BBC advice on statistics..

[dennis]

The BBC has a bit about statistics..

Quote>

So what are Tyler Vigen's tips to make sure the statistical wool isn't being pulled over your eyes?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see 2.Look for a causal link or mechanism 3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a strong, statistically significant correlation

Something to bear in mind next time a sensational headline catches your eye.

[Brian Gaff]

Man made warming? What about the ladies! Actually, I have seen some very persuasive figures on this, but really its the amount and whether warming is going to happen in any case which is the issue I think. People and their activities have always caused changes in climate due to forest clearing and farming practices etc. Itts incredibly difficult to predict what causes what due to the complexity of the climate system. What we need to be doing is finding ways to cope with a worst case, and also some ways to actually make a difference quickly the other way, should it show signs of getting unmanagable. Brian

[dennis]

Defcon one?

[bert]

In message , Brian Gaff writes

Would they be statistics?

1.Be critical of statistics that you see > 2.Look for a causal link or mechanism > 3.Demand a little bit of scientific rigour in showing that there's a > strong, statistically significant correlation >

[newshound]

While "worst cases" are sometimes interesting to think about, in the

*real* world we normally take decisions on "most likely" or "best estimate" scenarios, not "worst case". And while terms like "worst case" are often bandied about, you can usually find a case worse than that by changing assumptions.

[Johny B Good]

Since we have all the weapons grade plutonium we're sensibly ever going to need already, there's no longer any need to build any more Nuclear Power Stations based on Cold War Legacy design requirements where the required safety feature add on costs are so extremely exhorbitent yet not quite adequate enough.

Once The LFTR based nuclear fission reactor designs have been developed into a mature product, this next generation of nuclear power station will be a few orders of magnitude safer than the best current legacy designs with the costs of "Add On Safety" eliminated by virtue of such hazardous failure modes being absent by design.

Indeed, an LFTR power station will be far less hazardous than a conventional coal fired power station to operate to the extent that the exisiting coal fired power stations would become prime targets for upgrading to LFTR operation. No need to look for "out of the way" locations for such facilities.

The exisitng land used by coal fired stations could be put to good use to produce the liquified hydrogen required to support a zero carbon emmissions transportation system (waste heat put to good use to improve electrolysis conversion efficiency of water into hydrogen fuel makes LFTR sites the best place to produce liquified hydrogen).

The major objection to the use of liquified hydrogen as a passenger jet fuel is the energy cost of producing a fuel with a 2.5 times better energy to weight ratio than existing jet fuels. Once we have an extremely cheap source of 'limitless' energy, such objections disappear from the equation. Similarly for objections to the costs of 'renewables' such as solar power generation costs.

As things stand, the high costs of energy and the limited availability is the real choke on creating substantial solar power stations in places like the Sahara desert. Once we've built up a worldwide fleet of safe nuclear power stations to supply us with very cheap and copious quantities of energy, only then will we be able to consider the luxury of 'renewable energy'. Right now, we seem to have our priorities 'arse about face'.

[Tim Streater]

The energy to weight ratio might be in our favour, but what about the energy to volume ratio? Wouldn't you need to have larger - much larger

- tanks?

I'd have said it was distance and instability in the countries concerned.

[Martin Brown]

And the volatile nature of hydrogen leaks. Not to mention the need for either aggressive cryogenic containment for LH2 or a pressure vessel.

Instability will certainly be a factor as would having a technology that would really pay its way on an industrial scale.

[Vir Campestris]

Actually volume is also significant. You'd want to redesign the planes with more volume and less strength.

Andy