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

davezawadi (David Stone): 

My analysis may not be accurate,

If you want to know about me, look me up.

It is probably worth reiterating my position on anthropogenic climate change (ACC).

First, there are standard references. The IPCC WG1 report; David Houghton's specific text on global warming; textbooks on climate science. There are other references, such as the recent background material to the Nobel prize awarded to Syukuro Manabe and Klaus Hasselmann. Second, I am impressed in particular by the work on the increase in the risk of extreme events. According to a recent survey, by far the majority of reputable published climate science in the last ten years is consistent with the material in these sources. Indeed, why should one expect it to be otherwise?

Second, there are five voluble contributors who appear to want to deny the climate science recognised by the above sources. Two of them have given very cursory, incomplete technical reasons for that; two of them have given none; one I do not regard as a genuine contributor.

Third, I have done my very best to elicit from those two who have proferred technical reasons what their beef with the established science is. To no avail. I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees. No answer so far. He did nominally answer a specific question as to why he disagrees with the Karoly/Stott interpretation of recent CET data, but his answer made no sense to me. David Stone raised the Mauna Loa Keeling data for 2020 twice. Apparently he thinks that they represent a counterexample to the established climate science. I have asked what he would have expected the data show, and why. Again, no answer. 

This is very disappointing. I am used to more cooperative technical interactions on professional forums. I had expected better from the IET. I do have my view, of course, as to why Roger and David don't answer those specific questions. 

But it is not only disappointing. Almost all the energy transition paths towards carbon neutrality involve electricity. This is the UK electrotechnical professional society. The speed with which such a transition can be accomplished, and the trade-offs necessary to get it accomplished faster or more slowly are key issues which society needs to address. The IET included. It should be possible to have a reasonable discussion about it, and other pressing matters, on the IET WWW forums. But it appears currently not to be possible. I would welcome any serious ideas about how to enable such a discussion. 

Peter, I mentioned the CO2 data, and as you know very well, it shows no decline at all during the last 2 years, when it is known that fossil fuel use declined by something like 25%. I asked why you thought this to be the case, no reply in scientific terms.

I asked you two very important questions at the heart of the subject, again no reply. I assume that you are reasonably numerate, and therefore you must understand that adding a positive “feedback” term to the energy equations used for modeling has no scientific basis and that the result of such a feedback term is the only reason that there is a predicted temperature increase. Lord Monkton's team (not him BTW) that is very highly qualified and capable, has made a calculation of the alleged feedback term from actual data, and the term must be either zero or very small. All the climate models except the Russian one do not match the known data, as I have pointed out, and run hot because of this implied term. Therefore it is plain stupid to use them to predict the future, it is like betting on a horse that came last many times to win, but for some reason climate is different. 

I understand you wish to have a discussion about this, and you will note that I have posted many times here and elsewhere that “electric everything” is simply not possible for many reasons, but the biggest one is that it is completely unaffordable. The only solution to that problem is to change lives in the developed world to put us on a par with the several Africa Countries I have been in, where electricity only works a few hours a day, and life is subsistence at best. At least these tropical countries are reasonably warm, in Britain, it would kill millions of people.

I note that for COP26, a considerable number of people arrived from all over the world, many in the most hypocritical way possible, on private jets. Some brought large numbers of IC vehicles. They have all feasted on the finest food, and none of them are poor. This behaviour is always that of one group trying to repress another group, it is political. The main problem is as I stated above, the science has also become political. Funding is only available for the “believers” any dissent is punished by loss of work or tenure or both, by Universities around the globe. This has made a billion dollars for Al Gore, yet done nothing for the poor. Unfortunately, it never will, any money passed over will be “lost” or end up in the pockets of politicians, very little will ever make any “climate change” improvements. This is almost always the outcome in poor countries, I have seen what happens to charity or UN money, the effect is small or zero for those in need. The charity staff live in luxuary.

We can discuss all this if you wish, but I rather expect that you consider all the above irrelevant?

davezawadi (David Stone): 

Peter, I mentioned the CO2 data, and as you know very well, it shows no decline at all during the last 2 years, when it is known that fossil fuel use declined by something like 25%. 

Can you source that estimate?

I understand you wish to have a discussion about this, and you will note that I have posted many times here and elsewhere that “electric everything” is simply not possible for many reasons, but the biggest one is that it is completely unaffordable. 

Can you argue that, with numbers, in a convincing way?

I am glad that your tone has changed. 

Ok, the estimate is from the oil trade but you can see it yourself, the oil price went down to $30 a barrel and now is about $68 as demand has recovered.

Now I will reiterate the costs of the electric solution. 

We need to replace the entire heating load of the country with electricity, and the government seems to favour heat pumps, but that is another story. The average gas boiler output is around 15 kW, and with a heat pump one might get a COP of 3, so 5 kW of electricity. The existing housing stock is about 30 million units, so the electricity required is 150 GW. I am not going to allow for any other use at the moment, because all properties will not need heat all the time, but this seems a reasonable estimate overall.

Distributing 150 GW will need the entire electrical infrastructure to be replaced with roughly 3 times as much equipment, the most expensive part being the cables to those 30 million homes. Presently about 1.5 kW per house is the maximum capacity available, again because of supply load diversity, we don't need it for everyone at once. The distribution is buried in most places under roads and pavements, with substations at regular intervals, again connected to the big grid ones via buried cables. Every one of these substations will need new transformers and switchgear, and often more land and new buildings. This is a huge civil engineering task, and the most interesting point is that this is likely to use more energy than is saved for many years.

National Grid has estimated that the cost will be around £3 Trillion, but we still have no electricity. Whilst wind and solar provide some electricity the average is only 30% of nameplate capacity, and solar only works for daytime and good sunny weather at anything like nameplate capacity. Most generation will therefore have to be nuclear, and we need 150 GW at something like 4 - 6GW per station of two reactors. This needs about 30 new nuclear plants, at around £35 billion each, so another £1.2 Trillion. If gas is not to be used for backup electricity supply this is the only option available.

You will know that China is building new coal-powered power stations on a huge scale all around the world, about 2 a week for itself and more for India and others. Compared to this Britain's emissions are tiny, but net zero of these coal stations is 50-60 years away as they wear out. Coal is much the cheapest energy available, and available in huge quantities from mines around the world. Much of this is “brown” coal, a kind unlike the British stuff, which produces less energy per kilo and much more pollution.

I will repeat my question, why is it so important that Britain, producing 1% of world CO2 becomes fossil fuel free? You can see that there is no intention from China, Russia, or India to do so from COP 26, and our change will make no perceptible difference, even if warming is as you believe. £4.2 trillion is more or less 4 years GDP, even if we could get the manpower, materials, etc. together without moving world commodity prices, which it would.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
 

Ok, the estimate is from the oil trade but you can see it yourself, the oil price went down to $30 a barrel and now is about $68 as demand has recovered.

Referring to your suggestion of 25%, here is a reliable estimate of 4%-7%

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x

Thanks for the suggestion to “see it [my]self”, I can see unfortunately that we still have a way to go in changing your tone.

Now I will reiterate the costs of the electric solution. 

I'll address that elsewhere.

Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).

I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.

davezawadi (David Stone): Now I will reiterate the costs of the electric solution. 

There are many issues here. One of them is, as you raised, the Indian and Chinese burning of coal.

Quite a few members of the IET are Indian and Chinese. If you read the IET Membership newsletter, you will see that many eminent Chinese engineers are becoming FIET. A discussion about continuing/rejecting continued use of coal in these very WWW pages can involve influential engineers in India and China, if we moderate our language so as to include them.

The issue in Germany gives an example of the difficulties. Let me explain.

Germans largely accept the claims of CO2 emissions affecting global warming. There are large open lignite mines in Garzweiler and Hambach, S and SW of Cologne, in my state of NRW, operated by the company RWE, which you can see in large grey areas on Google maps. 

Germany has committed to elimination of coal-fired energy in the near future. Still, RWE is aiming to extend its open-face mining operations up until the time limits set by the German government. (It is currently in open conflict with protesters, as well as government, concerning its right to do so.) The company is currently claiming compensation from the government – that is, from taxpayers such as myself -- for foregone profits, had the government not decided to exit coal-fired energy production; that is, had the German public not decided that fossil-fuel fired energy production was no longer appropriate. 

People such as myself think that RWE should stop lignite mining, now. This very instant.

This is a politically momentous issue. German taxpayers such as myself are not in agreement that our money should contribute to RWE profits as they would have been had CO2 emissions been benign. Which they aren't and will never be.

Just an example.

davezawadi (David Stone): 
…. the several Africa Countries I have been in, ….

African people (if I may generalise) are likely the most experienced in the world at getting along with those with whom they violently disagree. Can we learn from them? I think so. 

Beginning, maybe, with the way we currently talk to each other on this thread.

You have a great deal to learn about Africa. I will reply to the other things later, but this continual complaint about “tone” is beginning to get to me. It is very rude indeed.

I will remind you of the racialist rejection of Whites from Rwanda and now South Africa, the tribal war and genocide in Rwanda of Tutsis by Hutus, the wars in northern Uganda, etc. These are still there, just not top of the news on the BBC. You seem to have an incredibly distorted view of the world.

Germany is now burning much coal because its “renewables" policy is failing badly and some coal stations have been restarted, partly due to the nuclear ban by the left and possibly you. If RWE were stopped from mining how long do you think Germany could survive with inadequate and intermittent electricity?

So Peter you have accused me of two abusive posts as well as violating the IET’s code of conduct. Have you reported this to the moderation team?

As far as I can tell asking you a direct question is classed as abusive. Are we just supposed to accept what the professor/god says?

You said in a response to David Stone:

I have set out a list of propositions for Roger Bryant so he can show me with which of those he disagrees.

The only list I can find is this:

The issue is this. 

1.Human activity is putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at a rate of some 50+ bn CO2 equivalent tonnes per year.

2.The greenhouse effect has been known and understood for some 200 years.

3.The result of the greenhouse effect is tropospheric warming.

4. So how big is the warming associated with the greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

As you are aware I agree with the first three and for 4. follow the other information that you have posted as well as AR6 WG1 which suggest an ECS of around 2°C.

In another reply you seem to take the typical ‘green’ endless resources viewpoint.

Costs are relative to, well, politics. Let me remind ourselves of the words of John Maynard Keynes in the midst of WWII: “Anything we can actually do, we can afford.” (1942 BBC Address, Collected Works XXVII).

I think we can cover our rooves with PV plates, cover our walls with insulation, and exchange our windows. We can “actually do” it. Ergo, according to Keynes, we can afford it.

Indeed governments can print money but many of the resources required to carry out the ‘green’ movements demands are finite and highly polluting and energy intensive to produce/refine.

What are your solutions to AGW and what are their resource requirements?