OT:Windmills


wrote:

So you don't fly either, you still lose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

I lose only because you don't pay up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry but you can't have flown less than me so you still lose. Maybe you have flown backwards and think that counts as negative miles? Is the sort of thing you would believe if some eco scientist told you.
In case you don't understand the maths, 0 is not less than 0 so you are wrong, you have not flown less miles than I have. You really shouldn't make bets you don't intend to honour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

From time to time someone on this newsgroup demonstrates either their total stupidity or their total disregard for the truth. I suspect you are guilty on both counts.
The bet wasn't that I had flown less miles than you but that you hadn't flown less miles than me.
So where does that leave your honour?
I suggest you pay up forthwith or shut up for good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your bet was as meaningless as everything else you say. BTW it is possible for someone who has never flown to have flown less miles than you.. Maybe you have used a trampoline more than I have? such is the stupidity of what you said and tried to win.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Run out of argument so switched to insults have you. Oh well I suspect that the only person that will impress is yourself.

And what about the 99 other impossible things you do before breakfast?

By no stretch of the imagination is trampolining flying in the same sense as being transported by air but like flying if you think you have done less than me then you are wrong.
As for who is being stupid I am quite content to leave that to the others to judge.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But he does fly at 30 mph ...
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nightjar <cpb@ wrote:

I agree, but for different reasons. Its too far gone to stop if its going to happen.
And we will need MORE power, not less, to deal with the effects.
That puts us at the mercy of energy exporting countries, none of whom I trust.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This is a very good point.
At present, in the Liverpool bay, the North Hoyle exclusion zine is planted with operating windmills, The Rhyl Flats are presently being planted with windills and the Gwynt y mor exclusion zone is scheduled for another 250 any time soon.
There are dozens of ferries, container ships and fuel tankers passing through the area into Liverpool each day.
Note that the navigable area between the Rhyl Flats and the Gwynt y mor zones is quite limited. A rogue tanker in stormy condiions could do quite a bit of damage!
http://www.shipais.com/showship.php?mmsi#2002807
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Clot wrote:

I'll keep my fingers crossed they do then ;-)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...

I don't look to confirm or deny these multiple alternative views, as I doubt I have the time to work out which is or is not valid. I simply see them as evidence that the subject is badly understood, even by the experts, which, to my mind, makes all the predictions unreliable.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nightjar <cpb@ wrote:

The subject is certainly badly understood by some people within the scientific community but the differing opinions don't mean they are all wrong and some at least are obviously driven by an agenda that has little to do with science.
Crowley (cited previously) has put a lot of effort in trying to accurately determine the circumstances of the MWP and in doing so has thrown light on those who would isolate one particular local aspect and then extrapolate that as concrete evidence of a global effect.
Then there are those who would look at data and see what that want to see regardless of the data. Dennis comes immediately to mind as well as the joker who claimed that the satellite data (also recently cited) shows no evidence of warming over the 20 years it covers.
Likewise the 95% water vapour school of thought who think it so obvious that they neglect (or more probably refuse) to say how they arrived at their figures (the Dribble approach).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't funny how the wonderfully accurate mathematical models that Roger likes haven't predicted any of this? I see more fudge factors being applied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:

Even in your world you need a model before you can apply your fudge. What makes you think there is a model?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So the idea its caused by the ozone hole is just another guess portrayed as fact then. I suppose you will just start quoting it as fact just as you do with everything else you post in this thread.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dennis@home wrote:
snip

It is a theory based on the available evidence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nightjar <cpb@ wrote:
snip

The Independent today (24/9) has an article claiming that the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are both melting faster than previously thought. The source of the information is the journal Nature. Article apparently published on-line today but I haven't managed to find an on-line reference.
The measurements come for a Nasa satellite - ICESat (Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite) High-resolution laser measurement rather than radar.
snip
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a newspaper. It has to publish something sensational in order to sell copy and make money nowadays, so it publishes something which sounds like a major disaster. But what does the sentence above _really_ say? Well, it says that the information you were given before is now thought to be wrong. However, most people believed that, didn't they? I expect most people will believe this too. Until the next sensation...
People are being bombarded with lots of single data points, which alone mean nothing, and very many of which are incorrect anyway. Of course, you only get bombarded with the sensationalist data points - the most something since records began, the highest something else in the last 10 years. Data points which aren't scary don't make the press. You only get told of errors when that's sensationist, i.e. it's even worse than we scared you last time.
So how come there are so many scary records being broken? Well, we've started monitoring a large number of data points over the last 100 years. What happens when you do this? Suppose you start monitoring a million data points 100 years ago (actually it was more gradual and mostly within last 10 years, but it's simpler to consider a single starting date.) If what you're monitoring is in steady state with noise imposed (typical of many natural systems), in year 1, you will break a million records "since records began", and half a million of those will be in scary directions. In year two, you'll break half a million records again, and a quarter of these will be in scary directions. In year 100 (today), you'll break 10,000 records, with 5000 being in scay directions, and that's still well over 10 a day for the press to find and quote sensationally. So even in a steady state system, you can see that there's no shortage of sensationalism for the press to get their mits on.
So when you read press articles, you really need to think carefull and try and put the science back in which got stripped out in the sensationalism process. Trained a scientist, I was trained to look at issues in that way. Working as a computer systems analyst much of the time, same rules apply - I need to see all the evidence when investigating an issue, and one data point is pretty useless. I was interested when listening to an interview with Michael Mansfield QC on radio 4 last week, where as a lawyer his automatic instict when listening to a piece of evidence is to ask "Who benefits?" as he questions the validity of each piece evidence in his own mind. Slightly different take, but same idea - don't simply take things for granted.
Oh, BTW, last winter was the coldest winter on record, since records began 9 years ago in my back garden...
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

It certainly wasn't the coldest in MY living memory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Didn't know you've ever been in my back garden.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.