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

[Ponderer]

Oh 100% that its a massive complicated system...

But I'm trying to simplify this down to its most simple terms... and a comparison between the global warming effects per pm of water vapour vs CO2

In simple terms - the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is negligible compared with water vapor.
In simple terms - CO2 emissions is not responsible for "climate change".
In simple terms - it's not Science - its propaganda - it's about money.

 

[ToxicBunny]

In simple terms - the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 is negligible compared with water vapor.
In simple terms - CO2 emissions is not responsible for "climate change".
In simple terms - it's not Science - its propaganda - it's about money.

Ok cool, so you have confirmed that you have sweet fek all clue then, no point in discussing something with you when it totally escapes you.

For reference, Water Vapour accounts for around 60 - 70% of the Greenhouse effect on the planet, but it is a natural cycle so is hugely problematic to try and influence. Also Water Vapour sits at around 2% of air volume on earth so around 20000ppm. CO2 accounts for around 20-25% of the green house effect, is heavily influenced by man at this stage and currently sits at around 410ppm.

 

[Ponderer]

Ok cool, so you have confirmed that you have sweet fek all clue then, no point in discussing something with you when it totally escapes you.

For reference, Water Vapour accounts for around 60 - 70% of the Greenhouse effect on the planet, but it is a natural cycle so is hugely problematic to try and influence. Also Water Vapour sits at around 2% of air volume on earth so around 20000ppm. CO2 accounts for around 20-25% of the green house effect, is heavily influenced by man at this stage and currently sits at around 410ppm.

The part in bold - rubbish - nonsense.

 

[ToxicBunny]

The part in bold - rubbish - nonsense.

Ok, then what is it? Don't just stomp your feet and say its rubbish/nonsense, provide a counter point.

 

[Ponderer]

Ok, then what is it? Don't just stomp your feet and say its rubbish/nonsense, provide a counter point.

If you consider the atmosphere as a whole, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is negligible.

 

[ToxicBunny]

If you consider the atmosphere as a whole, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is negligible.

No, a number if you please, so that we can actually discuss it... you are still stomping your foot like a petulant 2yr old that wants cookies but is being told no.

 

[Ponderer]

No, a number if you please, so that we can actually discuss it... you are still stomping your foot like a petulant 2yr old that wants cookies but is being told no.

You are free to believe what you want.
If you believe this "CO2 emissions is changing our climate and is destroying the planet" BS, then so be it.
You a "climate cultist"?

 

[ToxicBunny]

You are free to believe what you want.
If you believe this "CO2 emissions is changing our climate and is destroying the planet" BS, then so be it.
You a "climate cultist"?

climate cultist, interesting terminology.

You have yet to put forward one single number or coherent argument for why its "BS" as you claim.

 

[1337]

You are free to believe what you want.
If you believe this "CO2 emissions is changing our climate and is destroying the planet" BS, then so be it.
You a "climate cultist"?

So you are a climate change denier?

 

[konfab]

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

"huge volumes"

You literally have no idea what you are talking about do you?
There is this little known concept called energy density. Nuclear power uses very energy dense sources of energy, which means it produces very little waste for the amount of energy it produces:

Nuclear fuel is very energy dense, so very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity – especially when compared to other energy sources. As a result, a correspondingly small amount of waste is produced. 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. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tonnes of ash and more than 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, every year.

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/what-is-nuclear-waste-and-what-do-we-do-with-it.aspx#:~:text=The generation of electricity from,the used fuel is recycled.

 

[Ponderer]

climate cultist, interesting terminology.

You have yet to put forward one single number or coherent argument for why its "BS" as you claim.

See post #105.

 

[Ponderer]

So you are a climate change denier?

I am not denying that the climate is constantly changing.
I am however denying that CO2 emissions is responsible for "climate change".

 

[1337]

I'M SORRY NUKE BROS

 

[ToxicBunny]

See post #105.

Ok and?

You still haven't put forward a single coherent argument, even considering Post #105

 

[1337]

I am not denying that the climate is constantly changing.
I am however denying that CO2 emissions is responsible for "climate change".

What do you believe is driving this change?

Better yet, does climate change matter to you or is it just an inevitability humanity has no control over?

 

[Ponderer]

Ok and?

You still haven't put forward a single coherent argument, even considering Post #105

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what a coherent argument is?

 

[ToxicBunny]

Maybe the problem is that you don't understand what a coherent argument is?

Ok, then define a coherent argument for me.

 

[konfab]

Well you aren't wrong in a very broad sense. CO2 isn't killing the planet, earth will carry on whatever the level of CO2 is... But it is killing the planet for us.

Yes, the creature that has figured out how to survive every corner of the earth and space is going to have an issue with a few degrees more temperature.

My B.S sensors with climate hysteria are more about the proposed solutions to it than the underlining science. If CO2 is such a terrible thing and it is the most pressing issue of our time, then the solution is to simply switch over to a different power source like nuclear energy which does not emit CO2 as part of its function. It is not perfect, but it deals with the issue at hand. But that isn't good enough. Climate change cultists want tax increases, more regulations, more control over people, depopulation and the destruction of modern living standards.

 

[1337]

If you consider the atmosphere as a whole, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2 is negligible.

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Information on emissions and removals of the main greenhouse gases to and from the atmosphere.

www.epa.gov

Now this is just USA, I know China and others are waaaaay worse but this data is at least reliable.

CO2 seems pretty high?

 

[Ponderer]

What do you believe is driving this change?

The Sun.

Better yet, does climate change matter to you or is it just an inevitability humanity has no control over?

The climate is constantly changing.
Does it bother me?
Not really - no.