Post Reply
Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:40 p


Heat versus Temperature

We have all noticed that when you heat something up, its temperature rises.

Often we think that heat and temperature are the same thing.

However, this is not the case.

Heat and temperature are related to each other, but are different concepts.

Heat is the total energy of molecular motion in a substance while temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a substance.

Heat energy depends on the speed of the particles, the number of particles (the size or mass), and the type of particles in an object.

Temperature does not depend on the size or type of object.

For example, the temperature of a small cup of water might be the same as the temperature of a large tub of water, but the tub of water has more heat because it has more water and thus more total thermal energy.

It is heat that will increase or decrease the temperature.

If we add heat, the temperature will become higher.

If we remove heat the temperature will become lower.

Higher temperatures mean that the molecules are moving, vibrating and rotating with more energy.

If we take two objects which have the same temperature and bring them into contact, there will be no overall transfer of energy between them because the average energies of the particles in each object are the same.

But if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.

Temperature is not energy, but a measure of it.

Heat is energy.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosm ... iffer.html

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:40 p


Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change


Still from animation showing global distribution of atmospheric water vapor

The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe.

During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated.

Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically.

The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere.

That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases.

The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said.

“So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.

Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air.

Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature.

That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere.

Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008.

By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said.

“Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid."

"And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said.

"We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

"Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... rming.html

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:40 p


Air Definition in Science

by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

Updated June 25, 2019

Modern Air Definition

Air is the general name for the mixture of gases that makes up the Earth's atmosphere.

On the Earth, this gas is primarily nitrogen (78 percent), with oxygen (21 percent), water vapor (variable), argon (0.9 percent), carbon dioxide (0.04 percent), and many trace gases.

Pure air has no discernible scent and no color.

Air typically contains dust, pollen, and spores.

Other contaminants are referred to as air pollution.

On another planet (e.g., Mars), the "air" would have a different composition.

There is no air in space.

Older Air Definition

Air is also an early chemical term for a type of gas.

Many individual "airs" made up the air we breathe.

Vital air was later determined to be oxygen, phlogisticated air became nitrogen.

An alchemist might refer to any gas released by a chemical reaction as its "air."

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of ... nce-604751

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:40 p


Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms.

It is often referred to by its formula CO2.

It is present in the Earth's atmosphere at a low concentration and acts as a greenhouse gas.

In its solid state, it is called dry ice.

It is a major component of the carbon cycle.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide derives from multiple natural sources including volcanic outgassing, the combustion of organic matter, and the respiration processes of living aerobic organisms; man-made sources of carbon dioxide come mainly from the burning of various fossil fuels for power generation and transport use.

It is also produced by various microorganisms from fermentation and cellular respiration.

Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen during a process called photosynthesis, using both the carbon and the oxygen to construct carbohydrates.

In addition, plants also release oxygen to the atmosphere, which is subsequently used for respiration by heterotrophic organisms, forming a cycle.


The above text is excerpted from the Wikipedia article "Carbon dioxide", which has been released under the GNU Free Documentation License.


Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Thu Sep 12, 2019 1:40 p

"Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming"

By: John O’Sullivan

One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.”

A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises.

Acceptance of the “well-mixed gas” concept is a key requirement for those who choose to believe in the so-called greenhouse gas effect.

A rising group of skeptic scientists have put the “well-mixed gas” hypothesis under the microscope and shown it contradicts not only satellite data by also measurements obtained in standard laboratory experiments.

Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.

Ball is prominent among the “Slayers” group of skeptics and has been forthright in denouncing the IPCC claims; “I think a major false assumption is that CO2 is evenly distributed regardless of its function.“

School Children Prove Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air

Dr. Ball and his colleagues appear to be winning converts with their hard-nosed re-examination of the standard myths of climate science and this latest issue is probably one of the easiest for non-scientists to comprehend.

Indeed, even high school children are taught the basic fact that gravity causes objects heavier than air to fall to the ground.

And that is precisely what CO2 is – this miniscule trace gas (just a very tiny 0.04% of atmosphere) is heavy and is soon down and out as shown by a simple school lab experiment.

Or, we can look at it another way to make these technical Physics relationships easy.

This is because scientists refer to ratios based on common standards.

Rather than refer to unit volumes and masses, scientists use the concept of Specific Gravity (SG).

Giving standard air a value of 1.0 then the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). [1.]

CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster).

Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing.

Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.

It then rapidly cools and falls.

This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth.

Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels.

Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration.

Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’

It is only if we buy into the IPCC’s “well mixed gas” fallacy that climate extremists can then proceed to dupe us further with their next claim; that this so-called “well mixed” CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun.

The cornerstone of the IPCC claims since 1988 is that “trapped” CO2 adds heat because it is a direct consequence of another dubious and unscientific mechanism they call “back radiation.”

In no law of science will you have read of the term “back radiation.”

It is a speculative and unphysical concept and is the biggest lie woven into the falsity of what is widely known as the greenhouse gas effect.

Professor Nasif Nahle, a recent addition to the Slayers team, has proven that application of standard gas equations reveal that, if it were real, any “trapping” effect of the IPCC’s “back radiation” could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists. [2.]

Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term.

Curry now admits:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies."

"Let's lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads.

Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.

Change in CO2 Temperature Is NOT Change in Atmospheric Temp

When applying the GHE formula devised by Arrhenius, IPCC scientists appear to have forgotten that we must consider the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the proportion of the whole mixture of gases.

Even if Arrhenius was right about the GHE any change of temperature obtained from his formula is exclusively a change of temperature of the mass of carbon dioxide, not of the atmosphere.

The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud.

Nahle poses this question for GHE believers:

“Is the atmosphere composed only of carbon dioxide?"

"Why calculate the change of temperature of a mass of carbon dioxide and then after say it is the change of temperature of this trace gas that now becomes the temperature of the whole Earth?”

Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma similarly comments:

“No one seems to have realized that any purported increase in temperature of CO2 due to CO2 absorption is APPLIED TO CO2, not the whole danged atmosphere!"

"Again, just a slight tweak in comprehending the reality makes a whole paradigm of difference.”

NASA Data Confirms CO2 Not a Well Mixed Gas

Professor Nahle and his colleagues insist that in addition to the above facts the proven varying density of atmospheric CO2 also needs to be taken into account to show how IPCC scientists are guilty of the greatest scientific swindle ever perpetrated.

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv.

So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

NASA’s diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn’t a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.

Groundbreaking Science Trumps IPCC Junk Claims

Both Postma and Nahle have recently published groundbreaking papers discrediting the GHE.

Professor Nahle analyzed the thermal properties of carbon dioxide, exclusively, and found that 0.3 °C would be the change of temperature of CO2, also exclusively, not of the whole atmosphere.

Nasif pointedly observes:

“Such change of temperature would not affect in absolute the whole mixture of gas because of the thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide.”

Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide.

To the more technically-minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.

Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures.

Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”


[1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.

[2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).

https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top- ... as-theory/

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:40 p


"Democrats invite teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg to testify before Congress"

by Josh Siegel

September 12, 2019 02:28 PM

Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, 16, is testifying before Congress next week at the invitation of House Democrats.

Thunberg will appear Sept. 18 before a joint hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

She is among a group of young climate activists Democrats invited to testify at the hearing, entitled "Voices Leading the Next Generation on the Global Climate Crisis."

Thunberg is best known for founding an international movement called Fridays for Future, in which students skip school on Fridays to participate in demonstrations demanding action to combat climate change.

Last month she traveled across the Atlantic Ocean in an emissions-free solar-powered boat, instead of flying, to New York City ahead of her speech on Sept. 23 at the United Nations Climate Action Summit.

“We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, chairwoman of the Select Climate Crisis Committee.

“They know the science, they know the stakes and they know how to rise to the challenge."

"We need to rise with them."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... e-congress

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:40 p


"'If you did your job, we'd be in school': Greta Thunberg joins White House climate protest"

Max Cohen, USA TODAY

Published 11:44 a.m. ET Sept. 13, 2019 | Updated 1:20 p.m. ET Sept. 13, 2019

After calling out politicians for climate inaction on "The Daily Show" this week, teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg is protesting Friday outside the White House to demand the U.S. government address the affects of climate change.

The 16-year-old Swede is joined by youth activists in the protest, which marks the start of Thunberg's six-day stay in Washington, D.C.

Along with dozens of other youth protesters, Thunberg chanted, "Hey hey, ho ho, climate change has got to go" as the activists marched outside the White House.

The students held a variety of homemade signs, including "Make Earth cool again," "Save the ice caps" and "If you did your job, we would be in school."

Just before 1 p.m., Thunberg briefly spoke to a crowd that had swelled to more than 100.

“I’m so incredibly grateful for every single one of you,” she said

“Never give up."

"We will continue,” she said amid loud cheers.

“See you next week on Sept. 20!”

Next Friday, Thunberg is organizing a worldwide climate strike that encourages students to step out of class to protest.

New York City Public Schools has said it will excuse absences for students joining the protest with parental consent.

In August, Thunberg captured global attention when she set off from Plymouth, United Kingdom, on a zero-emissions boat voyage across the Atlantic.

Thirteen days later on Aug. 24, she arrived in New York City and went on to hold a protest outside the United Nations headquarters.

Thunberg's celebrity status has grown in recent months.

On Wednesday, Thunberg joined Trevor Noah on his Comedy Central late-night show, where she said her decision to embark on a boat trip was motivated by the massive impact aviation has on carbon emissions that lead to climate change.

Citing that 200 species go extinct every day, Thunberg said the world is in the midst of a mass extinction and she reiterated that the impacts of climate change were being felt now.

Thunberg urged people to get informed on climate exchange and to push for a political movement to stop the world's destruction.

“What we should do as individuals is to use the power of democracy to make our voices heard and to make sure that the people in power actually cannot continue to ignore this," Thunberg told Noah.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 310243001/

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:40 p


"Greta Thunberg To U.S.: 'You Have A Moral Responsibility' On Climate Change"

Heard on All Things Considered

Bill Chappell, Ailsa Chang

September 13, 2019·3:23 PM ET

Greta Thunberg led a protest at the White House on Friday. But she wasn't looking to go inside — "I don't want to meet with people who don't accept the science," she says.

The young Swedish activist joined a large crowd of protesters who had gathered outside, calling for immediate action to help the environment and reverse an alarming warming trend in average global temperatures.

She says her message for President Trump is the same thing she tells other politicians: Listen to science, and take responsibility.

Thunberg, 16, arrived in the U.S. last week after sailing across the Atlantic to avoid the carbon emissions from jet travel.

She plans to spend nearly a week in Washington, D.C. — but she doesn't plan to meet with anyone from the Trump administration during that time.

"I haven't been invited to do that yet."

"And honestly I don't want to do that," Thunberg tells NPR's Ailsa Chang.

If people in the White House who reject climate change want to change their minds, she says, they should rely on scientists and professionals to do that.

But Thunberg also believes the U.S. has an "incredibly important" role to play in fighting climate change.

"You are such a big country," she says.

"In Sweden, when we demand politicians to do something, they say, 'It doesn't matter what we do — because just look at the U.S.'"

"I think you have an enormous responsibility" to lead climate efforts, she adds.

"You have a moral responsibility to do that."

Thunberg is known for promoting school strikes among students concerned by climate change.

On Aug. 20, 2018, she skipped school to protest by herself outside Sweden's parliament.

"I handed out fliers with a long list of facts about the climate crisis and explanations on why I was striking," she said in a Facebook post.

She's since inspired student protests in dozens of countries.

Her notoriety has grown steadily, thanks to the clear terms in which she speaks about why people — particularly young people — must pay attention to Earth's climate.

She gave a TED Talk about the issue last November; one month later, she made a powerful speech at a U.N. climate change conference in Poland.

"You are not mature enough to tell it like it is."

"Even that burden, you leave to us children," Thunberg, who was then 15, told the grownups at the conference, in a video that's been watched millions of times online.

Asked when she became so passionate about climate change, Thunberg says it started before she was 10 years old, during a school lesson that, as she recalls, made the entire class very sad.

"We saw these horrifying pictures of plastic in the oceans and floodings and so on, and everyone was very moved by that."

"But then it just seemed like everyone went back to normal," Thunberg says.

"And I couldn't go back to normal because those pictures were stuck in my head."

"And I couldn't just go on knowing that this was happening around the world."

She began researching the issue, reading about climate science and asking questions.

Her sense of activism grew gradually — and at a time when she says she was dealing with depression.

At the time, Thunberg was 11.

"How I got back from that depression was by telling myself I can do so much good with my life instead of just being depressed," she says.

She became an activist, attending marches and talking to people inside the environmental movement.

When the pace seemed too slow, she hit on the idea of a school strike, and a new movement was born.

But Thunberg is quick to note that much work remains to be done.

"Even though this movement has become huge and there have been millions of children and young people who have been school striking for the climate," Thunberg says, "the emission curve is still not reducing ... and of course that is all that matters."

In the past, Thunberg also has spoken about being diagnosed with Asperger syndrome — and how that has helped her.

"My diagnosis helps me helps me see things a bit more clearly sometimes," she says.

"When everyone else seems to just compromise and have this double moral that's, 'Yeah. That's very important, but also I can't do that right now and I'm too lazy and so on.'"

"But I can't really do that."

Thunberg continues, "I want to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach."

"So that is what I'm trying to do."

"Because if I am focused on something and if I know something and if I decide to do something, then I go all in."

"And it seems like others are not doing that right now."

"So yeah, it has definitely helped me."

Thunberg has now been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the U.S., she plans to lead protests ahead of next week's U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City.

Her arrival in Washington helped kick off that plan.

"Protect our future!" young demonstrators chanted as they marched across the grass north of the White House.

One girl held a sign reading, "Make Earth Cool Again."

The only things that seemed to slow Thunberg were the many admirers and journalists that thronged around her on the sidewalks around the White House.

The crowd was repeatedly asked to move back, and the diminutive Thunberg was able to inch along, pausing occasionally to acknowledge a question or comment from passers-by.

"Thank you, Greta!" several onlookers shouted.

Another yelled out, "We're all here for you — and the climate!"

After the protesters marched around the White House to the lower portion of the Ellipse, Thunberg delivered a short speech, speaking through a megaphone to tell the crowd she's grateful for their support and proud of them for coming to the march.

"This is very overwhelming," Thunberg said, noting the large turnout.

"Never give up," she told the protesters, adding, "See you next week, on Sept. 20."

The international protest that's planned for next Friday will likely be large.

New York City's public school system recently announced that it will excuse the absences of any students who participate in the climate strike.

"Students will need parental consent," the school system said, adding, "Younger students can only leave school with a parent."

And if students elsewhere need an excused-absence note, Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo has written a letter to more than 30,000 schools, urging them to allow their students to join the climate strikes.

Thunberg says that along with boosting people's awareness of the dangers of climate change, she wants them to use their voting power to elect leaders who will work to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.

When asked what her parents think of her activism and the demands on her time, Thunberg says, "Of course they are concerned that I am doing all this and and that I am not going to school."

The young activist adds, "I think they also see that I am happier now than I was before, because I'm doing something meaningful."

She's taking a gap year away from school to focus on her burgeoning youth movement.

Noting her parents' concerns about living a very public life and being out of school, Thunberg says, "I think they support me in at least some way."

"They know that what I am doing is morally right."

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13/76053825 ... ate-change

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:40 p

Greta & Svante Thunberg - Straight Talk


"Ocasio-Cortez welcomes arrival of teen climate activist Greta Thunberg"

By Rebecca Klar

08/28/19 09:07 PM EDT

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) welcomed the arrival of Greta Thunberg to the U.S. on Wednesday after the teen climate activist sailed to New York City across the Atlantic Ocean.

"Welcome, Greta!"

"We are so proud of you!" Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Thunberg traveled to New York from the United Kingdom on a boat powered by solar panels and underwater turbines that produce electricity.

She opted for the two-week journey by boat, instead of by air, to minimize her carbon footprint.

Thunberg is set to speak at next month's United Nations Climate Action Summit.

She had updated her Twitter followers throughout her two-week journey, and at 4 a.m. Wednesday said she could see the "lights of Long Island and New York city ahead."

Thunberg became a Nobel Peace Prize nominee after she began organizing a series of school strikes to call for action on climate change last year.

Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman representative from New York, has been outspoken on Capitol Hill in fighting for climate change legislation.

She's championed the Green New Deal, an aggressive policy proposal aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

The Hill has reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's office for comment on whether the congresswoman plans to meet with Thunberg.

The two spoke through a video conversation in June, when Ocasio-Cortez told Thunberg she'd give her a "Queens welcome."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4592 ... a-thunberg

Site Admin
Posts: 26661
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p


Post by thelivyjr » Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR September 10, 2019 at 10:19 pm

Paul Plante says :

Sorin, several things here.

First of all, life is not static and without waiting to be told what to do by Greta Thunberg and AOC, people are planting trees, and putting up solar panels, and reducing their carbon footprints all the time.

But I am most curious about your statement above where you say “The other would be do what the ‘other side’ is asking.”

Who exactly is “the other side?”

And why do you think there are only two sides here, presumably Wayne Creed’s side, which I am not in total agreement with, and AOC and Greta Thunberg’s side, which is based on hysteria, which I am not in agreement with, at all, which seems to make at least three sides in this debate, not just two?

And for the record, I drive a very basic Toyota 4-wheel drive truck with a 4-cylinder engine, and while I used to ride motorcycles, I didn’t ride a Harley, and all these years later, I can say that my manhood did not suffer as a result.

As to Greta Thunberg’s side, it was made clear on her Facebook page on 15 June 2019, as follows:

Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.

That is unless in that time, permanent and unprecedented changes in all aspects of industrialized society have taken place.

Including a reduction of our CO2 emissions by at least 50%.

And please note that these calculations are depending on inventions that have not yet been invented at scale.

Furthermore these scientific calculations do not include most unforeseen tipping points and feed back loops.

Nor do these calculations include already locked in warming hidden by toxic air pollution.

Nor the aspect of equity, which is absolutely necessary to make the Paris Agreement work on a global scale.

And these calculations are not opinions or wild guesses.

These projections are backed up by scientific facts, concluded by all nations through the IPCC.

So if we are to stay below the 1,5 degrees of warming limit, which is still possible within the laws of physics, we need to change almost everything.

We need to start living within the planetary boundaries.

This will be a drastic change for many, but not for most.

end quotes

In all seriousness, Sorin, can you make sense out of anything she is saying there?

Let’s start with this:

“Around the year 2030, we will be in a position where we probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it.”

As an adult, as a grandfather, and as a graduate level engineer, quite frankly, Sorin, I think that young woman is quite out of her mind.

Where is there any evidence to support a thesis that around the year 2030, we will probably set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilization as we know it?

What is the irreversible chain reaction that we are going to set off?

And as to the end of our civilization, exactly what is she talking about, given that in the 70+ years I have been on the globe, I have seen several “ends” to our previous “civilization,” all of which has been replaced by something new and different.

History itself is chock full of “civilizations” that have come to an end, many through environmental changes, only to be replaced by new civilizations.

So what do you think might be different this time around?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ent-176974

Post Reply