A bit much to expect sensible responses to 'modern scentific research' on a usenet dicussion group. The respondents are mostly aged white males who gave up on 'technical demands' many years ago. Not the general readership of 'Nature'.
OOI, how does PLOS work? There must be some system for filtering out the rubbish.
Nature is not technical demands. It is wall to wall propaganda as is the New Scientist. Run by and for Marxists.
Some of us may be aged, but we still do many very technical things.
FAR more than most millennial snowflakes are capable of.
The general principles of rigorous scientific enquiry apply across the entire range of scientific research. There is no reason, therefore, that a climate science paper can't be reviewed by any top-grade physicist from another discipline. OK, they'd have to ask the authors a number of questions as perhaps some of the terminology might be unfamiliar. But that at least would force the authors to explain themselves in much more detail, their reasoning, their deductive processes, their error estimates, what they've included and left out, and why. Might be no bad thing to have that done anyway, so we can be reassured that the output headlines are VALID.
The problem is that these futile attempts at climate modelling cover specialist fields at extreme depth. Statistics, physics, system theory, chaos theory, numerical modelling and computer programming. As well as data collection, proxy interperation and the like
Climate scientists are not the brightest bulbs in the box - those will be mathematicians physicists or engineers , all capable of decent careers without having to risk them going against the current narrative on Climb-itSeance.
And in any case the alarmist have moved the goal posts - like all good Marxists they have simply reverted to metaphysical concepts and told you they are TRUE because WE ALL SAY SO.
BandarLogic™
The thing about echos is, that as a distorted copy, they contain essentially new information, except perhaps a little about whatever (or in this case, whoever) the message has just bounced back from.
#Paul
We do not live in the age of renaissance man. I think you are underestimating the time it takes to become expert on a particular subject.
For a lot of my career I did work similar to climate modelling, predictive systems, based on stochastic processes, statistical. The stuff I did was about Brownian motion and money, finance. I suspect my, math is better than a lot of famous climate modellers, I do notice them make basic errors of understanding, but I'm not qualified to make anything beyond trivial observations, because I do not understand climate science. I certainly couldn't review a paper. I couldn't have even reviewed a finance paper without it being a specialist question I had worked on for months/years.
The stuff/debate you see on the internet is almost entirely bullshit.
Of all the people here posting, I would save SteveW is more pragmatic and level headed than most. And a lot more than some fuckwits who deny we're shovelling tons of CO2 into the atmosphere or seemingly welcome the prospect.
yes, indeed
Nobody denies that and the fuckwits are the people who think that some other people do. I think you just got the dunce cap.
Well, indeed. I have amused myself a few times by inviting them to peruse any of the many open access journals - perhaps
In any case, a sensible response to content beyond ones expertise is easy. It is simply to say something like "Well, I don't know" as opposed to voicing remarkably strong opinions, and claiming they are somehow well-founded.
#Paul
Remarkably for this day and age, they have a website. At one point it says in
"PLOS publishes a suite of influential Open Access journals across all areas of science and medicine. Rigorously reported, PEER REVIEWED and immediately available without restrictions, promoting the widest readership and impact possible."
I imagine the details of peer reviewing might vary by sub-journal, so if you are keen, I suggest you check whichever one happens to be of interest.
#Paul
OK thanks. For some reason I had it in my head that they didn't use peer reviewing.
That's way off from reality. Someone outside a specialist field is not giong to know where the numerous issues lie.
But all that extra capacity that is there at those times will be used for EV charging, water heating, etc.. Yes it will no longer be off-peak, but it won't be making a peak that is higher at what is now an off-peak time.
There is a push to upgrade the grid already.
The peak demand is already close to twice the quiet hours demand, so the grid can already handle 2:1.
Why are the personal insults necessary? For your information, I am definitely neither vegan nor vegetarian, clean-shaven, not a hipster and
57 years old. I do have a drive, but it won't fit all four cars (3 of them petrol and two of those mine).I have simply found that since having an EV, nearly all my journeys are done in it.
It might.
I see you dont really understand
Strange that you are posting incorrect experiences about it
That isn't clear. Some of the peak, will come from short term storage such as Dinorwig (1.7 GW). Other hydro may also be timed to support peak.
Feel free to explain your misunderstanding.
What are these incorrect experiences?
someone who thinks that stop starting an EV makes it MORE economical than driving at a steady speed 'because its got regenerative braking'. And has convinced themselves that this is true...
Average worldwide output of CO2, tons per capita (tpc) is 4.76. The UK ranks 60th in the world in the output of tpc at 5.6 tons (so above the average), but we are 17th in terms of total population. There are many small countries that produce more than we do per capita, for example Iceland 11.69 tpc, and Norway 8.3 tpc. (and there was me thinking they both relied mainly on hydroelectricity). Other examples: Falkland Islands 13.84 tpc; Estonia 17.82 tpc etc. The biggest producers of CO2 in tpc are the mostly the Gulf States, while the smallest are mostly in central Africa.
Nothing is simple!
Source
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.