Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Jimbo11, Feb 3, 2020.
Great to have young people like her fighting, I am all hers,
Everybody wants to rule the world; nobody wants to live free—on their own, by their own effort, and in their own name. Tragic.
Not any more.
the nobel prise has been cheapened to the point that it is meaningless, same for the cover of time mag... worthless garbage
She's a political pawn of individuals who desire to profit from corporatist arrangements with government revolving around the "environment".
I'm afraid you're right.
I pity her, she's not a bad individual and I'm sure she is sincere. If anything bad happen to her, I hope that people who used her would pay for that. I'm afraid however, she has a very superficial vision of the problem.
Greta is a warlady.
She started a war against polluters.
spoken like a true blue american patriot......
Enjoy your day, cheers
It's all about emotions and knee jerking.
I notified the Nobel Committee
Then she deserves a Nobel War Prize.
Hell, I could win a Nobel Prize if I shouted loud enough about the evils of capitalism, polar bears dying, and the despicable Orangeman.
The formula to win a Nobel Prize is well known.
Isn't it a joke?
And way more qualified than Yasir Arafat.
You are wondering how trace molecules can have a large effect on a system? Next time you are pulled over for drunk driving, tell the cop that you only have 0.08 percent alcohol in your blood and there is no way you could be drunk on that trace amount and see what happens. It turns out that percentage only gives you a number relative to everything else in the atmosphere and that these numbers can vary the higher up you go where molecules thin out relative to each other. Percentage does not give changes in the absolute, which is about an increase of 35 to 36 gigatonnes per year, but only a relation. Now consider that changes in CO2 concentration are taking place against a vast backdrop of inert N2 gas so that a huge change in CO2 looks minuscule in relation to Nitrogen but is still a vast change in atmospheric chemical concentration when taken unto itself.
For starters here is a vid of Iain Stewart demontrating how CO2 absorbs infrared radiation:
Now lets consider where the Earths heat exchange really takes place - high up in the atmosphere where the air is far less dense than on the surface. It is up here where other gases thin out as well that the majority of heat is being trapped like under a huge blanket:
Earth receives solar energy from the sun (yellow), and returns energy back to space by reflecting some incoming light and radiating heat (red). Greenhouse gases trap some of that heat and return it to the planet’s surface. Credit: NASA
Here is a graph of changes in CO2 concentration since 1960. You can see the variation in seasonal warming from year to year but the trend is clear:
Here is a graph of CO2 concentration and change in climate according to ice core data:
Sorry this is better:
Here are a couple of sources for your perusal:
Here is the research paper you requested:
"The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4–1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6–1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding ≈1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer."
So we know that CO2 concentration is increasing by gigatonnes every year and we know temperature is increasing because we can measure it. The causal effect between CO2 and temp. has been known for years since the time of Keeling and Tyndall.
There is just no getting around this if you understand the science. Trace amounts of a chemical can cause vast effects in a system especially when measured against a vast background of inert gas.
How much ppm of cyanide do you think it takes to kill someone?
I don't need Greta to be my prop. I have taken university level physics and math courses and have studied orbital mechanics in the form of Milankovich cycles. I understand how solar cycles work.
Climate is a complex system and I don't pretend to be a climate scientist but I have heard most of the arguments you and others are making before and understand where they come from.
Greta doesn't influence me one way or another. I just think it is sad the abuse a child is taking for being concerned about the future of the planet.
Exxon-Mobile scientists knew that CO2 was going to cause huge damage to the environment decades ago you know. People like Tillerson and his ilk covered it up and funded attacks on anyone who tried to bring the facts to light.
You are still operating under the fog of denial and illusion that the fossil fuel industry perpetrated ages ago. Yet you still think AGW is a scam even when the people who funded the machine are admitting how, using the same tactics the tobacco industry used, the purposely misled the public.
I need some time to examine the information you've presented, and I thank you in advance for taking the time and making the effort to do so. I don't want to be someone who just burps back an unthinking response, because you've shared a LOT of information here. See you later then....
Good for you. She's still a prop
The award has become politicized nonsense so yeah I bet she gets it.
Not too much of an honor for her, considering the White Helmets were also nominated - that is until the video surfaced with them decapitating a sick 12 year old Palestinian boy.
The Nobel Peace Prize is but a tool for the new world order, dominated by self designated 'elites' for the control and enslavement of mankind. USSR anyone?
She has like a couple of years of consciousness to understand the world and reality? And Nobel disregards the fact and nominates her? A demagogue with that temper for the peace prize? Did she really had power and used it for peace?
And her target audience is people like me or you who have a high standard of environmental care for generations and are adults, that we must act up, clean up the env, and give our money away in taxes.
I might consider growing citruses instead of apples, they have been saying this for decades now but my harvest are constant to this date.
you need to stretch the co2/temp graph down to 100 year intervals, then you'll see that rise in co2 always follows rise in temp (by about 800 years)...
as for co2 absorbing solar radiation, water vapor does the same and is far more prevalent because of the rise in temps which begats rise in co2 because the water vapor is blocking their escape...
don't fret, the next cooling cycle is on it's way and all that nasty co2 will drop like an avalanche
I know that there are more earthquakes today and that they are more severe than in the past decades. There are also more volcano eruptions and that what we see on the surface is miniscule to what is going on our oceans. So do you think the climate has more to do with the surface of the earth, than what is going on inside he earth? I don't!
I think it's the other way around, and that it's the inside of the earth that is affecting our climate. I'll give you an example. I used to watch Dutchsence, a highly gifted person who should be the one getting the Noble Peace Prize for noticing that magma flows in certain directions. He has predicted earthquakes with an almost 98% accuracy and explains why in a way that is accurate and self explanatory, but also very defensive, repetitive and boring - but that's because he has to fight the establishment and they're driving him crazy.
More recently he noticed that certain areas on the west coast were lighting up red on the images of the new satellites before a fire would break out. Like the fire that destroyed Paradise, they were always around volcanic fields. Oddly enough, there were reddish glows even on the ocean - which meant that heat was emanating from below the sea.
Anyway climate change has gone on throughout history and sometimes the change was good, as the one that benefitted Britain in the 17th century, so that they were able to move out of their mud huts, or bad as the eruption of 536AD that darkened the sky for decades and threw Europe into the dark ages.
What we should do is adjust to the change, and start paying more attention to the plastic that's destroying our oceans.
CO2 does not ALWAYS follow temperature. There is some truth to the fact that in the past other forcings such as changes in the earths orbital mechanics which increased surface area facing the sun or event the Earths distance to the sun or extreme volcanic activity have been the trigger for releasing CO2 from oceans and that the level of CO2 was first preceeded by warming from other events but this is hardly a constant throughout the Earth's history. Our present era is a perfect example.
As for water vapor, yes it is a potent greenhouse gas and on a warming planet caused by increasing human caused CO2 you would expect more of it to move from the oceans to the atmosphere. The thing is that cloud cover is not uniform the way a blanket of CO2 is and so you have always havewindows where heat can escape - think desserts where it is usually sunny or simply the patchiness of cloud cover even in overcast regions. So, nice try but you cannot separate water vapor and rising CO2 from each other nor dismiss rising CO2 on these types of arguments which are actually quite well worn on sites like WUWT.
Actually, Milankovitch cycling which includes the Earth's obliquity to the sun, the eccentricity of it's orbit at a particular time and the precession of the equinoxes are all heading for a long term cooling trend which is what is so scary about the present warming - we are actually overriding natural orbital cycles and climate with human activity.
Unfortunately, you are going to have to wait about 40,000 years before Milankovitch really kicks in and starts cooling the planet. So that is not going to save us from human hubris and our own greed and stupidity.
No worries. Actually I forgot to link to the study I posted so you only got the abstract and now I can't find it again. Links to actual scientific research are weirdly much harder to access for some reason since the time a few years ago I was really arguing these points on other sites. Strange.
I found this one that should give you a good overview though - CO2 as the primary control knob for the Earths climate:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis et al., 2010, Science.pdf
Funny, as I was googling around trying to find background I actually came across a peer-reviewed article (or so they said) that showed the rise of the Appalachian mountains as a cause of past cooling climate change. I really don't know enough to comment other than the Earth's climate is a very complex system and we need to study more.
Well, much of the planet's volcanic activity happens beneath the oceans which is how Island chains like Hawaii come about. Interestingly, I did a paper when I was in college on the greatest mass extinction in the planet's history which occurred about 250 million years ago and was caused by catastrophic acidity and warming from massive volcanic explosions in a place called the Siberian Traps that spewed massive amounts of CO2, methane, hydrogen sulfide and other poisonous gases into the atmosphere.
Even so, that extinction event occurred over tens of thousands of years so the one we are seeing today is happening way faster.
I agree completely with both you and Polly though that we should be very concerned about not only the garbage we are allowing to destroy the oceans but loss of habitat all around the world.
We are a very good species at solving problems when we put our minds to it. We need to start to innovate and find ways to clean up our mess and clean up this planet while it can still support complex life.
I know we can do it we just need to acknowledge we have a big problem on our hands.
Separate names with a comma.