Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kzb

  1. I certainly pay in more now. I've paid in more than the bare minimum ever since I went from DB to DC, but I pay in more than double that now. The majority of people want to live while they are young and think getting old won't happen to them. The fly in ointment is that a future government could rob the pension funds to pay off some of the national debt or give it to other countries in climate reparations. So if you'd saved more than the minimum you will wish you hadn't.
  2. I think you are misunderstanding this. The increases in mass loss are not NET mass loss. He is saying the mass loss rate increased fair enough, but the net effect is gain in ice, until the recent period where it has reached a balance. It says this in the abstract. It's funny that in this area, the satellite data is suspect: Yet in the sea level determinations it is the satellites that are the gold standard and not the tidal gauges? Recall the abuse I got from certain quarters about doubting the NASA satellite data ?
  3. Note the units, Gt a-1 , means billions of tonnes per year. Also note, the uncertainty on the 2012-2016 trend of -12 Gt/a is +/- 64, so it is hardly statistically different to zero. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-balance-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-19922016-reconciling-results-from-grace-gravimetry-with-icesat-ers12-and-envisat-altimetry/0A29BAA84961428700886DCCE201912F#
  4. No I think it is the ice on the land that is increasing. TBH it has levelled off in the last few years but was increasing rapidly before that.
  5. After seeing that, the average person will think the islands are in imminent danger of going under. Which is not the case. Tell you what, the building rubble from the UK retrofits will be enough to cover Tuvalu to a depth of half a mile. How about we shipped it all there (instead of paying for landfill here)? They could live on top of that, completely safe from sea level rise for millions of years. We could even landscape it all for them.
  6. It was a record cold winter there as well. The 50 billion tonnes/ice net per year (figure from memory) being deposited on Antarctica could also be a problem for the sea level calculations, because apparently it means billions of tonnes of water are appearing out of nowhere !
  7. I made the point and you accepted it, and I've not pursued because it's of only passing relevance and I'm not going to be diverted onto it. OK fair enough, but the problem is people take it seriously when it is presented to them on the BBC without any context. Mitigation is the only thing that will help Tuvalu, if it actually needs helping, which is arguable. Britain cutting global CO2 by 1% will have no effect whatsoever. That mitigation would have to take place anyway, without any man made climate change. I never said we shouldn't bother at all. That is a misrepresentation of my position. I said we should give up trying to be leaders, which is not the same thing. This was never pulped in any shape or form.
  8. Broadly speaking, yes. That's not to say I have zero understanding of the science though.
  9. It was my point originally. I know what my own point was ! The point was all about the presentation. That was always what this was about. There is no real difference in that man's situation with or without climate change, but we are lead to believe they are headed for submerging next year or something. See above. Maybe man made climate change has put him in 1% more danger or maybe not. We don't know. BTW, if we believe that cyclones will be more common due to climate change, that should deposit more sand on the islands and leading to increased growth rate, the complete opposite. The record only goes back to 1977, and it is complicated by some station change-over in 1993. Difficult to see an acceleration in the years since 2000 or whatever.
  10. No I have never read him. What we are discussing is the presentation and the belief system. They presented a man up to his knees in water. Millions of people will have taken on board that image. The truth is that he is at no enhanced risk of being up to his knees in water. It could just as easily happen without any man made climate change (BTW coral can die for other reasons). That's the risk of living on islands only a few feet above maximum sea level and it always has been. But that is not what people will think after being fed that image.
  11. That's evidently has happened and the paper says it will continue. Sea level increase has been continuing for many decades and from long before anthropogenic climate change. If it was going underwater, it would anyway, irrespective of our CO2 emissions, but luckily there seem to be compensating processes in operation. What you are saying is if the sea level increase is accelerated too much, the compensating processes won't keep up. Maybe, but the evidence of accelerating sea level increase is mixed. Processes have kept up with it so far. Not saying I'd like to live there myself. Imagine if there was a tsunami.
  12. The politicians do, the hysterical young people who think Armageddon is coming do. Do they know that even the IPCC says there is lack of evidence of extreme weather events becoming more common, and the assertion is therefore "low confidence"? The BBC never told them that ! The BBC (and others) presentation is precisely what I am discussing.
  13. I think the crash situation was quite very similar to science. The government is surrounded by great and good advisors who publish. Didn't help. I've never claimed to be a climate modeller or an atmospheric physicist. I am just someone who reads around and makes judgements, just like people on here did with the financial crash. To add to that, there actually are a substantial number of proper scientists with somewhat sceptical views. The "97% of climate scientists agree..." was a constructed figure. Let's have an example, and let us see who is looking at the peer reviewed science and who is not. The TV news channels took great delight in showing us that video of the Tuvalu minister at his desk knee deep in the sea. Tuvalu is classed as climate vulnerable and is after money. But here is a scientific literature paper which says Tuvalu has actually gained land area since 1971: Results highlight a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), despite sea-level rise, and land area increase in eight of nine atolls. Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, presenting alternate opportunities for adaptation that embrace the heterogeneity of island types and their dynamics. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02954-1 Did the BBC show you that?
  14. You're totally missing the point. You don't seem to understand what I am saying at all. I've never claimed that level of expertise. Again you seem to totally misunderstand. BTW, very few on this forum have the qualifications and professional experience to comment on the issues they present. They would never get published in the academic journals. If only qualified experts could comment there would be no forums such as this.
  15. What about ? Climate change or a questioning attitude towards experts? We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert. – J Robert Oppenheimer
  16. Why, thank you. TBH I am not up to speed with the German plan for green hydrogen substituting for natural gas. However, green hydrogen is only energy vector and storage medium, not a source of energy. Also, the scale of it to replace all the natural gas energy would be enormous. Here in Britain, gas way exceeds electricity as a source of energy, by several-fold. Having said that, I think the best use for all those windmills we are stuck with would be to produce hydrogen, but mainly for vehicle fuel not heating. That way we get round the intermittent nature of wind energy. The same goes for solar as well.
  17. On other threads, forum members call the BoE governor names and say he is incompetent. These forum members are not SQEP for the role of BoE Governor themselves, so who are they to comment on his actions? But then look what happened in 2007. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bleating, "but who saw this coming?". Well, people on here did see it coming !
  18. The only crisis in the UK is caused by Net Zero itself. I saw it somewhere recently, can't recall where now, that Britain will be somewhat of a haven in a warmer world. We can easily stand being a couple of degrees warmer and we aren't going to have apocalyptic bush fires. Rainfall is expected to increase by a few per cent in the south and east. Still waiting for Blackpool to get the Benidorm climate though. Anyhow, the dangers are floods, coastal erosion and high winds. Keep out the flood-prone areas, don't buy houses near the coasts where winds are strongest and sea levels are rising, and everything should be fine.
  19. COP26 I guess the sight of the President, Alok Sharma, sobbing as he apologised, really does mean COP26 was an abject failure. Apparently the agreement got through by substituting one word, phase out became phase down. Which I think is not even proper English, so they can make it mean what they want. So now we have phase down of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, instead of phase out of the same. This is because China, India, S. Africa and Iran refuse to give up their coal power plans. If we believe the IPCC models (and I'm not saying I do), CO2 emissions need to be halved within a decade to keep the temperature increase below 1.5 degrees. There is now no chance of this happening. Emissions will continue to increase. Somehow, the message that wind and solar are cheaper than coal is not being believed. Why would that be? On the plus side, demands that the west compensate other countries for weather events have been refused. Thank heavens for that. The prospect of being given money was the only reason all these countries turned up. They wanted cash for weather mitigation, but the west want to give them money for clean energy instead. They refused. Anyhow, since we are now on track for 2.4 degrees and not 1.5 degrees, I guess it is game over. Remember, this conference was our last chance to stop it. The end of civilisation and billions of deaths are now inevitable. Ecosystems will collapse in a mass extinction event and Britain will be overrun with a billion refugees. So what do we do now? Is it full-on survivalist mode?
  20. Does it say what is the average cost per property? And this is just to get up to a "C" rating isn't it?
  21. Absolutely marginal. I bet the carbon debt of manufacturing the equipment in China would never be paid back during its lifetime. From memory, humans can output over a kW, but only for a few seconds. Long term it is only a couple hundred watts, and that is for fit individuals. The food they are burning requires several times the calories of fossil fuels to produce and supply than there are in the food calories supplied. From that point of view alone, it'd be better to generate directly from the fossil fuels instead of from food. But that's fossil fuel energy! Not allowed.
  22. There will be a lot of price variance, property to property, I don't doubt it. But we have to consider what it means for the typical person. So is there another post from Bruce that I need to see? Can you link it or copy and paste it here? If what you say is the correct interpretation, he is only saying it's been OK Spring to early Autumn. I know we had the coldest May in decades but then again Sep/Oct and much of the current month so far have been warm or mild. On Tues. it was 17 degrees up here according to the car thermometer. From what I recall, he only has the one unit and you have to leave the internal doors open to warm the whole house. This £800 unit is not what people have in mind for a heat pump heating system. It won't have a good COP being air-to-air and will be even more expensive to run (assuming equal heat outputs) than the "proper heat pumps". No hot water either. That said, I recall saying I'd quite fancy having one as a backup and for the aircon in summer, if I had money to burn. But not as the only heating in the house. I've got cavity wall, double glazing and loft insulation. That is not good enough now, we are expected to have airtight homes with cladding and active ventilation. I've not had a quote for the work but it will undoubtedly be many thousands. The £63k is what a BBC Panorama programme said would be the average cost. Since then I showed you the Glasgow block costing £48k+ per flat, which again came from the BBC, hardly a denier site. There's also a lot of expert reports we could look at, but first things first. What's this "do nothing"? I've repeatedly asked several of you to estimate your retrofit cost and what that sum would mean for you. Totally ignored up to now. One of you, i.e. yourself, has had a weak attempt at speculating what the heat pump would cost. There's a way to go yet.
  23. Was this his below, from 18 May? I use the gas central heating in the winter and the heat pump in spring and autumn. My heat pump costs a maximum of 15p per hour and is running for about 5 hours a day at the moment. I've only used the CH for a couple of days in the last month. I bought the heat pump for cooling (air conditioning) but use it for both heating and cooling. Noise varies, but mine is very quiet and never on over night. So he definitely uses gas more than one day a year ! Air-to-air won't get you a good COP. If you look at the reversible air con units on the market the honest suppliers say it is supplemental heating and not suitable for when it is really cold. I had the gas boiler replaced a couple of years back for under £2k. We will pay for the state subsidies via taxes, it is not free and impacts the young most, as it is all borrowed money which they pay interest on. High taxes have a multiplied bad affect on the whole economy, as companies leave the country or offshore more jobs. Yes I know. Most homes are not suitable for the more efficient (and quieter) GSHPs. See above for the government subsidy, but to add to that, this £5k grant is a subsidy to the better off and to landlords. Lifetime of combis is about the same as that. The previous combi boiler was in the house for 20 years. It could've been fixed as well, but I thought let's get a new one which is more efficient. A few months back I got mocked on here for allowing £120 p.a. in my budget for gas appliance servicing. The figure I have seen for heat pump annual maintenance is £450. You have to pay it to maintain the warranty. You still have not addressed the major cost, which is the retrofit of your property. Google that. Anyhow, it has been worth engaging on this occasion, because look what you have learnt in this post. Next thing to learn is the other costs besides heat pumps.
  24. What do you think the referendum result would be?
  25. My recollection of that is he has a reversible air conditioner. He also has gas heating. A reversible air conditioner is not the same as a whole heating system with a heat pump. If that is what you were thinking, I'm afraid it is a whole different ball game. Also, the biggest expense is not the heat pump, it is the so-called retrofitting of your property to reach the required insulation standard. Were you under the impression I was making up the figures, and if you found out the truth it would only be a few hundred pounds? If so, I strongly recommend you do some Google research on this, because, whilst you can find various estimates, I am certainly not making up the high cost.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.