Posts by Jellied Eel

Measuring your carbon footprint? There's no app for that

Re: So much

Don't mention the 'f' word anywhere near a climate debate..

But here's something that was prepared earlier-

https://www.science.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

The models were also out of step with records of past climate. For example, scientists used the new model from NCAR to simulate the coldest point of the most recent ice age, 20,000 years ago. Extensive paleoclimate records suggest Earth cooled nearly 6°C compared with preindustrial times, but the model, fed with low ice age CO2 levels, had temperatures plummeting by nearly twice that much, suggesting it was far too sensitive to the ups and downs of CO2. "That is clearly outside the range of what the geological data indicate," says Jessica Tierney, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of the work, which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. "It's totally out there."

So climate 'science', doing the impossible since err.. whenever Shell funded the motley CRU of 'Climategate' fame. But sceptics have been pointing out low CO2 sensitivity to people like Gavin Schmidt, even before Fenton Communications set up his 'RealClimate' website for him and his mates. Quite why a bunch of comp.sci Phd's would need a PR company to spin up a simple blog is anyone's guess. Mine is Fenton's links with Al Gore, and the timing around his 'Inconvenient Truths'. Of course most of the predictions in Gore's disaster movie have been falsified.

But I digress.

Whenever reality and simulation disagree, it's usually reality that's wrong. 'The science' cannot be wrong. People have spent billions on carbon trading schemes. It can't be wrong.

Or it can. To paraphrase wot Science said, to get the temperature changes shown in the historical climate model (simulated), CO2 sensitivity needs to be high. Dogma then states that the reason why CO2 levels have increases is because of Man(n). We roughly know how much CO2 and temperatures have increased in say, the last hundred years. So we also know temps have been 6C lower than our current 'record'.

So then there's a.. slight problem where less CO2 gives more warming, which is why the 'CO2 control knob' theory is basically homeopathy. But fear not, noble climate scientists are still determined to erase the past-

https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/

Running on empty, out of battery, power draining... three things the UK government definitely isn't. Oh no

Running on empty?

Oh yes we are-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e-car-chargers-will-turn-off-to-prevent-blackouts-jnm2m86pz

Electric car charging points in people’s homes will be preset to switch off for nine hours each weekday at times of peak demand because ministers fear blackouts on the National Grid.

Under regulations that will come into force in May, new chargers in the home and workplace will be automatically set not to function from 8am to 11am and 4pm to 10pm. Public chargers and rapid chargers, on motorways and A-roads, will be exempt.

First they'll come for your car chargers, then laptop and phone. Or they'll just not charge anyway because we've got rolling blackouts due to no wind or solar.

Elizabeth Holmes' Theranos fraud trial begins: Defense claims all she did was fail – and that's not a crime

Re: "as owner of half the company's shares"

If she had sold shares, and lost control of the company it would have become far harder to keep the cover on the fraud. Financial analysts don't understand technology, but selling shares for billions would have raised their concerns...

Not strictly true, but I guess depends where they're working. AFAIK a lot of analysts are sector-specific, so meant to have a good understanding of how those businesses work. Plus reasearchers to support them. But I think there's also been some changes in the big banks around how their analysts work, so they're perhaps not getting the best advice. I've also been approached a couple of times by investment banks for short-term consultancy gigs to explain some telecomms stuff. They can be quite fun conversations.

But...

Wade also tried to cast doubt upon the doctors and patients scheduled to testify about bad Theranos test results, noting that these represent 0.00025 per cent of the eight million test results performed by the company and inviting jurors to consider how that compares to typical lab error rates.

You've completed 8m tests? That's impressive, have some money! Oh, but you're actually using COTS testing machines, not your own unique Edison universal test machines. They don't work? Give me my money back..

But the money's all gone. So to me, it seems a bit of a slam-dunk for the prosecution. Holmes appears to have mislead investors about the state of their technology, and the state of the company. If claims were made publicly, or privately that can be shown to be false or misleading, that seems to be fraudulent misrepresentation.

Amazon says Elon Musk's wicked, wicked ways mean SpaceX's Starlink 2.0 should not be allowed to fly

Re: Space is BIG and satellites aren't

There has already been one accidental collision between two intact satellites.

Interesting, especially potential liability issues. So for SpaceX, presumably clearer definition of Launching State*, and if such event happens, the US would be responsible..

However, it is unclear whether the Launching State for Iridium 33 is Russia, the United States, or Kazakhstan as Iridium 33 was not registered with the United Nations, as required by the 1974 Registration Convention

But then what? Fine SpaceX? Order them to clean up the mess.. somehow. But as Musk apparently can get air cushions and bearings to work in a vacuum, he can probably invent a space vacuum as well.

I think Bezos has a point. Musk's FCC application is vague. Other operators of satellite broadband, current or future need to know what SpaceX's constellation will be. It's a bit of a space-grab, potentially locking out other operators from the orbits and possibly spectrum.

AFAIK both SpaceX and Bezos's constellations are low LEO, and satellites kind of designed to fail, ie drag will eventually lead to de-orbiting and flaming satellites burning up. But given the huge number of satellites proposed by all operators, there seems to be a bigger risk of collisions, potentially creating a lot of debris that future launches would have to avoid.

I'm curious how treaties deal with this as it's a bit of a US orbit-grab. I know for geostationary satellites, treaties allocated slots to countries based on a use it or lose it policy. For LEOs, it seems more of a free for all, both in terms of altitude and spectrum allocation/usage.

Can we talk about Kevin McCarthy promising revenge if Big Tech aids probe into January insurrection?

Re: Don't you just love it ?

It doesn't matter if she was in charge or security or not, you are still blaming the victim. You're saying that they are pushing for the inquiry to hide the fact that she was responsible for security.

More a witch hunt. As seen previously with the impeachment attempts.

But such is politics. If you're in charge of the investigation, you can direct the way the investigation goes. Again, simply politics. What you can't change as easily are the constitutional responsibilities of the Speaker(s) role(s), ie responsibility for security. Ok, shared with the '3rd Man', the Capitol Architect, which must be a fascinating job.

So we've been told-

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Full Definition of insurrection

: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

And America had been seeing much of this over the previous year, ranging from attempts to establish independent nation states in Seattle to the 'fiery, but mostly peaceful protests' that CNN reported on.

Much vandalism, arson and attacks against civil infrastructure like courthouses, police stations, federal buildings, Walgreens and Footlockers. But that was all fine, with US politcians providing support and assistance, or DA's refusing to prosecute. These were just peaceful, anti-Trump or anti-government protestors. Not rioters or insurrectionists.

But that's kinda background. An extended period where parts of the US were burned, businesses destroyed, widespread looting, many LEO's injured, some deaths.. And polticians pretty much did nothing. Which was a rather risky strategy given it risked normalising that kind of behaviour.

So then we get Jan 6th. There seemed to be plenty of intelligence that crowds were expected at the Capitol. There was plenty of speculation that some might be armed, or have violent intent. So crowds assembled, and wandered into the Capitol Building.

Why?

If Capitol security and federal agencies were aware of the potential for trouble, what steps were taken to mitigate that? Especially as we're told it was a serious and organised insurrection, possibly co-ordinated by the Democrat's opponents. Yet there doesn't appear to be much in the way of evidence that any organised insurrection existed. The FBI and other LEO's have been investigating, and charging some of the insurrectionists-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58441174

Jacob Anthony Chansley was one of thousands of Trump supporters who attempted to prevent the US Congress from certifying the 2020 election.

Chansley pleaded guilty on Friday to one felony count of obstruction in an official proceeding.

But then the Bbc also says-

Chansley became the de facto face of the siege, pictured amid the unrest in horns and a bearskin headdress, with the American flag painted on his face. He called himself the "QAnon Shaman".

He only seems to have become the 'face of the siege' thanks to the media, who noticed the efforts he'd put into his cosplay. He'd also worn the same outfit to BLM and other events. But that's the media for you. It was hardly a 'siege' given many of the protestors simply walked into the Capitol, took selfies and wandered out again.

But that's all part of the political theatre.

Re: Don't you just love it ?

Err... no. From various Googles as to who in incharge: "It is provided by the sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate, and by the Capitol Police.

Ah, politics.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/capitol-police-reaction-details/index.html

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday called for the resignation of the Sund and said the House Sergeant at Arms has told her he is submitting his resignation as well. Michael Stenger, the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, has resigned as well, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer had said he would fire Stenger when he became majority leader later this month.

Always supporting law enforcement, and ensuring that other people are held to account. But again one of those interesting areas an inquiry could cover, ie who knew what, when and how transitional arrangements had been managed. That may also touch on claims that Trump refused to send in the National Guard. Of course that could have been a bit embarassing, if it showed that Chuck & Nancy couldn't organise their own security.

Again, such is politics. It's odd that Schiff objected to being investigated in connection with a lot of leakage, yet seems rather keen to investigate his political opponents.

Re: Don't you just love it ?

Ah yes, just like it's the fault of women who get raped for not being more careful or dressing like an Eskimo.

Not sure if that's projection, or just a false equivalence. Didn't you know that the Speaker is also responsible for security?

Re: Don't you just skew it?

it does explain why your sense of right and left may be superimposed onto a circle...

That's just politics re-inventing itself. Much like the Southern Democrats did.. But a definition-

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

And of course the further you drift to the left, the more right-wing other individuals may seem.

Re: Don't you just love it ?

It is not a Democrat inquiry, it is a Government inquiry you moron.

Nope, it's a Democrat inquiry called by Pelosi to distract from her own failings. She is after all responsible for Congress security. But such is politics. By controlling the process, she can try to avoid awkward questions about why the mostly peaceful* protests ended up the way they did. But again, such is politics. The Democrats control the messaging, hence why people think this was an 'insurrection', despite events not meeting the definition. This was perhaps a better example-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_Senate_bombing

The group Resistance Conspiracy was a United States-based branch of the wider communist organization known as the May 19th Communist Order. This group existed from its first attack in 1976 until later attacks in 1985. Throughout the lifespan of the organization, twenty incidents of terror were committed including one fatality inflicted. Most of the incidents involved bombings and sabotage, however several also included scare tactics such as threats and the utilization of fake weapons.

...On December 6, 1990, federal judge Harold H. Greene sentenced Laura Whitehorn and Linda Evans to lengthy prison terms for conspiracy and malicious destruction of government property. The court dropped charges against three co-defendants, two of whom (including Susan Rosenberg) were serving extended prison sentences for related crimes. Whitehorn was sentenced to 20 years; Evans, to 5 years, concurrent with 35 years for illegally buying guns. On January 20, 2001, the day he left office, President Bill Clinton commuted Evans's and Rosenberg's sentences.

I always thought that a curious decision by Clinton. But that was an altogether more serious insurrection, even though a fairly small conspiracy.. But that's also kinda back to the 'fiery, but mostly peaceful' protests CNN reported on in Kenosha, and repeated across the US. And oddly enough, some of those 'peaceful protestors' were flying Communist flags. But useful idiots have always been a fixture of politics.

But despite this 'insurrection', AFAIK nobody has been charged as such, instead charges seem to be mostly trespass, public order and criminal damage. And no charges for the only shooting of an unarmed woman either.

You're lucky I'm not the President, because I would have the IRS take your taxes apart line by line. I'm sure you've got some dirty laundry to hang yourself with.

And if not, I guess you could always sponsor your own Steele dossier. But yours would be an interesting style of Presidency. Not exactly liberal, but in keeping with reprisals handed out by other far-left, fascist forms of government.

But that's also what the Republicans are complaining about. The US kinda has rules about surveillance of it's own citizens. Some put in place to guard against authoritarian governments abusing surveillance powers to create lists of their opponents.

So why would the inquiry need this data? The FBI has been busily investigating the crimes, and could justify having that data to identity potential suspects.. But 'Congress' doesn't need it, and as it's overtly political, probably shouldn't have it.

Online disinformation is an industry that needs regulation, says boffin

Reality check : there are still people supporting Trump.

And there are still people suporting Biden. But such is politics. Often support is based on subjective beliefs rather than facts that could be checked. But then being politics, beliefs become facts. Or are just presented as facts because that's politically expedient.

Orange man bad! Grey man good!

Meanwhile, some 'fact checking' goes on in the background. Like there's still a number of election audits ongoing in the US. They're unlikely to change the outcome, but they could improve the US electoral system. Or give people more confidence in that system. Or not, because many people have already been told that it's all 'fake news', and believe it.. Even though often the people who claim to be 'fact checkers' cannot have been in possession of the facts.

Same is true with stuff like Covid. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was much speculation and not much in the way of facts. Challenging 'facts' could and did lead to sanctions and de-platforming, even if some of those 'facts' have turned out to be false. Or just overstated.

But again such is politics. It's something that's been prevalent in the climate debate for the last couple of decades, with some pretty dire consequences. Climate change leads to extreme weather, therefore we must build energy policy around systems that are most vulnerable to the weather. Or the way groups like 'Extinction Rebellion' have piled into the debate.. They're unashamedly about social change, but happily use climate change as a pretext to get activists involved.

But a lot of this goes back to education. If people are just conditioned to consume 'facts' from supposedly trusted parties, it's easier to spread your memes.. So for example the Bbc is incredibly subjective wrt climate change, and frequently gets it's facts wrong. And assuming people twig to this, people stop trusting them as 'reliable sources'.

More than half of companies rethinking back-to-office plans amid variant uncertainty and vaccine mandates – survey

Re: Office half full or office half empty?

The optimist in me thinks this is a great idea. I see the future as bright, golden uplands of happy workers with truly flexible working and results being more important than office seat-polishing hours.

Theoretically, businesses should be able to quantify the Covid effect by comparing productivity pre and post. Unless the employer's idea of productivity is simply making sure employees are at their desks on time.

But some employer's are offering 'flexible' working where staff only have to be in the office say, twice a week. That could end up more expensive for staff. If they're say, London based and can commute via Oyster & a PAYG fare, I guess it could work out cheaper. Further afield in season ticket land, there only seems a choice of monthly or annual tickets, and no fairs that seem to fit with flexible working.

More Boots on Moon delays: NASA stops work on SpaceX human landing system as Blue Origin lawsuit rolls on

Re: Bezos lost

Because SpaceX could show

CGI, and a NASA liveried collection of stainless steel sheet..

1. Proven themselves at space flight with 80+ orbital launches with everything from manned LEO missions to the ISS to Geo-stationary orbits.

Yep. And Bezos has stated repeatedly that he's not in that market, leaving it to ULA and other rocket builders to compete in that err.. space. Given there's a finite market, especially for the heaviest launches, it's arguably already a tad crowded.

2. Have a vehicle( falcon heavy) capable of lobbing a tesla car and some other ballast to Mars orbit (and that was in a recover all 3 boosters configuration)

Woo and yey. So that test launch had a payload of <10% of Falcon Heavy's claimed 27t. Give or take how much of a Roadster was actually launched, ie were batteries included? Motors? It did however included a rather jaunty angle because otherwise a small sports car wouldn't fit inside the payload fairing. And of course to be truly impressive, it should have launched a bus..

But some other Muskisms. SpaceX was in the process of going Ch.9 before NASA bailed it out with some very generous funding. It was also a typically Musk product launch. So Falcon Heavy announced in 2005. Then in 2008, 'a couple of years' after planned Falcon launch in 2009..

<crickets>

and then it finally got off the ground in 2018. Without the hyrdrogen engines previously promised.

3. And bid lower than Bezos.......

That's the easy bit. Undercut your competitors, under deliver. If Musk stays true to form, it'll be late and overbudget.

But given all of SpaceX's experience, I'm sure it'll be fine. I mean it's just an unflown engine, first & second stage/lander that promises to revolutionise mass transit. Much as the Vegas Hypeloop has.

Oh, and on the subject of Roadsters.. Musk unveiled a new one a few years ago, but like the Cyberturkey and Semi, even though deposits were collected, deliveries are nowhere in sight. Kinda like 'Full Self-Driving' I guess.

Senators urge US trade watchdog to look into whether Tesla may just be over-egging its Autopilot, FSD pudding

Re: Tesla seems to be protected

Otherwise, it is hard to fathom how you can sue anybody for anything in the US, which makes for those silly stickers everywhere (don't put your pets in the micro-oven, etc.).

My favourite is still something along the lines of "May cause death or serious injury. Read the manual. Keep out of reach of children". Stamped into the barrel of a Ruger GP100 I used to own.

Re: I should sue for false advertising.

But it would take some deep pockets as I don't think it would be an easy fight. Musk has (apparently) lots of lawyers of his own.

I suspect you're right. Mainly because AFAIK, there's no class action ongoing representing FSD licencees who've been sold a heavily caveated turkey. And this kind of thing usually attracts lawyers like flies to a roadkill.

Magna Carta mayhem: Protesters lay siege to Edinburgh Castle, citing obscure Latin text that has never applied in Scotland

Re: Holy Progress

Been a while since I was there, but I do recall several dungeons under Edinburgh Castle. I don't remember them being particularly 'cozy', but I'm sure thirty people could spruce them up if confined there for an extended period.

Luckily they didn't dig too deep. Or straight down. The Rock being a volcanic plug and all. Which I guess also goes towards explaining the... strange character(s) of Glasgow on account of the high radon levels.

But plug removal is a rather extreme way to deal with the castle. A more traditional way would be per King Edward 1 and his siege of Stirling Castle. That didn't rely on the Magna Carta, just a rather large trebuchet called the War Wolf. The Scottish defenders promptly surrendered. But then if you've gone to the trouble and expense of building the world's largest siege engine, you'd want to see it in action. So the King refused the surrender and fired away.

So they should have built War Wolf 2.0. I suspect the police may have objected, but I've always been a bit curious if there's still legislation covering the possession of antique reproduction siege weapons. If nothing else, I suspect it'd count as at least an offensive weapon and a public nuisance.

Green hydrogen 'transitioning from a shed-based industry' says researcher as the UK hedges its H₂ strategy

Re: We already burn Hydrogen

Current biofuels use agricultural waste so there is no displacement of food production. There's even the possibility of scooping up algal blooms to ferment into fuel which could go towards ameliorating some other issues.

That was a pretty pointless and ill-informed comment. Luckily, mine was rather better informed. See for example-

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_production.html

Ethanol is a domestically produced alternative fuel most commonly made from corn. It is also made from cellulosic feedstocks, such as crop residues and wood—though this is not as common. U.S. ethanol plants are concentrated in the Midwest because of the proximity to corn production. Plants outside the Midwest typically receive corn by rail or use other feedstocks and are located near large population centers.

...Most ethanol in the United States is produced from starch-based crops by dry- or wet-mill processing. Nearly 90% of ethanol plants are dry mills due to lower capital costs. Dry-milling is a process that grinds corn into flour and ferments it into ethanol with co-products of distillers grains and carbon dioxide.

Production produces CO2, consumption produces CO2, but hey, it's green... right? And if you prefer pictures-

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10339

So about 5bn bushels of food converted into fake fuel. Or as the graphic puts it..

The amount of corn used for ethanol production increased substantially between 2001 and 2010, as nearly all gasoline was transitioned to 10% ethanol.

If you're in the business of turning food into fuel, lobbying for that 10% adulteration is great for your business. Less great for fuel efficiency or food poverty, but those are someone else's problems. Also despite being 'fake' fuel, it hasn't gotten any cheaper at US pumps. Can't think why. People will blame 'rising oil & gas prices' though, not the ethanol producers.

Re: Greenhouse gas

(1) It is quite new. Older, simpler models did not exhibit this warm bias. Not even sure all new ones do: some certainly do however.

Yes, they did. Everything from Hansen's infamous testimonial model onwards. His, and now Schmidt's GISS models have been notoriously hot.

If your model runs hot then you know that it does as soon as you have run it from 1850 or whenever you choose to start. Is not the case that climate person would ever say that. well, if model predicts oceans boiled in 1970 they must have boiled in 1970 and we are all now living in matrix or anything less silly than that.

You would hope so, but that's not what has been happening. Climate models are notoriously crude, but that's just the nature of the beast. Break an entire planetary ecosystem into a small number of cells, add 4-5 parameters per cell, run the model. Claim anything from 2-11C, claim funding, call anyone who disagrees with simulated reality a denier. Both Hansen and Schmidt have been doing this for decades.

But such is politics. Reanalysis isn't new, and CMIP6 is just the latest comparison to go along with the latest IPCC report. Which often gets called 'science', even though it's a highly politicised literature review. Especially when vested interests focus on the SPM, which is an entirely political document.

The other challenge is of course the reality you choose, and the bits of reality you choose to ignore. So for example in claiming July's been the hottest in human history, and therefore build windmills-

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/global/map-land-sfc-mntp/map-land-sfc-mntp-202107.png

Which shows a couple of interesting data points. Like all the ones in grey where there's no data. But in sim-science, absence of data isn't a problem as it can simply be invented. Again GISS is notorious for kridging and assuming constant temperatures over thousands of square kilometers covering varying geography. But for July's doom mongering, NOAA also seems not to have noticed record cold temperatures affecting crops across Brazil.

But see also-

https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/

Ancient tree stumps found under Breiðamerkurjökull glacier in Southeast Iceland are confirmed to be roughly 3,000 years old. RÚV reports.

A specialist believes the remarkably well-preserved stumps were part of a massive forest that disappeared after a long period of a warm climate.

And inconvenient finds like this aren't unique to Iceland. But get denied by sim-scientists because the 21st Century is the hottest ever because CO2. Trees and other vegetation uncovered by glacial retreat were obviously growing in microclimates under the ice..

(3) These are simulations of physics system. There is no knob in them which says 'adjust climate sensitivity' because there is no knob in the physics system they simulate to do that

Yes there are. The Science article basically says that, ie the way the clouds have been simulated. If you looked into how climate models work, you'll find all have degrees of parameterisation and assumptions about how ocean or atmosphere is meant to work in that model. How the assumptions are programmed produces confirmation biases, or just the parameterisations produce wildly diverging results from reality.

In theory, this should be a good thing. So if simulation is very different to reality, reality is probably right, and something is wrong with the model. Or just call anyone who points that out a denier, and demand even more money to produce wrong results faster.

And once you have started one of these big runs that's it: you can't just change the model even if you discover in 2019 what the problem is because you obviously must submit all your runs from the same model and not cheat.

Or you do cheat, and adjust historic temperature data. Cool that, and voila, an exagerated warming trend. This sadly happens a lot. See 'disputed' 1920's American temperature results. Plenty of historical documentation around the Dust Bowl, and Great Depression. But if temperatures were higher then than now, that doesn't fit with CO2 dogma. See also continued attempts to erase the MWP, LIA, RWP and various other inconvenient bits of history..

So you are stuck now: might say 'let's just put back CMIP6 deadline' but turns out that humans have not much time left to deal with problem

Well, you're right about deadlines. Flights and hotels for 20,000 people heading for Glasgow with the expectation of 'wealthy' nations giving the UN $100bn a year just can't wait. I mean the UN managed the Oil for Food programme so well that a chap by the name of Maurice Strong got given personal cheques for his valuable work! And then went on to trying that scam again with the UN EP. $100bn a year, and the UN's.. lax accounting standards is great business!

Of course if climate sensitivity is low, and assumptions wrt CO2 are correct, like ECS per doubling CO2.. then we have all the time in the world. There isn't enough carbon to double CO2 levels again, and so at around 1.2C/doubling, it's a non-problem.

But still people either uninformed or malignant say 'oh those silly climate scientists they are making things up'.

Indeed. Wheel out a Greta to poute and go "How Dare You!". Greta Mk1 was David Suzuki's daughter, who followed much the same playbook, but didn't have Greta's slick PR team. But you are absolutely correct that a lot of people are woefully uninformed, misinformed, or just malignant. Or dare I say it, reality deniers. But again, $100bn a year at risk, and won't someone think of the grants?

Oh, you may also find this interesting-

http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/4906

In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature.

This stuff usually gets glossed over in WG1, or given about 1 page by 1 author who is heavily invested in maintaining CO2 dogma. Hey Jo, where you going with that hockey stick in your hand?

Or course to suggest solar variability is heresy, because TSI is constant. Ish. Well, constant enough that it's variability is greater than the 'back radiation' from CO2's 4 absorption/emission points. 3 of which overlap with H2O, which is a more potent 'GHG'

And given CO2's spectrum has been known for a very long time, that kind of stuff is measureable and quantifiable. And even done by some orbital carbon observatorys that are basically flying spectrometers looking for CO2's emission peaks. And finding them in incovenient places, like over S.America.. And it's also possible to quantify spectral variations in solar output, which have all sorts of interesting effects on CO2, and photochemistry. And could also be rather important during a Grand Solar Minima.

But no. Anyone who committs heresy by denying official CO2 and TSI dogma must be uninformed and 'malignant'.. Even though scientists are supposed to be ojective and sceptical.

Oh, and riddle me this. We know the 'problem' is CO2's 'greenhouse' effect caused by 'trapping' heat. And we know the mechanism is based on the fundamental properties of CO2, ie it's absorption/emission spectrum. And this is quantifiable. It's done with instruments like the bandpass filter and spectrometer(s) onboard satellites like OCO-2.

So given that it's pretty easy to actually directly measure CO2's 'back radiation' via some simple, standard instruments... Where are they? And why do some climate 'scientists' still insist on using thermometers, wooden or otherwise as proxies when the exact quantities are, well, quantifiable?

Re: We already burn Hydrogen

I mean, we gave a serious go at biofuels, and that was patently stupid from the start.

That one is still going strong thanks to the agricultural lobby, and the useful Green idiots. It's sustainable!

Or not. So large chunks of say, US agricultural land dedicated to growing corn, which then gets sent to the many refinerys that convert food into ethanol. Which is less efficient than traditional gas. So you use more ethanol to go a given distance, and still produce CO2. But that's 'good' CO2 cos it came from the corn.

And funnily enough, a side-effect of the deadly CO2 has been the 'greening of the Earth' because plants grow better when they're not starved of CO2. And depending on plant, may also need less water.

But the loony Greens haven't quite grasped that growing corn to burn means less agricultural land producing both human and animal feed. But the latter is probably seen as a GoodThing(tm) because everyone should be going vegan!

Of course that means more land to produce human food, which is a bit of a snag given a lot of arable land isn't the best quality.. But fine for animal feed. And then animal waste can be used to fertilise crops, increasing yields. So burning food leads to price increases, inflation, and food poverty.

Oh, and of course we must ban fossil fuels. Except of course fossil fuels end up being used to produce a huge array of chemicals and products that we rely on. Like for example say, ammonia. Which is a rather handy fertiliser, or feedstock into all sorts of useful organic chemistry.

Of course this isn't a problem. Windmills can be used to produce hydrogen, then ammonia. Never mind the cost or inefficiency, think of the subsidies!

But such is politics. Some day, I live in hope that our politicians will realise that de-carbonising means pretty much de-industrialising, and going back to a pre-Industrial Revolution way of life. Because that was such a great standard of living..

Re: Greenhouse gas

This is where the modelling gets complicated, as it is necessary to know if you get more or less clouds and where.

It's more that the modelling gets speculative. Or in layman's terms, wrong. See also-

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast.

But such is science. Took long enough for the sim-scientists to realise that if there's a difference between reality, and simulation, then it's probably the simulation that's wrong. Politics of course works differently, and lags the science. Plus thousands of lobbyists are due to descend on Glasgow in pursuit of hot subsidies.

(Ok, to be fair, climate models are also incredibly crude compared to reality. So when programmed with faulty assumptions, produce faulty results. Good'ol GIGO. The 'experts' had some opportuntities to do some sanity checking though before assuming all cloud feedbacks are positive. I mean which is warmer, a cloudy summer's day, or a clear summer's day?)

Re: Greenhouse gas

The continued rise of CO2 levels is worrying for other reasons; it has been a few years since we passed the point at which oceans switched from released CO2 for cooling to releasing H2O.

Err.. what? Unless that was sarcasm.. But pre-Greenwash, sun & wind cause evaporation, causing ocean cooling. A process that continues and has virtually nothing to do with CO2.

Other than of course CO2 being the gas that keeps on giving, and has launched a thousand subsiidies. Everything from extreme CCS, like Econtricity turning CO2 into diamonds to ideas like Green vs Blue hydrogen.

But the good thing about that scam is it can be a displacement activity. 'Renewable' power is already too cheap to meter, so windmill operators can use idle time, like during winter blocking highs. They tend to bring prolonged periods of low temperatures, so producing H2 for heat will give wind farmers something else to sell. So UK energy will be even cheaper!

I'm sure the government will eventually work this out. The free market and all that.

Blue Origin sues NASA for awarding SpaceX $3bn contract to land next American boots on the Moon

Re: While your here...

Yeah, who needs SpaceX anyway!

NASA I guess, based on the US taxpayer bailing out Musk.

Boeing can handle all those launches to the ISS.

If not, ULA can. After all, their Atlas and Delta vehicles have already sent stuff to the Moon, Mars, and places SpaceX cannot reach. I'm no fan of Bezos's business practices, but people who're happily kissing Musk's ring don't seem to realise Bezos said Blue Origin would partner with ULA, not compete with them for orbital launches.

So the fair comparison is really ULA vs SpaceX, and ULA's had more success. Falcon Heavy will chug along, and fanboys may at some point notice that to get a decent payload into orbit (or beyond), the Falcon is expendable.. Which was always an issue with the whole re-usability thing.

But coming soon.. ish, will be the mighty BFR! Bigger, louder and faster than any previous rocket! Well, ok, so with it's 32x Raptor engines, it's plumbing and controls will be FUN, but it's utilising similar technology to Tesla's 'Full Self-Driving'. So it'll be fine. But the BFR isn't exactly original, after all one of the earliest launches to orbit was by Wan Hu, who used 47 rocket motors in his launch vehicle.

Meanwhile, other space companies seem to be opting for.. less complex designs. Y'know, 4-5 engines +/- some strap-on boosters. But I guess if you don't have the thrust of an RD-170, you need to use a lot of engines. And being full-flow, 32x mutiple turbopumps, valves, gimbals etc will be fine. Absolutely fine for SpaceX's claims of using Starships as sub-orbital dropships, or passenger flights.

Airlines seem to understand that trying to keep aircraft simple helps reduce delays from maintenance and turnarounds.. SpaceX doesn't seem to have found that clue, but then again, Starship and the BFR have many clues to find still.

Re: While your here...

Please check it out: add up every cent SpaceX got from the US government then for each US government payload SpaceX launched subtract what the cheapest competitor would have charged. US tax payers have been saved hundreds of millions by their investment in SpaceX.

Err.. right. Throwing billions of public money at SpaceX pre-IPO obviously 'saves hundreds of millions'. Perhaps true for Musk and SpaceX, blatantly untrue for taxpayers. But this is also the 'competition' argument. By eliminating competition by undercutting bids, one can 'win' market share.

But I'm sure SpaceX will launch it's BFR on time, and on budget because NASA's awarded a fixed cost contract with penalties..

I could mention that the air fare you are misquoting actually involved "comparable to business class" or that as you are a genius physicist who can see how easy it is to implement hyperloop

I'm not the genius physicist who described the Hypeloop as being "Like a tube with an air hockey table", and "It's really not that hard". I'm just an engineer, who couldn't quite understand how that was meant to work in a near-vacuum tube. Or how CGI showing impellors on Hypeloop trains was meant to work in a near-vacuum. Or even how Musk planned to create and maintain a near-vacuum in a tube between LA and SF.

But it's really not that hard. The Vegas Hypeloop is the future of high speed transport after all.. Or perhaps that's the supersonic, VTOL electric jet Elon announced years ago. That's just one of those energy density problems I'm sure the genius physicist Musk will overcome soon. Or perhaps he meant he'll launch the 'jet' using his current fossil fuels, and switch to ion drives once in space.

But such is marketing. Keep throwing subsidies at Elon's ventures, and it'll be 100x cheaper than everyone else! Soon! If the market doesn't catch up, realise that Tesla's a hype machine propped up by subsidies, the share price collapses and all the ventures underwritten by Tesla's inflated stock price crash and burn.

Thunderf00t fisks a lot of the hype in videos like this-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TxkE_oYrjU

One doesn't have to be a genius physicist to realise that a lot of Musk's ideas are neither original, nor practical.

Re: I hope Elon Musk appreciates one of Spacex's biggest assets right now.

(It's pretty clear too, she has a good working relationship with the head of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, Kathy Lueders).

Not to mention NASA's JPL. But this would be the same Shotwell who's made a variety of interesting claims about using Starship as an intercontinental ballistic people mover. Which will have fast turnaround Starships merrily ferrying souls from say, LAX to Australia for less than the price of a traditional air fare.

Never mind the physics, focus on the unrealistic business development claims.

But this is how the reality dysfunction around all things Musk seems to work. Hypeloop is simple. It's like playing air hockey in a vacuum. Then delivers Teslas in a drain pipe for Las Vegas 3 people at a time mass transport system.

So sure, Musk has made a bunch of grand claims. So sure, he's got his Falcons already paid for by NASA and the USAF. So sure, if the US taxpayer bungs SpaceX a few billion more, he'll get his <10km Starship into orbit, and beyond. All it'll take is the cost of 1 year of the Bbc to fill some sheet steel with the gubbins to send someone other than Elon to the Moon.

Or as Bezos has probably pointed out, Musk's claims (and costings, and timescales) rarely hold true, so spreading the money around might actually be a good idea.

India makes a play to source rare earths – systematic scrapping of its old cars

Re: Price of a tank of gas

So even with just the baseline £40 billion value, that means that around 60% of the money earned from motorised vehicles is used elsewhere. So the government is going to have to put up taxes elsewhere.

Such as on electricity.

Nope. If I were to fill up a car with gas, I'd be charged fuel duty, VAT, and a small amount of the total for the actual dino-juice. Some of that money goes back into paying for infrastructure like roads, service stations etc.

There's no reason the same should not apply to EVs. Use one, get charged for using one. But scum sucking subsidy seekers and other parasites (like the Bbc) think everyone should pay more to subsidise 'renewable' energy. Naturally that increases the cost of everything, either via electricity costs, inflation etc. Not to mention increasing fuel poverty, or poverty in general due to reduced competitiveness.

But that's something countries like India & China understand. They're not sacrificing their industries or economy on the altar of Green. They're developing theirs to compete, and understand that to do that, they need to control their costs.

Re: Price of a tank of gas

The govt price gouged and enabled private power suppliers to price gouge electricity consumers when they couldnt physically take manual readings...

It's fine. Electricity bills are now the UK's preferred way to pay for someone else's virtue signallingm, eg-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58222808

Marketing spin is how many energy campaigners describe this so-called "greenwashing" of energy tariffs.

What the Bbc (of course) fails to mention is all the greenwash that gets added to electricity bills. Like adding the cost of building out EV charging networks. Electricity bills are already fundamentally dishonest as they don't (and AFAIK can't) itemise all the green crap consumers are paying for.

But I digress. If India can improve it's recycling, it'll need a lot of energy to do that. Or just upgrade it's metals industry so it can make more speciality steels, alloys etc. But I'm also curious if it's the right approach, ie India being kinda huge probably has a lot of rare earths... somewhere. And presumably if it hasn't sold mining claims to the Chinese, could be extracting those themselves.

But India's been busily building coal, gas and nuclear power stations to feed it's industries and growing consumer demand. Meanwhile, the UK's still tilting at windmills..

COVID-19 cases surge as do sales of fake vaccination cards – around $100 for something you could get free

Re: People who've been vaccinated are getting sick.

Well, unless you knowingly signed up for a trial, then it's not really surprising that they were surprised you though it was a trial. If you'd simply asked which vaccine it was they were using, they'd have told you.

Phrasing was intentional. Suprise was that they thought I had a choice. I think the SOP was for patients to turn up, present arms and get what they're given. Doc also said they pretty much inject what they're shipped, so sometimes they didn't have an alternative to the mRNA vaccines.

Which is pretty much the trial aspect. Actual trial was very limited in scope, now millions of doses have been administered to demographics that weren't included in those formal trials. Pre-FUD, mRNA vaccines were seen as promising, but also risky.. Hence why the drug dealers wanted shielding/immunity, and just take the profits. So the usual 'free market' job of privatised profits, socialised risks.

But such is politics. Again I was ok with the more traditional vaccination, but there is no way in hell I'd take mRNA until there's say, 5yrs of data.

:"Funnily enough, a lot on the left/liberal side seem to be dedicated followers of Malthus. " No, that is more of a fascist/right wing problem

Citation needed. Population control is very much part of fascist ideology, and happening now. Have your vaccine passport ready if you want to dine out, drink, attend social gatherings. But you won't need to show your papers to shop for food.. Yet.

"Or read Professor Paul R. Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb", and believed it." Again, beloved of the right.

Citation needed. Unless you mean for entertainment value given it's claims that we'd be out of food by the '70s, the UK would cease to exist, and people would literally turn into blue steam. But Ehrlich's still courting publicty via dire predictions, and feted by the left.

Just as Agenda 21 is described as a Marxist, Masonic, Zionist, globalist elite illuminati to control everyone.

<fnord> Marxist and globalist is pretty much a given seeing as last year's 'firey, but mostly peaceful protests' saw Antifa marching along with people waving the American Communist and worker's party flags. </fnord>

"But a more pertinent issue is children don't seem to get infected. " Who told you that lie? Not only do they get infected but they pass it on.

And yet again, citation needed. But let me help you-

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsovertime

0.07 deaths per 1000 for <=17yrs old. And that's even assuming actual Covid deaths, rather than deaths where a fragment of the virus was found. But jab away, those kids are extra vaccine sales. Too bad kids weren't included in Phase 3 trials, but let's go global and see what happens! No liability for the drug dealers.

Re: Enforcement it going to be tough

Facts checked, I am now safe to jump to the obvious conclusion that your post is, to repeat your words "driven... by greed and ideology."

Ah, facts still ain't what they used to be. Neither are conclusions drawn from irrelevant facts. But that's how propaganada spreads faster than a virus can, ie when the 'fact checkers' can't fact.

But such is politics. Or even science.. So-

https://westphaliantimes.com/international-experts-suggest-that-up-to-90-of-canadian-covid-cases-could-be-false-positives/

On August 29th, Apoorva Mandavilli of the New York Times published a story entitled: “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.” Mandavilli interviewed prominent virologists about the current PCR testing performed in the United States. She reported that in many parts of the US cycle thresholds for the test are set very high, often as high as 40 cycles. Many prominent experts think this is too high.

I picked the WT article simply because it was the first reliable-ish source I could find that wasn't paywalled like the NYT article is. But it names names, some from the NYT and those names can be checked for potential level of cluefulness. Other facts are easy to check, ie the 'inventor'(s) of PCR testing won a Nobel Prize for their work, but they're also both dead.

But in these post-normal times, there are other easy ways to check facts. So bimble over to wiki, stick 'PCR Test' in the search bar, and land on this page-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing#Reverse_transcription_polymerase_chain_reaction_test

without even the courtesy of a redirection notification. Curious why Wiki's hijacked PCR Test for Covid exclusivity, but then Wiki's always been curious on sensitive subjects. But it's a reliable source, just like Snopes, Politifact and that self-selected circle of jerks.

Meanwhile, back in the real-world, you can still click on wiki's PCR link, and find your way here-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction#Limitations

Where it alludes to the Ct issue, but doesn't mention the Ct. Luckily the WT article has some quotes from people that do, and almost certainly have a better understanding of the issues than wiki's guardians of truthiness-

PCR positive for #COVID19 does not mean you are infectious

It means you have virus RNA

Like DNA left at a crime scene, it doesn’t mean the virus is still there

Which is a good analogy given that since the invention of PCR testing and DNA/RNA analysis, it's been used in forensics and the sensitivity arguments (along with FMR/FRR) have been argued over by expert witnesses for a long time.

But this is also the crux of the biggest 'fake fact', ie the fixation on 'cases' based on PCR tests. Run Ct >30 and you will find virus RNA, especially as a pandemic progresses.. But it's largely meaningless. Run PCR until there's a detection, look at the cycles taken to find a positive, and you'd get an indication of potential viral load. So positive on a low Ct, more virus, more likely there's an active infection.. At the point in time the swab was taken.

But again, such is politics. If you want to amplify the FUD along with Ct, gloss over the shortcomings and just keep watching say, the Bbc's meaningless test match results. But the Bbc isn't a reliable source, so check this instead-

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

If SARS-CoV-2 sequencing will not be performed locally and a specimen is available, the state public health laboratory should request the residual clinical respiratory specimen for subsequent shipping to CDC.

For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing.

If the Ct value is not known (e.g., positive by antigen test only or by a molecular test that does not provide a Ct value), the positive specimen may still be submitted to CDC for RT-PCR and potential sequencing.

Because the CDC is a reliable source.. isn't it? Even if it just had to correct it's results for Florida..

Re: People who've been vaccinated are getting sick.

Also, depending on how one's immune system responds to the vaccine, death is a possibility from the infection hence, boosters.

True, but there's also a potential that the immune system response to a vaccine might cause death. Or possibly symptoms like these-

Symptoms include fever, fatigue, loss of appetite, muscle and joint pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, rashes, fast breathing, rapid heartbeat, low blood pressure, seizures, headache, confusion, delirium, hallucinations, tremor, and loss of coordination

Some of which may sound familiar. But no system is perfect. Plus if I were being especially cynical and conspiratorial.. Assuming Covid was a result of a gain of function experiment that unfortunately escaped. If you were dicing & splicing with a view to a bioweapon, something that mutates rapidly and potentially encourages ADE and ADCC to increase effectiveness, and decrease treatment options. But mutations and immune system responses are an ADE risk anyway.

But such is politics. I'd still advocate vaccination, albeit I still don't trust mRNA.. Which was part of the fun of my own vaccination experience. The NHS is supposed to be all about patient choice, but the vaccination clinic seemed suprised when I simply asked which vaccine they were planning on trialling on me.

Get off your god damn cross. I am going to take a wild guess your one of the proudly wilfully ignorant MAGAts... Who swallows conservative BS with a grin and begs for more! From people who got vaccinated.

British actually, and did my patriotic duty and proudly double-jabbed with the AstraZeneca vaccine. But you've done an excellent rant! Right is wrong, and Left is right! Praise the science! Which should of course be apolitical, despite a lot on the left ignoring it..

Social Darwinism and all that shite?

Funnily enough, a lot on the left/liberal side seem to be dedicated followers of Malthus. Or read Professor Paul R. Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb", and believed it. Despite pretty much in that book having been proven wrong. Then again, viruses are often nature's way of helping along Malthusian ideals.

The rest of us who live outside the right wing media shart bubble just hope the virus sticks to bleaching your side of the gene pool before a variant escapes that can hurt the innocent who are vaccinated.

Well, that's happening already. People who've been vaccinated are getting sick. They're also spreading the virus. Which sadly for you, doesn't have a political compass, just a desire to bind to any handy ACE receptor..

I love how the right races to adopts holocaust imaginary with their martyrdom complexes... since it was facist conservative ideology that carried it out.

Errm.. didn't you just express a desire to bleach the gene pool of your political opponents and other undesirables? That ideology sounds sadly familiar. As is the cry of 'fascists'. Strangely from people who are supporting a rather authoritarian government. And funnily enough, it seems to be those on the left who're imposing the most authoritarian restrictions. But such is politics, and here's a free clue-

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Any of that sound familiar? Papers please! No papers? No socialising or travelling for you! And possibly more restrictions to follow. But fear not, citizen, for you are shielded by your Walgreen's vaccination card, that is absolutely impossible to forge! Especially in a nation that has a long and noble tradition of producing fake ID cards so young Americans can enjoy a beer.

But you've also got Biden, who's been busy keeping your southern borders open, and shuttling infected immigrants around the US. But that's the same Biden who's given up on Afghanistan. And called on OPEC to increase production so US gas prices reduce. But that's the same Biden who also cancelled the Keystone pipeline, and banned domestic oil & gas production. And the same one that wants to spend several $trillion, which somehow won't be at all inflationary. But then he may have been taking economic advice from his son, who seems unable to keep hold of his laptops.. But again, such is politics.

Yes let us in fact of the Children since they cannot all be vaccinated yet. Children are a dangerous means of spreading and mutating the virus...

Sure they can. School or school age vaccinations for stuff like MMR are routine, and a good thing. Slight snag though. None of the Phase3 trials included children. Or pregnant women. Or anyone but a small group of healthy individuals.

But a more pertinent issue is children don't seem to get infected. And if they're not infected, the virus isn't replicating. Which means they won't be spreading it. But that's just science. Jab away! Drug dealers have double jabs to sell, then boosters! And perhaps more importantly, immunity if their vaccines cause serious side effects. Which can happen in young, healthy adults. But never mind that, Jab For Victory in the War on Covid!.. Which will probably be a never ending war, but that's very good for the bottom line..

Re: Something like this?

Not haiku, but a bit more help from our state organ-

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58186708

A record number of people - more than 5.45 million - are waiting for NHS hospital treatment in England.

The June figures show a mixed picture - with the numbers waiting more than 18 weeks or a year both down, but a rise in those waiting more than two years.

Some of that may just be down to the way hospitals manage wait times. If you're having to wait a while, just cancel the person's appointment and tell them to try again later. The civil service has always been good at clock watching. And-

"We're also in the peak leave period and we've got very large numbers of people coming in for urgent and emergency care - and we've still got 5,000 Covid patients in hospital beds."

Ohnoes! That pesky 3rd Wave. But some handy stats here-

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/bed-availability-and-occupancy/bed-data-overnight/

So around 170,000 total beds available in the NHS. So around 3% occupied by Covid patients. Then it gets a bit more complicated regarding whether those 3% are actually sick with Covid, or just tested positive. I guess if Covid sticks around long enough, there'd probably be some mileage in creating dedicated centres like the good'ol TB hospitals. Would cost some money and need staffing, but hey, it's the NHS, where solutions are simple-

He said a long-term funding settlement was vital.

Throw money at the problem. Never mind efficiency, add cash, stat!

Re: Easy to copy

I suspect there's a negative correlation between being an anti-vaxxer and being even half competent.

Ah, well, now here's a thing-

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf

The association between hesitancy and education level followed a U-shaped curve with the lowest hesitancy among those with a master’s degree (RR=0.75 [95% CI 0.72-0.78] and the highest hesitancy among those with a PhD (RR=2.16 [95%CI 2.05-2.28]) or ≤ high school education( RR=1.88 [95%CI 1.83-1.93]) versus a bachelor’s degree.

Paper also surveyed Red vs Blue, and ethnicity. But a bit awkward, if true, for those attempting to stereotype 'anti-vaxxers' as stupid. I saw a previous survey (or maybe a previous version) that showed hesitancy was highest in the most and least educated.

But such is politics. The herd can simply here "We're from the government, and we're hear to help" and present their arms for injection. Wondering why being injected with an expermental FOAK mRNA virus is a good idea might take a bit more research into things like ADE risks.

And then of course there's prior history, like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study that might also increase hesitancy..

Re: A long way still to go

Well, IIRC they did talk about something like this, but the problem they found was that there was no simple record of who did what job.

Sounds like a job for Dido! But there should be records. Simple is a different consulting engagement. So there'd be care workers supplied directly or indirectly via the NHS. They should have records of those workers. Nursing and social working are AFAIK still semi-regulated professions, and there's also the good'ol CRB checks required to work with vulnerable people.

And then as power without abuse loses it's charm, simply pass legislation requiring all workers in designated fields to be vaccinated on pain of say, £10k fines. So make this someone else's problem, and pocket any revenue from fines.

f only we could literally brand them

What an excellent idea. Might I suggest a yellow star, or perhaps a red or black triangle design? Or might that confuse people?

If only we could literally brand them so, our valiant healthcare workers could deny them care for their wilful ignorance and danger to children and people with immune disorders.

Excellent idea. Award yourself a black triangle! Let's replace the hippocratic oath with the hypocritic! Then again, thanks to the War on Virus, many people have already been denied healthcare via cancellations of consultations, treatments or operations. And thanks to the swift and decisive action by public servants, infected patients have been sent home from hospitals to care homes so that those patients can be with the most vulnerable.

And of course won't people think of the children! They must be jabbed, masked, and socially distanced. Never mind that children are at very little risk from the virus, they must be protected. We've got millions of doses to use up before they expire!

Sarcasm aside, such is politics. Cuomo's gone, but not prosecuted for his decision wrt NY care homes and a large proportion of NY's Covid deaths. Which also skewed NY's stats compared to say, Florida with it's large population of elderly sunseekers, but relatively lower number of deaths.

Or any long-term effects. More children have been suiciding than have died from Covid. But most parents also know that kids are bug magnets, and their immune systems get a bit of a work-out from being around other bug magnets. Now, we've got a bunch of kids who've been socially stunted and isolated, who might also end up with weaker immune systems thanks to being shielded.

NASA blames the wrong kind of Martian rock for Perseverance sample failure

Re: It's most likely dry mud from silt settling out.

I do wonder if they tried using a Perseverance test vehicle to drill holes in dried-out lake-beds in the Mojave or some other, even drier, part of the south-west USA or central Australia. But surely they must have tried that. . . mustn't they?

I guess budget & time constraints might have prevented test drilling in every potential surface. But maybe it's something that could be done now to compare results to Mars and test theories.

Fancy joining the SAS's secret hacker squad in Hereford as an electronics engineer for £33k?

Re: Which meillennium is this again?

Sounds like they really wanted a qualified soldier but couldn't find one capable of original thought.

I think that lot have a lot of original thoughts, given extensive post-graduate training and experience in skullduggery and shenanigans. Fitness only gets you so far.

But agree on the salary, especially for central London. In the private sector, it can be hard enough to attract and retain the best staff on salaries much higher. But on a positive note, it could be worse. At least it's not based in Milton Keynes.

You can now live life like Paul Allen on Microsoft cofounder's luxury yacht for '£1m a week'

Lend-Lease gorn mad?

He used it to survey the wrecks of the USS Lexington off the Australian coast and USS Hood in the Straits of Denmark, the latter sunk by the German battleship Bismarck during the Second World War.

The Royal Navy may disagree with that designation. But it was fun watching Octopus arrive in London during the Olympics as it barely fit through the dock gates. Also used to think it was a pretty fugly ship, until I was chatting with some of the crew who explained it was a 'proper' explorer yacht, complete with all sorts of fun oceanographic survey toys.

Wireless powersats promise clean, permanent, abundant energy. Sound familiar?

Re: Lets do the maths

If you avoid underwater then you end up going around the Mediterranean through some very dodgy territory and increasing your distance by a large factor - probably well beyond the current (ha!) record.

As well as the practical problems of doing that, you'd also have the economic. So every country the cable passes through being a load that needs to be managed, and probably also expecting transit fees. So the losses would be horrendous both in terms of power & money, and it still wouldn't solve the problem of making solar panels work in the dark.

(Spain did however briefly solve that problem)

Re: Lets do the maths

Can you launch and install a payload like that with $3500? No, it wouldn't even pay for a tiny part of the fuel used to launch it.

So there is zero chance that such a system could ever be competitive.

They're not really meant to be. Don't confuse science/engineering with marketing. So there's been a lot of lobbying around 'Nett Zero', decarbonisation, subsidy farming and virtue signalling.

Sadly for most of humanity, there's been a lot of traction. So we're going to ban fossil fuels, gas heating and cooking and everyone will go all-electric! Which of course means either massively reducing the amount of energy we use, or increasing the amount we generate.

Politicians are kinda, sorta, slowly stumbling towards the realisation that this could be a problem. See also the UK's Ofgem announcing £150+ electricity bill rises blamed on everything but the true cause, ie 'renewables'.

So to support Nut Zero, taxpayers will need to give generously. Very generously. There's only so much money governments can print without rampant inflation, and energy costs are a fairly key component to inflation given it's an input cost to pretty much every economic activity.

So politicians, most of all probably have no idea how to change a lightbulb think 'renewables' are the solution. Done lots of those, energy bills keep rising. But no matter, throw some more money at the problem and it'll be find. 5MW windmill isn't exciting, 150GW solar panels in space, well, now we're cooking on photons.

And if say, you just happen to own a company that makes solar panels, satellites and launches stuff. Well, hand over the money, and Elon will save the world! Possibly after he's figured out just why suggesting an air hockey table in a vacuum would never work. Ah, Hypeloop..

But back to the article-

Heat, now that's a problem. 150GW deliverable power is a beast. Do the sums on conversion efficiency for gathering solar electricity and turning it into radio waves,

Actually, heat's a potential solution. Just need enough earthstations and the receivers would become the world's largest communal microwaves. Just the thing when your gas cooker's been made illegal. And like (or unlike) other large solar projects, there'd be less problems with 'streamers', and having to collect cooked birds. They'd probably just explode instead.

But.. slight snag with RF heating outside a vacuum.. Like it heating the atmosphere. Rather hard to avoid at those power levels, eg microwaves meeting atmospheric water. Which may have some positive advantages, like becoming a collosal ozone generator. Or the heating acting as a vortex or storm generator so 'extreme' weather events can be created on demand. Would also be rather handy for making reality match other climate model predictions, like ocean heating, arctic & glacier melting etc etc

But such is politics. TL;DR, it's just another part of the scam. Hand over a few hundred million (or billion in the case of carbon capture & storage) and keep taking the money for as long as clueless poltiicians hand it out.

SpaceX Starship struts its stack to show it has the right stuff

Re: Chemistry lesson too

It’s Northern European pragmatism in action

Yup. It's sensible, ie using digestors to produce biogas. Remaining waste can still be used as fertiliser.. which is a slight snag for militant vegans, ie banning livestock production means removing a source of organic fertiliser. Especially if they also ban 'fossil fuels', given those are also used to produce ammonia and other fertilisers. So go Green, and watch the world starve. But they've always had strong Malthusian tendencies.

But there's also subsidies to farm, ie 'renewable' energy, and 'renewable' heat subsidies to collect. Which doesn't always work out, as NI found out.

So, is the above scandal or the extension of his rocket the true definition of ElonGate?

It's.. curious. Or greenwashing. Some of the elements are a matter of public record, ie Musk bought (or leased) 600 acres from Sanchez DPG had already paid $6m to lease a small parcel from Sanchez, but Musk cliamed that parcel as well. The Railroad Commission of Texas decided that DPG's claim had been 'abandoned', mostly on the basis that DPG seemed to have been late paying taxes.

T'other claim/case is ongoing in a different court, and is based more around the real-estate stuff, so whether Sanchez had the right to resell the lease Sanchez thought they'd already bought.

But it seemed kinda murkey. SpaceX seemed to decide that they needed the parcel, DPG weren't using it, so they'd just take it. And now I think a fair chunk of their methane production/storage facility has been built over DPG's claim. All without any legal eminent domain, dinner or movies. But I suspect this may have also been a bit of a ransom strip job, ie DPG holding out for money to volunatarily abandon it's lease.

But the greenwashing part is despite Musk having made most of his billions lobbying for subsidies based on his 'green' credentials, he's now fraccing for gas in Texas. There's also the general environmental friendliness of his Boca Chica operation given the fraccing, or just operating a couple of orbital launch sites in a nature reserve. By it's very nature, it's hardly a very 'green' operation.

Which I gas is also an OPEX issue. The Bbc's Matt McGrath has just thrown up a very hysterical (and incorrect) piece about how CO2 and CH4 will doom us all, unless we go vegan and 'Nett Zero'. Which means more taxes on fossil fuels, and CO2. So SpaceX may have to announce an electric BFR. Taxing part should be fairly easy though, ie it's simple to measure or calculate CH4 production, usage, venting and CO2 emissions from launches.

(And on a more practical note, curious thing about the test fitting is the way the BFR dwarfs the existing tank farms. I guess they could be higher pressure than the BFR, or whether it's possible that Musk will use DPG's disposal wells for storage)

SpaceX are planning on utilising renewable energy sources to produce the above as part of their goal to be carbon neutral.

And in other news..

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/musk-space-x-wins-round-in-texas-land-dispute

The Railroad Commission of Texas on Tuesday voted 3-0 to designate SpaceX's Lone Star Mineral Development unit as the operator of inactive oil and natural gas wells on 24 acres. That land is being developed to support the entrepreneur's rocket-launch facility near the mouth of the Rio Grande, Bloomberg reported.

...SpaceX plans to drill natural gas wells near the rocket launch site and use the methane it extracts in connection with the rocket facility operations.

SpaceX also plans to build two natural gas-fired power plants and refrigeration equipment to make liquid methane, according to Federal Aviation Administration documents.

So Musk's moved to Texas and gotten in on the fraccing business. From memory, part of the complaint was that Musk had already started drilling, and there's also a related case ongoing in a different court. I was curious whether this was just a land grab, or if Musk was seriously going to be fraccing. Dallas Petroleum Group were apparently planning to use/using their lease as a disposal well, so whether there's much gas there to drill for.

It's debateable if fraccing is greener than shipping in the amount of liquid methane that'll be needed to fuel his massive erection though. Suprised he's not using solar or wind to power the turbo compressors as surely that's 'free' energy.

Microsoft to require proof of vaccination from on-site staff, pushes back full reopening

You seem to be taking the approach of "I'm not doing anything until it is proven beyond MY doubt that it has a beneficial effect for me / society" but then not accepting that sometimes the correlation does show causation. Otherwise, what is making the difference in hospitalisations / deaths and even the case numbers in the current peak?

Changes in the way 'cases' are recorded and reported? Or more seriously.. You seem to be suggesting it's an either/or thing and there are only 2 sets of populations. Reality is there's at least 3, ie people who may have been infected, not noticed, have thus gone unrecorded.. And would have some acquired immunity.

If the only options are vaccinated or unvaccinated, then all the talk about herd immunity has obviously had no scientific basis.. Which isn't the case. But that's also the problem with 'cases', ie if overly sensitive PCR testing is used, people who've developed natural immunity would be recorded as a 'case'. But that's one of the reasons why reporting and testing methodologies have been changed as the outbreak's progressed. Whether that's political, ie to ensure that politicians can point at reductions in 'cases' and claim their policy is working, or based on science, ie very high false positives is anybody's guess.

Re: Ok, I'll bite

The COVID vaccines went through "proper trials".

So did Thalidomide(ish). But how many mRNA vaccines were there prior to Covid?

Stop being a prat, grow up, take the vaccine, and know you're protected and you can go to the bloody pub. And you're welcome to downvote me or report this all you like.

If you've taken the vaccine, and know that you're protected.. Why are you worried about people who haven't been vaccinated? Citizen, you are immune. You are protected. You are safe. Your government has protected you.

This is the truth, whether you like it or not.

The truth just ain't what it used to be. So pre-Covid mRNA vaccines were considered too risky. Then something escaped from a US funded lab, and a couple were rushed into production. The truth regarding Covid's origins is still unknown, despite 'fact checkers' officially denying it was a lab bat.

But Pfizer and Moderna thank you for your concern. Their for-profit vaccines have made those companies very healthy. They've also granted full immunity.. From liability at least. Immunity from Covid? Well, that's a lot less certain. But fear not, 16 & 17 year olds can get the jab now, even though they've had a very low risk of developing serious symptoms. The rest of us? Well, we can look forward to 6-monthly booster shots to keep shareholders healthy.

But there's been a lot of FUD around Delta. It's more transmissable! Ohnoes! Even people who've been fully vaccinated have caught Delta! It's that bad! So now masks on again, even if you've been fully vaccinated. Of course the vaccines have saved Delta victims. It gives you just a mild version of the 'vid. Except that's not entirely scientific given you'd need to look at populations of vaccinated and unvaccinated and compare hospitalisation rates.. Which have been falling.

Which could be due to a couple of reasons. Herd immunity, or the virus doing the usual virus thing and becoming attenuated. After all, a virus that has an IFR of 100% isn't going to spread as much as Covid, with it's 0.25% or lower IFR.

But such is politics. It's given people an excuse to discriminate on health grounds. It's given the tolerant an excuse to become intolerant against the unclean. We even have digital bells on mobile phones to let people know there are plague carriers around. And in NY, employers and shop owners can be fined if they let the unclean into their premises.

Tesla battery fire finally flamed out after four-day conflagration

Re: fire suppression entry pipe per container?

Slight snag. Apparently there was no water supply to the battery farm, so firefighters had to bring water in via tankers. From stuff I saw, the approach seemed to be to try and keep adjacent battery packs cool, and let the involved ones burn out.

Kinda curious if these events will lead to different risk approaches, ie better fire suppression on site, or wider spacing.

Giant Tesla battery providing explosion in renewable energy – not as intended

Re: 300 MW

Also, concerns about lack of capacity can be solved by building more of them. You have to start somewhere, and you probably don’t want the whole country or even a whole state relying on one battery.

No, you really don't. It's about doing some basic root cause analysis and cost modelling.

So you want to spend AUD150m on a single battery array. You need to do this because your energy supply is intermittent/unreliable, so you need to import energy from a neighboring state that produces cheap coal powered electricity.

So basically all you're doing is adding more cost to an already expensive and unreliable generation strategy, ie wind/solar in an attempt to solve a problem that generation strategy has created. Alternatively, you could look to a cheaper and more reliable energy policy that can provide both base load and cope with variations in demand. So coal/nuclear/gas, not 'renewables'. Obviously the 'renewables' lobby hates this idea because they're earning billions by promoting the expensive, unreliable stuff.

And then behind it all is the Greenwashing, ie Global Warming.. Which has problems of it's own, eg-

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming

But as climate scientists face this alarming reality, the climate models that help them project the future have grown a little too alarmist. Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast....

...The models were also out of step with records of past climate. For example, scientists used the new model from NCAR to simulate the coldest point of the most recent ice age, 20,000 years ago. Extensive paleoclimate records suggest Earth cooled nearly 6°C compared with preindustrial times, but the model, fed with low ice age CO2 levels, had temperatures plummeting by nearly twice that much, suggesting it was far too sensitive to the ups and downs of CO2. “That is clearly outside the range of what the geological data indicate,” says Jessica Tierney, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona and a co-author of the work, which appeared in Geophysical Research Letters. “It’s totally out there.”

This should be good news when prominent climate scientists who've previously been very vocal in promoting global warming are now realising they've got serious problems with their assumptions. Other scientists have been saying for years that CO2 sensitivity is too high, and reality disagrees with the models. But they've usually been shouted down as 'deniers', even though this article strongly suggests those 'deniers' were right about the science.

But such is politics. The problem is global warming dogma's spawned a huge Greenwashing industry that's making billions off these alarmist, and potentially incorrect predictions. Given low CO2 sensitivity, there is no 'climate emergency'.

Re: 300 MW

Therefore any comparisons of the battery storage vs power generation should be using the SA power generation (or usage if it's net negative and it imports from other states) for its 1.8m residents, rather than the entire countries power requirement for 26million residents.

Well.. It's typical of Greenwashing to use favorable metrics to gloss over the unfavorable ones. For large parts of the year, SA power production would be net negative due to it's 'renewables' policy. Hence needing to add the cost of this battery array which will continue to suck subsidies. It will not save any money, just cost around AUD12.5m a year, and it's operators have a generous index-linked price guarantee. So basically it'll increase in cost every year.

But the number of homes it might power is pretty much irrelevant given it's purpose is grid balancing, specifically via the NSW-Victoria interconnector. So allows Victoria to import coal power from NSW and/or buy time to fire up gas turbines.

If Australia just carried on investing in coal or nuclear, it'd meet it's carbon targets given modern coal powerstations are more efficient than old ones. But neither satisifies the need for 'renewables' lobbyists to extract blllions from energy consumers. Hence all the money they spend on lobbying to convince gullible politicians that the world needs to go back to pre-Industrial Revolution era technology, even though history showed why the Age of Sail gave way to the Age of Steam.

Re: It's just drop down dead funny

Has the Grauniad reported this fire? For some reason, despite usually been quick to report the 'news' on 'renewable' projects, the Bbc doesn't seem to have noticed this fire. Then again, both aren't exactly reliable sources when it comes to energy matters.