Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

24 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Using ‘global warming’ as a driver is a detriment to your argument. First, global warming is a farce (the entire globe is NOT warming) and the green team abandoned this terminology decades ago in favor of the term ‘climate change’. Secondly, unless you are cherry picking your scientists and data sets, the idea that climate change is due to human activity has yet to be proven conclusively.

"Climate change" was to help explain the effects of global warming.

The idea that climate change is Not due to human activity has yet to be proven conclusively.  Outside of the mathematical sciences there are no proofs...

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Lack of understanding that star and planet formation is ongoing....

[NickW + 2,714]

56 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Using ‘global warming’ as a driver is a detriment to your argument. First, global warming is a farce (the entire globe is NOT warming) and the green team abandoned this terminology decades ago in favor of the term ‘climate change’. Secondly, unless you are cherry picking your scientists and data sets, the idea that climate change is due to human activity has yet to be proven conclusively.

Global warming is the average temperature of the planets surface ( which allows for regional variations) and its definitely going up. 

The change was effectively a dumming down to meet consumer expectations. Joe Sixpack looked out his window in July and its cold and windy and goes - global warming - bollux. 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

49 minutes ago, NickW said:

Global warming is the average temperature of the planets surface ( which allows for regional variations) and its definitely going up. 

The change was effectively a dumming down to meet consumer expectations. Joe Sixpack looked out his window in July and its cold and windy and goes - global warming - bollux. 

 

No, the term ‘global warming’ was dropped in almost every scientific journal sometime around 1995 because it could not be proven! How do you actually measure the ‘average’ temperature over the planets surface...how is this actually done? Furthermore, if some regions are actually cooling over time, what difference does the average make when you are telling everyone that the entire planet is heating up.

Lastly, there was the timeframe issue. Depending on the frame you select, it could be argued that we are in fact warming back up from a period of cooling.

The term ‘climate change’ avoided all of this.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

No, the term ‘global warming’ was dropped in almost every scientific journal sometime around 1995 because it could not be proven! How do you actually measure the ‘average’ temperature over the planets surface...how is this actually done? Furthermore, if some regions are actually cooling over time, what difference does the average make when you are telling everyone that the entire planet is heating up.

Lastly, there was the timeframe issue. Depending on the frame you select, it could be argued that we are in fact warming back up from a period of cooling.

The term ‘climate change’ avoided all of this.

Yes - to cater for people like you. 

In academic circles and indeed academic papers the term is still routinely used alongside climate change

Oxford for starters

https://www.ox.ac.uk/search?query=global warming&wssl=1

Harvard

https://www.harvard.edu/searches?searchtext=global warming#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=global%3B warming&gsc.page=2

 

and so on. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by NickW

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

11 minutes ago, NickW said:

Yes - to cater for people like you. 

In academic circles and indeed academic papers the term is still routinely used alongside climate change

Oxford for starters

https://www.ox.ac.uk/search?query=global warming&wssl=1

Harvard

https://www.harvard.edu/searches?searchtext=global warming#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=global%3B warming&gsc.page=2

 

and so on. 

 

 

My mistake. We were instructed, in 1993, not to use the term ‘global warming’ for the reasons I alluded to earlier.

What would they know, they simply instructed, in a private, accredited university, the Master’s of Environmental Policy & Management degree program.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the matter.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nice of you to declare that with such definitive stentorianism. 

You might want to reflect that nobody observed the phenomenon, so nobody really knows.  At this point, it is all guesswork. 

You really need to brush up on physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_Supernova

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

The theory works...

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Unfortunately ?...?!

 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My mistake. We were instructed, in 1993, not to use the term ‘global warming’ for the reasons I alluded to earlier.

What would they know, they simply instructed, in a private, accredited university, the Master’s of Environmental Policy & Management degree program.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the matter.

 

Global Warming / Climate change are interchangeable and don't contradict each other so I have no issue with you using either term.

 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Fossil Jan will probably hold onto his obviously flawed beliefs despite clear evidence presented.

Feel free to believe in "space oil" and that Canada sucks (we are not that nice and don't really want you to come here).

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

My mistake. We were instructed, in 1993, not to use the term ‘global warming’ for the reasons I alluded to earlier.

What would they know, they simply instructed, in a private, accredited university, the Master’s of Environmental Policy & Management degree program.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the matter.

This explanation is as good as any and fits into one short paragraph. 

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-overview/

 

Sorry if that conflicts with Pyongyang University's instructions to its students in the mid 90's😂

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Fossil Jan will probably hold onto his obviously flawed beliefs despite clear evidence presented.

Feel free to believe in "space oil" and that Canada sucks (we are not that nice and don't really want you to come here).

Willful ignorance is impossible to defeat. The funniest thing is how no one was around to see my explanations so just guesswork but no one was around to see his explanations and they are fact. Do we dare ask him if he thinks the Earth is flat?

Edited May 11, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Meredith Poor + 894]

On 1/31/2020 at 6:58 PM, Enthalpic said:

There's nothing wrong with mass production, and you don't change efficiency much by localizing fertilizer. 

Huh?

If a farmer is producing ammonia from wind turbines or solar panels on their farm, there's no need to pump natural gas, purify natural gas, pipe natural gas, reform natural gas, and emit CO2 in order to make ammonia, and no need to ship ammonia to the farmer. However, making ammonia in sufficient quantity to be useful as a fertilizer may require power resources that are larger than said farm. Producing even a fraction of the needed ammonia may be viable.

There are amide radicals (NH2-) all over the place in proteins and other biomass. Urea is chemically slightly more complex. Therefore it isn't necessarily to synthesize it from scratch. However, the technologies for doing so are becoming more efficient and effective by the day.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

The theory works...

 

The Saudi tanker fleet has arrived!

Edited May 11, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Huh?

If a farmer is producing ammonia from wind turbines or solar panels on their farm, there's no need to pump natural gas, purify natural gas, pipe natural gas, reform natural gas, and emit CO2 in order to make ammonia, and no need to ship ammonia to the farmer. However, making ammonia in sufficient quantity to be useful as a fertilizer may require power resources that are larger than said farm. Producing even a fraction of the needed ammonia may be viable.

There are amide radicals (NH2-) all over the place in proteins and other biomass. Urea is chemically slightly more complex. Therefore it isn't necessarily to synthesize it from scratch. However, the technologies for doing so are becoming more efficient and effective by the day.

Good points.

People are making better and better nitrogen fixating bacteria all the time - enzymes may help feed us all with far less petrochemical energy.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I think you have been reading too much Answers In Genesis. I'm a fan of catastrophism, it is a significant player in our biological and geologic record but it isn't the answer to everything. 

The last truly global geologic catastrophe was when we ran into Theia. 

You are saying that most oil is less than 50,000 years old yet it has been found all over the world in thousands of locations at depths of thousands of feet in fields that are hundreds and even thousands of square miles in size. That means that in the past 10,000 years there should have also been many such massive catastrophic burying events around the world!!! Both on dry land and under the water. Say one a century? There certainly haven't been any above ground and those that happen underwater create equally massive tsunamis which leave a very real record on land, particularly they can be traced though affects on human civilization.Yet we only have evidence of one - the Storegga slide off the coast of Norway and it was only about 100 feet thick! 

Bakken oil is at a depth of 10,000' and the play covers hundreds of square miles. Where did this massive landslide come from in just the past 50,000 years? Where did the Permian Basin landslide come from?  North Sea? Nigeria? Russia? etc. etc. Can you explain where the 50.000 year old landslide came from for even one oil field?

If oil is so young but covered by old rocks then there would be mammalian fossils below it and dinosaurs above. Can you provide even one example of this? 

1) you start with slander --> Why would you expect an answer after that?  Unless you do not have an argument.

2) If you have a gigantic catastrophic impact event big enough to set off massive volcanism, giant landslides in oceans on continental shelfs able to move hundreds of kilometers(moving water hundreds of kilometers wide if not thousands to make the layered lamina seen in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere around the world which is definitely not mud rock seen on bottom of ocean today where they can only be layer down in a moving mud flow), move the earth's tectonic plates out of their sub glacier plodding to some unknown speed over the mantle to create the giant folds of rock seen hundreds of meters high before it was calcified, your statement about "burying events" is mute as it happens pretty much all at once, or several times all over the earth as one gargantuan event + reverberation sets of shocks afterwards.  You fell right back into the trap of uniformitarianism planning out a nice evenly paced events.  Uniformitarianism conditions at the bottom of an ocean does not make the Grand Canyon lamina that stretch near uniformly, without bottom dwelling varve holes from California border of Arizona to Texas

3) What happens if we assume the Coal, Oil, NG samples are NOT contaminated(pretty damned hard when using a cubic meter to date the stuff).  Why? Absolutely no one can figure out how C14 could possibly travel in situ in bulk... Lets also assume the earth is not a reactor?😎  If it is, then were are all the reactors in the earth's crust?  We should see their residue. 

4) Coal at an average of 0.3pcm Half life is 5730years , and rate of decay -0.67, uh -0.69? hrmm ok it is -0.69 bad memory.  If it was 100% C14 in the beginning(As if this is possible...), how old could it be? = ~150,000 years old and certainly not older than 200,000. 

5) Either the coal, ng, etc are all under 50,000 years old, or the earth's crust is a reactor and everyone is too stupid and blind to see it. 

6) As for depth...  regarding NG/Oil, it is quite probable in my opinion most of it comes from inside the earth's crust itself, pushed upwards by cataclysmic events.  Coal... probably not for the most part.  Probably also why Coal has more C14 than NG or Oil as it actually has plant matter.

7) As for Dinosaurs with mammals... happens everywhere all jumbled up.  Most certainly trends to the deepest stuff being more consistent of small shellfish and other aquatic bottom ocean dwelling species.  Not sure why any would think differently as 70% of the world is water with optimum conditions for burial.  I think you meant extinct species of say, mollusks etc.  Not to mention if we do live in a cataclysmic world regarding geology, even if everything were millions of years, one would expect things to be jumbled up with ancient mollusks, etc on top of dinosaurs, mammals. 

😎 Heck mere existence of large animals preserved says Buried Cataclysmically otherwise their bones are scattered and eaten, or decompose

Brian

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

7 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Unfortunately ?...?!

 

Why do you say ‘unfortunately’? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

This explanation is as good as any and fits into one short paragraph. 

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-overview/

 

Sorry if that conflicts with Pyongyang University's instructions to its students in the mid 90's😂

 

Actually dumbass, it was a private Jesuit university in the US, a fairly well known one.

Using the biased National Geographic as a reliable source concerning any environmental issue just shows desperation.

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Actually dumbass, it was a private Jesuit university in the US, a fairly well known one.

Using the biased National Geographic as a reliable source concerning any environmental issue just shows desperation.

Were you training to be a monk?

Irrespective of source the point stands - its a well worded explanation of the interrelationship between global warming and climate change. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) you start with slander --> Why would you expect an answer after that?  Unless you do not have an argument.

2) If you have a gigantic catastrophic impact event big enough to set off massive volcanism, giant landslides in oceans on continental shelfs able to move hundreds of kilometers(moving water hundreds of kilometers wide if not thousands to make the layered lamina seen in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere around the world which is definitely not mud rock seen on bottom of ocean today where they can only be layer down in a moving mud flow), move the earth's tectonic plates out of their sub glacier plodding to some unknown speed over the mantle to create the giant folds of rock seen hundreds of meters high before it was calcified, your statement about "burying events" is mute as it happens pretty much all at once, or several times all over the earth as one gargantuan event + reverberation sets of shocks afterwards.  You fell right back into the trap of uniformitarianism planning out a nice evenly paced events.  Uniformitarianism conditions at the bottom of an ocean does not make the Grand Canyon lamina that stretch near uniformly, without bottom dwelling varve holes from California border of Arizona to Texas

3) What happens if we assume the Coal, Oil, NG samples are NOT contaminated(pretty damned hard when using a cubic meter to date the stuff).  Why? Absolutely no one can figure out how C14 could possibly travel in situ in bulk... Lets also assume the earth is not a reactor?😎  If it is, then were are all the reactors in the earth's crust?  We should see their residue. 

4) Coal at an average of 0.3pcm Half life is 5730years , and rate of decay -0.67, uh -0.69? hrmm ok it is -0.69 bad memory.  If it was 100% C14 in the beginning(As if this is possible...), how old could it be? = ~150,000 years old and certainly not older than 200,000. 

5) Either the coal, ng, etc are all under 50,000 years old, or the earth's crust is a reactor and everyone is too stupid and blind to see it. 

6) As for depth...  regarding NG/Oil, it is quite probable in my opinion most of it comes from inside the earth's crust itself, pushed upwards by cataclysmic events.  Coal... probably not for the most part.  Probably also why Coal has more C14 than NG or Oil as it actually has plant matter.

7) As for Dinosaurs with mammals... happens everywhere all jumbled up.  Most certainly trends to the deepest stuff being more consistent of small shellfish and other aquatic bottom ocean dwelling species.  Not sure why any would think differently as 70% of the world is water with optimum conditions for burial.  I think you meant extinct species of say, mollusks etc.  Not to mention if we do live in a cataclysmic world regarding geology, even if everything were millions of years, one would expect things to be jumbled up with ancient mollusks, etc on top of dinosaurs, mammals. 

😎 Heck mere existence of large animals preserved says Buried Cataclysmically otherwise their bones are scattered and eaten, or decompose

Brian

 

1. Are you saying that you are not a young Earth creationist?  Can you provide one link to a secular site that argues for these theories?

2. When did the last of these gargantuan events occur? Do any geologic changes occur in the eons between these events?

3.4.5.6. Before you said the oil was buried by landslides. Now you are saying it is flowing up from the center of the Earth. Ok. If as you say the oil has identifiable C14 yet it is not contaminated from the atmosphere where C14 is primarily created and there are no processes in the Earth that can create it  then how do you explain it having any C14 at all? Where did this C14 come from? You can't simply say it is young oil. Young abiogenic oil won't have C14 unless some other process has acted upon the oil inside the earth to create the C14. I've got a few ideas but I'd like to know what you think.

7. If everything is all jumbled up then all the fossils of all epochs that we find should be mixed together but that is very, very rare. Can you provide more than a couple examples? If what you say is true then every fossil bed should demonstrate these jumbled up fossils from different ages. 

It is very true that most large fossils are due to catastrophic events but those events are localized. If what you say is true and the large fossils were created by just a few gargantuan catastrophic events then why don't we find large animal fossils all over? Why do we only find them in a few places? Fossils of animals that lived in the ground are widespread but they were in the ground when they died, no catastrophic event of any size needed.

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Huh?

If a farmer is producing ammonia from wind turbines or solar panels on their farm, there's no need to pump natural gas, purify natural gas, pipe natural gas, reform natural gas, and emit CO2 in order to make ammonia, and no need to ship ammonia to the farmer. However, making ammonia in sufficient quantity to be useful as a fertilizer may require power resources that are larger than said farm. Producing even a fraction of the needed ammonia may be viable.

There are amide radicals (NH2-) all over the place in proteins and other biomass. Urea is chemically slightly more complex. Therefore it isn't necessarily to synthesize it from scratch. However, the technologies for doing so are becoming more efficient and effective by the day.

1 tonnes of renewable  Ammonia requires about 40 billion joules of input energy

1 4MW onshore turbine operating at 30% capacity would produce the juice to generate about 946 tonnes of ammonia

Application rates for wheat are around 60Kg an acre so the ammonia could treat 15000-16000 Acres

Would make more sense for a group of farmers in a locality to pool the turbines and production equipment

Also diesel engines convert relatively easily to run on Ammonia

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

1 tonnes of renewable  Ammonia requires about 40 billion joules of input energy

1 4MW onshore turbine operating at 30% capacity would produce the juice to generate about 946 tonnes of ammonia

Application rates for wheat are around 60Kg an acre so the ammonia could treat 15000-16000 Acres

Would make more sense for a group of farmers in a locality to pool the turbines and production equipment

Also diesel engines convert relatively easily to run on Ammonia

And here I was waiting for a pee joke?  😃  "Astronaut urine for building a Moon base." https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Astronaut_urine_for_building_a_Moon_base

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

41 minutes ago, NickW said:

Were you training to be a monk?

Irrespective of source the point stands - its a well worded explanation of the interrelationship between global warming and climate change. 

Obviously, it is a well known fact that anyone attending a university originally founded by the Jesuits must be training to be a monk.

Do you actually practice being an annoying moron, or does it just come natural?

The relationship between ‘global warming’ and changing climate is only ‘obvious’ if you cherry pick your time frame. The average global temperature (however that is actually determined) is increasing NOW. The climate has always been changing.

A few years ago, environmentalists went to study the face of a retreating glacier in an effort to promote their climate change agenda. Imagine their surprise when they found an ancient agricultural community under the ice face!

How about the well preserved Ice Man uncovered on that European glacier? I bet the old fellow wasn’t originally hunting, farming or herding cattle on a glacier!

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Obviously, it is a well known fact that anyone attending a university originally founded by the Jesuits must be training to be a monk.

Do you actually practice being an annoying moron, or does it just come natural?

The relationship between ‘global warming’ and changing climate is only ‘obvious’ if you cherry pick your time frame. The average global temperature (however that is actually determined) is increasing NOW. The climate has always been changing.

A few years ago, environmentalists went to study the face of a retreating glacier in an effort to promote their climate change agenda. Imagine their surprise when they found an ancient agricultural community under the ice face!

How about the well preserved Ice Man uncovered on that European glacier? I bet the old fellow wasn’t originally hunting, farming or herding cattle on a glacier!

perhaps Otzi  was trying to cross it and died of Hypothermia? 

The point before that is simply an example of what climate change means in the context of global warming - there are regional variations contrary to an overall warming trend. 

Here are some classics and frequently misused / misintrepreted by the denier brigade.

• Melting ice on land often causes a temporary increase in sea ice as the entry of large amounts of fresh water reduces the salinity raise the freezing point of water meaning ice more readily forms
• Likewise one potential risk is that large amounts of fresh water pouring off Greenland will weaken the North Atlantic drift driven by themohaline circulation) making Europe colder in a backdrop of a warming world. (most deniers it would appear simply can't process that scenario) 
• Warmer weather over arctic regions will cause an increase in snow fall as warmer air can carry more water vapour 

Finally - are you aware a Glacier is actually a moving object? Your post seems to suggest otherwise.