Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 101 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 2644 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

No Climate Emergency

Roger B
This doesn't seem to appear in the Daily Mail or the BBC, I wonder why:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

There is no climate emergency
A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate
science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should
openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while
politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation
to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with
natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no
surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to
be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are
far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover,
they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the
fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is
beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global
plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and
suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as
damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations
destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly
oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches
emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to
provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf


At last some people talking sense. After the relatively rapid rise of around 1°C between 1975 and 2000 in the Northern Hemisphere the temperatures have been relatively flat.

f95f77dc1ad4c0ab15046a656ee22cae-huge-hadcrut.jpg

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/figures/Figure11.png


We certainly need to reduce our consumption of finite resources and reduce our impact on the planet but focusing on CO2 is not the way to do it. Let's start with real pollutants that are directly harmful.


Best regards


Roger
  • 0
    I am not considering delaying starting any activity. I am looking at a sensible/practical time scale to achieve a CO2 Neutral target from an engineering viewpoint. Roger Pielke’s arithmetic suggests that from now we would have to build a Nuclear Power Plant per day to reach CO2 Neutral by 2050. If he is correct that is neither sensible nor practical. As he shows a similar conclusion would apply to doing this with wind power and that would also require storage systems. Maybe reaching the target by 2100 is possible?

    The melting of the Greenland Ice Caps is an interesting question. If you look at the official Danish website different measures tell completely different stories:
    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
    This shows the surface mass balance which hasn’t really strayed much outside the 1981-2010 average. There’s no significant problem there.
    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/mass-and-height-change/
    This uses a different satellite based measurement which shows a steady decline in mass unlike the previous measurement.
    http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/viden-om-groenlands-indlandsis/
    This is a complete disaster scenario quoting likely temperature rises by 2100 of 5-10°C and giving a sea level rise of 7m if all the ice melted. The actual sea level rise quoted is currently around 0.6mm per year, 60mm per century.

    What is the Truth? Is there no real problem? Is there a bit of a problem? Will the sea level rise 60mm by 2100 or 7m?

    Best regards
    Roger

  • 0
    You're thinking about this from an engineering point-of-view.  Essentially "business as usual" but gradually replacing old technologies with new ones as they become economically viable.


    The climate change protesters aren't thinking like that at all.


    Here's a few possibilities I have just come up with off the top of my head...
    • What proportion of air flights are actually necessary?  If we ban flying on holiday, and most business trips, then we could perhaps cut 90% of all flights immediately.  There would be a knock-on effect on the supply of perishable foods, but we would just have to grow our own food instead.

    • Shipping is a lot more efficient than air, but burns dirty oil.  Push through a programme of converting ships to solar and wind.  That will be costly, and the ships will be slower.  So less stuff imported from overseas.  Insist that goods are designed to last longer, and be repairable (just like the olden days).  Forget buying that latest iPhone.

    • Convert all buses, taxis and trains to electric.

    • Scrap all petrol and diesel cars.  Discourage large electric cars - we won't have enough electricity to charge them.

    • Improve home insulation standards.  Ban landlords from renting inefficient homes (we've made a token start on that already) and offer grants for energy efficiency.  Ban gas, oil or coal heating. And cooking.  Make sure new houses actually meet the latest building regulation standards (most don't), and make those standards tougher every year.

    • Decarbonise the electricity supply.  That will mean less electricity generated.  Live with it.

    • Electricity will have to go up in price.  Introduce an escalating pricing scheme.  The more units you use, the more each unit costs.  That will encourage people to save electricity.  Heating your swimming pool will become ruinously expensive.

    • Things that use a lot of energy to make will go up in price.  Live with it.  Make things last longer.


    Will the average member of public accept that?  Possibly not.  When you work through it all, it will be like going back to the 1940's in many respects.  Maybe including the food rationing until things get sorted out.  Could we do it?  I would have thought so.
  • 0

    Simon Barker:

    Here's a few possibilities I have just come up with off the top of my head...



    • Shipping is a lot more efficient than air, but burns dirty oil.  Push through a programme of converting ships to solar and wind.  That will be costly, and the ships will be slower.  So less stuff imported from overseas.  Insist that goods are designed to last longer, and be repairable (just like the olden days).  Forget buying that latest iPhone.



    I will just concentrate on the 'possibility' where my expertise lies.

    Ships are already moving towards less polluting options. The dirty oil burning ships of my younger days (1960s to 1980s) are a thing of the past, probably quite literally as the expected life-time of a ship is around 25 years. Ship-owners have been experimenting with wind and solar power for the last couple of decades, not so much because of environmental concerns but because of the continuing rise in cost of fuels. There have also been ships designed to go slower and so use less fuel, but here we do come up against the consumer demand requirements so you are quite correct regarding the impact it will have on consumers.

    The International Maritime Organization has set a target of reducing emissions from shipping by 50% by 2050. This might not sound too much of a challenge, but remember the 25 year life of the ships. The ships that are being designed now will still be in service in 2050 and are part of that target.

    Solar does not provide enough power to significantly affect the ship propulsion. Wind is practical (though intermittent), after all we had a worldwide fleet of wind-powered ships only 150 years ago with only a smattering of coal powered ones (the first steam-ships capable of world-wide trade dated from the 1860s, and they still had sails and masts as a back-up). Probably the biggest change in shipping will be hybrid ships first (just as hybrid cars were the big thing prior to full electric cars) and there are already a number of these around.

    One of the biggest drivers in global shipping is the globalisation of manufacturing. As you mention the iPhone I will use its example. They are all now manufactured in China and shipped to the consumers. The shipping requirements would be drastically reduced if they were manufactured/assembled local to the individual markets, but this would cost more.

    As you can see from this, your suggestions are sensible and already being thought about, which bodes well for your other suggestions.

    Alasdair

     

  • 0
    Simon's suggestions as written are sensible but lack the practical details and possible time scales. I left air and sea travel out of my proposals as I was thinking UK/Europe where most things can be done with electric railways.

    'Decarbonise the electricity supply' is a good thing but how long will it take?  If you are replacing fossil fueled transport systems with electrically powered ones you can't just shut down the oil, coal and gas power stations you need something to replace then with.

    Ms Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion can demand zero carbon by 2025 as much as they like, without engineering details it's just a dream. Maybe the engineering is the 'Truth' they are demanding that governments tell?


    Best regards

    Roger
  • 0

    If you are replacing fossil fueled transport systems with electrically powered ones you can't just shut down the oil, coal and gas power stations you need something to replace then with.




    you may decide, at least in the short term, not to replace them, either at all, or with something much reduced.

    Consider the scrapping of Concord - no replacement was needed, as supersonic flight was no longer seen as worth it by the folk who would have had to pay a few k per ticket. As the price of fuel rises, first the poor walk or use a bicycle, and after a while as the price rises, everyone does.

    You could in effect tax people who have more than a 30 minute commute - actually you could strart by banning companies from doing things like paying a London weighting that actively rewards people for  wasteful traveling. - I'm sure that would cause some soul searching about head offices in London, but I challenge anyone to justify moving a number of people equivalent to half the population of Scotland in and out of our capital daily.

    There is quite a lot of low hanging fruit to be taken first, but like separating and recycling your rubbish, totally unthinkable in 1993, and now de-rigeur, public opinion changes are needed, but that can happen much faster than infrastructure changes to the buildings and roads they use.


  • 0

    mapj1:



    you could strart by banning companies from doing things like paying a London weighting that actively rewards people for  wasteful traveling. 




    Better to actually encourage companies to move out of London. About 25 years ago my employer was trying to move out of London and had a design for a new HQ in Hampshire. Because of the size of the office complex it exceeded planning guidelines and the local council referred it to Westminster, where the minister who had to make the decision was also the minister who had been tasked by Government to stop businesses from relocating out of London!  You can guess what the decision was.

  • 0
    Thank you gentlemen all - an excellent overview of the whole subject - I am now much better informed.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    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
  • 0
    The challenge that we face when discussing how we can utilise the earth's resources in a sensible and environmentally sensitive manner is that it has always been a very emotive issue, and it is becoming increasingly more divisive.  Each side in the debate chooses to deploy emotive language to support their position, whether is be "emergency", "extinction" or "catastrophe", particularly when engaging with members of the public, who do not always understand the full picture.  Nothing we do on the planet comes for free, and we need to consider the systems impact when we discuss potential solutions to the challenges we face.


    When we consider transport, it makes sense to decarbonise, and switch from diesel & petrol vehicles over a period of time to higher efficiency battery electric or fuel cell power sources.  However, we must be aware that we are just switching from one extractive industry (oil & gas) to another (mining).  A recent report from the Natural History Museum highlighted that to change the entire UK car fleet (excluding vans and HGV's) to BEV's would require twice the world's annual cobalt production, 75% of world lithium production, 100% of the world's neodymium production and 50% of the world's copper production, just for our small island.  Processing, smelting and transporting those metals would also require 22.5 TWh of energy, equivalent to 6% of UK energy demand.  Charging those vehicles will require a 20% increase in UK electricity generation and distribution capacity, and if renewable electricity sources are chosen to provide that energy, it will require a further years global copper supply, and 10 years worth of global production of neodymium and dysprosium to build the wind farms and reinforce the grid.  Currently, we should also note that the petrol and diesel fleet pay £27 billion each year in fuel duty, and £8 billion a year in vehicle excise duty.  Those revenues will also need to be replaced by the Treasury, or we will have to spend less (unlikely!).


    When we consider domestic heating, 85% of the UK housing stock is heated by gas today, around 24 million homes.  To meet a net zero target by 2050, assuming we start within the next 5 years, will require us to convert 1 million homes per year to another form of heating, be that hydrogen boilers, heat pumps, hybrid systems, or direct electric heating.  It can be done, we have done it before in converting from towns gas to north sea gas in the late 60's, early 70's, but that change was mandated, and could be completed quickly, without the type of social media campaigns and protests that are prevalent today.  The UK Committe on Climate Change has estimated that this will cost an additional £15 billion each year between now and 2050, a sum in excess of £300 billion in total.


    In summary, this is a change we need to make, but there is no single silver bullet. We need to maximise renewables, we need to reinforce the electricity grid, we need to convert gas heating to hydrogen and maintain the gas grid, we need to decarbonise industry (without losing jobs and importing carbon in products instead), and we need to decarbonise transport.  To achieve this will require massive funding, clear cross party political support to a common trajectory and acceptance that many solutions will be needed, and critically, the support of society in recognising that the transition needs to be made in a way that is both feasible and affordable.
  • 0
    Some interesting points, Graham. One you missed out is that we also need to make the houses more energy efficient instead of (or rather in addition to) changing the heating source. For instance, I could install double glazing to reduce the heat loss from the house....except, I am not allowed to because it is in a Conservation Area! (and before you say that doesn't prevent it being done, the Rules in Scotland are different from England).

    Until we have more joined up thinking we are fighting an uphill struggle.

    Alasdair

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines