Something to ponder

[Tins]

Weather and power gurus, of which we seem to have a couple, should consider this:

smart card has been added to some to filter out “spurious cold” readings (http://jennifermarohasy.com/2017/08/bureau-inconsistencies-need-urgent-independent-inquiry/)

Still trust the BOM? Remember, much of your belief is derived from what this 'agency' reports. If you continue in your belief then there is a word to describe you. It begins with Z.

[Stuart02]

Sorry, what's the implied agenda?

[Tins]

Sorry, what's the implied agenda?

Dunno. Do you believe that the BOM should be talking up "climate Change" and at the same time be manipulating data?? If you do, then look the other way.

[cripesamighty]

By rounding up temperature instead of keeping it as-is, it skews/falsifies the data to be 'warmer' than it actually is. I'll let you connect the dots about what 'warming' phenomena he could be referring to.....

Similar things are happening in other research fields. Check out Ben Goldacre in his TED talk.

Ben Goldacre: Battling bad science | TED Talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science)

[Eevo]

or when they disregard data when it doesnt fit their model.

[Tins]

By rounding up temperature instead of keeping it as-is, it skews/falsifies the data to be 'warmer' than it actually is. I'll let you connect the dots about what 'warming' phenomena he could be referring to.....

Similar things are happening in other research fields. Check out Ben Goldacre in his TED talk.

Ben Goldacre: Battling bad science | TED Talk (https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science)

Funny how it's OK to manipulate the data when it suits your agenda, ain't it? Mr Mann's "hockey stick" is still quoted by the desperate, even now, when it and Gore's ridiculous film that quoted it to such effect have been SO discredited as to be a laughing stock.

I thank you for that link to Ben's presentation. One of the very first points he makes is about the "peer review" process, and the "scientific method". It amazes me that when we get in to "debates" about climate change the believers all quote and champion the first, and totally ignore the second. Any one really interested in answers would approach it the other way around. Peer review can be "bought". Scientific Method cannot.
Anyone with any intellect at all can find out what the "scientific method" is, so there is no point repeating it here, because they can either go and look or they don't have the wit to do so. I'll leave you to guess who is who.

[350RRC]

It happens in other fields too, where the data gets manipulated to fit the model.

I have a lot of experience with fisheries models for a particular species (non trawl) and have spent a lot of time back in the day helping the modellers getting their outputs looking something like reality, both historic and current, let alone future.

From my experience, it is incorrect to assume that data manipulation is always deliberate. Most times it isn't but just some form of standardisation to make the model more 'accurate' and hence useful, as taught in university by someone with no experience in the real world.

The real problems arise when the model parameters and standardisation of data inputs create outputs that can't even come close to predicting what has been actually been observed in the past (by running these models backwards, normal as a check) and they are still being used to somehow predict the future!

cheers, DL

[Stuart02]

Sure. Statistics and conspiracies aside, I'm wondering what does the BOM have to gain by being anything other than objective?
And as a side note, "Global Warming" is a terrible name for the greenhouse effect because it doesn't actually mean everything everywhere simply gets warmer. So trimming a low outlier means nothing more than trimming a high one

[workingonit]

The old expression follow the money...look behind the organisation etc. I have my doubts, but I could be wrong. Without spending hours on this quoted site - author? seems to have been working for the Institute of Public Affairs since 2015 (see About this site) - if its the same organisation wikipedia indicates the IPA is funded/donored by ExxonMobil, Western Mining, Caltex, Shell, et al, including best of all British American Tobacco (no cancer here).

Do I still trust BOM? Generally yes. Analysis of global climate is really in the hands of the countries with bigger science expenditure such as the US, China, Europe.

[Sitec]

As with everything now, you have to take out of it what you want.. We are fed what people want us to hear.. News is no longer fact, it's ramped up to labour points being pushed. There's all the 'discussion' program's, adverts, social media... It's all doing it. Adverts too... Everywhere!!! I take most things I read, see and hear now with a pinch of salt, because if I didn't it'd be a pretty depressing outlook! The BOM radar seems to be pretty accurate though, rain arrives when the radar says it it will, and the temp is usually pretty close.., so it's not one of the things I doubt.. I'll keep a closer eye though!

[DiscoMick]

So they needed to set the possible minimum for Goulburn lower than minus 10 and they've now corrected it. Just sounds like an error to me, not a conspiracy.

[Stuart02]

Ouch! Seeing as we're going there, I really don't understand why, regardless of whether Global Warming is even a thing, anyone would be against not only reducing atmospheric pollution (hooray health and environment), but also decentralising our power production, and taking away our reliance on finite resources from other nations that hold us to ransom on price.
Our entire country basically runs on a handful of power stations and we hold about a week of automotive fuel at any time. Why do we even bother having a military when we have zero energy security?

[Homestar]

If anyone wants to make this Political - please start a new thread in Current Affairs - NO POLITICS in this forum please.

[DiscoMick]

Ouch! Seeing as we're going there, I really don't understand why, regardless of whether Global Warming is even a thing, anyone would be against not only reducing atmospheric pollution (hooray health and environment), but also decentralising our power production, and taking away our reliance on finite resources from other nations that hold us to ransom on price.
Our entire country basically runs on a handful of power stations and we hold about a week of automotive fuel at any time. Why do we even bother having a military when we have zero energy security?

Yes, going big on renewables would certainly increase our energy security, as well as the environmental benefits.

[workingonit]

It's obvious where Sitec stands on global warming, an astute observation and understanding, very cryptic...

'When there's smoke, there's plenty of poke!!'
'The more the smoke, the more the poke!!'

[bigrolf]

Sorry Sitec - couldn't resist.

[350RRC]

It happens in other fields too, where the data gets manipulated to fit the model.

I have a lot of experience with fisheries models for a particular species (non trawl) and have spent a lot of time back in the day helping the modellers getting their outputs looking something like reality, both historic and current, let alone future.

From my experience, it is incorrect to assume that data manipulation is always deliberate. Most times it isn't but just some form of standardisation to make the model more 'accurate' and hence useful, as taught in university by someone with no experience in the real world.

The real problems arise when the model parameters and standardisation of data inputs create outputs that can't even come close to predicting what has been actually been observed in the past (by running these models backwards, normal as a check) and they are still being used to somehow predict the future!

cheers, DL

Yeah I know I'm quoting myself, but to add to the 'science' and 'data' issue, Elders have completely changed their 12 month outlook for rain where I am, in the last 24 hours. This forecast has changed a few times this year, but not as radically as today.

Get a screen shot of the BOM's 3 month rain outlook tonight and see if it is the same in a day or two also.

I never rely on either, and the fisheries model I referred to previously has never been right in 15 years.

The whole point is that all data going into any model needs to be treated with respect, or the model has no chance right from the start.

cheers, DL

[ATH]

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said long ago "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you do read the news you're misinformed"?
How the hell is the ordinary punter supposed to find out the truth when there's so many self interested bastards mostly taxpayer funded, feeding us their own personal agenda?
I'm all for cutting pollution where ever we can but building mostly useless wind farms which only work sometimes (and no one ever talks about the huge energy costs to build them and their massive foundations) solar in places where the sun don't shine, strikes me as just a con job for vested interests.
Of course our hordes of pollies are going to be behind these things.... their futures are what they are interested in and many get jobs after politics with places like the UN or mining companies or the taxpayer subsidised “green energy” providers
AlanH.

[bee utey]

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said long ago "If you don't read the news you're uninformed, if you do read the news you're misinformed"?

My sig line...


I'm all for cutting pollution where ever we can but building mostly useless wind farms which only work sometimes (and [B]no one ever talks about the huge energy costs to build them and their massive foundations) solar in places where the sun don't shine, strikes me as just a con job for vested interests.


Analysis of typical wind turbines suggests that they generate enough energy to cover their full energy use within 5 to 8 months of operation.

Carbon and Energy payback of a wind turbine — SaskWind (https://www.saskwind.ca/blogbackend/2016/1/14/carbon-and-energy-payback-of-a-wind-turbine)

Certainly the money men who finance these things would be well aware of their payback time. It's not a particularly difficult calculation when you have thousands of wind turbines in operation around the world. And the current generation of wind turbines are profitable without any handouts at all. [bigsmile1]

[Fifth Columnist]

I've still to understand how anyone can identify an electric car as 'zero pollution'.

[Stuart02]

I've still to understand how anyone can identify an electric car as 'zero pollution'.No-one does.

[cuppabillytea]

What do you suppose the BOM want's to achieve by fudging the figures? As Scientists fudging figures would open them up to ridicule amongst their peers, ruin their careers and discredit their organisation.
Do the Farmers amongst us rely on the BOM or do they dismiss their information and bunk.
NASA provides a good deal of the information too. Are they also fudging the facts.
I know Mariners rely heavily on the information from these organisations.
If they are fudging the figures I want to know why and so would anyone else who sees it as pure Science.

[bee utey]

I've still to understand how anyone can identify an electric car as 'zero pollution'.

You're missing a single word there that changes the whole meaning of the phrase. It's "zero tailpipe pollution". I'm told that it's particularly difficult to do a "rolling coal" stunt in an electric car although tyre smoke may be possible in certain vehicles. :burnrubber:

[bee utey]

Do the Farmers amongst us rely on the BOM or do they dismiss their information and bunk.


Clearly you're not up to speed with modern necromancy as applied to the farming industry. It's chicken entrails all the way down. :lol2:

[Fifth Columnist]

How much dangerous pollution will be created during the manufacture and recycling of all the batteries that are to be used in future transport?

[bee utey]

How much dangerous pollution will be created during the manufacture and recycling of all the batteries that are to be used in future transport?

That does depend rather a lot on who you get to do each step of the job. But that's true of every technological product ever, no industry is without its scandals. If the fast buck merchants get a look-in there will be dumped piles of batteries just like there are dumped piles of everything else as we speak.

Organised network shifting waste to 'dumping capital of Australia' to avoid tariffs - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/four-corners-australias-organised-waste-trade/8782866)

Not that dead lithium batteries are particularly toxic as waste products go.

[350RRC]

Yeah I know I'm quoting myself, but to add to the 'science' and 'data' issue, Elders have completely changed their 12 month outlook for rain where I am, in the last 24 hours. This forecast has changed a few times this year, but not as radically as today.

Get a screen shot of the BOM's 3 month rain outlook tonight and see if it is the same in a day or two also.

I never rely on either, and the fisheries model I referred to previously has never been right in 15 years.

The whole point is that all data going into any model needs to be treated with respect, or the model has no chance right from the start.

cheers, DL

The BOM 3 month outlook was indeed changed in the last day or so. The map for August is gone (with 11 days still to go and obviously going to be wrong).

The outlook is now completely different for the next couple of months. [bigwhistle]

Climate Outlooks (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/rainfall/median/seasonal/0)

DL

[cuppabillytea]

It was mooted long long ago, that Hydrogen would be the replacement for fossil fuels. One scientist i seem to remember suggested that they could dam tidal basins in WA for the production of Electricity to produce Hydrogen and pipe it around the country.
Bearing in mind that Hydrogen takes as much energy to produce as it delivers, would it turn out to be more energy efficient to run Internal Combustion Engines on Hydrogen?

[Mick_Marsh]

It was mooted long long ago, that Hydrogen would be the replacement for fossil fuels. One scientist i seem to remember suggested that they could dam tidal basins in WA for the production of Electricity to produce Hydrogen and pipe it around the country.
Bearing in mind that Hydrogen takes as much energy to produce as it delivers, would it turn out to be more energy efficient to run Internal Combustion Engines on Hydrogen?

It would be more efficient to run hydrogen in fuel cells. Honda used to produce the Odessy as a fuel cell vehicle for Californian market. Now they produce the Clarity.
The fuel cell was invented many decades ago. During the Gemini missions (FEED phase of the Apollo missions) batteries weren't able to provide the energy for the length of time required for a flight to the Moon. Gemini 5 was the first of the Gemini missions to utilise the fuel cell technology in a mission that lasted eight days.
And the beauty of the fuel cell, when you run out of hydrogen, you can quickly fill the tank. Well, that has been the experience in California.

Some old news:

California Fuel Cell Partnership - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fuel_Cell_Partnership)

California Hydrogen Highway - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Hydrogen_Highway)

[cuppabillytea]

Thank you Mr Marsh. I'd let all that slip from my consciousness.

[bee utey]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/843.jpg

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21726071-it-had-good-run-end-sight-machine-changed-world-death

[Fifth Columnist]

Petrol is an oil byproduct. What will we do with it after the cars are gone?

Electric aeroplanes next? [bigwhistle]

[Mick_Marsh]

Petrol is an oil byproduct. What will we do with it after the cars are gone?

Electric aeroplanes next? [bigwhistle]
Do what we used to do with LPG when it was a waste product. Burn it off.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2017/08/850.jpg

[JDNSW]

Petrol is an oil byproduct. What will we do with it after the cars are gone?

Electric aeroplanes next? [bigwhistle]

The light fractions of crude that currently are used to make petrol can be used as feedstock for various chemical processes. For example, to go back a few posts, most hydrogen produced today is formed from natural gas, but petrol could be used as feedstock instead.

Worth noting that when batteries become really viable for cars, they will also become viable for many uses of propeller driven aircraft.

[Tins]

It would be more efficient to run hydrogen in fuel cells. Honda used to produce the Odessy as a fuel cell vehicle for Californian market. Now they produce the Clarity.
The fuel cell was invented many decades ago. During the Gemini missions (FEED phase of the Apollo missions) batteries weren't able to provide the energy for the length of time required for a flight to the Moon. Gemini 5 was the first of the Gemini missions to utilise the fuel cell technology in a mission that lasted eight days.
And the beauty of the fuel cell, when you run out of hydrogen, you can quickly fill the tank. Well, that has been the experience in California.

Some old news:

California Fuel Cell Partnership - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Fuel_Cell_Partnership)

California Hydrogen Highway - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Hydrogen_Highway)

I've been championing hydrogen cars for years. It is simply a lack of will that keeps them off the streets globally. Honda's Clarity was an awesome car 7 years ago. What could it be now? Hyundai have a couple of hydrogen models currently. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the known universe. The infrastructure required is in reality no more difficult to provide than LPG, and it exists already in California. There isn't anything like the environmental damage that batteries cause, and the cars can fill in about the same time an LPG car can. All the by-products produced by the cars themselves are simply oxygen and water. What's not to like?

Backchannel? Hydrogen creates it's own difficulties, but in all seriousness we already have oil refineries, all over the place, and hydrogen infrastructure is less of a problem than those. Electric cars rely on batteries. Sure, maybe they will get better, but currently they are far more detrimental to the environment than petrol or diesel. They rely on strip mining, unbelievable processing, coal to produce the frameworks, and there is still no seriously viable way to deal with them when they are past their useful life. Maybe all this will be overcome, and maybe not. Right now they aren't even scratching the surface, and they are creating many more problems than they may eventually solve.

All that ignores the question. Where does the charge come from to power these cars? The answer is, of course, from fossil fuel. Any argument that it comes, or even can come, from solar or wind is specious, as neither of those sources can even maintain grid security. Not for five minutes, not for five seconds, NEVER, as they cannot produce synchronous power without the grid already running. Anyone who says different is either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.

So, where does the 'clean electric' car get it's power? Well, here in Oz, from NSW black coal, or, more probably, from Victoria's brown. In Europe, probably from French nukes.
Fine. NIMBY rules.

Hydrogen makes far, far more sense, if honesty, rather than ideology, is of any importance in this debate. But it won't be, as ideology is a religion, and honesty never has been.

[bee utey]

Meanwhile in the real world people are ignoring the "it can't be done" rantings of old men and are getting on with the monumental task of transforming the energy supply system to 100% renewable.


Among the most ambitious national targets are those of Denmark, which aims for all-renewable electricity and heating by 2035 and zero fossil energy by 2050. The country is well on the way to reaching those goals. As of March 2017, renewables provided about 56 percent of Denmark’s power, and that share will rise to about 72 percent in 2020, according to the Danish Energy Agency (https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Analyser/denmarks_energy_and_climate_outlook_2017.pdf). That’s up from 33 percent in 2010.

Big Customers Demand 100 Percent Renewables—and Utilities Look Set to Deliver - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/big-customers-demand-100-percent-renewablesand-utilities-look-set-to-deliver)

Oh and just a reminder, just because Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe doesn't mean there are ready supplies of the stuff easy to extract on Earth. It has to be cracked from natural gas, Methane, making it a fossil fuel, or hydrolised from water using vast amounts of electricity. The cleanest sources of electricity are of course intermittent wind and solar, and Hydrogen is expected to be a part of the storage of that intermittent energy for later reuse.