Topic: Your thoughts about Greta Thunberg - page 5. (Read 1553 times)

Well, just lets leave Venus aside, you don't get it on that.

Re water, and the water cycle, the hydrologic cycle.

The effect of Co2 diminishes exponentially as more is added, (with each doubling of Co2) so it ACTUALLY matters less and less.

The water cycle contains within itself not just water vapor, but all cloud phenomena, thus controls the portion of inbound sunlight which is reflected out to space. Hence as you suggest, it is all powerful.

I think this is a need vs deserve question. With the minimal air time important discussions receive on media, we need something pompous and ridiculous for people to get the message. A pre-teen girl getting all the air-time by tacking politicians and pulling noteworthy publicity stunts is a good way to trick the media. If she wholeheartedly believes in what she preaches, I'm all for it. But I'd be really sad if I learned that it wasn't an honest effort on her part and it was instead orchestrated by other people under the hood.

Othe than that, since I agree with the message, I think that the ends justify the means. Greta hasn't done anything harmful or unethical except maybe to be rude towards a few presidents here and there and pretend to be more emotional than she actually was for the camera. But if that's what's going to make people listen, I'm all for it. I'm thankful that I see her work allowing scientists to talk more publicly about climate change. So I also think that OP's concerns are covered. What else could such a young girl do? She tells us to listen to science, she isn't a post doc herself though (at least not yet).

I watch the full video and say just what I told before, we are taking the fuel from under the floor and sending it to the atmosphere. But the forget to talk about the NO(x) who are an important part of the global warming, isn't just CO2 the problem.

Is fun to see how people from green peace are saying how good is CO2, I don't believe them, this just couldn't be good:

 Lots of qualified people are boring as shit - as if there is a qualification for holding world leaders' feet to the fire. Maybe you haven't even heard what she's said.  None of it requires a qualification aside from being qualified to speak.  Anyway, if you understood why people were listening to her, you'd likely be one of them.  For some reason, she's popular and people want to follow her.  Seems like she's a born leader.  Not a bad accomplishment for a 16 yr old.

I like to listen to scientists, but I hate listening to teenagers who think they know everything.
I have yet to understand how so many people are listening to her.
I do believe that climate change is real, I've seen it, but there are plenty of more qualified speakers about the subject.

This is all wrong!  We're supposed to be discussing our thoughts on climate warrior Greta Thunberg; while she may be from Venus and you from Mars, that shouldn't act as a segue into this extraneous banter.
Speaking of extraneous.  Have you heard Greta's mother's voice?  Wow!

 https://youtu.be/xE9Pl3mqRbo?t=132

your over thinking it to try making it seem like carbon is the problem and water has no impact.. and hinting sulphur is a solution
missing the whole point entirely

again
if high carbon high sulphur emissions are the cause of a 2dgre increase... then venus with a high carbon high sulphur are not causing a 9500x impact like math suggest should be happening


the reason is that over 150 years when they done ice core and tree ring studies they were only looking at carbon. yep when the chemically analysed ice core they actually deducted h2o out of the equation like it had no impact

to dumb it down
its like saying that studying teeth health revealed stained teeth cause lung cancer because many smokers have stained teeth so so the correlation is visible and it must be the stained teeth thats the cause, because they excluded the smoking from the equation or simply didnt study it or include it in reports

other things is that most studies are actually based on ground level atmosphere from the last 150 years. because its carbon at ground level that gets frozen into ice an sucked into tree's meaning the studies are not really indicating the upper atmosphere numbers

upper atmosphere numbers only began becoming measured less than 50 years ago
so trying to say upper atmosphere must have ben 0.03% 150 years ago but now 0.04% is also a false number

because they had no number for upper atmosphere composition 150 years ago

No, Venus has a very deep atmosphere. On the surface, the pressure is almost to the point to liquify the carbon dioxide. The outer layers of sulfur dioxide act act to change visible light to IR, then that is trapped below. I'm just saying there are no valid comparisons, Venus to Earth.

even you are not mentioning carbon.. you are saying its about sulphur..
meaning even you agree carbon doesnt even come to the equation

and funny part. if your saying that venus is not 9500x hotter than earth due to high sulphur cooling the planet. is like saying we need to pollute the atmosphere with more sulphur

sorry but water is a bigger differentiator than carbon and sulphur. our planet has abundance of it but its in the wrong places. we need to science the crap out of how to rejuvenate the water cycle because just taking out carbon wont do much and would actually make plants not flourish. and adding sulphur will make the atmosphere more acidic which is more dangerous.

water is the safe medium which we can actually do something with

Venus is not comparable in any sense with the Earth. It has a layer of sulfur dioxide in it's atmosphere which reflects sunlight.

the extreme funny about carbon is this
0.01% change in 150 years has been said to have raised the temperature average by 2 degree

yet venus which is closer to the sun, meaning more heat radiation is 95% carbon. which mathimatically should mean 9500x hotter, right?

nope venus is just 600 degrees which is 40x .. yep 40x not 9500x

what people still not getting is that water vapour is the bigger differentiator of temperature
ic is water
rain is water
clouds ar water
larg aireas of trees are called rain forests and not carbon forests for a good reason

the image above of asia with SMOG is not carbon. but water vapour and other chemmical mix
its dirty mist/fog emphasis on fog=smog

the water cycle of the planet has been affected far more than the carbon cycl and its exactly this water cycle that is changing the temperatures

no one cries danger of raining oil(carbon) they cry danger of hail stones and snow(water ice)
no one cries danger of carbon droughts or carbon floods. its water droughts and floods

water is the real concern of climate change. not carbon

The Truth about CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

um, that's smog. Smog is not CO₂


CO₂ is a tiny, tiny molecule, it doesn't change visibility whether it's 0% of the atmosphere or 100% (it is currently 0.04%)

And because it's so small as a molecule, it behaves fluidly when emitted, so it diffuses rapidly into the air. So even if it was visible, it would disperse exceptionally quickly. In fact, think about so-called "dry-ice", which is that fake smoke technique that was used in 1980's movies and pop music videos; that effect is achieved by releasing CO₂ stored at high pressure and low temperature into the surrounding air, creating a smoke-like effect. And it quite obviously diffuses into the air and becomes invisible only centimeters away from the point where it is released, just put "dry-ice" into a youtube search to see this if you don't know what I mean (you need specific lighting to really make this work, a mostly dark studio set and then concentrated lighting from the sides to give the sublimating CO₂ a highlight, so it shows up well on-screen)

smog is what you can see in that photo, and it's made up of waste gases like sulphur dioxide and most importantly, heavy particulates from diesel exhausts and industrial furnaces. Smog just hangs in the air for hours and days, because it's mostly large molecules that are in effect solids. It doesn't behave like a gas, because it isn't a gas.

Smog is not a greenhouse gas, or a gas at all, and is not even a scientific term (because it's composed of many different solids and gases). "Smog" is just the term that city-dwellers came up with to describe the phenomenon, which was new in the 19th-20th century.

Makes sense. They don't want someone unpredictable and not a complete puppet like Trump to be elected ever again. After losing to Trump and all the other crap she pulled, Hillary is out of the picture. They are raising their own puppet president.

We can't completely deny that we are making this world bad day by day but I feel she is doing all this for fame nothing more.And all these involves politics who knows she is preparing for his president career.

carbon offset carbon neutral carbon blah blah blah has nothing to do with climate change
all the carbon mumbo jumbo is just about air quality to plant and humans. NOT the global temperature

just so you know. in the UK before considering car exhausts, cow farts, truck exhausts,, industrial and residential chimneys. .. instead just concentrating on the 'carbon offset' to offset only the domestic aeroplane flights in the UK .. the UK would need to plant more tree's and more forests than there is actual land. yep even if they demolish all cities and bring it back to grassland to then plant tree's on. there wont be enough tree's to carbon offset just the domestic flights in the UK

but guess what. the UK is not raining black tar. we are not living near tar rivers and tar pits...
so carbon is not the big enemy

however just concentrating on global warming.. WATER is what people should be concentrating on not carbon
however just concentrating on human/plant health.. WATER and carbon is what people should be concentrating on
however just concentrating on ground/soil health.. WATER and nutriants is what people should be concentrating on

whats the common thing people scream about in climate change
its never "ahh its raining tar"
its
"ahh its too hott we need it to rain"
"ahh theres so much rain we need it to stop"
water water water

water is the key to it all. not carbon

The equilibrium question is a good question. One thing we can see for sure is that attempted doing of anything by mankind won't result in natural equilibrium. Attempted fixing will be just as bad as attempted not-fixing. How do we know? The global warming people are almost entirely unwilling to realize that the lack of sunspots is bringing us into a cooling of the earth.

In other words, we are so warped that we can't see the good through the vale of our delusional desires.

Plants use CO2 for photosynthesis but at the same time they need light for that process... and with tons of CO2 in the air is hard for the sunlight to do his work:


The main problem with CO2 is the source. We are taking the oil from under the ground and we are burning it sending it to the air, so, where is the equilibrium in that equation? If we want an equilibrium between fuel, plants, and CO2, we should make biodiesel from the plants who already consume CO2 to grow up.

plants love carbon. they thrive at a 300-2000 parts per million atmosphere
we are at 400 parts per million
going back to 300 like stupid science wants actually harms plant growth.

what science is not telling people is that WATER has decreased in the atmosphere percentile by ALOT more than 100 parts which has been the real climate change cause.

less water and less carbon kills plants and creates wasteland, deserts
we should not be trying to remove carbon and letting land continue to dry out and have nothing to evaporate the heat away from the surface

we need to accept that water content of the atmosphere needs to increase and realise carbon is not about heat control, but lung and land health.

in short more plant growth solves the issues.