Austria sues European Union, claiming natural gas and nuclear energy are not 'green'

[Ponderer]

To a point and then it stops or else there would be no oceans. It doesn't keep heating and heating, there is a natural balance, at least there used to be.

Sun does not stop shining.
It keeps heating.

 

[konfab]

Nice post.
I did not expect you to follow through on your promise, but you did.

Note that I did not argue that CO2 levels play no part whatsoever in the "greenhouse effect".
What I said was that CO2's contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is in fact very small.
It is so small that it can be considered as being insignificant.

CO2 emissions are blamed for being the cause that the climate is changing.
This is simply not true.
It's propaganda.
It's not Science.
It's politics.
It's about money.

You made some fundamentally wrong statements like saying that

All gases have the ability to absorb Infrared Radiation (aka as heat).

Yes, if you go and put energy into a volume of gas it will warm up. But heat is not the same thing as infrared radiation. You have to get the basics right.

The smoking gun with climate hysteria isn't the scientific evidence for it that is provided. It is the retarded response to it that is the carbon emitting gun.. If the German government actually believed the science, they would not have shut down all their perfectly functioning and safe nuclear reactors because of Fukushima. They don't want climate change "mitigation" they want the destruction of living standards with the resulting effect of depopulation.

 

[3WA]

On the overall composition of the atmosphere.

Hang on, so atmospheric composition is changing, and specifically, some process is driving changes in water vapour content? And these changes correlate to temparature changes on the geological time scale?

Are you gonna show us your graph of water vapour composition in the atmosphere through geological time?

Let me guess, you studied ice cores, and you noticed they have lots of water whenever it was hot

 

[ToxicBunny]

On the overall composition of the atmosphere.

Ok, so then how exactly do you equate that to CO2's influence being negligible?

The actual facts do not track with your assertion.

 

[Ponderer]

You made some fundamentally wrong statements like saying that

My statements were not fundamentally wrong - they were fundamentally right.
All gases have the ability to absorb heat.
They have different absorption and emission spectra.
It however does not mean that they do not absorb and emit (dissipate) heat.

Yes, if you go and put energy into a volume of gas it will warm up. But heat is not the same thing as infrared radiation. You have to get the basics right.

I agree you have to get the basics right.
And Heat is the same thing as Infrared Radiation in the same way that Colour is Visible Spectrum Radiation.

The smoking gun with climate hysteria isn't the scientific evidence for it that is provided. It is the retarded response to it that is the carbon emitting gun.. If the German government actually believed the science, they would not have shut down all their perfectly functioning and safe nuclear reactors because of Fukushima. They don't want climate change "mitigation" they want the destruction of living standards with the resulting effect of depopulation.

I have a slightly different opinion.
Methinks it's a ploy to extract money from people.
Think Carbon Tax/es.
Enough said.

 

[Ponderer]

Hang on, so atmospheric composition is changing, and specifically, some process is driving changes in water vapour content? And these changes correlate to temparature changes on the geological time scale?

Are you gonna show us your graph of water vapour composition in the atmosphere through geological time?

Let me guess, you studied ice cores, and you noticed they have lots of water whenever it was hot

Yes - Ice Cores have lots of Water.

 

[Nod]

Aside from producing large volumes of radioactive waste that remain radioactive for thousands of years, sure.

On average, the waste from a reactor supplying a person’s electricity needs for a year would be about the size of a brick. Only 5 grams of this is high-level waste – about the same weight as a sheet of paper.

The generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic metres of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled.

Source: https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx

 

[konfab]

I agree you have to get the basics right.
And Heat is the same thing as Infrared Radiation in the same way that Colour is Visible Spectrum Radiation.

No. You are absolutely wrong on that.

In thermodynamics, heat is defined as the form of energy crossing the boundary of a thermodynamic system by virtue of a temperature difference across the boundary.[1] A thermodynamic system does not contain heat. Nevertheless, the term is also often used to refer to the thermal energy contained in a system as a component of its internal energy, and that is reflected in the temperature of the system. For both uses of the term, heat is a form of energy.

You are confusing the concept of heat with the concept of thermal radiation.

Heat transfer is classified into various mechanisms, such as thermal conduction, thermal convection, thermal radiation, and transfer of energy by phase changes.

And thermal radiation occurs at all wavelengths.


Because we live in a relatively cool portion of the thermal spectrum, most of the thermal radiation we encounter is in the infrared band.

 

[3WA]

Yes - Ice Cores have lots of Water.

And every layer in an ice core that matches a period of high palaeotemperature has water! We did it! Water vapour is the key!

 

[ToxicBunny]

And every layer in an ice core that matches a period of high palaeotemperature has water! We did it! Water vapour is the key!

I disagree, it was rain... water vapour doesn't freeze, its too hot.

Also rain refracts the light so acts like a magnifying glass and makes everything hotter.

 

[tetrasect]

World just needs to focus its energy on getting rid of coal and oil for generation than fighting one another on whats green, this has to be funded by 'big coal and oil'. Use nuclear for minimum required baseload; renewables to fill the gap to maximum required at peak and gas for quick spin-up when renewables, maintenance or failures results in a shortage

An investors strategy, combination of eggs are in many baskets and at various price points and no planet murdering oil and coal.

This is honestly the easiest thing to achieve in SA.

The Northern Cape is one of the sunniest places on earth with over 3700 hours of sunshine per year and solar is extremely cheap.
.

Power consumption is highest during the day when industry is active so we don't even need any kind of storage for that.

Offshore wind has become exceptionally cheap as well, and there are many places in SA where you can count yourself extremely lucky if you encounter a wind still day.

Even Geothermal is cheaper than coal and KZN is full of potential for that.

There's absolutely no excuse for the state of our energy sector. It's pure incompetence. We could easily be supplying the whole of Southern Africa.

 

[tetrasect]

This is accurate. Scientific journals won't even accept papers for peer review if they refute anthropogenic climate change. The editiors are in on it.

This is why you don't post any sources or evidence to support your views, right? Because the damn academic publishers are pushing climate change.

Kind of like papers that refute that 2+2=4 and instead claim 2+2=5 are rejected by peer review?

Yeah that's kinda what peer review is there for. To weed out the BS.

 

[3WA]

Kind of like papers that refute that 2+2=4 and instead claim 2+2=5 are rejected by peer review?

Yeah that's kinda what peer review is there for. To weed out the BS.

No it's a conspiracy! Help, help, we're being oppressed!

 

[ToxicBunny]

Kind of like papers that refute that 2+2=4 and instead claim 2+2=5 are rejected by peer review?

Yeah that's kinda what peer review is there for. To weed out the BS.

LIES! Its Big Science I tell you.. nothing else.

 

[konfab]

This is honestly the easiest thing to achieve in SA.

The Northern Cape is one of the sunniest places on earth with over 3700 hours of sunshine per year and solar is extremely cheap.
.

Power consumption is highest during the day when industry is active so we don't even need any kind of storage for that.

Offshore wind has become exceptionally cheap as well, and there are many places in SA where you can count yourself extremely lucky if you encounter a wind still day.

Even Geothermal is cheaper than coal and KZN is full of potential for that.

There's absolutely no excuse for the state of our energy sector. It's pure incompetence. We could easily be supplying the whole of Southern Africa.

The hilarious part is that the geothermal power you are talking about is basically a really inefficient nuclear reactor.

Each orogenic belt is associated with tectonic evolutionary processes related to different supercontinent cycles; for example, the Limpopo Belt formed during the amalgamation of the Kalahari Craton13; the Namaqua-Natal and Gariep Belts formed during the formation of Rodinia19; and the Cape Fold Belt formed during the formation of Gondwana20. During these events convergent-related subduction resulted in the emplacement of partial melt-derived plutonic rocks, many of which are rich in heat-producing elements that release heat during the decay of radiogenic elements (Figure 2). For example, the Cape Granite Suite (Cape Fold Belt) has uranium concentrations of up to ca 34 PPM21; the Namaqua-Natal Belt has uranium concentrations of ca 10-54 PPM22,23; even older Archean granite-gneisses around Mombela (Nelspruit)24 and Johannesburg25 exhibit uranium concentrations of up to ca 20-28 PPM. In addition, Palaeoproterozoic tectonic activity along the Thabazimbi-Murchison Lineament26 may have assisted in the emplacement of the Bushveld Complex, which includes felsic rocks that exhibit uranium concentrations of up to 30 PPM27.

Post-convergent extensive forces resulted in the formation of volcano-sedimentary basins that overlie and insulate radiogenic plutonic rocks, and often exhibit their own elevated heat-producing signatures, particularly related to elevated and economically significant uranium concentrations, e.g. the Karoo Basin (largely overlying the Cape Fold Belt and the Namaqua-Natal Belt)28; the Soutpansberg (overlying the Limpopo Belt) and Springbok Flats (overlying the Bushveld)28. Significantly elevated radiogenic signatures are also evident within the on-craton Archean Witwatersrand and Pongola Basin strata29; and especially from the Palaeoproterozoic Transvaal rocks. Here, partial melt derived products associated with the emplacement of the Bushveld Complex sometimes highlight anomalous uranium concentrations of up to 250 PPM.2

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532017000700018

If only there was some way to get that uranium out of the ground, process it and use it more efficiently. Then you would need less power stations to generate the same amount of power.

 

[Ponderer]

No. You are absolutely wrong on that.

The point is that Heat is a form of Energy.
The fact that different gasses have different spectra does not in any way negate the fact that all gases have the ability to absorb Heat.
To claim that it is only "greenhouse gasses" (whatever that means) that "capture" Heat is blatantly false.

You are confusing the concept of heat with the concept of thermal radiation.

No, I'm not.
But we might be talking past each other (so to speak).

And thermal radiation occurs at all wavelengths.


Because we live in a relatively cool portion of the thermal spectrum, most of the thermal radiation we encounter is in the infrared band.

Thermal radiation refers to a band of Frequencies in the Infrared range.

The point that I'm trying to make is that CO2 contribute very little toward the overall "greenhouse effect" of our atmosphere as a whole.
To claim that Science has shown that CO2 emissions is responsible for (is the cause of) "global warming" and/or "climate change" is simply not true.

 

[tetrasect]

The smoking gun with climate hysteria isn't the scientific evidence for it that is provided. It is the retarded response to it that is the carbon emitting gun.. If the German government actually believed the science, they would not have shut down all their perfectly functioning and safe nuclear reactors because of Fukushima. They don't want climate change "mitigation" they want the destruction of living standards with the resulting effect of depopulation.

You started off really strong with your first post.

Now you sound just as insane as ponderer...

 

[tetrasect]

The hilarious part is that the geothermal power you are talking about is basically a really inefficient nuclear reactor.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532017000700018

If only there was some way to get that uranium out of the ground, process it and use it more efficiently. Then you would need less power stations to generate the same amount of power.

Nuclear power is at least twice as expensive as Geothermal, so it's not actually more efficient.

 

[konfab]

You started off really strong with your first post.

Now you sound just as insane as ponderer...

The response doesn't match the alleged threat.

Lets say that if the government told you a hurricane was coming to your city and that it would destroy everything because your city is built under sea level and you rely in levies to keep the water out. Now instead of building higher levies which isn't a perfect solution, but will work in mitigating the issue, the government says that everyone should instead collect rainwater because stormwater runoff is a major problem, and that rich people should pay for the rainwater tanks of black people because climate injustice is racial injustice.

it is hard to take the threat seriously when the response is retarded.

 

[tetrasect]

The point is that Heat is a form of Energy.
The fact that different gasses have different spectra does not in any way negate the fact that all gases have the ability to absorb Heat.

The claim was that not all gasses absorb infrared energy, the result of which is them heating up.

To claim that it is only "greenhouse gasses" (whatever that means) that "capture" Heat is blatantly false.

No, I'm not.
But we might be talking past each other (so to speak).

Thermal radiation refers to a band of Frequencies in the Infrared range.

You need school.

The point that I'm trying to make is that CO2 contribute very little toward the overall "greenhouse effect" of our atmosphere as a whole.
To claim that Science has shown that CO2 emissions is responsible for (is the cause of) "global warming" and/or "climate change" is simply not true.

Even the calculations made in the 1800's predicted what would happen if CO2 levels rise.

Unless you can provide evidence which falsifies established scientific fact you have no leg to stand on.

I can also say "My point is that eating rat poison contributes very little toward the overall decline of health in rats".

Just saying something does not make it true.