I like watching Aleksandr_124 being destroyed here lol

😆
Keep coping and following my posts.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

Unless you have good news on that front?

Well, if we do get the energy from fusion reactors in some 10-20 years, we're good, otherwise, we're screwed pretty much. I don't know how the top of German leadership manages to go by shutting down all nuclear power plants, it's absolute madness, this is the cleanest and most efficient energy source we have today.

Quote from paket42x :

I like watching Aleksandr_124 being destroyed here lol

I'm not trying to destroy Alexander. I was just trying to make him understand that he understands absolutely nothing about global warming and its issues. As demonstrated by the very formulation of these “hypotheses” and almost all of his posts.
But I have to face the facts, this is an impossible task.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Well, if we do get the energy from fusion reactors in some 10-20 years, we're good, otherwise, we're screwed pretty much. I don't know how the top of German leadership manages to go by shutting down all nuclear power plants, it's absolute madness, this is the cleanest and most efficient energy source we have today.

I grant you, nuclear power is undoubtedly the best energy today in terms of pure efficiency, but perhaps not for long. In terms of cleanliness, reliability and safety, it's something else entirely.

France is regularly forced to shut down nuclear reactors due to the effects of global warming. Some of its nuclear power plants will soon find themselves with their feet in water, others without cooling water. The EPR construction site is an absolute disaster, at all levels... Waste management is still an unresolved problem and their supposed recycling still remains a pipe dream.

I do not wish to enter into conflict with you on nuclear power, and I will listen to all your arguments. But I admit to being more than doubtful about this.

Here's some of the reading material for you guys with a lot of free time. A research paper on "how far are we from fusion power". To cut a long story short, some experts say not before 2050, but we'll see..Global warming by that time is gonna do its thing and it ain't gonna be nice, unless one lives in Iceland, or Scandinavian countries, where it will be quite pleasant

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

I do not wish to enter into conflict with you on nuclear power, and I will listen to all your arguments. But I admit to being more than doubtful about this.

Not at all, be my guest. I'm not in this field. It's just my observation from what I see at the conferences when guys talk about advances in their research for the development of fusion power. Nuclear (fission) power is already quite old tech from the 50's. It does have some drawbacks, but mostly is quite good, in fact, the best that we have at the moment taking into account how "green" it is overall.

Quote from Avraham Vandezwin :

I'm not trying to destroy Alexander. I was just trying to make him understand that he understands absolutely nothing about global warming and its issues. As demonstrated by the very formulation of these “hypotheses” and almost all of his posts.
But I have to face the facts, this is an impossible task.

Just a person who is well known in RU community for being a typical sophist and a phoney, so dont be so shy, u really made this clear

Speaking about green energy and stuff, gotta agree with Mr.rane(a real scientist) But i also wish to admit that the human factor is a kind of nonsense which rules the whole world actually, and IMHO the industry will turn the most comfortable way for some "global business leaders" or kind of. Its like, ofc we'll see some zero emission cars and boats and stuff, but not too soon lol.
So the actual "cure the planet" stuff is just about separate waste disposal, dont throw used batteries in a trash can and so on IMO

Quote from paket42x :

Just a person who is well known in RU community for being a typical sophist and a phoney, so dont be so shy, u really made this clear

And of course, you won't provide any proof of what you say.
I didn't think you were on so massive copium...that because I beat you in an argument, you're gonna follow me around the forums to try to get at me. It's pathetic.
But I don't care about you. So how about you just accept the situation and move on?

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

And of course, you won't provide any proof of what you say.
I didn't think you were on so massive copium...that because I beat you in an argument, you're gonna follow me around the forums to try to get at me. It's pathetic.
But I don't care about you. So how about you just accept the situation and move on?

No hard feelings!

Quote from rane_nbg :

Not at all, be my guest. I'm not in this field. It's just my observation from what I see at the conferences when guys talk about advances in their research for the development of fusion power. Nuclear (fission) power is already quite old tech from the 50's. It does have some drawbacks, but mostly is quite good, in fact, the best that we have at the moment taking into account how "green" it is overall.

If I understand you correctly Rane, it is only tomorrow's atomic bomb that can save us (unfortunately only partially) from the horrors of global warming?
I had an intuition of it, but not yet such a clear and radical vision. (joke)

I'm glad this debate is finally becoming more interesting. And that everyone really starts to participate without gimmicks or falsifications.

New projects around nuclear fusion (particularly with miniaturization) will eventually succeed. The world of tomorrow will need new sources and types of energy. What raises questions for me here (like you) is the temporality of their implementation.
At the rate things are going in terms of global warming, it is more than likely that the consequences of global warming will quickly create chaos and suddenly slow down experimental research.
This is what bothers me about major fusion reactor projects. It's dependent on structures that require enormous funding and extremely long development times. But then again, perhaps you have good reasons to remain optimistic?

I agree with Paket42x. I think the oil companies will attack the natural resource (to the point of absurdity) if nothing stops them and our behavioural changes have little weight compared to the real issues (like producing and buying lithium cars)

Also, I wonder if replacing fossil fuels with solutions based on green hydrogen would not be a quicker way to ensure a energy transition than nuclear fusion?

Can we also have your scientific opinion on this question?

Quote from rane_nbg :

Well, I skim through it. It is always the same story between you 3 guys Trying to outsmart each other with fancy philosophical ideas, that does not solve anything, global warming is still happening, what ever we say

Yes, it dilutes the topic and is something that needs to be avoided. But I didn't bring in philosophy, logic and Occam's razor into this thread. Avraham needed that to discuss global warming for some reason. And all I have done each time is clearly show that he doesn't understand anything about the above topics. And then I would get accusations that I was going off topic or engaging in sophistry. It's a convenient position, but how if I wasn't the one who introduced these topics here?
I don't think we should introduce topics that don't contribute to the global warming discussion, especially if you don't understand anything about them.

Now there's a good topic about nuclear power and environmental pollution. Saying we should not litter and segregate trash are pretty trivial things. But still not in my country and many others. So it's still a problem.

I won't pretend to be an expert in nuclear and thermonuclear power field, because I don't understand much about it.
But we know from history that there are some risks associated with nuclear power plant accidents. They are less danger of such incidents now with the increase in safety, but I think its are non-zero probability that something bad might happen again. And there is splent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, as far as I know it's stored in special pools that are quite safe. So, as long as there are no accidents, nuclear power plants are really the best sources of electricity in terms of ecology and efficiency. When it comes to environmentally friendly sources, that have no emissions there are we still have solar energy, wind and hydro energy. And I don't think we need to forget about them.

I can't say much about thermonuclear reactors, and as far as I know they don't exist as practical working models. They still exist as experimental prototypes. So there's not much to say for now. Correct me if I'm wrong.

To further contextualize my point without being chauvinistic , Belgian scientists have succeeded, for many years now, in producing affordable renewable green hydrogen.

Researchers from KU Leuven (University of Leuven) have succeeded in developing a special solar panel that produces hydrogen gas from moisture in the air. A single panel produces 250 liters of hydrogen per day. Twenty of these solar panels can provide electricity and heat to an entire family all year. My Dutch neighbors are already (and have been for a long time) equipping 1OO% autonomous housing cells with a similar principle. The remaining hydrogen produced can power the family car.

These solutions exist and they work. States do not implement them because states finance themselves largely on energy consumption. This is why states are complicit with fossil fuel extractors. A big part of the problem is economic-political. As long as states live on energy consumption (especially wich of individuals) they will put in place false solutions that provide them with money.

However, the solution to the global energy problem rests, in my opinion, on the energy autonomy of citizens. This is the paradox to be resolved if we want to move towards real solutions. Because scientifically these simple and operational solutions already exist.

Quote from Aleksandr_124rus :

Yes, it dilutes the topic and is something that needs to be avoided. But I didn't bring in philosophy, logic and Occam's razor into this thread. Avraham ...

Once again, you don't understand what we're talking about. Take the time to educate yourself before intervening with pointless monologues and your endless justifications that no one cares about here.

I sympathize, but don't bother me anymore with your nonsense. I still have a lot under the hood.

Quote from rane_nbg :

Not at all, be my guest.

I come back to the problem of recycling nuclear waste that I mentioned, in order to allow you to give us a complete answer in one go with the problem of hydrogen.

Do you think, as the RePlanet report mentions, that nuclear waste could generate centuries of clean energy? And that the nuclear economy could become quasi-circular? Or, at a minimum, get rid of its intractable waste?

Thanks

last 3 messages from u

These messages are not all addressed to the same people and Aleksandr's message is inserted there. A problem ?

Quote from Viperakecske :

{OFF TOPIC



1) We are here in the "off topic" section.

2) I noticed this was a problem for you, but not everyone has the same uses as yours. This is valid for the game as well as for this forum.

3) For example, people who work (like me) receive messages by email, on their desktop computer or on their phone, at times when they are not always able to respond. They put it in a corner of their mind.

If when they can log in, the message they want to reply to has been modified, they are wasting time. That is why sometimes it is better to make several messages rather than modifications, of which no one will be notified.

Is it good for you ?

4) don't worry, I will soon create an LFS topic that will fascinate you

OFF TOPIC END }

no

Quote from Viperakecske :

no

No, but it doesn't matter.

News of this morning, but not a surprise. The year 2023 will be the hottest in 125,000 years. This afirmatie is based on objective paleoclimatic data from the study of ice cores, corals and trees which provide precise information on climate evolution.

The temperatures recorded last October broke the record set in 2019. With an average of 15.38°C on the surface of the globe, the past month exceeds the previous record of October 2019 by 0.4°C. In October 2023, the average air temperature was 1.7 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average for the period 1850-1900.

To be honest, I wasn't that interested in this topic and I started it for the sake of getting different opinions, and for the sake of that the method of coming up with contradictory arguments to fuel the discussion is well suited, which turned out to be quite good in terms of quantity, but bad in terms of quality.. Whell, I guess you wouldn't expect anything else in such a politicized topic.

But now its just I happened to find that in August of this year there was an declaration from over 1600 scientists including two Nobel laureates and professionals that said - There is no climate emergency.

"Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. They do not only exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases, they also ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. More CO2 is favorable for nature, greening our planet. Additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also profitable for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. Go for adap"

And literally what I was talking about was the excessive bias and politicization of research... About temperature cycles... About the greenhouse effect helping nature...

And there's also the fact that the death rate from climate-related events has dropped more than 10 times in the last 100 years, (picture attached) while green left-liberals continue to hysterical about the catastrophic effects of climate change on humans. Of course part of that may be due to increased medical care, but clearly not by 10 times.

Regarding bias and politicization in scientific research, there is an excellent article "I Left Out the Full Truth..." by a climate scientist on how the mechanisms of politicization and bias arise in scientific research. Here are some quotes from the article:

"Why is this happening?
It starts with the fact that a researcher’s career depends on his or her work being cited widely and perceived as important. This triggers the self-reinforcing feedback loops of name recognition, funding, quality applications from aspiring PhD students and postdocs, and of course, accolades."

"Here’s how it works.
The first thing the astute climate researcher knows is that his or her work should support the mainstream narrative—namely, that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic..."

"This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper. The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change."

"Here’s a third trick: be sure to focus on metrics that will generate the most eye-popping numbers. Our paper, for instance, could have focused on a simple, intuitive metric like the number of additional acres that burned or the increase in intensity of wildfires because of climate change."

I mean, literally what I was talking about. BBut unfortunately, a lot of people, instead of accepting the problem and moving toward a solution, or at least looking out of their echo chamber, just continue to hysterical and biased about climate change as if nothing is happening.
And don't make another strawmans to argue with it, cuz I'm not saying that global warming isn't happening or it's not that I'm against many of the methods of fighting climate change, I can be in favor of them, especially those that limit the emissions of large corporations and companies.

It's just that you don't need to add your agenda to the science here because at that moment science stops being science.

Bro.. almost literally my first 2 or 3 posts in this thread!

I would ask, where you say you are in favour of fighting climate change-

1) Does it matter if these things are expensive?
2) And if they are expensive, does it matter on whom those costs fall?
3) And does it matter if these efforts are effective and will have a return on investment? (i.e. not just virtue signalling)
4) And are you sure you want to prioritise fighting climate change, or pollution? Proposed solutions to each are not the same.