ot greta thunberg

[rolymiller]

'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,' climate activist Greta Thunberg has told world leaders at the 2019 UN climate action summit in New York. In an emotionally charged speech, she accused them of ignoring the science behind the climate crisis, saying: 'We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth - how dare you!'

Spot on Miss Thunberg. Her generation will probably end up having to try to sort this mess out aided by a few others who do actually care about the outcome. I hope its not too late for them. I am intrigued how this is gonna pan out and realise I probably will never find out yet wish at least i could see the beginnings of a happy ending. With what I know about how the world operates I have no confidence that it will.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,' climate activist Greta Thunberg has told world leaders at the 2019 UN climate action summit in New York. In an emotionally charged speech, she accused them of ignoring the science behind the climate crisis, saying: 'We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth - how dare you!'

Spot on Miss Thunberg. Her generation will probably end up having to try to sort this mess out aided by a few others who do actually care about the outcome. I hope its not too late for them. I am intrigued how this is gonna pan out and realise I probably will never find out yet wish at least i could see the beginnings of a happy ending. With what I know about how the world operates I have no confidence that it will.

Well it’s clear that something needs to be done and quickly. Not sure though that the antics of a sulky schoolgirl is helping much.

[Muchthemillersson]

'You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words,' climate activist Greta Thunberg has told world leaders at the 2019 UN climate action summit in New York. In an emotionally charged speech, she accused them of ignoring the science behind the climate crisis, saying: 'We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth - how dare you!'

Spot on Miss Thunberg. Her generation will probably end up having to try to sort this mess out aided by a few others who do actually care about the outcome. I hope its not too late for them. I am intrigued how this is gonna pan out and realise I probably will never find out yet wish at least i could see the beginnings of a happy ending. With what I know about how the world operates I have no confidence that it will.

The science says that the carbon dioxide particles in the air reflect radiated heat from Earth's surface back into the Earth's atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). This simple theory ignores the fact that each molecule of carbon dioxide reflects back into space an equal and opposite amount of radiated heat from the sun - the real source of global warming.

The number of carbon dioxide particles in the air is miniscule compared to the number of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and molecules of water vapour which make up the vast majority of the content of the atmosphere.

The real 'greenhouse gas' component in the air is water vapour. I remember our geography teacher Fred Kemp describing it as like a blanket when you are in bed. He was talking about water vapour in its natural form of clouds.

Of course, that is how it works at night, but in daytime the clouds reflect back into the atmosphere far more heat from the sun than they reflect back to the Earth's surface. But think about how much water vapour is in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide.

Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Cutting back the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce crop yields at a time when we need to increase yields to feed the growing human population every one of whom exhales a considerable amount of carbon dioxide every year. I can see the answer formulating in some people's minds!

[rolymiller]

The science says that the carbon dioxide particles in the air reflect radiated heat from Earth's surface back into the Earth's atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). This simple theory ignores the fact that each molecule of carbon dioxide reflects back into space an equal and opposite amount of radiated heat from the sun - the real source of global warming.

The number of carbon dioxide particles in the air is miniscule compared to the number of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and molecules of water vapour which make up the vast majority of the content of the atmosphere.

The real 'greenhouse gas' component in the air is water vapour. I remember our geography teacher Fred Kemp describing it as like a blanket when you are in bed. He was talking about water vapour in its natural form of clouds.

Of course, that is how it works at night, but in daytime the clouds reflect back into the atmosphere far more heat from the sun than they reflect back to the Earth's surface. But think about how much water vapour is in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide.

Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Cutting back the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce crop yields at a time when we need to increase yields to feed the growing human population every one of whom exhales a considerable amount of carbon dioxide every year. I can see the answer formulating in some people's minds!

I'm no scientist Much but isn't methane a large contributor to global warming and while accepting your arguments about growing more plants don't rotting plants give off more methane emissions?

Whilst not always seeing eye to eye with Mr Kerr, i think he has a valid point about meat production and particularly cattle which contribute a lot to the amount of greenhouse gas we have.

With regard to fossil fuel i believe we need to help developing countries with cleaner technology to help combat emissions.

[Muchthemillersson]

I don't know how much methane contributes to global warming, I suspect it is not a great deal. Those who argue that we should cull our herds and flocks forget that is their excrement that is used to fertilise the crops we are expected to eat instead. It is one of those cases where you can't have one without the other

[rolymiller]

I don't know how much methane contributes to global warming, I suspect it is not a great deal. Those who argue that we should cull our herds and flocks forget that is their excrement that is used to fertilise the crops we are expected to eat instead. It is one of those cases where you can't have one without the other

Fair point. Have to use human shyte instead there is plenty of that.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I'm no scientist Much but isn't methane a large contributor to global warming and while accepting your arguments about growing more plants don't rotting plants give off more methane emissions?

Whilst not always seeing eye to eye with Mr Kerr, i think he has a valid point about meat production and particularly cattle which contribute a lot to the amount of greenhouse gas we have.

With regard to fossil fuel i believe we need to help developing countries with cleaner technology to help combat emissions.

Yes methane does have a serious global warming potential, but so does butane and propane, but it doesn't stop us squirting millions of litres into the atmosphere every year via propellants in body sprays, hairsprays, spray paints, and other similar aerosol containers.

[Exiletyke]

I'm no scientist Much but isn't methane a large contributor to global warming and while accepting your arguments about growing more plants don't rotting plants give off more methane emissions?

Whilst not always seeing eye to eye with Mr Kerr, i think he has a valid point about meat production and particularly cattle which contribute a lot to the amount of greenhouse gas we have.

With regard to fossil fuel i believe we need to help developing countries with cleaner technology to help combat emissions.

Don't be taken in so easily roly
Kerrs lectures on meat eating are made not so sincerely bearing in mind his frequent skiing trips & his latest jaunt to somewhere tropical

[KerrAvon]

The science says that the carbon dioxide particles in the air reflect radiated heat from Earth's surface back into the Earth's atmosphere (the greenhouse effect). This simple theory ignores the fact that each molecule of carbon dioxide reflects back into space an equal and opposite amount of radiated heat from the sun - the real source of global warming.

The number of carbon dioxide particles in the air is miniscule compared to the number of atoms of oxygen and nitrogen and molecules of water vapour which make up the vast majority of the content of the atmosphere.

The real 'greenhouse gas' component in the air is water vapour. I remember our geography teacher Fred Kemp describing it as like a blanket when you are in bed. He was talking about water vapour in its natural form of clouds.

Of course, that is how it works at night, but in daytime the clouds reflect back into the atmosphere far more heat from the sun than they reflect back to the Earth's surface. But think about how much water vapour is in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide.

Plants need carbon dioxide to grow. Cutting back the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will reduce crop yields at a time when we need to increase yields to feed the growing human population every one of whom exhales a considerable amount of carbon dioxide every year. I can see the answer formulating in some people's minds!

No. Carbon Dioxide molecules do not reflect heat - they absorb it the re-emit it

The sun pumps out visible light, which passes fairly easily through the atmosphere. That light warms the surface of the earth causing it to emit longer wavelength infra-red radiation. Greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide are good at absorbing infra-red energy and re-emitting it allowing it to further heat the surface of the earth.

Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes more infra-red to be captured and more heating.

Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can increase plant growth - many commercial glasshouse farmers raise the level of it artificially. That isn't an argument for not acting on climate change, however. The effect is likely to be massively outweighed by the destruction of crops that will follow from droughts, flooding and other extreme weather conditions induced by having a more energetic atmosphere.

[Scum-Triumphant]

It was quite cringeworthy watching her read the speech and miss the cues for the upset reactions.