Peak oil solution
Ted
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_-_john_fleming
John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
He describes several new technologies all working together -
- A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
- A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
- Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
And, carbon not necessarily needed.
Matty F
>
> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>
> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>
> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
vapour.
Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
Ted
<matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This, for once, sounds practical -
>>
>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_...
>>
>> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>>
>> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>>
>> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
>
>That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
Maybe not as cheap as we'd like, but cheaper than usual. The
conversion from electricity to ammonia can happen on-site, eg you
could have an isolated wind turbine producing ammonia. The conversion
to liquid form makes storage easy - this overcomes one of the main
objections to wind (and to some extent, water).
Storing the energy as a liquid lets it be used in vehicles a lot more
efficiently than the other current propositions (batteries, fuel
cells). It's a way of converting, say, power from a nuclear station
to motor fuel.
>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>
>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
well-known ways of handling it safely.
>
>> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
>
>There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
>grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
>vapour.
>Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
But think of the good PR!
JohnO
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Matty F
>
You're onto it Ted. There are armies of bimbos driving around in
Priuses about who have not a clue about the physical home truths of
energy conservation but are perpetual smug generators.
oiltroll
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Matty F
> <matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This, for once, sounds practical -
>>>
>>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_...
>>>
>>> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>>>
>>> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>>>
>>> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
>>
>>That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
>
> Maybe not as cheap as we'd like, but cheaper than usual. The
> conversion from electricity to ammonia can happen on-site, eg you
> could have an isolated wind turbine producing ammonia. The conversion
> to liquid form makes storage easy - this overcomes one of the main
> objections to wind (and to some extent, water).
>
> Storing the energy as a liquid lets it be used in vehicles a lot more
> efficiently than the other current propositions (batteries, fuel
> cells). It's a way of converting, say, power from a nuclear station
> to motor fuel.
Any new technology will take decades to put together and
huge amounts of energy to restructure society around.
Its one of those things, where by the time you have the technology
brighter people have come up with better ways to produce
and save energy, reducing the profit motive that looks huge
on paper, and cheaper solutions like mass transport
will have been built to get us over the gap of high energy
prices that will be very affordable.
>
>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>
>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>
> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>
> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>
>>
>>> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
>>
>>There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
>>grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
>>vapour.
>>Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
>
> But think of the good PR!
CO2 was once the dominant gas on the planet before life. So
if CO2 is not a problem then does that mean life has no meaning for you?
Gordon
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Matty F
><matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> This, for once, sounds practical -
>>>
>>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_...
>>>
>>> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>>>
>>> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>>>
>>> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
>>
>>That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
>
> Maybe not as cheap as we'd like, but cheaper than usual. The
> conversion from electricity to ammonia can happen on-site, eg you
> could have an isolated wind turbine producing ammonia. The conversion
> to liquid form makes storage easy - this overcomes one of the main
> objections to wind (and to some extent, water).
>
> Storing the energy as a liquid lets it be used in vehicles a lot more
> efficiently than the other current propositions (batteries, fuel
> cells). It's a way of converting, say, power from a nuclear station
> to motor fuel.
This line of thinking concerns me. One should never degrade energy,
electricity and shaft power are high quality energy.
From a read of Wikipedia ammonia has a boiling point of -33 degrees C and
while it will burn in air it is difficult to do without a catalyst as the
temp of the combustion flame is not hot enough to sustain the burning.
Also to make ammonia requires energy.
>
>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>
>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>
> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>
> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
> well-known ways of handling it safely.
Indeed. however we are talking about putting it in the fuel tanks of the 2
million odd cars we have in NZ.
Ted
wrote:
>Ted wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Matty F
>> <matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This, for once, sounds practical -
>>>>
>>>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_...
>>>>
>>>> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>>>>
>>>> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>>>>
>>>> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
>>>
>>>That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
>>
>> Maybe not as cheap as we'd like, but cheaper than usual. The
>> conversion from electricity to ammonia can happen on-site, eg you
>> could have an isolated wind turbine producing ammonia. The conversion
>> to liquid form makes storage easy - this overcomes one of the main
>> objections to wind (and to some extent, water).
>>
>> Storing the energy as a liquid lets it be used in vehicles a lot more
>> efficiently than the other current propositions (batteries, fuel
>> cells). It's a way of converting, say, power from a nuclear station
>> to motor fuel.
>
>Any new technology will take decades to put together
We approach the singularity
> and
>huge amounts of energy to restructure society around.
We did it with CNG and then LPG, no problem.
>Its one of those things, where by the time you have the technology
>brighter people have come up with better ways to produce
>and save energy,
...that is, more technology...
>reducing the profit motive that looks huge
>on paper,
but making a buck in the process
> and cheaper solutions like mass transport
>will have been built to get us over the gap of high energy
>prices that will be very affordable.
Practical, affordable mass transport? Hope so.
>
>>
>>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>>
>>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>>
>> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
>> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
>> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>>
>> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
>> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>>
>>>
>>>> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
>>>
>>>There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
>>>grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
>>>vapour.
>>>Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
>>
>> But think of the good PR!
>
>CO2 was once the dominant gas on the planet before life. So
>if CO2 is not a problem
Can you explain the connection between your two ideas here. I can see
no relationship between CO2 being dominant before life, and it being
(or not being) a problem now.
> then does that mean life has no meaning for you?
Nor do I see any connection between the dominance of CO2 and the
meaning of life. Perhaps you could clarify.
Ted
>On 2011-01-24, Ted <ted....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:15:38 -0800 (PST), Matty F
>><matty...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 24, 1:35 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> This, for once, sounds practical -
>>>>
>>>> http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_...
>>>>
>>>> John Fleming being interviewed by Kathryn Ryan this morning.
>>>>
>>>> He describes several new technologies all working together -
>>>>
>>>> - A cheap way of electrolyzing hydrogen.
>>>
>>>That still needs electric power at the usual expensive price.
>>
>> Maybe not as cheap as we'd like, but cheaper than usual. The
>> conversion from electricity to ammonia can happen on-site, eg you
>> could have an isolated wind turbine producing ammonia. The conversion
>> to liquid form makes storage easy - this overcomes one of the main
>> objections to wind (and to some extent, water).
>>
>> Storing the energy as a liquid lets it be used in vehicles a lot more
>> efficiently than the other current propositions (batteries, fuel
>> cells). It's a way of converting, say, power from a nuclear station
>> to motor fuel.
>
>This line of thinking concerns me. One should never degrade energy,
>electricity and shaft power are high quality energy.
Agreed. But the problem lies in how to get the energy from the source
to the vehicle. With electricity, trolley-buses do it directly, but
we can't use overhead wires for cars in general. Hydrogen gas has a
lot of practical problems as an energy medium - it's difficult to
store for example. And then there was the Hindenberg...
>
>From a read of Wikipedia ammonia has a boiling point of -33 degrees C and
>while it will burn in air it is difficult to do without a catalyst as the
>temp of the combustion flame is not hot enough to sustain the burning.
It's similar to propane in energy density, and stored in much the same
way.
Fleming proposes using it in engines with very high compression ratios
(three times conventional) where the fuel is injected very fast (0.3
mSec) using "piezo injectors" right at the top of the crankshaft
cycle. This gives a doubling in efficiency over conventional engines.
>Also to make ammonia requires energy.
He describes using the waste energy of the process to assist the
process. He talks of a "container-sized" unit that would do the
electrolysis and conversion, and produce enough fuel for 5 vehicles.
Fleming says it best himself. Have a listen:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2011/01/24/feature_guest_-_john_fleming.
>>
>>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>>
>>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>>
>> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
>> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
>> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>>
>> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
>> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>
>Indeed. however we are talking about putting it in the fuel tanks of the 2
>million odd cars we have in NZ.
OK. But we managed with CNG and LPG.
Enkidu
>>
>> Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>
> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>
> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>
Cheers,
Cliff
--
The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.
The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
Roger_Nickel
Still a potential way of storing non-dispatchable energy from wind
turbines and photovoltaic cells. The ammonia is easily liquified and the
energy density is high. Haber-Frasch process is widely used as ammonia is
a common industrial raw material. Doubt that the ammonia itself is being
burned, more likely being catalytically decomposed back to nitrogen and
hydrogen with the H2 being burned.
oiltroll
The loss of easy accessible high energy fuels will force
massive change in the way people get around.
An eras energy source defines the framework of the lifestyle
the people live. Whether it be wood, horse power, coal, oil.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>>>
>>>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>>>
>>> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
>>> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
>>> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>>>
>>> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
>>> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
>>>>
>>>>There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
>>>>grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
>>>>vapour.
>>>>Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
>>>
>>> But think of the good PR!
>>
>>CO2 was once the dominant gas on the planet before life. So
>>if CO2 is not a problem
>
> Can you explain the connection between your two ideas here. I can see
> no relationship between CO2 being dominant before life, and it being
> (or not being) a problem now.
>
>> then does that mean life has no meaning for you?
>
> Nor do I see any connection between the dominance of CO2 and the
> meaning of life. Perhaps you could clarify.
If the atmosphere is dominated again by CO2 then Oxygen breathers
will die off (us). So the notion that CO2 does not matter is dumb.
Second, oxygen in the atmosphere was much higher! Dinosaurs lived
in a time with a much thicker, denser, warmer, more oxygenated
atmosphere. Dinosaurs were wiped out in part by the changed
climate that made their adaption to it obsolete, a dinosaurs
size previous an advantage brought about by lots more oxygen,
warmer climate, and buoyancy from the thicker atmosphere, became a
disadvantage. As warm blooded mammals could move faster in
the colder, drier, less dense atmosphere from the global winter
caused by the massive asteroid collision. We now see the remnants
of dinosaurs - birds, crocs, salamanders, ?turtles? who bury, or
hide, or lay their eggs in trees, who either had to massively
supercharge their metabolism (birds), or could survive being slow,
or happen to live in the still hot equator (?salamanders?).
So I repeat why does life have no meaning for you?
Ted
wrote:
Inevitably.
>
>An eras energy source defines the framework of the lifestyle
>the people live. Whether it be wood, horse power, coal, oil.
Or nukes. Or, more likely, some new technology altogether.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> - A cheap way of converting it to ammonia.
>>>>>> - Ammonia-fueled engines at twice the efficiency of petrol engines.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh great, so we have to worry about ammonia leaks in our cars now.
>>>>
>>>> It stinks, which makes it less dangerous than something like carbon
>>>> monoxide, say. It's also lighter than air, so won't hang around if
>>>> there is a spill, and it's non-carcinogenic (unlike petrol).
>>>>
>>>> Ammonia has been used in industry for many years and there are
>>>> well-known ways of handling it safely.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And, carbon not necessarily needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's no problem in putting CO2 into the air. It helps plants to
>>>>>grow and has an insignificant effect on climate compared with water
>>>>>vapour.
>>>>>Anyone who worries about carbon is an unscientific idiot.
>>>>
>>>> But think of the good PR!
>>>
>>>CO2 was once the dominant gas on the planet before life. So
>>>if CO2 is not a problem
>>
>> Can you explain the connection between your two ideas here. I can see
>> no relationship between CO2 being dominant before life, and it being
>> (or not being) a problem now.
>>
>>> then does that mean life has no meaning for you?
>>
>> Nor do I see any connection between the dominance of CO2 and the
>> meaning of life. Perhaps you could clarify.
>
>If the atmosphere is dominated again by CO2 then Oxygen breathers
>will die off (us). So the notion that CO2 does not matter is dumb.
Where does the idea that " CO2 does not matter" come from? It appears
to be an invention by you. The AGW controversy is where a great many
people argue over the extent that it does matter.
The levels of CO2 that concern most people are well below what would
kill off oxygen breathers. Your assertion is fanciful.
>Second, oxygen in the atmosphere was much higher!
Not sure about that. Too high an oxygen concentration causes more
fires. There must be a natural limit to the level.
> Dinosaurs lived
>in a time with a much thicker, denser, warmer, more oxygenated
>atmosphere. Dinosaurs were wiped out in part by the changed
>climate that made their adaption to it obsolete, a dinosaurs
>size previous an advantage brought about by lots more oxygen,
>warmer climate, and buoyancy from the thicker atmosphere, became a
>disadvantage. As warm blooded mammals could move faster in
>the colder, drier, less dense atmosphere from the global winter
>caused by the massive asteroid collision. We now see the remnants
>of dinosaurs - birds, crocs, salamanders, ?turtles? who bury, or
>hide, or lay their eggs in trees, who either had to massively
>supercharge their metabolism (birds), or could survive being slow,
>or happen to live in the still hot equator (?salamanders?).
Maybe. Or maybe not. You have described your idea about what
happened, but there are many others.
>So I repeat why does life have no meaning for you?
You may have repeated it, but I still don't see the connection between
your assertion that life has no meaning for me, and your theories
about the dinosaurs.
oiltroll
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:32:22 +1300, oiltroll <stone...@kol.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>Ted wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:10:28 +1300, oiltroll <stone...@kol.co.nz>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ted wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>If the atmosphere is dominated again by CO2 then Oxygen breathers
>>will die off (us). So the notion that CO2 does not matter is dumb.
>
> Where does the idea that " CO2 does not matter" come from? It appears
> to be an invention by you. The AGW controversy is where a great many
> people argue over the extent that it does matter.
You said you saw no problem in putting CO2 into the atmosphere,
I'm pointing out that yes there is a problem, so if you can't be
honest why do you bother?
>
> The levels of CO2 that concern most people are well below what would
> kill off oxygen breathers. Your assertion is fanciful.
Its predicted with the warmer, nutrient rich seas that are a product
of industrial farming that seas will burst with algae which will
starve the seas of oxygen. Its not the first time this has happened,
oil comes from just such a mass sea extinction! Where the seas died
and all the organisms died and dropped into a layer of sediment.
Please read up on butterfly effect. If you stack a system close
to tipping points then you will from time to time be hit with
a extinction. This can be a simple as a new pesticide that wipes
out bees populations in the UK. Or as complex as super charging
ocean currents for fifty years with heating shocks from excessive
CO2 production, that erodes the North Pole sea ice and brings
about a ice age across the N.Hemisphere.
>>Second, oxygen in the atmosphere was much higher!
>
> Not sure about that. Too high an oxygen concentration causes more
> fires. There must be a natural limit to the level.
Yes, but a warm damp atmosphere would allow for greater concentrations
of oxygen, until a massive asteroid pumped billions of dust particles
into the upper atmosphere and cooled the planet, forced the heat
and moisture from the atmosphere but leaving the oxygen. Drying
out the atmosphere and so leaving open massive forests fires
globally, thus removing the dinosaurs food, its adaptation to
a dense warm moist oxygen rich planetary atmosphere became a huge
disadvantage in a drier thinner less oxygenated climate.
>
>> Dinosaurs lived
>>in a time with a much thicker, denser, warmer, more oxygenated
>>atmosphere. Dinosaurs were wiped out in part by the changed
>>climate that made their adaption to it obsolete, a dinosaurs
>>size previous an advantage brought about by lots more oxygen,
>>warmer climate, and buoyancy from the thicker atmosphere, became a
>>disadvantage. As warm blooded mammals could move faster in
>>the colder, drier, less dense atmosphere from the global winter
>>caused by the massive asteroid collision. We now see the remnants
>>of dinosaurs - birds, crocs, salamanders, ?turtles? who bury, or
>>hide, or lay their eggs in trees, who either had to massively
>>supercharge their metabolism (birds), or could survive being slow,
>>or happen to live in the still hot equator (?salamanders?).
>
> Maybe. Or maybe not. You have described your idea about what
> happened, but there are many others.
It follows from basic science, something a denialisa would not
ever want to debate for obvious reasons.
>
>>So I repeat why does life have no meaning for you?
>
> You may have repeated it, but I still don't see the connection between
> your assertion that life has no meaning for me, and your theories
> about the dinosaurs.
Indeed and you never will see because that's your choice, not
a conclusion. At least I have an model on which to base my assertions
you don't have nothing and you don't see as a general rule.
Ted
wrote:
>Ted wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:32:22 +1300, oiltroll <stone...@kol.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Ted wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:10:28 +1300, oiltroll <stone...@kol.co.nz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ted wrote:
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>If the atmosphere is dominated again by CO2 then Oxygen breathers
>>>will die off (us). So the notion that CO2 does not matter is dumb.
>>
>> Where does the idea that " CO2 does not matter" come from? It appears
>> to be an invention by you. The AGW controversy is where a great many
>> people argue over the extent that it does matter.
>
>You said you saw no problem in putting CO2 into the atmosphere,
I did? No, I didn't. You need to take more care with your
assertions.
>I'm pointing out that yes there is a problem, so if you can't be
>honest
Tsk, tsk
> why do you bother?
I'm putting off having to start work
>
>>
>> The levels of CO2 that concern most people are well below what would
>> kill off oxygen breathers. Your assertion is fanciful.
>
>Its predicted with the warmer, nutrient rich seas that are a product
>of industrial farming that seas will burst with algae which will
>starve the seas of oxygen.
Maybe. Or maybe not. There are other predictions.
> Its not the first time this has happened,
>oil comes from just such a mass sea extinction! Where the seas died
>and all the organisms died and dropped into a layer of sediment.
Without being an expert in this, I have to say it sounds unlikely.
There is a great deal of buried coal and oil, in such large amounts
that it seems to me it had to be the result of an ongoing process,
rater than a one-off mass extinction.
>
>Please read up on butterfly effect. If you stack a system close
>to tipping points then you will from time to time be hit with
>a extinction. This can be a simple as a new pesticide that wipes
>out bees populations in the UK. Or as complex as super charging
>ocean currents for fifty years with heating shocks from excessive
>CO2 production, that erodes the North Pole sea ice and brings
>about a ice age across the N.Hemisphere.
Possible. But maybe the conditions for a tipping point don't exist. I
don't know, and why should I rely what you assert? Your checkable
assertions have been so careless so far that they don't inspire me
with any confidence in them.
>
>>>Second, oxygen in the atmosphere was much higher!
>>
>> Not sure about that. Too high an oxygen concentration causes more
>> fires. There must be a natural limit to the level.
>
>Yes, but a warm damp atmosphere would allow for greater concentrations
>of oxygen, until a massive asteroid pumped billions of dust particles
>into the upper atmosphere and cooled the planet, forced the heat
>and moisture from the atmosphere but leaving the oxygen. Drying
>out the atmosphere and so leaving open massive forests fires
>globally, thus removing the dinosaurs food, its adaptation to
>a dense warm moist oxygen rich planetary atmosphere became a huge
>disadvantage in a drier thinner less oxygenated climate.
Interesting speculation, but that's all it is.
>
>>
>>> Dinosaurs lived
>>>in a time with a much thicker, denser, warmer, more oxygenated
>>>atmosphere. Dinosaurs were wiped out in part by the changed
>>>climate that made their adaption to it obsolete, a dinosaurs
>>>size previous an advantage brought about by lots more oxygen,
>>>warmer climate, and buoyancy from the thicker atmosphere, became a
>>>disadvantage. As warm blooded mammals could move faster in
>>>the colder, drier, less dense atmosphere from the global winter
>>>caused by the massive asteroid collision. We now see the remnants
>>>of dinosaurs - birds, crocs, salamanders, ?turtles? who bury, or
>>>hide, or lay their eggs in trees, who either had to massively
>>>supercharge their metabolism (birds), or could survive being slow,
>>>or happen to live in the still hot equator (?salamanders?).
>>
>> Maybe. Or maybe not. You have described your idea about what
>> happened, but there are many others.
>
>It follows from basic science,
You have been so careless with your assertions up to now that I can't
place any reliance on your assertions about what follows from basic
science.
>something a denialisa would not
>ever want to debate for obvious reasons.
Your use of the concept of a "denialist" isn't arguing from basic
science. It's taking sides in a politics of conflict. Facts and
reasoning don't necessarily apply here.
>
>>
>>>So I repeat why does life have no meaning for you?
>>
>> You may have repeated it, but I still don't see the connection between
>> your assertion that life has no meaning for me, and your theories
>> about the dinosaurs.
>
>Indeed and you never will see
I think you're right
> because that's your choice,
No. It's because you don't make any sense.
> not
>a conclusion. At least I have an model on which to base my assertions
Yes, you seem to have, as far as I can tell
>you don't have nothing and you don't see as a general rule.
Not sure I can even parse that. You should take more care with your
attempts at communicating. Not doing so shows contempt for your
audience.
oiltroll
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:57:12 +1300, oiltroll <stone...@kol.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>Ted wrote:
>>
> Without being an expert in this, I have to say it sounds unlikely.
> There is a great deal of buried coal and oil, in such large amounts
> that it seems to me it had to be the result of an ongoing process,
> rater than a one-off mass extinction.
Oil is not found everywhere. In fact oil is found around
where the former super-continent was, and at the correct depth.
This is how oil men know where to look and how far to drill.