A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

[4pyros]

Its just fun to talk about

 

[4pyros]

I like this one, it is real, not a scam

 

[Tony Stewart]

I like this one, it is real, not a scam

Aha Magnetic air bearing with a solar PV powered rotor.
It rotates but very little torque.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Bad news for the anti global warming people. I just read an article about scientists reviewing the global warming argument and their conclusion is that although there is some error in the calculation it is not because there is no such thing as man made global warming, it is from a random process. This means the error is just a pickup of noise in the system, which happens to be pulling the numbers down a little at this point in history. Looking over the whole history though shows the general trend is as predicted by several climate models.

To put it another way, imagine we are measuring a voltage in a noisy environment where the average voltage changes slowly with time. We want to figure out what the general trend is of the main voltage generating mechanism and try to ignore the noise. The trouble is, the noise is fairly large relative to what we are measuring. But to state this problem another way, say we have a DC voltage that is increasing from 1v to 10v very slowly, and there is random noise of plus or minus 1v. We measure the voltage at several time points and get the following:
3.0v
4.1v
5.2v
6.0v

so we see it increasing and this agrees with our knowledge about the average voltage increasing.
But looking at the next couple samples we see:
5.9v
5.3v

Does this mean the statement about the average voltage was incorrect? Of course not, what we are seeing is more noise than we did before. Once we see more samples we see:
6.5
7.4
8.9
9.7

so it continues to increase just as we thought.

So the idea is that a temporary dip in the voltage does not discredit the original statement that the average voltage is increasing.

That's just what they determined about the problem of global warming. There is a slight natural trend that shows the prediction is a little high at this time, but the reason for that is the same as above: noise. Once that noise goes away, we'll see a steady rise again.

 

[tcmtech]

And what exactly is wrong with warming things up a bit? Is another .5 degrees added to every single day of the year going to kill you? Or is having 10 really hot days in the summer rather than 5 going to do you harm?

So far throughout recorded history being too cold has caused far more death and problems than being too warm.

The point is so far I hear all this doom and gloom that theoretically supposed to happen yet so far overall weather trends have not shown much of anything anywhere that is outside of the already typical limits of any local or widespread weather/climate variances.

What it has however shown is how politicians will take any grain of dust they can find and run with it until it's sounds like a concern of mountainous proportions just to make a buck or further their own political agenda.

So given that can anyone name me a an actual bona fide and valid drastic negative change that has come about anywhere that actually affects something in some way that has never happened in any measurable time scale and not a 'what if' or 'it could/will eventually happen' theory to back up all the concern?

Just asking.

 

[Ratchit]

Hi,

Bad news for the anti global warming people. I just read an article about scientists reviewing the global warming argument and their conclusion is that although there is some error in the calculation it is not because there is no such thing as man made global warming, it is from a random process. This means the error is just a pickup of noise in the system, which happens to be pulling the numbers down a little at this point in history. Looking over the whole history though shows the general trend is as predicted by several climate models.

To put it another way, imagine we are measuring a voltage in a noisy environment where the average voltage changes slowly with time. We want to figure out what the general trend is of the main voltage generating mechanism and try to ignore the noise. The trouble is, the noise is fairly large relative to what we are measuring. But to state this problem another way, say we have a DC voltage that is increasing from 1v to 10v very slowly, and there is random noise of plus or minus 1v. We measure the voltage at several time points and get the following:
3.0v
4.1v
5.2v
6.0v

so we see it increasing and this agrees with our knowledge about the average voltage increasing.
But looking at the next couple samples we see:
5.9v
5.3v

Does this mean the statement about the average voltage was incorrect? Of course not, what we are seeing is more noise than we did before. Once we see more samples we see:
6.5
7.4
8.9
9.7

so it continues to increase just as we thought.

So the idea is that a temporary dip in the voltage does not discredit the original statement that the average voltage is increasing.

That's just what they determined about the problem of global warming. There is a slight natural trend that shows the prediction is a little high at this time, but the reason for that is the same as above: noise. Once that noise goes away, we'll see a steady rise again.

Now that you determined that the we are in a warming trend, you have to show that man's activities caused it. Remember, we have had warming trends before. It used to be that they could grow wine grapes a lot further north in Europe than they can now. It also cycled to a lot colder, too. It was called it the "Little Ice Age". In the 1970's folks were worried about "nuclear winter". So don't get jerked around by the Chicken Little folks who prosper from grants and subsidies they get from governments and organizations. As I said before, that money puts a lot of dinners on their tables.

Ratch

 

[JoeJester]

Nice example AL.

Now consider what equipment they are using to evaluate the process ....

**broken link removed**

Considering you took a reading of any of your example voltages using the appropriate number of meters from each class ... with the varying degress of accuracy.

Would you have faith in the final number .... expecially if you were talking about a tenth of a volt change? I wouldn't.

 

[cowboybob]

This might give you a better, long term perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Note this graph (The long term ice core record: the last 800,000 years):

Note the red temperature trend for the last 30k years or so. Obviously a warming trend but, something other than human activity at play here...

To take snapshots of processes that have been at work for eons and draw conclusions that blame human activity is the height (IMHO) of scientific chicanery.

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,

There are at least 100 times more scientists that agree that global warming is at least partly due to man's activities, probably more like 1000 times more, and i dont think it is wise of anyone to look at just air temperatures, because in anything this important and complex one parameter is hard to rely on. So it would be silly to think that scientists around the world would do something like look at air temperature alone. And in fact, they dont because they are not stupid as many of you seem to assume. They also look at ocean temperatures.
Also what some of your are suggesting is that scientists are so devious that they all created a conspiracy so they can make money, even though it will disrupt world economics and impair the general well being of millions of people if not more.

But let's say that it is near 50/50, where 50 agree and 50 disagree. It is then a matter of who to believe, or is it?

Lets look at another interesting scenario. You an i and 100 scientists that specialize in quantum gravity take off in a (large) rocket ship destination a recently discovered exoplanet that we are to explore that is known to have unusual gravity fields. So it is you, me, and these 100 special scientists. We land safely and begin the project.

About a week into the project, we all reach a cliff on the planet about 200 feet above the floor below. Now the scientists look at some of their data and 50 declare that we can simply jump off and land below safely and 50 say we'll die. The 50 that say we are ok say that the unusual gravity will slow us down as we reach the bottom and so we'll land without a scratch. The 50 that say we'll die say the unusual gravity will actually speed us up and we'll slam into the planet and surely die.

So 50 say we'll easily survive, no problem, and 50 say we will easily die without any doubt.

So here we are standing at the edge of the cliff, and we would like to get to the bottom so we can inspect one of the most interesting places on the planet.

Which of you takes the jump, and which of you dont jump?

As you can see by this short story, there are situations where once you decide you cant go back and rectify. That means you have to assume responsibility right then and there. In the case of global warming however, you risk not only your own life but the life of all of humanity. If we reach the critical temperature too soon, we wont have had time to develop new ways to handle higher temperatures on Earth, or have had time to colonize other planets. Assuming that global warming is partly mans fault means at least we have a chance.

So i repeat the question here:
Which of you takes the jump, and which of you dont jump?

 

[steveB]

So i repeat the question here:
Which of you takes the jump, and which of you dont jump?

This is the point I always try to make. It's a question of prudence. The bottom line is that at some point in the near future, humans will have doubled the CO2 content in the atmosphere within about a 200 year time period. That is a very rapid change, and we dont really know the consequences of such a change.

Anyone who knows anything about nonlinear systems knows that small changes in critical variables/parameters can drastically change the system dynamics and character. It is possible that beyond a particular threshold, a positive feedback loop is created. Some models show this, and some dont, but the real problem is that no one knows for sure what could be happening now, or what might suddenly happen at some future date when a threshold is hit.

So, my answer is, "Jump with a parachute." It's not practical to just stop all that we are doing. The economy would be devestated and famine, wars and suffering would increase. But, we can responsibly take precautions in a way that stimulates the economy, which is what people are trying to do. We need to develop new technolgies for the future anyway, and it seems wise to minimize our impact on the environment to give more time to understand what the consequences will be.

Overall, the debate is good because it keeps each side from pushing too far in one direction. This is a situation that has to be managed carefully, and no one person or group has all the answers to this.

 

[tcmtech]

Which of you takes the jump, and which of you dont jump?

Seriously? Any good scientist knows that what grad students are for. You just know at least one of them will jump if you offer an A for their efforts.

Or you could just drop something of similar consistency to that of the average human and see if it goes splat when it hits the bottom.

My point is when dealing with reality you rarely only have two choices to work with unless you don't know what you are doing.

 

[Ratchit]

MrAl and steveB,

I don't care how many people say something is so. A consensus of opinion is not proof. And yes, there is a big incentive to promote man made global warming. There are carbon credits to buy and sell. Expensive equipment to manage carbon. Studies and grants to finance. And, what bureaucrats and politicians like the most, government regulation.

Let's talk about CO2 for a bit. Although it is one of the most potent gaseous heat insulators, the Earth's concentration of 300 ppm doesn't seem like much, does it? Considering the huge space between molecules of any gas at 1 atm, and the super low concentration of CO2, there is not much of a heat shield to halt escape back to space, is there? Thankfully, due to our thick atmosphere, some heat does get radiated back to earth so as to give us a warm planet. On Mars, the 1% pressure of Earth atmosphere is over 95% CO2, and it is not very warm there, is it? On Earth, the water vapor in the atmosphere has more of an effect because of its abundant quantity. Are they going to get rid of water vapor, too? They talk about of increased CO2 causing the temp to rise. What is causing what? How about the rising temp being caused by the cyclical increasing solar radiation, and the heated oceans releasing its CO2 that was trapped due to the colder temperature.

And finally, don't forget that we have had warmer periods way before the industrial revolution. So my advice is not to rush to expensive programs and methods until it is proven beyond a doubt what the cause and effect is. Otherwise it is akin to spending ourselves poor preparing for a possible alien invasion from space. After all, it possibly maybe could happen.

Ratch

 

[steveB]

Ratch, I dont know why you name me in your response. I dont have a strong opinion about what science is saying about this subject. As I've said before, I dont have the training and I have not put the time into studying the issue well enough. I'm a highly skeptical person anyway, and even if I spent time on this, I'm not sure I would have a confident opinion. I think this is a hard question and the science is in the too-early stages for my liking. But, it is an important question and the answer does matter significantly to humans.

My basic comments in this thread are about prudence. That is, taking a middle ground position to keep studying and doing basic things to prepare.

I don't care how many people say something is so. A consensus of opinion is not proof. And yes, there is a big incentive to promote man made global warming. There are carbon credits to buy and sell. Expensive equipment to manage carbon. Studies and grants to finance. And, what bureaucrats and politicians like the most, government regulation.

Agreed. A consensus of opinion on either side of the question is not proof. Your opinion is not proof either. Yes, there are incentives on both sides, not just one side.

Let's talk about CO2 for a bit. Although it is one of the most potent gaseous heat insulators, the Earth's concentration of 300 ppm doesn't seem like much, does it? Considering the huge space between molecules of any gas at 1 atm, and the super low concentration of CO2, there is not much of a heat shield to halt escape back to space, is there? Thankfully, due to our thick atmosphere, some heat does get radiated back to earth so as to give us a warm planet. On Mars, the 1% pressure of Earth atmosphere is over 95% CO2, and it is not very warm there, is it? On Earth, the water vapor in the atmosphere has more of an effect because of its abundant quantity. Are they going to get rid of water vapor, too? They talk about of increased CO2 causing the temp to rise. What is causing what? How about the rising temp being caused by the cyclical increasing solar radiation, and the heated oceans releasing its CO2 that was trapped due to the colder temperature.

You are making hand waving arguments. You have no idea what doubling CO2 in the atmosphere migth do in the future. I dont either. I dont think anyone does. Hence, that's why I recommend prudence. Yes, CO2 concentration seems low, but unless you thoroughly understand all processes, you can't predict the consequences. If you dont know, then dont just stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Likewise, if you don't know, then dont overreact and do something harmful. Prudence implies a middle course of action.

And finally, don't forget that we have had warmer periods way before the industrial revolution. So my advice is not to rush to expensive programs and methods until it is proven beyond a doubt what the cause and effect is. Otherwise it is akin to spending ourselves poor preparing for a possible alien invasion from space. After all, it possibly maybe could happen.

Basically, I agree not to rush and overeact and cause harm. However, there are simple precautions that can be taken. Developing new technology and doing simple cost-effective things that reduce carbon emission are prudent things to do, in my opinion. Those things could even have benefits that outweigh drawbacks.

 

[Ratchit]

Ratch, I dont know why you name me in your response. I dont have a strong opinion about what science is saying about this subject. As I've said before, I dont have the training and I have not put the time into studying the issue well enough. I'm a highly skeptical person anyway, and even if I spent time on this, I'm not sure I would have a confident opinion. I think this is a hard question and the science is in the too-early stages for my liking. But, it is an important question and the answer does matter significantly to humans.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't think this is a hard question, just an important one. The very fact that warming periods occurred before the event of high levels of CO2 is good evidence that the CO2 scare is just that, a scare. And, so called high levels of CO2 are really miniscule, even after they are doubled or tripled.

My basic comments in this thread are about prudence. That is, taking a middle ground position to keep studying and doing basic things to prepare.

Except that the powers that be want to spend a lot of money on this "problem". Their reason is prudence, but their purpose is to spend money, your money.

Agreed. A consensus of opinion on either side of the question is not proof. Your opinion is not proof either. Yes, there are incentives on both sides, not just one side.

I am not trying to prove anything. I am instead trying to show that the man-made global alarmists are ignoring some solid evidence against their assertions. Until they can answer the points I brought up, I will not take them seriously.

You are making hand waving arguments. You have no idea what doubling CO2 in the atmosphere migth do in the future. I dont either. I dont think anyone does. Hence, that's why I recommend prudence. Yes, CO2 concentration seems low, but unless you thoroughly understand all processes, you can't predict the consequences. If you dont know, then dont just stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Likewise, if you don't know, then dont overreact and do something harmful. Prudence implies a middle course of action.

Not really. We know from experience that warming has happened before without man caused infusion of CO2, and we know from studies that water vapor has a greater effect than CO2. Therefore, we are not totally without knowledge and reason.

Basically, I agree not to rush and overeact and cause harm. However, there are simple precautions that can be taken. Developing new technology and doing simple cost-effective things that reduce carbon emission are prudent things to do, in my opinion. Those things could even have benefits that outweigh drawbacks.

Being prudent is costing a lot of money and excessive regulation. Will the benefits come to those who paid the price of prudence?

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

Hello again,

I'll have to quote you a little here Steve, sorry about that.

First i would like to point out the problems with some of the arguments i am seeing here.

tcmtech:
Sorry but your reply changes the whole scenario which is not a valid argument. We can not experiment with global warming. Your comment about the grad students is funny though
Rarely two choices, but that's all we have for the global warming problem. Either we accept that it is valid or we dont. I'll explain more about this when i get to my reply to Steve's post.

Ratch:
Again you bring up money when it has already been established (by Steve) that there are money issues on both sides, so that should level the argument to a draw (no win either side).
You also seem to bring up a comparative argument that is not commensurate with the one of global warming. We cant do anything about an alien attack if there was to be one, but if there was to be bad global warming we think we can do something about that.
From your post it does seem like you are hinting at one valid point though, and that is the comparison of the percent of global warming made by man vs the percent of global warming made by nature that we dont have any control over. If it turns out that man made GW is only 10 percent more than natural GW then we only speed up the process by a somewhat small factor. So humanity dies off 10 percent sooner and so we shouldnt worry about it as much as we are now. I think that is valid, except we dont know what the ratio is, i dont think.
Seriously you must believe there is at least some global warming made by man, even if a small percent of natural GW.

Steve:
I think you nailed it with the word, "prudence". That i believe is the key to all of this. Whatever we believe if we choose the one that looks the worst, we loose. If we choose the one that looks best, we believe we will have the best result. So i bring up the following idea...

Just imagine that we have to totally design a new Earth, somewhere out in space where conditions are like that around here. We are planetary engineers and experts on climate change, and we are developing a new Earth. Unfortunately, we are not so advanced so that we only have the models available that are already available here on this Earth, which means we are limited to todays knowledge on climate change even though we know how to design entire planets.
Using some other models not related to climate change, we design an Earth and in simulation we find that the people on the new planet could cause an intense warming of the planet if they perform certain activities. What do we do about this?
We have several models, and some show that this warming is really going to happen, and some dont. Which do we believe?
If this was an engineering setting like that we would have to assume the worst case. We'd either have to redesign the entire planet or we would have to inform the people who will live there not to get carried away with activities that cause more and more warming.

If this was just a circuit design, we'd use the worse case scenario. Remember there could be another alien race that sub contracted this job out to us, and if we fail (warming) then we get sued and loose everything.

I also tend to believe the positive feedback mechanism because of the way heat works in confined x,y,z space. If we heat something up and it has little or no way to loose some of that heat, the temperature rises forever.

Just one more little detail:
If we did have to do that design work above, it is likely that we might sub contract some of the data gathering and analysis to OTHER engineers to make our job go faster. We'd have to believe what they report to us or else we'd have to do the work all over again ourselves. So the bottom line is we have to believe what they tell us, or else we have to do the entire job (not just some of it) ourselves. Also, if we get conflicting reports, we'd have to go with the worst case again.

 

[Ratchit]

Ratch:
Again you bring up money when it has already been established (by Steve) that there are money issues on both sides, so that should level the argument to a draw (no win either side).

What if there are money issues? That only establishes why there is a contention, not whether one party or the other is right or wrong.

You also seem to bring up a comparative argument that is not commensurate with the one of global warming. We cant do anything about an alien attack if there was to be one, but if there was to be bad global warming we think we can do something about that.

Can we really? Not if you don't know what causes it. So far, the best correlation seems to be a solar influence. Can we regulate the solar output of the sun? Do we even dare try it if we could?

From your post it does seem like you are hinting at one valid point though, and that is the comparison of the percent of global warming made by man vs the percent of global warming made by nature that we dont have any control over. If it turns out that man made GW is only 10 percent more than natural GW then we only speed up the process by a somewhat small factor. So humanity dies off 10 percent sooner and so we shouldnt worry about it as much as we are now. I think that is valid, except we dont know what the ratio is, i dont think.
Seriously you must believe there is at least some global warming made by man, even if a small percent of natural GW.

No, I don't think the evidence points to man-made global warming. The statistics don't show it and the explanation is lacking. I am all for cleaning up pollution like sulfur emissions, particulates, fly ash, and other noxious contaminates, however.

Ratch

 

[tcmtech]

Rarely two choices, but that's all we have for the global warming problem. Either we accept that it is valid or we dont.

Thats why I said you only have two choices when you don't know what you are doing and so far the vast majority of scientific analysis has shown that we do not know what we are doing yet.

Scientifically we know that CO2 rise follows temperature change not leads it yet its continually ignored. We know that water vapor has a huge part in temperature regulation yet assume that one of theleeser greenhouse gasss changing its influence by a percent or so is beyond the water vapors ability to adjust for yet it's already known that water vapor can easily make huge adjustments on its own when other factors occasionally affect the overall regulating balance globally.

We know that the suns solar output varies a bit over short and long cycles have measured it and found that it is slightly higher than the levels it was a few decades ago yet ignore that because it does not fit any political/financial agenda.

We know that everyone behind the human influence theory points out every possible worst what if scenario yet so far given the track record and time lines of every prediction so far none of it has happened or even came remotely close having started yet every measurable gain that says things have improved some place gets totally ignored.

What we know. Statistically half the people say the climate warmed up a fraction of a degree. We also know that in complex systems statistics and those who use them can easily be wrong or lie.
We know horrific doomsday scenarios were said to be guaranteed to have happened by this time yet zero have came anywhere close to have occurred and most turn out to have went the opposite way but the vast majority still ignore that fact.

We know from past human history that any degree of slight global cooling drastically makes our lives worse in countless ways and that every indication that when things went above the average temperature for any period of time everything in our human culture greatly improved yet we seem terrified that if things get warmer again bad stuff will happen this time.

Lastly anyone who argues against any of this online typically gets immediately called out on where are your sources as if they are writing a graduation thesis, term paper or official formal report and what not when every single person full well knows that they too can find any of the said info themselves if they got off their lazy butts and did a online search and any degree of unbiased reading on any part or fine detail of any of the topics related to the discussion.

Personally given present verified data past historical data and examples plus personal opinions based on how many times the politicians and doomsday sayers have came up wrong I for one say bring the heat and np I am not showing you my references as to why I say it!

 

[MrAl]

What if there are money issues? That only establishes why there is a contention, not whether one party or the other is right or wrong.

Ratch

Hello,

I dont think i could have said it any better myself. That's why we can not allow the money argument. I dont like it either, but if both are making money, then the argument about money cancels out, yet you keep bringing it up to support your view of no man made warming.

I believe the prudence argument trumps unless you can prove that trying to enforce a change actually makes warming speed up, and i dont think anyone believes that.

 

[MrAl]

Thats why I said you only have two choices when you don't know what you are doing and so far the vast majority of scientific analysis has shown that we do not know what we are doing yet.

Scientifically we know that CO2 rise follows temperature change not leads it yet its continually ignored. We know that water vapor has a huge part in temperature regulation yet assume that one of theleeser greenhouse gasss changing its influence by a percent or so is beyond the water vapors ability to adjust for yet it's already known that water vapor can easily make huge adjustments on its own when other factors occasionally affect the overall regulating balance globally.

We know that the suns solar output varies a bit over short and long cycles have measured it and found that it is slightly higher than the levels it was a few decades ago yet ignore that because it does not fit any political/financial agenda.

We know that everyone behind the human influence theory points out every possible worst what if scenario yet so far given the track record and time lines of every prediction so far none of it has happened or even came remotely close having started yet every measurable gain that says things have improved some place gets totally ignored.

What we know. Statistically half the people say the climate warmed up a fraction of a degree. We also know that in complex systems statistics and those who use them can easily be wrong or lie.
We know horrific doomsday scenarios were said to be guaranteed to have happened by this time yet zero have came anywhere close to have occurred and most turn out to have went the opposite way but the vast majority still ignore that fact.

We know from past human history that any degree of slight global cooling drastically makes our lives worse in countless ways and that every indication that when things went above the average temperature for any period of time everything in our human culture greatly improved yet we seem terrified that if things get warmer again bad stuff will happen this time.

Lastly anyone who argues against any of this online typically gets immediately called out on where are your sources as if they are writing a graduation thesis, term paper or official formal report and what not when every single person full well knows that they too can find any of the said info themselves if they got off their lazy butts and did a online search and any degree of unbiased reading on any part or fine detail of any of the topics related to the discussion.

Personally given present verified data past historical data and examples plus personal opinions based on how many times the politicians and doomsday sayers have came up wrong I for one say bring the heat and np I am not showing you my references as to why I say it!

Hi,

You are saying it's hard to tell who is right or wrong, and i agree.
So what do you think about the engineering prudence argument?

 

[steveB]

... I don't think this is a hard question ...

There is more than one question implied here. There are probably many, but there are two key questions in my mind. I think both questions are hard. Perhaps you can claim that one question is not hard, but I don't think you can claim that both questions are are not hard to answer.

The first question is whether the present level of CO2 increase, which is clearly caused by recent human activity, is impacting the climate now. I think this is a hard question, even though many people think they know the answer and think the question is easy. I can find people on both sides of this issue that feel the question is easy and think they know the answer. Just this fact alone proves it's a hard question. But, really I have no right to argue with you if you say it's an easy question, or if you say it's not a hard one, because I have not devoted the time (and it is a great amount of time required, in my opinion) to understand all existing data and research on this subject. I do research in my own field of study and this takes most of my time.

The second question is whether a continual increasing of the CO2 level (which is clearly going to be caused by human activity) will eventually (in the future) cause a serious problem and maybe an irreversible catastrophic problem. You can't possibly know the answer to this and you can't possibly call this an easy question and I would dismiss anyone with that opinion as completely unreasonable. Well, there is one sense that this could be viewed as an easy question. If we just keep on dumping CO2 in the environment and we wait hundreds of years, then we will know the answer. But, that's the dumb guy's way of making a hard question easy.

If you dismiss this second question, then you reveal your complete ignorance about the difficulties in modeling climate and being sure that you have factored all processes into the calculations. You are showing that you don't understand nonlinear dynamics very well because you don't realize that some nonlinear systems can have critical parameter sensitivities, and small changes can completely alter the character of the system. There can be counterintuitive effects that make changes go backward from what common sense would say, and there can be runaway effects if positive feedback loops are triggered by a critical small change.