Solar ... In the news

Leeds_Solar

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I agree, I wouldn't, but dare say, both the examination board who set the syllabus and the publishers of contemporaneous textbooks would be far more likely to ....

Regarding the particle physics, I would simply take the view that the 'higgs-bosun' didn't actually exist!. However, as for the 'Higgs boson', at some time in the future, I would hope that the history concerning it's (/their ?) existence would be based on contemporaneous accounts, not upon a simple count of papers on both sides of the debate for it's (/their ?) existence prior to discovery and the number if times each paper had been cited over the next 15 years ...

HTH
Z

I fear that it's a little too late to attempt to make yourself look clever via the ruse of picking up on a minor typo in a post.


tbh I can't think of a better way than a simple count of published peer reviewed papers to determine the change in the level of agreement on a subject over time, although it could obviously be biased by a few prolific contrarian scientists.

It's not as if there are regular annual opinion polls of scientists being taken.

I think I'll end this discussion by apologising on behalf of the whole of climate science for you having apparently been slightly misled when studying for your o'levels. It's obviously something that irks you.

I can only try to assure you that the situation now really is nothing like the situation in the 70s when there was considerable confusion on the subject still.

zeupater

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

lol - I just rechecked your method and realised what you were getting at.



I'm guessing that you're reading some significance into the downward trend at the end of the series if you use your method of averaging the previous 50 years.

All this graph is actually showing is that you're using the wrong data - or in other words, it actually is showing the warming trend as one set of data is effectively 25 years older than the other.

yes I appreciate this is the Hadcrut data still, but I really don't see the point in wasting my time an further with this nonsense.

have a little think about how you've actually manipulated the data and what the graph you've produced actually means please.

Hi

Okay, I think I can see can see one set being analysed and some pretty annoying, totally wrong, commentary which wouldn't be necessary if you actually had the capacity to follow instructions ... .... now, chart it as a line (value vs year) and then add all of the other lines, you should have 5 separate ones representing ... 1 year and 1- the average for the rolling Av for the previous 5, then, Av5-Av10, Av10-Av20 & Av20-Av50 .... you should also have the relevant columns with negative figures highlighted in red ..... now what do you see ?

Surprisingly, it's quite straightforward .... you're simply comparing averages ... <joke> it's climate science, not rocket science ... </joke>

HTH
Z

spgsc531

Leeds_Solar wrote: »

that graph looks even better if you add a linear trendline to it - easily enough to bamboozle the easily confused into thinking that black is actually white, and there's some significance to a downward trend in the graph.

Finally, you're starting to understand zeupater....

tunnel

And in the news,

SSE have made the first move to increase energy prices

http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/energy_bills_first_winter_increase_confirmed

I know its not solar, but why can't my FIT be linked to energy companies % rises rather than the RPI index:D

penrhyn

Come the revolution FITs will be retrospectively scrapped.:D
The proletariat should not be subsidising the middle classes.

InVestor_2

penrhyn wrote: »

Come the revolution FITs will be retrospectively scrapped.:D
The proletariat should not be subsidising the middle classes.

Meanwhile I'll happily collect my near 20% return tax free


:dance:

tunnel

penrhyn wrote: »

Come the revolution FITs will be retrospectively scrapped.:D
The proletariat should not be subsidising the middle classes.

Well after googling what the hell your on about it would seem that i qualify as a proletariat, yet as InVestor states, i'm going to continue to collect my FIT.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

There you go, a simple exercise with interesting results ... I did it years ago ...

Don't you just love data & logic .... it's goes a long way towards separating at least a proportion of humankind from the 'selfish herd' ...

HTH
Z

zeupater wrote: »

Regarding the particle physics, I would simply take the view that the 'higgs-bosun' didn't actually exist!. However, as for the 'Higgs boson', at some time in the future, I would hope that the history concerning it's (/their ?) existence would be based on contemporaneous accounts, not upon a simple count of papers on both sides of the debate for it's (/their ?) existence prior to discovery and the number if times each paper had been cited over the next 15 years ...

HTH
Z

At least try to get simple spelling right....


HTH

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

At least try to get simple spelling right....


HTH

Hi

Wit and the unarmed man seems to come to mind ....

If you feel the need to keep popping in and out of various discussions just to 'fan the flames' at least ensure that you're bringing the appropriate tools .... it's grammar, not spelling !!

It's probably a pretty common mistake to make when it's late and you're posting more to convey its relevance than paying attention to its grammatical context ....

:doh:, nearly forgot to say, thanks, it's really appreciated" ...
Z

penrhyn

tunnel wrote: »

Well after googling what the hell your on about it would seem that i qualify as a proletariat, yet as InVestor states, i'm going to continue to collect my FIT.

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.