On 17 May, 14:38, John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

How do you feel about this being put on the wiki? Could be useful
information I think.

Short answer:

A detail tables of accurate u values would be quite handy - if fo no
other reason than being able to work out how meet building regs.

For some reason TNP has chosen not to answer, so I guess it wont go
on..


NT

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
(Peter Ashby) writes:
For what reasons? What about the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong?

No one's managed to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere.

They have.

Water vapour is the main greenhouse
gas,

Water vapour cannot increase without it rains.

and methane comes a poor second.

Methane breaks down pretty quickly in te current ecosphere chemical regime.

If CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, it is way less significant than either
of these.

No, its significant because it hangs around for thousands of years, is
capable of dramatic increases and it it IS a greenhouse gas of
considerable note.

Secondly, no one can find any evidence that
the greenhouse effect is playing any part in global
warming -- the atmosphere at what scientists think would
be the top of the greenhouse cycle hasn't got warmer
since we've been measuring it.

I don't know where you got all that toss from. It is in direct
contradiction to every single study done.


What about the computer models is wrong?

We barely have a tiny fraction of the data necessary
to do any modelling. Given most of the data has to be
made up to run any model, you can make the models say
whatever you like.
********.

Noting that the more detail is
put in the closer they get to the observed situation (always a good sign
when modelling). What about the historical correlations of CO2 levels
with temperature going back a long way now?

That's the easiest thing of all to explain. The largest
resoviour of mobile CO2 is the sea. When you warm the sea,
the solubility of CO2 reduces raising the partial pressure
in the sea, which forces CO2 out into the atmosphere to
maintain equilibrium. When the sea cools, the reverse
happens. You would absolutely expect the CO2 levels to
correlate with temperature. More recently with more
accurate dating, there's some evidence that the CO2 level
correlation lags the temperature changes by some hundreds
of years, which also ties up with how long the sea is
expected to take to warm and cool under the influence of
atmospheric temperature changes. This would also point to
the CO2 level change being an effect of temperature change,
and not the cause.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 12:23:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

But, to go back to the original point, it is indeed surprising that
*any* thickness of insulation makes a huge difference. The problem is
the lack of any material that you can stick on the wall and decorate.
I lived in a house with polystyrene lined walls 40 years ago. Cheap
and easy, but so vulnerable to knocks that it wasn't practical. Even
then people were lining their walls with vinyl cushion floor. I lined
an exposed room with cork in the 70s. Difficult to believe there
aren't better solutions out there now.

There are. It's called Celotex.

Not that different to polystyrene in texture


But twice as good an insulant, and not subject to killing people in a dire.



The question then becomes one of how much is one willing to lose from
the room dimensions.



50mm sheet would go some way towards modern standards. Installation
would imply 75-100mm reduction in room dimension once finished.
There are then the joinery (window reveals and skirting) and
redecoration issues (walls, floor coverings, ceilings) to address, so
although simple in principle there is a lot in the implementation.


What is needed is a material less than 10mm thick so that the dimensions
of the room aren't seriously affected. The ridiculously expensive
astro-foil might be an answer if it was more rigid and could be painted.
Some kind of synthetic cork possibly.

Insulation properties at that thickness are compromised.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:



|! I have spent more than 0.12% of my
|! income over many years to limit my use of energy.
|!
|!Lovely. How much difference has that made to "saving" the planet?

If *everyone* had done that we would not be in the mess we are now in.
no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.

Big Deal.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
(Peter Ashby) writes:

For what reasons? What about the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong?

No one's managed to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the main greenhouse
gas, and methane comes a poor second. If CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, it is way less significant than either
of these.

Since there is vastly more CO2 than methane the lesser effect per
molecule is not significant. Water vapour is only a greenhouse gas if
it is not in clouds and that depends on the altitude of the clouds.

Secondly, no one can find any evidence that
the greenhouse effect is playing any part in global
warming -- the atmosphere at what scientists think would
be the top of the greenhouse cycle hasn't got warmer
since we've been measuring it.

Because the oceans haven't reached thermal equilibrium with the
atmosphere yet, when even the deep sea has warmed the ocean will take
less of the heat and the atmosphere will warm appreciably. And the sea
level rise due to thermal expansion will hit us. I'm glad I don't live
on Canvey Island.

What about the computer models is wrong?

We barely have a tiny fraction of the data necessary
to do any modelling. Given most of the data has to be
made up to run any model, you can make the models say
whatever you like.

yet they are getting closer and closer to modelling reality, which means
they have accounted for the major operators. If the remaining factors
were so significant as to render the modelling as unreliable as you seem
to imply it would show up. Geeze this is standard science, you build a
model of reality, test it and refine it until you get it to accurately
reflect reality. The climate computer models are no different from other
forms of scientific modelling. If you reject that aspect of the climate
models you have to reject most of the scientific method.

Noting that the more detail is
put in the closer they get to the observed situation (always a good sign
when modelling). What about the historical correlations of CO2 levels
with temperature going back a long way now?

That's the easiest thing of all to explain. The largest
resoviour of mobile CO2 is the sea. When you warm the sea,
the solubility of CO2 reduces raising the partial pressure
in the sea, which forces CO2 out into the atmosphere to
maintain equilibrium.

That of course completely ignores the fact that the oceans' ability to
absorb CO2 is not simply a matter of solubility, after all where did the
White Cliffs come from? The sea is alive, biological capacity will alter
depending on temperature and fertility. The ability of the sea to bloom,
capture CO2 in things like diatom skeletons and then lay those skeletons
down put your simplistic caricature to shame. And you have the temerity
to accuse the climate models of not including relevant factors.

Peter

--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

On 17 May 2007 22:37:37 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
(Peter Ashby) writes:

For what reasons? What about the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong?

No one's managed to show that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the main greenhouse
gas, and methane comes a poor second. If CO2 is a
greenhouse gas, it is way less significant than either
of these.

The thing about CO2 is not necessarily it's primary effect on planetary
warming. It's that small increases in CO2 cause a (small) increase in
temperatures, which in turn releases more water vapour into the atmosphere.
As you rightly say, it's the water vapour that is the major warming gas,
but the amount of it in the air depends on the CO2 "driving" that lets
it evapourate in the first place.
CO2 starts the avalanche.


Secondly, no one can find any evidence that
the greenhouse effect is playing any part in global
warming -- the atmosphere at what scientists think would
be the top of the greenhouse cycle hasn't got warmer
since we've been measuring it.

The greenhouse effect is very real, both in theory and in fact. Even
without human intervention the CO2 that occurs naturally in the air
increases the temperature of the planet by 10's of degrees. Without it,
the place would be much colder.

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

wrote:
On 17 May, 14:38, John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

How do you feel about this being put on the wiki? Could be useful
information I think.

Short answer:

A detail tables of accurate u values would be quite handy - if fo no
other reason than being able to work out how meet building regs.

For some reason TNP has chosen not to answer, so I guess it wont go
on..


Oh. Sorry.

Its in the building regs..or my copy anyway.

What do you want me to do?



NT

On May 17, 3:24 pm, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:58:49 +0100, Grunff wrote:
|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:

|!
|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!There's your flaw, right there. You are blindly accepting that the
|!planet needs saving. It doesn't. It's managed perfectly fine for
|!billions of years, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Even I can see with my own eyes, or more accurately skin have noticed a
massive increase temperature in the UK.

Go and learn about the variation in the activity of the Sun and it's
effect on climate. When your done, come back and tell us how we can
turn the sun down a notch or two.

MBQ

wrote:
On May 17, 3:24 pm, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:58:49 +0100, Grunff wrote:
|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:

|!
|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!There's your flaw, right there. You are blindly accepting that the
|!planet needs saving. It doesn't. It's managed perfectly fine for
|!billions of years, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Even I can see with my own eyes, or more accurately skin have noticed a
massive increase temperature in the UK.

Go and learn about the variation in the activity of the Sun and it's
effect on climate. When your done, come back and tell us how we can
turn the sun down a notch or two.


Then go and look at the measured graphs of sun output and compare with
the current rises.

And shut up.


MBQ

On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
|!
|!
|!
|! |! I have spent more than 0.12% of my
|! |! income over many years to limit my use of energy.
|! |!
|! |!Lovely. How much difference has that made to "saving" the planet?
|!
|! If *everyone* had done that we would not be in the mess we are now in.
|!no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.

99% cure would do me.
--
Dave Fawthrop sf hyphenologist.co.uk 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any
address in the UK. Contact me on the *above* email address.

On 2007-05-18 12:46:30 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
|!
|!
|!
|! |! I have spent more than 0.12% of my
|! |! income over many years to limit my use of energy.
|! |!
|! |!Lovely. How much difference has that made to "saving" the planet?
|!
|! If *everyone* had done that we would not be in the mess we are now in.
|!no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.

99% cure would do me.

Shame it's neither realistic nor necessary.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
On 17 May, 14:38, John Rumm wrote:
wrote:

How do you feel about this being put on the wiki? Could be useful
information I think.

Short answer:

A detail tables of accurate u values would be quite handy - if fo no
other reason than being able to work out how meet building regs.

For some reason TNP has chosen not to answer, so I guess it wont go
on..


Oh. Sorry.

Its in the building regs..or my copy anyway.

What do you want me to do?

Basic wiki article on u values and a nice big list of em for all the
typical building materials. (don't think current building regs have much
in along those lines do they?)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 12:23:10 +0100, Stuart Noble
said:

But, to go back to the original point, it is indeed surprising that
*any* thickness of insulation makes a huge difference. The problem
is the lack of any material that you can stick on the wall and
decorate. I lived in a house with polystyrene lined walls 40 years
ago. Cheap and easy, but so vulnerable to knocks that it wasn't
practical. Even then people were lining their walls with vinyl
cushion floor. I lined an exposed room with cork in the 70s.
Difficult to believe there aren't better solutions out there now.

There are. It's called Celotex.

Not that different to polystyrene in texture


But twice as good an insulant, and not subject to killing people in a dire.



The question then becomes one of how much is one willing to lose from
the room dimensions.



50mm sheet would go some way towards modern standards.
Installation would imply 75-100mm reduction in room dimension once
finished. There are then the joinery (window reveals and skirting)
and redecoration issues (walls, floor coverings, ceilings) to
address, so although simple in principle there is a lot in the
implementation.


What is needed is a material less than 10mm thick so that the
dimensions of the room aren't seriously affected. The ridiculously
expensive astro-foil might be an answer if it was more rigid and could
be painted. Some kind of synthetic cork possibly.

Insulation properties at that thickness are compromised.

Of course, but still apparently a *lot* better than nothing, and easy to
put up.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:06:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|!Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|! On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
|!
|!
|!
|! |! I have spent more than 0.12% of my
|! |! income over many years to limit my use of energy.
|! |!
|! |!Lovely. How much difference has that made to "saving" the planet?
|!
|! If *everyone* had done that we would not be in the mess we are now in.
|!no, we'd be in 99.78% of the mess instead.

99% cure would do me.
99% cure is 1% of the mess.

99.78% of the mess is .12% of the cure.