Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

That’s interesting, and would suggest the climate change debate is mostly a scam, for maintaining research grants etc.

Well, it’s possible… when so much money and careers are on the line, anything is possible.

What do others think?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

How often do anyone hear read about the wobbling of the earth axis, the oval orbit of the earth, and the ocean currents at the north pole as a perfectly well known cause of periodic ice ages during the last millions of years? I bet not a single time.

Maybe you should read e.g. IPCC reports instead of “betting”. All the factors you mentioned are accounted for and found to have negligible influence next to the rising CO2 levels.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Peter wrote:

What do others think?

I think that “climate deniers” are

1) Cherry picking. E.g. looking at temperatures at a single location like Svalbard. A different kind of cherry picking which was popular some years ago, was claiming to show that global temperatures were, in fact, decreasing. This was based on taking a high-temperature outlier year (1997) as baseline. That kind of argument ended when the last half of the 2010’s were found to have been even warmer than 1997.

2) Pretending that climate scientists are ignoring other possible factors, like sun activity, wobbling of the earth’s orbit etc. This is false. They do. The reason you don’t hear much about those factors is that their effects have been found to be negligible compared to those of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

There is a very interesting Podcast called “The Brendon O Neill Show” where the latest episode has one of my favourite people on Bjorn Lomborg. He accepts Global Warming but takes a measured, balanced approach to the costs and benefits.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-brendan-oneill-show/id1436524071

One of the most interesting statistics that by 2050, the cost will be over US$ 11,500 per person per Annum to go for this Net Zero target.

There is no critical thinking in the media these days. Just as one would expect with a Religion. You are either a believer or the enemy. Apparently there is a more balanced view in the IPCC report but there is no proper reporting. I haven’t got the time to read the 40,000 pages in that report – it’s a shame our media can’t take a more balanced view. We might then get some better policy decisions from our politicians.

Last Edited by Archer-181 at 01 Nov 07:56
United Kingdom

Here we go, blame the media again. In writing here you are part of the media albeit given the tag of social media .
IMO LeSving has put up a good defence for the current state of affairs being “it’s not man made, it’s the natural order of things”.
On the other hand Airborne_Again points us in the direction that says “the human race can and should do something about it”
These 2 contrasting opinions will prompt me to look again and learn more.
But, whatever way I lean, having learnt more, there is one thing I can be pretty sure of and that is that the politicians will agree with A_A whilst doing little or nothing as the LeSving and Archer-181 camp would have them do.
But don’t blame the media if you don’t like what they communicate, there is something for both camps if you look hard enough.

France

LeSving wrote:

It also has two wooden fireplaces and electric heating, but also an air/air heat pump. Not sure if I’l use the sledge hammer on that heat pump or not

We have one of those in a holiday home our family uses in Bulgaria, were at the time it was thought to be crazy to install it. It’s a Daikin Air/Air pump which feeds a floor heating/cooling system and can also heat the boiler if not enough solar energy is available. Nowadays the villagers which heat mostly with wood and heat exchangers/radiators driven from a wooden fireplace are very impressed with our system.

In general, we are extremely happy with the system, once we got it to work properly. The main problem was and is that it is not designed to be left off for a long time, as valves and filters tend to become clogged or pumps stop turning and need manual restart. Other than that, if it runs, it does a very nice job of keeping a steady temperature in the rooms, summer as well as winter. Once the house has “settled” on a temperature, which from “cold start” takes about 3-4 days, the temperature remains rock steady. I use 45 degrees of core temp while starting up and getting the house to warm up, then about 30 degrees once settled. This has given the house a inside temperatue of around 23°C and similar floor temperatures. From that moment on, the actual activity of the pump goes down massively, as there is quite a storage effect within the concrete, tiles and eventually the whole floors. e.g. when we leave and switch off, measurements have shown an initial temperature loss (in winter) by 1-2 degrees per day, after a week or so it will start to fall faster. So if you keep the temperature steady, your energy consumption is quite minimal.

In summer, if it is used for cooling (and if it has that capacity), the main thing to watch is to keep the water temperature over the dew point, otherwise you will see condensation. This is particularly important with wooden floors I imagine, but also not too much fun with tiles. Usually again, it is a question of a few days to regulate itself in, whereafter it works fine. In Bulgaria, I use 15° water temperature in Summer, which results in a floor temp of about 20°C with 35 degrees outside and a room temperature of around 25°C. So the temperature difference is around 10 degrees.

So if you have an Air/Air pump and no intention of going for a geothermic pump, I’d definitly not touch it unless it’s not working properly and needs a lot of work. I would let it have a thorough service once you take it over, primarily to get an expert to assess its status and to prevent damage if untreated. My experience is very positive. Thereafter it does pay off to get it serviced from time to time (maybe once a year) but if it keeps running, that may well be extended to 3-4 years.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

cherry picking

You can see the spec of dust in the eye of another, but not the beam in your own eye (or something like that )

The above graph (and corresponding explanation) is straight from the lions mouth. From climate scientists themselves doing climate research.

The point I was making dear AA, and which is in agreement with most climate scientist (or consensus, to use a more appropriate word in this context), was that looking at shrinking glaciers as “proof” of man made global warming, is not only cherry picking, but also plain wrong. Yet, we don’t hear a single word about this. Don’t you find that a bit odd?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

While I would never trust anybody who needs to adopt a position (on a proposition not supported by good data) which safeguards a career and puts bread on the table at home, we do have e.g. this

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

That’s interesting, and would suggest the climate change debate is mostly a scam, for maintaining research grants etc

Well, no it doesn’t. To boil it down: “The climate has changed rapidly before, when there wasn’t industrialisation, therefore it isn’t humans doing it now”. The part after the “therefore” is a logical fallacy. Because the climate changed for non-anthropogenic reasons in the past does not logically mean that it can’t be non-anthropogenic reasons now.

Unfortunately, all actual evidence points to us being the cause this time around. I know we desperately don’t want this to be true especially as aircraft owners, but unfortunately it is true.

Andreas IOM

gallois wrote:

IMO LeSving has put up a good defence for the current state of affairs being “it’s not man made, it’s the natural order of things”.
On the other hand Airborne_Again points us in the direction that says “the human race can and should do something about it”
These 2 contrasting opinions will prompt me to look again and learn more.

They don’t need to be contrasting opinions at all. Actually, I think it is pretty much how this should be looked at.

Yes, climate change is for a large part a natural phenomenon which has been going on forever. Also yes, it has been amplified by humans, which is not a good thing and which should, whereever possible, be corrected.

The main thing is: There is a lot we CAN do and ARE doing while carrying on with a pretty much normal life. In recent years, a lot of massive reductions in consumption of energy has been achieved with measures like isolation, alternative energy sources such as solar energy, using light sources which use a fraction of the old edison type lamps, the list is endless. These things will only take effect after some years, so it is not a good tactic to constantly bemoan that “we have done nothing” which is totally wrong. A lot has been done, a lot more will be done as it becomes feasible, available and affordable.

Will this stop climate change? No, as the general trend is set up by nature. Will it stop the amplification? Probably not entirely but it will slow it down, as long as CO2 levels can get regulated in at a level where they are again neutralized by nature.

What measures can do that? Well, get 10 experts and 50 opinions. However, some rather clear things are:

- We need sufficient amounts of forests and green areas to assimilate CO2. It is no loger tolerable to kill off whole country sized forests and where that has happened, it would be good to at least partially restore them.
- In order to get rid of fossil fuels or massively reduce their use, start should be made where it is actually possible without killing whole industries. While the airline industry for instance will still take a long time if ever, power production HAS got alternatives. Solar, Wind, Water but also nuclear energy. It is not possible, e.g. as Germany did, to shut down all nuclear plants over quickly without having to resort to “dirty” coal plants. IMHO, electricity plants should be banned from using fossil fuels as fast as feasible and replace them with if necessary nuclear power plants, preferrably water plants and supplemented by solar and wind where feasible.
- Railways should get electrified whereever possible, away from Diesel.
- Lots of research should go into shipping. Ships today are a massive source of CO2 as they burn heavy oil. The only ones which are not are nuclear ships or sail ships. The question is, could nuclear energy be used to power e.g. large cargo vessels as well as other large ships, whereas wind could be used to augment smaller vessels or recreational ships like cruise liners. The idea of sailships using newer technology and aerodynamics may well be a very interesting one.
- Individual transport already is transforming towards electricity, whereas I am cautious at the current approach. While solar arrays on cars are deemed to be inefficient, they are still contributing some. (E.g. there is a project car said to be released in 2023 which is totally covered with solar cells, made in Germany. While the actual take from solar charging is quite minimal (about 20 km potential range per day), it may well be enough for quite a few people for their work commute but in any case it is better than nothing).
- In housing, red tape must be slashed massively to stop hindering of insulation and re-furbishing of older houses. Forbidding one family homes (dream killer for most people) or forcing people to sell so that immobile sharks can build more high density houses is contraproductive, so is making insulation and installation of solar panels e.t.c. dependent on local planning boards, neighbours and other roadblocks.

The list of stuff which can be done, which can actually open new industries or revive old ones is endless, but it is important to point out to the people what is in it for them rather than punishing those who can not keep up with changing over from old to new in a hurry, using taxes, fines, upping financial burden rather than easing up on them.

On the political side, it is high time that the environmentalist movement detach itself from socialism. Socialsim has never been good at producing things, capitalism has. Neither Tesla nor other ground breaking industries were ever helped along the way by socialist dystrophies but by enterpreneurship and therefore capitalism. If we want to change technology, people centered on forbidding, restricting and even killing off things both material and alive will not help. On the other side, capitalism has to engage itself more prominently in those issues, also with regards of a safe future for their own interests. There is plenty to do where money can be made.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top