Extinction Rebellion’s (Diesel) Bus Tour
August 24, 2022
By Paul Homewood
The prats are ready to start their next National Tour, and part of it involves a bus tour:
Of course, the buses will be electric????
Apparently not!!
Extinction Rebellion demand that we eliminate all GHGs by 2025. Can I take it then that they propose that we have no buses at all after that?
61 Comments
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Hope nobody lets their tyres down.
With a few lentils, of course.
+1
We are all equal but some of us are more equal than you lot.
You lot stop using diesel , so that we can tour the country using diesel.
(Just don’t ask to see our power generators secreted in that box behind the stage.)
I demand that we rid ourselves of these selfish idiots by 2025.
There is a useful website, https://ourworldindata.org/, which has assembled annual estimates of fossil fuel consumption since the early 1800s. The total about a year ago came to 5,455,496 Terawatt hours, a ridiculously precise figure, which is equal to roughly 2.0 x 1016 Megajoules (MJ). The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.2 quadrillion tons (5.2 x 1015 tons) and its specific heat is about 0.001 MJ/kg/degree Centigrade. Multiplying the mass of the atmosphere by its specific heat and dividing this figure into all those megajoules gives a theoretical temperature rise if all the heat from the fossil fuels we have burnt went just to warm our planet’s atmosphere.
This simple calculation results in a temperature rise of 3.8 degrees Centigrade. Let us generously assume that half of the megajoules in the fossil fuels burnt created motion or electricity, not heat. This would give a temperature rise of 1.9 degrees Centigrade. However, a warmer atmosphere would radiate more heat into space, so a one degree rise since the beginning of the industrial revolution from our waste (entropic) heat seems reasonable. Right in the ball park, too.
There is visual evidence of this effect in the form of those dramatic NASA images of our light-spangled planet at night. Only about 15% of the electric power we generate is used for illumination, so what we see is the tip of the iceberg in terms of power generation, and this in turn is under half the entropic heat that goes into the atmosphere.
John Hollaway
Thank you John. Is it possible to give a summary of this in a form understandable to most readers, and also to give your conclusion as to whether our current net zero policies make sense in scientific terms.
John W H , your figures for fossil fuel use are very basic I know . But the actual amount of heat produced are a lot smaller than your half of the total .
An ICE engine will turn about half of the fuel energy used into Kinetic energy , some of it disappears as efficiency , and very little escapes the cooling system into the atmosphere .
With lighting , very little of the energy escapes into the atmosphere as heat .
Electric motors are very energy efficient , and the percentage of heat is probably in single figures .
So the total amount of heat into the atmosphere from fossil fuel use is probably under 10% rather than your 50%.
Most energy gets converted to heat one way and another. Exceptions are when energy is used in chemical processes that may embody energy. Certainly vehicke kinetic energy becomes heat in brakes and tyres and displacement of air etc. However, it all enters the global energy balance, so some of it gets radiated away to space in due course. The questions about how much and how soon are at the heart of climate science debates.
This is fascinating, but what about the heat absorbed by the oceans which I understand have increased their temperature by c 0,3C. This I believe will give an actual global temperature rise of around 0.5C.
“what about the heat absorbed by the oceans which I understand have increased their temperature by c 0,3C”
Which part of the oceans?
Below a certain depth the temperature is 4 deg. C because that is the temperature of the maximum density of water.
Note that in the decades before the advent of the significant coverage of the oceans by the buoy networks, the ocean temperature data was acquired in the main by ship’s engine room water inlet temperature data or by measuring the temperature in buckets thrown over the side on a rope.
Ship’s engine cooling water inlet temperature data is acquired from the engine room cooling inlet temperature gauges by the engineers at their convenience, there is no protocol for the recording of the temperatures.
There is no standard for either the location of the inlets with regard especially to depth below the surface, the position in the pipework of the measuring instruments or the time of day the reading is taken and the position of the temperature sensor may be anywhere between the hull of the ship and the engine cylinder head itself.
The instruments themselves are of industrial quality, their limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 is ±2 deg C. for a class 2 instrument or sometimes even ±4 deg. C, as can be seen in the tables here: DS_IN0007_GB_1334.pdf . After installation it is exceptionally unlikely that they are ever checked for calibration.
It is not clear how such readings can be compared with the readings from buoy instruments specified (optimistically IMO) to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C. or why they are considered to have any value whatsoever for the purposes to which they are put, which is to produce historic trends apparently precise to 0.001 deg. C upon which spending of literally trillions of £/$/whatever are decided.
But hey, this is climate “science” we’re discussing so why would a little thing like that matter?
‘The whole of society must move into a new precautionary paradigm, where life is sacred and all are in service to ensuring its future.’
Sacred to whom? Awfully presumptive. Nature doesn’t give a crap about life. Omnia moriatur. This is the old, “I believe Man created God in his own image.”
John Holloway: since all energy ends up as heat energy, your halving the temperature rise is incorrect.
True, but some hasn’t yet returned to heat yet. Concrete and steel for example take a long time as an example. So it is a not bad estimate to start with.
I’ve told my children and now granchildren that the price of anything depends mainly on the cost of the energy used to make it
No. There are only two types of energy. Potential and kinetic. Everything else is derived from these and their interchange. Heat is a form of kinetic energy. The heat death of the universe is the point at which all becomes still.
“Two types.”
I think we can add a couple more.
The third type of energy is mass itself. This is ‘potential’ in the sense of ‘locked up,’ but not in the strict sense of classical physics – energy resulting from position or configuration in the presence of influential fields.
Mass is converted into energy, for instance, when a proton and an anti-proton meet They disappear and a fourth type of energy appears – electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
In the 19th Century there were attempts to explain EMR* in terms of kinetic and potential energy – as a travelling disturbance of an assumed or inferred ‘aether.’ But the actual nature of any such aether was not successfully elucidated.
Heat death as postulated would be a situation where the ‘extractable’ energy of the Universe has all ended up as electromagnetic radiation disappearing ever further into the unknown. Or perhaps being reflected at a barrier and coming back
to start the whole business over!
* It was hypothesised that the electric aspect was a ‘strain’ in the aether (elastic potential) and the magnetic apect was ‘streaming’ aether (kinetic).
My wife used to have 2 paintings, 1 by ‘Pratt’ 2nd by ‘Burke’. I think we’ve found the latest generation. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Was the artist’s name Wayne Kerr?
The word Extinction in their title refers to the fact that their aim is to extinguish democracy and replace it with anarchy. This is a world-wide organisation funded by vast amounts of money from nefarious sources. The idea that this organisation is actually interested in anything remotely concerned with the environment is utterly fallacious.
I was somewhat confused to see the words ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and ‘Democracy’ in the same sentence on that head pic.
And, in any case, ‘paint the streets’ – assuming it’s literal – would be vandalism, and that’s a chargeable offence, no?
Let’s hope no one lets the air out of the bus tires.
Guido broke the story 6 hours before you did
I applaud the unusual XR honesty
Their normal deception would be to say that ONE bus is biodiesel ..make a huge press thing for one hour
and then hope that no one bothers to check the rest of the fleet, the rest of the time .
Seriously, should they not bicycle everwhere? Totally possible – except for lazy, spoiled, brats.
“On yer bikes!”
Couldn’t use carbon fibre bikes, with puncture resistant tyres, nor could they wear lycra.
Thanks, I was wondering who was first.
Hypocrisy is the new religion….
Counter the plans with actions.
Do they plan to paint streets pink?
Have a dozen people with 8 liters of Cyan paint in “garden tank sprayers” to do a post pink application. That might get a nice Blue.
Bus tour response action: Use similar tank sprayers to spray the busses as they pass some strategic spot where they have to slow down. Perhaps Red this time.
A good time can be had by all!
Suggestions are from a friend. I, of course, am opposed to shenanigans.
I feel that glueing the wheels of their bus to the road might be a more ironic action.
Rishi says don’t put scientists in charge.
Should apply to climate response as much as covid.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11143113/Rishi-Sunak-says-scientists-never-charge-Governments-Covid-response.html
Sunak has it the wrong way round!
The problem has been, for C19, NET Zero, and most infrastructure projects, is that those MPs responsible for taking the big decisions know so little about the technical subject matter that they cannot judge who their advisors should be.
For example, when talking to a qualified engineer about a wind farm project, there is no guarantee that he will give a balanced picture if he is representing a wind farm manufacturer. And he will be most concerned about the performance of his product, and it meeting the specification. But who writes and checks that? And will all the components work together? Not just the mechanics, but also a reliable, continuous supply of electricity when promised?
I have found that judging a project on the behaviour of the team is best done when it is obvious that you, yourself, have enough knowledge to check on weaknesses during normal conversation.
It’s what Engineers are for!
You are exactly right RC. It echoes what I have been saying in the blogosphere about the intellectual paucity of our political elites. Without an educational hinterland, Boris Johnson had none, how can they hope to select the right technical advisors?
Yes, I should have added, politicians too! I guess the real problem is just too many ‘leaders’ when the best intervention is usually none at all.
That’s still wrong. Take Covid: there were multiple viewpoints but the government excluded all but a very narrow clique and allowed that clique to rubbish all other views. On climate, Johnson was given one sideshow by Greens but no alternative views nor any discussion by economists on how to think about the problem. Why? Because access to ministers is controlled by the Civil Service (remember Yes Minister?) and they have their view and that must be what is followed. Brexit was a massive shock to them, with the plebs ignoring their expert advice about house price crashes and mass unemployment so now they make absolutely sure there’s no deviation from the policies our actual masters have decided upon. Policy e and go but the senior civil servants remain.
“On climate, Johnson was given one sideshow by Greens…”
Led by “Sir” Patrick Vallance, the Government’s “chief scientist” who in all probability wouldn’t recognise an entropy-enthalpy diagram if it bit him on the arse, and surrounded by Communist behavioural psychologists, such as “Stalin’s Granny” Susan Michie, no doubt…
It took a mining engineer, Steve McIntyre, to expose climate crook Michael Mann’s phoney hookey stick as he was familiar with the shape pf the graph. Mining entrepeneurs always produced these when touting for cash.
“Act now
Every part of society must act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025 and begin protecting and repairing nature immediately. The whole of society must move into a new precautionary paradigm, where life is sacred and all are in service to ensuring its future.”
So, except for your own travels (of course), how do you expect the rest of us to “Act Now”, do all of those things and yet make the necessary transition to those renewables and electric transportation? But do it without using those same fuels for travel that you use but insist we get rid of? Seems a bit hypocritical, if not stupid.
Net zero is a very stupid idea and anyone who believes in it should stop exhaling CO2, right now!
People should lie on the road in front of their bus.
oh dear clearly they do not understand representative democracy
Net Zero madness is of course the main problem
Is ‘painting the streets’ likely to be criminal damage?
Even if it’s temporary washable paint it’ll definitely be a public nuisance or some-such. How are they allowed to get away with this?
As ever apply the anecdotal ‘Tommy’s law’, where virtuous protestors are replaced with Tommy Robinson. Then ask if police would allow the ‘protest’ to go ahead?
Get the water cannons out!
This ‘Tour’ will all be self funded by the individual I take it?
Bet your bottom dollar it won’t be. These people represent the public face (i.e. the useful idiots) of a very sinister and destructive movement. It can be seen opaquely in UN Agenda 30, WEF etc but my concern is that there are even more malign forces behind it all providing vast amounts of funding. China maybe? We need to understand this a lot better than we do now.
I see from a local rag that a village near Stratford Upon Avon is to sacrifice five perfectly good arable fields for a huge solar farm and the blurb says that the farm will be big enough to power 5,000 homes(!) These sorts of claims should, by law, have to qualify their words by saying WHEN 5,000 homes could be powered. And for how long.
https://www.stratford-herald.com/news/village-solar-farm-plans-set-for-approval-9268480/
Agreed. Demanding a certain but reliable output causes “entrepreneurs” to look elsewhere for
suckers cocerned citizens.1000 acres of glass at Graveney is claimed by the promoters (the alarmingly renamed ‘Project Fortress’) to be enough for 100,000 homes, of course that’s a lie based on optimistic output and electricity alone. Allowing for heating and EVs and capacity factor 11,000 homes is more likely. Don’t get me started on the Lion battery equivalent to over 400 tons of TNT when it goes up. That of course is designed to game the system by ‘load shifting’ to even higher spot rates and smoothing the very instability that the wretched thing has caused in the first place. The battery can be charged from the mains on cloudy days so no gaming opportunities are missed. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/project-fortress/
Homes use power 24 hours a day. The sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day. Solar CANNOT provide power for any homes.
Agreed, Harry. It is fraud in open daylight, yet TPTB let it go on. The Herald writer seems unaware that solar doesn’t work at night.
“Novus Renewable Services Ltd say the proposed solar farm will be able to generate up to 25MWp of electricity which can power 5,623 homes per year”
How ’bout per minute? Demand is continuous. ‘Per year’ is a useless metric.
5,623 homes will be without power 16 hours a day. More on cloudy days. How does one sign up for this?
I can see the described fields from my property.
The planning authority had to approve the application as the Gov planning regulations give them no choice.
The land is part of a large historical estate, the arable fields are farmed by agricultural contractors and tenants, which is common practice nowadays.
It is government policy in action.
“Let them eat solar panels!”
According to Zac Goldsmith, Extinction Rebellion’s protests do work and have an influence on government policy:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/zac-goldsmith-extinction-rebellion-protests-do-work-b1014233.html
Environment minister Zac Goldsmith has said that protests by Extinction Rebellion “do work”, and that their tactics reflect the “real anxiety” over global warming felt by the general public.
“And that kind of pressure does work. It may be annoying, but it works. I’ve seen even as a minister, the increased pressure that we get from constituents onto their MPs and then back onto their ministers as a consequence of activities that some of these organisations get involved in.”
————
Apparently the way this all works is that Extinction Rebellion does a protest, concerned Greenie citizens then put pressure on MPs, and MPs in turn put pressure on ministers. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of collusion going on between the Greenies within the Conservative party (like Zac Goldsmith) and Extinction Rebellion.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49987567 – 2019
Boris Johnson’s father has told Extinction Rebellion protesters that their work is “extremely important” – less than two days after his son labelled them “uncooperative crusties”. Stanley Johnson said the PM’s remarks had been “made in humour”.
Speaking at an event held by the group in Trafalgar Square in London on Wednesday, Stanley Johnson – a former Tory MEP – said: “I’m showing up here because I think what they [Extinction Rebellion] are doing is extremely important.
“From tiny acorns, big movements spring. We have been moving far too slowly on the climate change issue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9208533/Boris-Johnsons-father-Stanley-lands-new-eco-role-pushing-PM-green-taxes.html
Boris Johnson’s father Stanley has landed a new environmental job which could see him putting pressure on the Prime Minister to bring in green taxes. His new role is as international ambassador of the Conservative Environment Network, a group of 100 MPs and peers.
In his role, Mr Johnson Snr will attend the United Nations COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow in November. He said he will ‘constructively’ call for policies including carbon taxes, which raise the price of goods producing more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
He said the PM has a ‘key role’ in taking a ‘firm grip’ on governments to ensure they meet the goal of curbing global warming to 2C and commit to having net zero emissions by 2050.
But he said that green taxes may prove easier to achieve in the UK now that the Covid-19 means the Chancellor of the Exchequer is ‘pushed in the right direction of carbon taxes’.
A quick Internet search on “stanley johnson china” is edifying.
Talk about snout-in-the-trough…
A quick internet search for “stanley johnson china” is edifying…
No need to wonder, I wouldn’t have thought. Seems a fairly safe bet to me.The Goldsmith has been up to its collective neck in evo-trash for ages
The police and security forces should be investigating who owns these buses, who has rented them and who is paying. As always … follow the money.
Paul have you seen this?
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
Josh nails it. Again!
#Green Islam gets an entire BBC World Service prog
On 7 times over the weekend
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct423p
“Zubeida also visits Europe’s first eco-Mosque in Cambridge, England, a beacon of modern Islamic environmentalism, and eavesdrops on British Muslim schoolgirls learning to interpret their faith and the natural world.”
So we can be assured the Cambridge “eco mosque” is not a beneficiary of oil and gas rich Saudi Arabian or Gulf State donations ?
Let the tyres down!