British Homes Have Air Conditioning ?

[Frances IoMParticipant @francesiom58905]

There is too much money involved in for example Coal mining in the USA – some heavily involved in this activity seem to have emulated the Tobacco Industry, who knowing that their product was highly carcinogenic,for many years used FUD (Fear Uncertainty + Doubt) techniques to prevent the science becoming well known and accepted.

Edited By Frances IoM on 21/07/2022 12:13:58

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Re your comparison (Pat), it is surprising just where places with very different climates, are, relatively to each other by latitude.

The British Isles' moderately high latitudes are level with many regions extremely cold in Winter but hot in Summers. The difference is by our surrounding sea, the NE corner of the Atlantic, so mild "maritime" temperate climate.

Much of that is from the North Atlantic Drift as I believe the Gulf Stream is now called; also keeping the Norwegian coast largely ice-free. We are also influenced by the extent of land not far from our Eastern and Southern coasts; giving us cold, dry Easterly winds in Winter, and sometimes areas of hot air from the South in Summer. As we've just seen.

Also, continents tend to have greater spans of climate than do islands, with wider temperature extremes.

.

The typical response to climate in British housing developed over the centuries as:

– Steeply-pitched roofs, shedding rain and snow easily.

– Open coal fires in most rooms, until well into the 20C – and making homes very draughty.

– The "range" : open fireplace between integral water-heating tank, and an oven. Their modern equivalent is the oil- or gas- fired Aga or Rayburn.

– In the 20C: central-heating, circulating water through a "boiler" using coal/coke, gas or oil. Many were "back boilers", forming the back of an open fireplace; with a central flue controlled by a damper.

– Central-heating systems with "indirect" heating tanks for the hot tap water. The tank contains a coiled tube carrying the central-heating water, heating the surrounding water topped up from a header tank often in the roof space above the hot tank. An electric immersion-heater with thermostat, augments the heat-exchanger; especially when the central-heating is off anyway.

– Solid-fuel fires now usually are just "features"; replaced typically by a gas-fired "combination boiler". This both heats the closed-circuit central-heating water; and by separate, mains-fed heat exchanger, the hot-tap water on demand, no storage. (Some homes use electrically-heated "instant" showers).

– Future? The UK government hopes for all-electric homes, with air-source heat-pumps (also needing indirect hot tank with immersion-heater), and battery-car chargers. Possible for new homes, not for vast numbers of existing ones. Hydrogen? The manufacturers are already making new boilers easily adjusted from fully natural-gas to blend and eventually, only hydrogen.

.

The boiler is rarely in a "basement". It is fairly compact, usually in the kitchen or a utility-room. (Mine is on the kitchen wall above the work-top, a very common practice.)

Most UK homes have no basement, but a few exploit a slope for useable space below the ground floor. Many 18-19C town houses were built with cellars, providing coal stores fed through an external hatch. The occupants had to lug buckets of coal up the internal stairs to the fireplaces.

..

The other big 20C developments were:

– Insulating the loft, the home's largest heat loser. Some houses also have their external brick wall cavities filled with plastic foam insulation.

– Double glazing. The single-layer windows were the second biggest heat drain. Very cold Winter countries typically use triple-glazing.

.

I do not know if any homes in the UK use circulated hot-air heating, American style. Some might, but it is rare.

Most British homes have mains water and electricity – a few remote rural ones have private water bore-holes. However, unlike in towns, they commonly use overhead electricity lines vulnerable to storm damage possibly taking some days to restore if widespread and the roads are blocked.

Many rural homes have no gas mains so use oil or LPG.

.

The allegedly-bucolic "off-grid" existence? "Grid" here describes the primary, interconnected distribution systems of electricity and gas, and to some extent water. The suppliers use "network" for the end systems.

…..

Time will tell if right or wrong on climate change (not "global warming" though that temperature rise indicates the vast accumulation of heat). It needs governments to be guided by scientists and engineers, but without the ugly politicising and money-grubbing with which it has become too widely larded.

Nor can it solved in only a few years, despite strident campaigns. Or without risking consequences perhaps not yet realised.

'

Natural climate cycles occur, by forces far more than mere 11-year sunspot cycles. No-one denies that; nor suggests that ripples like the Roman warmer, and 18C cooler, episodes cover it all. The major cycles are so slow in our terms, it is easy to cite ripples. Scientific consensus is that "we" are over-riding what ought be very slow overall but ripply, warming. Nature does not use mathematical regularity, but leaves traces of larger pictures over longer times.

'

What is happening now was predicted about 100 years ago!

The scientists could use only contemporary population and coal consumption; putting their danger point far enough ahead to ignore, or to label "pending". We were "taming" Nature then; not being part of it but not right good for it.

(Reported in ME some time ago, last year maybe, after somebody found a Press cutting about it.)

.

Who mentioned "earthquakes" ? Not strictly relevant here; but earthquakes are very common in Britain. Most are too small to be noticeable but show on seismographs.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

It does seem to me that there has been a change since the days of my childhood, say 70 or so years ago. Where are the snowfalls of my childhood?

I'm not old enough to remember the 1947 winter, but I have seen a set of photographs from then. I certainly remember 1954 (walking part way to school because the road was blocked): the 1962/63 winter (as a telephone linesman more or less on top of the Pennines where most of the side roads were blocked): and sometime in the '80's when in order to get to Stone for a training course, I firstly cadged a lift to the city centre (no buses), and then being told by particular British Rail employees to get on that train and get off wherever and then see about another train (timetables were all abandoned apparently). That journey, normally say 2 hours took 7 hours!

But I also remember sledging for weeks on end, or so it seemed: seeing a large 6 wheel drive lorry pushing a large V snow plough through the village, local farmers being paid by the council to plough the roads to keep them open. And a local hill, so blocked with snow that it had two JCB type units, one at each end and a gang of men in the middle to clear it.

But today, well the last significant snow I remember was the winter of 1995/96 when the temperature 7 miles away on the coast dropped so low that the hydraulic fluid in the lifeboats turned to mush and caused many thousands of pounds worth of damage. Of course, there has been the odd day or two when there has been some snow, but nothing that caused major shutdown of the country. Except for those people who found themselves unable to cope with the bad weather because they had no previous experience.

So is it global warming? Or is it just a natural phenomenon going in cycles? I don't know, but I will admit to a certain amount of scepticism when we get certain people shouting the odds and pushing their own agenda. I tend to think, "Just what, if anything, do these people actually know?" Probably the best comment I remember from quite a few years ago was when a certain lady member of the local Green party was spouting the odds, and in a letter to the local paper, someone said "Is this the same lady whose husband drives a rather large Volvo!" There was more to it, but it (not the letter, but what the lady was saying) so smacked of do as I say, not as I and my husband do!

One point that I well remember from the '70's, and that was that the then scientific opinion was that we were heading for an iceage. So what happened?

Cheers, from someone who readily admits that he doesn't know,

Peter G. Shaw

[Anthony KendallParticipant @anthonykendall53479]

Posted by Robert Atkinson 2 on 20/07/2022 12:38:54:

Like some others, I have installed air to air heatpumps (two multi-split units). Had it in my last place too. These provide very cheap and green heating as a primary function and cooling on the not too common times that it is required. A very worthwhile investment. Robert G8RPI. Snip….

Similar for me Robert. A split unit mainly for heating in my workshop/man-cave, and another for cooling one room in the house.

Aircon has a reputation for great cost – this is not so if you do not aim for 16 deg C, but instead aim for, say, 22-24 deg C which is adequate for me.

I can't argue about climate change except to say it's not a bad idea to clean up a bit and to have a long term target. On the way I think we should realise it is not a sin to dig up some more coal in the short term to ease the journey. In modern parlance, it does not have to be a binary choice. I note politicians became interested only when they realised it is a good way of raising tax revenue.

[Bob Unitt 1Participant @bobunitt1]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 21/07/2022 12:47:47:

One point that I well remember from the '70's, and that was that the then scientific opinion was that we were heading for an iceage. So what happened?

Wasn't that the threat of a 'Nuclear Winter' if WW3 happened ?

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Posted by Peter G. Shaw on 21/07/2022 12:47:47:

It does seem to me that there has been a change since the days of my childhood, say 70 or so years ago. Where are the snowfalls of my childhood?

Maybe you don't remember the 2010 winter??

We had over 3 months of snow and ice in Edinburgh, everything ground to a halt, every night was minus 5 to minus 10 and I thought my crappy wooden windows were going to fall apart

But the media "forgets" about those things because they don't fit the agenda

The Irish Republic had 3 snowploughs in the entire country lol

It basically started 24 November and finished in March, I remember it well because I was driving in it almost every day. January onwards was suspension smashing ice potholes all over the place because the thick snow had turned into solid ice, it was a heck of a winter

Edited By Ady1 on 21/07/2022 14:40:20

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

I take the view that if climate change/global warming is happening then anything we can do to slow it down is a good thing. It's fast changes that cause the most upheaval.

Martin C

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by PatJ on 21/07/2022 01:41:01:

…

The climate change "proof" does not hold up to rigid scientific scrutiny, at least the proof I have seen, and I have studied this topic a lot.

…

What proof is this Pat? There are a lot of denial websites making a counter-case that seems clear and simple, but their reasoning is suspect. You mention sunspots as an alternative cause, but they are much studied and definitely not causing global warming.

The mainstream consensus isn't based on a simple analysis. It comes from a mass of data from many different sources. The data is noisy, but the trends all point the same way, and – so far – none of them contradict the consensus. No convincing counter-evidence has appeared in the last 30 years. The consensus is unproven, but the probability humanity is responsible for overheating the planet is higher than alternative explanations.

For example, there's no correlation between the build up of heat on earth and either sunspots or the amount of heat output by the sun. As both have been measured for about 200 years, the hypothesis is easily disproven. Conversely, predictions based on the correlation between green-house gases and planetary heating work convincingly better than random chance. Maths that correctly predicts future effects has to be taken seriously, even if the answer is unwelcome.

Another approach is to ask what the consequences of getting it wrong are:

• If carrying on regardless causes the Climate Catastrophe, then civilisation as we know it will end. For example, the American Dream turns into a much reduced ability to feed the population, an massive influx of people from South America, plus a similar movement of Americans heading North. Canadian agriculture might benefit from global warming whilst the mid-west dries out causing Americans to migrate North. The Canadians will have to build a wall! North America is just an example; changing water supply, food shortages, or rising sea-levels will create regional flash points everywhere. No one is safe. Might seem unthinkable, but remember all previous civilisations have collapsed, usually because something natural or man-made forced the neighbours to move en-masse. Given what we know today, carrying regardless is without doubt an extremely dangerous gamble.
• The penality for not burning fossil fuels is a dip in wealth generation that technology should be able to ameliorate. In the long run clean renewable energy is both achievable and potentially cheaper. However, should it be found that fossil fuels weren't the cause of global warming, then they're still available! The physical assets are still there. Despite the risk of a dip causing major problems, this is the low-risk option.

People's unwillingness to surrender some of what they already have in this lifetime versus an unholy mess for succeeding generations.

As technical solutions take time to develop, the sooner the better. My main concern is it's already too late! Rather than bite the bullet, most of us have wasted this century and more allowing the situation to grow, perhaps hoping it's a temporary glitch or that something will turn up. I fear dithering has left us all in the lurch. We're in Business Class enjoying champagne, canapés, and a good film, unaware the pilot is worried he hasn't enough fuel left to land safely. Some won't believe it even when he tells us we've got 30 minutes left to ring relatives and say goodbye. After all, what do experts know?

Dave

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

Ady1,

After the reminder I do have a very vague recollection of it, but nothing really serious. Of course, this could be as much to do with it not having too much effect on me. Or perhaps the effect where I live wasn't that bad, although I do remember two wintry incidents: one was when a choral concert I was taking part in was cancelled due to bad weather; two, allowing my then car, a Focus Diesel, chug it's way up a moderate slope in 2nd gear without any sign of slip, and then up a steeper slope again on tickover in 2nd, but slipping all the while yet still making progress. That car was owned from 2009 to 2013 which would fit your date.

Other than the above, I have no recollection of any bad weather in 2010. That's not to say there wasn't an – just that it didn't register with me.

Hope this explains why I didn't mention it.

Bob Unitt 1,

I do remember talk of a Nuclear Winter, but not in that context. But of course, that was 50 years ago and memories do fade.

Cheers,

Peter G. Shaw

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

BBC2 9pm tonight, How Esso tried to cover up climate change. Fairly successfully from reading some of the preceding posts

[PatJParticipant @patj87806]

My daughter got to go on a tour of Europe a few years ago.

GB, Netherlands, Germany, France, etc.

I get to work, and she gets to have a life and tour the world.

If I had a free ticket to anywhere in the world, I would make a beeline to the nearest GB museum of technology, and they would have to drag me out with ropes.

I don't think we really have anything analogous to the technology museums in the UK.

I know of one gentleman who runs the Soule museum in Meridian Mississippi, and he did tour the museums in the UK, and was inspired to start his own museum here.

The Soule facility is where the Speedy Twin steam engine was manufactured, and luckily the factory and foundry were pretty much saved intact when they stopped operation.

In the engine assembly area, the tables are full of Speedy Twin parts.

The assembly process just stopped one day, as if some sort of Vesuvius event happend.

I have dreams of sitting in quaint GB hub in some little village, having a rousing discussion about climate change with a bunch of chaps, and then in the end, hoisting the beer mug, toasting "to climate change", and then drinking ourselves under the table.

That is my idea of the "Good Life".

.

Edited By PatJ on 21/07/2022 21:29:20

[lee websterParticipant @leewebster72680]

I know very little about global warming. And because the experts from each side seem to disagree about the facts, made up or real, I suspect that they know very little too. What is a well know fact is that victorian Britain was a lot colder than modern Britain. Ice fairs on the river Thames come to mind. Perhaps then, the world has been warming as part of a natural cycle for a long time and man has just sped it up a bit. If we have, then we should be able to slow it down again.

PatJ, NOT picking holes in your spelling (autocorrect?) but I think you meant to type GB pub, not hub. If you did mean to type hub, I can assure you as someone who lives in quaint Cornish village, we aint got no hubs here mister, and no compooters to plug 'em into. Set 'em up landlord.

[NR67Participant @nr67]

Lee, I remember beer. Its over £4.50 a pint and it’s suddenly become a luxury. £36 a gallon. It makes petrol look cheap at £9 a gallon when you think of the work it takes to make petrol.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

"…. ain't got no hubs here mister…"

That Cornish? Sounds more East Lunnon than West Country, guv!

The colder times in the past, such as you mention, and other warmer ones, are the sort of things I call "ripples" in the general trend. They are of small magnitude and short duration – decades, maybe a century or so, perhaps a bit longer – but in the grand scheme of natural things they are no more than minor fluctuations.

The recognition that accumulating carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere would warm the climate generally seems to be made in the late19C or early-1900s, but I don't know actually by whom and when.

I don't know where the thing about sun-spots come from but since they are normal events that wax and wane over mere 11-year cycles I am puzzled why anyone even thought they have any serious long-term effect on the climate. There are complex astronomical cycles that affect it, but over very long times.

I think some of the difficulties many people have in grasping the concept is from:

– That term-of-convenience, "global warming" – as tacky a phrase as "zero carbon" and "nett zero". The air and seas are warming but by only a very few degrees Celsius; and this leads to……

– That apparently tiny temperature rise seeming nothing to worry about, to those who don't understand the difference between heat and temperature; so don't understand that it is both a mean world-wide rise in temperature and though of small intensity itself it represents a huge and growing amount of surplus heat available to drive the climate and weather.

– Though I think the same people might not also appreciate the difference between climate and weather of course; let alone climatic context over huge spans of time.

Or the fact that we are in an Ice Age so whatever we do will either greatly accelerate what might happen naturally, or will simply delay the inevitable by restoring its natural rate of change. The difference being the former giving a century or less to catastrophe, versus the latter's millennia allowing a more considered response among many serious and looming problems for humanity generally.

[PatJParticipant @patj87806]

LOL, yes pub, not hub.

First it was "global warming", and when that did not pan out, they spun it into "climate change".

Today's gimmick phrase is "Climate Emergency" declaration, via an executive order.

The end result is that unelected bureaucrats can bypass the rule of law, and impose all sorts of draconian laws and more importantly taxes, and funnel tax dollars to their pet industries, no doubt garnering a nice kickback in the process.

It is a blantant and naked overreach of executive power, but par for the course in todays exploitation of feel-good virtue signaling by the elites who jet around the world.

If there is such a thing as global warming, it is surely caused by these jet setters larking around and santimoniously lecturing the rest of us on how to cut back, while single-handedly causing global warming themselves.

It reminds me of the mega-church preachers who so ardently and feverishly preach about how the rest of us must live a virtuous life, while the sneak around and live the life of sewer rats.

The brainwashed minions pour millions into these mega-churches, all too certain that their salvation is secure.

It is laughable to think that the people in this world, out of the goodness of their heart, will change their ways, and stop polluting the world. What really happens is that advanced countries transfer the dirty industries to 3rd tier countries, and then everyone pats themselves on the back for "cleaning up the environment".

What has actually happened is that you have transferred the incredibly toxic byproducts from the battery technology to some place other than our backyard.

It is a zero sum game, with no winner.

I have to go build some engines or something, or find a pub (we call them bars).

I think the best solution to global warming is to drink more, and drink more often.

.

 

 

Edited By PatJ on 21/07/2022 23:44:48

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

"They" being whom, exactly?

I think the proper term was always climate change, with "global warming" holding a grain of truth but otherwise coined to help politicians, journalists and former Hollywood types, of whom few would know a Watt from a Joule, and think a "file" is how a computer stores a balance-sheet.

I do though, grant you (Pat) that all this heading off one lot of environmental disasters does risk bringing others of its own; and this is a serious aspect attracting too little attention – or too much wilful ignoring.

Meanwhile…. I spent a very productive several hours in the workshop today and celebrated with a drink… or two, this evening. So I agree with you too on the merits of another drink. Cheers!

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by duncan webster on 21/07/2022 18:34:27:

BBC2 9pm tonight, How Esso tried to cover up climate change. Fairly successfully from reading some of the preceding posts

I've now watched the first two episodes, Duncan. Disturbing stuff.

The regret expressed in the programmes by numerous former Exxon employees at having unwittingly (really?) played a part in their employer's persistent denial and obfuscation is encouraging, but, as this thread demonstrates, the denial juggernaut they started is clearly still being driven at full pelt by a minority of people who are either morally blinkered or stubbornly uneducable, or both.

[PatJParticipant @patj87806]

I am going to start a new trend………Global Drinking !

I will go first.

.

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

Yesterday it was 37deg C and the other day it was hovering around 40. I installed a reversible heat pump last year, it will warm in winter when its -12C outside and cool in summer when its 40+. It consumes half the energy as the wife's oven (Heat pump 4-5 amps @ 240v Oven 11 amps) so to be green, one has to decide on cakes and roast beef or being warmed or cooled. We live in a small house 2 up & 2 down and the system cools all of down stairs and 1 bedroom. The house has 800mm thick stone walls and the roof has 2 sheets of multilayer insulating foil backed with 4" thick rock wool. Heating is generally by a 15Kw log stove burning scrub oak logs which we are told is "green energy" and the heat pump only used each end of the season or during very cold evenings – perhaps for a couple of hours 40 days a year. I doubt that it is necessary to use the air con more than a similar amount of time. During this heat wave, reflective insulation is placed against the DG windows.

By installing the system myself (the tube connections and gassing done by the supply company), I saved over £3,500 on a full supply and install.

Overall, I consider the total system greener than a full electric or gas system.

Bob (SW France)

[Anthony KendallParticipant @anthonykendall53479]

Posted by duncan webster on 21/07/2022 18:34:27:

BBC2 9pm tonight, How Esso tried to cover up climate change. Fairly successfully from reading some of the preceding posts

Agree Duncan – although they do prove my theory – the likelihood of a post being read is inversely propotional to its length!

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

PatJ. Have you thought of joining Qanon?

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

PatJ,

when I was in the US some years ago I visited the Chicago Museum of Science and Technology, a very impressive place. Among their exhibits were a complete German U-Boat captured during the Second World War and in the basement of the museum building they had reconstructed a working coal mine, extremely impressive. I would definitely put that museum on an equal footing with our Science Museum located in London. There are other museums in the US that I would like to visit, particularly your aerospace museums which are among the best in the world, my interest in aerospace is because I served as a technician in our Air Force. At the age of 75 I fear that there is little prospect of returning to visit more museums although my granddaughter who is cabin crew on British Airways has offered to come with me and we could fly there using her subsidised travel, she is always taking holidays in the US, driving down Route 66 or visiting the the Country Music Festivals in Nashville, well something to think about. Dave W

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by lee webster on 21/07/2022 21:55:53:

I know very little about global warming. And because the experts from each side seem to disagree about the facts, made up or real, I suspect that they know very little too.

A common view Lee, but wrong. It contains two misunderstandings:

1. The experts don't disagree. The scientific consensus is that global warming is real and most likely by far caused by human industry. The counter-view is based on political and economic notions, not analysis of the evidence by climatologists who understand and apply scientific method! Objections come from people who fear change or distrust their leaders (often with good reason.) As the truth is complicated and unpleasant, many prefer to believe in simple comfortable alternatives. Bullsh1t baffles brains!
2. An essential part of scientific method is that everything is questioned and revalidated. Science doesn't claim proof without going through a process specifically designed to eliminate human bias. As a species we are highly inclined to prefer emotional factors like prejudice, belief, opinion, faulty memory, cultural norms, peer-pressure, individual experience, wishful thinking, greed and pride etc to carefully collecting data, doing a proper analysis, and having our conclusions reviewed. Non-scientists often think this constant review and self-criticism means science can't be trusted. They assume experts should be clever enough to get the correct black and white answer first time, and are completely untrustworthy forever if they don't. The assumption is wrong: science is more like a fire and forget missile than aiming a rifle. Fired in the general direction of the target with no hope of hitting it, the missile collects data from sensors and uses it to progressively refine it's course. Large changes at first, but continuously improving until it hits the target. The scientific missile has been homing in on climate change for over 30 years, and no evidence has been found to gainsay it. (Criticism and alternative suggestions aren't evidence!)

Mistake to treat climate change as a political and economic problem. They don't fix technical problems! The President of the USA, Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military in the world can't stop a grenade exploding once the pin has been pulled. But he could limit the damage caused by hurricanes ploughing into the eastern seaboard by taking steps to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Any idiot can delay action by playing on fear, uncertainty and doubt, the political challenge is persuading the world to act. It's not enough for the USA or anyone else to do it alone.

There is also convincing evidence of an anti-climate change lobby mounting a long running counter campaigns based on misinformation. The ExxonMobile scandal is an example . 'In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible." Exxon's response was to fund an extensive disinformation campaign. The company is currently facing a barrage of legal action: whilst misleading the public and lobbying politicians isn't illegal, misleading shareholders is. Their motive is obvious: money.

Dave

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

**LINK**

https://climateaccess.org/system/files/Wysham_The%20Six%20Stages%20of%20Climate%20Grief.pdf

Too many people still in the Denial stage.

[A SmithParticipant @asmith78105]

All too often when someone says, "OK climate change is a thing but re we really sure it is all down to CO2 / greenhouse gases or are there other mechanisms also at work?", someone else will *tar that person as a denier.

* "Traduce" would be more accurate.

[Author]

Posts