuclear just to show it isn't a primary concern.

It isnt a promary coincern, because uranioum is so cheap iut doesnt
nmatter how inefcicint it is.#



Ah! you do understand.


However the thermal efficiency of the heat engine is around 35%, which
is a major factor in cost. However to get it more efficient would cost
more money to build.

One tends to build engineering projects to get the best overall
cost-benefit ratio., And with the technology of the times a PWR reactor
sits at about the peak of that.

I really am appalled at how little you seem to understand of how
engineering actually works.


Yes the point is that the cost of the solar power station per Mw/h is
what counts. Not the efficiency with which it converts solar power to
electricity.


Take your molten salt. Iw would probably have a turnaround efficiency of
around 30% at best. Compare that with pumped storage at 70%. Is a molten
salt battery one third the cost to build? Would it be possible to buy
electricity when the sun shone sat less than a third of the price one
can sell it ant night?

Its not a battery. The molten salts are not heated by electricity and
then converted back to electricity. They are heated by the sun and then
stored. I'm not clear if you understand this.



Thats part ofg te stotry,. but te real killer is thius.

If you have tow identical as far as you are concerned - lets say - smart
phones - and one has a price tag of $500, and one is $250, why would you
ever want to buy the one for $500? The salesman says 'you need a second
phone that works differently in case the first one breaks?

Purlease. Are you that stupid? (don't answer).

Basically if technology A is cheaper than technology B by as much as 5%,
it doesn't mean that the world will have 95% technology A and 5%
technology B, it means that technology B will vanish without trace in
short order.

Renewable energy has to offer more and cost less, and right now it
doesn't. And there are sound theoretical reasons to claim that it never
ever will.

There are?


So unless it has some feature that fits it for niche markets it will
never be a mainstream player.

All you have to do is ask one simple question. Is it, overall, analysed
holistically, cheaper and better than a nuke' .

If the answer is 'no' then its pointless moving ahead. Build the nuke
instead.


Well obviously, better covers a lot of things.




Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.


There may be many reasons. But those reasons may change with time.

I'm sorry, ohms law dies not change with time.

I am sick of green handwavy 'may' 'might' 'could' 'should'

WE have right now a crisis. The forward projections at BM reports show
that the winter of 2016 there will be negative capacity versus demand on
the grid. That's right, the numbers show there will not be enough
electricity next winter.

I have never seen that before, and nor has anyone else in the game.

Could an may are not good enough and neither are windmills and solar
molten salt plants. There isn't time to build power stations, and I hope
we manage to keep some coal going beyond its hour limits and tell the EU
that its 'force majeure' and we cant afford to shut them down.

People like you are directly responsible for taking this country to the
edge of ruin, and frankly, you ought to be shot.


Not really people like me. I love nuclear power stations. My dad used to
help build them. I would like to see much more long term research into
breeder reactors.




So you may be right. But we may be getting to a point where technology
and political stability allow it.


No we are not. WE are nowhere near it, and if you had any honesty and
any engineering nous, you would admit that we never ever can be.


99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a fag
packet.


Most new ideas are rubbish but the 1% change the world.


None of the 1% have ever come from the Greens however, and none of them
have happened completely against the laws of physics.


The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.


I have A level maths.

Try an apply it to real world problems then

If you knew me I'm not sure that you would think that such a good idea.

On 07/01/16 13:36, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 11:00, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 10:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 01:03, Nick wrote:
On 04/01/2016 22:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Timothy Murphy
wrote:

Vir Campestris wrote:

The first requirement then is that only 11% of our power use occurs
during the hours of darkness. That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Energy can be stored, in various ways.

Care to elaborate on that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate
electricity at
night.

with only around 70% loss of power.


I'm not sure what you mean. With insulation heat loss can be minimal. If
you mean 70% loss from theoretical solar energy to night time
electricity generation, well that sounds good.



The top photovoltaic cells are only 40% efficient.


No I menat 70% loss from molten salt to electricity.
So with your figure we have an overall efficiency of 12%.


??? Thermal solar energy, doesn't use photovoltaics. They use mirrors to
heat the salt directly. That what the "thermal" means.

Anyway efficiency isn't what counts, cost and availability are.

I just read what you wrote, and my jaw just dropped.

What do you think efficiency is, if not the most direct modifier of cost?

Oh. I forgot. You dont think.


Well in a Nuclear power plant clearly it isn't, because fuel cost is not
a dominating factor. Similarly in a Solar plant the cost of solar energy
is not the factor that determines cost effectiveness.



What is the efficiency of a standard non breeder Nuclear in terms of
total Uranium converted. Something in the 1% region? I don't say that to
belittle Nuclear just to show it isn't a primary concern.

It isnt a promary coincern, because uranioum is so cheap iut doesnt
nmatter how inefcicint it is.#



Ah! you do understand.


However the thermal efficiency of the heat engine is around 35%, which
is a major factor in cost. However to get it more efficient would cost
more money to build.

One tends to build engineering projects to get the best overall
cost-benefit ratio., And with the technology of the times a PWR reactor
sits at about the peak of that.

I really am appalled at how little you seem to understand of how
engineering actually works.


Yes the point is that the cost of the solar power station per Mw/h is
what counts. Not the efficiency with which it converts solar power to
electricity.



And in the case of a solar power station te cost is directly
proportional to the efficiency. To get as much electricity from a 10%
station it has to be 3 times as big and cost three times as much...sigh.


Take your molten salt. Iw would probably have a turnaround efficiency of
around 30% at best. Compare that with pumped storage at 70%. Is a molten
salt battery one third the cost to build? Would it be possible to buy
electricity when the sun shone sat less than a third of the price one
can sell it ant night?

Its not a battery. The molten salts are not heated by electricity and
then converted back to electricity. They are heated by the sun and then
stored. I'm not clear if you understand this.


They are still a battery in the sense that they store energy



Thats part ofg te stotry,. but te real killer is thius.

If you have tow identical as far as you are concerned - lets say - smart
phones - and one has a price tag of $500, and one is $250, why would you
ever want to buy the one for $500? The salesman says 'you need a second
phone that works differently in case the first one breaks?

Purlease. Are you that stupid? (don't answer).

Basically if technology A is cheaper than technology B by as much as 5%,
it doesn't mean that the world will have 95% technology A and 5%
technology B, it means that technology B will vanish without trace in
short order.

Renewable energy has to offer more and cost less, and right now it
doesn't. And there are sound theoretical reasons to claim that it never
ever will.

There are?


Yes.

You can tell from EROI of any system - and that's a theoretical limit -
that they will simply never match nuclear: Worse they may never actually
overall pay pack the energy invested in them.

Thats one approach.
#
And all the hand wavy nonsense about 'well the technology will improve'
is equally applicable to nuclear power. More so in fact.


So unless it has some feature that fits it for niche markets it will
never be a mainstream player.
O
All you have to do is ask one simple question. Is it, overall, analysed
holistically, cheaper and better than a nuke' .

If the answer is 'no' then its pointless moving ahead. Build the nuke
instead.


Well obviously, better covers a lot of things.

Well no, when you stop looking for straw men and waving your hands, it
doesn't cover a lot of things. At most it comes down to cost, and
environmental impact and energy security.

Nukes win hands down on all of those.





Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in
uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.


It depends on how much you spend on te cable. Fatter cables are of
course lower loss.


So like all green handwavy nonsense, it looks great till you look at
the
cost, both in human man hours and energy, to build it.

Then you realise why no one has bothered before.


There may be many reasons. But those reasons may change with time.

I'm sorry, ohms law dies not change with time.

I am sick of green handwavy 'may' 'might' 'could' 'should'

WE have right now a crisis. The forward projections at BM reports show
that the winter of 2016 there will be negative capacity versus demand on
the grid. That's right, the numbers show there will not be enough
electricity next winter.

I have never seen that before, and nor has anyone else in the game.

Could an may are not good enough and neither are windmills and solar
molten salt plants. There isn't time to build power stations, and I hope
we manage to keep some coal going beyond its hour limits and tell the EU
that its 'force majeure' and we cant afford to shut them down.

People like you are directly responsible for taking this country to the
edge of ruin, and frankly, you ought to be shot.


Not really people like me. I love nuclear power stations. My dad used to
help build them. I would like to see much more long term research into
breeder reactors.

Well stop waving your hands and making woolly statements and start
talking brass tacks and common sense.,






So you may be right. But we may be getting to a point where technology
and political stability allow it.


No we are not. WE are nowhere near it, and if you had any honesty and
any engineering nous, you would admit that we never ever can be.


99% of all Green ideas can be dismissed as pixie dust fantasies with A
level maths and less than half an hour and a pencil on the back of a
fag
packet.


Most new ideas are rubbish but the 1% change the world.


None of the 1% have ever come from the Greens however, and none of them
have happened completely against the laws of physics.


The problem is that no one has A level maths, a pencil, or a fag packet
any more.


I have A level maths.

Try an apply it to real world problems then

If you knew me I'm not sure that you would think that such a good idea.

Why?

Is the truth so hideous?


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 07/01/16 13:36, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 11:37, Nick wrote:
On 07/01/2016 11:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 07:51, RJH wrote:
On 06/01/2016 17:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 06/01/2016 08:29, RJH wrote:

Of course. But surely you can find some peer reviewed research that
supports your views? Even if only in political and social science,
highlighting bias? This isn't smoking or alcohol. It is, at least
in my
lay view, far too complicated to wave off as a conspiracy/vested
interests.

There is a big problem with peer reviews..

how do you define peers?

If a peer is another climate scientist then there is little reason
for
them to disagree.

Yes - it's likely to be a climate scientist. But to suggest they're
some
sort of homogeneous lump is nonsense.

Its the same for other branches.
The result is that widely held views can exist for years after it is
evident that they are wrong.

Yep, that's possible.

Just look at how long quantum physics was a fringe theory and
deemed to
be wrong by many peers.

Probably lack of evidence?


There are many who still think its wrong, but of course that is never
the point with science at that level. Either it produces predictable
accurate results, or it doesn't. The truth content of science is
actually zero.

Science is a model of the world of our experience,and I would actually
argue strongly that the world of our experience itself is only a model
of 'whatever is the case' - or that at leaat that is an interesting and
useful model to apply to it! Its models all the way down, and we can
only assume that behind it all there is some order and reality beyond
our experience, out of which it is formed..

HOWEVER whatever model we come up with, is always just a model. Cf
Korzybski. Quantum physics is a model that in some cases works. No one
really is satisfied with it, because it doesn't provide a clear
picture,
and it seems illogical.

Its exactly the *opposite* of the AGW hypothesis, which provides a very
simple clear logical picture. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually work.


It is not the exact opposite.

It is in terns of utility and clarity.

Quantum physics is opaque, but works. AGW is transparent, but doesn't.

We use the best model we have.

No, we don't. Not in the case of AGW. There are much better models, but
unfortunately none of them lead to any conclusions that would mean any
climate scientist was worth granting a bent nickel to.


Better models? Known only to you?

Dont be stupid. Half the actual real climate scientists are working on
better models. There's a couple every week pop up, that are part of a
different overall picture.


This is gettuing like the Linux thread, on the one had we have people
who actually know stuff and have broad experience and can think, and in
the other we have people who have seen the adverts and think that's real..

It is silly
to compare real world situations which can be approximated accurately
and effectively deterministically with situations which are more chaotic
and for which we have massively less experimental data.


Well, exactly, which us largely why AGW is such a crock of ****.

For most real life situations we do not know what is going to happen in
the future. That does not mean we should not use our best guess. We use
probabilistic models. They do not have the same accuracy but they can
provide some insight. Organisations which use such insight will tend to
outperform those that do not.

Unfortunately a lot of the statistical math used in the real world is
not taught at A Level. Hence less educated people find uncertainty in
science confusing.


Go tell it to the IPCC, not me. Engineers deal with statistical
tolerances all the time.


When all you know are linear differential equations, all the world looks
like a linear differential equation.

How about non linear stochastic differential equations?

Exactly. How ab�ut them? None of that stuff in AGW! PURLEASE! We aren't
chaos modellers, if it doesn't look linear, throw in a 'parameterizer'.







--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:20:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 07/01/16 10:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/01/2016 08:02, Chris Hogg wrote:

Thousands of miles of transmission lines - one extremist with a bomb -
end of story!

Build a ship, move the molten salt?


Good lord Dennis, are you displaying signs of a sense of humour?

Heavan forfend that you are actually serious..

The firm my dad used to work for transported molten aluminium from
Birmingham to South Wales in the 70s on the back of lorries. So it's
not impossible in theory even if silly in practice.

On 07/01/16 14:22, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:20:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 07/01/16 10:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/01/2016 08:02, Chris Hogg wrote:

Thousands of miles of transmission lines - one extremist with a bomb -
end of story!

Build a ship, move the molten salt?


Good lord Dennis, are you displaying signs of a sense of humour?

Heavan forfend that you are actually serious..

The firm my dad used to work for transported molten aluminium from
Birmingham to South Wales in the 70s on the back of lorries. So it's
not impossible in theory even if silly in practice.

Oh, of course its possible. The world is full of things that are
possible. Like a car with square wheels.

I have even seen a picture of a steam powered aeroplane that actually
allegedly flew..

I tired to make the point in another post, but I'll repeat it. Just
because something is possible doesn't make it desirable..

It would be possible to round up every Green and hang them, and that
might even be desirable, but can you really see it happening? ;-)



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 07/01/16 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 14:22, Bill Taylor wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:20:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 07/01/16 10:22, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/01/2016 08:02, Chris Hogg wrote:

Thousands of miles of transmission lines - one extremist with a bomb -
end of story!

Build a ship, move the molten salt?


Good lord Dennis, are you displaying signs of a sense of humour?

Heavan forfend that you are actually serious..

The firm my dad used to work for transported molten aluminium from
Birmingham to South Wales in the 70s on the back of lorries. So it's
not impossible in theory even if silly in practice.

Oh, of course its possible. The world is full of things that are
possible. Like a car with square wheels.

I have even seen a picture of a steam powered aeroplane that actually
allegedly flew..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

I tired to make the point in another post, but I'll repeat it. Just
because something is possible doesn't make it desirable..

It would be possible to round up every Green and hang them, and that
might even be desirable, but can you really see it happening? ;-)





--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 07/01/16 18:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:18:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Well the point is simple. Assumptions.

AGW starts with an assumption, and that assumption is that the majority,
the overwhelming majority of warming that occurred in the second half of
the 20th century was due to man made CO2.

And if you strip out the other stuff (sun wobbles, el ninos, volcanoes
Atlantic decadal wotsits), you get a simple equation that is never ever
mentioned, but which lies at the heart of it all.

?T= ?.?(log(CO2))

The change in temperature is proportional to the chhange in the log of
CO2 *times* a constant lambda - the 'climate sensitivity.

You will note, that there is an unknown there. Lambda. The climate
sensitivity.


But what is not unkown, is the *assumption* that the unknown
*multiplies* the direct effect of CO2 . The 'positive feedback'

Now the log(CO2) is where the physics is all agreed. At some level CO2
is a GHG and will absorb and re-radiate or whatever according to that
law, but without lambda in there to multiply it, the effect is non
scary, and hardly worth bothering with. And if lambda is less than
unity, the net result is that bothering about carbon dioxide is a
monumental waste of time, because the effect is insignificant.

Now if you are seriously interested in this, pay attention. If not skip
to the next article about debugging your central heating..


The implications of having a larger than unity lambda were that various
hot spots would be found - they were not. The implications were that
temperature, once the other knowns were stripped out - would broadly
follow the CO2 increase,. They didn't. ~1970 to ~1990, rapid global
warming. ~1990 till today, Almost no global warming.

Now lets examine te assumptions again.

WE have CO2, which we know has an effect, and lambda, which we assume to
be a multiplier, but which we do not know the value of. But if we adjust
it to fit 1970-1990 data we get a really scary projection. If we adjust
it to fit 1990 - 2016 data, we yawn and switch channels. Nothing to see
here. Move on.

Why was lambda - representing an unknown, chosen to be a *multiplier*??

Why not an additional effect

So inread of

?T= ?.?(log(CO2))

we have

?T= ?(log(CO2)) + ?

I.e. we incorporate CO2, in a non scary way, because we understand the
physics, but instead of multiplying it, we *add* in another unknown to
account for all the temperature variation we cant assign to CO2.


Thank you for that. Do you have a link explaining/justifying in simple
terms the derivation for the value that's used for lambda?

Its whatever fits the data.

Or used to fit the data 20 years ago. Or the data can be 'adjusted' to
fit. It is a *fudge factor*.


In essence you take a rising temperature series and a rising CO2 series
take the slope of a straight line drawn through the temperature series
and a straight line drawn through the log of the CO2 series and divide
one into the other.

*IF* the fundamental relationship is the one I posted, the one the IPCC
and climate scientists claim is the One True Equation, then the result
is lambda - or climate sensitivity.

If on the other hand the values of one slope divided by the other at any
given point varies all over the place (it does) then its strong evidence
that the original equation is utter bull****.


Lambda is a constant. If it apparently starts behaving like a variable.
the whole equation is in trouble.

That's why the huge fuss is on about the 'Pause' or the 'hiatus' and the
climate deniers - the climate scientists that is, who deny that the
pause is actually happening - are in such a state. The Pause doesn't
just mean that they got lambda a bit too scary. In the end it means they
picked the wrong ****ing equation. CO2 is not a major factor in climate.
Game over.


you can baffle yourself with IPCC bull**** here

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/ch8s8-6.html

Just google 'climate sensitivity'


Check out this from that IPCC link

" role of key *radiative feedback processes* associated with water
vapour and lapse rate, clouds, snow and sea ice in climate sensitivity..."

Note that the assumption is absolutely that "radiative feedback
processes" exist. And that they are positive, and all they need to do is
find out what the value is.

Nowhere to they even consider they might not exist, or in fact be negative.

Or that something else is forcing climate beyond CO2.

By the way its a common misconception that the IPCC is there to
investigate whether man made climate change is real or not. It isn't.
Its terms of reference are quite clear. Its there to assess the value
and the impact of man made climate change. Never to question whether or
not it actually exists.

If the whole thing is starting to smell like a bit of a cooked up theory
to justify messing around with the energy markets, join the club. Google
Al Gore and Enron...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...he-atmosphere/

"From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million
dollars €“ $990,000 €“ to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change
Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished
almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international
energy controls to €œreduce€� global warming. Executives at Enron worked
closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering
climate science environment because the company believed the treaty
could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall.

Everyone involved in the green circle jerk stood €“ and stands €“ to
benefit from the scam."

The Greens and the university climate scientists were duped or bought.
It was always a scam. It's just so full of obfuscated bull**** to baffle
brains that the stark reality of the equations remains forever hidden...





--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 19:17, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 10:59, Huge wrote:
On 2016-01-06, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And guess what. In every case since WWII its been lefty**** ideology,.

Now firmly allied with globalism and Big Corporate and Big Green

Because they all want the same thing. To make it easy for them to
control the world. Which they are well on the way to doing

This is a classic case of political paranoia.
According to you there is a conspiracy between "lefty**** ideology"
(which you explained earlier was a term you use for Marxism),
"Big Corporate" and "Big Green". Oh, and "globalism".

The Hard Left have hollowed out the Green movement. That's why people
refer to them as watermelons; green on the outside and red in the middle.


Basically the hard left have hollowed out anything that looks either
potentially usable to foment revolution - Unions, anything with students
in or near it, and so on, or anything that is concerned with the media.

The takeover of Greenpeace and the ousting of Patrick Moore is typical.
Once any organisation has any kind of following, it becomes a target for
infiltration. That's the Marxist way, and it always has been.

Its mirrored by a similar process with the so called corporate right -
anything that has traction with the masses will in the end become a
marketable product. So what started as kids strumming guitars in their
bedrooms, and then became the 'rock' scene and spread naturally
eventually got taken over and the soul ripped out of it in order to
generate marketable product. By contrast Punk was designed as a
marketable product from the outset, like the Tin Pan Alley pop factories
of the 50s.

Green is interesting because its been subject to both takeovers,
corporate marketing seeing it as a route to government guaranteed profit
via renewable energy fraud, and the hard left seeing it as ultimately
destructive of society, via ruinous green policy initiatives, And its
also a prime excuse fir more government, which they see as the next step
on the way to the perfect communist state.

Which is the precursor to no state at all and perfect communism by the
people. Or that's the theory.


So the game plan there is infiltrate existing institutions, and pervert
them into either instruments of state (ore left) control or destroy them
altogether, and place all the power in central governments on a bigger
scale - that is essentially the EU, which was founded by a communist .

Once the populations are essentially under a huge police state, the
theory is that the state itself will no longer be required, people will
have been indoctrinated to do the right thing and become willing slaves,
via whatever version of political correctness they have imposed.





Yeah, yeah, it's all some gigantic conspiracy that only you have noticed.

Excuse me, thousands of people have noticed.

Claimed, not noticed.

And its not a conspiracy -
its just a way of thinking about things that people have become
accustomed to use.

Easy to claim.

Is - say - Christianity, a conspiracy? Do the priests and the Bishops
and the kings conspire to feed drivel to their subjects?

Not really,. its just that it works and keeps them all in power, so they
just go along with it.

That ignores who created the fairy story.

Marxism is the dominant faith in the West today,

No it is not. And the sort of socialism that produced the NHS isn't Marxism
either.

Or the police service or government schools or roads or postal service
either.

except its not called
that. You will hear Keynesian economics, or social justice, or political
correctness, or liberal ideals or progressive thought bandied about.
They all go back to Marx,

No they do not and those I listed showed up before Marx too except for the
HNS.

and their effect is to undermine the status
quo,

Yes, all change does.

and replace it with what amounts to a police state, in the name of
the people.

The postal service and govt providing roads and schools do nothing of the
sort.

Lets see if wiki can offer a better definition of Marxism.

"According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises
due to intensifying contradictions between highly productive mechanized
and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private
ownership and appropriation of the surplus product in the form of
surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the
bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat,
social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies,
culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of
this revolution would be the establishment of socialism €“ a
socioeconomic system based on social ownership of the means of
production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production
organized directly for use. As the productive forces and technology
continued to advance, Marx hypothesized that socialism would eventually
give way to a communist stage of social development, which would be a
classless, stateless, humane society erected on common ownership and the
principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to
his needs"."

None of which has any relevance to the govt provision of roads, schools,
the postal service, a telephone service etc.

That's what they believe, that's what that way of looking at the world
leads to. A perpetual struggle to overthrow private wealth and move all
property to state ownership, which means of course that those who run
the State get to play with everyone else's money.

It is of course wrong.

"highly productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the
proletariat"

The proletariat don't do ANYTHING much these days. Robots do.

Didn't realise that Adam and Dave were robots.

However the thought of doing nothing, but being entitled to the wealth
created by better people than you as a basic *right* is very attractive
to a certain sort of 'person'.


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
sounds wonderfully fair, until you realise that in fact if that's the
game, the best strategy is to sit there, whine and be as needy as
possible, and basically anyone who actually exerts their ability to
supply the whining parasites around him, is a complete mug.

This is something hordes of immigrants have realised, and most of the
stupid Lefty****s have not, which is why in all probability the
immigrants will take over and kill the lefty****s. Before dying
themselves from an inability to run anything, either.

I wouldn't call a way of thinking about things that is taught at
practically every school and university as pretty much the only RIGHT
way of looking at things, is a conspiracy. Its a ****ing mistake, sure,
but its not a conscious conspiracy. On the contrary Marxism fits exactly
into the hole left when you remove Christianity, as I suspect it was
designed to, and so those who felt that the new materialism really was
inconsistent with the idea of God, fell naturally for Marxism to restore
their moral compass.

"Born into a wealthy middle-class family in Trier in the Prussian
Rhineland, Marx...was exiled and moved to London together with his wife
and children, where he continued writing and formulating his theories
about social and economic activity. He also campaigned for socialism and
became a significant figure in the International Workingmen's
Association...Marx is typically cited, with Émile Durkheim and Max
Weber, as one of the three principal architects of modern social science..."

(He was exiled for being a pain in the arse, and he was exactly from the
bourgeoisie he railed against. He was the prototype champagne socialist.)

Inadequate people who can't think for themselves and work stuff out and
who have pretensions towards intellectualism - the 'useful idiots' -of
Marxism just LOVE Marx. It appeals to their sense of jealousy, their
fear on being intellectually inferior, and all that stuff.

If you are a loser, why wouldn't you follow a religion that says 'losers
are only losers because some fascist chauvinistic White Male with
inherited money has dominated you'. And if that religion promises that
'come the revolution, we will all (as a Zulu mate informed me years ago
in Jo'burg) Have a Mercedes and a swimming pool!

Yes, that's what the Cuban agitators of the ANC were saying in the
townships.

And of course in any society there are always way more losers than
winners, and enough have chips on their shoulders to Join The Cause.

And they don't need to be explicitly organised. They know what the enemy
is, anyone who is a winner. So if you have a 4WD, they will key it or
slash the tyres. If you park your Jag for a microsecond longer than the
'proscribed' time (sic!) they will slap a ticket on it. etc.

It is in short the politics of laziness, greed, envy and hatred,and it
succeeds everywhere because we have built a society where we could
actually tolerate laziness, greed, envy and hatred.

Could being the operative word. Times are changing. And we cant tolerate
Marxist lefty****s anymore. They are not just a danger to themselves,
they threaten the whole of civilisation.

It is of course possible that the West will fall, to Islamic barbarians
or preferably the Chinese. If so it will have deserved it, for being
(after being so smart as to rule the world) so stupid as to believe in
'socialism' and show compassion to people who regard it as a sign of
weakness alone.

On 07/01/16 19:28, Mike Lander wrote:
And the sort of socialism that produced the NHS isn't Marxism
either.

Or the police service or government schools or roads or postal service
either.


Well in the way they are implemented, yes they are.

Take the NHS. In sane countries you pay as part of taxes, into a health
insurance scheme, and then when you are sick you go to a PRIVATE clinic,
OF YOUR CHOICE and get treated and claim on insurance.

IN the UK you go to the ONLY STATE OWNED MONOPOLY hospital or surgery.
And send your kids to a school RUN BY TE STATE teaching WHAT THE STATE
WANTS IT TO REACH and you have little choice there either.

Socialism that doesn't just pay for socially necessary stuff, but owns
it and runs it too, is communism by another name.

Why have state ownership, rather than state funding? So you exert direct
CONTROL.

That is acceptable in the Armed forces, is excusable in the police, but
its patently bad thing in any other sphere.

And it creates an endless tendency to take more and more things under
the government wing to tax, and then pay back (some of) the taxes in
terms of providing public sector jobs, and services that will be
supplied whether people want them or mnot.

Over 50% of the UKS GDP circulates through government, and a huge amount
more is there because of government decree. (i.e. if you MUST employ a
surveyor when selling your house, his job is indirectly a public sector
job).

Communism is simply 100% of GDP circulating through the state.

Arguably around 65% of GDP is there because of government, which is why
public sector workers and rent seekers all vote labour.


The NHS is a communist state in miniature. IT is the nations single
biggest organisation. The state education system is another. AS is the BBC.

Because they all depend on taxes, and are all dependent on political
whim for their existence.

I would guess from your posts you are a devoted believer in socialism
and Labour. May I suggest the radical tactic of considering that you
have been conned into believeing they are something that every action
shows they are not?



--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

The Natural Philosopher wrote:


The implications were that
temperature, once the other knowns were stripped out - would broadly
follow the CO2 increase,. They didn't. ~1970 to ~1990, rapid global
warming. ~1990 till today, Almost no global warming.

According to NASA
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
relative to the 1951-1980 average global surface temperature,
the 4-year global average went up during 1990-2010
from +0.35 to +0.65 (centigrade).

The 10 warmest years in the last 130 years have all occurred since 2000,
with the exception of 1998. The year 2014 ranks as the warmest on record.


--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

On 05/01/2016 22:11, Tim Lamb wrote:
I met Tony Benn at an engineering function. He seemed half way sensible.
Back end of the 3 day week era.

He was an MP. They _have_ to seem half way sensible.

What scares me are the guys I knew at Uni who are now MPs - and regarded
Benn as a dangerous right winger.

Andy

On 07/01/16 21:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/01/2016 22:11, Tim Lamb wrote:
I met Tony Benn at an engineering function. He seemed half way sensible.
Back end of the 3 day week era.

He was an MP. They _have_ to seem half way sensible.

No, they don't. I met Tim Yeo, and even in front of his own electorate
he behaved like a complete ****.


Then we had a little libdenm thing who came and twittered in our village
hall; about 'soshul justiss' . Nobody understood what she was on about.

Then we realised she didn't, either...


What scares me are the guys I knew at Uni who are now MPs - and regarded
Benn as a dangerous right winger.


I think he was a swivel eyed commie meself

Andy


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 06/01/2016 16:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 16:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 05/01/2016 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:

Incidentally the Severn Barrage got mentioned. I think it's practical,
and combined with Morecambe Bay whose tides are nicely out of
synchronisation could provide reliable power 24/7. Which would
approximately replace Wylfa. And there are no other good tidal sites...

Adding two sine waves doesn't give you a straight line.

It does if they are exactly equal in amplitude and 180 degrees phase
different

And have you
costed this proposal?

Course not. Greens don't do sums

That's an ad-hominem attack - and misplaced.

As it happens the power generated is at peak flow, and peak flow for the
one is at slack tide for the other. You need to add the squares of the
tidal height - and the asynchrony just happens to be about right.

Within limits it's flat.

The problem is it buggers the environment for the whole of the Severn
and Morecambe Bay, and replaces just one nuclear station. It's not even
big enough to need much of a grid upgrade.

Andy

On 06/01/2016 16:45, newshound wrote:
ICBA to look for numbers, but my guess is that tidal power schemes would
be literally a drop in the ocean compared to the gulf stream energy.

Not sure how you extract that.

The more interesting issue is the winners and losers. I tend to think a
Severn Barrage would be quite a good idea. It could provide another
crossing for road or rail. Good for sailors, less so for bird-watchers.
Unlikely to be "economic", but then neither was the channel tunnel, and
that is clearly an infrastructure asset.

You need _both_ Morecambe Bay and the Severn, or you dump even more
variation on the grid.

Andy

On 07/01/2016 01:03, Nick wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.

How much salt do you need to melt to power the UK all night?

Andy

On 07/01/16 21:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 06/01/2016 16:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/01/16 16:10, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 05/01/2016 21:14, Vir Campestris wrote:

Incidentally the Severn Barrage got mentioned. I think it's practical,
and combined with Morecambe Bay whose tides are nicely out of
synchronisation could provide reliable power 24/7. Which would
approximately replace Wylfa. And there are no other good tidal
sites...

Adding two sine waves doesn't give you a straight line.

It does if they are exactly equal in amplitude and 180 degrees phase
different

And have you
costed this proposal?

Course not. Greens don't do sums

That's an ad-hominem attack - and misplaced.


seeing what follows, Id say it wasn't misplaced at all. No mention of
cost anywhere.


As it happens the power generated is at peak flow, and peak flow for the
one is at slack tide for the other. You need to add the squares of the
tidal height - and the asynchrony just happens to be about right.

Within limits it's flat.

The problem is it buggers the environment for the whole of the Severn
and Morecambe Bay, and replaces just one nuclear station. It's not even
big enough to need much of a grid upgrade.

Andy

So where is the counter to the assertion that greens dont do sums, and
therefore its not been costed?



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 07/01/16 21:59, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2016 01:03, Nick wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.

How much salt do you need to melt to power the UK all night?

Remember greens dont do sums


I did calculate that building a 1000ft dam at the end of loch ness and
pumping it full of seawater would just about run the country for a
couple of weeks

But not all winter..


Andy


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 21:59, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2016 01:03, Nick wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

see 6.2 Molten Salt Storage

Heat the salt in the day use the heated salt to generate electricity at
night.

Low loss power distribution seems to be key. Sun in Sahara power in uk.

I saw a quoted figure of 2% loss per 1000 miles, but I have no idea if
that is realistic.

How much salt do you need to melt to power the UK all night?

Remember greens dont do sums


I did calculate that building a 1000ft dam at the end of loch ness and
pumping it full of seawater would just about run the country for a
couple of weeks

You'd have to build one at each end.

--
Please note new email address:

On 07/01/2016 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Take your molten salt. Iw would probably have a turnaround efficiency of
around 30% at best. Compare that with pumped storage at 70%. Is a molten
salt battery one third the cost to build? Would it be possible to buy
electricity when the sun shone sat less than a third of the price one
can sell it ant night?

It might be possible to put kilotons of molten salt somewhere. We don't
have any more decent sites for pumped storage.

I suspect, however, that it's still far too expensive.

Andy

On 07/01/16 22:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 07/01/2016 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Take your molten salt. Iw would probably have a turnaround efficiency of
around 30% at best. Compare that with pumped storage at 70%. Is a molten
salt battery one third the cost to build? Would it be possible to buy
electricity when the sun shone sat less than a third of the price one
can sell it ant night?

It might be possible to put kilotons of molten salt somewhere. We don't
have any more decent sites for pumped storage.

I suspect, however, that it's still far too expensive.

Andy

Far too inefficient.

if electricity is stored in molten salt, then what comes out the arse
end will be three times as expensive as what goes in give or take.

Its already about 20p for a unit of solar electricity, 60p a unit is -
whatever. Insane. 70p delivered to your consumer unit?

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/01/16 19:28, Mike Lander wrote:
And the sort of socialism that produced the NHS isn't Marxism
either.

Or the police service or government schools or roads or postal service
either.


Well in the way they are implemented, yes they are.

Take the NHS. In sane countries you pay as part of taxes, into a health
insurance scheme, and then when you are sick you go to a PRIVATE clinic,
OF YOUR CHOICE and get treated and claim on insurance.

That isn't how any of the police service or government schools or roads or
postal service do it.

IN the UK you go to the ONLY STATE OWNED MONOPOLY hospital or surgery.
And send your kids to a school RUN BY TE STATE teaching WHAT THE STATE
WANTS IT TO REACH and you have little choice there either.

You have plenty of choice with non govt schools.

Socialism that doesn't just pay for socially necessary stuff, but owns
it and runs it too, is communism by another name.

Communism is govt ownership of everything, not just a small subset of what
people need and have chosen to have govt do like the police service or
government schools or roads or postal service.

Why have state ownership, rather than state funding? So you exert direct
CONTROL.

Doesn't make it Marxism.
That is acceptable in the Armed forces, is excusable in the police, but
its patently bad thing in any other sphere.

Not with the roads or schools.

And it creates an endless tendency to take more and more things under
the government wing to tax,

In fact the exact opposite happens with the privatisation of what it makes
no sense
for govt to do like car manufacturing, airlines, the phone service etc.

and then pay back (some of) the taxes in
terms of providing public sector jobs, and services that will be
supplied whether people want them or mnot.

Over 50% of the UKS GDP circulates through government, and a huge amount
more is there because of government decree. (i.e. if you MUST employ a
surveyor when selling your house, his job is indirectly a public sector
job).

It isn't a public sector job.

Communism is simply 100% of GDP circulating through the state.

Arguably around 65% of GDP is there because of government, which is why
public sector workers and rent seekers all vote labour.


The NHS is a communist state in miniature. IT is the nations single
biggest organisation. The state education system is another. AS is the BBC.

None of which are communism any more than the cops are.

Because they all depend on taxes, and are all dependent on political
whim for their existence.

Doesn't make them communist, just socialist.

I would guess from your posts you are a devoted believer in socialism
and Labour.

You have guessed wrong, again. I have never ever voted Labour in my life
and am only in favour of the govt doing the police service , government
schools, roads etc.

May I suggest the radical tactic of considering that you
have been conned into believeing they are something that every action
shows they are not?
You can suggest anything you like but are just plain wrong, again.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 06/01/16 00:22, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And guess what. In every case since WWII its been lefty**** ideology,.

Now firmly allied with globalism and Big Corporate and Big Green

Because they all want the same thing. To make it easy for them to
control the world. Which they are well on the way to doing

This is a classic case of political paranoia.
According to you there is a conspiracy between "lefty**** ideology"
(which you explained earlier was a term you use for Marxism),
"Big Corporate" and "Big Green". Oh, and "globalism".


Of course, why on earth wouldn't the dominant cliques all of whom want to
control other peoples lives, not find themselves allied?

Because they are so different on the end result they want.

Its all about control, and the means to achieve it and maintain it in a
rapidly changing world.

I just dont believe that say UKIP wants that sort of control.

And I dont believe that even the most rabid Green
actually believes that they can end up with that.

A world which is essentially dominated my media and marketing.

But now the vast bulk of public discourse doesnt involve any of that.

Who wants to control what you see on TV and on et Internet, and why?

Very few anymore. No one with the internet.

How many countries have state broadcasters? Why?

Because they rightly believe that without those, you end up with
a very inferior TV service like the yanks have ended up with.

If there are broadcasters that are not state owned, who owns them and who
dictates the content?

Broadcasters are a very insignificant part of what matters anymore.

How on earth does a tinpot organisation of ex hippies and small time
commies like Greenpeace, suddenly rise with the green party to be THE goto
organisation for opinion on energy? And get billions in state funds and
EU funds?

For the same reason UKIP does.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Its not a conspiracy, because its all on the
record. Look how much the banks give the governments, look how much the
governments give the banks, Look how much the governments give the EU,
look how much the EU spends on political propaganda like the Green party,
and other things.

Like the elected UKIPers.

How many institutions that people trust - Universities, the Beeb,
charities, the national trust, the royal society, the Royal Family are
partially, heavily or even totally funded by government grant?

Because the voters have decided that that is what they want.

How much 'artistic' material in the UK is produced WITHOUT a government
grant. In the theatre its none at ALL as far as I can see.

Because not enough people are prepared to pay for that sort of thing
for it to be economically viable. There is with movies but not with
almost anything else.

Look how much money the government and political parties receive from
corporate sponsors, look how much money the labour party gets from the
unions

And UKIP gets from the EU. That is in fact almost their entire source of
income. They get bugger all in comparison from those who like UKIP.

You must be insane to think that this all doesn't come with strings
attached.

But doesnt with UKIP ?

The whole point of socialism was to get large sums of money out of rich
families and steal it for the state with crippling taxes, between the
wars.

In fact the absolute vast bulk of the funds that paid for socialism
between the wars came from taxation of normal wage and salary
earners, mostly in consumption taxes, to pay for those unspeakable
socialist obscenities like roads, police, govt schools, the military,
the postal and phone services, the BBC, council houses etc etc etc.

And that process carried on down to the middle classes till no one has any
money except those at the top of vast companies,

Could have SWORN that the living standards of the middle classes
improved out of sight on all the basic measures like the cars they
have, the holidays they have, the standard of houses they live in,
the food they eat, the education their kids get, etc etc etc.

or those who are in
with the government, and sometimes there is no difference.

Green is just a way to get access to governments funds,

And UKIP does nothing like that in the european parliament ?

and to be useful to corporate interests to sway p[public opinion and
influence governments to make decisions that will benefit those who fund
it.

And nothing like that happens with UKIP ?

All property is theft, except what's owned by corporations and
governments. IT has to be removed from people and given to banks,

Could have SWORN that Maggie removed quite a bit of it from
govt and handed it at very cheap prices to those who were actually
living in it and did that so generously that banks generally weren't
involved in that.

and companies and political parties and their lobby groups, and you get to
be a big shot if you work for one of those.

Or if you start UKIP.

Its not really a carefully planned conspiracy, its a natural alliance
between deeply unpleasant people who find each other useful to achieve
their ends, none of which include making life better for the average
citizen whom they all despise.

But life has got a lot better for all of those anyway, even those
who have been replaced by those unspeakable immigrants.

And greens and lefty****s and islington based champagne socialists are
their cannon fodder and their useful idiots, who they flatter and make
feel even more self important than they naturally are, and that goes for
media whores and third rate scientists in fourth rate universities, who
can always get a job in 'climate change'.

And UKIP never does anything like that at all eh ?

NO one exactly organises it, its just that turds sinks to the bottom and
scum floats to the top,

Some turds like Farage float to the top too.

and green scum feeds on it all as well. and that's basically the way human
nature works.

Yep, and Farage is the current expert at exploiting that.

Especially when you destroy anys sense of responsibility and shared
culture with 'diversity' and 'social justice'

Could have sworn 5M voted UKIP.

Its just politics in action. Its got no heart that you can cut out, no
Blofeld sitting in a cave stroking a white pussy, its a collusion of venal
little men and dunces,

Like Farage.

who we have allowed to occupy positions of power, that's all, because we
felt compassion for them, or thought they were like us, and basically
honest.

Or because we actually had to chose the least
worst of the stuffed shirts/politicians like Farage.

They are not. They are systematic, routine and habitual liars about
anything and everything

Yes, that is certainly true of Farage. Lied through
his teeth about quitting as leader if he didnt get
elected to parliament and pretended that he had
to be dragged kicking and screaming in handcuffs
back into the leadership of UKIP as an unwilling slave.

and they control all the media, all of government

Didnt realise Farage had managed to do that.

and they are trying to control the internet.

Not even possible.

Whatever they SAY are their reasons are not their reasons. That's just
marketing, that's just how they justify their actions, which are always
the same, ensuring their position, and making money out of it.

Yes, that is certainly true of Farage.

They exist because they can, and they exist because they haven't damaged
things enough yet to self destruct.

It will be fascinating to watch what happens to UKIP when
it loses the referendum, as it absolutely certainly will.

Bet Farage wont even have the balls to do what Salmond did.

They exist because there will always be people who prefer to play politics
and use other people, than do anything themselves.

Yes, that is certainly true of Farage.

IN real socialist terms, they are pure parasites,

Yes, that is certainly true of Farage.

But their trick is to point the finger at anyone else who is performing a
useful function, and yell 'there's a parasite'

Yes, that is what you are doing.

IN the end, if they win, they destroy the host, Society will collapse and
civilisation will retreat into a dark age,

How odd that Norway has actually done a lot better than
Britain has because it chose to go the socialist route with
their gas and power generation industries.

but they will be in control if the people let them. If the people decide
they don't want them, they will die. Its down to the people .

Yes, it always is, and currently hardly anyone decided that anyone
from UKIP was worth electing, just one refugee from the Tories.

I can't second guess whether honesty integrity, honour hard work
intelligence and real science will win over a tissue of lies covering a
climate of fear and a metropolitan population who turn into intellectual
zombies.

What will determine that result is if any of the dire predictions
about climate change ever actually happen. Bet they dont and
that whatever does happen is handled just as well as we handled
much more important disruptions like WW2 and the Great
Depression and managed to ensure that there wont be another
world war again.

I merely note that those qualities - those rather old fashioned and
derided qualities, are a necessary precondition for building and
maintaining the society we now still inhabit.

Like hell they are.

And if they succeed in eradicating those qualities from society,

Not even possible.

then we will not be able to maintain society, its infrastructure or its
institutions.

Those survived two world wars and the Great Depression fine.

The Trotskyites look forward to that, as they believe a better society
will emerge.

They have been completely irrelevant to a long time how.

The corporations don't care, as there is always somewhere else to go if
they destroy the UK, and the politicians don't care because they feel that
they will be the last to suffer.

But I care.

Its something you don't notice when you are young, but when you get old
and look back on how things have changed over a lifetime, the pattern
shows up.

I'm quite a bit older than you and I dont see it like that.

There will always be pyscopaths, and what psycopaths are and what
pyscopaths do naturally, is get themselves into positions where they feed
on society, and give nothing back. And politics, corporate yes men, and
media are just the sorts of places these people naturally gravitate.

And Farage is an absolutely classic example of that.

And what pyscopaths LOVE is to manipulate other people, and they do that
by exploiting weakness and emotional attachment to ideals,

Yes, we can see Farage doing that every time he opens his mouth.

which is why organisations like greenpeace and the Labour party and the
Unions become infiltrated and eventually run by psychopaths.

Yes, that is certainly true of UKIP.

IT doesn't matter if they call themselves Greens Socialists, communists,
national socialists, fascists, Scottish nationalists, or anything.

Or UKIP.

They are in the end psychopaths.

They are indeed.

And they operate buy convincing the sheeple, the zombies and the
lefty****s that they are in fact Glorious Leaders.

Farage didnt actually manage to even get himself a seat.

Look at Corbyn. The man is a ****ing psychopath, but the Left loves him.
Blair was a psycopath., Ken Livingstone is a psychopath. Hitler was a
psycopath. Mussolini was a psychopath, Stalin was a psychopath. Pol Pot
was a psychopath.

Farage is a lying psychopath.

Is it a coincidence they were all Political leaders who thought they were
Glorious?

No.

The moral?

Just because someone tells you exactly what you want to hear, doesn't
means he is on your side and cares about you. IN fact the balance of
probabilities are that he is conning you and will rip you off.

Yes, that is certainly true of Farage.