octave

Latest data on who is using coal

 

 

[ATTACH]3341[/ATTACH]

 

Of course should be read in conjunction with this graph'

[ATTACH]50402._xfImport[/ATTACH]

My wife says that they moved the walk back away from the rock not long after we were there. I remember the path being real close to the base of the rock itself .

 

I have not been myself  but here are some pictures taken by a friend of mine last week from the available walks.

You can walk around Uluru you can camp you can do segway tours around Uluru you can even tour around Uluru on a Harley motorcycle for goodness sake! 

https://www.ayersrockresort.com.au/experiences/detail/uluru-motorcycle-tours

https://www.ulurusegwaytours.com.au/

I am not a spiritual person  although I usually attempt to respect other peoples beliefs where possible. I think that purely for reasons of protecting a quite soft rock from scarring and the crass addition of chains and posts hammered in,  it is not a huge ask people to resist the urge to clamber over it.  

Rangers regularly climb the rock to bring down rubbish and according to a ranger interviewed recently sh1t.  Not to mention rescuing people who get into trouble. I believe 37 people have died on the rock.

If people want to see it then walk around it, camp near it, photograph it, even ride a Harley motorcycle around it, all these things are possible. Perhaps do a joy flight. 

As far as I am concerned this is pretty much a non issue. When I go to the aviation museum there are aircraft that I would love to climb inside an get a better look at but I can't.

[ATTACH]50387._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50388._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50389._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50390._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50391._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50392._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50393._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50394._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50395._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50396._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50397._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50398._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]50399._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Octave looks like we read the same material. I am not objecting to the methodology or the results, but to the precision which has been attributed to the results.

 

Fair enough, I just suspect that what we have in the more popular press is a headline number whereas what we more than likely have in the published study itself would be a more forensic breakdown of the figures. 

After posting the above I found the research summary. They put out clay tiles and counted the spawn that landed In the bleached areas. On average they counted five, versus a claimed 45 previously, though no information about where that average came from. So 40 less out of 45 is 89%. but no way were they measuring within one percent.

 

Can you point me to where you read that?

I am sure the 89% was the upper range of some measurement. My objection is that it gives a false impression of accuracy, that the measurement was within 1%. 

 

 

It is illegal, for example, to report that 1000 assays in a gold mine gave a grade of 3.147 grams per tonne. The correct statement is 3.1 grams per tonne.

 

similarly here, 90% would be a statistically reasonable statement while 89% gives false confidence in the data.

 

OK so you don't actually know how the measurements were performed.

The method involves attaching 1000 clay tiles to to the reef in set locations just before a spawning event. These tiles or settlement panels are left for a given time and then retrieved.  These panels are then examined and the coral polyps are counted and compared to the panels from the last measurement. 

It is possible to come up with a precise number. If a tile had 100 polyps last time and only 11 this time well that is a precise percentage decrease.  Of course there are confounding factors which are spelt out in the paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1081-y    

Whilst you can read the abstract for free it will cost you $8.99 for the full paper.

Here is a news article which covers  this study.

https://theconversation.com/coral-reproduction-on-the-great-barrier-reef-falls-89-after-repeated-bleaching-114761

What order of precision would you be happier with?    You tell me that grams of gold are measured to 1 decimal place so what would be the acceptable level for counting individual polyps through a microscope?

The 89% figure is a headline figure. The raw data detailing the numbers on each tile are available.  

Let me be clear and say that any study is open to criticisms, this is what science journals like "Nature" are about. I imagine that other scientists probably did question methodologies but as far as I am aware it has not been overturned.

 

i said in an earlier post that I would try to stick to facts. The statement about 89% was made, that is a fact. I bet the real measurement was a statistical result, perhaps a mean of 49% with a range of plus or minus 30%, that would be consistent with the statement and the level of accuracy possible. It is pure politics but this political BS can impact all of NQ society if it is unchallenged.

 

It is just absurd to pronounce this figure as BS when you don't know how is was arrived at.   

Saying it must be BS without looking at the actual study is not what being a true skeptic is about.  I intend to buy the complete study and will happily share it with you because I would be interested in hearing your criticism.   

you can't disagree with most of this BUT alarm bells must ring about “up to 89%”. So we can measure spawn within 1%? This is complete BS and the sort of nonsense scientists throw in to make us think it is science. And what does the “up to” mean? And what is global heating?

 

How was the spawn rate measured?  Note I don't usually ask a question that I don't know the answer to already or as in this case have researched.   Surely to rationally dismiss the 89% figure you would need a good idea of how it is arrived at.   

These kind studies are more than just headline figures. the methodology is usually clear and the raw data is available.  

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03175-2 

 

Even easier for you to simply Google it.

 

For which in just mere seconds you will eventually be rewarded with "HELE power stations".

 

Bex I am aware of work being done but this is not what robinsm said,he said this

 Do you not realise that there is technology available that stops CO2 and smoke from burning coal actually entering the atmosphere. 

 

This is what HELE could do  

HELE technologies are commercially available now and, if deployed, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the entire power sector by around 20%.

The smoke etc is processed and steam is the only product released

 

HELE does not claim to release only steam.

I am all for technological advances and perhaps one day what robinsm suggests may be possible.  

I think i am correction saying that the technology burn coal on not release any CO2 SO2 or NOx does not at the moment exist and is not being used, that was what was being suggested.

This is what to proponents of HELE claim it can do.

https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/high-efficiency-low-emission-coal

everyone seems to be down on coal fired power stations.   Do you not realise that there is technology available that stops CO2 and smoke from burning coal actually entering the atmosphere.    The smoke etc is processed and steam is the only product released.   The other by products are commercially absorbed in liquids and commercailly used.   Very eco friendly.   No water and drowned forests, no chine syndrome and no ugly wind turbines.   

 

I realise thisa argument is not accepted by the tree huggers but it is real and achievable.   

 

It should be easy for you to post a link to information on this technology. Where is it being used?  Where can I read the details of this process. I must admitt it does sound fancifull to me.

I think they have moved the walk around the base back well away from the rock itself.

 

Bruce I can find no evidence of this, can you tell me why you think this may be the case? 

How this is justified is a mystery to me. I hope I'm wrong and that walking around the base is not being curtailed.

 

 Without knowing whether the walk has been banned or moved this question is rather premature and pointless.   

Plus, I don't think that the rock really sacred to the indiginous except of course its pecuniary value.

 

Again you think or you know.   You seem to be setting up a straw man argument here. 

You could actually determine  the facts before condemning the people involved.   

A conservative solution to climate change.

https://theconversation.com/the-world-solar-challenge-and-the-future-of-solar-cars-3932

Despite the differences between solar racing cars and more practical conventional cars, the technology developed for solar racing is playing, and will continue to play, an important role in developing more efficient vehicles:

• The low-mass materials and construction techniques used for solar cars can be used to build low-mass practical vehicles that will use considerably less energy than conventional cars.
   
  
• Principles of aerodynamic-drag-reduction used in solar cars can be applied to conventional cars, and will be increasingly important as vehicle mass is reduced.
   
  
• Motors designed specifically for solar cars have peak efficiencies greater than 98%. The same techniques can be used to design more efficient motors for electric vehicles and for other applications.
   
  
• The highly-efficient motor controllers and photovoltaic panel controllers developed for solar cars can be applied to more practical electric vehicles and to general photovoltaic systems.
   
  
• The World Solar Challenge remains an important test bed for efficient battery configurations and battery management systems.
   
  

But most importantly the students, engineers and enthusiasts who design, build and operate solar cars gain a deep understanding of the importance of energy efficiency and how it can be achieved.

These are the people who will shape our future.

I just wonder what has come out of the years of competition with the solar cars. I cannot think of any great advance they have made.

 

It is never straight forward to list a particular innovation but the performances of the most recent vehicles has improved markedly.    The way we get advances in technology is the by pushing the limits to squeeze every drop of performance.  Areas that are benefiting from this "science and engineering" competition are battery technology , solar panels, tyres (low rolling resistance) aerodynamics, computing and even weather prediction.    

Apart from that this is a practical experience in engineering for mostly engineering students from places like MIT etc. It is practical and competitive.  Early aviation races or competitions probably seemed relevant to the general public however a small aircraft crossing the atlantic was a necessary step in the progression to the airline industry we have today.

I can only see the solar race as a good thing.   People are happy to use the technology we have to day without realizing that it came from tiny steps and missteps.   along the way.  These days we seem to expect that new technologies should appear fully formed and perfected but this has never been the case in the past.

https://www.lufft.com/blog/en/how-a-lufft-sensor-helps-to-improve-a-solar-car/

During the race of 2017, we developed a new feature called crab-steering. Thanks to this innovation it was possible to use the side wind effects to our advantage: The new steering system is able to turn the car’s whole chassis at a certain angle. This makes the car act like a sail using the aerodynamic forces to become faster.

14 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

 

The latest from Heller on the data scam.

 

So to be clearPM do you believe there has been no warming at all?

Do you also believe  that organisations like NASA are deliberately committing fraud and conspiring with other organisations to produce corrupt data? I used the word conspiracy in reply to  one of your posts and you took exception to it and pointed out that you had never used that word but none the less this is what you seem to believe.  Do you believe CSIRO is corrupt and pushing fraudulent data?   

Heller is no expert and there are plenty of fact checkers pointing out his cherry picking. 

All too often I spend considerable time watching the videos you post and pointing out problems with them but usually you don't address my points but raise a different point. 

So Peter is the earth not warming as Tony says? 

There was info about it on the ABC several days back, but the real reason it doesn't get air time is the fact that nobody is really interested in a so called car that has to be pampered and can still only carry one person. Over the years there has been so little improvement in those cars that it is just a big yawn.

 

I personally find it fascinating.  Yes it is a vehicle that carries one person and has a support team but that is missing the obvious point.   This is a competition between engineers and scientists to improve batteries, solar panels and other technologies it is not to build a car for the public to drive to work in.  

Formula 1 racing has also provided many innovations that have been adopted in standard road cars, this is how progress happens.   I can understand that you find it a yawn and that is fair enough but personally I am interested in technological innovation.  

I remember when it took 2 days to see Uluru properly. One day you climbed it, the other day you walked around the base.

 

BOTH these things are now banned by the aborigines who have control. They are free to destroy the income-earning nature of the place , I guess with no financial risk to their siddown money.

 

Of course desert aborigines would have a culture which was against unnecessary exertion, gosh they were calorie-deprived all their lives.

 

But to extend this to others is just nasty.

 

Having done some checking I believe that your post is partially incorrect. The ban is on climbing not walking around.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/tourists-storm-up-uluru-before-climbing-is-banned-later-this-month/news-story/bbbdded27aad11df1016563582929b44

Despite closing the climb, there is still plenty for tourists to enjoy in the region.

“Activities at the Red Centre include camel rides, the Uluru Segway tour which takes visitors around the base of Uluru, a number of walking tracks including the Valley of the Winds at Kata Tjuta (the Olgas), Mala walk, outback cycling rides, Uluru motorcycle rides and even skydiving,” a spokesperson for Tourism NT told news.com.au. “Maruku Arts offers art, tours and workshops, and of course there are many sunrise/sunset tours on offer.”

The climb has also damaged the rock itself, with a huge white scar from tourists walking the same path being visible from a distance."

There are many places where access  is prohibited because of environmental sensitivity my suspicion is that what really motivates the complainers is the fact that it is those uppity indigenous people trying to impose there will on us poor oppressed white folks.

I have travelled overseas to places where I had to take my shoes of or respect a religion that I don't believe in but I am happy to comply because I am not an ignorant tosser.  

Aside from the cultural reasons and for me even more important are the environmental reasons.   I can not go on a cave tour and climb a neat looking stalagmite, in fact I may not be even allowed to touch it, but that is OK I am a grown up, I understand.   

[ATTACH]50367._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Are people as outraged at the restrictions around climbing Balls Pyramid?

"Climbing was banned in 1982 under amendments to the Lord Howe Island Act, and in 1986, all access to the island was banned by the Lord Howe Island Board. In 1990, the policy was relaxed to allow some climbing under strict conditions, which in recent years has required an application to the relevant state minister.[5]

Perhaps there should be similar restrictions on Uluru i.e. limited by permit and take away the ugly chain.

You can visit Uluru and walk do some of the many walks around it, you can photograph it especially at dusk and dawn you go for a flight around and over it, the fact you can no longer climb it seems to be not such a problem at least to me.     

Are you sure that walking around  Uluru has been banned? 

My understanding is that it is only the climb that has been banned

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/anger-as-tourists-swarm-uluru-as-climb-closure-date-approaches/news-story/719341af223311e97e9f84f66c52e824

Googled the answer.

 

"The legislation had restricted the sale of gold in Australia only to the Reserve Bank or a person authorised by the bank. It had also prohibited the export of gold without the Reserve Bank's permission."

 

AND

 

"Australia Gold Confiscation—1959 In other words, they made it legal to seize gold from private citizens and exchange it for paper currency."

 

So, They (sivergoldbull) can sell , & the law can take it away !.

 

spacesailor

 

https://www.perthmint.com/info-historycontrols.aspx

That's the reason it's ILLEGAL. Here.

 

https://silvergoldbull.com.au/african-gold-coins/

https://interestingengineering.com/fremont-police-comes-to-teslas-defense-after-misleading-story-goes-viral?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Article&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=Sep28&fbclid=IwAR3jkrTV0cRDcTPLe-asTgEbeBv4wKCU06F2dsZZcWzKbxuU0LU6GkRry1Y

My son picked  up his new Tesla yesterday. He lives in Wellington and picked it up from Auckland. He took this great picture on the drive home.  Alas nothing ever goes totally smoothly, he got a stone chip in the windscreen.[ATTACH]50350._xfImport[/ATTACH][ATTACH]50351._xfImport[/ATTACH]

The debate remains political rather than scientific, wherever you try to debate.

 

I dont think I have ever raised it as a political issue, in fact I suspect that the only mention of politics has come from the denier side. If you look at Goddards twitter account it is full of political statements. I dont find this occurs at all on CSIRO sites or NASA sites.

I am at a disadvantage at the moment because I am interstate and only have my phone which makes it hard to read long articles or watch videos. I am working my way through a site that critiques Heller/Goddard's assertions and as soon as I have thoroughly read it I will post a link.

It is somewhat frustrating that dealing with denier  assertions is like playing whack a mole, critique one assertion and it is not mentioned again but another one is raised.

Heller/Goddard asserts  that the global average temp is getting lower. 

I think this is at odds with Bom records. The legth of the fire season at least in this country starts earlier.

I note that many deniers are geologists. It must be difficult to critisize an industry from which you earn your living.

Skeptics?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.skeptics.com.au/2019/03/15/aust-skeptics-inc-statement-on-climate-change/amp/

As to the first graph heatwaves, what we are talking about is the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature.  Here is is average number of extreme heat days going back to the 20s in Australia.

[ATTACH]50344._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Hellard/Goddard talks about data that is hidden and whilst the full data might not have been present in that particular presentation it is not hidden and is freely available. it would be monumentally foolish believe that no one would investigate to data more closely.

I do intend to revisit this particular graph but my point is that it would be as unscientific to draw conclusions from the Australian graph alone as it is to draw conclusions from the US graph.

By the way for a deep dive into the report that Heller? Goddard cherry picks from here is the link.  Long but I am reading it.    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

Please don’t bother attacking the speaker, that is the first defence of the alarmists.

 

Establishing the credentials of the author is absolutely required. If we were discussing cancer treatments we would want to know the expertise behind that advice wouldn't we?   

I will not bother with a detailed critique of Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard (what's with the pseudonym?)    Other readers can do their own research on the expertise of Heller/Goddard.

The first graph I am looking at is the acres burned graph.    The complaint is that the graph starts from 1980 and that if it went back to 1925 it would show much greater areas burnt than today.   The explanation is that this data has only been seriously and accurately collected since 1980 and between 1960 and 1980 only partial data was collected. 

The suggestion is that fires were reported more than once and that intentional scrub clearing has been included.  Whilst reasons could be dismissed  it is an interesting question as to whether in the 1930s there were  a couple of years where over 50 million hectares were burnt.

If 50m acres had actually burned in the early 20th century, it would amount to an area of land equal to the entire state of Nebraska going up in flames every year.

Eardley suggests that earlier records were inflated by including areas where fires were purposefully set to clear forests for agriculture, or where rangelands were torched to get rid of sagebrush to improve grazing conditions. Other federal reports suggest that most of the area burned between 1930 and 1950 was in southeastern US and were primarily intentionally set fires for clearing land.

While the early 20th century data is not reliable and likely double or even triple-counted actual fires, Eardley says that it is possible that fire extents were higher back then for a simple reason: there was no large-scale firefighting organisation in the first half of the 20th century. Therefore, fires would burn through larger areas before being extinguished or burning themselves out, particularly when they were not close to towns or settlements.

Today, the US has larger and more organised firefighting operations in place. Therefore, recent increases are not due to any change in firefighting approach. If anything, many more resources have been devoted to fighting fires in the past few decades than in any prior period.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-increased-us-wildfires 

If the graph is accurate back to 1930 then in the 1960s there was a sudden and huge decrease, coincidentally this was also when data collection methods were improved and standardized.

An interesting question would be to look at what the situation in Australia.  Has the frequency of fires increased? Has the severity of fires increased? Has the length of the fire season changed. I pose these questions without having looked at the data.