Footage from the anti-fracking demo in Manchester on Saturday.
from climate change – Spinneyhead http://ift.tt/2fs7Phu
via IFTTT
Notes about designing and building low energy, low impact houses and other structures. Information about the environment and what we can do to make it better.
Footage from the anti-fracking demo in Manchester on Saturday.
Last week, I was lucky enough to get a look around Todmorden, to see how the Incredible Edible group in the town has found ways to bring food and colour to its public spaces. Thanks to my action cam and a selfie stick, I was able to get a view of the project from the point of view of some of the insects it helps promote.
Using the Internet of Things to cut energy use.
“In the years to come every household appliance will have its own IP address linking it to the internet and allowing it be controlled from an app on our smart phones,” he said.
This so-called ‘internet of things’ will allow us, and the network operator, to tailor demand to accommodate the unreliability of renewable energy.
“If the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining then we may be asked to use less electricity and our pre-programmed appliances will react as instructed,” explained Prof Taylor.
Source: Newcastle professor says UK could produce 100% of its energy from renewable sources
Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.
Identifying a downward trend is a case of "people coming at the data with preconceived notions," said Peterson, author of the book "Why Did They Do That? An Introduction to Forensic Decision Analysis."
And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:
1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.
2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…
3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.
4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.
Mole, you’ve also got to factor in the consequences of inaction into the assessment of data.
If, for example, despite the existing scientific evidence, you personally would ONLY be satisfied by a longitudinal study over the next 30 years – well, what if it turned out todays’s scientists were actually right, and waiting for that study took us through the tipping point?
Why would policy makers be wise to adopt your approach?
See – even if I am wrong, cleaning up carbon emissions will do no harm. Clean the air up a bit, less pollution, fewer illnesses among kids, etc. No problemo.
If you are wrong, however: life on this planet could well be reduced to a few green sites supporting half a billion people – instead of 6 billion – by next century.
You see why doubt-mongers are losing this debate? And that that is a good thing?
Thanks for the links, but I couldn't find the graph in your post or the figures used in it. You should know that a number of the theories championed by Easterbrook have been examined and shown to be lacking.
For example- Mid century cooling- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/what-about-mid-century-cooling.php - CO2 isn't the only thing controlling the planet's temperature, during this period the global dimming effect of particulates overwhelmed it. Various other of his arguments, such as that it's a natural cycle or all down to sun spot activity- and several other points- are addressed in articles linked to on this page- http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
But back to the graph at the bottom of your post. I wanted to address it because it just looks wrong. Not the numbers are wrong or it's wrong because I don't agree with your position, but wrong as a graph. Look at the red trend line. Before 2005 it's steady, the wild variations of individual data points don't make it jump around. After 2005 it's following the data points almost exactly. The red line is based upon average anomalies over a given period, but it looks like the averaging was done over a far shorter period post '05 than pre. If the average reacts that drastically to a dip in the recorded anomalies then it should also have kicked sharply up for the El Nino year of 1998 and less sharply down for 1985 (La Nina) and 1993 (Pinatubo volcano).
Basically I think someone has fudged the post 2005 trendline. Or, more bluntly, I think that graph is a lie. I'd recommend checking its provenance before using it again. For graphs of temperature change created from publicly available figures you could try http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Temperature_Gallery
4) Most eco-renovation take decades to pay back the cost
Every time we decide to make an investment in an eco-project, the subject of payback comes up. It is possible to do the sums, and before we spend any hard earned cash I like to make sure that it's a good investment. For example, loft insulation can pay for itself in two winters, and with the 2010 feed-in tariff I would expect solar PV to pay for itself in about seven or eight years, and a DIY solar thermal system to heat your hot water should have paid for itself in four or five years. But surely this is missing the point: when it comes to environmentally friendly projects we seem unable to accept the fact that it can be an investment and will add to the value of the house. What is the payback time for a new bathroom or kitchen? If you install solar photovoltaic panels you can reasonably expect them to easily last 25 to 30 years. Everyone knows a new kitchen makes a house more saleable, but in the current economic climate, how much more saleable is a house that will cost the new owners very little to run or may even generate an income?
And next year the cap will be 49ppm, so you'll either have to waste more money so you can waste money. Or you could exhibit common sense and cut your pollution by cutting energy use, which a good businessman should have been doing anyway. Efficiency savings affect your bottom line, even without a cap and trade. So if you're not looking into them then you should rebrand Teach Enterprises as Company Pointlessly Wasting Money.
I don't understand your reasoning. You moan about government interference and the government taking your money when most governments are giving away money that you could use to become independent of them. Take the governmentgrant and invest in energy efficiency and microgeneration. Do it well enough to produce more electricity than you need and energy companies are becoming obliged to buy it back off you. Your paying less tax on the energy you use and the energy companies have less money and lobbying power. If you still don't want to admit that you're doing it for your children and a better environment just pretend you're doing it to be selfish. Whatever.
The polar bear cartoon is cutesy, it's good to see you've embraced recycling by repeating the Very Cold Winter meme endlessly. However, Australia is in the midst of the worst heatwave in at least 70 years. You haven't mentioned this. I guess you only want to point out the weather anomalies that seem to support your argument.
Dear Mr Pattinson,
Thank you for your email. I am happy to chase the issue up for you, but if you are interested in investing in renewable energy yourself, you may also like to refer to the grants section of the Energy Saving Trust's website (http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/proxy/view/full/2019/grantsandofferssearch) where you can find details of grants that you may be able to apply for to help with the cost of any such home improvements.
In the meantime, I will chase up you enquiry with the Rt Hon Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and I will be in touch again once I receive a reply.
In the meantime, however, please feel free to contact me if you think I can be of any further assistance on this or any other matter.
Yours sincerely,
John Leech
Dear John Leech,
When the Government announced earlier this year that they wouild be investing several billion pounds in renewable energy there was a hint that there would be a new round of grants for home owners to buy solar panels and other energy saving/ generating technologies. However, I have not heard any more about these payments since.
Would it be possible for you to raise the issue with the relevant department or official and find more details of the proposed schemes? This may not seem like the appropriate time to be paying out such grants but I believe they would help stimulate the economy by giving money to an important sector of industry and saving homeowners money.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Pattinson
Journey to Forever is a pioneering expedition by a small, mobile NGO (Non-Government Organization) involved in environment and rural development work, starting from Hong Kong and travelling 40,000 kilometres through 26 countries in Asia and Africa to Cape Town, South Africa.
Our route will take us away from the cities and populated districts to remote and inaccessible areas (usually also the least developed and poorest areas), where we'll be studying and reporting on environmental conditions and working for local NGOs on rural development projects in local communities.
The focus will be on trees, soil and water, sustainable farming, sustainable technology, and family nutrition.
The aim is to help people fight poverty and hunger, and to help sustain the environment we all must share.
3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
America's challenges in providing secure, affordable energy while addressing climate change mean that we must make much more efficient use of energy and begin to rely on new energy sources that eliminate or greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My programs focus both on a greatly expanded program of federally funded energy research and development and on policies designed to speed the adoption of innovative energy technologies and stimulate private innovation.
First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment to $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover:
• Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals;
• Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing;
• New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption;
• Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids;
• Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants; and
• A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.
I will also work closely with utilities to introduce a digital smart grid that can optimize the overall efficiency of the nation's electric utility system, by managing demand and making effective use of renewable energy and energy storage.
Second, it is essential that we create a strong, predictable market for energy innovations with concrete goals that speed introduction of innovative products and provide a strong incentive for private R&D investment in energy technologies. These concrete goals include:
• Increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade, and taking other steps that will reduce the energy intensity of our economy 50 percent by 2030;
• Increasing fuel economy standards 4 percent per year and providing loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers to build new fuel- efficient cars domestically;
• Extending the Production Tax Credit for five years and creating a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard that will require that 10 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and
• Ensuring that regulations and incentives in all federal agencies support the national energy and environmental goals in ways that encourage innovation and ingenuity.
I will also encourage communities around the nation to design and build sustainable communities that cut energy use with walkable community designs and expanded investment in mass transit.
"The thing that I think has gone wrong in this debate is that the government has spooked everyone into thinking that we need nuclear by saying there's going to be a terrible energy gap - the lights are going to go out in the middle of the next decade.
"There's actually no evidence that's the case at all. They've raised the wrong problem in order to push the wrong solution.
"The real problem is that our energy mix is not green enough and we're over dependent on oil and gas from parts of the world that aren't very reliable."
About Our Commitment to the Environment
Grant Management has embraced the environment by achieving carbon neutral status. This was accomplished by reducing the company's carbon footprint and offsetting the balance through tree planting via Global Trees. Additionally, Grant Management has made the properties it manages carbon neutral, recycling, re-using and sharing environmental knowledge and ideas with other individuals and companies.
The ability of forests to soak up man-made carbon dioxide is weakening, according to an analysis of two decades of data from more than 30 sites in the frozen north.
A School in Trafford is about to become one of the country's 'greenest' when solar panels are installed on its roof as part of a renewable energy drive.
Sale Grammar School is being given the panels, which are worth about £20,000, by the Co-operative Group.
It’s easy to imagine people who are bored in the modern techno-surround, as I call it, and they’re bored because they have not fully comprehended that they’re still primates, that their brains grew over a million-year period doing a certain suite of activities, and those activities are still available. Anyone can do them; they’re simple. They have to do with basic life support and basic social activities unboosted by technological means.
And there’s an addictive side to this. People try to do stupid technological replacements for natural primate actions, but it doesn’t quite give them the buzz that they hoped it would. Even though it looks quite magical, the sense of accomplishment is not there. So they do it again, hoping that the activity, like a drug, will somehow satisfy the urge that it’s supposedly meant to satisfy. But it doesn’t. So they do it more and more – and they fall down a rabbit hole, pursuing a destructive and high carbon-burn activity, when they could just go out for a walk, or plant a garden, or sit down at a table with a friend and drink some coffee and talk for an hour. All of these unboosted, straight-forward primate activities are actually intensely satisfying to the totality of the mind-body that we are.