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

[tetrasect]

Actually, no. You don't play chess with a checkers player. Woooosh!

However I'm sure somebody refer to to a good psychologist exorcist you could consult.

Guess I hit it the nail right on head then.

 

[tetrasect]

Strawman much Heidi? Present another article and attack that? You could go and fight the Russians with such determination.

I'm attacking the journal in which is was published, which is not respected and does not do proper peer review.

It is in fact the opposite of respected. It is on Cabell's list of predatory journals.

And just BTW, you should take a look at that article again. It doesn't say what you think it does.
It says CO2 levels alone do not account for the daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations and that water vapour plays a more important part in regional temperature fluctuations. It does not refute the fact that increased CO2 levels increase the greenhouse effect and result in global warming. On the contrary.

Looks like your "proof" that climate change is fake actually shows the opposite.

Also, lier much? Any of these citations of the article I posted enough for you? Would you like to go ahead and discredit every single one of them too Heidi?

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence. The...

www.scirp.org

Don't need to discredit them.

Of the 12 citations listed there are only 3 proper peer reviewed papers (the rest are conference notes, books, datasets etc.).

Those are from respected journals.

Lets have a look at those papers and the citations to Paulo Cesar Soares' paper.

Citation in paper 1 (A laboratory study of supercritical CO2 adsorption on cap rocks in the geological storage conditions) published in Applied Physics:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-017-0862-0





Citation in paper 2 (Quantitatively evaluating the effects of CO2 emission on temperature rise) published in Quaternary International:

And the abstract for that same paper:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.11.031






Citation in paper 3 (Metrological challenges for measurements of key climatological observables. Part 4: Atmospheric relative humidity) published in Metrologia:

https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/53/1/R40

 

[Johand]

Just for interest sake - how many people have finish reading the 2000 page cross referenced summary of the science? I don't want to post it verbatim on the forum as it would be a pain.

 

[Ponderer]

Just for interest sake - how many people have finish reading the 2000 page cross referenced summary of the science? I don't want to post it verbatim on the forum as it would be a pain.

Are you prepared to discuss/debate "the science"?
I am.
Are you?

 

[rietrot]

I'm attacking the journal in which is was published, which is not respected and does not do proper peer review.

It is in fact the opposite of respected. It is on Cabell's list of predatory journals.

And just BTW, you should take a look at that article again. It doesn't say what you think it does.
It says CO2 levels alone do not account for the daily and seasonal temperature fluctuations and that water vapour plays a more important part in regional temperature fluctuations. It does not refute the fact that increased CO2 levels increase the greenhouse effect and result in global warming. On the contrary.

Looks like your "proof" that climate change is fake actually shows the opposite.



Don't need to discredit them.

Of the 12 citations listed there are only 3 proper peer reviewed papers (the rest are conference notes, books, datasets etc.).

Those are from respected journals.

Lets have a look at those papers and the citations to Paulo Cesar Soares' paper.

Citation in paper 1 (A laboratory study of supercritical CO2 adsorption on cap rocks in the geological storage conditions) published in Applied Physics:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-017-0862-0





Citation in paper 2 (Quantitatively evaluating the effects of CO2 emission on temperature rise) published in Quaternary International:

And the abstract for that same paper:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.11.031






Citation in paper 3 (Metrological challenges for measurements of key climatological observables. Part 4: Atmospheric relative humidity) published in Metrologia:

https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/53/1/R40

Lol the last 5 pages summed up:
Tetrasect: post any study, anything.
Also Tetrasect: well I'm not going to debate any claims made in the study, I'll just question the journal. Because that is real science.

You are either in the club or not.

 

[rietrot]

Just for interest sake - how many people have finish reading the 2000 page cross referenced summary of the science? I don't want to post it verbatim on the forum as it would be a pain.

Don't pretend you did. And even if you tried you don't have access to the actual data or model used.

 

[rietrot]

Climate cultists will Climate cult.

 

[Lupus]

We aren't at the point where we have zero waste. That's the problem because it doesn't matter if you have one kg or thousands of tons if it leaks it contaminates the environment all the same. Until we have fusion that's 100% safe and can get rid of all the waste it's not something we should be using.


Those are emissions, not atmospheric concentrations. And if you look at the real figures and not percentages you'd expect it to keep going up exponentially if it wasn't being used but it doesn't really, CO2 continues to make up just a fraction of atmospheric gasses.


Don't forget Three Mile island. Whenever nuclear safety is mentioned that one is always skipped. It should have been the death of nuclear at the time but the incident and its fallout was covered up as is a lot of nuclear fallout at the time it happens.


It hasn't been solved. It was left for future generations to solve on the assumption we'd have a means to actually dispose of it and the left over radiation by now but we are nowhere nearer today. Btw if we go the route of all nuclear our reserves would be depleted in a few decades in any case so it's not a viable long term solution.


You know, it really depends on your definition. ALL gasses absorb and release heat. It's what gives them volume. As they absorb heat they expand and this heat is transferred when they bump into one another or other gasses. So ALL gasses contribute to the greenhouse effect.


It has? Really it has? Take another look especially at the parts just before man came on the scene.


Talk about morsels of truth, you know the moon does not have an atmosphere right? And while the sun does have a cycle it's not accurately repeated and there are times when it's hotter or colder. Why is it so inconceivable that we have this big fiery ball in the sky supplying ALL our energy that's driving our climate?


Who are also currently unable to return to the moon and have asked a South African billionaire to help them with their future space missions. Meh, sorry if I don't put much trust in them.


It's fallacious to compare the effect of huge quantities to miniscule ones. That's like saying if you die when I hit you at 100km/h with my car you'll still die if I hit you at 1km/h only slower.


Nope. You can only have models on things you actually understand. You can't understand things based on models. Adjusting models to fit your expected scenario is not science but BS. The only way to conduct real science on this would be to have a duplicate earth and see the effect between different conditions. Something the scale of the earth is simply too big to try and understand and put into models.


Has it occurred to you yet that the onus does not fall on anybody to prove it wrong (and there have been plenty) but on you to provide the burden of proof for your view? So you are aware but still make the statement and ask for counter proof. That is actually intellectual dishonesty.

If it leaks??? It's not liquid, it's not stored in barrels like an episode of the Simpsons. Nuclear waste is vitrified into a solid form, mixed with glass, coated in ceramics surrounded by thick concrete. They don't leak, the only time there has been an issue with possibility of leaking is from WW2 era testing and that was weaponised nuclear.
They are not the same thing either, a nuclear plant will not explode like a bomb and you cannot weaponise nuclear waste from power plants.

 

[Lupus]

To build a Nuclear Power Plant is expensive.
The fuel is also expensive.
The waste is horrifically toxic.
But otherwise, it's fine.

Nuclear Power has many advantages.
It also has many disadvantages.
I'm on the fence.
I'm not convinced it is either a good or bad option.

But know this.
Somewhere, somehow, something will go wrong.
And when it goes wrong with a Nuclear Power Plant, it is bound to go horribly wrong.

1. Nuclear is initially expensive as it has a lengthy certification process and the engineers who know how to build them don't exist in the western world anymore, though they seem pretty cheap to build in Korea and China.
2. The fuel isn't expensive where did you get that from? Also the fuel is extremely energy dense, the mined 46 000 tonnes from last year could power most of the world for 6 years.
3. Waste from all power sources are extremely toxic, you do know that the average coal power plant produces more radiation in one year then the entire life span of one nuclear power plant, you're aware that cadmium, arsenic and lead from the waste of producing, batteries, solar panels and wind turbines is also toxic and isn't disposed of safely? This also remains toxic indefinitely. You're also aware that in 70 years of nuclear power plants the entire worlds supply of HLW (high level waste) can fit into a football pitch, that most LLW is safe within a few years if not months? Also 90% of nuclear waste is reused in the plants to keep generating power?

In the 70 years of nuclear power plants there have been 3 incidents, 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, all 3 of those still aren't as many deaths as other forms of power.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Are you prepared to discuss/debate "the science"?
I am.
Are you?

No you aren't.

 

[MagNorthDigital]

While everyone is losing their collective sh17 about CO², just politely sanction the countries that produce the most of it, a little. China, The geriatric eagle and India.

Meanwhile the real problems aren't even being addressed. Water. Humans are screwing up the atmosphere for sure, but polluting sources of drinkable water, that'll screw us over much faster.

 

[Lupus]

Germany doing well in the battle for CO2 removal...

Wind farm in Germany is being dismantled to expand coal mine

A wind farm in Germany is being taken down to expand the Garzweiler lignite mine and maintain the security of electricity supply.

balkangreenenergynews.com

 

[Ponderer]

1. Nuclear is initially expensive as it has a lengthy certification process and the engineers who know how to build them don't exist in the western world anymore, though they seem pretty cheap to build in Korea and China.
2. The fuel isn't expensive where did you get that from? Also the fuel is extremely energy dense, the mined 46 000 tonnes from last year could power most of the world for 6 years.
3. Waste from all power sources are extremely toxic, you do know that the average coal power plant produces more radiation in one year then the entire life span of one nuclear power plant, you're aware that cadmium, arsenic and lead from the waste of producing, batteries, solar panels and wind turbines is also toxic and isn't disposed of safely? This also remains toxic indefinitely. You're also aware that in 70 years of nuclear power plants the entire worlds supply of HLW (high level waste) can fit into a football pitch, that most LLW is safe within a few years if not months? Also 90% of nuclear waste is reused in the plants to keep generating power?

In the 70 years of nuclear power plants there have been 3 incidents, 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, all 3 of those still aren't as many deaths as other forms of power.

I clearly stated I'm on the fence with regard to Nuclear Power Generation.
All I tried to say is that it (Nuclear Power Generation) is not the silver bullet it is made out to be.

 

[Lupus]

I clearly stated I'm on the fence with regard to Nuclear Power Generation.
All I tried to say is that it (Nuclear Power Generation) is not the silver bullet it is made out to be.

It's more of the silver bullet then anything else we currently have, yet it's myths and misinformation that make people think it's not.
I was actually all for solar and wind, until 2020 when I started on the quest to solarise my house, this is when you start to learn how inefficient it is, if it's that bad on a small scale what was it like on the larger scale. Then you start to see the lies, the LCOE myth and and.

 

[Ponderer]

No you aren't.

Hello my little cupcake.
Still keeping the faith, are you?

 

[Ponderer]

It's more of the silver bullet then anything else we currently have, yet it's myths and misinformation that make people think it's not.
I was actually all for solar and wind, until 2020 when I started on the quest to solarise my house, this is when you start to learn how inefficient it is, if it's that bad on a small scale what was it like on the larger scale. Then you start to see the lies, the LCOE myth and and.

The thing is there is no silver bullet solution to the problem.

 

[Lupus]

The thing is there is no silver bullet solution to the problem.

No, but throwing money at intermittent sources isn't as good and honestly a waste.

 

[Ponderer]

While everyone is losing their collective sh17 about CO², just politely sanction the countries that produce the most of it, a little. China, The geriatric eagle and India.

Meanwhile the real problems aren't even being addressed. Water. Humans are screwing up the atmosphere for sure, but polluting sources of drinkable water, that'll screw us over much faster.

We are already being screwed over with this "climate crises" BS.
This "climate crises" BS was created out of thin air for that very purpose.

This is squarely about politics and money.
Don't be surprised if in the near future you will be forced to pay some or other Carbon tax for merely breathing.

 

[Ponderer]

No, but throwing money at intermittent sources isn't as good and honestly a waste.

True.
But there is money to be made - lots of money.

 

[Lupus]

True.
But there is money to be made - lots of money.

Yup and it's not for the people on the ground, the wind and solar people claim it's cheaper. Yet the person on the ground pays more.