Global Warming

[villakram]

Not that Elon really cares as they've been beta testing on public roads forever. Should really state "... traditional/legacy automaker...".

https://www.carscoops.com/2023/01/mercedes-becomes-first-automaker-to-get-approval-for-level-3-autonomy-in-the-u-s/amp/

"Mercedes-Benz said today that it has received regulatory approval to operate Level 3 autonomous driving function on Nevada’s roads. That makes it the first automaker to earn such an approval in the United States."

 

[LondonLax]

26 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Average 65p a KW if not charged at home, that's gonna take sometime to get the premium back you pay for an EV.

Although I'm sounding a bit negative, I do personally love them, the cars I have used from work anyway (Mercedes). My company car EV is still on order, should have had Feb now gone to April. Would I buy one as a private customer, I doubt it, a premium EV is far too expensive at the moment.

Have you seen the fuel prices though

[limpid]

2 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

It was in a Email from work so can't really send it on sorry mate.

Could you at least expand on which "brands" produced the survey, ideally with some information about how the survey was performed and the results 

[foreveryoung]

17 minutes ago, limpid said:

Could you at least expand on which "brands" produced the survey, ideally with some information about how the survey was performed and the results 

Just looking now, prestige German brands, Mercedes, Bmw, Audi. Dont really tell me how it was performed but I guess its now part of the the questionnaire you get when you purchase a new vehicle or one of the big lease companies may have carried it out.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, villakram said:

If you can find an image of exactly where this station lies that would be great. It is well known over here, for example, that the location that sensors have been located (for multiple decades) have changed drastically, with improper positioning of weather stations in relation to structures being a regular occurrence over time as we humans have continued to concrete over everything and build housing everywhere.

The data on that day shows minute scale behavior that looks anomalous. E.g., see that last couple of paragraphs in the following article and the rather unsatisfactory response of the MET service person.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/met-office-responds-to-doubts-over-hottest-uk-temperature-being-recorded-at-lincolnshire-raf-base/ar-AA14Em1k

"That sort of rise can reportedly be caused by sunlight breaking through clouds, though the article insists that July 19 was "more or less cloudless" around 3pm. The Met Office spokeswoman said that there was "some thin cloud" around the county through the afternoon, with a south-south-westerly wind of around 16mph (14 knots) through the day."

Maybe it was clouds, but I would say that the specific number is in doubt. The broader point about multiple stations measuring 40C is probably valid and I would bet that one of those stations has a more reliable dataset. Just details in the larger scheme of things, but this is an important detail, when it comes to things climate related and doing a scientific measurement correctly.

I’ve worked at Coningsby in the past, albeit a while ago now. I wouldn’t swear to it, but I think I know where the weather monitoring devices are located there. A lot of RAF bases and airfields have similar layouts.  I’ve even positioned a portable weather station on an airfield for flight trials, though I didn’t pick the location, just helped set up the radio link to the tower and did some general fettling. Basically, the kit needs a few things. It needs not to be shielded by structures which would alter wind readings. For temperature it needs not to be next to aircon outlets, aircraft ramp/pan and so on. The equipment is kept calibrated for pressure, temperature and windspeed and direction because of the need for QFE, temp and crosswind or upwind/ downwind data to be accurate for aircraft safe operation. The kit is pretty reliable and accurate, though I’m sure you can get more accurate gear for some purposes.

The sensors aren’t always co-located, but often are.

Bit of a waffle, but if the Met office and air force are happy with the data and the equipment used to get it and the readings on the day (and the whole country was baking, it wasn’t some outlier from one place) then I’ll go with that rather than climate deniers or sceptics theories about conspiracies. What’s the thing about Climate change is a massive conspiracy by 99% of the world’s scientists that’s been exposed by a plucky group of fossil fuel companies.

There was a story a day or two ago, about how Exxon scientists in the 70s accurately predicted/ modelled temperatures changes as co2 rise occurs. They knew even back then what was being caused, though of course they hid it.

[OutByEaster?]

6 hours ago, blandy said:

There was a story a day or two ago, about how Exxon scientists in the 70s accurately predicted/ modelled temperatures changes as co2 rise occurs. They knew even back then what was being caused, though of course they hid it.

Just on this, there's something a tiny bit confusing about the BBC reporting the Exxon thing as new news considering they made a really good three part documentary series on exactly what Exxon knew and how they hid it last year. They don't even reference their own documentary series in the article on the BBC news site - it's almost like Georgina Rannard, the BBC Climate and Science Reporter watched the documentary last year, forgot she'd watched it on her own channel and then banged out a story about it yesterday because her editor wanted a climate piece.

Anyway, the documentary is here and it's quite the jaw dropper:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0cgqlv1/big-oil-v-the-world-series-1-1-denial

Quote

The story of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change more than four decades ago, as scientists working for Exxon reveal how they sounded the alarm about the effects of fossil fuels

 

[blandy]

15 hours ago, villakram said:

Just details in the larger scheme of things, but this is an important detail, when it comes to things climate related and doing a scientific measurement correctly.

Sorry to Labour this, but to an extent you're right, it is important for data and measurements to be accurate. And to a, er, degree it's fine to question the tolerance on one set of measurements on one occasion on one day and ask 'how accurate is this data?". But it kind of misses the big picture. In the case of some commentary quite deliberately so. It absolutely was baking hot, abnormally so, in England last summer. Whether the sensors at Coningsby are accurate to 1 degree, or 0.5 degrees, or whether clouds or a passing jet affected a single reading is completely missing the trend. That same sensor has sat there recording 28 degrees, 31 degrees, 27 degrees etc and so on for years with no controversy..As soon as it records 40+ degrees some conspiracy theories are aired about positioning or alleged air traffic or whatever to deny it was exceptionally hot, or to lay seeds of doubt in people's minds. It's bollex. The evidence of man made climate change is utterly overwhelming.

[sidcow]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sorry to Labour this, but to an extent you're right, it is important for data and measurements to be accurate. And to a, er, degree it's fine to question the tolerance on one set of measurements on one occasion on one day and ask 'how accurate is this data?". But it kind of misses the big picture. In the case of some commentary quite deliberately so. It absolutely was baking hot, abnormally so, in England last summer. Whether the sensors at Coningsby are accurate to 1 degree, or 0.5 degrees, or whether clouds or a passing jet affected a single reading is completely missing the trend. That same sensor has sat there recording 28 degrees, 31 degrees, 27 degrees etc and so on for years with no controversy..As soon as it records 40+ degrees some conspiracy theories are aired about positioning or alleged air traffic or whatever to deny it was exceptionally hot, or to lay seeds of doubt in people's minds. It's bollex. The evidence of man made climate change is utterly overwhelming.

Yeah but... 

[villakram]

On 14/01/2023 at 03:32, blandy said:

Sorry to Labour this, but to an extent you're right, it is important for data and measurements to be accurate. And to a, er, degree it's fine to question the tolerance on one set of measurements on one occasion on one day and ask 'how accurate is this data?". But it kind of misses the big picture. In the case of some commentary quite deliberately so. It absolutely was baking hot, abnormally so, in England last summer. Whether the sensors at Coningsby are accurate to 1 degree, or 0.5 degrees, or whether clouds or a passing jet affected a single reading is completely missing the trend. That same sensor has sat there recording 28 degrees, 31 degrees, 27 degrees etc and so on for years with no controversy..As soon as it records 40+ degrees some conspiracy theories are aired about positioning or alleged air traffic or whatever to deny it was exceptionally hot, or to lay seeds of doubt in people's minds. It's bollex. The evidence of man made climate change is utterly overwhelming.

Soap boxes have little to do with the accuracy of a national temperature record.

[blandy]

10 hours ago, villakram said:

Soap boxes have little to do with the accuracy of a national temperature record

I would argue that the soap box is being used by deniers, career doubt-casters and conspiracy theorists and other cranks. Because the evidence of climate change is clear, or as you put it in this case:

On 13/01/2023 at 16:52, villakram said:

The broader point about multiple stations measuring 40C is probably valid

[villakram]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

I would argue that the soap box is being used by deniers, career doubt-casters and conspiracy theorists and other cranks. Because the evidence of climate change is clear, or as you put it in this case:

Right... but it is rather annoying to have any conversation that discusses the issues around measurements etc. immediately associated (and disparaged by association) with conspiracy stuff.

[blandy]

Just now, villakram said:

Right... but it is rather annoying to have any conversation that discusses the issues around measurements etc. immediately associated (and disparaged by association) with conspiracy stuff.

It wasn’t my intention to annoy anyone. Apologies.

My intention was to (though I wasn’t perhaps as clear as I might have been) to suggest that the “questioning” / assertions made about the Coningsby reading were  if not completely groundless, not supported by evidence. It’s ok to ask “ is this reading accurate?” It’s ok to ask “was the kit in calibration, and what is the tolerance on readings” and then using the factual responses to those questions to ask follow up questions, or to make further comment. But that’s not what happened. What appears to have happened is that a number of “the usual suspects” simply spread assertions that the reading was false…and implied that it is therefore another example of conspiracy around climate change, which is all a big lie. Your linked article essentially takes stuff from crank run websites and points out “these people reckon…”. There’s a slant to what they reproduced, because of the original sources.  MSN just aggregates articles, without filtering or balance.

it’s also important to understand what the weather station records. In terms of the thread subject, Global Warming, one reading, on one day, in one place shows nothing, because of sample size and so on. But all over Europe, the US, Australia and so on masses of data all point to the reality, to the fact of global heat increases. People quibbling in internet articles, with no actual evidence, about a reading on an airfield, deliberately muddy the waters.

[bickster]

On 12/01/2023 at 17:25, MakemineVanilla said:

 

London is late to this party, they need to get used to it. The rest of us have had them for decades

[HKP90]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It wasn’t my intention to annoy anyone. Apologies.

My intention was to (though I wasn’t perhaps as clear as I might have been) to suggest that the “questioning” / assertions made about the Coningsby reading were  if not completely groundless, not supported by evidence. It’s ok to ask “ is this reading accurate?” It’s ok to ask “was the kit in calibration, and what is the tolerance on readings” and then using the factual responses to those questions to ask follow up questions, or to make further comment. But that’s not what happened. What appears to have happened is that a number of “the usual suspects” simply spread assertions that the reading was false…and implied that it is therefore another example of conspiracy around climate change, which is all a big lie. Your linked article essentially takes stuff from crank run websites and points out “these people reckon…”. There’s a slant to what they reproduced, because of the original sources.  MSN just aggregates articles, without filtering or balance.

it’s also important to understand what the weather station records. In terms of the thread subject, Global Warming, one reading, on one day, in one place shows nothing, because of sample size and so on. But all over Europe, the US, Australia and so on masses of data all point to the reality, to the fact of global heat increases. People quibbling in internet articles, with no actual evidence, about a reading on an airfield, deliberately muddy the waters.

Could I just add that climate by definition cannot be defined by one reading in one location, erroneous or not. That's weather. Climate is an aggregate of weather over a long period. 

The science behind climate change does not hinge on a single weather reading at RAF Conningsby, it's based on data collected from thousands if not millions of stations around the world, which have been measuring on a continuous basis for in excess of 30 years.  

[blandy]

On 17/01/2023 at 17:15, HKP90 said:

Could I just add that climate by definition cannot be defined by one reading in one location, erroneous or not. That's weather. Climate is an aggregate of weather over a long period. 

The science behind climate change does not hinge on a single weather reading at RAF Conningsby, it's based on data collected from thousands if not millions of stations around the world, which have been measuring on a continuous basis for in excess of 30 years.  

Absolutely. I thought I covered that, but you're spot on.

Quote

In terms of the thread subject, Global Warming, one reading, on one day, in one place shows nothing, because of sample size and so on. But all over Europe, the US, Australia and so on masses of data all point to the reality

 

[HKP90]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Absolutely. I thought I covered that, but you're spot on.

 

Yes, sorry if I stepped on a toe. 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

Yes, sorry if I stepped on a toe. 

Not at all. All good mate.

[chrisp65]

I’ve taken the judges summing up from the JSO website, but it’s word for word across anywhere you care to get your news…

Just Stop Oil

Quote

In summation the judge stated:

“It’s abundantly clear that you are all good people. You are intelligent, articulate and a pleasure to deal with. It’s unarguable that man-made global warming is real and we are facing a climate emergency. Your aims are admirable and it is accepted by me and the Crown Prosecution Service that your views are reasonable and genuinely held. Your fears are ably and genuinely articulated and are supported by the science.”

“When the United Nations Secretary General gives a speech saying that the activity of fossil fuel companies is incompatible with human survival, we should all be very aware of the need for change. Millions of people, and I do not dispute that it may be as many as 1 billion people, will be displaced as a result of climate change.”

“No-one can criticise your motivations. You all gave evidence that was deeply moving. I certainly was moved. The tragedy is that good people have felt so much, without hope, that you feel you have to come into conflict with the criminal justice system.”

“Thank you for opening my eyes to certain things. Most, I was acutely and depressingly aware of, but there were certain things.”

“I say this and I mean this sadly, I have to convict you. 

 

[chrisp65]

Cost of nuclear plant goes up by a third.

Nobody could possibly have seen this coming.

 

 

[sidcow]

16 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Cost of nuclear plant goes up by a third.

Nobody could possibly have seen this coming.

 

 

That would buy a hell of a lot of land based wind turbines plus battery storage. 

And they'd be up and running much sooner as well.