Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in

No Climate Emergency

46 Replies

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Philip Oakley on Oct 31, 2019 2:13 pm

Roger Pendleton:
There seems to be a basic error in the engineering of zero carbon electricity. All distribution is based on 50 Hz AC transmission which is the only practical system for long range (over500 metres) electricity Distribution. This 50 Hz frequency is set by large turbo alternators running at 3000 rpm (for 6 pole machines).
Alll the "green" alternatives (Except Nuclear) generate DC power. This has to be Inverted to 50 Hz AC by synchronous systems. It has been calculated (By greater minds than mine) that the the minimun level of synchronous power for a stable system is 40% so we can not have more than 60% renewable energy even assuming that it would be available in low wind, low light conditions.

Eur Ing Roger Pendleton DipEE.CEng. MIET

I'm not sure that I would trust this. The problem is that it fails to define the system boundaries over which the (unreliable by implication) renewables are averaged, relative to the 'base load' (trustable?) generation.

Tidal and pump storage are renewable energy but are unlikely to be part of that 60/40 limitation.

There is a lot of work on-going for the conversion of such short term renewable energy (e.g. wind & cloudy solar) into stored energy.

My main point was to always be cautious of these grand 'facts' and 'limitations' and to discern the hidden assumptions.

Do we have too many people wanting too comfy a life that is dependent on the carbon cycle (plant absorption (CO2 -> O2, and combustion C+ O2 -> CO2)

Philip

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Alasdair Anderson on Oct 31, 2019 2:14 pm

Philip,
I think that we were never at 'zero carbon' as Cro-Magnon man burned wood in fires for cooking and keeping warm 30,000 years ago, thus adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide. However I think you are right to say (or at least imply) we should consider the population in the equation, and is certainly something that I have always believed.
Alasdair

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Ernest on Nov 1, 2019 3:35 am

Roger, thanks for posting this article and bringing the issue to attention of members.
Your observation that the approach by Climate Intelligence Foundation to the UN has received little to no media coverage in the UK, is mirrored in other western countries eg Canada and Australia, where there has also been no media coverage.
Much of the media clearly take a partisan approach on this subject, and fail to provide unbiased reporting, while there is increasingly pressure from various institutions and activist groups to shut down the discussion on climate change all together, and denigrate prominent scientists or professionals who question the hypothesis. This behaviour in itself, should make us all concerned. Science only advances when exhaustively investigated, challenged, is shown to be repeatable, and when all the facts are consistent with the hypothesis. The current level of understanding of climate, and the ability of models to predict future change does not meet that test, when compared with what is actually measured. All climate models over predict the rate of warming compared with measured data, yet these same climate model predictions (consolidated by the IPCC) are the primary driver for climate policy legislation, and by association the 2050 zero carbon implementation timeline for the UK.
The UK’s progress on Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reduction up to 2017, is summarised in the Cambridge Economics Report ‘How the UK met its carbon Budgets Report’ 2019:  This Report was prepared for the Climate Change Committee.
“The long-term pathway is designed to bring about measures to incrementally reduce GHG emissions. However, we find that success in meeting the first two carbon budgets is not the result of measures but of changes in accounting for the EU ETS and the traded sector cap; and the impact of the global economic downturn in 2009. We find that rather than an emissions surplus there is, in fact, a policy measures gap”. Target achieved but not through measures applied.

Against this backdrop, and as the focus on carbon budget reductions move to other sectors (transport and housing), Government data on fuel poverty in the UK shows that in 2017, 20-25% of households in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were categorised as in fuel poverty (more than 10% of income devoted to home heating). In England the figure is 10%, based on a revised metric that reduced that original criteria number substantially. Implementing climate policy change in transport, home heating/power will fall disproportionally on those in the population that can least afford it. It is therefore important that the path to decarbonisation is outlined along with the policy, tax, costs, technologies, timeline and transition measures such that they can be appropriately advised to the UK’s inhabitants/electorate.  
Low cost, reliable and affordable fossil fuel energy enabled the industrial revolution and brought immense benefits to society in all aspects of life, freedom, choice and longevity. Removing or restricting personal freedoms, removing choice and implementing rationing as advocated in another part of this thread may not be a cause the UK public will embrace. They may not want to be martyrs to a cause where the cost may be disproportional to the gain, especially when the global impact from UK’s emission reductions will not be measurable. They should however be made aware of what this transition will entail and how it will affect their future, choices and lifestyle and therefore be able to make informed choices, or advocate for change.
 

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Colin Munro on Nov 1, 2019 4:18 am

The CO2 myth just doesn't add up.
Part of my work in 1990 included trying to dissuade the electronics industry from using Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). I attended numerous discussions and presentations often conducted by Dr Colin Lea of the National Physics Laboratory who did a wonderful job in bringing the issue to everyone's attention. Scientists at the time stated that, if use of CFCs ended in 1990,  Ozone depletion would peak in 2015. Furthermore, the ozone levels in the upper atmosphere would not return to 1980 levels until the year 2070.
Another aspect of my work at the time necessitated a strong understanding of thermal energy transfer; conductive, convective and radiative. Being a former radar engineer, the radiative component was something I seemed to grasp quite well.  
I now live in the Southern Hemisphere. On very cold days, in midwinter, the intensity of the sun's rays this year has seemed markedly stronger than I can ever remember. Which leads me to suspect that either the radiation from the sun has increased or the screening effect of UV rays offered by ozone has decreased in line with scientists' predictions. 
I did read a scientist's report that suggested sunspot activity attenuates deep space cosmic radiation. The suggestion was that the reduction in sunspot activity in recent years has resulted in a marked increase in unhindered cosmic radiation reaching our (ozone depleted) atmosphere. That suggestion was debunked by another scientist as "climate change denial". However, the counter argument demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of radiation in general.     
My point is, the CO2 debate hinges on the convective effects of thermal energy as did the methane scare in the early 1990s, when methane, as produced by cows, was seen as the greatest threat to the planet.
In reality, nitrogen (79%) and oxygen( 20.6%)  have far more of an influence on convective energy transfer than Carbon Dioxide (0.0004 % ) or methane (negligible) could possibly have. 
I am also led to believe that Carbon Dioxide levels have been as high as 700ppm as recently as 800AD when vineyards proliferated on the Bere Alston peninsula in South Devon. 
I still believe global warming as we know it is primarily due to radiative thermal energy and a reduction in the screening effect offered by a depleted ozone layer.
The damage wreaked on the ozone layer by the increasing use of CFCs since their creation in the 1920s has adversely affected the atmospheric balance and will continue to do so for another 50 years. Climatic variations are a side effect. 
However, the real elephant in the room is the fact that there are more human beings alive now, than have ever died. They all want houses, food, water, cars, holidays and toys. They also exhale Carbon Dioxide. 
Colin Munro.  I.Eng    

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Simon Barker on Nov 1, 2019 12:38 pm

I am also led to believe that Carbon Dioxide levels have been as high as 700ppm as recently as 800AD when vineyards proliferated on the Bere Alston peninsula in South Devon. 

Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 levels had been roughly steady at 280ppm for hundreds of years.  It's only in the last few years that it's gone over 400ppm.

Ice core data from Antarctica suggests that CO2 is now the highest it's been for around 130000 years. https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Philip Oakley on Nov 4, 2019 11:28 am

on the X hundred ppm of CO2 value: Who has actually converted that to a 'real' number that positively says how thick the CO2 thermal blanket is? e.g. at standard temperature and pressure it is the same as a layer 5m, 100m, 1km, thick of CO2.

The key point about CO2 is that the sun's energy is in the shorter wavelengths (Visible and UV) and as such nearly all comes straight through the atmosphere. Meanwhile the Earth glow is at the infra red end of the spectrum and the CO2 absorption is strong here, and is a large proportion of the emitted radiation, thus keeping us inside a thermal blanket.

We should be careful about the simple bandying about of magic numbers without giving a solid feel for the impact. The story goes that it was Kelvin that was one of the first to identify the CO2 problem as a 'slow burn' issue over a century ago.

Perhaps the larger problem is that of the human perception of criticality and urgence that can't cope with these slow build, hard to agree, problems.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by mapj1 on Nov 5, 2019 2:23 pm

here seems to be a basic error in the engineering of zero carbon electricity. All distribution is based on 50 Hz AC transmission which is the only practical system for long range (over500 metres) electricity Distribution. This 50 Hz frequency is set by large turbo alternators running at 3000 rpm (for 6 pole machines).
Alll the "green" alternatives (Except Nuclear) generate DC power. This has to be Inverted to 50 Hz AC by synchronous systems. It has been calculated (By greater minds than mine) that the the minimum level of synchronous power for a stable system is 40% so we can not have more than 60% renewable energy even assuming that it would be available in low wind, low light conditions.

Assuming of course that we make no effort to introduce actively phased loads (i.e ones where electronics is used to slide the current peak and the voltage peak apart in time, to fake a reactive power factor, which is quite easy with an inverter structure) to stabilize it, and also assuming that he loads that are connected really need the same stability as enforced present - many critical loads  are switched mode anyway. It is mpore important to keep the grid in sync with itself than tightly on tune to exactly 50Hz, at least over short periods.
this frequency graph is quite revealing when we have a lot of wind generation.

Right now we have a lot of kit that removes itself from the generation pool if the any of a number of paramters go a bit off, and it may be that tolerance could be widened out quite a bit.
G83 settings for example
U/F stage 1  47.5Hz 20s
U/F stage 2 47Hz    0.5s
O/F stage1  51.5Hz  90s
O/F stage 2 52 Hz  0.5s
Vector Shift 12 degrees  immediate
Loss of Mains*(RoCoF) 0.2 Hz / second immediate



In a rotating generator with real inertia, overload and phase shift go together, as the torque rises, so the shaft wants to run slower. In an inverter there is no such relationship, rising load does not try to introduce phase or frequency modulation, unless you care to program it in,  which currently we do not, but my point is that we certainly could.
The 40% limit is not a hard limit to say we must have 60 % rotating generation, just a figure beyond which we have  to invest some efforts in either deliberate linking of phase shift to load to make inverters emulate rotating machines, or desist from using frequency as the main measure of grid over or under load that we use to control our generation.

regards Mike

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Roger Bryant on Nov 6, 2019 12:10 pm

It's all solved now 😂 They have found 11 000 people to tell us that we have a 'Clear and Unequivocal Emergency'

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50302392

As Einstein was supposed to have said: Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

Consensus is utterly irrelevant to science. What concerns science is not weight of numbers on the side of an argument, but what the facts are. Unfortunately the 'scientific method' and 'climate science' parted company some time ago.

Best regards

Roger

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Simon Barker on Nov 6, 2019 1:04 pm

The trouble is, we don't really have "facts"; we have measurements.  All measurements have a tolerance, and some may have errors (outside the tolerance).  And we only have a finite number of measurements - we don't know the temperature of every point in the World all the time.

And there are so many complex feedback loops that we can only estimate.  Warmer seas should mean more evaporation, and so more clouds.  Clouds may warm or cool the Earth, depending on where they are, what altitude and what sorts of clouds.

The biggest worry is the positive feedback loops.  More hot weather means more forest fires, which means more soot in the air.  Soot settling on ice makes it darker, so it melts faster in the sun.  When the ice melts, that leaves land, which warms quicker than white ice.  Warming land can emit CO2 or methane, which are greenhouse gases, which warms things up even more.  But how big is this effect?  We can only estimate it.

In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Roger Bryant on Nov 12, 2019 12:25 pm

Simon Barker:

In reality, science is never "settled".  It's just the best we have today, and we hope it's increasingly close to the truth.

I am awaiting  the IPCC AR6 reports over the next couple of years to see how they deal with the continuing deviation of the climate models from reality. This was already noted in AR5 and as far as I can see from the various temperature series the deviation is increasing.

Best regards
Roger
 

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by davezawadi on Dec 8, 2019 4:03 pm

I note an error which is continued above, but seems to come from evey source.
Melting of the entire north polar region will not cause ANY sea level rise because it already displaces the exact mass of water contained as it is all floating! It appears that this simple fact of physics is missed by everyone, perhaps they are not aware that there is no land under the north polar icecap and this area is often traversed by submarines. The second point is that the south polar icecap is gaining thickness at the moment and is certainly not melting as claimed by the BBC etc. The breaking off of one area is actually part of this increase caused by the movement of glacial flows caused by the increasing ice load.

Greenland is similarly perhaps melting a little more in summer than in the past, but remember that in Roman and Viking times Greenland was green and wheat was grown, so was at least as warm as the south of the UK now. Climate always changes, due to many factors, most of which we do not fully understand.

We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very carefully!
Regards David CEng etc.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Luciano Bacco on Jan 29, 2020 9:21 am

I quote your last words:  " We do need to check every "fact" presented by everyone, particularly pressure groups and the media very careful" And here I'm quite in agreement with you!
But said this, if you are quite right, all EC Countries ( and not only them) are then fragrantly WRONG?! In other words, the EC countries are going to throw to the wind
1,000,000,000,000 euros?!
More, there is now no doubt that almost the whole world (UK included) is going along this direction, that is, a strong contrast to the climate change!
Sceptical people are always welcome not only on this all-importatnt matter but also in any other walks of life!
LUCIANO BACCO

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Luciano Bacco on Jan 29, 2020 9:52 am

More:
https://www.inverse.com/innovation/amazon-employees-risk-firing-to-protest-companys-climate-policies
LUCIANO BACCO

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Luciano Bacco on Jan 30, 2020 5:00 pm

The UK ICE backing climate change emergency:

Climate emergency: time for action

Civil engineers should be helping society with valid concerns on climate change and helping with coming emergencies. Robert Thorniley-Walker, formerly of the ICE climate task force, reviews past and future needs.
Are perhaps they so naive to be made fool by fake news about Climate Change and its catastrophic consequences?!
https://www.ice.org.uk/news-and-insight/the-civil-engineer/january-2020/climate-emergency-time-for-action

 

LUCIANO BACCO

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by whjohnson on Feb 7, 2020 11:54 am

Quite how a few people have managed to cow global governments into parting with bank loads of money to subsidize a cause with no real science behind it escapes me completely.
It smacks of tulip mania all over again.
Right now, all over the world, there are thousands of otherwise unemployable people trousering millions out of this global warming scam.
Take our UK govt for example.
2035 is just the blink of an eye away. The UK government has gone deep with its pander-to-Saint-Greta strategy banning new petrol and diesel car sales in just 15 years. But to what end? If the UK ceased to exist, if it was obliterated entirely from the map, the world CO2 emissions would reduce by less than 1% and all the experts, insofar as anybody can be an expert in something as ill-defined as ‘climate science’ agree that this would make no difference whatsoever to whatever they are predicting today (prophecies vary).
 
But this isn’t what the UK is proposing to do. The Road to Zero moniker suggests that we will have a zero-carbon transport infrastructure in just a few decades, but this is nonsense. Even if the entire fleet was converted to electric we still generate plenty of CO2 emissions in the extraction of materials, transportation across oceans, manufacture and infrastructure implementation. Plus we still have to somehow generate the electricity to run this new miracle fleet which will, inevitably, have to use fossil fuels well into the next century.
 
electric%2Bcar%2Bcartoon.jpg
Electric cars are powered by coal
 
At best we might reduce our overall carbon footprint for vehicles by about 20% and even then only by hiding it somewhere else. And at what cost? A quarter of a century ago the world of science said diesel was the answer, and not so long back hybrids were the key. Now both will be on the scrapheap. No more research and development, so no improvements and notwithstanding the VW debacle over the cheated emissions controls, small diesel engines were getting better and better all the time. That alone might have resulted in a similar reduction in footprint but those potential advances, just like those we nearly gained in Clean Coal Technology are now lost.
 
Instead the population faces a massive upheaval, not to mention massive cost. At a time when the new government could have got to grips with tackling the root causes of mass discontent within our society it has decided, instead, to embark on a vainglorious vanity project. Instead of doing the thing it was elected to do, it is trying to leap onto the world podium before the race has even been run. They used to say look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves. That holds true for individuals, for communities, for governments and for the entire world. We should be jealously guarding our resources, Mr Prime Minister, not spaffing them up the wall in a pointless pissing contest.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Simon Barker on Feb 7, 2020 9:53 pm

Quite how a few people have managed to cow global governments into parting with bank loads of money to subsidize a cause with no real science behind it escapes me completely.

With lots of evidence.  Gathered over many years, from all around the world.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Malcolm Davies on Feb 7, 2020 10:20 pm

Reference to the discussion forums on the Cambridge based website with URL www.thenakedscientists.com reveals that a significant percentage of the temperature measurement points, e.g. the Air Ministry Roof in Central London, are actually sited in the midst of Metropolitan/City 'Heat Islands', which over the past few decades have been consuming increasingly large amounts of energy (gas and electricity) to fuel the air conditioning/central heating systems, ever more powerful 2.5G, 3G, 4G (and soon 5G) mobile phone networks, TV and Radio Broadcasting DAB/FM networks, high speed lifts, computer/internet server farms, high availability, non-stop, high redundancy based telecommunications and stock exchange trading platforms etc. Consequently a significant proportion of the measured temperature rises are predominantly a reflection of this increased power demand and consequent increased heat dissipation into the surrounding atmospheric environments and NOT Aggregate Global Warming of the entire planet !

Members of the Naked Scientists, Cambridge based Forum, make the very valid point that we need to focus far more on data from the temperature measurement stations that are in the open countryside, on the coast lines and in the oceans, that are cleary NOT in the midst of 'modern, 21st Century, man made heat islands' before claiming that global warming is running away and is out of control. Just saying...! It would be helpful if Politicians World Wide would please consider and discuss these matters before making any more Knee Jerk Policy Decisions!  It would also be helpful if more Politicians had formal education/training in STEM based subjects, or appointed and listened more closely to their technical advisors, so that they could be far more discerning and questioning of the very powerful Corporate lobby groups who are currently 'calling all the shots' to suit their own selfish commercial/new technology product marketing agendas - intended to bully us all into buying into ever more 'high tech' stuff from them instead of, for example just 'getting out of our motor cars, and onto our bikes' and/or working mostly from locally based telecommunications/business hubs etc! 

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by whjohnson on Feb 8, 2020 12:12 am

Petrol and diesel road vehicles in the United Kingdom currently consume about 453 TWh of energy each year. To put that in context, the total UK electrical energy production in 2018 was about 335TWh.

So Boris Johnson must be planning to more than double our electrical energy production. Mustn’t he? That means 20 Hinkley C power stations at a cost of £500 billion – or alternatives.

And double the grid capacity. And re-wire the streets. All in 15 years.

If it wasn’t for Greta & politicians, what would we do for entertainment?

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by whjohnson on Feb 8, 2020 8:10 pm

With lots of evidence.  Gathered over many years, from all around the world.
Indeed, and subjectively sifted for any evidence which doesn't fit their narrative no doubt.

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Andy Millar on Feb 9, 2020 8:57 pm

It's always worth having a chat with the staff of the British Antarctic Survey. Who will point out that every year there is less ice at both* poles. They know this because they can see it. Unfortunately this is no longer subtle!

(Yes the BAS covers the Arctic as well.)
Andy Millar CEng CMgr IET Mentor / IET PRA uk.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Malcolm Davies on Feb 10, 2020 12:09 am

Yes, thank you gentlemen all, for your comments and data references. I am still open minded and open to evidence based persuasion, about just how much we can influence the climate by progressive de-carbonisation by 2035/2050 etc.

Many years ago, James Lovelock expounded that the earth is in fact a self regulating system and that, within reason, (but not including a global nuclear war or a direct hit by a massive asteroid), GAIA (aka Mother Earth) is able to cope and compensate for - in the mid to long term - a very wide range of climatic and oceanic variations, whether due to natural cycles that may be either synchronised with cyclic Sun Spot Activity and periodic Coronal Mass Ejections 's etc, every 11 and 33 years, or whether due to mankinds' now circa 7.7 Billion, (and growing), population's demands for electrical energy to fuel our ever sophisticated lifestyles - to keep up with the Jones's!

I am fully supportive of any measures to improve air quality in our towns and cities - especially if it actively discourages 1200 Kg + motor cars being driven by 80 Kg + 'singletons', whether BEV, Hybrid or ICE. However, the assumption that we cannot possibly survive or pursue worthwhile careers without using a motor car is clearly specious. I was personally involved in discussions with British Telecom, back in 1994, about how the new high speed, high data capacity, optical fibre networks were going to revolutionise our telecommunications infrastructure and that this rapidly emerging technology would make widespread commuting 'to work' of typically 10 to 50 miles each way each day, largely redundant. What ever happened to this brave new world vision? Instead of being 'gifted' with less stressful commuting, we seem to have been bullied by large corporations, into using most of the extra available network capacity to support our obsessive internet browsing, banking, on line shopping and social media habits on our ever more 'bandwidth hungry' smart phones. Just saying...:-(
    

Re: No Climate Emergency

Posted by Ernest on Feb 10, 2020 3:16 am

In terms of the status of Antarctic and Arctic ice coverage, its always worth looking at the historical records. Tony Heller's video attached, is a good route to some of the main databases on this subject.  
Agenda drives much of the climate discussion, so if you want a more balanced view, its worth reverting to historical records and the raw data sets and doing some analysis yourself.  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWlBiih1p9Y

Share:

Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in