Project succesful (Interview with PROject_Belgium).

[Deathcounter]

Well I never said CO2 levels didn't rise alot. All I said is there is no direct link between CO2 and temperature.
If we would go off by CO2 and temp it should be almost twice as warm now.
And yes I am aware of lobbyist who have an agenda to deny climate change.

But there is also a climate lobby which works together with big solar and wind companies that gain from using CO2 propaganda to get gouvernements to build alot of solor and wind which gets heavily subsidized. While nuclear energy gets demonized (Tsjernobyl) eventhough nuclear produces cheaper energy and takes up alot less space than renewables.

Fine, i am always so emotional around this topic because we could literally, literally safe billions of peoples lifes, save million species from going extinct, prevent loss of land because of rising seas etc. But fine.
I mean, I, and the kids nowadays learn(ed) about the greenhouse effect in primary school and there is a large scientific consensus that co2 and temperatur is linked but ok.
I am not one of those activists that wants to forbid everyone everything, all i want to say is that everyone here can decide on which side of history he wants to be on.
When my (someones) son or my (someones) daughter ask me, if i did something against global warming or inactions of people and politics, i dont want to find no words, i dont want to lie and i dont want to say its not my fault. When (s)he asks me i will tell that i reduced my meet consumption, i will tell that i tried to raise awareness, i will tell that i striked on streets with a cardboard sign, i will tell that i voted parties who fight for the same as i do.

My parents propably also asked their parents (my grandparents) what they did against the nazi regime. Against the million jews killed - its pretty much the same

My point is, everyone can decide what (s)he wants to do - but everyone has to answer his actions for him/herself

Further reading:

CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And effects of global warming

Effects of climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[chicklet]

All I said is there is no direct link between CO2 and temperature.

Except there is a very strong link...

 

[PROject_Belgium]

Could you elaborate on this?

CO2 levels now are almost 50% higher as in 1950's so why isn't temp 50% warmer. Temp has only rissen 0.7 Celcius the last century https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

Ya nuclear energy/technology has never had any bad impact in human history.
And the waste being still radioactive and polluting for a freaking long time. Well not our Problem right?
I mean in our lifespan e.g ressources wont run out so lets just not think long term. And ya Global warming is totally unrelated to the human race, so nothing we can do there. Lucky us!

This is exactly what i mean with nuclear energy propaganda. Ofc there have been nuclear disasters. But if you actually look at the deaths per energy source nuclear is alot more safe now. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
On the point of nuclear waste:

 

[MaSmOrRa]

CO2 levels now are almost 50% higher as in 1950's so why isn't temp 50% warmer. Temp has only rissen 0.7 Celcius the last century

Huh what?!?
Why would the temperature have to increase at the same rate for there to be a correlation?!

 

[PROject_Belgium]

Huh what?!?
Why would the temperature have to increase at the same rate for there to be a correlation?!

I never said there isn't a correlation i only said not a strong one and then ppl started quoting me and saying the correlation is strong and thats why I put them side to side to prove it isn't strong. So if you just read what I wrote I never denied the correlation.

 

[_Mr_St4rk_]

i'm doing some small Game here.

Everytime Pbelgium post an argument against CO2/Temperature link i set fire in some old tires close to a Forest
Everytime someone counter-argues him i call the fireman,

 

[sozey_]

Just on the point that nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables: the newest nuclear reactor in Europe, Hinkley Point C in the UK, is insanely expensive, with almost 20 billion pounds building cost, much much higher than the cost of building the same electric capacity with renewable sources. The guaranteed compensation for the electricity is almost twice as high as the current price of wind energy, which continues to fall. And not yet in the calculation is the cost of disposal of the nuclear waste and the demolition of the reactor. So your statement is wrong on every single level.

 

[Michaerbse]

CO2 levels now are almost 50% higher as in 1950's so why isn't temp 50% warmer. Temp has only rissen 0.7 Celcius the last century https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

Wow that must surely be one of the dumbest sentences ever on aoezone.

1) Correlation != proportionality
2) Celsius/Fahrenheit is an interval scale, not a ratio scale. Quotients and things like "50% warmer" have no meaning. It is not possible to become "50% warmer".
3) 0.7 degrees may be more than you think.

 

[Influenza]

Go back to school kid LOL why isn't temp 50% warmer????

 

[Modri]

I guess you need another off-topic thread just like the one with that frog.

 

[zyros]

But if you actually look at the deaths per energy source nuclear is alot more safe now.

Tell me: what to do with the nuclear waste? It need to be dumped away for one million years. Do you know how the earth looked one million years ago? And how it will look in one million years? Can you imagine what will happen, if this waste will be washed away into the groundwater because of geological movements? What happens during the next glacial period (estimated in 50.000 years)? Can you guarantee safety of the repository? Can you guarantee that no one will search for mineral resources in 10.000 years on top of repository?
There is a reason why no country hasn't built a repository for high radioactive waste. A commission estimated the cost for a repository between 49 and 170 billions Euro. And this is only for the high radioactive waste of germany.
Tell me, why support such a technology?

 

[zuviss]

so we got a thread on racist frog... now seems like we have a global warming one forming up good good

what more controversal stuff you need to derail this thread into?

Hey, bugum lets get all the stuff out of the way... what are your views on gay adoption? what about abortion or euthanasia? thought on marijuana still being decriminalized in most of EU?
--

freaking nerds, there are many forums to discuss this kind of stuff, where you can go back and forth and enjoy the endless loop.

Why does the view of a person whose only relation to you, is being good at the videogame you also play?

He's just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else in the world.

At the end, opinions on important subjects in a videogame forum don't matter at all, yeah, that's right; not even your opinion is relevant!

 

[Influenza]

so we got a thread on racist frog... now seems like we have a global warming one forming up good good

what more controversal stuff you need to derail this thread into?

Hey, bugum lets get all the stuff out of the way... what are your views on gay adoption? what about abortion or euthanasia? thought on marijuana still being decriminalized in most of EU?
--

freaking nerds, there are many forums to discuss this kind of stuff, where you can go back and forth and enjoy the endless loop.

Why does the view of a person whose only relation to you, is being good at the videogame you also play?

He's just as entitled to his opinion as anyone else in the world.

At the end, opinions on important subjects in a videogame forum don't matter at all, yeah, that's right; not even your opinion is relevant!

if we are not supposed to discuss the contents of the interview, then I don't even see what is the point of having such a topic open, might as well close it as soon as the interview is posted. Would you prefer to read "nice interview, thanks!" in the comments ad infinitum?

 

[theHand]

St4rk's comment wins the thread for me, but just to reiterate, there doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase. These variables are not defined in relationship to each other, unlike say the mass and volume of liquid water. Because liquid water has a fixed density, you could plot volume against mass using cubic centimetres and grams and the graph would show a nice 45 degree upward sloping line from zero to infinity. Plot atmospheric CO2 concentrations against temperature using ppm and Celsius and you get this arrhythmic heartbeat:

Temperature change (light blue) and carbon dioxide change (dark blue) measured from the EPICA Dome C ice core in Antarctica (Jouzel et al. 2007; Lüthi et al. 2008), is found here Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change.

But it's not surprising people will find holes to pick. This graph and the NASA one above were both generated using Antarctic ice cores, and yet the CO2 ppms don't align. However, the NASA graph shows CO2 at 300ppm 50 years ago, and just under 400ppm now. That's close to 33% higher, so I don't know where this 50% figure got pulled from.

As for 0.7 degrees Celsius not sounding like much, anecdotal opinion isn't really useful in such discussions. The impacts of climate change at 1.5 and 2 degrees C and beyond can be seen at this interactive webpage examining various metrics with all sources linked and referenced. Belgium may not be hit as hard as the Netherlands by rising sea levels, but countries with coasts should probably be the least laissez-faire.

 

[_5_]

I never said there isn't a correlation i only said not a strong one and then ppl started quoting me and saying the correlation is strong and thats why I put them side to side to prove it isn't strong.

Ah, Sneakily deleting posts! It would be a shame if someone quoted it before.

Spoiler

 

[Athasos]

CO2 levels now are almost 50% higher as in 1950's so why isn't temp 50% warmer. Temp has only rissen 0.7 Celcius the last century https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

1950 = 300
Today = 400
33% more

 

[Fall]

Exxon determined that human CO2 and other gas emissions contribute significantly to global warming and resulting climate change above and beyond the usual cycle in 1977.

Obviously they then purchased some Americans to pretend that this is not the case and obfuscate the issue (to this day some US politicians publically state that they don't believe humans contribute to climate change - hopefully they don't actually believe this privately too), as is tradition in the US, but clearly the staff at Exxon would really rather have found that the human activities do not contribute to climate change.

I also trust their methodology, as the engineers and the rest at a company like that, (ignoring any moral issues around the company) are the absolute elite in their field and found evidence for human caused climate change around a decade before the rest of the world did.

If you want to base your opinion on such an issue on a couple of googled line graphs then I think you don't appreciate the complexity around such an issue. Yes we're all entitled to an opinion on this but most of our opinions mean jack **** as most of us do not understand the mechanisms involved beyond surface level "greenhouse gases reflect heat" or some other basic explanation.

PS @PROject_Belgium what is your opinion on vaccines?

 

[Michaerbse]

Imagine this guy becoming a climate scientist (or indeed any kind of scientist)... honk honk clown world

This was a question to the interviewer...

 

[kalkkaro]

Just on the point that nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables: the newest nuclear reactor in Europe, Hinkley Point C in the UK, is insanely expensive, with almost 20 billion pounds building cost, much much higher than the cost of building the same electric capacity with renewable sources. The guaranteed compensation for the electricity is almost twice as high as the current price of wind energy, which continues to fall. And not yet in the calculation is the cost of disposal of the nuclear waste and the demolition of the reactor. So your statement is wrong on every single level.

So are you trying to argue that renewables are cheaper than nuclear energy? In clown world we live indeed.

Nuclear energy is objectively the best choice for our climate. Pushing renewable just for ideology reasons just hinders our ability to stop the climate change. Just look at what Germans decisions to cut nuclear energy did to their coal usage

 

[kalkkaro]

Tell me: what to do with the nuclear waste? It need to be dumped away for one million years. Do you know how the earth looked one million years ago? And how it will look in one million years? Can you imagine what will happen, if this waste will be washed away into the groundwater because of geological movements? What happens during the next glacial period (estimated in 50.000 years)? Can you guarantee safety of the repository? Can you guarantee that no one will search for mineral resources in 10.000 years on top of repository?
There is a reason why no country hasn't built a repository for high radioactive waste. A commission estimated the cost for a repository between 49 and 170 billions Euro. And this is only for the high radioactive waste of germany.
Tell me, why support such a technology?

Because there is least problem with it and stopping climate change needs radical changes in our CO2 comission in very short time period. Only Nuclear Energy can do it at the moment. No it's not totally unproblematic, we need to find ways to dispose the waste better. Maybe reusing some of the waste in the future might become possible. Unfortunately wind and solar power is too inefficient and unrealiable for our needs, especially when earth's population is growing rapidly and countries with low standard of living are adoptin more western lifestyle (thus using more energy)

Total nuclear denial is maybe just as hurtful for our efforts to stop climate change asclimate change denialism itself.

 

[Athasos]

So are you trying to argue that renewables are cheaper than nuclear energy? In clown world we live indeed.

Nuclear energy is objectively the best choice for our climate. Pushing renewable just for ideology reasons just hinders our ability to stop the climate change. Just look at what Germans decisions to cut nuclear energy did to their coal usage

Yeah what happened with coal in Germany?
It went down from 46% in 2007 to 40% in 2016
http://strom-report.de/strom/#deutscher-strommix-entwicklung is my source for this.

 

[Deathcounter]

I think best it would be to invest into renewsables and nuclear (nuclear now because we need co2 reduciton really fast) - with slowly increasing renewables and shutting down nuclear plants one by one. One problem is that with climate change, the chances of an environmental disaster causing meltdowns increases, so very risky

 

[kalkkaro]

Yeah what happened with coal in Germany?
It went down from 46% in 2007 to 40% in 2016
http://strom-report.de/strom/#deutscher-strommix-entwicklung is my source for this.

Kumpi on parempi, ydinvoima-Ranska vai hiili-Saksa? - Saksalle rökäletappio sähkön co2-päästöissä

Saksan sähköntuotanto oli 655 terawattituntia ja Ranskan 529 terawattituntia vuonna 2017.

www.tekniikkatalous.fi

I'm sorry about the source's language. I'm not reading english newsites so forgive me pls.

Energy production in France: 72% Nuclear energy, 10% hydroelectric, 10% coal and natural gas, 5% wind power and 2% solar energy

In Germany: 38% Coal and Brown Coal, 33% renewables, 12% nuclear, 13% natural gas and rest from other fuels.

Now, this is the point I'm trying to make: 1 kwh produced, on the avarage, 72 grams of CO2 in France when in Germany same number was 764! 10 times more!

Really the problem with ideology policy in nuclear power is that the energy need to be made in otherways. And unfortunately renewables are not efficient enough and reliable enough ( other energy sources are needed to flatten the unavoidable drops in wind and solar energy production).

 

[kalkkaro]

I think best it would be to invest into renewsables and nuclear (nuclear now because we need co2 reduciton really fast) - with slowly increasing renewables and shutting down nuclear plants one by one. One problem is that with climate change, the chances of an environmental disaster causing meltdowns increases, so very risky

Yes, this is better solution than what German did - cut Nuclear energy while keeping Coal burning (the real climate rapist) pretty much at the old, already high, level.

About meltdowns. In terms of safety, nuclear energy is very strong. Obviously things like Tshernobyl always haunts in peoples minds same way as flight accidents make people feel like air travel is more dangerous than going by car although the truth is totally opposite.

 

[Tedious_Tarkan]

I never said there isn't a correlation i only said not a strong one and then ppl started quoting me and saying the correlation is strong and thats why I put them side to side to prove it isn't strong. So if you just read what I wrote I never denied the correlation.

with your penchant for denial you should consider a political career.