This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

No Climate Emergency

This doesn't seem to appear in the Daily Mail or the BBC, I wonder why:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate
science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should
openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while
politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation
to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with
natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no
surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are
far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the
fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global
plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly
oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches
emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf


At last some people talking sense. After the relatively rapid rise of around 1°C between 1975 and 2000 in the Northern Hemisphere the temperatures have been relatively flat.

f95f77dc1ad4c0ab15046a656ee22cae-huge-hadcrut.jpg

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/figures/Figure11.png


We certainly need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet but focusing on CO2 is not the way to do it. Let's start with real pollutants that are directly harmful.


Best regards


Roger
Parents

  • here seems to be a basic error in the engineering of zero carbon electricity. All distribution is based on 50 Hz AC transmission which is the only practical system for long range (over500 metres) electricity Distribution. This 50 Hz frequency is set by large turbo alternators running at 3000 rpm (for 6 pole machines).

    Alll the "green" alternatives (Except Nuclear) generate DC power. This has to be Inverted to 50 Hz AC by synchronous systems. It has been calculated (By greater minds than mine) that the the minimum level of synchronous power for a stable system is 40% so we can not have more than 60% renewable energy even assuming that it would be available in low wind, low light conditions.




    Assuming of course that we make no effort to introduce actively phased loads (i.e ones where electronics is used to slide the current peak and the voltage peak apart in time, to fake a reactive power factor, which is quite easy with an inverter structure) to stabilize it, and also assuming that he loads that are connected really need the same stability as enforced present - many critical loads  are switched mode anyway. It is mpore important to keep the grid in sync with itself than tightly on tune to exactly 50Hz, at least over short periods.
    this frequency graph is quite revealing when we have a lot of wind generation.


    Right now we have a lot of kit that removes itself from the generation pool if the any of a number of paramters go a bit off, and it may be that tolerance could be widened out quite a bit.

    G83 settings for example
    U/F stage 1  47.5Hz 20s
    U/F stage 2 47Hz    0.5s
    O/F stage1  51.5Hz  90s
    O/F stage 2 52 Hz  0.5s
    Vector Shift 12 degrees  immediate
    Loss of Mains*(RoCoF) 0.2 Hz / second immediate




    In a rotating generator with real inertia, overload and phase shift go together, as the torque rises, so the shaft wants to run slower. In an inverter there is no such relationship, rising load does not try to introduce phase or frequency modulation, unless you care to program it in,  which currently we do not, but my point is that we certainly could.

    The 40% limit is not a hard limit to say we must have 60 % rotating generation, just a figure beyond which we have  to invest some efforts in either deliberate linking of phase shift to load to make inverters emulate rotating machines, or desist from using frequency as the main measure of grid over or under load that we use to control our generation.


Reply

  • here seems to be a basic error in the engineering of zero carbon electricity. All distribution is based on 50 Hz AC transmission which is the only practical system for long range (over500 metres) electricity Distribution. This 50 Hz frequency is set by large turbo alternators running at 3000 rpm (for 6 pole machines).

    Alll the "green" alternatives (Except Nuclear) generate DC power. This has to be Inverted to 50 Hz AC by synchronous systems. It has been calculated (By greater minds than mine) that the the minimum level of synchronous power for a stable system is 40% so we can not have more than 60% renewable energy even assuming that it would be available in low wind, low light conditions.




    Assuming of course that we make no effort to introduce actively phased loads (i.e ones where electronics is used to slide the current peak and the voltage peak apart in time, to fake a reactive power factor, which is quite easy with an inverter structure) to stabilize it, and also assuming that he loads that are connected really need the same stability as enforced present - many critical loads  are switched mode anyway. It is mpore important to keep the grid in sync with itself than tightly on tune to exactly 50Hz, at least over short periods.
    this frequency graph is quite revealing when we have a lot of wind generation.


    Right now we have a lot of kit that removes itself from the generation pool if the any of a number of paramters go a bit off, and it may be that tolerance could be widened out quite a bit.

    G83 settings for example
    U/F stage 1  47.5Hz 20s
    U/F stage 2 47Hz    0.5s
    O/F stage1  51.5Hz  90s
    O/F stage 2 52 Hz  0.5s
    Vector Shift 12 degrees  immediate
    Loss of Mains*(RoCoF) 0.2 Hz / second immediate




    In a rotating generator with real inertia, overload and phase shift go together, as the torque rises, so the shaft wants to run slower. In an inverter there is no such relationship, rising load does not try to introduce phase or frequency modulation, unless you care to program it in,  which currently we do not, but my point is that we certainly could.

    The 40% limit is not a hard limit to say we must have 60 % rotating generation, just a figure beyond which we have  to invest some efforts in either deliberate linking of phase shift to load to make inverters emulate rotating machines, or desist from using frequency as the main measure of grid over or under load that we use to control our generation.


Children
No Data