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:
    But, although you are not expert on climate science (unlike those you criticise), you are expert on data science. You think that, instead of claiming that over 99% of the peer-reviewed climate scientific literature since 2012 endorses ACC, the true figures are 0.633%, or maybe 29.7%.

    I am perfectly capable of performing percentage calculations and drawing logical conclusions from those tables as would anybody with an engineering degree. Those figures were based on Table 3 and should not be taken out of the context as a generalised claim.

    An attentive reader may have noticed that the authors have by accident built in certain verification metrics for their principal claim in the second sentence of the section "5. Conlusion":

    "Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution."

    Looking even only at two of the latest events involving the "climate realist" fraction of scientists proves that the above comparison with the number of scientists questioning plate tectonics or evolution theories (of whom I have not heard lately) is entirely wrong:

    14. Internationale EIKE Klima- und Energiekonferenz, IKEK-14, 12.-13. November 2021, Gera
    eike-klima-energie.eu/.../

    14th International Conference on Climate Change, October 15-17, 2021, Las Vegas 
    climateconference.heartland.org/

    Time to write it up and send it to Environmental Research journal! Do let us know what the editors say!

    Thank you for that kind proposition; I would not be doing that myself but I have no doubt that someone will publish a detailed refutation. Peer review might probably take some months, if not years. 

Reply
  • Peter Bernard Ladkin:
    But, although you are not expert on climate science (unlike those you criticise), you are expert on data science. You think that, instead of claiming that over 99% of the peer-reviewed climate scientific literature since 2012 endorses ACC, the true figures are 0.633%, or maybe 29.7%.

    I am perfectly capable of performing percentage calculations and drawing logical conclusions from those tables as would anybody with an engineering degree. Those figures were based on Table 3 and should not be taken out of the context as a generalised claim.

    An attentive reader may have noticed that the authors have by accident built in certain verification metrics for their principal claim in the second sentence of the section "5. Conlusion":

    "Our results confirm, as has been found in numerous other previous studies of this question, that there is no significant scientific debate among experts about whether or not climate change is human-caused. This issue has been comprehensively settled, and the reality of ACC is no more in contention among scientists than is plate tectonics or evolution."

    Looking even only at two of the latest events involving the "climate realist" fraction of scientists proves that the above comparison with the number of scientists questioning plate tectonics or evolution theories (of whom I have not heard lately) is entirely wrong:

    14. Internationale EIKE Klima- und Energiekonferenz, IKEK-14, 12.-13. November 2021, Gera
    eike-klima-energie.eu/.../

    14th International Conference on Climate Change, October 15-17, 2021, Las Vegas 
    climateconference.heartland.org/

    Time to write it up and send it to Environmental Research journal! Do let us know what the editors say!

    Thank you for that kind proposition; I would not be doing that myself but I have no doubt that someone will publish a detailed refutation. Peer review might probably take some months, if not years. 

Children
No Data