Mad Dictators

[Beelbeebub]

13 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Can I look forward to your critique of the Met Office statement ?

I mean I read through it and there wasn't much wrong.

 

Personally I would have used less precise % given the inherent uncertainty in these methods.  I wouldn't say "39%" i'd say "around 1/3" I wouldn't say "59%" Icd say "over half"

 

But apart from that there want anything controversial - I mean we broke multiple records are saw exceedingly high temperatures even for August and Europe saw even worse.  We would be daft to ignore this event even if we escaped it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Beelbeebub

[LnP]

@JohnMo and @Beelbeebub, all fair points but I recommend you read the piece by Dieter Helm I linked to and I'll be interested in your thoughts about his arguments.

[Spinny]

Beelbeebub - have you even read the Daily Sceptic counter article I provided a link to above ?

 

Do you know what the point is ?

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Spinny

[SteamyTea]

39 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Truly the Met Office is lying to the public

It is even worse when you lie to yourself, and then believe it.

 

[-rick-]

@Spinny

 

I'm really not sure there is any point in engaging further. You claim the article is exposing lies, when all the Met Office are claiming is that they have made estimates.

 

If the article was focused more on something like 'Met Office estimates of heatwave death toll use deceptive methods' and actually showed the methods were bad then that may be different. But that's not what the article does and to be clear I don't think there is any evidence presented that the estimate is significantly wrong (I'm not saying it's right either - it's too soon to tell).

 

The graph showing the ONS death toll is a lagging indicator, it takes time for reported deaths to make their way through the system so a graph that shows less deaths last week than same time last year doesn't prove anything. You have to wait for the data to come through.

 

I've seen plenty of criticism of 'excess deaths' over time (same thing came up during covid). It's a difficult measure and the way it's used in the scientific community doesn't exactly match the way the lay-man understands it but again the article doesn't engage with that. I can't provide links or anything to backup the following but I have read various long and detailed explanations and critiques of this in the past and my conclusion from this reading is that excess death estimates we see are generally in line with reality.

Edited 24 minutes ago by -rick-
I removed part of this because it was a bit muddled

[-rick-]

And now I've written that I fell I've fallen (again) into the trap of talking in detail about something that doesn't warrant the time. The article is written from such a biased perspective in obvious bad faith that engaging with it is just falling into the trap of giving it more credit than it deserves.

 

Quote

Because, even if climate change and the heatwaves were real, the deaths were not.

 

This line is implying climate change is false, the heatwaves didn't happen and people didn't die from those non-existent heatwaves. It's a case of 'believe what I'm saying not what you are seeing/experiencing'

Edited 24 minutes ago by -rick-

[Beelbeebub]

1 minute ago, -rick- said:

I've seen plenty of criticism of 'excess deaths' over time (same thing came up during covid)

The author ignores the enormous hump in the blue and orange line that occured during the COVID epidemic but absolutely didn't show excess deaths from COVID.....😁

 

But @Spinny to address the graph fully you need to understand what was done

 

They took all the previous years (usually omitting COVID)and effectively produce a smoothed average.  If you visualise a smooth line running through *the middle* of the bundle of lines that's the baseline.

 

You then look at the number of deaths in the target period Vs that theoretical baseline -as you can see the 2026 line is towards the upper end of the "bundle" hence there are "excess deaths".  The difficult but is to differentiate between excess deaths that are abnormal and excess deaths that a normal (ie natural variation). Clearly the COVID lumps were abnormal (🤫) but the heatwave deaths, much harder to call.  It is highly likely there were excess deaths, there always are when it is hot or cold.  It's likely that there were more excess deaths as the temperature for hotter.  But the exact number, to a corpse, will never be known.

[Beelbeebub]

To drag back to the original topic.

 

The article about the solar farm was emotive (as all anti ones are) invoking the loss of "prime" land that was actually not particularly prime.

 

The second article made the "gotcha" observation that renewables do  it always produce at their peak output....  Not news and built into the calculations.  This is why we need considerably more peak capacity than our nominal maximum.  This is the calculation every one with solar panels makes.

 

I have 11kwp of panels on an 9kwh inverter feeding a house that runs about 500w continuous and peaks at maybe 7kw if we really try.

 

Why have I got so many panels? Because it means they produce enough to power the house even in sub optimal conditions (most of the time)

 

It's the same with our national capacity -we will prob need something like 2 or 3x our nominal peak demand, so north of 120gw peak.  Will we ever see that demand? Hopefully not!  But it means that the system will still be able to provide a significant amount of our national demand even when operating at 20, 25% of maximum