I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

mapj1: 
 

[PBL]……. (3) blowing flock into the eaves/sloping roof spaces. 

Well if you do that last one here you will probably have condensation in the loft and then wet rot of the timbers.  

Certainly a worry, but it hasn't happened with my building AFAIK. On one half of the building, we put in four new sloping windows (Velux), so had to cut out large sections of the eaves space. All dry; no issue with timbers. Replaced, though with rock wool because that is easy when you have the space open.

 

If you insulate the sloping section (rafters) then a bit of experiment will show you must ensure free airflow between the back of the roof tiles and the outer side of the insulation 

That is now part of standard (re-)roofing procedures. From inside to out: board, waterproof lining, joists, tiles. (And on the inside of the board comes your insulation and more board). But you can't retrofit onto an old roof such as mine. I'd need a new roof and that gets into real €€€€€.

 

 the loft is then warm and dry. There is then no real need for the ceiling rockwool. 

That's right. 

When people came to do the insulation in 2010, there were three issues: (1) layingrockwool  insulation on the flat floor of the loft, to insulate living space from roof; (2) blowing pellets into wall spaces, where there are double walls; (3) blowing flock into the eaves/sloping roof spaces. 

Odd that not all of these should be standard in British procedures.

Well if you do that last one here you will probably have condensation in the loft and then wet rot of the timbers.  If you insulate the sloping section (rafters) then a bit of experiment will show you must ensure free airflow between the back of the roof tiles and the outer side of the insulation - so in my case I cut polyurethane foam sheets to be a jam fit, but left ~ 40-50mm between that and the back of the tiles so there is an open void from from eaves to ridge.  the loft is then warm and dry. There is then no real need for the ceiling rockwool. Cavity wall insulation is worth it though.

It is not helped by the fact that defined thermal standards and mandatory insulation first entered the UK building regs in 1984, and then it took quite a while to become standard practice for local builders. (so my parents extension, 1983, was still done in solid walls, to match the rest of the house. At the time the building control inspection chaps were quite happy with that. They would not be nowadays…)

Mike

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

Roger Bryant:  The German Greens have done well so far, forcing the closure of viable nuclear plants so the electricity shortfall is produced by burning lignite or importing fossil fuel electricity from Poland.

Not really an accurate summary of the situation.

It was the centre-right CDU that exited nuclear, namely Angela Merkel. 

The reason lignite is being burnt is that the miner and energy producer RWE (which has two large open-cast mines at Hambach and Garzweiler SW of Cologne which are continually the subject of demonstrations), has a government contract to do so which runs a while yet and cannot be forced to stop early (people and politicians have tried). 

By the end of 2020, almost half of the electricity in Germany came from sustainables (46%). Current goal is 65% by 2030. We might well get there earlier. 

A little distorted, the Merkel government implemented the legislation put in place by the previous green coalition.

The Green movement was certainly not in favour of nuclear power then (maybe they are starting to change?). There were protests by the Lingen plant when I used to go by in the mid 80s.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
The IPCC ….. is an entirely political organisation, not a principally scientific one.

Here is the list of all 234 authors of the AR6 WG1 Report

https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=35&p=

Among them are 23 working in Britain, at the Met Dept, Uni Reading; NCAS Uni Reading; Dept Geography, KCL; Uni Leeds; Uni Bristol; Uni Exeter; UEA; National Oceanography Centre; Met Office Hadley Centre; Imperial College. All “entirely political”, “not principally scientific”? It should be obvious that you can't get a job at any of those places unless you are a scientist. 

The other 211 also work primarily for scientific research organisations. 

Exactly what politics do you imagine all these people might have in common? As distinct from the science, which they do all have in common.

You, on the other hand, like to promote the work of a US “think tank” which wrote a report on how Rachel Carson was wrong and DDT is OK, and which has regularly received tobacco and fossil-fuel industry money. Not hard to imagine what politics it may promote, in particular since it was documented by Oreskes and Conway. 

CO2 and Temperature – Watts Up With That?

Questions correlation.

“Jamal Munshi compares the correlation between temperature and CO2 to the correlation between CO2 and homicides in England and shows the homicides correlate better (Munshi, 2018). Spurious correlations occur all the time and we need to be wary of them. They are particularly common in time series data, such as climate records. Munshi concludes that there is “insufficient statistical rigor in [climate] research.””

So it's suggested that homicides in England are due to climate change, no doubt this will be written on the death certificate.

See. REBUTTAL to Doctor Merritt: ‘Climate Change’ Does Not Affect Human Health, Weather Does – Watts Up With That?

Interesting how the CO2 rises and temperature drops. So there must be something other than man made CO2 occurring.

CO2 and Temperature – Watts Up With That?

mapj1: 

Ah yes - even simple things like insulating the sloping section of a roof, instead of the flat of the ceiling does not seem to be handled properly

When people came to do the insulation in 2010, there were three issues: (1) layingrockwool  insulation on the flat floor of the loft, to insulate living space from roof; (2) blowing pellets into wall spaces, where there are double walls; (3) blowing flock into the eaves/sloping roof spaces. 

Odd that not all of these should be standard in British procedures.

Roger Bryant: 
 

In the 60 years of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by around 100ppm from just over 300ppm to just over 400ppm. If this rate is constant, which it probably isn’t, 

It manifestly isn't. The slope is continually increasing. If you extrapolate the recent slope back, it crosses the 310ppm scale at 1985, not at 1958. If you take that slope as constant, (which is a very conservative assumption), you get 100ppm increase in 36 years, which would mean a further 200ppm in 72 years from now.

But that is not a particularly good extrapolation. If you extrapolate the early years linearly, you come to about 380ppm in 2020, that is, 70ppm in 60 years or 1.17 ppm/yr. Whereas the rate close to now is 100ppm in 35 years or 2.86 ppm/yr. So the rate has doubled in, shall we say, 50 years. If the trend continues, we'll be up to 5.72ppm/yr in 2070, or 100ppm in 17+years. A reasonable rule of thumb would be to take 36 years for the next 100ppm rise and 18 years for the next 100ppm after that. That is 54 years from now, 2074.

In contrast, you suggest

 

 doubling of CO2 from the 1960 level will take 180 years from 1960 or 120 years from now. 

Isn't it interesting how very different estimates are when one uses different approximation techniques? (Mine is better than yours, BTW). 

What is the effect of this doubling? The AR6 assessed best estimate is 3°C with a likely range of 2.5°C to 4°C (high confidence), 

So that's 3° with 80% CI 2.5° to 4°.

I will take their best estimate of 3°C for the ECS. This suggests the with rising emissions we may get a 3°C Global increase by 2100. 

By 2074 if you take my estimate above.

With steady or falling emissions 3°C may be reached by the middle of the next century or beyond. As I have stated many times before we have a climate problem, not a climate emergency.

So what we conclude about how urgent this is is very dependent on our extrapolation techniques. 

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

 

By the end of 2020, almost half of the electricity in Germany came from sustainables (46%). Current goal is 65% by 2030. We might well get there earlier. 

I hope for your sake the wind blows and sun shines or you'll be screwed!

When did renewables become sustainables. Have I missed something?

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

 As I said above it is an entirely political organisation, not a principally scientific one.

Out of the 2000 + odd employees of IPCC only a handful claim to be climate scientists, most are bureaucrats and governmental reps. Following the global warming is a serious problem agenda.

Which of course it isn't an emergency just a problem that needs careful consideration of especially the 1 Billion or so  poorer people and the 2-3 Billion others living from pay cheque to pay cheque.