• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Johnny75 said:
So you wait and see if things can work before you build them? Or would you advocate building them first and then tracking the empirical data? If you have just one test method then that makes you very closed indeed. I don't agree with Vis most of the time but he has a point about people who find knowledge and those that just post about it.
Click to expand...

We commit to building something after we have evidence that it will likely work. That includes modeling of well understood systems compared to the earth system. Almost every electronic device you use will have spent product development life cycle in a simulator. A peer review process is also in place. One of the big deals now is thermal management, a real reason to cut power consumption.
Tweaks before large scale production are inevitable. This is where empirical measurement is required.
What we don't want is product recall or violation of the constantly growing global regulation regime.
Climate science remains theoretical and cannot model the whole system with precision.
Even if the carbon dioxide hypothesis has any credibility at miniscle concentations nothing of significance can happen unless large positive feedbacks can be found with regard to water vapour and the global surface heatsink called the oceans. Someone seems to have forgotten the school boy physics of energy required to force state change, of water inparticular.
Parametrically water is significant in the SI system of old.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
We commit to building something after we have evidence that it will likely work. That includes modeling of well understood systems compared to the earth system. Almost every electronic device you use will have spent product development life cycle in a simulator. A peer review process is also in place. One of the big deals now is thermal management, a real reason to cut power consumption.
Tweaks before large scale production are inevitable. This is where empirical measurement is required.
What we don't want is product recall or violation of the constantly growing global regulation regime.
Climate science remains theoretical and cannot model the whole system with precision.
Even if the carbon dioxide hypothesis has any credibility at miniscle concentations nothing of significance can happen unless large positive feedbacks can be found with regard to water vapour and the global surface heatsink called the oceans. Someone seems to have forgotten the school boy physics of energy required to force state change, of water inparticular.
Parametrically water is significant in the SI system of old.
Click to expand...

You back my point up to start with then, you may build something you think might work. Therefore your theories should be robust enough to lean in both directions and not vehemently in one or other. I understand some of the science but I do understand the rhetoric on either side and I don't understand why you wont believe some of the science put to you (or Vis for that matter). As for the energy debate you clearly have a very limited idea on energy generation and maybe you should consider alternatives rather than your blind opinion of only your way. I am not saying you're wrong but have you thought that maybe others might have some evidence that you are.

I think this runs the same way with Vis as all that I have read on this through the thread comes through you two (or seems that way) and it looks like belief in a religion rather than a fact.

Energy conservation and thermal management in electronics may be new but it's about 5 years in the thinking in automotive and in particular HVAC and electrical storage for those damn batteries governments insist on new cars having to run them (although I know of at least two car manufacturers which say it is just added tax as they have data which shows electric cars PLC is harder on the environment than the ICE).
 
Johnny75 said:
You back my point up to start with then, you may build something you think might work. Therefore your theories should be robust enough to lean in both directions and not vehemently in one or other. I understand some of the science but I do understand the rhetoric on either side and I don't understand why you wont believe some of the science put to you (or Vis for that matter). As for the energy debate you clearly have a very limited idea on energy generation and maybe you should consider alternatives rather than your blind opinion of only your way. I am not saying you're wrong but have you thought that maybe others might have some evidence that you are.

I think this runs the same way with Vis as all that I have read on this through the thread comes through you two (or seems that way) and it looks like belief in a religion rather than a fact.

Energy conservation and thermal management in electronics may be new but it's about 5 years in the thinking in automotive and in particular HVAC and electrical storage for those damn batteries governments insist on new cars having to run them (although I know of at least two car manufacturers which say it is just added tax as they have data which shows electric cars PLC is harder on the environment than the ICE).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply, I will try to answer each in turn:
"You back my point up to start with then, you may build something you think might work." - Like I said it will work with maybe some tweak prior to production.
"Therefore your theories should be robust enough to lean in both directions and not vehemently in one or other." - I'm my own worst critic, product design requires multicylical analysis before deciding on a prefered solution. The team will have to be convinced too.
"I understand some of the science but I do understand the rhetoric on either side and I don't understand why you wont believe some of the science put to you" - First I have no personal issue with Vis. I'm not religious and do not have a belief system, pile the maths and physics in front of me and I will take notice.
"Energy conservation and thermal management in electronics may be new" - Is it heck, how do you think mobile 'phones became possible? The first project I worked on in 1988 after graduation had maximum standby current of 10uA and an 2 second operating cylce at 14mA, I can't remember the duty cycle. The device had to run for 1 year off a DL223 battery. These days I find it tough because I'm trying to shovel a lot of high bandwidth stuff about.
Like I've said before, energy consumption reduction can be driven through products that people actually want not 'political engineering'.
 
Last edited:
We can really influence this:

image3.png


So your parliamentarians think, muppets.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it just. I get fed up when people tell me how to do my job when they know nothing about my job or how I arrived at my results in said job. Frustrated doesn't cover it.

Out of interest Vis and not knowing enough about climate change, is it possible that the human race could slow this or is it a horse that's bolted?
 
Johnny75 said:
Isn't it just. I get fed up when people tell me how to do my job when they know nothing about my job or how I arrived at my results in said job. Frustrated doesn't cover it.

Out of interest Vis and not knowing enough about climate change, is it possible that the human race could slow this or is it a horse that's bolted?
Click to expand...

The biggest problem that we face is that there are certain stores of carbon that are currently locked away, such as CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and in permafrost. Once temperature rises to a certain point then that CO2 starts to be released, so you get a positive feedback - warming -> CO2 release -> more warming, more CO2 released and so on.

We're not there yet, and there's considerable debate as to when it might happen. I think the current best estimate is that CO2 emissions need to peak by around 2020/2025 and then start to fall. The problem is that CO2 is very stable, so stays in the atmosphere for a long time, so even if we somehow stopped emitting right now, temperature would continue to rise.

Sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-carbon-collapsing-coastal-permafrost-arctic.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/events/seas/Feb2009/MacDonaldSEAS2009.pdf
 
Apols for going off topic, but I've always found new scientist to be an awesome read.
As a non-scientist, their work is interesting, relevant & acessible.
Always used to buy their editions about the brain and/or artificial intelligence.
Still got a collection knocking about at home...
 
I'd always understood methane trapped in the ice (ie methane hydrates) was considered a bigger concern as it's a more potent greenhouse gas but I could be a few years out of date.
 
You're right. Less of it, but more damaging.
 
Indeed. One of those nasty feedback loop systems.

Ice melts, releases methane, earth heats up more, more ice melts, more methane escapes.
 
Visage said:
The biggest problem that we face is that there are certain stores of carbon that are currently locked away, such as CO2 dissolved in the oceans, and in permafrost. Once temperature rises to a certain point then that CO2 starts to be released, so you get a positive feedback - warming -> CO2 release -> more warming, more CO2 released and so on.

We're not there yet, and there's considerable debate as to when it might happen. I think the current best estimate is that CO2 emissions need to peak by around 2020/2025 and then start to fall. The problem is that CO2 is very stable, so stays in the atmosphere for a long time, so even if we somehow stopped emitting right now, temperature would continue to rise.

Sources:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought.html
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-carbon-collapsing-coastal-permafrost-arctic.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/events/seas/Feb2009/MacDonaldSEAS2009.pdf
Click to expand...

Indeed. Some people think we've already reached the tipping point, some think we still have time to reverse things. No-one really knows for sure until after it happens.
 
The Bear said:
Indeed. Some people think we've already reached the tipping point, some think we still have time to reverse things. No-one really knows for sure until after it happens.
Click to expand...

Which is why acting now is imperative. Get it wrong and we've wasted money. Bad, but we'll cope.

Or we can gamble that we're mistaken, and the climate will fix itself. But get that wrong and mankind will quite literally be dead. Extinct.
 
Water vapour feedbacks? Lindzen and co see net negative.
Extinct? Sometime but not any time soon, that is alarmist cobblers. The precautionary principle is entirely politically motivated. I'll post more later.
I'm astounded that people cannot understand that the earth system is increadibly stable despite large step changes in the past. If this wasn't the case then complex intelligent life would not have evolved. Ice ages will continue to come and go, just enjoy the interglacial.
 
Last edited:
The Bear said:
Indeed. Some people think we've already reached the tipping point, some think we still have time to reverse things. No-one really knows for sure until after it happens.
Click to expand...

That's not quite correct. Some people are sure. But that's not the same as being right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top