Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 101 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 7905 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

Roger B
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
  • 0

    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.


  • 0
    It's all solved now ? They have found 11 000 people to tell us that we have a 'Clear and Unequivocal Emergency'


    www.bbc.com/.../science-environment-50302392


    As Einstein was supposed to have said: Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!


    Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. Unfortunately the 'scientific method' and 'climate science' parted company some time ago.


    Best regards


    Roger
  • 0
    The trouble is, we don't really have "facts"; we have measurements.  All measurements have a tolerance, and some may have errors (outside the tolerance).  And we only have a finite number of measurements - we don't know the temperature of every point in the World all the time.


    And there are so many complex feedback loops that we can only estimate.  Warmer seas should mean more evaporation, and so more clouds.  Clouds may warm or cool the Earth, depending on where they are, what altitude and what sorts of clouds.


    The biggest worry is the positive feedback loops.  More hot weather means more forest fires, which means more soot in the air.  Soot settling on ice makes it darker, so it melts faster in the sun.  When the ice melts, that leaves land, which warms quicker than white ice.  Warming land can emit CO2 or methane, which are greenhouse gases, which warms things up even more.  But how big is this effect?  We can only estimate it.


    In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.
  • 0

    Simon Barker:


    In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.



    I am awaiting  the IPCC AR6 reports over the next couple of years to see how they deal with the continuing deviation of the climate models from reality. This was already noted in AR5 and as far as I can see from the various temperature series the deviation is increasing.


    Best regards
    Roger

  • 0
    I note an error which is continued above, but seems to come from evey source.

    Melting of the entire north polar region will not cause ANY sea level rise because it already displaces the exact mass of water contained as it is all floating! It appears that this simple fact of physics is missed by everyone, perhaps they are not aware that there is no land under the north polar icecap and this area is often traversed by submarines. The second point is that the south polar icecap is gaining thickness at the moment and is certainly not melting as claimed by the BBC etc. The breaking off of one area is actually part of this increase caused by the movement of glacial flows caused by the increasing ice load.


    Greenland is similarly perhaps melting a little more in summer than in the past, but remember that in Roman and Viking times Greenland was green and wheat was grown, so was at least as warm as the south of the UK now. Climate always changes, due to many factors, most of which we do not fully understand.


    We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very carefully!
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I quote your last words:  " We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very careful" And here I'm quite in agreement with you!

    But said this, if you are quite right, all EC Countries ( and not only them) are then fragrantly WRONG?! In other words, the EC countries are going to throw to the wind     1,000,000,000,000 euros?!
    More, there is now no doubt that almost the whole world (UK included) is going along this direction, that is, a strong contrast to the climate change!

    Sceptical people are always welcome not only on this all-importatnt matter but also in any other walks of life!
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    More:
    https://www.inverse.com/innovation/amazon-employees-risk-firing-to-protest-companys-climate-policies
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    The UK ICE backing climate change emergency:

    Climate emergency: time for action



    Civil engineers should be helping society with valid concerns on climate change and helping with coming emergencies. Robert Thorniley-Walker, formerly of the ICE climate task force, reviews past and future needs.
    Are perhaps they so naive to be made fool by fake news about Climate Change and its catastrophic consequences?!
    https://www.ice.org.uk/news-and-insight/the-civil-engineer/january-2020/climate-emergency-time-for-action

     



  • 0
    Quite how a few people have managed to cow global governments into parting with bank loads of money to subsidize a cause with no real science behind it escapes me completely.

    It smacks of tulip mania all over again.

    Right now, all over the world, there are thousands of otherwise unemployable people trousering millions out of this global warming scam.

    Take our UK govt for example.
    2035 is just the blink of an eye away. The UK government has gone deep with its pander-to-Saint-Greta strategy banning new petrol and diesel car sales in just 15 years. But to what end? If the UK ceased to exist, if it was obliterated entirely from the map, the world CO2 emissions would reduce by less than 1% and all the experts, insofar as anybody can be an expert in something as ill-defined as ‘climate science’ agree that this would make no difference whatsoever to whatever they are predicting today (prophecies vary).


     


    But this isn’t what the UK is proposing to do. The Road to Zero moniker suggests that we will have a zero-carbon transport infrastructure in just a few decades, but this is nonsense. Even if the entire fleet was converted to electric we still generate plenty of CO2 emissions in the extraction of materials, transportation across oceans, manufacture and infrastructure implementation. Plus we still have to somehow generate the electricity to run this new miracle fleet which will, inevitably, have to use fossil fuels well into the next century.


     


    electric%2Bcar%2Bcartoon.jpg


    Electric cars are powered by coal


     


    At best we might reduce our overall carbon footprint for vehicles by about 20% and even then only by hiding it somewhere else. And at what cost? A quarter of a century ago the world of science said diesel was the answer, and not so long back hybrids were the key. Now both will be on the scrapheap. No more research and development, so no improvements and notwithstanding the VW debacle over the cheated emissions controls, small diesel engines were getting better and better all the time. That alone might have resulted in a similar reduction in footprint but those potential advances, just like those we nearly gained in Clean Coal Technology are now lost.


     


    Instead the population faces a massive upheaval, not to mention massive cost. At a time when the new government could have got to grips with tackling the root causes of mass discontent within our society it has decided, instead, to embark on a vainglorious vanity project. Instead of doing the thing it was elected to do, it is trying to leap onto the world podium before the race has even been run. They used to say look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. That holds true for individuals, for communities, for governments and for the entire world. We should be jealously guarding our resources, Mr Prime Minister, not spaffing them up the wall in a pointless pissing contest.

  • 0

    Quite how a few people have managed to cow global governments into parting with bank loads of money to subsidize a cause with no real science behind it escapes me completely.



    With lots of evidence.  Gathered over many years, from all around the world.

Community Rules & Guidelines