Reader feedback: December 2018

Reader's respond to November's Lessons Learned, Unfettered blog

Mr. Lipták, I admire the articles you write on control subjects. The current one is no exception, except I have come to different conclusions on global warming using additional data.

I have published a book, Polar Bears in the hot tub—their future and ours. Conclusions of both alarmists and deniers are in error. Consider that temperature seemed to respond to CO2 and greenhouse gases only between 1980 and 2015 (35 years of the 250 years of the industrial revolution).

Temperature rose 10 degrees over the North Pole and 1 over the South Pole; why was it not effective over the South Pole?

Pick any CO2 concentration on the graph from ice core analysis. While temperatures were decreasing to an ice age, that CO2 concentration did not prevent the ice age. On the other side of the peak, that CO2 concentration did not change the rate of increase with more or less CO2. Nor did the highest CO2 concentration prevent the peak from descending into an ice age.

Arctic ice melted before 1920 as recorded by Norway's Doctor Hoel, then recovered to full coverage in 1996 in spite of rising CO2. It melted after 1980, but has now stopped melting, and area and volume are reported to be increasing again.

Polar bears were placed on the Endangered Species list in 2008. Though I have not found a census number for 2008, 10 years later, the population is reported to be stable at some 30,000 bears. Nanut, Canada, wants the bears removed from the list, as there are too many.

I suggest you read the abstract of my book carefully. If I have faulty data I would like to know and make corrections to both data and conclusions.

Arthur H. Krugler, P.E.
President, Krugler Engineering Group Inc.
artkrugler@gmail.com

 
Arthur, I am neither an alarmist nor a denier. I understand that the Arctic warms faster than the Antarctic (both are warming) because the ice in the Arctic is thin and floats in the sea while the ice on Antartica is thick and sits on solid ground.

In general, I accept the findings of the scientific community, because they have more data than I and because I am not smarter than they are. My concern is not the debate between sides, but determining how much help our process control principles could be in analyzing the climate warming process and determining its deadtime, gain, capacitance and tipping point.

Best regards—Béla Lipták

Thanks to Joe Weiss for covering and explaining what happened in the Columbia, Mass., natural gas disaster. I'm surprised there are not relief valves outside each house as a final safety check to make sure the house is not overpressurized. This seems like a simple and inexpensive life safety measure.

John Harrington
john.harrington@highbyte.com


The October 2018 Control Report column, "Good neighborhood," incorrectly identified Endress+Hauser's home nation and the number of organizations in its U.S.-based Community Career+Education Forum (CCEF) program on Sept. 20. Endress+Hauser is based in Switzerland, and CCEF included 30-35 partners.