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

Just 85 days to go before COP 26

I am sort of excited , its like seeing what arrives at the Rainhill trials all over again (ok I don't time travel) , and we await the big government on heating , and the EV systems are still getting ironed out . I hope i have outlined in previous posts , why we need large scale efficiencies, particularly as we venture to green hydrogen new places , so is there anything new and exciting arriving yet … Well it depends where your start is , if you know who Rachel Carson is and her book silent spring , then your start is real ecology thinking , and your not tub thumping the bath asking for drill baby drill , the pollution problems are real , and we are finding stuff out about just how delicate and interrelated, the organic chemistry of life , really is , so I guess i am with the eco thinkers on pollution , if your an economic thinker and worried about not having a job , then you believe high tech will get us of the problem of impairment of the natural life systems of the planet , mmm which unfortunately i can only argue as such views being deluded , natural habitat loss , is just that, loss and all the fruit cakes who wanted sodium hydroxide trees removing CO2 , I think we are going to argue that . CCS has problems , both technically and in terms of trajectory , and even though George Monbiot has advocated nuclear , I dont really agree , and he hasnt explained the trajectory very well at all , but maybe hes hoping Fusion reactors work (which i dont think they do) , so its all getting a bit exciting in the tin foil hat and expensed wonk stakes , in technology choice awards , some bits can be nailed down but they are to do with infrastructure , and some quite massive changes can be achieved , with redesigning some aspects considering how the EV will work. The liquid fuels believers so called SAF fuels have appeared , and an interesting idea on electrifying HGVs by fitting them with a pantograph , to draw from an overhead line on the motorway , still a problem in HGV weight , and i think Sweden has looked at a centre rail in the road , mmm well problem there is stuff , roadkill getting washed into your concealed live conductor ,duct , still driving along and the kids saying , whats that smell as another bird or mammal is cooking on the centre again , had a biref fun moment . 

Anyhow been as I have designed some eco tech ,(starts rubbing hands feverishly) were reading for the wonk and tin foil hat market makers , the rules are you produce some (not necessarily perfect engineering figures , no more of this Hydrogen gas turbine hopey change thing ) , seems fair enough as alot of tax payers money will be going on some aspects of eco thinking , some are already self sustaining , for transport as LNG is doing well as a transport fuel .

Not happy with some of things the so called cop 26 climate ambassador has been saying so far , not the COP 26 panel (i am hard pushed to find any member truly knowledgeable on natural life system dynmaics and chemistry ) , but as they say only 85  days to go , and who knows anyhting could happen ? 

      

Parents
  • Peter Bernard Ladkin:
    By contrast, we could look at the peer-reviewed climate science published in scientific journals. Mark Lynas and his colleagues just did. …….

    iopscience.iop.org/.../ac2966


    [AU] Thank you, the letter "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" is interesting indeed; I recommend to read it in full, and to study Tables 3 and 4 in particular. The 97% consensus claimed by the Cook et al 2013 paper referred to has been refuted by many a long time ago.

    Ah, here you are again, with yet another reference to a ACC-denialist WWW site, to go with all those others you have been recommending over the last few weeks.

    You are self-confessedly not au fait with climate science. Indeed, in a month of trying I couldn't find out what you do and don't believe about the climate and climate change.

     

     

     


    The following statement renders the quality of the categorisation employed highly questionable:

    "In another example, we gave rating '2' ('explicit endorsement without quantification') to all papers referencing future emissions scenarios in their abstracts, because emissions scenarios by definition imply an evaluation of humanity's role in GHG emissions and their subsequent impact on climate."

    Considering the above and looking at the number of abstracts in Table 3 rated as "1—Explicit endorsement with quantification", only 19 out of 3000 abstracts explicitly support ACC / CAGW which yields only 0.633% on my calculator. That is very far from "exceeding 99%", and remains so even when considering rather passive categories "2" and "3": (19 + 413 + 460) / 3000 = 29.733%.

    As the above excercise clearly demonstrates, judging science based on paper abstracts may be a slippery road. I am sure that while that paper will soon be reffered to in the mainstream media as another proof of "settled climate science", there will be voices saying it is just pre-COP26 alarmist propaganda.

    I have noticed that while during early years the human mind is open to all concepts, trying to evaluate their veracity based on accumulated knowledge and experiences, at certain age arbitrary band-pass or notch filters may start forming inside the grey matter; on green wavelengths for some, on red for others.

     

Reply
  • Peter Bernard Ladkin:
    By contrast, we could look at the peer-reviewed climate science published in scientific journals. Mark Lynas and his colleagues just did. …….

    iopscience.iop.org/.../ac2966


    [AU] Thank you, the letter "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature" is interesting indeed; I recommend to read it in full, and to study Tables 3 and 4 in particular. The 97% consensus claimed by the Cook et al 2013 paper referred to has been refuted by many a long time ago.

    Ah, here you are again, with yet another reference to a ACC-denialist WWW site, to go with all those others you have been recommending over the last few weeks.

    You are self-confessedly not au fait with climate science. Indeed, in a month of trying I couldn't find out what you do and don't believe about the climate and climate change.

     

     

     


    The following statement renders the quality of the categorisation employed highly questionable:

    "In another example, we gave rating '2' ('explicit endorsement without quantification') to all papers referencing future emissions scenarios in their abstracts, because emissions scenarios by definition imply an evaluation of humanity's role in GHG emissions and their subsequent impact on climate."

    Considering the above and looking at the number of abstracts in Table 3 rated as "1—Explicit endorsement with quantification", only 19 out of 3000 abstracts explicitly support ACC / CAGW which yields only 0.633% on my calculator. That is very far from "exceeding 99%", and remains so even when considering rather passive categories "2" and "3": (19 + 413 + 460) / 3000 = 29.733%.

    As the above excercise clearly demonstrates, judging science based on paper abstracts may be a slippery road. I am sure that while that paper will soon be reffered to in the mainstream media as another proof of "settled climate science", there will be voices saying it is just pre-COP26 alarmist propaganda.

    I have noticed that while during early years the human mind is open to all concepts, trying to evaluate their veracity based on accumulated knowledge and experiences, at certain age arbitrary band-pass or notch filters may start forming inside the grey matter; on green wavelengths for some, on red for others.

     

Children
No Data