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


NT

PS cant get goggle group to reply to thread :/



The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ok, found the book

This is U values not K. Watts per sq meter per degree K.

DG windows range from 2.2 to 4.2..depending on gap, filling and
frame.

SG windows are in the range 4.7-5.8 depending on frame.

Note a good wood frame SG is almost as good as a crap DG metal
frame...

solid doors are about 3.

9" solid brick wall about 3.5

4.5" single brick wall 7.

10mm expanded polystyrene or rock wool or 6mm Celotex 3.5

...yes folks, thats how little will HALVE the heat loss through a 9"
solid brick wall. and if its a single 4.5" brick wall..just 5mm of
polystyrene will halve it, too..

15mm plasterboard has a U value of about 10.

15mm of wood paneling is about a U value of 10 too.

Its very instructive to see how a brick wall without cavity, a window
and a door are all very similar..this is typical Victorian style
construction, and how little 15mm of wood flooring will help with an
underfloor vented cavity, or 15mm of plasterboard ceiling will help
with
a vented roof cavity..Brr!.

Its also very instructive to see how little insulation is needed to
make
a substantial difference to this sort of property.

Now building regs are trying to get U values down below 0.3
overall..about TEN TIMES better than a Victorian 'as built' standard.

You can instantly see that uninsulated plasterboard ceilings to a
vented roof are by far and away the worst losers of heat. Which
vindicates the emphasis on loft insulation.

Its also easy to see why Britain, with loads of suspended wooden
floors
has a penchant for fitted carpets with thick underlay..

Its very hard to see why double glazing is so insisted on.

Its very easy to see just how bad solid brick walls are as well..and
remember a cavity wall with exterior air bricks is not far off a 4.5"
single brick wall, in a moderate breeze..you don't need a lot of
insulation to radically improve these sorts of wall..dry lining with
just 1/4" of Celotex will halve the heat loss through a solid brick
wall. Add in 15mm of plasterboard and U value is down to 1.5 from
3.5.
For a total loss in room dimensions of less than an inch all round
the
exterior walls. No brainer innit?

Now lets consider a room - say its 12x8 ft. and 8ft high, with two
external walls. So external area is 96+64=186 sq ft..and lets
consider
it has a suspended floor and be generous with carpeting and put that
as
U value of 3.5 same as the walls.. so another 96 sq ft takes us to
270
sq ft.

Thats a total area of 25 sq meters. Lets assume an average annual
internal temp of 19C and 14C average annual external..so 5C drop..so
the
watts required is 5x3.5x25= 437.5 watts. And a peak requirement at
-6C
external of 5 times that..2187 watts.

Consider how we might improve all this.

Let's say we have two windows totalling 2.5 sq meters. At a U value
of
5..so thats just 8% of the total heatloss from the room. A GOOD DG
unit
should more than halve that..netting us a 4% gain, or ariound 17.5
watts
average, and annualized around 155KWh..say at 10p per unit..£15 a
year
gain.For probably about £1500 outlay. So a 1% ROI.

Now let's dry line the room with 2" celotex on the external
walls..thats
50mm. Thats a U value of 0.4, so with 15mm plasterboard at 10, and
our
wall at 3.5, neglecting cold bridging by studs we can achieve an
overall
wall U value of 0.35. 186sq ft (17.2799654 sq meters) less 2.5 sq
meters of windows nets us 15.2..and the saving in heat will be an
average of 240 W average. Or 2097KWh over the whole year.

Thats for 5 sheets of celotex and 5 sheets of plasterboard..and some
studwork..say 400 quid in all? and a hundred quids worth of skim and
paint..well anyway its WELL under £1000, and at 10p a KWh, it will
save
£200 per annum. An ROI of around at LEAST 20%.

Similar gains may be expected from doing the same to the floor.

In short even if my figures for energy costs are high, based on
electricity, the gains to be had from drylining are about 20 times as
cost effective as double glazing.

If we add in an insulated floor as well..then our gains are about 234
watts out of the 437..such that all that is left is the window
really..about 63W average...and our walls are now losing just 40
watts
average.

In short we have come from 437.5 watts down to 103W..75% of the
heating
bill has gone. Adding SG might net us a further 40W or so, but so
would
a decent set of nice lined curtains.

My points are these.

1/. Loft wall and floor insulation represents ROI of up to 30% or
more..

2/. Loft wall and floor insulation on an uninsulated property
represents
up to 70% energy reduction. More if you do it to full building
control
specs. With a typical figure of less than 10% of wall area and only
a
factor of two improvement, double glazing represents at best a 5%
energy
saving on an otherwise uninsulated or just loft insulated house, and
probably less than 1% ROI. It is in fact a total waste of money and
will
never pay for itself..unless you had to replace the windows anyway.

3/. Fitting a new boiler is easy enough..going from a 50% efficient
boiler to an 80% efficient one is a net energy improvement of 37.5%
in
bills..the ROI will be easy to calculate from your annualised fuel
bills.

4/. Let's say our 437W room has two 100W lamps, used an average of 4
hours a day..291.2 KWh per year..and we replace then with two 17W
CFLs..costing a fiver each. So we come down to just 49Kwh per annum.
AND
we have to make good the heat no longer added to the room..well
anyway
the net saving IS about £24 on electricity...not bad returns for a
tenner..but mitigated by the fact that we have to add the heat back
with
the boiler..in terms of saving the planet we don't really save that
much
after all..as our boiler is not a great deal better than the
electricity
generating plant. Still, it's something.

5/. Here's another interesting calculation. Let's say our house is a
4
bed detached one comprising 8 rooms on two storeys as calculated. so
it's total heating is 8x437 watts. Annualised that is 30MWh. About
£3000
to heat then with electricity (and as anyone who has used storage
heaters, in a house like that, thats not far off true). Now you get
about 10KWh per liter of heating oil (and similar for a cu meter of
gas
actually) so at say a 50% boiler efficiency, that's around 5Kwh per
liter..which equates to 6000 liters of oil to heat that house. Again
those of us who have heated houses like that know thats not
unrealistic.

That's 1320 gallons..enough to take a nice tidy 45mpg diesel car
60,000
miles...let's say you insulate your house and knock that down by
70%..you can afford to run a car for 42,000 miles a year and still be
using less oil.

Makes you wonder sometimes why car fuel is 90p a liter and heating
oil
is 30p a liter.

That actually puts a new 80% efficient boiler into perspective. Say
it
costs a grand. But puts out 8.5Kw/liter. You save 1500 liters a
year.
or around £450. On an uninsulated house.

On your 1800 liters a year insulated house, you will save just 450
lites, or £150. Not that great a saving..15% ROI.

6/. Wearing a £50 pullover that you replace every year, and knocking
your stat down by one degree, to 18C..saves you 20% of your annual
fuel
bill. If its at £1800 a year (30p/l and 6000 liters) and you are a
family of 4, that's £360 a year off your fuel bill for a cost of £200
of
woollies. :-)

Of course, once you insulate the house and are running at a mere £540
a
year heating bill, the savings of £108 are not worth the cost of
buying
(and washing) the pullovers..;-)

7/. One annual trip of 2000 miles by plane (at about 70mpg per
passenger)is peanuts compared with the 12,000 miles you do to commute
to
your job at 45mpgh, or less in congestion..

8/. Lets say you do 60 miles a day, 200 days a year ..a nice 12,000
mile commute. And you elect to stay at home and work 3 days a week
from
home. That takes you to 3000 miles a year commute. The direct savings
on
fuel at 45mpg are 200 liters. About £180 a year..but with motoring
costs
in total running at around £.20 a mile your real savings are nearer
£1800..and since you pay out of taxed income, that's about £3600 off
your gross salary..and £4000 of what you cost your employer..before
the
cost of office space., heating and lighting, and kit is taken into
account. Probably another £1800 or so. So he could afford to pay you
another £2200 a year to work from home, and you would be directly
£1800
better off..so the equivalent to a £4k pay rise to you, and a gain of
about 6 hours a week....240 hours a year on a 200 day working
year..or
about 6 weeks extra holiday in gain of leisure hours, to you.

Why ARE we commuting then? No real answer.

9/. What does a hot bath cost? well mine is 1.3 long x .5 wide x .
3deep
195 liters. But I take up a lot of that so lets say 100l for a really
good soak. I like my bath to be as hot as I can stand..lets say 45C
and
we will assume the average incoming water temp is around 14C ..so 39
c
rise and 100liters is 3900 calories or 16.4 Mjoules. That's getting
on
for a liter of fuel with a 50% efficient boiler. Gosh. Almost 30p.

Could cost as much as 100 quid a year to have a real soak every day.

10/. Do showers save money and the planet?
Well that depends on how good they are. we know that a mingy electric
shower soaks up 10KW..so on a 6 minute shower thats 1KWh..3.6MJ. Most
decent showers will do at least twice that..a typical combi today
might
do 30KW..so a 6 minute shower would be 10.8MJ. In short unless you
simply use showers for a quick brush up and are in and out quickly,
they
don't save you any money or water really at all over a medium bath.

11/. Does an electric kettle half full save the planet? Let's say
your
kettle is a liter. 2 pints or thereabouts. And the water in it is at
room temp..say 20C because you left it there from the last cup of
coffee. And you make 10 cups of coffee or tea a day. That's 800
kilocalories of heat a day. 3.36MJ. At a 50% fuel to electric
conversion
ratio that's almost a 1/6th of a liter. 5p!! almost £15 a year on
coffee
boiling!!! so lets say we save half of that directly..30 liters of
fuel
a year..In fact we don't, because a lot of the time we are heating
our
houses and the kettle is part of that..the net gain is probably less.
say 15 liters of fuel a year. about a fiver. Or to put it another way
thats about 3.3 gallons of fuel a year, or 150 miles of road fuel
usage.

Taking two days off work saves nearly that. or going to the
supermarket
at a 5 mile round trip one time less a week saves more.

Why did I taker the time to write all this?

Well..in cam.misc someone complained their gas bill was too high, and
in
UK.D-i-y, someone wanted to know how much better double glazing was
than
single glazing..and I really thought.."we get bombarded with green
crap,
told to buy CFL's take showers not baths, half fill kettles, buy new
boilers, fit double glazing and not fly"

And yet the reality is that the massive dominant and overriding two
things we do that chew up oil and cost us a bloody fortune, are heat
uninsulated houses, and drive to work every day. And the supermarket
every other day and the kids to school half the year..

The rest is completely irrelevant as long as we don't insulate the
walls
ceilings and floors, and continue to use the car on a daily basis to
do
an average of around 50 miles a day.

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


NT

PS cant get goggle group to reply to thread :/



The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ok, found the book

This is U values not K. Watts per sq meter per degree K.

DG windows range from 2.2 to 4.2..depending on gap, filling and
frame.

SG windows are in the range 4.7-5.8 depending on frame.

Note a good wood frame SG is almost as good as a crap DG metal
frame...

solid doors are about 3.

9" solid brick wall about 3.5

4.5" single brick wall 7.

10mm expanded polystyrene or rock wool or 6mm Celotex 3.5

..yes folks, thats how little will HALVE the heat loss through a 9"
solid brick wall. and if its a single 4.5" brick wall..just 5mm of
polystyrene will halve it, too..

15mm plasterboard has a U value of about 10.

15mm of wood paneling is about a U value of 10 too.

Its very instructive to see how a brick wall without cavity, a window
and a door are all very similar..this is typical Victorian style
construction, and how little 15mm of wood flooring will help with an
underfloor vented cavity, or 15mm of plasterboard ceiling will help
with
a vented roof cavity..Brr!.

Its also very instructive to see how little insulation is needed to
make
a substantial difference to this sort of property.

Now building regs are trying to get U values down below 0.3
overall..about TEN TIMES better than a Victorian 'as built' standard.

You can instantly see that uninsulated plasterboard ceilings to a
vented roof are by far and away the worst losers of heat. Which
vindicates the emphasis on loft insulation.

Its also easy to see why Britain, with loads of suspended wooden
floors
has a penchant for fitted carpets with thick underlay..

Its very hard to see why double glazing is so insisted on.

Its very easy to see just how bad solid brick walls are as well..and
remember a cavity wall with exterior air bricks is not far off a 4.5"
single brick wall, in a moderate breeze..you don't need a lot of
insulation to radically improve these sorts of wall..dry lining with
just 1/4" of Celotex will halve the heat loss through a solid brick
wall. Add in 15mm of plasterboard and U value is down to 1.5 from
3.5.
For a total loss in room dimensions of less than an inch all round
the
exterior walls. No brainer innit?

Now lets consider a room - say its 12x8 ft. and 8ft high, with two
external walls. So external area is 96+64=186 sq ft..and lets
consider
it has a suspended floor and be generous with carpeting and put that
as
U value of 3.5 same as the walls.. so another 96 sq ft takes us to
270
sq ft.

Thats a total area of 25 sq meters. Lets assume an average annual
internal temp of 19C and 14C average annual external..so 5C drop..so
the
watts required is 5x3.5x25= 437.5 watts. And a peak requirement at
-6C
external of 5 times that..2187 watts.

Consider how we might improve all this.

Let's say we have two windows totalling 2.5 sq meters. At a U value
of
5..so thats just 8% of the total heatloss from the room. A GOOD DG
unit
should more than halve that..netting us a 4% gain, or ariound 17.5
watts
average, and annualized around 155KWh..say at 10p per unit..£15 a
year
gain.For probably about £1500 outlay. So a 1% ROI.

Now let's dry line the room with 2" celotex on the external
walls..thats
50mm. Thats a U value of 0.4, so with 15mm plasterboard at 10, and
our
wall at 3.5, neglecting cold bridging by studs we can achieve an
overall
wall U value of 0.35. 186sq ft (17.2799654 sq meters) less 2.5 sq
meters of windows nets us 15.2..and the saving in heat will be an
average of 240 W average. Or 2097KWh over the whole year.

Thats for 5 sheets of celotex and 5 sheets of plasterboard..and some
studwork..say 400 quid in all? and a hundred quids worth of skim and
paint..well anyway its WELL under £1000, and at 10p a KWh, it will
save
£200 per annum. An ROI of around at LEAST 20%.

Similar gains may be expected from doing the same to the floor.

In short even if my figures for energy costs are high, based on
electricity, the gains to be had from drylining are about 20 times as
cost effective as double glazing.

If we add in an insulated floor as well..then our gains are about 234
watts out of the 437..such that all that is left is the window
really..about 63W average...and our walls are now losing just 40
watts
average.

In short we have come from 437.5 watts down to 103W..75% of the
heating
bill has gone. Adding SG might net us a further 40W or so, but so
would
a decent set of nice lined curtains.

My points are these.

1/. Loft wall and floor insulation represents ROI of up to 30% or
more..

2/. Loft wall and floor insulation on an uninsulated property
represents
up to 70% energy reduction. More if you do it to full building
control
specs. With a typical figure of less than 10% of wall area and only
a
factor of two improvement, double glazing represents at best a 5%
energy
saving on an otherwise uninsulated or just loft insulated house, and
probably less than 1% ROI. It is in fact a total waste of money and
will
never pay for itself..unless you had to replace the windows anyway.

3/. Fitting a new boiler is easy enough..going from a 50% efficient
boiler to an 80% efficient one is a net energy improvement of 37.5%
in
bills..the ROI will be easy to calculate from your annualised fuel
bills.

4/. Let's say our 437W room has two 100W lamps, used an average of 4
hours a day..291.2 KWh per year..and we replace then with two 17W
CFLs..costing a fiver each. So we come down to just 49Kwh per annum.
AND
we have to make good the heat no longer added to the room..well
anyway
the net saving IS about £24 on electricity...not bad returns for a
tenner..but mitigated by the fact that we have to add the heat back
with
the boiler..in terms of saving the planet we don't really save that
much
after all..as our boiler is not a great deal better than the
electricity
generating plant. Still, it's something.

5/. Here's another interesting calculation. Let's say our house is a
4
bed detached one comprising 8 rooms on two storeys as calculated. so
it's total heating is 8x437 watts. Annualised that is 30MWh. About
£3000
to heat then with electricity (and as anyone who has used storage
heaters, in a house like that, thats not far off true). Now you get
about 10KWh per liter of heating oil (and similar for a cu meter of
gas
actually) so at say a 50% boiler efficiency, that's around 5Kwh per
liter..which equates to 6000 liters of oil to heat that house. Again
those of us who have heated houses like that know thats not
unrealistic.

That's 1320 gallons..enough to take a nice tidy 45mpg diesel car
60,000
miles...let's say you insulate your house and knock that down by
70%..you can afford to run a car for 42,000 miles a year and still be
using less oil.

Makes you wonder sometimes why car fuel is 90p a liter and heating
oil
is 30p a liter.

That actually puts a new 80% efficient boiler into perspective. Say
it
costs a grand. But puts out 8.5Kw/liter. You save 1500 liters a
year.
or around £450. On an uninsulated house.

On your 1800 liters a year insulated house, you will save just 450
lites, or £150. Not that great a saving..15% ROI.

6/. Wearing a £50 pullover that you replace every year, and knocking
your stat down by one degree, to 18C..saves you 20% of your annual
fuel
bill. If its at £1800 a year (30p/l and 6000 liters) and you are a
family of 4, that's £360 a year off your fuel bill for a cost of £200
of
woollies. :-)

Of course, once you insulate the house and are running at a mere £540
a
year heating bill, the savings of £108 are not worth the cost of
buying
(and washing) the pullovers..;-)

7/. One annual trip of 2000 miles by plane (at about 70mpg per
passenger)is peanuts compared with the 12,000 miles you do to commute
to
your job at 45mpgh, or less in congestion..

8/. Lets say you do 60 miles a day, 200 days a year ..a nice 12,000
mile commute. And you elect to stay at home and work 3 days a week
from
home. That takes you to 3000 miles a year commute. The direct savings
on
fuel at 45mpg are 200 liters. About £180 a year..but with motoring
costs
in total running at around £.20 a mile your real savings are nearer
£1800..and since you pay out of taxed income, that's about £3600 off
your gross salary..and £4000 of what you cost your employer..before
the
cost of office space., heating and lighting, and kit is taken into
account. Probably another £1800 or so. So he could afford to pay you
another £2200 a year to work from home, and you would be directly
£1800
better off..so the equivalent to a £4k pay rise to you, and a gain of
about 6 hours a week....240 hours a year on a 200 day working
year..or
about 6 weeks extra holiday in gain of leisure hours, to you.

Why ARE we commuting then? No real answer.

9/. What does a hot bath cost? well mine is 1.3 long x .5 wide x .
3deep
195 liters. But I take up a lot of that so lets say 100l for a really
good soak. I like my bath to be as hot as I can stand..lets say 45C
and
we will assume the average incoming water temp is around 14C ..so 39
c
rise and 100liters is 3900 calories or 16.4 Mjoules. That's getting
on
for a liter of fuel with a 50% efficient boiler. Gosh. Almost 30p.

Could cost as much as 100 quid a year to have a real soak every day.

10/. Do showers save money and the planet?
Well that depends on how good they are. we know that a mingy electric
shower soaks up 10KW..so on a 6 minute shower thats 1KWh..3.6MJ. Most
decent showers will do at least twice that..a typical combi today
might
do 30KW..so a 6 minute shower would be 10.8MJ. In short unless you
simply use showers for a quick brush up and are in and out quickly,
they
don't save you any money or water really at all over a medium bath.

11/. Does an electric kettle half full save the planet? Let's say
your
kettle is a liter. 2 pints or thereabouts. And the water in it is at
room temp..say 20C because you left it there from the last cup of
coffee. And you make 10 cups of coffee or tea a day. That's 800
kilocalories of heat a day. 3.36MJ. At a 50% fuel to electric
conversion
ratio that's almost a 1/6th of a liter. 5p!! almost £15 a year on
coffee
boiling!!! so lets say we save half of that directly..30 liters of
fuel
a year..In fact we don't, because a lot of the time we are heating
our
houses and the kettle is part of that..the net gain is probably less.
say 15 liters of fuel a year. about a fiver. Or to put it another way
thats about 3.3 gallons of fuel a year, or 150 miles of road fuel
usage.

Taking two days off work saves nearly that. or going to the
supermarket
at a 5 mile round trip one time less a week saves more.

Why did I taker the time to write all this?

Well..in cam.misc someone complained their gas bill was too high, and
in
UK.D-i-y, someone wanted to know how much better double glazing was
than
single glazing..and I really thought.."we get bombarded with green
crap,
told to buy CFL's take showers not baths, half fill kettles, buy new
boilers, fit double glazing and not fly"

And yet the reality is that the massive dominant and overriding two
things we do that chew up oil and cost us a bloody fortune, are heat
uninsulated houses, and drive to work every day. And the supermarket
every other day and the kids to school half the year..

The rest is completely irrelevant as long as we don't insulate the
walls
ceilings and floors, and continue to use the car on a daily basis to
do
an average of around 50 miles a day.

The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything more
than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
4x4 and leave it at that.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

Most people *here* would find the information interesting.

Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
save the planet. It would only cost 0.12% of GDP every year, which is
peanuts.

FWIW I have been insulating my house, to well above the then standards for
more than 40 years. Every improvement I have made has made money in the
long run.
--
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 2007-05-17 11:45:53 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

It is the pattern of use which matters, which, in summary, was TNP's
original point.

I have two Land Rovers. They are useful for the things that I want to
do and I like them. The amount of use is quite small, with neither
exceeding 4000km per annum and is considerably less than the average.




Most people *here* would find the information interesting.

Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
save the planet.

Illogical statement. More gullibility.


It would only cost 0.12% of GDP every year, which is
peanuts.


As would be the outcome.


FWIW I have been insulating my house, to well above the then standards for
more than 40 years. Every improvement I have made has made money in the
long run.

Given infinite time, almost anything can do that.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 11:45:53 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything
more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

It is the pattern of use which matters, which, in summary, was TNP's
original point.

I have two Land Rovers. They are useful for the things that I want to
do and I like them. The amount of use is quite small, with neither
exceeding 4000km per annum and is considerably less than the average.




Most people *here* would find the information interesting.

Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
save the planet.

Illogical statement. More gullibility.


It would only cost 0.12% of GDP every year, which is
peanuts.


As would be the outcome.


FWIW I have been insulating my house, to well above the then standards
for
more than 40 years. Every improvement I have made has made money in the
long run.

Given infinite time, almost anything can do that.



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.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 11:45:53 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything
more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

It is the pattern of use which matters, which, in summary, was TNP's
original point.

I have two Land Rovers. They are useful for the things that I want
to do and I like them. The amount of use is quite small, with
neither exceeding 4000km per annum and is considerably less than the
average.




Most people *here* would find the information interesting.

Most people would be happy to make small changes to their
houses/lives to
save the planet.

Illogical statement. More gullibility.


It would only cost 0.12% of GDP every year, which is
peanuts.


As would be the outcome.


FWIW I have been insulating my house, to well above the then
standards for
more than 40 years. Every improvement I have made has made money in
the
long run.

Given infinite time, almost anything can do that.



But, to go back to the original point, it is indeed surprising that
*any* thickness of insulation makes a huge difference.

It shouldn't be. Consider the difference between being stark naked and
with half an inch of windproof padding on..

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.

Cork was also quite good. But with isocyanurate backed plasterboard
availlable, these are no longer worthy of consideration

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.


--
Grunff
Diamagnetic levitation:
http://www.shinyshack.com/product.php?prid=211095

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

Very mild, my immediate response was FOAD.

Also a Land Rover owner/driver, it doesn't guzzle gas (its diesel...). I
get over 30mpg on long runs and the average over 2.5 years is a shade over
29mpg. The car it replaced (a Mondeo) gave an average of 34mpg.

It is the pattern of use which matters,

I do about 15,000 miles a year and don't change cars every year or three.
I keep 'em until they wear out or get broken. The Mondeo got broken, at
near 10 years old. the car before it wore out (or rather the body work
gave up) again not far short of 10 years old. I fully intend to run this
Land Rover until it seriously breaks or is worn out.

Most of the environmental cost of a vehicle is in manufacture and disposal
not actually using it. This is my 5th vehicle in 30 years of driving. I
bet there are many out there who would have got through 10 to 30 vehicles
in that time.

As for not the direct and irrefutable link between 4x4 ownership and being
utterly selfish. It's such a daft statement it doesn't stand up to any
scrutiny and says much more about the gullable, media led, blinkered view
of the author than anything else.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

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.

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.

On 17 May 2007 01:37:36 -0700, wrote:


[A lot.]


What I want to know is why do we want to save the planet anyway?
So we can carry on splattering Iraqi kids over mud walls, or squeeze
and grind Africans dry for oil and minerals? I wouldn't give you
tuppence for the frigging planet.
Then again, hosting the Olympic Games is something of an honour and
privilege, so let's wait 'til we've done that before making any
drastic decisions.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

The reality is that some people fall for stereotypes without giving them
a moments analytical thought.



--
Cheers,

John.

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

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.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Another interesting article would be how best to insulate period
properties without also destroying the period features. For example: how
do you insulate a solid brick wall that has ornate masonry and brickwork
on the outside, and complex covings, mouldings, picture rails and
skirtings inside.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:37:33 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

The reality is that some people fall for stereotypes without giving them
a moments analytical thought.

Another reality is that there's no form of destructive anti-social
activity that can't be justified by some vested interest clever-clogs.
Take the recently incarcerated German cannibal for just one instance.

Not meaning you of course John, you're one of the good guys. A
thermoplastic glue-stick wouldn't melt in your mouth.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

John Rumm wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Another interesting article would be how best to insulate period
properties without also destroying the period features. For example: how
do you insulate a solid brick wall that has ornate masonry and brickwork
on the outside, and complex covings, mouldings, picture rails and
skirtings inside.

You don't. Period. Haha.

Mike Halmarack wrote:
On 17 May 2007 01:37:36 -0700, wrote:


[A lot.]


What I want to know is why do we want to save the planet anyway?
So we can carry on splattering Iraqi kids over mud walls, or squeeze
and grind Africans dry for oil and minerals? I wouldn't give you
tuppence for the frigging planet.
Then again, hosting the Olympic Games is something of an honour and
privilege, so let's wait 'til we've done that before making any
drastic decisions.

Well its notr so much saving the planet, as avoiding carrying out a
Holocaust-by-proxy that would make Auschwitz look like Butlins..

On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:41:45 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Another interesting article would be how best to insulate period
properties without also destroying the period features. For example: how
do you insulate a solid brick wall that has ornate masonry and brickwork
on the outside, and complex covings, mouldings, picture rails and
skirtings inside.

You have a purpose built bubble built which protects it from bad
weather too. You'd have to have a hole for the chimney and door.
Probably the protection from the nasty pollutants in the air would be
good for it too.

Or go bigger and insulate whole areas with domes like the ones at
Eden.
--
http://wwww.orderonlinepickupinstore.co.uk
Ah fetch it yourself if you can't wait for delivery
http://wwww.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
Or get it delivered for free

On Thu, 17 May 2007 14:48:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:
On 17 May 2007 01:37:36 -0700, wrote:


[A lot.]


What I want to know is why do we want to save the planet anyway?
So we can carry on splattering Iraqi kids over mud walls, or squeeze
and grind Africans dry for oil and minerals? I wouldn't give you
tuppence for the frigging planet.
Then again, hosting the Olympic Games is something of an honour and
privilege, so let's wait 'til we've done that before making any
drastic decisions.

Well its notr so much saving the planet, as avoiding carrying out a
Holocaust-by-proxy that would make Auschwitz look like Butlins..

Oh no, not an update of Godwin's Law to include Billy Butlin!
Things really have come to a pretty pass.
--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/
has found that man is causing Climate change

Not true, go read the report.

Then go look up how many climate scientists requested that their names
be removed from the report.

--
Grunff
Diamagnetic levitation:
http://www.shinyshack.com/product.php?prid=211095

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!Illogical statement. More gullibility.

Where is the illogicality in that?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/
has found that man is causing Climate change and has found that to limit
the damage will cost only 0.12% of GDP, a trivial amount,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf. I have spent more than 0.12% of my
income over many years to limit my use of energy.
--
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 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.

Read http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf or preferably the real report for
better evidence.
--
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.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

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

An increase in temperature doesn't equate to man made. There is good
evidence that what we're seeing may be largely, if not entirely, natural.


Read http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf or preferably the real report for
better evidence.

I suspect I've spent more time reading it, and reading background info
on how it was written, than you have.


--
Grunff
Diamagnetic levitation:
http://www.shinyshack.com/product.php?prid=211095

Mike Halmarack wrote:

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.
The reality is that some people fall for stereotypes without giving them
a moments analytical thought.

Another reality is that there's no form of destructive anti-social
activity that can't be justified by some vested interest clever-clogs.
Take the recently incarcerated German cannibal for just one instance.

Well indeed.

It always strikes me as daft when people bleat on about gas guzzling
4x4s when a good number of them drive ordinary cars that consume more!
Politics of envy usually.

Not meaning you of course John, you're one of the good guys. A
thermoplastic glue-stick wouldn't melt in your mouth.

Depends on how hard I chew ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

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

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!Illogical statement. More gullibility.

Where is the illogicality in that?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/
has found that man is causing Climate change and has found that to limit
the damage will cost only 0.12% of GDP, a trivial amount,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf. I have spent more than 0.12% of my
income over many years to limit my use of energy.
Limit that damage to what? juts banglasdseh and the african continent?

On 2007-05-17 15:17:47 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!Illogical statement. More gullibility.

Where is the illogicality in that?

There are many

- The assumption that the planet *needs* to be "saved"
- The assumption that there is a causal link between the activities of
man and climate change
- The assumption that a change in the behaviour by the entire
population will make a difference
- The even bigger assumption that even if the above were true, that
lifestyle changes by a willing proportion of the population will make a
difference.




The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/
has found that man is causing Climate change and has found that to limit
the damage will cost only 0.12% of GDP, a trivial amount,
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf.

That isn't what it says at all.



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?

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

Very mild, my immediate response was FOAD.

Also a Land Rover owner/driver, it doesn't guzzle gas (its diesel...). I
get over 30mpg on long runs and the average over 2.5 years is a shade over
29mpg. The car it replaced (a Mondeo) gave an average of 34mpg.

It is the pattern of use which matters,

I do about 15,000 miles a year and don't change cars every year or three.
I keep 'em until they wear out or get broken. The Mondeo got broken, at
near 10 years old. the car before it wore out (or rather the body work
gave up) again not far short of 10 years old. I fully intend to run this
Land Rover until it seriously breaks or is worn out.

Most of the environmental cost of a vehicle is in manufacture and disposal
not actually using it. This is my 5th vehicle in 30 years of driving. I
bet there are many out there who would have got through 10 to 30 vehicles
in that time.

As for not the direct and irrefutable link between 4x4 ownership and being
utterly selfish. It's such a daft statement it doesn't stand up to any
scrutiny and says much more about the gullable, media led, blinkered view
of the author than anything else.


Agree. My Touran is not technically a 4x4, but it sure fits the media
profile of one (7-seater, sometimes full of kids + their stuff, sometimes
just me or the missus). And guess what, it reliably does 45-50mpg, indeed
upto 53 if driven "carefully" on a decent journey.

Far more efficient than my other car, which is a knackered old Daewoo Lanos
and manages typical 30-something mpg.

I also suspect my Touran will last a good deal longer than the Daewoo, one
being a cheapie runaround, and the other being made by a semi-decent german
manufacturer.

Which would the media prefer I ran 2 of - the wrong one I would think.

Cheers

Tim

Grunff wrote:

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) http://www.ipcc.ch/
has found that man is causing Climate change

Not true, go read the report.

Okay then, the IPPCC report found that it was so highly probable that
the observed warming is anthropogenic as to render the difference
between this wording and Dave's so minor as to be ridiculously pedantic.
As a scientist I was convinced by the science in the report before last
and reasonably persuaded long before that.

Picking up a few dissenters is also not what you might think. Some will
have had their names removed because the report as not radical ENOUGH,
not because they were sceptics. Truth is also, and never has been a
matter of democracy. Try legislating that pi should exactly equal 3 and
see how far it gets you.

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

Mike Halmarack wrote:

On 17 May 2007 01:37:36 -0700, wrote:


[A lot.]


What I want to know is why do we want to save the planet anyway?
So we can carry on splattering Iraqi kids over mud walls, or squeeze
and grind Africans dry for oil and minerals? I wouldn't give you
tuppence for the frigging planet.
Then again, hosting the Olympic Games is something of an honour and
privilege, so let's wait 'til we've done that before making any
drastic decisions.

It should be a matter of naked self interest. If you live in the SE you
will either drown or die of thirst for one thing. Either that or some of
the couple of billion or so estimated displaced poor people will come
camp on YOUR hilltop. We are already seeing the sorts of effects. The
conflict in Darfur is environmental in origin, there is not enough rain
to grow enough stuff for BOTH 'African' agrarian farmers and 'Arab'
animal herders. These people have been living in the region sharing its
resources for hundreds of years. Why are they suddenly killing each
other? the climate has changed and resources are scarce. Water is
already scarce in the SE and the great house build is not helping, how
long will society last when you have to compete with your neighbours for
water from a tanker at the end of the street?

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

On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:11:03 GMT, (Peter
Ashby) wrote:

Mike Halmarack wrote:

On 17 May 2007 01:37:36 -0700, wrote:


[A lot.]


What I want to know is why do we want to save the planet anyway?
So we can carry on splattering Iraqi kids over mud walls, or squeeze
and grind Africans dry for oil and minerals? I wouldn't give you
tuppence for the frigging planet.
Then again, hosting the Olympic Games is something of an honour and
privilege, so let's wait 'til we've done that before making any
drastic decisions.

It should be a matter of naked self interest. If you live in the SE you
will either drown or die of thirst for one thing. Either that or some of
the couple of billion or so estimated displaced poor people will come
camp on YOUR hilltop. We are already seeing the sorts of effects. The
conflict in Darfur is environmental in origin,

Now there's a word to conjure with "ENVIRONMENTAL"

Then again, do a Google search for two key words:
darfur oil

there is not enough rain
to grow enough stuff for BOTH 'African' agrarian farmers and 'Arab'
animal herders. These people have been living in the region sharing its
resources for hundreds of years. Why are they suddenly killing each
other? the climate has changed and resources are scarce. Water is
already scarce in the SE and the great house build is not helping, how
long will society last when you have to compete with your neighbours for
water from a tanker at the end of the street?

Peter

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 15:17:47 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!Illogical statement. More gullibility.

Where is the illogicality in that?

There are many

- The assumption that the planet *needs* to be "saved"
- The assumption that there is a causal link between the activities of
man and climate change
- The assumption that a change in the behaviour by the entire
population will make a difference
- The even bigger assumption that even if the above were true, that
lifestyle changes by a willing proportion of the population will make a
difference.

read this week's new scientist, or see the website. They address all
(well, all the ones I could think of) points like this.
The only one they don't address is: population growth == more CO2 emissions

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. 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) .....................................

On 2007-05-17 19:49:25 +0100, Peter Lynch said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 17:19:01 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-17 15:17:47 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 12:01:47 +0100, Andy Hall wrote:


|! Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
|! save the planet.
|!
|!Illogical statement. More gullibility.

Where is the illogicality in that?

There are many

- The assumption that the planet *needs* to be "saved"
- The assumption that there is a causal link between the activities of
man and climate change
- The assumption that a change in the behaviour by the entire
population will make a difference
- The even bigger assumption that even if the above were true, that
lifestyle changes by a willing proportion of the population will make a
difference.

read this week's new scientist, or see the website.

No need. That's a guide for the perplexed.


They address all
(well, all the ones I could think of) points like this.



The only one they don't address is: population growth == more CO2 emissions

Neither do they address what the actual impact of that might be, if anything.



Pete

Peter Ashby wrote:

Okay then, the IPPCC report found that it was so highly probable that
the observed warming is anthropogenic as to render the difference
between this wording and Dave's so minor as to be ridiculously pedantic.

Not even that.


As a scientist I was convinced by the science in the report before last
and reasonably persuaded long before that.

As an ex-scientist, I am left entirely unconvinced.


Picking up a few dissenters is also not what you might think. Some will
have had their names removed because the report as not radical ENOUGH,
not because they were sceptics.

Sure, but you get whacos and self-serving grant chasers in all disciplines.


--
Grunff

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



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.

In message , Stuart Noble
writes
wrote:
How do you feel about this being put on the wiki? Could be useful
information I think.
NT
PS cant get goggle group to reply to thread :/

.... ...

The rest is completely irrelevant as long as we don't insulate the
walls
ceilings and floors, and continue to use the car on a daily basis to
do
an average of around 50 miles a day.

The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything
more than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top
of my 4x4 and leave it at that.


And make a resolution to snip when replying to ueberlong postings


--
geoff

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.
--
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 2007-05-17 20:50:01 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

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.

Groan.......

Grunff wrote:

Peter Ashby wrote:

Okay then, the IPPCC report found that it was so highly probable that
the observed warming is anthropogenic as to render the difference
between this wording and Dave's so minor as to be ridiculously pedantic.

Not even that.


As a scientist I was convinced by the science in the report before last
and reasonably persuaded long before that.

As an ex-scientist, I am left entirely unconvinced.

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

Picking up a few dissenters is also not what you might think. Some will
have had their names removed because the report as not radical ENOUGH,
not because they were sceptics.

Sure, but you get whacos and self-serving grant chasers in all disciplines.

So more ad hominem attacks on people in lieu of argument. You do know
that many scientists who contributed were absolutely disgusted that the
strength of the science got watered down by the politicians? THAT is
much more likely explanation than that they disagreed fundamentally with
what was a watered down conclusion. The fact is that the science is
firmer than the IPCC report says it is.

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

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. 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.

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.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

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.

I think this is one area where the media in general let everybody down.
In their attempts to make the subject easy to understand they tend to
give the impression that there is a straight causal relationship between
CO2 and temp. The reality is as you point out, a much more complex
closed loop system, with phase shifts, and feedback effects and delays
in both directions. So CO2 change can be a result of temperature change,
at the same time as being a re-enforcing influence on it.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-05-17 11:45:53 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
said:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 10:32:03 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

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


|!
|!The reality is that nobody cares, and nobody wants to read anything
more
|!than one sentence. I'm going to fit a solar panel to the the top of my
|!4x4 and leave it at that.

The reality is that owners of gas guzzling 4*4s care nothing about the
planet, or the environment, only themselves.

What a lot of nonsense. This really is media hype for the gullible.

It is the pattern of use which matters, which, in summary, was TNP's
original point.

I have two Land Rovers. They are useful for the things that I want to do
and I like them. The amount of use is quite small, with neither
exceeding 4000km per annum and is considerably less than the average.




Most people *here* would find the information interesting.

Most people would be happy to make small changes to their houses/lives to
save the planet.

Illogical statement. More gullibility.



One should also point out that the *planet* will be quite fine whatever we
do. We/they are merely trying to control and preserve the green scum on its
surface called the biosphere.

Most of these calculations assume you always have the doors and windows
shut. I like fresh air.

D/g windows are low maintenance and provide sound insulation as well.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)