Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - NeilT

Pages: [1]
Policy and solutions / Nice article in Wired
« on: August 18, 2016, 12:52:47 PM »
About  Brian Cox debating with Australian Politician Malcom Roberts.

I particularly liked his reference to Empirical evidence but I'd dearly have loved him to add a bit more of the paragraph which defines it.  He uses this part.

Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

However in the meaning paragraph below.

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions

This leads me into an image I've borrowed from Joe Romm's site.

Policy and solutions / Just who's job is it to make people aware
« on: May 30, 2016, 04:21:47 PM »
On the arctic melting thread meddoc alluded to the fact that because we're watching, analysing, sharing and reporting, that it should be our job to influence and educate.

It is not our job to influence.  Although we may if we wish engage ourselves in such activities.

Let me expand on my own personal hobby horse about politics, events about our lives and how people respond to them.

Right now the UK is going through a referendum on their membership of the EU.  The vast majority of the people, at least 90%, know absolutely nothing about the EU, it's treaties, how the government works or what the hell they are actually voting for.  The press and the government and all the government controlled institutions are selling a "soft soap" story which combines the best possible view mixed with half truths and outright lies.

How many of the people, confused and unable to choose, actually go to the information, even though they are pointed to it and find out for themselves?

Less than 1% I'd say.

This is something that will impact them directly, immediately, in every walk of daily life, now and for the next 20 - 30 years.

They don't care.  They just want someone to take the decision for them.

Now take that and add it to the Climate Change issue and you realise what kind of battle we are facing.

Most people will not take on that kind of life sucking challenge.  I take my hat off to those who have the conscience and will to do so.

But, please, don't try and present the picture that we need to urgently go out there and lobby our politicians based on the amateur observations of data presented by the professionals.  We will be treated like the people who view the photo's of Mars and believe they spotted Pyramids.

Some of us believe we must and follow that belief.  Others are interested in educating themselves.  Others still are just interested and that is where this site belongs.

Policy and solutions / Judging the success of the policies and solutions
« on: February 13, 2016, 11:55:10 PM »
I was looking back through the Kyoto protocol and the goals and activities of the signatory countries and then trying to map the trend to the success criteria.

In short Kyoto was supposed to stop CO2e growth in it's tracks then, over time, we could work on reducing it.

The reality is somewhat different although I'm only measuring CO2 and not CO2e as I don't have the charts for that, however we know that methane is on the rise well above expectations in the cryosphere, so it's hard to believe it will all be lower.

Checking the NOAA figures for Global CO2 I see the following decadal averaged annual increases in CO2 globally rounded up to one decimal place.

1980's 1.6
1990's 1.5
2000's 1.9

The 2010's, so far, is running at 2.3 for 6 years with the largest rise ever recorded in a single year (3.01), recorded for 2015.

So after all those energy efficient lightbulbs which destroy our vision, all those EV cars, all the Solar installed, wind farms installed and all the Biomas installed, plus all the other bits and pieces, fuel efficiency in cars etc....

We are, today, globally, producing close to 1ppm MORE CO2 every year, on decadal average, than we did when the protocol was signed.

Personally I'd call this an absolute and abject failure of policy, of taxes and of our control of the future for our children and grandchildren.

Personally, every time someone gets up on the TV and talks about what they are doing to curb CO2 growth, I just want to shout LIAR.

I'd also like to know how the EU can justify a 50% tariff on imported Chinese solar components, in order to prop up an expensive and struggling German business producing them, when they are abjectly failing in their goals to reduce global emissions...

Walking the walk / Open to destruction of an idea
« on: February 12, 2015, 09:39:06 AM »
Nearly two years ago I posed a theoretical question to an idea of mine.  Namely that if I was able to harness the power of gravity to generate energy, would the government allow me to sell it?

OK so the discussion was vague and there were loads of "possibles".  Since then, offline through discussions, I've had to learn maths to explain my idea.  Apparently people who work with science can't read a diagram and say "yeah I see that", they say "you can't create energy, so prove it but you can't prove it because you can't create energy".

I never said I could create energy.   In a rather heated discussion with my brother, he told me that the way he would approach this is to try and destroy my idea every way possible and what is left, if it still works, is correct.

I recognise that this is good science.  Sadly I can't.  I've learned over the years that I don't see mechanical things they way other people do.  Just the way some people see languages as physical constructs and I see it as a total abstract created to convey ideas.  If it were a physical thing, there could only be one language.

OK so, after having to beat my brains out to learn some maths and physics I never learned at School, I can present my idea in one simple concept.  What I would like you to do is rip it to shreds for me.   That's why I have posted it.  A sort of crowd sourced scientific destruction session.  This is why it's in Walk the Walk.  After all this entire discussion is in the public domain....  I'm willing to take the ridicule to find out if what I see is right or if what I see is wrong.

If you'll bear with me for a few short paragraphs more, I'd like to explain the fundamental difference between my idea and many of the 0 net energy ideas out there.  It might help, it might not.

There are dozens of ideas out there which claim that they can use the power of gravity, whether in or out of water (other than something like a water mill), to create perpetual energy.  All of them, without fail, have one thing in common.  The energy they store in their wonderful contraptions is all moving in one direction.  So your energy balances out.

The energy I store in my idea works in the opposite direction to the initiating force.  Let me be a bit clearer here.  Gravity only works in one direction.  However the Effect of gravity can be felt in an opposite direction depending on the place and the medium.

Therefore allowing you to use the effect of the stored force to act with, not against the force creating the stored energy. 

OK that is one way of stating it but let's try it another way.

There is a place on this planet where the effect of gravity is  mirrored.  Just like any mirror, equilibrium is where the two meet.  Think of it as two reservoirs of gravity, both moving towards the middle.  If I take energy from the middle of one field, say the top one (falling) and transfer it to the middle of the lower field (rising), through a direct mechanical linkage, then I can use the energy of both fields to create more stored energy.  So long as neither forces (original and stored) reaches equilibrium, they continue to generate force and if I allow something to move (not necessarily both forces), then I can store more energy.  By allowing movement, I can stop the lower force acting on the upper force until I choose to do so.

OK that is the mechanics of it.

In physics it can simply be expressed as this.

I take the energy of mgd and store it as a force by generating pvg (fully submersed buoyant object).

After having created the pvg, I use simple mechanics to remove the force of mgd from the first buoyant object and apply it to another object which is non buoyant.  I also allow the force of the newly created buoyant object to act on the non buoyant object at the same time.  mgd continues to force the non buoyant object down onto a fixed point, pvd resists the downwards movement of the non buoyant object.  Both forces are applied to a piston inside the non buoyant object.  In short, the non buoyant object moves down and the water is ejected from it by the piston.  The size of the piston and the shape of the non buoyant object must be such that the pressure generated (f/a) is greater than the ambient outside pressure (1atmoshpere+additional pressure at depth of a liquid, water).

So long as the falling object mgd does not meet equilibrium, it will continue to create new buoyant objects.  So long as the buoyant objects do not meet equilibrium, they will continue to provide force additional to the force of the mgd falling object.

In reality the work is created by the fact that both the mgd falling object and the additional non buoyant objects continue to fall, using the force of mgd and the force of the static pvg to eject the water and create a buoyant object.

The relationship is this.

The falling object is 1000kg
Each non buoyant object is a chamber which contains 100kg of water
Inside the non buoyant object, The 100kg of water is ejected by a piston (integral to the object)
The weight of the buoyant object is considered to be 10kg depending on materials required to resist a maximum of 2 standard atmospheres
as the mgd object continues to fall, the force of the buoyant objects increases in 90kg increments.
The force of the pvg is only felt by the non buoyant objects until the force of pvg is greater than the original 1000kg force used for our mgd.  At that point, the force of pvd is connected directly to the original, upper, force of 1000kg mgd.

As the generated pvg is now greater than the original mgd, the whole assembly will rise.

Destroying the pvg is nothing more than flooding.  I'm sure I don't have to explain that mathematically???

I'll draw a diagram next, but not till tonight, UK time, because there is something else I want to have opened up to scrutiny and I'd like that to be in a diagram which shows the principle and I'd like to know why the numbers don't add up.

During trying to attack my idea I found one startling fact which I would like destroyed.  I don't think I'm Dominic Mpemba so I'd like the maths to work properly.  It has no real bearing on the fundamental workings of the idea, but it is rather disconcerting anyway.

After all you can't create energy.

Science / GCM data and code
« on: September 01, 2014, 12:25:44 AM »
I was reading the statements on the 2014 melting season thread and thought I create this one here.

Over the years I've read quite a lot about the models used for GCM and I've noted that RealClimate has a page dedicated to the presentation of the model code and the data used.

That page is here.  The more specific model being talked about is the GISS GCM ModelE used by the IPCC.

Now I'm not a scientist but I've spent quite a lot of my life writing code and also interpreting peoples requirements. As far as I can see, the models are physical models which take input data and apply both rules and physics to produce results.  Gavin Schmidt has talked about this many times if you want to search RC.

I believe it would make sense to read the descriptions, if not the code, to understand what these models are doing.  To my understanding they are models which work over hundreds or thousands of years to predict the physical interaction of the climate to the introduction of modifying factors such as greenhouse gasses.  They take into account reflectants, sea heat absorbtion inertia and many other factors.

However they are not a tool to say what the climate will be like one decade from now.  They are not a tool to predict tipping points or even sudden change. They are a tool to give a broad overview of the changes which will happen in the following centuries.

Of course they rely heavily on the mechanics of how the earth climate changes and what it releases in terms of natural gasses which impact the climate.  They even include ocean acidification and breakdown of the ability to absorb CO2.  They are very sophisticated.

However, only time will tell as to how accurate they are and also they will continue to evolve every year.  Even the politicians cannot avoid the fact that even the models become worse at every adjustment which includes new data on climate impacts of GHG increases.

That is their role.  Not to predict what will happen in the Arctic or with Arctic ice over the next decade.  Although they can do that too, but with the expected variance in results and reality....

Just my twopenneth worth.

Which would generate 5-7kw of energy (for a reasonable sized installation), 24x7x365, regardless of weather or sunlight.  Which could be installed in any home which had, perhaps, 2 sq meters of spare space to be used.

Given that I'm not just going to give the idea away.

Who would even listen to me or work with me on it to develop the idea??

Then, much more importantly, could the Government allow me to sell a device which could, possibly, completely do away with the grid for home users???

This is, of course, assuming that I'm right in my idea. But it would be nice to get it out of my head and into some sort of verification.

So far I've seen that the University of Southampton will "verify" your ideas, so long as you come up with enough thousands of £, but nobody wants to advertise that they are willing to partner in the development of "off the wall" ideas.

I noticed today that the graph now goes over 34C.  It used to peak at 32.

I'm wondering if this is driven by observed temps or by expectation???

Pages: [1]