Going green

My goodness Roger, someone agrees with me!

? I don't think I disagree with you just need to press a few buttons and see what pops out of the vending machine of ideas.  I'm not convinced about either case in the short term  really.  I can see that there will always be flutuations in weather and climate.


But, I am interested in how human activity can be attributed to fires in California and South Eastern Australia and then end up in someones PHD study as an arguement for the abolishment of global warming, (as if human beings can demand that the weather behaves itself)  then throw in volcanic erruptions and earthquakes in Iceland, Caribean, Meditereanian, the pacific ring  and Indonesia, respectively. Then there is the occasional meteorite bombardment. 


I think we do more damage to ourselves by becoming neurotic and then complaining too much about things we have absolutely no control over.


Then there is something called the green issue !.

How on this earth is the solution to solving this country's problems by planting a million trees per year a sensible idea beats me. I thought we wanted to discourage flooding not start a bl****y rainforest....

Ok Leigh, you pressed the right buttons.


The problem with these fires is not warming but humans. Many people have built in grassland / tree covered areas, with the danger of vehicle sparks, electricity  infrastructure which can produce showers of sparks, and about a third are caused deliberately. Once one starts it is very difficult to control if there is a significant wind, so campers, the odd barbecue, and even smoking are serious risks. About 20 million extra people live in California, many in these kind of areas and so the incidence has risen. A 1 degree change would not have any effect when the ignition temperature of grass etc is at least 300 degrees Centigrade, that is just rubbish without any basis at all.


This whole subject is so politicised that reasonable discussion is very difficult, and has become a faith. For example the statement "97% of scientists agree" is complete rubbish, a proper study of papers has shown that this number might be as much as 10% with a huge number of maybe or don't knows added in as greenwash. An ENORMOUS amount of money has been spent by governments on research, and to keep the flow going there is a huge political campaign backing up the dangers of runaway climate change. This is imaginary and cannot happen, because if it could it would have happened several times in the past, so we would not exist! American spending is suggested to be about $2 trillion dollars to date, so why stop the bus?


On you tube you can watch Lord Monckton giving good talks on the real situation, and why the alleged computer models have it all wrong, shown by the fact they have so far been much too hot , and we can measure the current temperature. I gave him some mathematical input at one time on feedback systems and what happens when the loop is not stable, and this is pretty much the problem with the computer models. They have a feedback factor which is seriously positive when the measured value suggests that it is less than one, giving ridiculous output for sensible inputs. Not the only problem, but one of them.


Anyway look at Monckton and also Wattsupwiththat.com and you may begin to get some understanding.


Regards


David  CEng MIET

They have a feedback factor which is seriously positive when the measured value suggests that it is less than one, giving ridiculous output for sensible inputs. Not the only problem, but one of them.


Anyway look at Monckton and also Wattsupwiththat.com and you may begin to get some understanding.

Well, my understanding of simple closed loop positive feedback systems generally leads to resonance....I can't imagine that the world's climate is purely a closed loop system although adjustments do take place over time periods beyond out life time scales. We are looking at far more complex systems with numerous uncontrolled short term variables popping in from time to time...


I'll have a look at Wattsupwiththat at some point.


Legh

When you say resonance do you mean oscillation? The way this works is that the positive feedback increases the output which increases the output etc. until a limiting condition is reached and this may the reverse the cycle leading to oscillation. A non oscillatory positive feedback is the electronic Schmidt trigger circuit, where a small change in input leads to saturation in one state or the other, used to convert small signals to logic levels. In the climate software models the feedback is a bit more complex, because there is quite a low gain and no saturation, and the term feedback is not the exact description of the process. It is more like some input parameter being amplified by a fixed gain depending on the current state of the calculation. In other words the CO2 level is fed back to make the impact of the temperature greater than a direct calculation might make. Many scientist think that the actual figure is not dependent on the CO2 level so this term is distorting the modeled output level, proved because all the models predict higher temperatures than we observe as the CO2 level has risen. Further discussion needs a trip into thermodynamics which you may not want to do....

I think I know the difference between a simple ADC or limit switch and an oscillator. I'm thinking an uncontrolled feedback system  that causes a growing oscillation which eventually goes into saturation. Even this as a closed loop system has its limits so doesn't fit into any realistic world model.

Don't have too much knowledge regarding thermodynamics except where it affects electrical systems and that is rather sketchy. Although I'm still interested and I'm sure there are others who'd also be interested to hear your views on climate change and global warming.


Legh