Peat bogs and climate change

[Lime]

I just find the psychology of how we all make and justify these sorts of inconsistent decisions very interesting, that's all.

What I find interesting is how the inconsistencies are not noticed at all by most people.

 

[Nemesis]

Life's full of em.

 

[Flyfisher]

My period property, with its embodied energy, I suspect guzzles rather less than many a modern property.

Embodied energy is an irrelevance because that's done - it's the on-going rate of consumption that matters as far as global warming is now concerned and I suspect that modern properties guzzle less energy than draughty, single-glazed, poorly insulated period properties. That's not being anti-conservation, it's just acknowledging reality.

For the record, I agree with you that the proportion of period properties make their energy consumption a relatively minor issue, but then so do '4x4 mums on the school run' doing 3000 miles per year compared with Mr 'mondeo man' sales representative doing 60,000 miles a year, but it doesn't stop them being demonised. These are the sort of inconsistencies I was alluding to, that's all.

I really, really can't be arsed to argue with you.

That's OK, it's not compulsory. But I've noticed you tend to prefer resorting to personal comments (and from the PMs I've received it seems others have noticed as well) which is a shame because there's no need really.

 

[biffvernon]

Good to see we're now all agreed that global warming is serious. So serious that it is worth discussing the inconsistencies when dealing with period properties. I've put double glazing into all the heated rooms of my own 250 year old house, but without removing any historic fabric. And we don't use fossil fuels for heating.

I visited a house recently that was being 'restored'. 15th century timber frame with infilling of 2" thick brick layed edge on. Total wall thickness of 2" brick plus a bit of lime plaster. Now this wasn't to be an unheated museum-piece open on summer Sundays. It was for a family home with small children living a 21st century lifestyle. I think this is just downright irresponsible. It would have been quite feasible to build studwork to support adequate insulation on the inside of the walls, finished with clayboard and whatever finish suited the character of the building, without compromising any of the remaining historic fabric. And it wasn't that the owners were doing some exercise in recreating medieval living - a nice posh bathroom and kitchen were going in.

 

[Nemesis]

Ah - the mysterious PM's ...
I get those too.

In fact I get lots of e-mails as well. Some indeed make personal comments about stuff (and people) on this site. But it's always a good trolling accusation isn't it? 8)

It amazes me that some folks take it all so very seriously.

In the past I recall someone threatening me with a libel action, and saying he had checked out my personal finances to see if it was worth it!

He was called Mike too.

Still waiting.

 

[Nemesis]

I visited a house recently that was being 'restored'. 15th century timber frame with infilling of 2" thick brick layed edge on. Total wall thickness of 2" brick plus a bit of lime plaster. Now this wasn't to be an unheated museum-piece open on summer Sundays. It was for a family home with small children living a 21st century lifestyle. I think this is just downright irresponsible. It would have been quite feasible to build studwork to support adequate insulation on the inside of the walls, finished with clayboard and whatever finish suited the character of the building, without compromising any of the remaining historic fabric. And it wasn't that the owners were doing some exercise in recreating medieval living - a nice posh bathroom and kitchen were going in.

I don't know those involved - maybe it's all a balancing act? Possibly they don't fly abroad or drive and instead cycle everywhere?

 

[Flyfisher]

I think this is just downright irresponsible. It would have been quite feasible to build studwork to support adequate insulation on the inside of the walls, finished with clayboard and whatever finish suited the character of the building, without compromising any of the remaining historic fabric. And it wasn't that the owners were doing some exercise in recreating medieval living - a nice posh bathroom and kitchen were going in.

Were you able to discuss their decisions with them? Presumably the house was listed - do you think they would have had LBC issues in trying to do all those (sensible sounding) alterations and so maybe hadn't bothered to try?

 

[Nemesis]

Biff - if you have any sense I wouldn't bother.

Up to you of course, but personal agendas and all that...

 

[biffvernon]

maybe it's all a balancing act? Possibly they don't fly abroad or drive and instead cycle everywhere?

do you think they would have had LBC issues in trying to do all those (sensible sounding) alterations?

No and no. They just didn't think or care.

 

[Nemesis]

Yup - like so many.

They worry about fitting solar panels but drive modern gas guzzlers, fly everywhere, and use non-renewable fossil fuels for heating.

Odd really ....

 

[NT]

sidd:

I'm concerned about loss of hot water in a power cut (heat exchanger in Pandora seems to need power), but haven't had answers yet.

If you use a pumped external exchanger, your hot water goes cold in a power cut. If you use an internal exchanger in the tank, it stays hot for as long as theres heat in the tank.

Also it is hard to quantify the impact of the higher operating temperature. That means greater heat loss, and for condensing boilers, they will probably never condense if doing hot water on its own.

Dont' confuse tanked water temperature with boiler circuit temp, and theyre quite different temperatures for conventional setups.

A thermal store is temperature graduated. Hot water from the boiler goes into the top of the tank. The coldest water at the bottom is what comes out to return to the boiler, so thermal stores are as boiler efficient as you can get. This doesnt occur with a conventional tank, where the limited exchange rate means relatively hot water is going back to the boiler. IOW the thermal store can be more efficient.


NT

 

[NT]

I guess global warming is almost a 'faith' issue...

No, it's science, not faith. And you don't have to understand all the science to accept what scientists say, and act appropriately. I don't understand how cyanide acts on the body but I don't doubt what scientists say about the undesirability of sprinkling it on one's dinner. I don't class this as a 'faith' issue.

Theres good science, bad science and pseudoscience.

Among people calling themselves scientists there are good scientists, ones with inadequate skill, and many that are simply marketers wishing people to believe somthing,

On some topics there is concensus of opinion among the knowledgable. This is how it is with cyanide. On some topics there is anything but concensus.

In the face of all these realities, it does seem trusting to merely believe what one is told.


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree about sometimes having to be pragmatic in the face of expert opinion. However, that does not preclude questioning the experts, and under such questioning they should be able to explain their position concisely without reverting to "I'm an expert just blindly believe what I say". Any expert who can't concisely explain their position should expect to be doubted.

But what bothers me about statements like:

"Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million. That has now risen, because of human activity, to about 380ppm. The rate of increase of CO2 emissions is increasing. If this continues for a very few more years we lose hope of avoiding a runaway global warming which could reach the levels that occurred at the end of the Permian Period, 251 million years ago, when 95% of fossil forming species became extinct.

is the mismatch between the apparent urgency of the matter ("a very few more years") and the reaction, or non-reaction, of governments. Why, in the face of such imminent global disaster is there such apparent complacency?

Perhaps the issue really is too big (or scary) for people to truly comprehend it, so they just get on with their lives and try to ignore it - a bit like the way some people will ignore the early symptoms of an illness because they are too worried to go to the doctor. A symptom of the human psyche maybe? Whatever it is, it doesn't bode well.

 

[biffvernon]

On some topics there is concensus of opinion among the knowledgable. This is how it is with cyanide. On some topics there is anything but concensus.

Yes. The consensus on the fact that CO2 levels are rising, that the rise is caused by human activity and that this will lead to global warming, is about as complete as the effects of cyanide. The basic physics was established by Tyndall and Fourier in the early 19th century, the effects were calculated by Arrhenius in the late 19th century and observations through the 20th century have confirmed the science. When one considers the amount of work that has done been done on the subject over the last 30 years, this has to be one of the best established phenomena in all scientific endeavour.

There is, of course much uncertainty over details and mechanisms, especially feedbacks, which make the future difficult to predict. Unfortunately, the areas of uncertainty tend towards the bad outcomes rather than the good. The IPCC is structured towards giving a conservative view. Outcomes are more likely to be worse than their scenarios describe rather than better.

There are a tiny number of contrarians, but there are also folk who believe The Duke of Edinburgh was behind Diana'a death, 9/11 was an own flag job with the WTC buildings being deliberately demolished by explosives and that Kennedy was shot by someone on a grassy knoll.

 

[biffvernon]

I agree about sometimes having to be pragmatic in the face of expert opinion. However, that does not preclude questioning the experts, and under such questioning they should be able to explain their position concisely without reverting to "I'm an expert just blindly believe what I say". Any expert who can't concisely explain their position should expect to be doubted.

Absolutely right, and if you follow the debate within the scientific press and on online forums such as RealClimate it is plain to see that the questioning is very vigorous and robust. That is how science proceeds. The requirement for rigour has meant that the IPPC reports are based on the most well established findings, previously published in peer-reviewed journals. This leads to a cautious position. For example, the recent Summary gives little weight to feedback mechanisms as there is still much doubt about their precise operation, yet they are likely to be of the greatest importance. Similarly, the Summary does not give weight to the discoveries in the area of ice sheet dynamics that were published only during 2006. The possibility of rapid collapse of the Greenland and Western Antarctic Ice Sheets is therefore not included in the Scenarios.

But what bothers me...is the mismatch between the apparent urgency of the matter ("a very few more years") and the reaction, or non-reaction, of governments. Why, in the face of such imminent global disaster is there such apparent complacency?

Yes, you are right to be bothered. It's a complex area of psychology and politics. With heads in the sand, we are good at ignoring bad stuff especially if the effects are some way off and to do anything about it as an individual is seen as ineffectual and against one's immediate self interest. It is the classic tragedy of the commons on an unprecedented scale.

Politicians rule, more or less, by consensus. Their ability to provide real leadership is severely constrained by the need to pander to the electorate's short term goals. David Miliband, for instance, may be much more aware of the risks for our future than he cares to speak publicly about because of the need to establish a position of power and influence first.

 

[NT]

I agree about sometimes having to be pragmatic in the face of expert opinion. However, that does not preclude questioning the experts, and under such questioning they should be able to explain their position concisely without reverting to "I'm an expert just blindly believe what I say". Any expert who can't concisely explain their position should expect to be doubted.

On the other hand we must also accept that many positions can be explained but not concisely and simply. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy way for the non expert to determine which experts are right, or to look at it another way, perhaps if they knew they might be experts themselves.



snip

the mismatch between the apparent urgency of the matter ("a very few more years") and the reaction, or non-reaction, of governments. Why, in the face of such imminent global disaster is there such apparent complacency?

Perhaps the issue really is too big (or scary) for people to truly comprehend it, so they just get on with their lives and try to ignore it - a bit like the way some people will ignore the early symptoms of an illness because they are too worried to go to the doctor. A symptom of the human psyche maybe? Whatever it is, it doesn't bode well.

That's probably true of people with no expertise on it, but not of governments and real subject experts.

The reason for doing no more than fiddling with the edges is simply that these people dont believe the whole global disaster thing. And never have.

While some things are hard and costly to cut back on, the reality is there is a pretty big range of stuff we could happily do wthout tomrrow at no serious cost, and a lot of energy use could be cut back in those areas if we chose. Thre are numerous energy reduction options, few of which are being promoted or acted on in any way, because those in power have no reason or desire to act on them.

The things our political power structure promote are very much the more senseless ideas, and they dont even mention the good ones. Why? Because the aim is twin:
a) to look like theyre doing something, and garner popular votes
b) by only promoting the tosh it helps ensure more knowledgeable people continue to not take the subject seriously, thus politically preventing measures being taken that would negatively affect industry.
c) promoting just the tosh also keeps the other less green half of the populus believing we cant really do anything, and thus helps to ensure nothing much is done, and industry continues as usual.
d) The whole exercise transfers votes from green party to labour, while
e) effectively disarming the threat that the green agenda poses to industry and business interests.
f) and promoting junk ideas consistently has 2 more aims:
i) to sell more stuff to people, to take more of their money, to increase consumption / sales
ii) to divert peoples attention from other more serious political issues.


Its the same old game.


NT

 

[NT]

On some topics there is concensus of opinion among the knowledgable. This is how it is with cyanide. On some topics there is anything but concensus.

Yes. The consensus on the fact that CO2 levels are rising, that the rise is caused by human activity and that this will lead to global warming, is about as complete as the effects of cyanide.

I'm sorry but this isnt true at all, and several on this list know it.

The basic physics was established by Tyndall and Fourier in the early 19th century, the effects were calculated by Arrhenius in the late 19th century and observations through the 20th century have confirmed the science. When one considers the amount of work that has done been done on the subject over the last 30 years, this has to be one of the best established phenomena in all scientific endeavour.

That's a very optimistic description imho. The reality is that there is evidence that CO2 levels follow temperature, not precede them. If what you say were really true, we'd be acting on it. It isnt, and we're not.

There are a tiny number of contrarians, but there are also folk who believe The Duke of Edinburgh was behind Diana'a death, 9/11 was an own flag job with the WTC buildings being deliberately demolished by explosives and that Kennedy was shot by someone on a grassy knoll.

With respect those sort of characterisations are not valid arguments for or against any particular view. Rather they are well known popular opinion manipulation tactics.


NT

edit: fix quotes

 

[NT]

Politicians rule, more or less, by consensus. Their ability to provide real leadership is severely constrained by the need to pander to the electorate's short term goals. David Miliband, for instance, may be much more aware of the risks for our future than he cares to speak publicly about because of the need to establish a position of power and influence first.

I'll quite agree with you on that point. However I think you underestimate politicians significantly. Part of the game of politics is to manufacture consent for what one wishes to do. It is standard practice, and can be done safely (ie at no risk to one's political position) by presenting the information that leads popular opinion in the wanted direction, while claiming to take a neutral position. When and only when teh populus turns round and demands you do what you wanted in the first place, then and only then do you say 'well Ive been listening to you all, it seems youre right after all, Im going to follow up on your excellent suggestions and do as you ask. It wont be easy, very very difficult actually, but I and only I can manage to get it to happen for you. Very slowly that is, so you'll need to keep voting me in to get it.'

IOW populus led, own political agenda carried out, egos manipulated, self set up as popular saviour, votes assured, self interest served, and any important issues dealt with.

Same old.


NT

edit: 1 more small point

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree about sometimes having to be pragmatic in the face of expert opinion. However, that does not preclude questioning the experts, and under such questioning they should be able to explain their position concisely without reverting to "I'm an expert just blindly believe what I say". Any expert who can't concisely explain their position should expect to be doubted.

On the other hand we must also accept that many positions can be explained but not concisely and simply. Unfortunately there seems to be no easy way for the non expert to determine which experts are right, or to look at it another way, perhaps if they knew they might be experts themselves.

Fair point, and sort of what I meant earlier when I said this was like a 'faith' issue. It's a complex area and there are scientific experts on both sides of the debate so people can pick and choose their sources to support more or less what they want to believe. One could argue that there are more experts in favour of one theory, but there are plenty of historical precedents where the apparently maverick scientist has turned out to be correct, in the face of 'popular' scientific opinion.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm sorry but this isnt true at all,

You don't say why you think it isn't true so I merely say say, oh yes it is!

That's a very optimistic description imho. The reality is that there is evidence that CO2 levels follow temperature, not precede them. If what you say were really true, we'd be acting on it. It isn't, and we're not.

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic - just a statement of the fact that CO2 levels are rising, that the rise is caused by human activity and that this will lead to global warming. Some of us are acting on the truth and trying to persuade others to do so too. Your contrarian view really has about as much basis as the 9/11 and other conspiracy theorists'.