Greta Thunberg

She's not on her own. She's only one messenger.

 

If we revert to subsistence living , how will humanity do the very essential work of
protecting the earth from killer asteroids . Once we have that system developed ,
sure , we can totally kick back and relax .

 

Let's get real, folks.

From the scientist's mouth:

 

Climate Central is a leading authority on climate science. Our science team cuts through the hype with clear-eyed analysis of climate change, delivering just the facts and findings. We dig deep into the the data to produce reports on climate trends and impacts, from state level temperature trends, to wildfires, heat waves, drought, precipitation and more. Our reports make climate change interesting and meaningful to people where they live, and provide policy-makers with objective, relevant facts on the issue.


Climate Science

 

According to NOAA, January 2020 was the hottest January on record globally. This record is one data point in a global trend of warming—one that is directly related to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Stabilizing our climate will require substantially reducing our emissions - and understanding where they’re coming from is a key part of the process. This week we discuss the emissions sources in the United States.

As defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. greenhouse gas emissions sources can be broken down into five sectors: transportation (29%), electricity (28%), industry (22%), commercial and residential (12%), and agriculture (9%).




Transportation is currently the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., having surpassed electricity generation in 2016. Emissions are produced through the burning of petroleum in the internal combustion engines of everything from cars and trucks to trains, planes and ships. Passenger cars and light-duty trucks account for more than half of the emissions from this sector.

 

Happy to see it!

 

**METHODOLOGY: Calculations of average annual global temperature are performed independently at NASA and NOAA. Small differences in their calculations arise as NASA’s calculations are extrapolated to account for polar locations with poor station coverage, while NOAA relies more heavily on the polar station data. Climate Central compares temperatures to an earlier 1880-1910 baseline to assess warming during the industrial era.

 

NOAA? Pfft. Protecting their budget, dude.

Hear what the scientist says.

 

About NOAA Climate.gov //
NOAA Climate.gov provides timely and authoritative information about climate. We promote public understanding of climate science and climate-related events through videos, stories, images, and data visualizations; we make common data products and services easy to access and use; and we provide tools and resources that help people make informed decisions about climate risks, vulnerability, and resilience.

 

It looks like the have an entire fleet at their disposal. Are they experiencing budget problems?

 

You deserve a standing ovation for these posts, soul. Good effort

Edit haha I wrote that earlier when you posted a bunch of links @soulcompromise. I got distracted and didnt post it and it saved it...but it still stands

Patrick Moore has worked as a lobbyist and/or consultant for the logging, mining, and nuclear energy industries

 

Greta: can we please do something about climate change?

Media: how about a TV series!

 

I admire Greta....she has the courage to stand up to BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon, and Peabody Coal. She will have to live with the consequences of decisions my generation is making every day. I understand her impatience with the pace of change in addressing the climate crisis, and suspect the cheap shots from her detractors (including some in this forum) will serve to strengthen her resolve.

 

Love reading and listening to Greta speak. She's well known and popular and very knowledgable about climate change and global warming.

However what i don't like is what the protestors all do. That is make a big mess after they have gone to every rally.

 

Pull your head in.

 

Don't you mean: pull your deuce in!

 

By the way, while humans can produce methane, it's not as cost efficient as mining for it. Most of the methane we get is had by poking a deep hole in the earth with a pipe and a valve following. Then we send an explosive down, a couple of miles, and explode it. This fractures the surrounding rock to release the methane-rich "natural gas" (something we call it to feel better about the fact it's just another hydrocarbon fossil fuel).

They find methane-rich strata by looking for diatoms in core samples. These are the calcified remains of microscopic critters from one of the earth's mass extinction events (when everything becomes septic, toxic and barely more than bacteria survive) , probably the Permian. But they are more dominant in the Triassic after substantial evolutionary advances, and yet maintaining their unicellular structure.

So these microscopic bits of algae, encased in calcium, die, then sink to the bottom of lakes and oceans. The amazon basin gets most of it's calcium from dry lake beds in Africa. The bulk of them die upon each other and eventually end up as sedimentary rock miles deep. Sent there by changing planetary topography.

While natural gas is touted for being "clean", the only aspect of that is that it's cleaner than anything else you can burn short of pure hydrogen. However, the only way to burn hydrogen cleanly is with pure oxygen, not air. Air contains nitrogen which is broken down into an array of poisons at different temperatures. But oxygen is no saint in this process either. It combines with carbon at lower firing temperatures and forms carbon monoxide, which is deadly. You get rid of it by raising the combustion temperature. BUT, you can only go so high before you start the nitrogen reactions. It's a precarious balance and has been losing on both ends for decades.

But technology stepped in with the advent of catalytic reactions. An automotive catalytic converter is designed to operate at around 700F and uses a platinum bead system to convert nitrogen oxides into water and CO2. Mostly water actually. And the CO produced is barely enough to kill you quickly in the garage. If cars were run on methane, they would be much cleaner because the technology for methane emissions has made substantially more progress than is even possible with a chemically-complicated product like gasoline/Benzene.

But there's a trade-off as well. To sequester the CO2 makes the vehicle larger (or devoid of luggage space). There's also a need for a highly pressurized fuel tank, adding more weight (so it won't breach in a car accident). Turbine power plants have been switching over from coal/bunker oil to methane for decades in the US. And the air quality shows in places where the older power plants used to darken the sky (they build new plants on tops of old ones because they have already been permitted and already have grid connections). By the way, if you live near (within a few miles) of a retired coal-fired power plant, there's probably mercury in your water table. Building a new plant on top of the old coal field, is another way of hiding that sort of thing in plain sight.

My overall point is that people who concentrate on pollution are making far more progress than people who are pushing theoretical ideas as political weaponry. I don't care how many "scientists" (an way overused term these days) agree on any one thing, if they can't accept a counter position and seek to destroy it as opposed to proving it wrong, something is amiss. Shouting someone down is not the same as refuting their claim. Of course I'm not talking about debating a flat earth or reanimating dead voters. Chemistry and physics are considerably more grounded and that's where all of this will eventually be decided.

In the mean time, don't waste fuel, power or sex!

 

Greta's World

This is a feature in Rolling Stone. It's an interview, and it's really pretty candid; if you can be candid and have editing as well. And it feels good to hear from her on the level of Rolling Stone.

 

while i may not agree with some of her thinking I have way more respect for her than most people as she is at least willing to stand for what she belives in which is more than can be said for most sheaple