HadCRUT and other datasets

[Eeyore]

resistivity calcuations.

How can you do electronic engineering if you can't?


Ever heard the phrase "diminishing returns"?

That's what they said when the recommended insulation was 4 ".

Grahama

 

[Eeyore]

Installing extra
insulation doesn't make all that much sense if the payback period is
longer than seven years, which is the average length of time that
people spend in the same house in the U.K.

So you reckon only ONE owner gets the benefit ? Not heard of Home Information Packs yet ? You have
to state your home's energy efficiency to the buyer.

Funny attitide for somone who doubtless approves of PV solar that NEVER sees a return on
investment.

Grahama

 

[Eeyore]

I'm pretty sure that these changes in the building standards are first
to look as though they care and are doing something, and second to
create work for another generation of hamfisted builders. Of course home
insulation is important, but bureaucrats are always keen to gold plate
the standards, as long as someone else is paying. Witness (witless?) IEE
regs Part 4.

Once upon a time cavity walls only had air inside them. Now they have
insulation. Was that just 'looking as if they care' too ?

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Although this is true you should also note from the same website that if
you already have 50mm or more of loft insulation then topping it up to
the arbitrary government recommended 270mm including full installation
costs will have a payback time in excess of 10 years.

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/home_improvements/home_insulation_glazing/loft_insulation/


50-270 saves £45 / year, costs £500 installed so payback is 11 years.

If you don't believe in CO2 induced AGW you cannot advocate this policy
to top up all loft insulation to 270mm - the payback time is too long.

Regards,
Martin Brown

What's wrong with an 11-year payback for a project with a 50-year+
lifetime? You'd have to figure in the time-cost-of-money, but 9% annual
tax-free return with no risk is a pretty compelling investment.

Regards,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

How can you do electronic engineering if you can't?


Ever heard the phrase "diminishing returns"? The amount of heat
getting through your loft insulation is inversely proportional to the
thickess of the insulation, and worrying about the last few
millimetres of extra thickness isn't all that clever. Installing extra
insulation doesn't make all that much sense if the payback period is
longer than seven years, which is the average length of time that
people spend in the same house in the U.K.

That view is short-sighted indeed--I'm surprised at you arguing for it Bill.

Better insulation creates a lasting value. If the original buyer isn't
going to get the full benefit of it, the value is still there, and
available for sale to a new purchaser.

If buyers aren't willing to pay for that value, perhaps they don't
realize it's there. Rating homes for energy consumption and cost--or
just making energy usage records available--should fix that.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Eeyore]

What's wrong with an 11-year payback for a project with a 50-year+
lifetime?

Blowed if I can think of one ! As opposed to the 'never pay for itself' PV Solar.

You'd have to figure in the time-cost-of-money, but 9% annual
tax-free return with no risk is a pretty compelling investment.

50+ year lifetime ? What do you build houses out of over there ? Cardboard ?

My own home is now 116 years old and I see NO reason why it shouldn't EASILY double or treble that
lifetime. It's simply rock solid ! Short of re-development demands for the entire area I can't think
why it wouldn't last say 500-700 years. But then we do build with real bricks over here !

500 year old buildings are not at all unusual in the UK. In my last year at what you call 'high
school' ? my classroom was located in a building dating IIRC from the year 800 or so.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

That view is short-sighted indeed--I'm surprised at you arguing for it Bill.

Me too, considering he's all for HIGH EXPENSE low-return 'alternative power' !

Better insulation creates a lasting value.

Probably for 100s of years.

If the original buyer isn't going to get the full benefit of it, the value is still there, and
available for sale to a new purchaser.

If buyers aren't willing to pay for that value, perhaps they don't
realize it's there. Rating homes for energy consumption and cost--or
just making energy usage records available--should fix that.

That's *exactly* what's happening now in the UK. All homes for sale, new or old have to have a
compulsory energy audit.

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote:

Blowed if I can think of one ! As opposed to the 'never pay for itself' PV Solar.



50+ year lifetime ? What do you build houses out of over there ? Cardboard ?

My own home is now 116 years old and I see NO reason why it shouldn't EASILY double or treble that
lifetime. It's simply rock solid ! Short of re-development demands for the entire area I can't think
why it wouldn't last say 500-700 years. But then we do build with real bricks over here !

500 year old buildings are not at all unusual in the UK. In my last year at what you call 'high
school' ? my classroom was located in a building dating IIRC from the year 800 or so.

Graham

We've a few buildings of that vintage, but, inexplicably, they've fallen
out of favor:

http://www.nps.gov/meve/planyourvisit/self_guided_activities.htm

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Richard Henry]

Blowed if I can think of one ! As opposed to the 'never pay for itself' PVSolar.


50+ year lifetime ? What do you build houses out of over there ? Cardboard?

My own home is now 116 years old and I see NO reason why it shouldn't EASILY double or treble that
lifetime. It's simply rock solid ! Short of re-development demands for theentire area I can't think
why it wouldn't last say 500-700 years. But then we do build with real bricks over here !

500 year old buildings are not at all unusual in the UK. In my last year at what you call 'high
school' ? my classroom was located in a building dating IIRC from the year800 or so.

Lit by candles? Heated by a wood fire burning in the corner?

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:44:34 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan

Note: Sorry for the delayed reply. I've had a bit of excessive
entertainment. I passed one kidney stone, fired one customer, and now
there's a rather large brush fire in the area.

I am sincerely sorry to hear all this.

I don't take anyone's word for anything. I like measurements,
calculations, and numbers, not authoritative bluster.

I like theory. Without theory, measurements are just noise without
meaning.

The problem is
that Google Scholar search does not do a very effective job of
searching for terms with a subscript. The best I can do is "CO2" and
"CO 2" which result in a total of 5,490 hits out of a total of 10,500
hits for 2008. Therefore, I stand corrected. Only about half the
articles in 2008 mention CO2.

Plenty of peer-reviewed climate science papers _do_ mention CO2 in a
kind of ancillary way -- that doesn't in any way mean that the
articles are going to help you understand why it's important (or not
-- as you are certainly permitted to come to your own informed
conclusions.)

I actually read papers on the subject -- if you count only those I've
read thoroughly and tried hard to understand well, it is probably
under a hundred. If you count those I've skimmed over looking for
specific details, it's hundreds. I have here a pair of directories I
keep: one that keeps peer-reviewed papers on climate science and one
that keeps the peer-reviewed papers on climate science that were
specifically used in arriving at AR4 in 2007, but were at the time
unpublished (awaiting publication, but had been reviewed.) Something
like 800 papers in both directories, now. I've at least skimmed half
of them.

None of this makes me an expert on any of it -- I do NOT have the kind
of comprehensive understanding on any facet of climate science that
even the more lackluster climate scientist may have in their area.
It's not my field and I only read it because I'm an interested
hobbyist. But I can certainly say that one cannot avoid reading a
fair number of key papers just to get an idea of the scope of
knowledge needed in order to know the dominant factors in play and
what circumstances cause them to currently be the important ones.
(Even in electronics, I regularly see professionals pointing out here
when certain factors become important in a particular application,
when in other circumstances they can be nearly completely ignored --
this comes from "informed judgment" and that is the kind of thing one
must acquire also when discussing climate science.

Like in electronics design, it generally takes training and experience
to get there. There is no avoiding the work. And narrowly focusing
on some ONE THING that one might ignorantly perceive as being the one
that argues their point does nothing to help in making a successful
product. For example, someone might ignorantly imagine that a BJT
digital signal inverter should work just fine at several MHz or even
tens of MHz without significant distortion on the output, if they use
a neophyte's simplified view of a BJT. But even a slightly more
comprehensive view would suggest that some factors (charge storage,
for example) might become increasingly important. If one were to
insist on an ignorant point of view and demand that they were right,
without having to learn anything more about the subject, I can only
imagine the abuse they'd receive here. And rightly so.

The paper by Rasool and Schneider (1971) that I mentioned is an
_excellent_ starting point for anyone because it uses a VERY
simplified perspective (1D approach) about approximating the impacts
of additional CO2 in the atmosphere that most people with some modest
math background can generally follow. It also provides an interesting
start on the idea of aerosols, which is worth studying, too. It gets
its conclusions about CO2 dead wrong and the authors were taken to
task on a few quite quickly and, in 1972, provided some more quite
serious flaws in their own work that others had NOT noticed. But
despite that, it's a very, very good place to start. It provides a
gentle path towards a better understanding, if for no other reason
than because sometimes a good way to start learning is to learn simple
things that were tried and didn't work out in the end. Seeing the
thinking processes exposed and how the flaws were uncovered is a great
teacher, at times.

Incidentally, the article you mentioned required payment for the PDF.

I have a copy in PDF form. Write me.

I have no problem with that. It's your suggestion that he read _all_
the papers that I find ummm.... indigestible. I believe I supplied
sufficient calculations to demonstrate that would be a rather
Herculean task.

Well, that's taking my comment to extremes and then imagining it is
flawed when taking it to places I hadn't intended. The central point
here is that scientists are _required_ (if they want to survive long,
anyway) to work earnestly and hard towards a comprehensive view.
That's as it should be, because, as I said, if one is allowed to be
selective in the facts they consider they could rationally conclude
the Earth is flat. The only tool any of us have in order to avoid the
problems in being selective is to work hard against the natural
tendencies of sloth and to diligently move as close to a comprehensive
view as possible before attempting to speak with authority on the
subject. That doesn't mean that a comprehensive view is always
correct. It's not. Who knows what the future will bring?? But, it's
probably one of the truly useful tools we do know about to helps
reduce the risks of error that attend an overly narrow perspective.

Incidentally, I goofed. I counted the number of papers, not pages. I
can read one page per minute, not one paper per minute. Depending on
the average length of the papers, the time required for reading it all
will be substantially greater than I estimated. Sorry for the
mistake.

It will probably be even worse than that. These papers are... dense.
It sometimes takes me hours to read just one page with understanding.
I will have to get out separate papers, a pen or pencil, and I will
need to go gather up other observations and data to plug into what is
being written and then deduce what was said to some specific
circumstance just to see if I can agree with the page before going on.

I have a new textbook I just picked up on atmospheric science and am
starting to wade through and you can flip to any page at random and be
faced with probably an average of two difficult equations. Multiply
that by the 700 pages in the book and you get an idea. It's going to
take me some serious time to get through even the first third of the
book.

There is no escaping... work. That is what being informed means.

Been there, and done that. I was once an active member of the Flat
Earth Society. The methods used to demonstrate flatness does require
selective facts, as well as a creative interpretation of those facts.
Interestingly, those arguing in favor of the flat earth model, were
far more knowledgeable in geology and physics, than those supporting
the spherical model.

But that kind of knowledge isn't required. One can reasonably arrive
at the same conclusion by lending excessive importance to data that
confirms and either not seeing or else discounting severely evidence
that disagrees. It just helps a lot to have a comprehensive view to
make a really strong, limited perspective argument that will give some
trouble (and fun and smiles) to those who are also informed.

I can do anything I want. It's whether you or others reading my
comments choose to accept my selection of facts that's important.
Anything less would be censorship. Please don't tell me what I can
and cannot do.

I specifically used "one" and in a context that your comment doesn't
address -- which is that one cannot pick and choose if one is to
struggle towards a comprehensive viewpoint with its attendant lower
risks of being wrong. As I also said here, no one can predict what
the future will bring. So it's no guarantee of anything. But it sure
helps a lot.

And your comment was a strawman. In no way was I trying to tell YOU
what you have to do. I think anyone reading my comments would agree
that it is ridiculous to imagine I meant to try and force you to do
anything at all.

I beg to differ. That's not how science *SHOULD* be discussed.

Well, I suppose we won't find common ground there.

However, if one has a axe to grind, point to make, or political
agenda, stacking the facts in one's favor is commonly done. I'm more
into the political than the technical and find fact selection and
filtering to be the norm.

Politics is about finding shared goals and, where those do not readily
exist, negotiated grounds that various sides can live with, without
feeling the need to ultimately go to arms over. But if one wants to
know what the better science knowledge is, they should go to the
science... not the political battles, propaganda, etc. If one is just
interested in the political fights, then have at it. The political
arena is the place to go.

How much reading does one need to do before one is qualified to
discuss a subject?

To discuss? One can be completely ignorant.

If you are looking for some magic line in the sand, where on this side
you are not qualified and on that side you are not, don't come asking
me. I don't believe there is such a line. One does serve themselves
much, much better, though, by reading comprehensively. Obviously, and
I agree with you on this point, one cannot possibly hope (today,
anyway) to read comprehensively on the broadest subject of climate
science. If for no other reason, because climate science must itself
include life and biology since life itself is a VERY IMPORTANT system
of feedbacks that cannot be ignored in understanding climate science
on the broadest levels. So you have some areas that are pretty well
understood (radiation physics and thermalization, for example) and
some areas that are much more poorly undertood (detailed theories that
predict precise cloud formations without comsuming all of the
processing power of the entire planet, for example, which is why there
is so much attention to parameterized models and the testing of these
models against actual theoretical predictions in small regions on
Earth as a continuing check.)

So, I agree that one must narrow their focus. But what one _can_ do
is to pick one subject -- say, for example, radiation physics,
thermalization processes and how those vary over altitude, etc., and
study just that area enough to glean enough of it to actually then go
back and examine the extent papers on the subject. If you do that,
you will find the papers are well-written and sincere and accurate and
quantitatively predictive. Then you can add in subjects such as
cosmic rays and their possible inpacts on cloud formation, research
papers that discuss the motion of Earth's solar system in our galaxy
and what is known about where we currently are and have been in the
past, and a lot of other related subjects as you gradually broaden
your perspectives. See if the knowledge you are gaining makes sense,
is theoretically sound, can be deduced to specifics, and is congruent
with the peer-reviewed papers you then grab and read.

I think if you do that much, on some facet and not the whole field,
you will find the work excellently done and moving in the right
directions, following up with later research that examines the
assumptions made in earlier research, etc. And just pick a subject at
random. Poke at it. See where it takes you. But be as comprehensive
as you can be in that narrow area. No matter what you pick, it is
much wiser not to be selective. You can be selective about the
domain, of course, but should be close to comprehensive within it if
you can manage that.

You don't have to grab up the whole field. Only a very few people
even try to do that.

I believe I demonstrated that _all_ the papers on
climate change is impractical (unless you simply want to muzzle
Graham).

Sure. But that wasn't what I was saying and that is arguing against a
strawman you are setting up.

There should be a workable number that entitles one to
proclaim limited competence. It should also be possible to prepare a
recommended reading list of articles. We can even issue certificates
of completing for those reading 1, 10, 100, or perhaps 1,000 such
articles, which offers the reader a corresponding competence and
credibility rating.

Well, hopefully the above comments from me will clarify better what
I'm talking about.

I do wish you would target your comments on the facts, opinions, and
data presented, and not waste your time attacking the source. If you
wish to debate this on personal terms, there's always email.

You are the one that dropped in H2O in the same context (paragraph) of
CO2. That is all that is required to suggest you may not understand
things.

In this case, you're correct. Water vapor is an aerosol and should
not be classed as a gas.

<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142>
The overlaps complicate things, but it's clear that water
vapour is the single most important absorber (between 36%
and 66% of the greenhouse effect), and together with clouds
makes up between 66% and 85%. CO2 alone makes up between
9 and 26%, while the O3 and the other minor GHG absorbers
consist of up to 7 and 8% of the effect, respectively.

A selective quote that in no way brings up what I was thinking about.
I refrained from exposing my hand here because, to be honest, it is
quite obvious once you understand the differences and isn't at all
hard to remember. Your above quote shows me that you are selective
and don't even realize it. Which tells me more about the limitations
in your perspective.

As for my possession of any clues, I am not an expert on the topic of
climate change. I am not a climatologist, weather researcher, or
computer model builder. I have a well tuned BS filter. I do read
extensively on global warming. At this point, I'm still undecided on
many aspects of global warming.

Well, you have three choices as I see it. Either you (1) pick and
choose which charismatic authorities you will cleave to and just
accept what a few individuals say that fits your preconceived notions
about things or (2) allow those who _do_ specialize in these areas of
science to work towards a scientific consensus and let that evolving
understanding be the authority you will follow or (3) inform yourself
so that you can reasonably come to an independent opinion. The only
way to have an independent opinion, though, is to work hard and inform
yourself.

Perhaps, but I certainly wood. I've done some public speaking and
fairly good at promotion and propoganda. Converting science into
politics is an art that most technical people do rather badly. Graham
has a good start on the methodology, but has a long way to go before
he can be as smooth and accomplished at presenting his facts as Al
Gore.

I'm still waiting for you to read more on H2O. The idea you propose
that it is an aerosol is NOT the right viewpoint -- or, at least, it
is not the right viewpoint in the context that CO2 is in -- a molecule
that has the right degrees of freedom of vibration to be a global
warming molecule. Water _can_ be in aerosol form at times (cloud
particulates), but that isn't what is being discussed by the quote you
provided from realclimate and if you don't already know why, then you
need to read more.

I think I understand the question. Politically, the difference is
that most water vapor emissions are not man made, while the increase
in CO2 emissions is substantially man made (ignoring bovine
flatulence). If it's man made, the presumption is that it can be
mitigated. If it's natural, mother nature will have a fit if we mess
with her processes.

Nope. That isn't even close to the right answer. In fact, far far
from it.

Would you like to read more? Or shall I just tell you here?

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

That view is short-sighted indeed--I'm surprised at you arguing for it
Bill.

Better insulation creates a lasting value. If the original buyer isn't
going to get the full benefit of it, the value is still there, and
available for sale to a new purchaser.

If they want it. If the next buyer wants to put in a loft conversion, you
won't get a penny for it.

If buyers aren't willing to pay for that value, perhaps they don't realize
it's there. Rating homes for energy consumption and cost--or just making
energy usage records available--should fix that.

There were some newspaper reports recently on how energy ratings were
working in practice - I can't remember where - but it turned out that the
buyers weren't in the least interested. Which I can understand. At the
moment heating a houe is still a relatively minor expenditure - we burn a
lot of gas, but our fuel bills are in the same ball park as the rates and
the house insurance - and something you worry about after you've worked out
whether you can live comfortably in the house, in the living space it offers
in the neighbourhood where it is located.

 

[Eeyore]

That depends very much on whether it is pure gas phase water molecules
(when it is truly a triatomic gas) or condensed into particles of water
or ice as fog/clouds.

Oh PISS OFF>

 

[James Arthur]

If you are a cash rich high rate taxpayer then it would make sense
(although the DIY option would make much better economic sense).

But if you had to borrow money to do it (which it the usual assumption
for the purposes of deciding economic viability) with loan interest
rates close to 9% the capital investment looks much less attractive.

If you don't have £500, a) how'd you get that house? and b) you oughtn't
be hiring servants to do your chores--install it yourself! ;-)

I don't know what the US figures are but in the UK people move homes on
average every 7 years so you ideally want a payback on roughly that
timescale for it to be worthwhile in a hardline economic sense.

Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

If you don't have £500, a) how'd you get that house? and b) you oughtn't
be hiring servants to do your chores--install it yourself! ;-)


Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

IIRC, it's up quite a bit from what it was twenty years ago.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Hardly any do. It's usually easier and cheaper to start over,
unless there are monkey wrenches thrown in like property tax
abatements.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

I can make exactly the opposite argument. I might like nice looking
things, like cherry cabinets. I work so I can buy things that
please me. Insulation doesn't affect my senses at all, just my
wallet. There is no emotional attachment to my wallet, so as long
as I can afford to go without more insulation it's not a "useful"
place to put money. When it pays for itself, it becomes "useful" -
not until.

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

Snake? Cockroach? Inane insurance company mascot?

 

[Eeyore]

But if you had to borrow money to do it [insulation] (which it the usual assumption
for the purposes of deciding economic viability) with loan interest
rates close to 9% the capital investment looks much less attractive.

If you don't have £500, a) how'd you get that house? and b) you oughtn't
be hiring servants to do your chores--install it yourself! ;-)

Also note that gov't grants are available for insulation improvements in some cases and also people on
benefits may get it done for them for free.

I'd rather see a few x £500 of gov't funds spent on insulating houses than £ 5-30k each time spend
subsidising idiotic PV solar or personal roof-mounted windmill tokenism.

It is easily do-able on a DIY basis too. I should know ! Done it more than once and the materials are
cheap, cheap , cheap. Doesn't really take long either. Put a day aside or so.

Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

I've now owned this property > 25 yrs ! Why move ? It's an excellent location and an ideal size for
me, plus I like Victorian style 'cottages'.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

Yes quite. The amount of money that 'goes down the toilet' every 10 ? years with a new kitchen is a
disgrace.

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

How do you manage that ?

Graham

 

[James Arthur]

Martin Brown wrote:
Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

IIRC, it's up quite a bit from what it was twenty years ago.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Hardly any do. It's usually easier and cheaper to start over,
unless there are monkey wrenches thrown in like property tax
abatements.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

I can make exactly the opposite argument. I might like nice looking
things, like cherry cabinets. I work so I can buy things that
please me. Insulation doesn't affect my senses at all, just my
wallet. There is no emotional attachment to my wallet, so as long
as I can afford to go without more insulation it's not a "useful"
place to put money. When it pays for itself, it becomes "useful" -
not until.

Insulation improves my comfort, silently, without noisy, nasty
machinery. That's valuable as in "something to be valued" to me.

Some folks fight Nature with energy and technology. I embrace her, but
insulation hedges the bet, 'cause we all know Nature can be a mother. ;-)

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

Snake? Cockroach? Inane insurance company mascot?

I prefer "ascetic," but answer to "Nature boy" as well.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

But if you had to borrow money to do it [insulation] (which it the usual assumption
for the purposes of deciding economic viability) with loan interest
rates close to 9% the capital investment looks much less attractive.

If you don't have £500, a) how'd you get that house? and b) you oughtn't
be hiring servants to do your chores--install it yourself! ;-)

Also note that gov't grants are available for insulation improvements in some cases and also people on
benefits may get it done for them for free.

I'd rather see a few x £500 of gov't funds spent on insulating houses than £ 5-30k each time spend
subsidising idiotic PV solar or personal roof-mounted windmill tokenism.

It is easily do-able on a DIY basis too. I should know ! Done it more than once and the materials are
cheap, cheap , cheap. Doesn't really take long either. Put a day aside or so.

Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

I've now owned this property > 25 yrs ! Why move ? It's an excellent location and an ideal size for
me, plus I like Victorian style 'cottages'.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

Yes quite. The amount of money that 'goes down the toilet' every 10 ? years with a new kitchen is a
disgrace.

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

How do you manage that ?

Graham

As our fathers did and humankind has done since time began: When it's
hot, I eat less, wear less, exercise more, and adapt. Physically. Then
I'm comfortable. Avoiding air conditioning speeds the adaptation.

When it's cold, I wear more, eat more, stack more comforters on the bed,
and I'm comfortable.

Amazing, but you _do_ adapt. Really. It just takes a few weeks at each
change of season.

It's easy.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

Martin Brown wrote:
I don't know what the US figures are but in the UK people move homes on
average every 7 years so you ideally want a payback on roughly that
timescale for it to be worthwhile in a hardline economic sense.
Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

IIRC, it's up quite a bit from what it was twenty years ago.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Hardly any do. It's usually easier and cheaper to start over,
unless there are monkey wrenches thrown in like property tax
abatements.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

I can make exactly the opposite argument. I might like nice looking
things, like cherry cabinets. I work so I can buy things that
please me. Insulation doesn't affect my senses at all, just my
wallet. There is no emotional attachment to my wallet, so as long
as I can afford to go without more insulation it's not a "useful"
place to put money. When it pays for itself, it becomes "useful" -
not until.

Insulation improves my comfort, silently, without noisy, nasty
machinery. That's valuable as in "something to be valued" to me.

Heat doesn't have to be invasive. I can't hear my electric
(resistive) heat at all; no "nasty machinery". Insulation doesn't
do a damn thing for my senses.

Some folks fight Nature with energy and technology. I embrace her, but
insulation hedges the bet, 'cause we all know Nature can be a mother. ;-)

No, it saves money so it can be used for other things. Nothing
more, nothing less. If it costs more money than it saves, it serves
*NO* purpose.

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

Snake? Cockroach? Inane insurance company mascot?

I prefer "ascetic," but answer to "Nature boy" as well.

;-) I don't work to suffer. That's too easy to do as a bum.

 

[krw]

Martin Brown wrote:
But if you had to borrow money to do it [insulation] (which it the usual assumption
for the purposes of deciding economic viability) with loan interest
rates close to 9% the capital investment looks much less attractive.
If you don't have £500, a) how'd you get that house? and b) you oughtn't
be hiring servants to do your chores--install it yourself! ;-)

Also note that gov't grants are available for insulation improvements in some cases and also people on
benefits may get it done for them for free.

I'd rather see a few x £500 of gov't funds spent on insulating housesthan £ 5-30k each time spend
subsidising idiotic PV solar or personal roof-mounted windmill tokenism..

It is easily do-able on a DIY basis too. I should know ! Done it more than once and the materials are
cheap, cheap , cheap. Doesn't really take long either. Put a day aside or so.

I don't know what the US figures are but in the UK people move homes on
average every 7 years so you ideally want a payback on roughly that
timescale for it to be worthwhile in a hardline economic sense.
Here I've heard 3 years, but I can't vouch for it.

I've now owned this property > 25 yrs ! Why move ? It's an excellent location and an ideal size for
me, plus I like Victorian style 'cottages'.

Really though, if that's your criterion, hardly any improvements make sense.

Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]

Yes quite. The amount of money that 'goes down the toilet' every 10 ? years with a new kitchen is a
disgrace.

[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.

How do you manage that ?

Graham

As our fathers did and humankind has done since time began: When it's
hot, I eat less, wear less, exercise more, and adapt. Physically. Then
I'm comfortable. Avoiding air conditioning speeds the adaptation.

I don't know about yours, but my father owned a furnace, as did his.

When it's cold, I wear more, eat more, stack more comforters on the bed,
and I'm comfortable.

You must live in a moderate climate.

Amazing, but you _do_ adapt. Really. It just takes a few weeks at each
change of season.

....perhaps the desert. It would take more than a few weeks to adapt
to a 100F temperature swing.

It's easy.

Even lizards don't like being frozen solid.

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur wrote:
Meanwhile people love "kitchen remodels"--commonly $20-30k to re-arrange
things, landfill the old cabinets, creating no new value. I'd rather
have the insulation.[1]
Yes quite. The amount of money that 'goes down the toilet' every 10 ? years with a new kitchen is a
disgrace.


[1] But it wouldn't save me any money--I use neither heat nor cooling.
How do you manage that ?

Graham

As our fathers did and humankind has done since time began: When it's
hot, I eat less, wear less, exercise more, and adapt. Physically. Then
I'm comfortable. Avoiding air conditioning speeds the adaptation.

I don't know about yours, but my father owned a furnace, as did his.

When it's cold, I wear more, eat more, stack more comforters on the bed,
and I'm comfortable.

You must live in a moderate climate.

Yes, fairly. Mostly 40s to 90s. In Vermont I might well use a heater.

I did go all winter in Bavaria, Switzerland, and the Italian Alps once
without ever wearing a coat...

....and spent non-air conditioned summers in New Orleans, running in the
35c / 90% r.h. heat. If you stick with it--either one--you do get used
to it.

In my Dad's place many winters ago (1993?) the heat pump couldn't keep
up with the -26 F cold snap. Brownouts were looming & the radio pleaded
for voluntary conservation, so we just donned our down jackets and
turned the darn thing off entirely. Cold, but not too terribly bad.

...perhaps the desert. It would take more than a few weeks to adapt
to a 100F temperature swing.

I've spent time in +140 F, and at least as cold as -40 F. Cold is
better--you can always wear more, and if you can't take it any more at
least the cold will let you lay down and die!

I don't think you can ever physiologically adapt to a daily 100 F swing.
I've experienced it, but that requires clothing, shelter, planning, etc.

Cheers,
James Arthur