Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 35 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 2787 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Going green

Chris Pearson
The debate in another thread has shifted to the climate debate, so perhaps we should keep it separate.


Publication bias may be detected by what I think is called a funnel plot. Imagine a funnel lying on its side.


On the X-axis, you have the power of the study - high powered studies are nearer to the truth so they lie in the stem of the funnel.


On the Y-axis you have the finding of each study - whether the activity is beneficial or not. The middle of the neck of the funnel is the best estimate of the true value.


At the left of the plot, the wide bit of the funnel, lie low powered studies. Some will show that the activity is beneficial, some the reverse. So if you look at the risk of smoking, some low powered studies should have shown that it was beneficial. IIRC, studies showing that smoking was beneficial were not published. That may be because the authors chose not to submit, or editors chose not to accept.


I have no idea whether this sort of plot has been done for the climate debate, but it ought to have been.


I accept David Z's argument that the climate has warmed and cooled long before industry appeared (even on a Roman scale), but what bugs me is the doctrine that we cannot afford to get it wrong.


Does anybody here know how man-made energy compares with the amount which arrives from the sun?
Parents
  • 0
    Ok Leigh, you pressed the right buttons.


    The problem with these fires is not warming but humans. Many people have built in grassland / tree covered areas, with the danger of vehicle sparks, electricity  infrastructure which can produce showers of sparks, and about a third are caused deliberately. Once one starts it is very difficult to control if there is a significant wind, so campers, the odd barbecue, and even smoking are serious risks. About 20 million extra people live in California, many in these kind of areas and so the incidence has risen. A 1 degree change would not have any effect when the ignition temperature of grass etc is at least 300 degrees Centigrade, that is just rubbish without any basis at all.


    This whole subject is so politicised that reasonable discussion is very difficult, and has become a faith. For example the statement "97% of scientists agree" is complete rubbish, a proper study of papers has shown that this number might be as much as 10% with a huge number of maybe or don't knows added in as greenwash. An ENORMOUS amount of money has been spent by governments on research, and to keep the flow going there is a huge political campaign backing up the dangers of runaway climate change. This is imaginary and cannot happen, because if it could it would have happened several times in the past, so we would not exist! American spending is suggested to be about $2 trillion dollars to date, so why stop the bus?


    On you tube you can watch Lord Monckton giving good talks on the real situation, and why the alleged computer models have it all wrong, shown by the fact they have so far been much too hot , and we can measure the current temperature. I gave him some mathematical input at one time on feedback systems and what happens when the loop is not stable, and this is pretty much the problem with the computer models. They have a feedback factor which is seriously positive when the measured value suggests that it is less than one, giving ridiculous output for sensible inputs. Not the only problem, but one of them.


    Anyway look at Monckton and also Wattsupwiththat.com and you may begin to get some understanding.


    Regards


    David  CEng MIET
Reply
  • 0
    Ok Leigh, you pressed the right buttons.


    The problem with these fires is not warming but humans. Many people have built in grassland / tree covered areas, with the danger of vehicle sparks, electricity  infrastructure which can produce showers of sparks, and about a third are caused deliberately. Once one starts it is very difficult to control if there is a significant wind, so campers, the odd barbecue, and even smoking are serious risks. About 20 million extra people live in California, many in these kind of areas and so the incidence has risen. A 1 degree change would not have any effect when the ignition temperature of grass etc is at least 300 degrees Centigrade, that is just rubbish without any basis at all.


    This whole subject is so politicised that reasonable discussion is very difficult, and has become a faith. For example the statement "97% of scientists agree" is complete rubbish, a proper study of papers has shown that this number might be as much as 10% with a huge number of maybe or don't knows added in as greenwash. An ENORMOUS amount of money has been spent by governments on research, and to keep the flow going there is a huge political campaign backing up the dangers of runaway climate change. This is imaginary and cannot happen, because if it could it would have happened several times in the past, so we would not exist! American spending is suggested to be about $2 trillion dollars to date, so why stop the bus?


    On you tube you can watch Lord Monckton giving good talks on the real situation, and why the alleged computer models have it all wrong, shown by the fact they have so far been much too hot , and we can measure the current temperature. I gave him some mathematical input at one time on feedback systems and what happens when the loop is not stable, and this is pretty much the problem with the computer models. They have a feedback factor which is seriously positive when the measured value suggests that it is less than one, giving ridiculous output for sensible inputs. Not the only problem, but one of them.


    Anyway look at Monckton and also Wattsupwiththat.com and you may begin to get some understanding.


    Regards


    David  CEng MIET
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines