Coal being phased out

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Very good Bill. Liquid sunshine power!

Yes I forgot about the solar hotwater heaters that are just about standard equipment here these days. Saves a fortune on power or gas bills. Both of which have gone through the roof since our various governments in their wisdom privatised them. Don't fall for that one in the UK if you haven't already. The free market and competition have not, in our sad experience, led to lower prices, but to monopolies, duopolies and price gouging. Surprise surprise!

[Bill Davies 2Participant @billdavies2]

I fully agree, Hopper. I think it was Thatcher (and Reagan) that kicked off the privatisation thing. The UK suffers with near-monoplies dominating various services, plus the inability of these separate units working together. Our railways are a prime example. Our public sector is by no means perfect, and significants cuts has caused much harm, but private sector firms hide behind secrecy (commercial confidence) and use their wealth to sway governments from providing for the greater good. But this another rabbit hole for us to chase down.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

It is a shame that Dinorwig is mostly powered by fossil fuels for most of the time. Dinorwig was not installed to save energy – it was just to reduce the primary generation during peak periods. It simply used cheap base load power during the night and then ‘regenerated’ less power at peak usage. Renewables have come along (much) later.[

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Derek Lane on 25/02/2020 09:36:14:

Someone with more knowledge than myself may know the answer to this question.

If the weather is down to us humans how long does it take for the "pollution" to take effect in changing the weather, if this weather that we are having now was caused by all the smoke and smog of the victorian era then with all that has been done so far must contribute to reducing the weather?

I'll have a go at a partial answer at least with the caviat that this is my understanding only and I am not a climate scientist. Broadly speaking :-

Prior to large scale 'biology' on the planet global temperatures were determined by solar irradience, albedo (ration of radiation absorbed to reflected) and the insulating properties of the atmosphere which varies according to composition. This was a dynamic system which oscillated wildly with positive and negative feedback loops.

With the advent of large scale biology additional feedback loops arose that had the effect of stabilising the climate.

Vulcanism (generating dust in the atmosphere), geological subduction (recycling of carbonates again through vulcanism) and variations on solar output and mean orbital radius shifted the equilibrium from time to time.

As with any regulating system biology (mostly plants) can only cope with a certain degree of disturbance. The human emissions of CO2 for much of the last 200 years was within the level that the biosphere along with oceanic absorption could cope with. In recent decades atmospheric CO2 has pushed the regulating mechanisms beyond capacity and the result has been a rapid rise (in geological terms) of global temperatures.

To go back to the original question (with all that has been done so far must contribute to reducing the weather?):-

What has been done so far is to reduce the rate at which CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere with the ambition of halting net additional CO2 by 2050 or before. This has already 'baked in a probable rise in temperature of 3 to 4 degees by 2100 at which point, hopefully we get to a new equilibrium. We are already at around +1.5 degree's. In order to reverse the rises our only lever is to draw down CO2 and there are currently no large scale methodologies of doing that although people are trying. So with what has been done so far we hopefully will succeed in slowing the rate at which things are getting worse and with luck end up in a situation which is survivable

Global temperatures with time

regards Martin

[Bill Davies 2Participant @billdavies2]

Martin, your link to the global temperatures over time is very revealing. I have not any compelling 'natural' explanations for the rapid rise after relative stability for the last 12,000 years since the last ice age; orientation of Earth's axis, sunspots, etc.

Thanks, Bill

Edited By Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:10:28

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

Here we are, trying to understand just how this new 'fossil free' economy is going to work when the government

have the answer already.

Perhaps we should ask them to give us their answer ( with exact figures ) to this forum ?

Now that would be interesting.

[ZebethyalParticipant @zebethyal]

Posted by Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:09:55:

Martin, your link to the global temperatures over time is very revealing. I have not any compelling 'natural' explanations for the rapid rise after relative stability for the last 12,000 years since the last ice age; orientation of Earth's axis, sunspots, etc.

Thanks, Bill

Edited By Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 14:10:28

How about this as an off the wall thought:

What about global population growth? that has exploded in the last 200 years from 2 billion to a projected 10.9 billion in 2100. before 1700 it was below 600 million.

if you watched the Matrix, it quoted an average human body producing around 25,000 BTUs of heat, all those billions of extra bodies are pumping out insane levels of extra heat and CO2 (breathing and farting).

Source for population numbers: Our World in Data

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 24/02/2020 13:34:57:

Chaps, 0.8 to 1.2 deg change in temperature since 1900 is hardly rapId, please give some evidence of RAPID change from an independant source, not the IPCC.

The IPCC doesn't generate evidence, it reviews evidence generated by scientists across the world.

Fair enough though, rapid is probably not the right word, although if that change is sustained for a few more centuries then it would be fair. What we are seeing is accelerated climate change i.e.faster than normal, but not as fast as some of the catastrophic changes in the past.

An example is the Antarctic Cold Reversal which saw a 3 degree cooling and 20 metre sea level rise over 200-500 years.

Rapid or abrupt climate change is what we would see if a major ice sheet collapsed, the north Atlantic conveyor halted or there was a massive release of methane from clathyrates.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 25/02/2020 17:05:48

[Bill Davies 2Participant @billdavies2]

Zebethyal, 65000 BTUs, that's a lot of energy. But I'm not familiar with the comment from the Matrix. However, it's a quantity of energy and not a rate of doing work. Assuming it is used up over a day, that's about 800 watts, over a horsepower, continuously, so no-one could keep that up for long! You'd have to eat quite a few steaks, so more bovine farting.

You have some nice projects, by the way.

Bill

[Phil WhitleyParticipant @philwhitley94135]

You are right Neil, We do only get filtered science from the IPCC. but ignoring the IPCC for a moment, it was much warmer than today during the Medieval warm period, and much colder during the little ice age, which only ended around 1860, we don't really know what normal is, with I ching, and weather/climate, the only certainty is change!

I am saying no more on this subject, as it seemed to bring out the worst in some people!

Phil

[Bill Davies 2Participant @billdavies2]

I hope, given these various points of view, that we won't lose your input to the forum, Phil, you have provided much useful information over time. Thanks for that.

Bill

[Paul KempParticipant @paulkemp46892]

Posted by Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:05:22:

I dont have an opinion on it. Its not a matter of opinion. Its science. I dont claim to have gleaned enough scientific knowledge from google to know more about it than 97 percet of the 10,000-plus scientists who specialise in the field. That would be plain stupid of me, a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect at work.

I might as well go and tell the nuclear physicists how to run a power station or particle collider or tell the cardiac surgeons how to do a triple bypass or tell Einstein his theory of relativity etc is wrong because you cant bend light or see gravity.

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:06:18

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:33:17

There is a really good example (Einstien) who in his day was in the 3%. Trouble is he was subsequently shown to be right. So those that chose to follow and support the 97% were hoodwinked! Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities. In my experience those that refuse to answer questions but evade or deflect or has often been the case on this difficult subject become aggressive or belittling are following the crowd or are politicians.

Paul.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Kemp on 25/02/2020 23:31:59:

 

Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities.

That right there would be the difference between you and Einstein.

And most of the dissenting 3 per cent of scientists. The study by Peterson et al that I linked to above in relation to the pie chart also found that there was a strong correlation between the level of specialist expertise in climate science and being in the 97 per cent. Those with the lowest level of specialist climate science expertise, eg geologists who had submitted papers on climatological matters, tended to correlate most strongly with the 3 per cent of dissenters. Those with the highest levels of specialist expertise in climate science tended overwhelmingly to be in the 97 per cent

Conclusion: Most of the dissenting 3 per cent were like you, but at a higher level, and did not have the "expertise to follow the detailed complexities".

 

 

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 00:01:09

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Phil Whitley on 25/02/2020 20:13:18:

We do only get filtered science from the IPCC. …

Well whatdya expect? It's widely known the IPCC is furthering their own agenda of creating a one-world government though climate alarmism.

The Israelis and the Palestinians, the Iranians and the Yanks, the Serbs and the Croatians, the Zulu and the Xhosa, the Indians and the Pakistanis, the French and the toursists, they are all going to lay down their arms and live together under one government, united by their alarm over climate change.

[Robin GrahamParticipant @robingraham42208]

Posted by Paul Kemp on 25/02/2020 23:31:59:

Posted by Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:05:22:

I dont have an opinion on it. Its not a matter of opinion. Its science. I dont claim to have gleaned enough scientific knowledge from google to know more about it than 97 percet of the 10,000-plus scientists who specialise in the field. That would be plain stupid of me, a perfect example of the Dunning Kruger effect at work.

I might as well go and tell the nuclear physicists how to run a power station or particle collider or tell the cardiac surgeons how to do a triple bypass or tell Einstein his theory of relativity etc is wrong because you cant bend light or see gravity.

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:06:18

Edited By Hopper on 24/02/2020 23:33:17

There is a really good example (Einstien) who in his day was in the 3%. Trouble is he was subsequently shown to be right. So those that chose to follow and support the 97% were hoodwinked! Exactly why I would prefer to weigh up the balance of the evidence and form my own opinion even if I don't have the expertise to follow the detailed complexities. In my experience those that refuse to answer questions but evade or deflect or has often been the case on this difficult subject become aggressive or belittling are following the crowd or are politicians.

Paul.

Einstein was in a minority for sure – rather less than 3%. I remember reading a book, or maybe it was a paper, by Arthur Eddington published in the 1910's in which he said he'd been told that there were only three people on the planet who understood relativity. He wondered who the third person was. But by the early 1920's the theories of special and general relativity were generally accepted. Same sort of thing with the quantum theory – though I read somewhere that Plank was so upset by his discovery that he spent time trying to prove himself wrong. No one else worried so much – scientists, by and large, know when they're onto a Good Thing.

That Good Thing isn't usually a financial gravy train. The idea that scientists jump on the climate change bandwagon to get government funding because it's the sexy 'now' thing crops up quite often, but I'm not convinced that people who espouse that view have had any real experience of how science funding works. In my own experience it's harder to win government grants than to get funding from industry. I have no doubt that if anyone were able to put together a convincing research proposal which promised sound evidence that anthropogenic climate change was insignificant they'd be made for life. Shell, Exxon, Ford &c have deep pockets. Trouble is, it can't be done.

Robin

Edited By Robin Graham on 26/02/2020 02:51:07

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin Graham on 26/02/2020 02:38:52:

… In my own experience it's harder to win government grants than to get funding from industry. I have no doubt that if anyone were able to put together a convincing research proposal which promised sound evidence that anthropogenic climate change was insignificant they'd be made for life. Shell, Exxon, Ford &c have deep pockets. Trouble is, it can't be done.

No it can't indeed.

But that is where about 90 percent of that dissenting 3 percent of so-called climate scientists get their funding — from the fossil fuel industries via their bogus faux-science outfits such as the Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute.

Sadly too many of the public read reports of their faux science and give it equal weight as the other 97 per cent of bonafide science. Somehow 97 = 3 is a valid equation in their minds.

Scientific American ran a good article explaining in layperson's terms a scientific study that found over half a billion dollars a year of money is funnelled into 140 such bogus science/PR outfits, previously from the fossil fuel industry but now untraceable.   https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/   It includes a link to the original study. It confirms the many previous studies coming to similar conclusions.

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 07:29:06

Edited By Hopper on 26/02/2020 07:29:30

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Paul Kemp on 25/02/2020 23:31:59:

There is a really good example (Einstien) who in his day was in the 3%. Trouble is he was subsequently shown to be right. So those that chose to follow and support the 97% were hoodwinked!

Paul.

Thats something of a fallacious argument. By the nature of things all new ideas are initially held by minorities and only become established by evidence. In the 1950's few scientists were aware or suspected that the earth was warming and that warming was linked to greenhouse gasses although the greenhouse gas effect had been initially calculated back in the 1890's. Science advances by experimental observations that the predictions of previous ideas do not match observations and that the observations are more closely explained by the new theory. Thats what happened with Einstein and as more experimental evidence was collected his theory(s) gained creadence. The same has happened with climate science.

Scientist get prizes by proving existing ideas to be incorrect or incomplete. You cannot conclusively prove scientific theory only state that so far no results have been obtained to disprove it and all current observations are in accordance with it. If you say all swans are white, I only have to find one black swan to show your statement is not complete. As soon as someone comes up with new theory everyone works away to disprove it. which is why Max Perutz could say that 'In science truth always wins'

As I said previously we better hope climate change is man made because other wise we cannot do anything about it.

I would defend the use of the word rapid when associated with average global temperature. It is unprecidented. We should bear in mind that average global temperature is the primary effect. Changes in climate is driven by that.

regards Martin

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 26/02/2020 09:03:44:

[…]

As I said previously we better hope climate change is man made because other wise we cannot do anything about it.

I would defend the use of the word rapid when associated with average global temperature. It is unprecidented. We should bear in mind that average global temperature is the primary effect. Changes in climate is driven by that.

.

I have no doubt that mankind has been instrumental in triggering the recent changes … But I am unconvinced that we understand how to mend what is broken.

Three terms come to mind:

‘tipping point’

‘entropy’

and ‘arrogance’

We can’t predict the weather reliably … so how can we expect to re-engineer it ?

MichaelG.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Another example of human folly – initially because the effects were not understood or expected. CFCs. It took years of use before the destruction of the ozone layer became apparent to us. We are still being affected by it (ask Australans) but after two or three decades the effects have partially been rectified – we are going in the right direction but sunburn is still a good sales pitch for sun-blocker manufacturers.  I don’t suppose the purveyors of those ozone-destroyer chemicals were too quick in coming forward with a withdrawal from use plan.  Not until push came to shove, as I recall!

Same with pesticides. The organic base of the soil is being changed very quickly by the use of these chemicals, but the manufacturers spend billions on ‘doing their own testing’. They support any establishment that will work for them -as long as they only report on the good points – and starve institutions of support grants if they disagree with their ‘requirements’.  It goes on all the time. Called lobbying by some, brown envelopes by others.

Neil, I think, mentioned another rapid climate change of three degrees over 5-600years? What we are seeing currently will/would be far faster than that.

Edited By not done it yet on 26/02/2020 09:45:28

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Oh dear. I hate to be pedantic, Michael. But weather is not climate. Predicting long term averages is a different thing from predicting specific one-off events.

And weather forecasts are actually surprising accurate overall. Yes we all remember the times they get it wrong and our picnic gets washede out. But according to one source, "when it comes to maximum temperature more than 90% of the predictions are accurate to within two degrees for a 24-hour forecast. Predicting rainfall is trickier, because showers can be so localised, but nonetheless three-hourly predictions of sunshine or rain are accurate more than 70% of the time."

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Hopper on 26/02/2020 09:45:16:

Oh dear. I hate to be pedantic, Michael. But weather is not climate. Predicting long term averages is a different thing from predicting specific one-off events.

[…]

.

Technical correction acknowledged and accepted, Hopper

My general point stands though.

MichaelG.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 26/02/2020 09:25:07:

I have no doubt that mankind has been instrumental in triggering the recent changes … But I am unconvinced that we understand how to mend what is broken.

We can’t predict the weather reliably … so how can we expect to re-engineer it ?

MichaelG.

Question 2 first. We don't need to predict either weather or climate. Taking as the link between atmospheric CO2 and avearage global temperature we do know how to reduce emmissions. generating the political will to do so is another question. This will only prevent additional damage on top of the existing situation.

Question 1 mending it requires reducing atmospheric CO2 currently possible on the small scale but scaling up, who knows.

One other comment. Arguably human activity thet generates greenhouse gasses (possibly farming and de-forrestation has quite possibly kept us out of an ice age. Natural climate oscillations would suggest we are overdue for one. The average period between ice ages being 10,000 years and the last one being 12,000 years ago.

regards Martin

[ZebethyalParticipant @zebethyal]

Posted by Bill Davies 2 on 25/02/2020 20:05:19:

Zebethyal, 65000 BTUs, that's a lot of energy. But I'm not familiar with the comment from the Matrix. However, it's a quantity of energy and not a rate of doing work. Assuming it is used up over a day, that's about 800 watts, over a horsepower, continuously, so no-one could keep that up for long! You'd have to eat quite a few steaks, so more bovine farting.

You have some nice projects, by the way.

Bill

Hi Bill,

Turns out the Matrix style numbers may be a bit off, however the population spike graph still follows the same trend as the geological temperature spike graph shown by Martin.

I found another article that recons (based on some actual scientific calculations) that the human body radiates about 100W of energy per day as heat from consuming around 2000 calories.

This is still an increase of around 570 billion Watts per day comparing between 1920 and today (2 billion – 7.7 billion people) and over 750 billion Watts per day between 1700 and today and predicted to rise by another 220 billion Watts per day by 2100.

Historically the population has been held in check by disease, famine, wars, ability to produce enough to sustain a village, etc, these days people live longer, hygene levels have improved, medical science has made huge advances and we have all but eradicated many diseases that previously would wipe out entire villages (cholera, typhoid, etc, etc), wars that previously involved 100s of thousands of individuals fighting hand to hand now only use thousands largely fighting long range and food production is managed country wide or globaly . Together the lack of constraints means that population growth is largely unchecked.

If the human population was likened to deer in the north of the UK, or Kangaroos in Australia, where there is no apex predator keeping the population in check, there would be some form of cull to reduce the numbers – reminds me of Logan's Run with enforced euthenasia at 30.

Many thanks for the comments about my projects.

Edited By Zebethyal on 26/02/2020 10:41:41

[RobinParticipant @robin]

The climate scientists have made many predictions over the last 30 years to back up their carbon dioxide theory and not one has come true. We have snow in Winter, there is ice in the Arctic, New York and all the Pacific islands are above sea level, we are not overwhelmed by climate refugees, the polar bears are thriving.

The climate scientists made a guess, computed the consequences of that guess, compared those consequences to nature and nature disagreed.

They have failed Richard Feynman's test so they are wrong.

The Appeal to Authority argument, 97% of scientists agree, is one of those logical fallacies we are supposed to rise above using our superior intellects.

So what has gone wrong?

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Robin on 26/02/2020 10:50:25:

The climate scientists have made many predictions over the last 30 years to back up their carbon dioxide theory and not one has come true. We have snow in Winter, there is ice in the Arctic, New York and all the Pacific islands are above sea level, we are not overwhelmed by climate refugees, the polar bears are thriving.

The climate scientists made a guess, computed the consequences of that guess, compared those consequences to nature and nature disagreed.

They have failed Richard Feynman's test so they are wrong.

The Appeal to Authority argument, 97% of scientists agree, is one of those logical fallacies we are supposed to rise above using our superior intellects.

So what has gone wrong?

Things haven't moved as rapidly as you expected from the arguments advanced?

We have less snow in winter.

There is less ice in the Arctic.

" The sea level around Battery, New York, has risen by nearly 9 inches since 1950. Its speed of rise has accelerated over the last ten years and it's now rising by 1 inch every 7-8 years. "

" At least eight low-lying islands in the Pacific Ocean have disappeared under rising seas. "

" In the first half of the year 2019, 7 million people was internally (e.g. in their country) displaced by events of extreme weather, according to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. This is a record and the number is 2 times bigger that the number displaced by violence and conflicts "

" There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline "

Neil

[Author]

Posts