Why we need "Net zero"

[Beelbeebub]

23 minutes ago, Spinny said:

If only that were still true. In today's world academics get monitored and ranked by papers published and citations. Lots of junk journals and journals with biased editors etc. Academics can often engage in mutual back scratching, reviewing, citing, and naming each other on papers for mutual advantage.

The massive, overwhelming weight of scientific observations is on the side of climate change being real and humans being the main driver.  The "naysayers" are in the tiny minority and almost all have major links to the fossil fuel industry. 

 

But again, my argument is entirely uncoupled from climate change. Whether you believe the climate isn't changing,or it is changing but it's caused by sunspots or humans are changing thr climate but that's actually a good thing is totally irrelevant to the fact the UK is becoming more and more dependent on a substance we cannot obtain ourselves. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[JohnMo]

46 minutes ago, Spinny said:

I don't need to cite a paper to disprove something. Anthropogenic driven climate change through emmissions of carbon dioxide is a hypothesis which has not been scientifically proven. There are no papers that prove it occurs. All we have is a claimed correlation over 50-100 years between industrialisation and global CO2 emmissions and some average global temperatures. 50-100 years is a short time period - there are plenty of climate variations with no industrialisation - the romans grew grapes in england. It is a theory and correlation is not necessarily causation. Many models are built and used where CO2 driven warming is assumed as input and therefore produce warming output. There are alternative theories and many doubting and questioning scientists that are frequently censored, blocked, and cancelled. Others use their wealth to promote the theory by paying journalists to write anthropogenic climate change propaganda. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it is certainly unproven and has very considerable doubt and uncertainty.

 

Unfortunately many people do not understand how science works, many people are unable to cope with things being uncertain, many people are content to watch BBC climate propaganda without questioning it, many people want to make political capital out of it, or to make money off the back of it.

 

It is very wrong to be tearing up the UK economy and finances as though it is a climate emergency when it is not. If we get some perspective we can think of many things that we were told 20 years ago would be upon us but are not - from polar bears dying out, coral reefs being no more, the sea lapping at the ankles of the statue of liberty, the earth ''boiling'', the polar ice retreating opening up the arctic seas - none of which has occurred.

 

In the internet age nothing sells like fear, every other piece of clickbait is a scare story. 

 

It takes all sorts - all opinions are good, even wrong ones.

 

Deleted the rest of the comment, it's not worth the effort.

[Spinny]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

There is a scientific reason that seemingly small rises in atmospheric can have a disproportionate effect on global temperatures.

There is also research that shows global temperatures going going back 1.2 million years. Is that long enough for you.

There is a scientific theory yes - a hypothesis. In physics we look to establish the veracity of theories using experiment with independent repetition. The experiments aim to show that the predictions of the theory occur in practice. To my knowledge no actual experiments have been done as it is clearly difficult if not impossible to replicate a mini earth and atmosphere to experiment on in the lab.

For the theory which does exist there are also strong counter arguments e.g. that (1) atmospheric effects reach a saturation point beyond which more CO2 no longer significantly impacts temperature and (2) that the impact of water vapour and clouds - present  in vastly greater amounts than the 0.04% of CO2 - drown out any CO2 effects. One theory was even based on variations in cosmic rays impacting the nucleation and formation of cloud cover. Lots of things impact climate - many cyclical.

In the longer term records there are clear disgreements over whether higher CO2 is actually a cause of higher temperatures, or indeed is itself caused by higher temperatures. Looking for simplistic dependencies in complex systems can be misleading.

I am not saying it is wrong, I am just saying it is not proven and is open to question. Unfortunately too many people would rather engage in  personal attacks, cancellation, and spurious appeals to 'authority', over actual engagement in scientific debate.

 

Certainly I have studied Physics. Presumably you are aware anthropogenic climate emergency is questioned by at least one Physics nobel prize winner.

 

But I think we get off the point, which is really just an appeal for recognising uncertainty and doubt, and not charging around like just stop oil fanatics insisting on net zero extremism.

 

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Not how academic peer reviewing works.

Rogue reviewers soon get found out, and the consequences are usually pretty severe.

There is a big difference between science (as in the method) and opinion.  Opinion is not science, it is just thoughts.

Worth studying Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend and how they differed in their approach to quantum physics.  It is heavy going philosophy but put the scientific method on a firmer footing.

If an opinion is said, heard or quoted, assume that there has been no experiments, data collected, analysis and reviewing.  An opinion is not science so cannot be falsified.

 

Hmmm. Science is just current opinion though.

 

If it wasnt, it would be "fixed". But its not. It changes as we learn and discover more.

[Onoff]

39 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Physics nobel prize winner.

 

Presumably if he hadn't have won he'd have no longer felt bound to think purely of peace?

[SteamyTea]

2 hours ago, Spinny said:

Presumably you are aware anthropogenic climate emergency is questioned by at least one Physics nobel prize winner.

Yes, John Clauser, paid by the American Petroleum Institute.  And you think scientist are corrupt.

I studied the very field that he says is the cause.  I abandoned it as a long term study as the science, experiments and events, all pointed to it not being the main cause.  In the last decade and a half, the subject has been studied intensively and no studies have really shown that it is anything more than a short term weather phenomenon. But all that is a digression.

If you are serious about debate on anthropogenic climate change, go get a higher degree in the subject and then rubbish all the research, that will level the playing field for you.

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by SteamyTea
Tidied up my bad written English

[Beelbeebub]

Again, for those at the back 

 

Whether or not climate change is happening is totally irrelevant to the fact the UK is rapidly becoming more and more dependant on an energy source we have to import 

 

I suspect the continuing invoking of the climate change question is simply a coping mechanism to avoid having to face the inevitable. 

 

The numbers on current uk fossil fuel production are not a matter of opinion. 

 

The numbers on future uk production are less certain but even using the most optimistic forecasts by the organisations most biased towards continuing fossil fuel dependency the future looks decidedly bleak 

Edited 13 hours ago by Beelbeebub

[Mike]

35 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

Science is just current opinion though.

Science is a process. Over time, through repeated experimentation, testing, review and criticism it develops explanations of reality, often based in mathematics, that best fit the currently available evidence. If new evidence is gathered and/or better explanations are developed, then the consensus best explanation of reality eventually changes.

 

Opinions are subjective personal judgements. Individual scientists may hold them, but that doesn't turn opinions into science, nor science into opinions.

 

[Beelbeebub]

In before someone says "scientists thought global cooling was a thing in the 70's! How do you explain that?!" 

[JohnMo]

My view, is do due diligence on anything you read. Who is writing it, what is their background - where is the money coming from, that allows the research and pays the bills. If you can't easily find these details ask yourself why not! Most likely it's going to filed in the nonsense pile or pile of, most likely sponsored, by some organisation with a view to spin.

[Spinny]

1 hour ago, Beelbeebub said:

Again, for those at the back 

You seem not to understand the point I made.

 

You cannot in one breath push for and bring about the destruction of the UKs indigineous fossil fuel industry (in the name of CO2 emmissions and climate emergency) AND then bemoan the low levels of UK energy security because of the need to import fossil fuels.

 

You cannot claim the lack of UK indigineous fossil fuel industry (which you have acted to destroy) as a reason to destroy all fossil fuel use. There is only 1 reason there - you want to destroy use of fossil fuels in the UK to achieve net zero - it is 1 reason, there is no 2nd reason regarding energy security. You are using tautology and not recognising it. Smoke and mirrors.

 

We are going to be using fossil fuels for many decades to come whatever is done. The UK cannot go net zero in any short timescale, so we will be happily burning gas for many more decades, like it or not.

 

Energy security has many solutions including building gas & oil storage facilities, building nuclear power stations (large & small), building clean coal solutions. Batteries will eventually play a role. etc.

 

Mr Millipede has just announced a new package of mad policies to ban gas boilers in new builds and spend a fortune installing heat pumps for the poor (who often live in accommodation for which they are unsuitable). Fortunately there is no industry capacity to achieve his policies on the scale he proposes, and thankfully he will be out of power within 3.5 years now.

 

IMO, the country does not need mad crusading zealots leading us into self destruction like Chicken Licken.

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Spinny

[JohnMo]

2 minutes ago, Spinny said:

to ban gas boilers in new builds and spend a fortune installing heat pumps for the poor (who often live in accommodation for which they are unsuitable

Sorry this statement alone is just utter nonsense. A heat pump is suitable for any property, when correct designed. Why does it cost a fortune to install a heat pump in a new build? You already have to install low temp heating system to comply with BR. A 35 deg system isn't even going to much of a cost premium.

 

If I can buy a new heat pump for £2100, a large organisation will buy for half that!

 

Scotland banned gas boilers a while ago and whole building industry came to a standstill - not. 

 

ASHP, no gas standing charge, a single zone system, without hydraulic seperation, SCoP of 4 plus easily. Cheaper for the house holder, get over it.

[Spinny]

I didn't actually say it cost a fortune to install a heat pump in a new build - where did I say that ?

 

And the poor don't generally live in new builds.

 

We are talking about older properties and going around ripping out existing central heating to replace it with heat pumps at great TOTAL cost to the tax payer. Think victorian terraces of flats and high rise buildings, cheek by jowl, little parking, no gardens.

 

When someone from government (Millipede) arrives and says 'I am here to help you' - run for your life as fast as you can.

 

The history of centrally planned economies is not good for anyone.

[JohnMo]

31 minutes ago, Spinny said:

ban gas boilers in new builds and spend a fortune installing heat pumps for the poor (who often live in accommodation for which they are unsuitable).

Sorry, you just clump it all in one sentence, can only respond to what I read.

 

But as I said a well designed ASHP system is suitable for any property. But also not mentioned a piss poor design, can be be very bad in any property new or old.

[Spinny]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

John Clauser, paid by the American Petroleum Institute

According to ChatGPT...

"No — there’s no credible evidence that John F. Clauser is paid by the American Petroleum Institute (API)."

 

[Mike]

51 minutes ago, Spinny said:

John F. Clauser

Jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science".

Clearly not an expert in climate science then.

 

Then there's:

 

Alexis Carrel - Awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1912 "in recognition of his work on vascular sutures and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs".

Believed in telepathy and eugenics.

 

Richard Smalley - Jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry 1996 "for their discovery of fullerenes"

Believed that evolution could not have occurred.
 

There are others...

[Beelbeebub]

8 hours ago, Spinny said:

According to ChatGPT

Ah, there's your problem..... 

[Beelbeebub]

9 hours ago, Spinny said:

You seem not to understand the point I made.

 

You cannot in one breath push for and bring about the destruction of the UKs indigineous fossil fuel industry (in the name of CO2 emmissions and climate emergency) AND then bemoan the low levels of UK energy security because of the need to import fossil fuels.

I think you are the one missing my point.

 

The decline of UK production is down to geology - the fields we have in our territories are nearly empty. 

 

Here is a study commissioned by the FF industry body. 

 

Note the decline even if everything goes well. 

 

They have even included an "unconstrained" case

 

Which shows that maximum possible extraction and that is only 3x the current (declining) projection, ie still falling, just not as fast. 

 

So, given we are running out of our fossil fuels, we have two alternatives 

 

A) continue as we are and accept importing an ever increacing amount of our use.

 

B) taken steps to minimise our use of FF by reducing energy demand and substituting, where possible, an energy type we can produce. 

 

Which one do you want A or B? Pick. 

 

 

 

 

[Marvin]

In the UK 45-50% of energy is used for heating. 

 

What we need is more sheep. We can then produce more wool.

 

[Roger440]

5 minutes ago, Marvin said:

In the UK 45-50% of energy is used for heating. 

 

What we need is more sheep. We can then produce more wool.

 

There's plenty of wool already. Farmers bury it rather than sell as selling incurs losses. 

 

Which is madness. But unless someone comes a long, scales up to make wool insulation at a competitive price, it will continue to be worthless, and we keep using fossil fuels to make insulation.

 

In reality,bis someone tried to do this, they would simply be bought out by the established players.

[Marvin]

Er, I was thinking people should wear it.😂 

 

But on a serious note our home produces more energy than it uses in a year, just not when we need it. We need good energy storage. 

[Spinny]

27 minutes ago, Marvin said:

We need good energy storage. 

Energy storage seems to be coming. Would seem best to wait for sodium batteries made in the West rather than enable China's oppression. Also avoids the fire risk of lithium.

 

(I remember buying an early flat screen TV - within 18-24 months you could buy 50% larger for almost half the price.)

[Marvin]

6 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Energy storage seems to be coming.

Yup. And if proven to be successful will be a game changer! Thats why I put as much PV in as possible..

Edited 1 hour ago by Marvin
further thought

[Beelbeebub]

11 hours ago, Spinny said:

Mr Millipede has just announced a new package of mad policies to ban gas boilers in new builds and spend a fortune installing heat pumps for the poor (who often live in accommodation for which they are unsuitable). Fortunately there is no industry capacity to achieve his policies on the scale he proposes, and thankfully he will be out of power within 3.5 years now.

There is no ban. 

 

The ban was originally mooted by the conservatives for 2025, then extended to 2035, then watered down to 80% phase out by Sunak. Milliband just reiterated that position a few days ago. 

 

'There isn’t going to be a ban because Rishi Sunak, well, they never legislated for the ban and then he said he wasn’t going to do it,' explained Mr. Miliband.

 

He further emphasized Labour’s transparency in their manifesto, which assured that consumers would not be compelled to discard existing gas boilers.

 

So there - no ban an no compelling people to switch. 

 

However by 2035 we will be importing even more of our gas so installing a gas boiler in 2035 would be like buying a betamax player in 2001.

[Beelbeebub]

11 hours ago, Spinny said:

Energy security has many solutions including building gas & oil storage facilities, building nuclear power stations (large & small), building clean coal solutions. Batteries will eventually play a role. etc.

Yes, aside from the clean coal (which is not a viable technology and exists, like hydrogen boilers, purely as a tech fig leaf to keep doing nothing). 

 

Personally I think we need much more gas storage and more gas plants as backup for the times when renewables are low.

 

Don't mistake my position for not using a single drop of fossil fuels. We will.meed them for all sorts of things - aviation, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, certain transport, defence etc. 

 

Oil and gas are important resources that are absolutely vital to our modern way of life. 

 

Which is why it is absolutely crazy that we take our dwindling supply and set it on fire to heat our houses and pick up the shopping when we could do those things without burning a drop.