EDAboard.com | EDAboard.eu | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | RTV forum PL | NewsGroups PL

OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Wanderer
Guest

Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:04 pm   



My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn
In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole..

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

John Larkin
Guest

Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:35 pm   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
<wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

Quote:
My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.


Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

We are now in a very pleasent, people-friendly, probably transient
warm spell. The average temp of the planet is a lot lower.

It's the small-scale Anthropic Principle: we enjoy a warm, fertile
planet because, if it were in its normal cold state, we'd be dead and
nobody would be around to appreciate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:05 am   



Quote:
There is the famous R-C circuit with voltage gain

www.cypress.com/file/123196

and it seems to me that there ought to be a thermal equivalent. But
we'd still need more stuff to make an oscillator.

There is a thermally-driven u-tube liquid oscillator, but it does
involve mass transport.


We've talked about thermoacoustic fridges here not so long ago. They're magic.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Lasse Langwadt Christense
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:10 am   



Den s√łndag den 8. januar 2017 kl. 23.05.07 UTC+1 skrev pcdh...@gmail.com:
Quote:
There is the famous R-C circuit with voltage gain

www.cypress.com/file/123196

and it seems to me that there ought to be a thermal equivalent. But
we'd still need more stuff to make an oscillator.

There is a thermally-driven u-tube liquid oscillator, but it does
involve mass transport.

We've talked about thermoacoustic fridges here not so long ago. They're magic.


https://youtu.be/lfmrvxB154w

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:47 am   



On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.


Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

Quote:

We are now in a very pleasent, people-friendly, probably transient
warm spell. The average temp of the planet is a lot lower.


Cheers

Phil Hobbs



--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:17 am   



On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 3:35:15 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn
In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."


Nice story. The fact that the Arctic Ocean doesn't have to melt in an interglacial - and hasn't for most of this one - demonstrates that it's more a fable than a story.

Quote:
Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.


Except that it doesn't. The effect that leads to a lot of snow being occasionally dumped further south than usual is a occasional kink in the jet stream, rather then any kind of snow-dumping conveyor belt.

Quote:
Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on.


Not that it ever did in any previous ice age. That's doesn't seem to be the way the changeover works.

> I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

We've injected a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's going to be turned to carbonate rock in due course, which takes tens of thousands of years.

> >So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years.

2.58 million years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

> I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we knew about it 40 years ago.

Actually, we didn't. Asimov was improvising.

Quote:
Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

We are now in a very pleasant, people-friendly, probably transient
warm spell. The average temp of the planet is a lot lower.

It's the small-scale Anthropic Principle: we enjoy a warm, fertile
planet because, if it were in its normal cold state, we'd be dead and
nobody would be around to appreciate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


A bit silly, even for John. Modern humans go back to the previous interglacial.

The Mitochondrial Eve lived between 152 and 234 thousand years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

There's a fairly convincing argument that humans evolved language and culture in order to be able adapt faster to the alternations between ice and age and interglacials than their predecessors could. They certainly ended up living - and thriving - in a lot of very different environments.

Modern industrial society has yet to show itself to be equally flexible. Most of it has discovered anthropogenic global warming - John Larkin is an exception - but nobody is doing enough to stop it getting worse.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:26 am   



On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 6:48:03 AM UTC+11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quote:
On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:


<snip>

Quote:
Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? Wink


I was a chemist once, and I've certainly ticked off John for making the mistake of claiming that all positive feedbacks drive system to their limits, which is - of course - denying that they cause oscillations, since a "pegged" system isn't oscillating.

Quote:
We are now in a very pleasant, people-friendly, probably transient
warm spell. The average temp of the planet is a lot lower.


All true. The transient warm spell which we are bringing on by burning a lot of fossil carbon and dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere is going to be transient, but the geological process of turning all the CO2 into carbonate rock and burying them is going to take quite bit longer than the average interglacial, and probably longer than the average ice age.

John Larkin is weak on quantitative thinking. His qualitative thinking isn't too impressive either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Larkin
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:27 am   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? Wink


There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg


I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:32 am   



On Monday, January 9, 2017 at 7:27:42 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn
In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg


I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection

The oscillation is spatial, rather than temporal, unless you look at it from the point of view of chunk of the fluid that is convecting.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Phil Hobbs
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:34 am   



On 01/08/2017 03:27 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg


I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.



Steam engines. ;)

But in the absence of mass motion, heat flow is governed by a PDE that's
first order in time and has real-valued coefficients, so it doesn't give
rise to imaginary exponentials. (Schroedinger is first order in time as
well, but has an i in it, so it has no real-exponential solutions.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

John Larkin
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:58 am   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 15:34:41 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 01/08/2017 03:27 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg


I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.



Steam engines. ;)

But in the absence of mass motion, heat flow is governed by a PDE that's
first order in time and has real-valued coefficients, so it doesn't give
rise to imaginary exponentials. (Schroedinger is first order in time as
well, but has an i in it, so it has no real-exponential solutions.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


There is the famous R-C circuit with voltage gain

www.cypress.com/file/123196

and it seems to me that there ought to be a thermal equivalent. But
we'd still need more stuff to make an oscillator.

There is a thermally-driven u-tube liquid oscillator, but it does
involve mass transport.





--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics


Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:31 am   



On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

Quote:
On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? Wink


Now, *that's* funny!

whit3rd
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:15 am   



On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 12:27:42 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs

There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg

I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.


True, the quasi-periodic fires in California's brushlands are not purely
thermal (there's a biological growth/deadwood element).

More generally applicable, is the accumulation of instability: any slight
fire (human or natural) causes an abnormally high response, if the last
fire in the area was many years ago... but not if all the brush
burned last year.

That kind of instability gives rise to catastrophes, and is a compelling reason
for controlled burns to limit the brush accumulations. In the 1970s, it
wasn't known that CO2 accumulation would occur (sinks, like ocean uptake, weren't
quantified until later). We're currently seeking ways to limit CO2 accumulation.

rickman
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:30 am   



On 1/8/2017 2:47 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Quote:
On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? Wink


Interesting concept that oscillations of the earth's temperature are
caused by "external forcings". I believe in the Greek tragedies they
called that deus ex machina.

I find it especially amusing that John seems to think mankind won't
survive an ice age. I don't know the ice ages killed off so many
animals really. Certainly one which is not only warm blooded, but able
to use external devices (think fire) to control body temperature has a
significant advantage over the tree lemurs.

There are poikilotherms and homeotherms. I wonder what you call
organisms that regulate body temperature by burning dinosaurs?

Even funnier is the idea that an engineer analyzing climate makes fun of
a noted science writer because he was trained as a chemist. Talk about
irony.

--

Rick C

rickman
Guest

Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:30 am   



On 1/8/2017 3:27 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 14:47:59 -0500, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless_at_electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 01/08/2017 11:35 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 08:04:21 -0800 (PST), Wanderer
wanderer_at_dialup4less.com> wrote:

My favorite thing written on climate change was written by Isaac Asimov for the February 22, 1975 issue of the TV Guide and called "The Weather Machine". It was reprinted as "The Big Weather Change" in "The Beginning and the End" a collection of Isaac Asimov essays.

Now I'm posting this because I think people should be reading this book. You can get the book here.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&an=Asimov&tn=The+Beginning+and+the+End&kn=&isbn=

In the essay, Asimov writes,

"During the last million years, the world has seen huge oscillations of warm and cold. Sometimes the Arctic Ocean is open water and then it supplies water vapor which falls on the surrounding land areas as snow. If there is then a small drop in general temperature for a prolonged stretch of time not all the snow that falls each winter will melt each summer.

The snow then accumulates from year to year and squeezes down under its own weight to form glaciers. The glacier ice reflects Sunlight more efficiently than bare ground does and cools the Earth further, so that still less of the snow that falls in the winter is melted, and the glaciers advance southward.

Eventually, the temperature drops to the point where the Arctic Ocean freezes over and the supply of water vapor is cut off. Less snow falls, so that the summer melting becomes more effective and the glaciers begin to retreat. The retreat reduces the ice cover, allows the Earth to warm, and accelerates the retreat further. When it grows warm enough for the ice on Arctic Ocean to melt, it starts all over."

Now look at this graph from the EPA. It shows the CO2/Temperature cycle without the human effect.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2016-07/co2temp800kyrs-large.jpg

I see a triangle wave with some disturbances and noise on it and starting around 450 thousand years ago. The present day is right at the point where the North Pole melts and turns on the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine.

Of course humans have had an effect and that is shown in this graph.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg

But what does that change? The Arctic Ice Cap is still going to melt and the Arctic Ocean's snow making machine is still going to turn on. I think it would just change the period of the triangle wave. Instead of the Arctic Ice Cap returning in 100,000 years, it might return in a million years or it might never return. We end up with stable halo of ice around the North Pole.

So when I see these ding dongs yelling, "The North Pole is melting! Science! Science! Scary! Scary! Gives us $100 billion/year and we'll save you!" I think it's bullshit. You're not going to stop the North Pole from melting and the North Pole melting doesn't prove anything. That's just part of the natural cycle that's been going on for half a million years. I also think the bozos yelling, "It's colder and snowing more this winter! We've have nothing to worry about!" No, that's what happens when the North Pole melts and it is going to get worse. What makes all this nonsense worse is that we new about it 40 years ago.

Asimov did the too-common thing of assuming that feedbacks always
cause oscillation. Control theory is real and involves more than
qualitative speculation. The "oscillations" are more likely to be
caused by external forcings.

Well, he was a chemist, so what do you expect? ;)

There are only a few cases of chemical oscillations. They are
extremely rare, so Asimov should have been biased towards gradual
equilibrium.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gyzhvMLImg


I don't know of any cases of purely thermal heat-driven oscillations.


What??? Try looking outside your window!!!

--

Rick C

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: Climate Change, Isaac Asimov and the 1975 TV Guide

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic versionBulgarian versionCatalan versionCzech versionDanish versionGerman versionGreek versionEnglish versionSpanish versionFinnish versionFrench versionHindi versionCroatian versionIndonesian versionItalian versionHebrew versionJapanese versionKorean versionLithuanian versionLatvian versionDutch versionNorwegian versionPolish versionPortuguese versionRomanian versionRussian versionSlovak versionSlovenian versionSerbian versionSwedish versionTagalog versionUkrainian versionVietnamese versionChinese version
RTV map EDAboard.com map News map EDAboard.eu map EDAboard.de map EDAboard.co.uk map