Europe’s Green Deal: Same Hysteria, Same Destruction

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

Yeah methane release from permafrost is already a problem

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah methane release from permafrost is already a problem

Permafarts?

[seagull104 + 3]

Greetings

I am new to this but have been an avid follower of the site for several years. I almost think Tom Kirkman is a personal friend!

But can someone please explain how melting of ice in Antartica can add 6 feet to avwerage world wide sea level? I always thought that ice was less dense than water so its melting should almost reduce sea level, not increase it. And when one thinks of how much of the earth's surface is already covered by water there would have to be a HUGE amount of ice melted to increase sea level by one inch!?

Or am I missing something?

Edited February 3, 2020 by seagull104

[NickW + 2,714]

30 minutes ago, seagull104 said:

Greetings

I am new to this but have been an avid follower of the site for several years. I almost think Tom Kirkman is a personal friend!

But can someone please explain how melting of ice in Antartica can add 6 feet to avwerage world wide sea level? I always thought that ice was less dense than water so its melting should almost reduce sea level, not increase it. And when one thinks of how much of the earth's surface is already covered by water there would have to be a HUGE amount of ice melted to increase sea level by one inch!?

Or am I missing something?

Eh? You confusing this with the Arctic ocean? 

Antarctica is land mass and if all the ice melts its 200 feet, not 6 on sea levels

Edited February 3, 2020 by NickW
grammar correction

[0R0 + 6,251]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Meanwhile, back in the real world and not wishing to be entirely reliant in the long term on gas imports the UK....

is steaming ahead with huge offshore wind developments with the cost of electricity rapidly heading towards parity with conventional generation.

Company car tax on EV's being scrapped in April

Government getting behind development of RR SMR project.

Government start smart export guarantee from Jan 2020 for domestic solar projects

Biogas injection into grid growing rapidly

'Wind to Hydrogen ' projects getting govt support.

UK has a huge wind corridor to work with. It can produce a great electric supply very cheaply. That is unlike Germany, where it is so intermittent that the 60% of electricity that it can produce by capacity rating only manages 17%. They should be buying wind power from Denmark. 

They should be working on electrogas rather than H2. production. H2 is difficult to handle and use. Electrogas produces methanol you can burn or use for chemical inputs and methane that is natural gas so can be used in legacy infrastructure. Other electrogas options produce ethane and ethanol, both very useful petrochem inputs. 

I don't really understand why Brits would expect solar to be effective in their overcast country. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The problem with your 15% is that you havent taken into consideration global dimming which more than offsets this, see below

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-global-dimming.php

You can also read it the other way around and talk about using deliberate particulate cover generation over land and to avoid general particulate emissions via a move from coal to NG/LNG  while the renewables systems build out and transmission and storage capacity fill in for surge production from NG. 

Replacing heavy fuel oil by LNG for marine shipping will also have a major benefit and ultimately costs less than half as much as the switch to clean diesel. 

These two steps would reduce particulates by 1/3 and carbon by 1/4 while renewables expand. And NG+LNG save you money in the interim. 

I pointed out elsewhere that the global warming trend only started in earnest when clean air regulations kicked in around 1980. The cynic in me says that global warming is a product of the EPA and its counterparts. I.e.the environmental movement. 

The argument about plant's sun exposure being an issue is specious since it only applies at the Northern most latitudes where sunlight is marginal for plant growth. Otherwise, plants can not use more than 10% of the sunlight they receive for photosynthesis. 

[NickW + 2,714]

28 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

UK has a huge wind corridor to work with. It can produce a great electric supply very cheaply. That is unlike Germany, where it is so intermittent that the 60% of electricity that it can produce by capacity rating only manages 17%. They should be buying wind power from Denmark. 

They should be working on electrogas rather than H2. production. H2 is difficult to handle and use. Electrogas produces methanol you can burn or use for chemical inputs and methane that is natural gas so can be used in legacy infrastructure. Other electrogas options produce ethane and ethanol, both very useful petrochem inputs. 

I don't really understand why Brits would expect solar to be effective in their overcast country. 

The cost of panels and grid tie inverters are now so low that even in cloudy Britain the return is reasonable (10-11% PA)

[0R0 + 6,251]

8 minutes ago, NickW said:

The cost of panels and grid tie inverters are now so low that even in cloudy Britain the return is reasonable (10-11% PA)

Commercial thin film Cd/Te is 18% conversion. Is that really enough over there?

[Boat + 1,323]

Unless the world agrees to do the same green agenda your costs will dramatically rise and those countries that use FF or whatever is cheapest will obviously get a huge trade advantage. 
This the root of trade imbalance. Cheap labor, relaxed regulations and worker exploitation gave some countries a huge advantage in cost. 
phase 2 will be clean energy. If you don’t regulate all competitors they can burn coal and FF and kick your trading butt.

Then 20 years from now we’ll need a bigger military and another round of fear. Then those countries will invest in the latest advanced energy tech while controlling the market. Did I mention a Trump like future leader will want a bigger military because green countries can’t compete and lose jobs. 
 

The practical answer of course is to grow that green movement over several decades and develop a political framework that requires all countries to move towards greener energy solutions that is fair and trade natural. 

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Commercial thin film Cd/Te is 18% conversion. Is that really enough over there?

I meant return on investment not the conversion efficiency of the panel.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

21 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Yeah methane release from permafrost is already a problem

How is this a problem? I would have thought that the annual release of methane from permafrost was part of nature.

Or is the negligible rise in temperature (assuming there is even a rise in permafrost regions) is causing a massive increase in the volume being released? 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

9 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How is this a problem? I would have thought that the annual release of methane from permafrost was part of nature.

Or is the negligible rise in temperature (assuming there is even a rise in permafrost regions) is causing a massive increase in the volume being released? 

Yeah it is part of nature but more is released the warmer the planet gets (not just from permafrost). I don't think anyone can argue against the fact the planet is getting warmer, whether you believe in climate change or not.

Arctic methane release is the release of methane from seas and soils in permafrost regions of the Arctic. While it is a long-term natural process, methane release is exacerbated by global warming. This results in negative effects, as methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas.

The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane.^[1] Global warming accelerates its release, due to both release of methane from existing stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass.^[2] Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits, permafrost, and as undersea clathrates. Permafrost and clathrates degrade on warming, thus large releases of methane from these sources may arise as a result of global warming.^[3][4] Other sources of methane include submarine taliks, river transport, ice complex retreat, submarine permafrost and decaying gas hydrate deposits.^[5]

Concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere are higher by 8–10% than that in the Antarctic atmosphere. During cold glacier epochs, this gradient decreases to practically insignificant levels.^[6] Land ecosystems are considered the main sources of this asymmetry, although it has been suggested that "the role of the Arctic Ocean is significantly underestimated."^[7] Soil temperature and moisture levels have been found to be significant variables in soil methane fluxes in tundra environments.^[8][9]

Edited February 4, 2020 by Rob Plant

[Geoff Guenther + 317]

20 hours ago, seagull104 said:

But can someone please explain how melting of ice in Antartica can add 6 feet to avwerage world wide sea level? I always thought that ice was less dense than water so its melting should almost reduce sea level, not increase it. And when one thinks of how much of the earth's surface is already covered by water there would have to be a HUGE amount of ice melted to increase sea level by one inch!?

Or am I missing something?

Arctic ice melt won't add to the sea level, Greenland and Antarctic ice melt will.

The other factor is that the initial sea level rise will be water expansion due to the warming of the ocean.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

“Yeah it is part of nature but more is released the warmer the planet gets (not just from permafrost). I don't think anyone can argue against the fact the planet is getting warmer, whether you believe in climatechange or not.”

True, but warmer from what starting point? Around 1770 was the last period of glaciation, so if we are still warming up from that event then there is no problem. Remember in the 1970’s, the scientists were warning us that the planet was cooling.

A statement like ‘the planet is getting warmer’ is meaningless without context.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

12 minutes ago, Geoff Guenther said:

Arctic ice melt won't add to the sea level, Greenland and Antarctic ice melt will.

The other factor is that the initial sea level rise will be water expansion due to the warming of the ocean.

What you are alluding to is that melting terrestrial ice will effect sea level while the melting of a floating ice cap will not due to Archimedes Principle (buoyancy). 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

31 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

“Yeah it is part of nature but more is released the warmer the planet gets (not just from permafrost). I don't think anyone can argue against the fact the planet is getting warmer, whether you believe in climatechange or not.”

True, but warmer from what starting point? Around 1770 was the last period of glaciation, so if we are still warming up from that event then there is no problem. Remember in the 1970’s, the scientists were warning us that the planet was cooling.

A statement like ‘the planet is getting warmer’ is meaningless without context.

OK I agree it needs some context.

The problem as I see it is the planet is getting warmer faster and that more methane will be released into the atmosphere the hotter it gets and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

As you can see the trend is on the up, particularly the last 40-50 years.

 

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

You know that graph you published is complete and utter BS when we know from HISTORY/Geology/Archeology, actual personal eyewitnesses that around ~1000AD-->1300AD,

1. grapes were being grown in Scotland/Iceland,
2. Greenland was actually... Green and so was Iceland,
3. certain types of warm weather trees grew throughout Europe which cannot grow today,
4. Upper Canada had trees half meter in diameter where today only scrub brush or tundra grows,
5. the Rivers Ran Dry in N. Europe,
6. the Great Plains in the USA had moving sand dunes, Australia did as welI(more than it does today)
7. And yet today NONE of the above are true because the earth is too danged cold, yet the "graph"(wholly made up BS) shows 0.5C... to the lowpoint of the little ice age which was NOT man made which happened in both Hemispheres and yet, no one can figure out why(in reality with an actual MODEL)

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 2/3/2020 at 12:38 PM, Tom Kirkman said:

Yes, this is about oil & gas. 

Or more accurately, the Elite EU leader's persistent plans to dismantle the fossil fuel industry, while increasing their own power and control, and imposing massive new destructive taxes to "combat" CO2 and CH4 - - - natural gases.

The UK exited the EU just in time to avoid getting sucked into this mandated morass of EU Green Economic Death of exacerbated Climate Hysteria.

The European counterpart is a bit more realistic than the American version, aiming for net-zero emissions within 30 years rather than in a decade. 

. If you thought the E.U.’s regulations were already egregious, just you wait until March 2021 when the bureaucrats will submit a package containing all the statist goodies. At least Great Britain will not have to.  ...

1. Article is written from anti-EU, very USA centric positions.

2. "Green Deal" is all about very ambitious and very intelligent and very hardworking woman: Ursula von Leyden.

She had to fill the void, to make her stand as a new President of EU Commission. She has chosen brillantly.

She was given this job by Angela Merkel, so as to ensure that Merkel can stay longer in effective power by having weak protege AKK as a nominal heir. AKK actually got the von Leyden job of Minister of Defense.

This is the example how domestic German politics creates EU reality.

Frans Timmermans got the Green Deal portfolio. Ursula ensured that he will not be against her, as this portfolio gives him strong starting point to become the next European Commission President. Frans dream is to become EU commission President.

3. First tangible document will be submitted in March 2021. You know how slowly EU works. If there would be anything, anything real apart from political posturing out of Green Deal, only the next EU commision President would start implementing it. Also shows you how smart Ursula von Leyden is.

I think it helped to understand what "Green Deal" is.

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[notsonice + 1,255]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You know that graph you published is complete and utter BS when we know from HISTORY/Geology/Archeology, actual personal eyewitnesses that around ~1000AD-->1300AD,

1. grapes were being grown in Scotland/Iceland,
2. Greenland was actually... Green and so was Iceland,
3. certain types of warm weather trees grew throughout Europe which cannot grow today,
4. Upper Canada had trees half meter in diameter where today only scrub brush or tundra grows,
5. the Rivers Ran Dry in N. Europe,
6. the Great Plains in the USA had moving sand dunes, Australia did as welI(more than it does today)
7. And yet today NONE of the above are true because the earth is too danged cold, yet the "graph"(wholly made up BS) shows 0.5C... to the lowpoint of the little ice age which was NOT man made which happened in both Hemispheres and yet, no one can figure out why(in reality with an actual MODEL)

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You know that graph you published is complete and utter BS when we know from HISTORY/Geology/Archeology, actual personal eyewitnesses that around ~1000AD-->1300AD,

1. grapes were being grown in Scotland/Iceland,
2. Greenland was actually... Green and so was Iceland,
3. certain types of warm weather trees grew throughout Europe which cannot grow today,
4. Upper Canada had trees half meter in diameter where today only scrub brush or tundra grows,
5. the Rivers Ran Dry in N. Europe,
6. the Great Plains in the USA had moving sand dunes, Australia did as welI(more than it does today)
7. And yet today NONE of the above are true because the earth is too danged cold, yet the "graph"(wholly made up BS) shows 0.5C... to the lowpoint of the little ice age which was NOT man made which happened in both Hemispheres and yet, no one can figure out why(in reality with an actual MODEL)

So the world isn't getting warmer and rapidly getting warmer?

Of course the world has gone through natural hot periods and cold periods, those were slow changes in comparison to what we see in the last 40-50- years. See notsonice's graph above, look at the last 50 years! I suppose thats BS as well!

Ironically just saw this on the news today

https://news.sky.com/story/rapidly-thawing-permafrost-could-double-carbon-emissions-11925962

Edited February 4, 2020 by Rob Plant

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

What is sad is that your graph for the modern period does not even use data, it uses models for which have been shown to be 100% wildly incorrect by biasing temp rise by multiples of reality.  And no a half degree change does not turn the Iceland/Greenland green nor does it turn the Great Plains of teh USA into a desert, nor does it kill off species of trees throughout Europe who can easily withstand several degrees cooler. 

Oh and why your data and IPCC etc data models are such crap?  Because they use data from cities which purposefully biases the temperature data upwards massively.  Throw out all city data, then come and talk. Ah, but that goes against your religion as that is science...

Edited February 4, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

I meant return on investment not the conversion efficiency of the panel.

That wasn't what I was asking. I was asking if 18% efficiency is sufficient to produce the rate of return >10% you were referring to. 

[notsonice + 1,255]

42 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What is sad is that your graph for the modern period does not even use data, it uses models for which have been shown to be 100% wildly incorrect by biasing temp rise by multiples of reality.  And no a half degree change does not turn the Iceland/Greenland green nor does it turn the Great Plains of teh USA into a desert, nor does it kill off species of trees throughout Europe who can easily withstand several degrees cooler. 

Oh and why your data and IPCC etc data models are such crap?  Because they use data from cities which purposefully biases the temperature data upwards massively.  Throw out all city data, then come and talk. Ah, but that goes against your religion as that is science...

not my graph nor my data. Your argument....... And no a half degree change does not turn the Iceland/Greenland green nor does it turn the Great Plains of teh USA into a desert, nor does it kill off species of trees throughout Europe who can easily withstand several degrees cooler. ????? are you an expert in climates and the effects on the planet??? Life is too short to argue with the likes of you. All you do is spew BS

[notsonice + 1,255]

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

28 minutes ago, notsonice said:

not my graph nor my data. Your argument....... And no a half degree change does not turn the Iceland/Greenland green nor does it turn the Great Plains of teh USA into a desert, nor does it kill off species of trees throughout Europe who can easily withstand several degrees cooler. ????? are you an expert in climates and the effects on the planet??? Life is too short to argue with the likes of you. All you do is spew BS

DO glaciers melt when it is warm or when it is cold.....???

Did the glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, etc melt 2X -->3X more from 1880 to 1940 or between 1940 till today...???

It is your graph, you believe it, you posted it, hook line and gullible naive sucker sinker.