"Man-made" Climate Change Lunathicks Out in Full Force

dense

We debated elsewhere on boards about the EU vacuum cleaner regulations.

The EU was concerned that vacuums were using and wasting lot of energy.

The energy used by vacuum cleaners accounts for a significant part of total energy demand in the Union. The scope for reducing the energy consumption of vacuum cleaners is substantial.

https://www.google.ie/url?q=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do%3Furi%3DOJ:L:2013:192:0001:0023:EN:PDF&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwidseLUhIvdAhXHVsAKHdKQCFwQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw2W4yNYVws7wrLZ5Riokiut

As it turned out, I did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU.


It was claimed ir would save up to 19tw hours of electricity a year.

Only thing is, the EU produces 310twh of electricity each year, so vacuum cleaners use sfa in the big scheme of things.

So imagine my horror at discovering the EU has around 250m cars which it hopes to have running on electricity in the next couple of decades.

Where exactly is all this additional electrical power going to come from if the EU is fretting about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity?


On top of that, the drive to produce autonomous vehicles will add another layer of energy consumption on top in order to make it all work.


https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-power-consumption-nvidia-chip/

dense

Ak84 wrote: »

Never mind the climate. I would like to think that "deniers" would acknowledge the air pollution from burning fossil fuels.
I mean the smog in some cities is unbelievable really.

Thank the greenies and the environmentalists for pushing the diesel agenda that's now killing tens of thousands of people a year.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Thank the greenies and the environmentalists for pushing the diesel agenda that's now killing tens of thousands of people a year.

Dense must have drunk a gallon of leaded petrol as a child

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

Dense must have drunk a gallon of leaded petrol as a child

4 star premium, dude!

dense

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

4 star premium, dude!

mickrock

CO2 emissions are contributing, to some degree, to global warming.

But is this warming minor and manageable or serious and catastrophic?

If it's the former then man-made global warming isn't really a problem. Is there strong evidence that it's not minor or is it just speculation? The track record of climate change predictions over the last several decades has been terrible.

dense

Not so long ago (in climactic terms) the scientists were saying they could see no end to the global cooling that was being caused by the ever increasing C02 concentrations as recorded at the time by the Moana Lua observatory.








And that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to push us headlong into a new ice age.


The current wheeze is that the scientists say that more C02 might make it get a bit warmer.



Or burn the earth to a cinder or something.



https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-press-studies-of-a-colder-arctic-us-and-soviet-press.html




https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Get Real

dense wrote: »

Only thing is, the EU produces 310twh of electricity each year, so vacuum cleaners use sfa in the big scheme of things.

So imagine my horror at discovering the EU has around 250m cars which it hopes to have running on electricity in the next couple of decades.

Where exactly is all this additional electrical power going to come from if the EU is fretting about vacuum cleaners using too much

https://www.wired.com/story/self-driving-cars-power-consumption-nvidia-chip/

The thing about electric cars is, there's no "additional" fuel needed to create the electricity needed to power them and drive them.

This is, in its simplest form, due to scale. A petrol engine loses approx 70percent of its energy in heat alone. Even fairly bad power plants aren't that inefficient.

To put it another way, lets say a litre of petrol drives a car 5km. You'd only need half that in crude oil to produce electricity to charge the car for 5km. Not to mention the fact that, to produce petrol for a car, they use vast amounts of energy to refine it. Energy which could have been used to directly power a vehicle through a simple wire.

On top of the fact that petrol/diesel requires pipelines and needs to be transported by road (using vehicles that consume even more fuel). Versus a relatively cheap wire system from a large scale power production facility.

Not even thinking about the environment, financially, electric cars are alot cheaper to run, and use our natural resources at a slower pace. (Efficiency of one powerplant producing energy for tens of thousands of cars, compared to fuel being refined, piped, transported, and burned in tens of thousands of individual engines with poor efficiency)

dense

Get Real wrote: »

The thing about electric cars is, there's no "additional" fuel needed to create the electricity needed to power them and drive them.

The equivalent of 18 nuclear power stations will be needed for the EU alone:

Until 2030, the demand of energy from the electrical vehicles will be limited and not influence in the electric system significantly. But, from 2030 awards, with the market shares going up, because of electric vehicles production, electricity demand will have a more significant impact on electrical systems in Europe.

To achieve that by 2050 80% of the vehicles are electric, a proportion between 3% and 25% of the total electricity demand will be required in EU-28, depending on the number of electric vehicles deployed in each country. On average, for the EU-28, the proportion of the total demand for electricity in 2050 will be 9.5%.



This means that, an additional electrical capacity of 150 GW will be necessary for charging electric cars. This would be equivalent to 18 large nuclear stations or combined cycles and would represent 15% of the current electric system throughout the EU.

https://www.magnuscmd.com/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy-sector/


Cribbing about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity whilst advocating electric cars seems ironic, to me at least.

In Ireland we're going to have our hands full with the data centres alone:


https://amp.independent.ie/business/irish/revealed-data-centres-to-swallow-75pc-of-growth-in-irish-power-demand-36226058.html

Get Real wrote: »

A petrol engine loses approx 70percent of its energy in heat alone.

There must be a lot of unprecedented made heat going into the atmosphere then with over a billion cars in the world.


Didn't an ice cream van raise the temperature in Scotland lately?


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44725830

On Thursday 28 June, a temperature of 33.2C degrees was measured at Strathclyde Park in Motherwell.

The Met Office now says a stationary vehicle with its engine running was parked too close to the equipment.

2011

dense wrote: »

As it turned out, I did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU.

I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

The equivalent of 18 nuclear power stations will be needed for the EU alone:

https://www.magnuscmd.com/electric-vehicles-and-the-energy-sector/


Cribbing about vacuum cleaners using too much electricity whilst advocating electric cars seems ironic, to me at least.

It's not ironic to anyone else given that an electric car is 3 times more energy efficient than an equivillent internal combustion engine.

And lower wattage vacuum cleaners can be much more efficient than high wattage cleaners and produce exactly the same performance

I think we'll have to add in 'Irony' to long the list of things you don't understand

Akrasia

2011 wrote: »

I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

Dense's 'calculations' are that the annual energy demand of Belgium doesn't count as 'significant' because the EU uses a lot of energy.

Dense is a very stable genius.

dense

2011 wrote: »

I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

A potential saving of up to 20twh per year of the total electricity generated was suggested, and the total electrycity generated is 3.10m gwh per year:


https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products/vacuum-cleaners

Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_production,_consumption_and_market_overview



Converting 20twh to gwh gives approximately 20,000gwh according to my calculations, which is just 0.6% of the 3.10m gwh of electricity generated per year.


https://www.convertunits.com/from/TWh/to/GWh





A 0.6% saving cannot be described as a significant saving by any metric.



I would welcome any correction in these calculations, I posted them before in a different thread and no one including Akrasia disputed them.

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Not so long ago (in climactic terms) the scientists were saying they could see no end to the global cooling that was being caused by the ever increasing C02 concentrations as recorded at the time by the Moana Lua observatory.


And that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere was going to push us headlong into a new ice age.


The current wheeze is that the scientists say that more C02 might make it get a bit warmer.



Or burn the earth to a cinder or something.



https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-press-studies-of-a-colder-arctic-us-and-soviet-press.html




https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

What are you going on about?
Nowhere, ever did any kind of consensus exist amongst scientists to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere was cooling our planet.

We've known for a century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.

There was the phenomenon of Global Dimming, where the surge in particulate emissions from human industrial activity was causing a cooling effect, but since the 70s, the greenhouse effect has more than offset the global dimming effect and we have reduced particulate emissions in recent decades which has led to 'global brightening'

Global warming was masked in the early 20th century by the smog humans pumped into the air. Since we have largely cleaned up our act, the particulate emissions havehas reduced, and some portion of the warming in recent decades was actually related to emissions from the first half of the century that were masked by our pollution.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7346-clearing-smog-has-led-to-global-brightening/

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

What are you going on about?
Nowhere, ever did any kind of consensus exist amongst scientists to say that extra CO2 in the atmosphere was cooling our planet.

It's ironic that climate change deniers shout very loudly about "scientific dogma" and a concerted effort to push climate change as an idea.
Well, duh! It's called scientific consensus.
In fact the climate change deniers are the ones who are either paid shills or professional cranks and it is they who are trying very hard and loud to push an opposing viewpoint based on propaganda and pseudo science.

Usually if someone disagrees with a scientific paper, they would set out to disprove that paper by conducting their own tests and experiments.
They would then publish their results and if the results disprove the previous paper, it will be withdrawn or amended.
However, climte change deniers don't operate that way. They are trying to influence scientific fact through public opinion by shouting and pseudo science.
The problem is, you cannot influence facts by popular demand. But sadly we are living in the post-fact world, where lunatics have taken over the asylum.

There is a deeply flawed and idiotic idea that everyone's opinion is valid and must be respected.
I am sorry, but if you believe that aliens are controlling the illuminati through mind control rays, you can get free energy out of thin air, vaccines are dangerous, the Earth is flat and, of course, climate change does not exist or has nothing to do with humans, your opinion is not valid, we must not respect it and we are rightly pointing and laughing.

There is a certain malevolent, wilfull and militant stupidity out there that I find deeply worrying, the alt right, Alex Jones, trump voters, right wingers, climate deniers, anti vaxxers, the list goes on.
In the 90's conspiracy theories were something fun, not to be taken seriously, but in recent times these ideas have been taken over by some vey peculiar people, who are extremely militant about their ideas.
I have no words for it, but it's like a lot of people have collectively lost their minds.
What can I say:




https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/

2011

dense wrote: »

I would welcome any correction in these calculations, I posted them before in a different thread and no one including Akrasia disputed them.

Please link to the post that contains these calculations in this other thread.

johnnyskeleton

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Climate change has become one of the causes that the liberal left have attached themselves to. Like most issues these people become attached to it has become a sort of cult. Anyone who even questions the consensus is labelled a 'denier' There are climate scientists in top US colleges who complain that funding is only given to scientists who accept human caused climate change and some are even afraid to voice their opinion for fear of the backlash.

I would agree with you that people often accept the climate change narrative without question, without fully understanding it (it is incredibly complex after all) and can be very sanctimonious towards anyone who questions it.

Even still, that doesnt mean that climate change isnt happening and that there is cogent evidence that a significant contributor is human activity.

dense

2011 wrote: »

Please link to the post that contains these calculations in this other thread.

Why?

2011

dense wrote: »

Why?

I gave you the reason when I asked to see this calculation, I said:
"I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used."

This was in response to your statement that you "did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU."

Why are you reluctant to share this "unchallenged" calculation?

dense

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I would agree with you that people often accept the climate change narrative without question, without fully understanding it (it is incredibly complex after all) and can be very sanctimonious towards anyone who questions it.

I agree and quote the IPCC's own advice to those who believe every scientific climate claim without question:

Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies.

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Even still, that doesnt mean that climate change isnt happening and that there is cogent evidence that a significant contributor is human activity.

If it is happening, shouldn't those who say it's happening be able to demonstrate what weather events have occurred where human activities rather than nature, have been proven to be the significant causal factor?

dense

2011 wrote: »

I gave you the reason when I asked to see this calculation, I said:
"I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used."

This was in response to your statement that you "did the calculations and found that vacuum cleaners, not surprisingly are not using significant amounts of energy in the EU."

Why are you reluctant to share this "unchallenged" calculation?

You asked if I'd share my calculations with you.

2011 wrote: »

I don’t suppose you would be able to share your calculations??
I would be very interested in seeing the methodology used.

I just have:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107907839&postcount=434


Are you disputing them or accepting them?

2011

dense wrote: »

Are you disputing them or accepting them?

I do not see a calculation (by you) of how much energy is used in the EU by vacuum cleaners in the post that you linked to.

EDIT: I reread the posts and see that your point is that although vacuum cleaners consume around the same energy as Belgium this is a small percentage of the energy consumed throughout the EU as a whole. Is that correct?

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

If it is happening, shouldn't those who say it's happening be able to demonstrate what weather events have occurred where human activities rather than nature, have been proven to be the significant causal factor?

There are already deadly weather events happening which scientists say were not possible without climate change

This sixth edition of explaining extreme events of the previous year (2016) from a climate perspective is the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate.

The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

thousands died in that Asian heatwave BTW

dense

2011 wrote: »

I do not see a calculation (by you) of how much energy is used in the EU by vacuum cleaners in the post that you linked to.

Oddly enough I did not see a calculation from the EU about how much energy vacuum cleaners use in either, but it doesn't prevent one from working out the potential savings from the total electricity generated in the EU and putting it into some context.

With more efficient vacuum cleaners, Europe as a whole can save up to 20 TWh of electricity per year by 2020.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-products/vacuum-cleaners







A 20twh saving out of 3.10million gwh produced.



A potential 0.6% saving.

BTW, I didn't mention Belgium?

Akrasia

The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030

Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances

The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year

Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings.

These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.

Doctor Jimbob

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030

Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances

The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year

Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings.

These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.

Yeah, but change is scary :pac:

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

There are already deadly weather events happening which scientists say were not possible without climate change

thousands died in that Asian heatwave BTW

Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?


There is no way they can decide whether one weather event was man made and not natural or natural and not man made, when all they are basing their observations on is the "preindustrial period" of, get this, 1881–1920, a period which is way after the 1720-1800 reference period recommended elsewhere:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

You really need a bit of balance:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1

dense

Akrasia wrote: »

The EU has targeted a 20% reduction in energy use (compared with projected energy use) by 2020 and are committed to a 32.5% reduction by 2030

Vacuum cleaners are just one part of this strategy, they're mandating energy efficiency in all areas, from construction, to transport, to home appliances

The incandescent lightbulb ban has saved 40tw of energy every year since 2000, and the upcoming ban on Halogen bulbs (from next week) will save an additional 53tw of energy, bringing the savings from lighting alone up to the equivalent of all the power Portugal uses every year

Of course, Dense will claim that this too is 'insignificant' because it's only a few percent of the EU's energy requirements, but when all the measures are taken together, they add up to significant savings.

These measures are energy savings for no real cost in terms of quality of life. Superior alternatives exist to old inefficient technology and they are absolute no brainer measures to everyone except people who have no brain.

Well let's take a look at your figures then.


20twh saving from vacuum cleaners and another 40twh from bulbs and another 53twh from other bulbs.


That's a total of 113twh a year all things going extremely well.


That's a total potential saving of around 9% of the electricity generated.



And less than 50% of the 2020 20% savings target....so some way to go still.



Any word on the EU kettle directive laying down the law about when you can boil a kettle?



It's amazing, the consumer's reward for using less and greener electricity here is electricity prices continually rising.

dense

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What can I say:

Your tag line, it relates something about the affection you hold for your old diesel truck????


:P

Akrasia

dense wrote: »

Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?


There is no way they can decide whether one weather event was man made and not natural or natural and not man made, when all they are basing their observations on is the "preindustrial period" of, get this, 1881–1920, a period which is way after the 1720-1800 reference period recommended elsewhere:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0007.1

You really need a bit of balance:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0030.1

So you asked for evidence of scientists attributing weather events to climate change, and when you are given some, you say 'Climate attribution scientists finally affirming climate attribution scientists?'

Yet more evidence that you have absolutely no interest in evidence unless you think you can twist it to fit your crazy world view.

The AMETSOC looked at 30 separate weather related events from 2015/2016 and found 21 that were affected by human factors with 9 events that have no connection with AGW or an uncertain connection

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/summary-of-results-anthropogenic-influence-on-event/