OT: nuclear fusion might not be quite as far off in the futu

[Rick C]

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 5:51:37 AM UTC-5, Clive Arthur wrote:

On 31/01/2020 08:42, whit3rd wrote:

snip

Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum?

Dig up carbon. React with atmospheric oxygen to produce energy. Bury
resulting CO2.

So the nett effect is you produce energy by burying Oxygen

So then one day when the O2 levels are becoming too low to sustain life we dig up the sequestered oxygen and use solar power to release the O2 from the CO2 producing crystalline C? Sweet! We can print integrated circuits on it.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Robertson]

On 2020/02/01 10:22 a.m., Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

[about minerals that absorb CO2}
It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.



The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off ...

Sounds hard. Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum? There have
been some trials...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/scientists-in-iceland-are-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-rock/

Shipping the heavy bits versus letting the wind bring the gas to your site: I know which transport
bill I'd rather see in my mailbox.

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's the harder bit of the job.

I see a solution - use fusion power to convert CO2 and H2O into
hydrocarbons, and then store them underground!

John ;-#)#

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 2:46:14 PM UTC-5, John Robertson wrote:

On 2020/02/01 10:22 a.m., Rick C wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, January 30, 2020 at 10:31:39 PM UTC-8, Bill Sloman wrote:

[about minerals that absorb CO2}
It's the solution that nature has been using for the past few billion years.



The Australian mining industry would love to have a excuse to dig up loads of olivine, grind it down to a fine dust, extract any saleable minerals and truck the rest off ...

Sounds hard. Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum? There have
been some trials...

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/05/scientists-in-iceland-are-turning-carbon-dioxide-into-rock/

Shipping the heavy bits versus letting the wind bring the gas to your site: I know which transport
bill I'd rather see in my mailbox.

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's the harder bit of the job.


I see a solution - use fusion power to convert CO2 and H2O into
hydrocarbons, and then store them underground!

John ;-#)#

If you store all the H2O underground as hydrocarbons, where will you get the D2 to power the fusion reactor? I guess you take that out first and save it for the day the oceans are dry, salt flats. At least we'll have the juice to power the all-electric, supersonic racers zooming around the new, post-oceanic salt flats.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 10:22:20 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

... Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum? There have
been some trials...

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's the harder bit of the job.

A lot of CO2 might be trapped at point-of-generation, but a more universal answer
is an air filter that absorbs only CO2, and (at some energy cost) releases it on
demand. The release energy can come in bursts from sunlight or wind, whenever
it's cheap. The cost per ton is lower if you recover before atmospheric dilution, of course.

<https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-sequestration-2461971411.html>

Cost estimates of $30/ton are promising, $3000/ton are discouraging, and
$300/ton seems achievable. Alas, it's a ripe-for-investment opportunity now,
so one would want a chemical engineer to evaluate the projections.

 

[Steve Wilson]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 10:22:20 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

... Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum?
There have been some trials...

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and
nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's
the harder bit of the job.

A lot of CO2 might be trapped at point-of-generation, but a more
universal answer is an air filter that absorbs only CO2, and (at some
energy cost) releases it on demand. The release energy can come in
bursts from sunlight or wind, whenever it's cheap. The cost per ton is
lower if you recover before atmospheric dilution, of course.

https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-sequestration-2461971411.html

Cost estimates of $30/ton are promising, $3000/ton are discouraging, and
$300/ton seems achievable. Alas, it's a ripe-for-investment
opportunity now, so one would want a chemical engineer to evaluate the
projections.

"Their scheme calls for sequestering 0.61 metric gigatons (a gigaton,
abbreviated Gt, is a billion metric tons or 0.67 billion tons) of CO2 per
year by 2030, 5.51 by 2050, and 17.72 by 2100. Human-generated CO2
emissions were around 40 Gt in 2015, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration."

None of this makes sense. Humans released 40 Gt in 2015. Capturing 0.61 Gt
is impossible and an insignificant reduction. What other manufacturing
process handles 0.61 Gt per year?

Planting trees is a nice thought. What happens after they die and release
carbon back into the atmosphere?

What happens when permafrost melts and releases methane back into the
atmosphere? What about the methane on shallow seafloors as the seas warm
up? Methane is much worse than CO2.

We need to face the inevitable. Temperatures will rise. I don't know what
they mean by "tipping point", but it doesn't sound good.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, February 2, 2020 at 10:57:11 AM UTC+11, Steve Wilson wrote:

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, February 1, 2020 at 10:22:20 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2020 at 3:42:58 AM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:

... Why not drill down, and pump the CO2 into a suitable substratum?
There have been some trials...

How do you get just the CO2 to go into the hole and not the oxygen and
nitrogen?

I believe that is the point, separating the CO2 from the air. That's
the harder bit of the job.

A lot of CO2 might be trapped at point-of-generation, but a more
universal answer is an air filter that absorbs only CO2, and (at some
energy cost) releases it on demand. The release energy can come in
bursts from sunlight or wind, whenever it's cheap. The cost per ton is
lower if you recover before atmospheric dilution, of course.

https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-sequestration-2461971411.html

Cost estimates of $30/ton are promising, $3000/ton are discouraging, and
$300/ton seems achievable. Alas, it's a ripe-for-investment
opportunity now, so one would want a chemical engineer to evaluate the
projections.

"Their scheme calls for sequestering 0.61 metric gigatons (a gigaton,
abbreviated Gt, is a billion metric tons or 0.67 billion tons) of CO2 per
year by 2030, 5.51 by 2050, and 17.72 by 2100. Human-generated CO2
emissions were around 40 Gt in 2015, according to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration."

None of this makes sense. Humans released 40 Gt in 2015. Capturing 0.61 Gt
is impossible and an insignificant reduction. What other manufacturing
process handles 0.61 Gt per year?

Capturing 0.61 Gt was merely the first stage in the program to get up to 5.5 Gt by 2050. It is to be hoped that human emissions will be cut back from 40 Gt emitted in 2015 to something less suicidal by 2050.

The oil refining and fuel manufacturing industry does handle more than 0.61 Gt of product per year, as should have been obvious.

Planting trees is a nice thought. What happens after they die and release
carbon back into the atmosphere?

Other trees grow in their place.

What happens when permafrost melts and releases methane back into the
atmosphere? What about the methane on shallow seafloors as the seas warm
up? Methane is much worse than CO2.

But it turns into CO2 fairly rapidly - thehaf life in the atmosphere is about 7 years, at the moment.

> We need to face the inevitable.

If we can cut back our CO2 emissions, the temperature will rise more slowly, and if we cut them back enough it might even start declining. There's nothing inevitable about anthropogenic global warming.

> Temperatures will rise.

Temperatures are rising. They don't have to keep on rising.


> I don't know what they mean by "tipping point", but it doesn't sound good.

Australia's current forest fires have released about 0.9 Gt of CO2,about two years worth of "normal" CO2 emissions.

<https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/australia-wildfires-unleash-
millions-tons-carbon-dioxide-n1120186>

Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires particularly extensive, it's a case of climate change feeding more climate change. "Tipping points" are where positive feedback gets big enough to run away - at least for a while.

Once all Australia's vegetation had burned up, there wouldn't be any more carbon to be released, so that particular bit of positive feedback can't run away forever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5 sigma
level of verification for the Higgs Boson, i.e. 1 in 3,500,000 that the
finding is in error.
even then, one would still be hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
actually claim "its settled science".

For the effects of climate change, for which repeatable experiments are
simply impossible, all of this goes out of the window. Its equivalent to
licking ones finger and sticking it out of the window.

Apparently, the main cause of the fires are lightning acting on dry forest.
Its simply ludicrous to claim that an average temperature going from say, 35
deg C to 36 degC, or 40 deg C to 41 Deg C and so forth, lead to say, a times
10 increase in the probability of fires. If a forest is dry (not wet), it
will catch fire with lightning, whatever the temperature.

The question is. If the planet had not experienced the alleged 0.9 deg C
increase, is it credible to claim at a 95% confidence level, that say, fires
have increased by 5 times, i.e. a claim that the majority of the fires are
due to climate change. If fires have only increased say, 10%, then its
essentially a non issue, and statements form the like of Boris Johnson
claiming that the forest fires are overwhelming evidence of the damage of
climate change is, twaddle.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:25:48 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

We have the same situation in California. What grows here must
eventually burn. It's been that way for millennia.

What we do now is use massive resources to put out small fires, which
guarantees future huge fires. And we build flammable houses and towns
in harm's way.

A little more CO2 makes plants grow a little better, which will
translate into more fires.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5 sigma ...

Don't be silly; that assumes you are not doing a statistical analysis based on multiple
fires (Great Dismal Swamp, Australia, western US, Brazil, and Russia in 2010), and
completely ignores that there were PREDICTIONS being fulfilled, not
at all the same as creating a theory from a single observation.

When great fires exceed historic norms, it's not about '5 sigma', it's about
tossing out theories that don't account for the excess. You don't need
5 sigma thresholds to downgrade a fringe theory of 'no human-caused warming'.

Climate change, and its anthropogenic origin, are the last credible candidates.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:56:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:25:48 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

There's no direct connection. What happened in Australia was that climate change influenced the behavior of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which produced a particularly long drought, which made the forests more inflammable.

It's fairly obvious that it is the local temperature and rainfall which make a particular forest more or less flammable, and the global average temperature only matters to the extent that it drives local variations.

We have the same situation in California. What grows here must
eventually burn. It's been that way for millennia.

What we do now is use massive resources to put out small fires, which
guarantees future huge fires.

Fuel reduction burns didn't do anything to prevent the recent forest fires here.
There were a lot of them through last winter, but once a forest gets dry enough, avoiding fires is very difficult.

> And we build flammable houses and towns in harm's way.

You can do something about that, but people don't like it.

A little more CO2 makes plants grow a little better, which will
translate into more fires.

A little more water vapour in the atmosphere also helps plant growth.

Whether a forest catches fire has more to do with how wet it is than the amount of vegetable matter available to burn.

A prolonged drought makes forest fires pretty much inevitable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:26:01 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

Correct, as far as it goes. The connection with climate change is indirect.

Australia's climate is influence by the Indian Ocean Dipole

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

which is similar to the El Nino/La Nina alternation in the Pacific Ocean.

A higher global temperature shifts the mark-to-space ratio, and give Australia a higher probability of droughts, which make bush-fires more likely, and a long enough drought period - like the one we've just had - dries out areas that previously never got dry enough to burn.

A 2009 CSIRO study presciently observed that Australia's bushfires would get worse from 2020on if the current warming continued (as it did).

This isn't it, but it illustrates the evidence being looked at.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL039902

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5 sigma
level of verification for the Higgs Boson, i.e. 1 in 3,500,000 that the
finding is in error.
even then, one would still be hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
actually claim "its settled science".

97% of the Climate Science community is convinced - 290 out of the top 300 climate scientists, according to a study published a few years ago in the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences. I think I can identify four of the holdouts, and none of them have rational reasons for rejectingthe hypothesis.

For the effects of climate change, for which repeatable experiments are
simply impossible, all of this goes out of the window. Its equivalent to
licking ones finger and sticking it out of the window.

If you don't know much about the subject, you might think that. John Larkin doesn't understand observational sciences either.

Apparently, the main cause of the fires are lightning acting on dry forest.
Its simply ludicrous to claim that an average temperature going from say, 35
deg C to 36 degC, or 40 deg C to 41 Deg C and so forth, lead to say, a times
10 increase in the probability of fires. If a forest is dry (not wet), it
will catch fire with lightning, whatever the temperature.

That is an absurd claim. Average temperature doesn't come into it - the temperature that matters is the temperature at particular bit of forest.

The actual problem isn't so much the local temperature as the local rainfall
and climate change is making prolonged droughts more likely.

The question is. If the planet had not experienced the alleged 0.9 deg C
increase, is it credible to claim at a 95% confidence level, that say, fires
have increased by 5 times, i.e. a claim that the majority of the fires are
due to climate change.

It's perfectly credible, but you do have to understand a bit more about the connection, which is more through rainfall patterns rather than local temperature rise.

If fires have only increased say, 10%, then its
essentially a non issue, and statements form the like of Boris Johnson
claiming that the forest fires are overwhelming evidence of the damage of
climate change is, twaddle.

Sadly, your argument looks a lot more rational than it is. You mention that a forest has to be dry before it can burn, but have failed to notice that climate change can change rainfall patterns, which does happen to be the crucial connection.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 9:51:27 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:27:18 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5 sigma ...

Don't be silly; that assumes you are not doing a statistical analysis based on multiple
fires (Great Dismal Swamp, Australia, western US, Brazil, and Russia in 2010), and
completely ignores that there were PREDICTIONS being fulfilled, not
at all the same as creating a theory from a single observation.

When great fires exceed historic norms, it's not about '5 sigma', it's about
tossing out theories that don't account for the excess. You don't need
5 sigma thresholds to downgrade a fringe theory of 'no human-caused warming'.

Climate change, and its anthropogenic origin, are the last credible candidates.

Makes no sense. What does make sense to explain big fires is using
bulldozers and airplanes and helicopters and fancy flame retardants,
and banning logging, to put out small fires and build up killer fuel
loads.

There were loads of fuel reduction burns around Sydney last winter as evidenced by frequent episodes of smoke haze.

John Larkin's hypothesis is falsified.

What mattered was that there was a prolonged drought - lots of towns are running out of water - and forests which had never been dry enough to burn became inflammable.

Many areas of California used to burn about every 10 years, before
european technology arrived and started putting the mostly small fires
out. The natives walked away and the trees liked having the brush
cleared. Natives did controlled burns, too.

It helps in normal fire seasons, but once the forest gets dry enough all of it can burn.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 2:51:27 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 14:27:18 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

Don't be silly; that assumes you are not doing a statistical analysis based on multiple
fires (Great Dismal Swamp, Australia, western US, Brazil, and Russia in 2010), and
completely ignores that there were PREDICTIONS being fulfilled, not
at all the same as creating a theory from a single observation.

Climate change, and its anthropogenic origin, are the last credible candidates.

Makes no sense. What does make sense to explain big fires is using
bulldozers and airplanes and helicopters and fancy flame retardants,

That applies to California, perhaps, but not eastern Washington, the Great Dismal Swamp,
etc. Global problem, gotta look at global fact sets.

And, it only 'perhaps' applies to California. Blaming 'them' for some vague flavor
of mismanagement is appealing to some, but it does NOT SOLVE A PROBLEM.
The Donald is trying to fire all the scientists, so mismanagement is on the rise, you know.

and banning logging, to put out small fires and build up killer fuel
loads.

Many areas of California used to burn about every 10 years, before
european technology arrived and started putting the mostly small fires
out. The natives walked away and the trees liked having the brush
cleared. Natives did controlled burns, too.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:db5ab446-f12e-4f61-93fa-2ff4f29c8cad@googlegroups.com:

That applies to California, perhaps, but not eastern Washington,
the Great Dismal Swamp, etc. Global problem, gotta look at
global fact sets.

Some cap hill jerk from Georgia was making mumblings about "forest
fires" and how the nation needs to manage the forests to keep them from
happening.

This is from a guy in the part of the nation where I used to go to
the Dan'l Boone Nat'l Forest *every* weekend *with fireworks* in hand.
Maybe it is a little more wet in Kentucky's southlands.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"whit3rd" wrote in message
news:4c097f5f-5381-4178-b0c1-8497170e4663@googlegroups.com...

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 12:26:01 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5
sigma ...

Don't be silly; that assumes you are not doing a statistical analysis based
on multiple
fires (Great Dismal Swamp, Australia, western US, Brazil, and Russia in
2010), and
completely ignores that there were PREDICTIONS being fulfilled, not
at all the same as creating a theory from a single observation.

Twaddle.

When great fires exceed historic norms, it's not about '5 sigma', it's
about
tossing out theories that don't account for the excess. You don't need
5 sigma thresholds to downgrade a fringe theory of 'no human-caused
warming'.

Climate change, and its anthropogenic origin, are the last credible
candidates.

Twaddle.

$hit happens.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:e65905b4-87b0-4e95-8e0a-e3b74992cc8b@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:56:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 20:25:48 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest
fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

There's no direct connection. What happened in Australia was that climate
change influenced the behavior of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which produced
a particularly long >drought, which made the forests more inflammable.

Yeah... read some of that. Its twaddle. Self-engendered "lets give answers
that will get as funding".

Typical its "Here we show that the frequency increases linearly as the
warming proceeds, and doubles at 1.5 °C warming from the pre-industrial
level (statistically significant above the 90% confidence level)..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03789-6#Abs1

Total twaddle, as impressive sounding as it is. For example, they note that
out of 13 models that they use, 11 predicted a increase.

If this was a Physicist claiming that he had 11 models for the existence of
the Higgs boson, but all with different actual results and 2 that
contradicted them he would be laughed out of the auditorium.

I have run, literally, millions of spice simulations, with models verified
to extensive precision. They still have this inconvenient habit of failing
to predict oscillation in the real world.

Weather simulations are orders of magnitude more unreliable. They are
nonlinear, statistical partial differential equations. They have hundreds of
parameters, with no way of accurately measuring them.

Maybe a 1 deg raise does that or this, maybe it don't. Any scientist that
claims otherwise, knows, essentially, nothing about what science is or is
not.

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

[Kevin Aylward]

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:deefb623-344a-4a55-88b6-bb67e791ecf4@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:26:01 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

Correct, as far as it goes. The connection with climate change is indirect.

In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5
sigma
level of verification for the Higgs Boson, i.e. 1 in 3,500,000 that the
finding is in error.
even then, one would still be hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
actually claim "its settled science".

97% of the Climate Science community is convinced - 290 out of the top 300
climate scientists, according to a study published a few years ago in the
Proceedings of the
(US) National Academy of Sciences. I think I can identify four of the
holdouts, and none of them have rational reasons for rejectingthe
hypothesis.

I, effectively, said you would hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
claim that the Higgs boson is absolutely settled science.

Similarly for QED, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Essentially, no
main stream Physicist is going to claim that any part of Physics is settled
science.

Indeed, all main stream Physicists know that QM an GR contradict each other.

Thus the difference between scientists that actually understand what science
says and not says, with climate "scientists"

For the effects of climate change, for which repeatable experiments are
simply impossible, all of this goes out of the window. Its equivalent to
licking ones finger and sticking it out of the window.

If you don't know much about the subject, you might think that. John Larkin
doesn't understand observational sciences either.

I know enough about solving non-linear, partial differential equations. What
they are modelling don't matter.

Apparently, the main cause of the fires are lightning acting on dry
forest.
Its simply ludicrous to claim that an average temperature going from say,
35
deg C to 36 degC, or 40 deg C to 41 Deg C and so forth, lead to say, a
times
10 increase in the probability of fires. If a forest is dry (not wet),
it
will catch fire with lightning, whatever the temperature.

That is an absurd claim. Average temperature doesn't come into it - the
temperature that matters is the temperature at particular bit of forest.

Nope. The implication here, is what are climate simulations capable of
predicting, in principle.

It's impossible to predict specific local temperatures from alleged CO2
warming. Weather equations are chaotic, that is ill-conditioned to errors in
variables. Thus it is impossible to link CO2 caused temperature rise to a
particular forest fire. Period.

I agree, that in principle, it may be possible to take a simplified model of
*global* *average*, *long term* temperature change from CO2 concentrations.
However, making any relatively specific predictions of temperature, or the
effect of that temperature change is twaddle. A gnat farting in Switzerland
could cause a hurricane in New Zealand.

The actual problem isn't so much the local temperature as the local
rainfall

Sure.

>and climate change is making prolonged droughts more likely.

Maybe, maybe not.

The question is. If the planet had not experienced the alleged 0.9 deg C
increase, is it credible to claim at a 95% confidence level, that say,
fires
have increased by 5 times, i.e. a claim that the majority of the fires
are
due to climate change.

It's perfectly credible, but you do have to understand a bit more about the
connection, which is more through rainfall patterns rather than local
temperature rise.

Ho hummm.... connections of a connection of an inference of a proxy ... is
nothing...

If fires have only increased say, 10%, then its
essentially a non issue, and statements form the like of Boris Johnson
claiming that the forest fires are overwhelming evidence of the damage of
climate change is, twaddle.

Sadly, your argument looks a lot more rational than it is. You mention that
a forest has to be dry before it can burn, but have failed to notice that
climate change can change >rainfall patterns, which does happen to be the
crucial connection.

Sure, when the climate changes, it can change rainfall. Wow.

However....connections of a connection of an inference of a proxy ... is
nothing...

Is it possible... sure... can a *rational* *scientist* claim that it
*does*... no....

its a maybe....

Of course, a maybe doesn't mean that one shouldn't try an minimise the risk.

Its quite rational to to take steps if there a 1% probability that the Earth
will be destroyed if no action is taken, because of the severity of the
consequences. Its not rational to claim that its 90% certain that climate
change has, essentially, caused the Australian fires. As in, I won't even
contemplate trying heroin even at a 0.1% change of death, or climbing a
large rock. Its stunning that any "scientist" can make such claims.

Again, as someone that actually knows about simulation, the claims made for
weather simulations, are truly ludicrous.

In the old days.... one handed someone a computer printout and said... the
computer says this.... so it must be true... yeah... pull the other one....

-- Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - SuperSpice
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/ee/index.html

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:19:37 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Again, as someone that actually knows about simulation, the claims made for
weather simulations, are truly ludicrous.

That only means that two or more ludicrous claims exist; it is not an indictment of
simulations, just a finding of two uninformed or devious voices on the topic.

It also isn't testable, because 'the claims' are not specified.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 1:21:41 PM UTC-8, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:e65905b4-87b0-4e95-8e0a-e3b74992cc8b@googlegroups.com...

There's no direct connection. What happened in Australia was that climate
change influenced the behavior of the Indian Ocean Dipole, which produced
a particularly long >drought, which made the forests more inflammable.

Yeah... read some of that. Its twaddle. Self-engendered "lets give answers
that will get as funding".

That's an arrogant dismissal, and looks like a claim that all professional work
is tainted somehow. Get a job, tell us again after you've done some real work
for pay. Skeptical philosophy isn't useful in making ANY predictions,
and utility does matter.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, February 7, 2020 at 8:19:37 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:deefb623-344a-4a55-88b6-bb67e791ecf4@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, February 6, 2020 at 7:26:01 AM UTC+11, Kevin Aylward wrote:
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:8a30e51d-b382-4a64-b6c4-744bd16fcc33@googlegroups.com...

.....
Since climate change has played a part in making this year's forest fires
particularly extensive...

Twaddle.

There is no credible way to correlate an alleged 0.9 deg C average planet
surface temperature increase with a forest catching fire.

Correct, as far as it goes. The connection with climate change is indirect.


In Physics for a claim of "settled science" one has for example, a 5
sigma
level of verification for the Higgs Boson, i.e. 1 in 3,500,000 that the
finding is in error.
even then, one would still be hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
actually claim "its settled science".

97% of the Climate Science community is convinced - 290 out of the top 300
climate scientists, according to a study published a few years ago in the
Proceedings of the
(US) National Academy of Sciences. I think I can identify four of the
holdouts, and none of them have rational reasons for rejectingthe
hypothesis.

I, effectively, said you would hard pressed to find a Physicist that would
claim that the Higgs boson is absolutely settled science.

Similarly for QED, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Essentially, no
main stream Physicist is going to claim that any part of Physics is settled
science.

Indeed, all main stream Physicists know that QM an GR contradict each other.

Thus the difference between scientists that actually understand what science
says and not says, with climate "scientists"

For the effects of climate change, for which repeatable experiments are
simply impossible, all of this goes out of the window. Its equivalent to
licking ones finger and sticking it out of the window.

If you don't know much about the subject, you might think that. John Larkin
doesn't understand observational sciences either.

I know enough about solving non-linear, partial differential equations. What
they are modelling don't matter.

That's an absurd claim. What you are modelling drives how you model it.

Apparently, the main cause of the fires are lightning acting on dry
forest.
Its simply ludicrous to claim that an average temperature going from say,
35
deg C to 36 degC, or 40 deg C to 41 Deg C and so forth, lead to say, a
times
10 increase in the probability of fires. If a forest is dry (not wet),
it
will catch fire with lightning, whatever the temperature.

That is an absurd claim. Average temperature doesn't come into it - the
temperature that matters is the temperature at particular bit of forest.

Nope. The implication here, is what are climate simulations capable of
predicting, in principle.

They don't predict anything specific - the butterfly effect guarantees that.. They generate possible solutions which, taken together, tell you where the system is going to end up, on average. John Von Neumann saw Hadley cells in his first - very crude - simulation of the earths atmosphere.

It's impossible to predict specific local temperatures from alleged CO2
warming. Weather equations are chaotic, that is ill-conditioned to errors in
variables. Thus it is impossible to link CO2 caused temperature rise to a
particular forest fire. Period.

I agree, that in principle, it may be possible to take a simplified model of
*global* *average*, *long term* temperature change from CO2 concentrations.
However, making any relatively specific predictions of temperature, or the
effect of that temperature change is twaddle. A gnat farting in Switzerland
could cause a hurricane in New Zealand

The actual problem isn't so much the local temperature as the local
rainfall

Sure.

and climate change is making prolonged droughts more likely.

Maybe, maybe not.

People who know a lot more about it than you are convinced.

The question is. If the planet had not experienced the alleged 0.9 deg C increase, is it credible to claim at a 95% confidence level, that say, fires have increased by 5 times, i.e. a claim that the majority of the fires are due to climate change.

It's perfectly credible, but you do have to understand a bit more about the
connection, which is more through rainfall patterns rather than local
temperature rise.

Ho hummm.... connections of a connection of an inference of a proxy ... is
nothing...

To somebody who hasn't got a clue about the details of the subject.

If fires have only increased say, 10%, then its
essentially a non issue, and statements form the like of Boris Johnson
claiming that the forest fires are overwhelming evidence of the damage of
climate change is, twaddle.

Sadly, your argument looks a lot more rational than it is. You mention that
a forest has to be dry before it can burn, but have failed to notice that
climate change can change >rainfall patterns, which does happen to be the
crucial connection.

Sure, when the climate changes, it can change rainfall. Wow.

It's rather more direct than that. The Indian Ocean Dipole - like the El Nino La Nina alternation in the Pacific Ocean - flips between two states, and one of them is associated with drought in Australia. Higher global temperature makes drought in Australia more likely and more likely to last long enough to dry out forests enough to let them burn.

<snipped more idiot scepticism>

Of course, a maybe doesn't mean that one shouldn't try an minimise the risk.

Its quite rational to to take steps if there a 1% probability that the Earth
will be destroyed if no action is taken, because of the severity of the
consequences. Its not rational to claim that its 90% certain that climate
change has, essentially, caused the Australian fires.

It wouldn't be rational for you to make such a claim, because you don't know enough about the subject to understand the basis for the claim.

There are better informed people around.

As in, I won't even
contemplate trying heroin even at a 0.1% change of death, or climbing a
large rock. Its stunning that any "scientist" can make such claims.

Again, as someone that actually knows about simulation, the claims made for
weather simulations, are truly ludicrous.

In the old days.... one handed someone a computer printout and said... the
computer says this.... so it must be true... yeah... pull the other one.....

I've being doing that for a while now - the first occasion was in 1970.

I posted two links in my response to you

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

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL039902

They don't show up here.

You need to read them before you to post another attempt at making a pig-ignorant ass of yourself.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney