Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[luutzu]

I've certainly spotted various T/A patterns in a chart of water storage levels in the past.

It happens yes.

That doesn't make it the cause though.

I mean, sure, technically speaking, if you chart a certain variable where if it does this and that pattern, the causal result on this and that other thing will or will not happen. So technically, chart-wise, certain pattern will result in certain thing being true - without fail.

For example, if rainfall is rising off the chart, if snowfall is high... water level in the dams will rise and be filled. So there's a causal relation there.

But I think it's illogical to infer from certain variable causing certain event to mean that if, say average world temperature, rises and does a "double top", it will mean the next x year will see temperature dropping down... why? because the chart pattern in stocks have always shown it will (with stock prices).

 

[Ann]

But I think it's illogical to infer from certain variable causing certain event to mean that if, say average world temperature, rises and does a "double top", it will mean the next x year will see temperature dropping down... why? because the chart pattern in stocks have always shown it will (with stock prices).

Sadly there is no guaranteed outcome for a pattern in a chart where there can be manipulation Luu. However in nature there seems to be a rhythmic repeated regular cycle once you know what the pattern is. Look back long enough and you will see a pattern emerging. I do it with stocks by looking back as far as I can on the chart. It tells me which stocks are being manipulated pump and dumps. They generally have a very rapid run up chart pattern, this always alerts me there is manipulation.

 

[Ann]

Putting false claims in big writings on posters doesn't make it true.

No it doesn't Luu, that is why I put a source reference to substantiate anything I say on my posters.

 

[Smurf1976]

That doesn't make it the cause though

Agreed and I'm not suggesting it does make it a cause.

Likewise I don't see any evidence that a double top on a stock chart causes the price to then fall. The chart might tell you with reasonable accuracy what will happen but it's not the actual cause.

 

[luutzu]

No it doesn't Luu, that is why I put a source reference to substantiate anything I say on my posters.

But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.

Nice graphics though. What software do you use? CorelDraw?

 

[cynic]

But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.

...

Did you fail to notice the contents of table 3, in section 3, of Cook et al.' s paper?

 

[luutzu]

Agreed and I'm not suggesting it does make it a cause.

Likewise I don't see any evidence that a double top on a stock chart causes the price to then fall. The chart might tell you with reasonable accuracy what will happen but it's not the actual cause.

I think Ann did. That since the temperature has had a "double top"... I'm assuming that mean it's been rising and rising... that it will soon enough drop.

Just saw another episode of an interview with Daniel Ellsberg... ermm... with Obama, now Trump, ramping up fun-size, battlefield nukes, the world will more likely to go nuclear before CC get to us.

Nuclear war strategists, apparently, have long ago discuss nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Some like their nukes big, some like their nukes small enough so they can be use more frequently. Technology, and probably common sense, says that if you make 'em small, you're more likely to use them. And in using them, you could set off the other guy's alarm of a nuclear strike... from which they'll send their big nukes back at you... then we all get to say goodbye.

The current thinking doesn't seem to take that into account.

 

[luutzu]

Did you fail to notice the contents of table 3, in section 3, of Cook et al.' s paper?

It's been a while Cynic, I don't remember.

But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong.

Not all research into climate change seek to attribute the causes of it. Some can just look at the impact of rising sea level, or stronger more frequent hurricane etc.

Reuters' reporting some US-mandated research into the impact of CC... "if" CC is real, a heck of a lot of people are going to die, most of them are poor. For the US economy as a whole, they'll lose some hundreds of billions in GDP by 2050 [?] from failing infrastructure, illnesses, natural disasters.

 

[luutzu]

Sadly there is no guaranteed outcome for a pattern in a chart where there can be manipulation Luu. However in nature there seems to be a rhythmic repeated regular cycle once you know what the pattern is. Look back long enough and you will see a pattern emerging. I do it with stocks by looking back as far as I can on the chart. It tells me which stocks are being manipulated pump and dumps. They generally have a very rapid run up chart pattern, this always alerts me there is manipulation.

So who or what is manipulating the crazy weather pattern?

 

[cynic]

It's been a while Cynic, I don't remember.

But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong.
...

How is it wrong ?
Luutzu, if a person were to make a statement, or utter a phrase ,akin to the following:
"66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

Would you say that they are wrong for doing so?

 

[Smurf1976]

AGL mining coal? Do they mine under another name?

Nothing's hidden. AGL operates the Loy Yang mine which is just outside Traralgon (Vic). Production is about 80,000 tonnes per day with a third of that sold to Alinta and the remainder used by AGL itself.

Energy Australia also mines coal not far away at Yallourn, production being about half that of AGL's, but also has the Pine Dale mine in NSW.

Now before anyone gets all excited with this and decides to switch their electricity account away from AGL or EA in protest, let me tell you now that would be completely the wrong approach.

If you were to go to AGL's coal mine then issues of CO2 aside, it's undeniably a rather massive and impressive operation. There's a public viewing area that anyone can access which overlooks it all.

Now if you follow the big conveyor belts you'll come to Loy Yang power stations. Note that's plural since there's two, conveniently named "A" and "B". AGL owns the "A" station and Alinta owns the half size "B" station next door. It would have been the same size but only half was ever built.

Now at this site you'll notice that the nice flat bit of land where the second half of Loy Yang B station was going to go has some gas turbines out the front. Indeed it does and they belong to Snowy Hydro.

If you follow the transmission lines from these gas turbines you'll find it goes to Alinta's Loy Yang B station and then goes around the back of AGL's Loy Yang A station where there's a great big switch yard. You'll find some other transmission lines there too, those being the ones owned by yet another entity but under contract to Hydro Tasmania (aka Momentum Energy). Via a DC coverter station and undersea cable it ends up at George Town (Tas).

Competition? Oh yes, that's right. Competition. Tell the public there's competition. Or something. Yep, gotta remember the competition bit. Not that I'm not suggesting any wrongdoing or illegal collusion here. I'm just pointing out that engineering reality is a world away from the ideas of economists, politicians and the ACCC. Round pegs, square hole - there's the problem.

Now if you're in Melbourne and looking in the right place you might have spotted that Newport power station, which spends a lot of time doing not much, has sprung to life over the weekend. Indeed it has, AGL have had 2 x 560 MW units out of operation at Loy Yang and Energy Australia has a 510 MW machine sitting idle at Newport. So fire it up then.

Coal? Oh yeah, the coal. Truth is no matter who you buy your electricity from it's going to make precisely zero difference to how much coal AGL or EA are digging up and it's not going to stop the train loads of the stuff being bought by Origin either. If someone's got a wind farm or solar then it's being fully used, some if its production being used by consumers billed through AGL or Alinta etc, and switching your retail account to that "green" company won't make it produce any more. And suffice to say that your nice green non-coal burning supplier will be outright ****ing themselves and having a crisis meeting if AGL's mine floods or catches fire indeed they'll far more likely end up broke because of it than AGL will (seriously).

Now this Smurf prefers to call things as they a really are. There's one grid and one set of generating facilities. Shuffling the names around and who owns which bit creates a nice illusion that it's like buying apples in a competitive market but that's a very long way from reality. It's competition yes, but competition of the "everyone wins a prize anyway" variety so far as generation is concerned since that's the inevitable outcome in a system where you actually do need all the bits comprising it.

If the aim is to resolve all this then it really comes down to needing the administration to suit the engineering and not the reverse. I don't care who owns it but do away with the nonsense which says the owners of part A really mustn't co-operate with the owners of parts B, C or D who also mustn't co-operate with each other. That's just economic ideology out of control and it's making this whole thing far more difficult than it really needs to be. It might be tolerable if it had at least cut prices but in truth they're up sharply so there's no benefit there either.

Left to their own devices I'm very sure that the electricity industry could be rid of coal completely within 30 years and would have most of the job done within 20. With sensible planning and co-operation it's not at all hard to achieve that and I'm very sure that the private and government owned generators alike are up to the task from a technical perspective. They each have a role to play, and they've got a pretty good idea already what that is and where their company's strengths and weaknesses lie, so it just needs government to get out of the way.

Now that timeframe might not excite those on the "green" side too much, they'll want it done sooner, but let's face reality. There's no coherent policy or leadership from government and indeed there's outright obstruction. Despite that, assorted electricity generation businesses have between them worked out what and how to do it. Can't talk to each other about it of course but with a bit of trial and error and putting things in the media it has sort of been figured out that the mostly within 20 years / all within 30 years bit is achievable.

Now just imagine what could be done if government was actually on side and provided leadership? Or if the various generation owners were able to have open and frank discussions and come up with a joint plan without someone going to jail for doing so? That's where you start getting shorter timeframes and driving down costs as well.

 

[Ann]

But that's why it's false 'cause Cook et. al. didn't conclude what your poster said, or implied, they did.

Nice graphics though. What software do you use? CorelDraw?

The reference to Cook et al was simply to substantiate what I was saying Luu. If you read their paper, you will see the lie. It comes down to, lies, damn lies and statistics.
I am using Photoshop CS3.

But quoting that 66% of the research with "climate change" in the abstract holding no position on the causes of CC as a consensus on "human activities does not cause CC". That's wrong.

No it's not Luu. "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" Direct quote from the paper. I am very, very careful with what I say. I check my facts over and over before I speak.

So who or what is manipulating the crazy weather pattern?

What crazy weather pattern Luu? Frankly a temperature rise in the last 100 years of 0.74c is hardly what I would call 'crazy' unless you can identify a rise of temperature during the day of 0.74 of a degree yourself. I can only pick a rise in temperature of about 5 degrees during the day.

 

[Ann]

Nothing's hidden. AGL operates the Loy Yang mine which is just outside Traralgon (Vic). Production is about 80,000 tonnes per day with a third of that sold to Alinta and the remainder used by AGL itself.

Thanks Smurf, I wasn't implying it was hidden, I just had no idea AGL was a coal miner and was simply exposing my ignorance! Geez you know your stuff!

 

[ghotib]

...Now this Smurf prefers to call things as they a really are. There's one grid and one set of generating facilities. Shuffling the names around and who owns which bit creates a nice illusion that it's like buying apples in a competitive market but that's a very long way from reality. It's competition yes, but competition of the "everyone wins a prize anyway" variety so far as generation is concerned since that's the inevitable outcome in a system where you actually do need all the bits comprising it.

If the aim is to resolve all this then it really comes down to needing the administration to suit the engineering and not the reverse. ...

...Left to their own devices I'm very sure that the electricity industry could be rid of coal completely within 30 years and would have most of the job done within 20. With sensible planning and co-operation it's not at all hard to achieve that and I'm very sure that the private and government owned generators alike are up to the task from a technical perspective. They each have a role to play, and they've got a pretty good idea already what that is and where their company's strengths and weaknesses lie, so it just needs government to get out of the way.

Now that timeframe might not excite those on the "green" side too much, they'll want it done sooner, but let's face reality. There's no coherent policy or leadership from government and indeed there's outright obstruction. Despite that, assorted electricity generation businesses have between them worked out what and how to do it. Can't talk to each other about it of course but with a bit of trial and error and putting things in the media it has sort of been figured out that the mostly within 20 years / all within 30 years bit is achievable.

Now just imagine what could be done if government was actually on side and provided leadership? Or if the various generation owners were able to have open and frank discussions and come up with a joint plan without someone going to jail for doing so? That's where you start getting shorter timeframes and driving down costs as well.

Oh wow Smurf.

That would be one of the clearest and most depressing statements of the electricity mess I've ever seen.

About ten years ago, a little before solar panels became a practical proposition for ordinary people, I went to a clean energy workshop where one of the sessions was about the current - errrr... present - electricity system. I've forgotten most of it, but I do remember sticking my hand up and asking if it really made any sense. Answer: No. And the presenter wasn't even an engineer.

<sigh>

 

[luutzu]

The reference to Cook et al was simply to substantiate what I was saying Luu. If you read their paper, you will see the lie. It comes down to, lies, damn lies and statistics.
I am using Photoshop CS3.

No it's not Luu. "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW" Direct quote from the paper. I am very, very careful with what I say. I check my facts over and over before I speak.

What crazy weather pattern Luu? Frankly a temperature rise in the last 100 years of 0.74c is hardly what I would call 'crazy' unless you can identify a rise of temperature during the day of 0.74 of a degree yourself. I can only pick a rise in temperature of about 5 degrees during the day.

I read Cook's et. at.'s studies before. They didn't say what your poster said they say.

Expressing no position cannot be taken as taking a position. Definitely not a "no impact" position. That'd be like an accused person wanting to remain silent and only speak to their lawyer as being guilty.

With research aim being almost always aimed at some narrow thesis, a paper that express no position as to the causes of CC could very well mean that that wasn't the purpose of the paper, the aim was to examine something else... e.g. study the size and depth of the polar ice cap over the past millennia...holy cow, it's thinning, getting smaller... and could possibly be due to CC.

See how having such keywords in the abstract metion CC but does not express an opinion or conclusion as to what causes CC?

----

I think the average rise in temperature measure the average of the highs ad the lows over the years. Not the high and low over a 24 hour period.

Studies have shown something like the 15 the hottest years ever recorded happened in the last 17 years. some of California's worst drought and worst bushfires also occurred this century. By reports from their first responders, the fires are getting worst, stronger, more intensed.

 

[cynic]

I read Cook's et. at.'s studies before. They didn't say what your poster said they say.
...

For someone claiming to have read the paper, you seem to be surprisingly oblivious to its actual content.

The phrase:
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

Appears within the first two sentences of the abstract at the head of the "paper".

That 66.4% figure also appears beside a "No AGW position" label in table 3, within the body of the "paper".

Unlike yourself Luutzu, I have actually taken the time to study the contents of that "paper" before accusing another of having misrepresented it!

 

[luutzu]

For someone claiming to have read the paper, you seem to be surprisingly oblivious to its actual content.

The phrase:
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW"

Appears within the first two sentences of the abstract at the head of the "paper".

That 66.4% figure also appears beside a "No AGW position" label in table 3, within the body of the "paper".

Unlike yourself Luutzu, I have actually taken the time to study the contents of that "paper" before accusing another of having misrepresented it!

So "take no position" mean "taking a No position"?

How does that work?

Man, just because a paper has "Climate Change" in its abstract does not mean the paper's aim was to see if human activities causes Climate Change. That's pretty straight forward right?

Did you know that a few weeks before the Beijing Olympic Games the comrades ordered practically all cars off the roads, factories in Beijing to shut their coal-fired power plants.

Guess what happened? The smokes around the city cleared. People get to see blue skies again.

When Nixon set up the EPA and they stopped factories from pumping its waste into rivers... the water doesn't go red and fishes stopped going belly up.

But sure... human activities have no impact on the environment whatsoever. You dumped plastics into the ocean and it just disappear, being recycled by mother nature. It would never come floating back in the fisheries and such.

 

[Ann]

Studies have shown something like the 15 the hottest years ever recorded happened in the last 17 years. some of California's worst drought and worst bushfires also occurred this century. By reports from their first responders, the fires are getting worst, stronger, more intensed.

Which studies and from what University luu?
OK luu, I think you have inspired me to create a new piece of work. I can see how people can be confused about "statistics".

 

[luutzu]

Which studies and from what University luu?
OK luu, I think you have inspired me to create a new piece of work. I can see how people can be confused about "statistics".

Dr Google. OR maybe NASA and such.

Even the idiots in Washington believe CC is real. That's why they actually passed a law requiring a report on the impact of CC to US national security and economic development.

The recent report ain't good. It's going to cost them crapload of money. All of them, both poor and rich.

So you know it's going to get acted on soon enough.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-global-temperatures-2017-20180118-story.html

 

[cynic]

So "take no position" mean "taking a No position"?

How does that work?
...

I didn't write that "paper" - Cook et al. did!

So why are you trying to hold myself and Ann accountable for Cook et al.'s logically bereft mistakes?