Zondag met Lubach(en Lomborg)

Arjen Lubach had een pleidooi voorkernenergie. En meteen daarna kwam onze populaire VVD-coryfee 'ben je bang om doodgeschoten te worden? Ja, dus?' Klaas Dijkhof (zie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaas_Dijkhoff, https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2018-11-03/klaas-dijkhoff-is-veranderd-klaas-dijkhoff-karikatuur/) met het voorstel voor kernenergie:

Kernenergie zou volgens VVD-fractievoorzitter Klaas Dijkhoff een goede manier zijn voor Nederland om de klimaatdoelen te halen. ,,Wat mij betreft gaan we snel beginnen'', zei VVD-fractievoorzitter Klaas Dijkhoff in Nieuwsuur. ,,Ik hoop dat we er rationeel naar kijken''.
De uitstoot van broeikasgassen moet de komende jaren verder omlaag. Hierbij is meer opwekken van duurzame energie een van de belangrijkste doelstellingen. De VVD wil kernenergie gaan opwekken in combinatie met zon- en windenergie om de klimaatdoelstellingen te behalen.
(https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Coalitiepartner D66 ziet niets in het plan. D66-leider Rob Jetten zei serieus naar de voorstellen te willen kijken, maar hij denkt dat er ook nieuwe en betere technieken mogelijk zijn dan kernenergie. Ook GroenLinks ziet het niet zitten. ,,Het is een van de inmiddels befaamde Klaasballonnetjes: iets zeggen wat totaal onrealistisch is, om maar een VVD-standpunt in het nieuws te krijgen. Veel herrie, maar aan het eind van de dag is er niets veranderd'' zegt GroenLinks-leider Jesse Klaver op Twitter.
Het bouwen van meer kerncentrales zal op korte termijn weinig veranderen aan de CO2-uitstoot in Nederland. Deze centrales kosten een hoop geld en zijn niet over een paar jaar klaar. Geschat wordt dat het bouwen van een moderne kerncentrale tussen de 11 en 14 jaar zal duren. Ze zullen dus pas na 2030 operationeel zijn, mochten ze er komen. (https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Nederland heeft van oudsher in vergelijking met andere landen vrij weinig kerncentrales. De enige operationele kerncentrale van ons land staat in het Zeeuwse Borselle en is vrij bescheiden van omvang. Hij werd in 1973 opgeleverd en staat op de nominatie om gesloten te worden, in 2033 zou de sloop moeten beginnen. (https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Volgens mij is er ook een centrale in Petten:

De kernreactoren Petten zijn twee kleine kernreactoren in Nederland, nabij Petten (Noord-Holland). Ze zijn sinds het begin van de jaren zestig in gebruik en zijn bedoeld voor onderzoek en voor het produceren van radionucliden voor medisch gebruik.
Op het terrein van het Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor Onderzoek van de Europese Commissie, naast het Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) staan twee onderzoeksreactoren: de hogefluxreactor en de lagefluxreactor. De hogefluxreactor is eigendom van de Europese Commissie.[1] De lagefluxreactor is eigendom van NRG.[2] NRG is een dochteronderneming van ECN.[3]
De lagefluxreactor is sinds 1960 in gebruik, de hogefluxreactor sinds 1961. Beide reactoren worden door NRG beheerd. Het thermisch vermogen van de hogefluxreactor (HFR) is 45 MW, dat van de lagefluxreactor (LFR) is 30 kW, vergelijkbaar met een cv-installatie. In de hogefluxreactor worden onder meer radioactieve isotopen geproduceerd, die na chemische bewerkingen in een speciale productiefaciliteit in Petten, aan ziekenhuizen worden geleverd voor diagnostiek en voor de bestrijding van kanker (radiotherapie). De reactor in Petten produceert een derde van de medische isotopen wereldwijd.[4] De medische activiteiten gebruiken ongeveer de helft van de capaciteit van de HFR. De andere helft wordt gebruikt voor onderzoek. Dit onderzoek betreft tegenwoordig onder meer het gedrag van materialen onder invloed van ioniserende straling, wat van belang is voor de veiligheid en betrouwbaarheid van nucleaire installaties.
De lagefluxreactor werd gebruikt voor opleidings- en trainingsdoeleinden, en voor materiaalkundig onderzoek. Per december 2010 zijn de bedrijfsactiviteiten van de LFR gestopt. Het besluit van NRG om de bedrijfsvoering van de LFR te beëindigen is genomen na een bedrijfseconomische evaluatie van het gebruik van deze installatie. Vanwege een lage gebruiksfrequentie werden de investeringen die gemaakt zouden moeten worden voor de conversie van hoogverrijkt uranium (highly enriched uranium, HEU) naar laagverrijkt uranium (low-enriched uranium, LEU) niet rendabel geacht. Het aanbrengen van de benodigde aanpassingen aan de LFR wordt dan ook niet meer overwogen.[5] (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernreactoren_Petten)

Kernenergie is een antwoord op klimaatverandering. Logisch want volgens de legende was het de Britse premier Margaret Thatcher (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher), als scheikundiggeschoolde politicus die wees op klimaatverandering en het belang van kernenergie ten koste van de kolenmijnen die ze sloot. De stakingen kon ze daardoor breken. Ze schaftte dus niet enkel de schoolmelk af, maar ook de kolen. Nu bijna 40 jaar later wordt het argument weer gebruikt.

Dus is die discutabele theorie waar?

Earth's temperature is rising, and it isn't just in the air around us. More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed into the oceans that cover two-thirds of the planet's surface. Their temperature is rising, too, and it tells a story of how humans are changing the planet. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming)

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded. Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).
Mean global temperature (1850-1890) is roughly 13.7°C.
First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.
1824
Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
...
1879
International Meteorological Organization begins to compile and standardize global weather data, including temperature.
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
...
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.
...
1960
Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise.
The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
...
1965
Boulder, Colorado meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts.
...
1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists doubt all theories as journalists talk of a new ice age.
...
1977
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century.
...
1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. ... Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models that incorporate aerosols and show future greenhouse warming.
Some scientists predict greenhouse warming "signal" should become visible around the year 2000.
...
1988
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus statements by Hansen.
...
1990
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely.
...
1992
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action.
...
1995
Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.
...
1997
...
International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty ...
...
1999
Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel.
Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South Asia.
...
2001
Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since the end of the last ice age, is "very likely," with highly damaging future impacts ... Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets.
...
2002
Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming," due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing.
...
2006
In longstanding "hockey stick" controversy, scientists conclude post-1980 global warming was unprecedented for centuries or more.
...
2007
Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause.
...
2012
Controversial "attribution" studies find recent disastrous heat waves, droughts, extremes of precipitation, and floods were made worse by global warming.
2013
An apparent pause or "hiatus" in global warming of the atmosphere since 1998 is explained; the world is still warming (as the next three record-breaking years would confirm).
(https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm)
Volgens mij een wat gekleurde tijdlijn?

Scientists claim DEFINITIVE PROOF that global warming is man-made and getting WORSE
GLOBAL warming is caused by humans who are increasing the rate at which hot temperature records are being broken around the world, a team of scientists have concluded.
By JON ROGERS
PUBLISHED: 15:51, Tue, Nov 14, 2017
A new study for the journal of the American Geophysical Union, Earth’s Future, looked at global annual temperature records from 1861 to 2005 which indicated there were 17 record hot years over that period.
Then experts examined whether or not those temperature records were being broken more frequently and if so, whether humans were to blame for that rise.
The findings show human influence has greatly increased the likelihood of record-breaking hot years occurring on a global scale.
Without human-caused climate change, there should only have been an average of seven record hot years from 1861 to 2005, not 17.
Further, human-caused climate change at least doubled the odds of having a record-breaking hot year from 1926 to 1945 and from 1967 onwards, according to the new study.
The scientists predict that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at high levels, the chance of experiencing new global temperature records will continue to increase.
Experts predict that by 2100, on average, every other year will break records.
Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia and lead author of the new study, said the new findings show how climate change is visibly influencing Earth’s temperature. (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/879523/global-warming-environment-climate-change-human-impact)

The 20th century warming trend is not a linear affair. The iconic climate curve, a combination of observed land and ocean temperatures, has quite a few ups and downs, most of which climate scientists can easily associate with natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions or El Nino events.
But one such peak has confused them a hell of a lot. The sharp drop in 1945 by around 0.3 °C – no less than 40% of the century-long upward trend in global mean temperature – seemed inexplicable There was no major eruption at the time, nor is anything known of a massive El Nino that could have caused the abrupt drop in sea surface temperatures. The nuclear explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have had little effect on global mean temperature. Besides, the drop is only apparent in ocean data, but not in land measurements.
Now scientists have found – not without relief – that they have been fooled by a mirage.
The mysterious post-war ocean cooling is a glitch, a US-British team reports in a paper in this week’s Nature. What most climate researchers were convinced was real is in fact “the result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record,” they write. Here is an editor’s summary.
How come? Almost all sea temperature measurements during the Second World War were from US ships. The US crews measured the temperature of the water before it was used to cool the ships engine. When the war was over, British ships resumed their own measurements, but unlike the Americans they measured the temperature of water collected with ordinary buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled on board slightly cooled the water samples. The 1945 temperature drop is nothing else than the result of the sudden but uncorrected change from warm US measurements to cooler UK measurements, the team found.
That’s a rather trivial explanation for a long-standing conundrum, so why has it taken so long to find out? Because identifying the glitch was less simple than it might appear, says David Thompson of the State University of Colorado in Boulder. The now digitized logbooks of neither US nor British ships contain any information on how the sea surface temperature measurements were taken, he says. Only when consulting maritime historians it occurred to him where to search for the source of the faintly suspected bias. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/05/postworld_war_ii_cooling_a_mir.html)

The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias, but in essence it means that the cooling after 1940 was more gradual and less pronounced than previously thought.
...
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/)

 If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40's through the 70's, why would there be cooling?
It's important to understand that the climate has warmed and cooled naturally without human influence in the past. Natural cycle, or natural variability need to be understood if you wish to understand what modern climate forcing means. In other words modern or current forcing is caused by human industrial output to the atmosphere. This human-induced forcing is both positive (greenhouse gases) and negative (sulfates and aerosols).
...
After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. Dr. James Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970.
The result was the ozone layer was being destroyed increasing the risk of skin cancer, acid rain, and smog so thick, you could not see from one side of a city to the other.
“That’s my suggestion, though it’s still not proven,” Hansen said. “There is a nice record of sulfates in Greenland ice cores that shows this type of particle was peaking in the atmosphere around 1970. And then the ice core record shows a rapid decline in sulfates, right about the time nations began regulating their emission.” (Sulfates cause acid rain and other health and environmental problems.) (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/40s-to-70s-cooling-co2-rising)

BOOKS, CULTURE, FEATUREJANUARY 18, 2017
Bjørn Lomborg’s Best-Selling Cool It Transformed Global Warming Debate
by Thomas M. Loarie
Cool It was written as a response to environmental activists who propagandize, exaggerate and use fear to create panic over climate risk. So groundbreaking, in fact, it was made into a major motion picture
Global warming has been a part of the global vernacular for more than 30 years, but in more recent decades, it has become a controversy of global proportions. Proponents on both sides have gone to great lengths to prove their side of the argument. Author Bjørn Lomborg wrote Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2010) as a response to environmental activists who propagandize, exaggerate and use fear to create panic over climate risk. The book was so groundbreaking that it transformed the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Sundance Award-winning director Ondi Timoner filmed a documentary with the same name based on the book and following Lomborg for almost a year. (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School as well as President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen who became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001). He was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy in 2011 and 2013 and as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine in 2004.
In his book Cool It, Lomborg exposes the fear-mongering for what it is and suggests a middle ground for dialogue (between extremism on both sides of the issue). He shows how many of the approaches being touted today will make future generations worse off and outlines the “coolest options” which will do the most good throughout the century. We need to move from “the feel good to the do good” solutions. (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Cool It is a groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.
...
The article entitled “Promises to Keep Crafting Better Development Goals”, highlights the work of the Post-2015 Consensus project and the valuable knowledge the project is injecting into the post-2015 debate.
...
Paris commitments will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100. A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. (https://www.lomborg.com/)

Lomborg vind ik geweldig, anderen hebben een ander standpunt:

Beautiful demonstration why economists should NEVER be allowed into any decision-making process ever. Their assumptions are dangerously based on short-term thinking, with important variable completely disregarded, and most egregiously with important science left unconsidered. Speakers like this make me deeply question the entire TED Talk venue. Oh yeah, the builders and the owners of the Titanic had a great boat. (https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/discussion?utm_campaign=eNewsletter&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8d_BgTbv0Wu5Jw-nfH5-AAGrMLvRBetYSYKO3IRf1AhJur-PhiBT4PYxe8DwkwbfxylvUU)

Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune
With his new book, Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg has become an unlikely advocate for huge investment in fighting global warming. But his answers are unlikely to satisfy all climate change campaigners
Few statisticians can have inspired more passion than Bjørn Lomborg, the Danish academic who became famous as the author of the controversial (some would say contrarian) Skeptical Environmentalist, which set him up as perhaps the world's best-known critic of the dominant scientific view of global warming and the ensuing climate change.
Lomborg's prolific output has been almost matched by books rubbishing his work: critics have described him as selective, unprofessional and confused. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's climate change panel, has compared him to Adolf Hitler – for the statistical crime of treating human beings too much like numbers.
Meanwhile, Time Magazine declared Lomborg one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2004. The respected Cambridge University Press (CUP) has published many of his books in the UK and the US, and the award-winning documentary maker Ondi Timoner and X-Men films producer, Ralph Winter, are about to release a film of his 2007 book Cool It (which carries the subtitle: the first optimistic film about global warming).
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty once declared Lomborg guilty of exactly that, but a government review later cleared him. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

But Lomborg's record on climate change is more nuanced than the stereotype suggests. From the beginning, he has said global warming is happening and is largely caused by humans. However, he has been consistently critical of what he sees as exaggeration of how much this matters, and of policies to tackle the problem. These would achieve too little and cost too much, he argues, meaning the money would be better spent on, say, reducing malaria and HIV/Aids, or extending clean water and sanitation.
In an example of the approach that enraged Pachauri, Lomborg argues in Cool It that predicted temperature rises could save more than 1.3 million lives a year. This, he says, is because many more people would be spared early cold-related deaths than would be at risk from heat-related respiratory fatalities. (Other academics reject his figures.) Lomborg concludes that because of imbalances in where deaths occur, the proposed extension of the Kyoto protocol to cut carbon emissions would "save 4,000 people annually in the developing world [but] end up sacrificing more than a trillion dollars and 80,000 people annually." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

Given this background, the title of Lomborg's new book immediately indicates a change of emphasis. It is called Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits. This impression is reinforced by comments in the introduction that climate change is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world" and "a challenge that humanity must confront".
Later in the book, reflecting on analysis by five economists of eight types of solution, he estimates that spending $100bn (£65bn) a year "could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century".
He finishes: "If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

In the space of four pages of Cool It, he writes that "climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls", that "the general and long-term impact will be predominantly negative", and that it is "obvious that there are many other and more pressing issues".
"The point I've always been making," he explains now, "is, it's not the end of the world. That is why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."
This detailed analysis by economists of how best to spend money to help the world's people was first reported in his book Global Crises, Global Solutions in 2004. It has now been institutionalised in the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, of which Lomborg is the director, and is the model for the latest book on climate "solutions". (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

Lomborg argues that we need to regain our perspective. There are many other issues which are much more important than global warming – hunger, poverty and disease. He asks, “Isn’t it our ultimate goal to improve quality of life in the environment with solutions that can help more people, at a lower cost, and with a much higher chance of success?” (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Media attacks on Lomborg have been vicious, and he is often misrepresented as a climate change denier and ally of the powers of darkness and corporate hegemony. Tom Burke had published in the Guardian back in October 2004 a critique of Lomborg that was mostly character assassination, and in May of this year Johann Hari did the same thing in the Independent. From the other side of a fence seemingly impervious to rational discourse, the level of abuse may be less, but Lomborg's supporters are known also to engage in ad-hominem attacks on their opponents, and such behaviour is self-defeating for all concerned. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/24/argumentandconsensusonthe)

Lubach promoot kernenergie en van Lomborg kan ik er geen kritiek op vinden...