Scientists have to be guided by the data available. The difficulty when it come to the earths climate is that they only have the past 100 of 4.5 billion years of data to work with.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
- Status
Scientists have to be guided by the data available. The difficulty when it come to the earths climate is that they only have the past 100 of 4.5 billion years of data to work with.
Not really, they have enough information in the crust of the earth (ice core samples, drilling samples) to derive atmospheric composition and evolution of climate over the last 500 million years.
I agree, and that information clearly shows that there have been huge fluctuations in the Earths climate over the ages, even before humans existed. I wonder if rising sea levels now, possibly partially caused by human activities, are only seen as an issue because humans have built civilisations close to those seas!
There is evidence of forests in the artic so earth has been warmer before without an end to life on earth. Plants love co2 so whilst i'm not fully convinced co2 is driving all of this its not going to hurt to plants more. The planet may be fine its us people that are the issue.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,312
- Reaction score
- 9,413
No I have oil heating but use electric to heat the water. As mentioned I have a large water tank for hot water, designed for solar so it was using a load of oil to heat.
I see. I think it would certainly be worth getting solid quotes and doing some calculations to see how feasible it would be.
Brianbrewed
Landlord.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2018
- Messages
- 908
- Reaction score
- 974
I would imagine one of the main concerns would be the reduction of arable land available and the collapse of food supplies.
MmmBeer
Brew Pub Brewer
Nobody seems to be mentioning the uncomfortable truth. The only way to reduce climate change long term is to reduce the human population. Compared to that, electric cars, solar power and heat pumps are just the equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic!
trummy
Regular.
Could not put it better myself!
Well, the good news to that is that after the 2100 the trend is down as ageing populations die in the west and wealthier 3rd world countries have less children. I can't remember the figures but remember the graph showing a fairly steep decline.
I think that whilst your right in one way, that the earth is indeed overpopulated, there probably is a way we can live on earth and not destroy it, but by doing so we would have to change our lives so dramatically that it seems unlikely.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,312
- Reaction score
- 9,413
Wait to see if there any grants...
Shirley Bassett
Regular.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2018
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 486
I have a house in Northern Scotland that has a solar hot water system. The storage tank has a heating coils around 2/3 of the way down the tank. We use an oil fired boiler to heat this. The solar heating coil is right at the bottom of the tank and is independently controlled.
In the summer on a sunny day we get a full tank of hot water at 65C by around 1pm. On overcast days we get the water to around 35 to 40C so we boost the temperature using the oil fired boiler.
In winter time (December) our incoming water is around 6C. The panels don’t get sunlight on them until around 9am, and the sun is down by 15:30. On a bright sunny day our Solar heats the water to a maximum of 14C.
Our EPC certificate for the house states that a solar hot water system will save us around £80 a year.
I previously lived in North Wales and had PV generation on our roof. My electric bill for the year was £50 a month. Our generation financial return offset our electric bill, but the income off the generation was negligible during the winter, and this was when we received our highest bills.
I can’t see how air and ground source heat pumps can be economic during the winter, as I would imagine that the cost of the electricity to run them would far out run the benefit, and in my experience solar has very limited usage during the winter months.
Furthermore I used to measure industrial emissions across the UK and Ireland, which I did for over 30 years before retiring. Most industry that we were contracted too were regulated by either the Environment Agency, SEPA or the Irish EPA. I can say that every site we visited had a Regulatory Permit that they were expected to demonstrate compliance with. For combustion processes we would see limits for NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen) and CO (Carbon Monoxide). We very rarely saw any limits put on CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions, so it was very rarely requested to be measured as a target gas. Yet the main focus of climate change seems to be based on cutting CO2 emissions
In the summer on a sunny day we get a full tank of hot water at 65C by around 1pm. On overcast days we get the water to around 35 to 40C so we boost the temperature using the oil fired boiler.
In winter time (December) our incoming water is around 6C. The panels don’t get sunlight on them until around 9am, and the sun is down by 15:30. On a bright sunny day our Solar heats the water to a maximum of 14C.
Our EPC certificate for the house states that a solar hot water system will save us around £80 a year.
I previously lived in North Wales and had PV generation on our roof. My electric bill for the year was £50 a month. Our generation financial return offset our electric bill, but the income off the generation was negligible during the winter, and this was when we received our highest bills.
I can’t see how air and ground source heat pumps can be economic during the winter, as I would imagine that the cost of the electricity to run them would far out run the benefit, and in my experience solar has very limited usage during the winter months.
Furthermore I used to measure industrial emissions across the UK and Ireland, which I did for over 30 years before retiring. Most industry that we were contracted too were regulated by either the Environment Agency, SEPA or the Irish EPA. I can say that every site we visited had a Regulatory Permit that they were expected to demonstrate compliance with. For combustion processes we would see limits for NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen) and CO (Carbon Monoxide). We very rarely saw any limits put on CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions, so it was very rarely requested to be measured as a target gas. Yet the main focus of climate change seems to be based on cutting CO2 emissions
An Ankoù
Landlord.
The bottom line is that climate change is with us. It doesn't really matter whether the cause is natural or man-made or whether the scientists are right or wrong. We probably have the ability to do something about the rate of change and it's ultimately about having the will to do so. There is, and will continue to be a lot of opposition from the farming, fossil fuel, anti-family-planning and "I want my beer chilled" etc lobbies. It'll take a proper revolution to unseat that lot. Now where's my pitchfork?
Ww
I can't say I've been very effective (changing hearts an minds), but it seems like a solid argument that doesn't make anybody wrong for their beliefs.
"Do it for the children" should have everyone rallying for positive change but it doesn't. Those that don't are easily labeled "destructive" or "mentally ill."
With the "there is no climate change" folks, that's the general line of reasoning I take: it doesn't matter if there is climate change or not; we have one planet that has finite resources and we're responsible for caring for it to the best of our ability for progeny (children, plants, animals).
I can't say I've been very effective (changing hearts an minds), but it seems like a solid argument that doesn't make anybody wrong for their beliefs.
"Do it for the children" should have everyone rallying for positive change but it doesn't. Those that don't are easily labeled "destructive" or "mentally ill."
An Ankoù
Landlord.
You're wasting your breath trying to reason with some people, they're just not amenable to reason. That's all well and good in many walks of life, just let them go their own sweet way and wish them all joy and happiness. When it comes to climate change deniers and, to a lesser extent, anti-vaccers, they are a real and immediate threat to our welbeing and that of our children and grandchildren and we have to face the question of how long and to what extent we can leave them to their own devices.
Shirley Bassett
Regular.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2018
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 486
Don’t get me wrong, I aren’t anti climate change, in fact I’m all in favour of any effort to reverse it. However, I’m an ex scientist / engineer that lives in the real world.
At times we currently don’t generate enough electricity in the UK to meet demand, and rely on imports from continental Europe. So I just don’t see how we are going to charge everyone’s electric vehicle overnight.
Last time I looked at the UK‘s strategy for electrical generation it still had gas fired power stations in the mix, and will probably do so for the next 25 years at least. There are 3 sites that I know of that have been granted planning permission to build a new gas fired power station, but as yet they haven‘t broken the ground on any of the projects. So I don’t see the reliance on fossil fuels diminishing in my remaining lifetime.
There are also hidden sources of CO2 that very rarely get spoken about, for example landfill gas contains around 25% carbon dioxide before it is burnt to generate electricity.
Cement manufacturing plant have around 25 to 40% CO2 in their emissions. The calcium carbonate gets broken down into lime and CO2. So just think about how much construction you see on a daily basis.
Conversely there is one gas fired power plant that I know of that it’s emissions are mainly CO2 and water vapour and deemed to be relatively Clean. Some of this exhaust gas is diverted to heat several miles of greenhouse on the tomato farm that has been built next to the plant. It‘s a bit like talking to your plants on an industrial scale.
At times we currently don’t generate enough electricity in the UK to meet demand, and rely on imports from continental Europe. So I just don’t see how we are going to charge everyone’s electric vehicle overnight.
Last time I looked at the UK‘s strategy for electrical generation it still had gas fired power stations in the mix, and will probably do so for the next 25 years at least. There are 3 sites that I know of that have been granted planning permission to build a new gas fired power station, but as yet they haven‘t broken the ground on any of the projects. So I don’t see the reliance on fossil fuels diminishing in my remaining lifetime.
There are also hidden sources of CO2 that very rarely get spoken about, for example landfill gas contains around 25% carbon dioxide before it is burnt to generate electricity.
Cement manufacturing plant have around 25 to 40% CO2 in their emissions. The calcium carbonate gets broken down into lime and CO2. So just think about how much construction you see on a daily basis.
Conversely there is one gas fired power plant that I know of that it’s emissions are mainly CO2 and water vapour and deemed to be relatively Clean. Some of this exhaust gas is diverted to heat several miles of greenhouse on the tomato farm that has been built next to the plant. It‘s a bit like talking to your plants on an industrial scale.
An Ankoù
Landlord.
I rather think that we need to be more revolutionary in our thinking. It's not really a question of charging electric cars- have you ever considered how much energy is involved making an electric (or any other) car? We've got to stop having private cars and electrify public transport. Extrapolate that thinking to cover the other examples you give and you'll see where I'm coming from. Either way, it's going to happen: we'll either choose to adapt and adjust radically, or it'll be done for us by there being relatively little of the Earth which will support human life.
Time to brew an apocalyptic beer, I think.
I would wish that we not ignore the issue in favor of money/power, as is the case, and due to some discomfort. I wouldn't expect anything like this happen overnight but there's a stuck point at those with power and it's going to be difficult to shift us in the proper direction.
I just read that the Salem Witch Trials were due to, mainly, a power/money grab. I can't say if that is actually what happened then but it makes sense. I have observed, first hand, that if you want to know why something non-optimum-wise is going on at the business end of things, find out who's benefiting and follow the money. Those cats, absent of morals or, at least, foresight, want to hang on to their money and power to the detriment of all else.
I just read that the Salem Witch Trials were due to, mainly, a power/money grab. I can't say if that is actually what happened then but it makes sense. I have observed, first hand, that if you want to know why something non-optimum-wise is going on at the business end of things, find out who's benefiting and follow the money. Those cats, absent of morals or, at least, foresight, want to hang on to their money and power to the detriment of all else.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,201
- Reaction score
- 2,095
Obviously that's one reason that's an immediate incentive for humans to do something about rising sea levels. But the big issue is just the rate of change is so unprecedentedly rapid, normally changes of this kind of magnitude happen over 10k's of years and so evolution has a chance to keep up and new species can evolve if necessary. But a change of 1 degree in 40 years is just unprecedented as far as we know.
The big forests were on the continent of Antarctica, not in the Arctic Ocean, although that's partly a factor of continental drift and also eg the closing up of central America which had a huge effect on ocean circulation. Again, it's the speed of change that's the problem - and also it wasn't much consolation to anything living in Antarctica at the time....
Citation needed.
The majority of scientists have got it pretty right - and crucially, have been prepared to change their mind when new facts emerge. Where politicians have followed the science, like in Japan, South Korea etc, the pandemic has had far less impact than eg the disaster in Florida where they've chosen to follow the advice of the Great Barrington mob. And the cranks have a huge advantage over the scientists - as the old saying goes, a lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on. See eg this post. But this is not the thread for talking about the pandemic.
No!
But of course that doesn't mean it can't be useful elsewhere. As far as solar heat versus solar electricity goes, electricity is more valuable so usually solar panels should be the first thing to look at.
You are misinformed - we have direct temperature records going back to 1659 for the Central England Temperature dataset. Before that we can use differences in the levels of isotopes which are taken up into different materials at slightly different levels depending on temperature - it's a variation on carbon dating and works surprisingly well, and can go back millions of years. Here's a representation of the CET data since 1659 - you can see eg how November in particular has got warmer :
Last edited:
- Status
