Our Daughter is Saving the Planet - will you join her??

[AussieBob]

Our daughter was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN. She started to become more and more angry with our generation 'who had been doing nothing for decades' and who are 'destroying the planet'.  She complained that the 'two generations' that came before her (us and our parents) are destroying the planet. She stated that it was not her great grandparents' fault but us and our parents, and that she feels ashamed of us.

So after several weeks of complaints and abuse, being good parents, we decided to help her prevent what the girl on TV announced as “a massive eradication of species and the total disappearance of entire ecosystems”.  We told our daughter that we are prepared to do our part to help her save the planet, if she is really committed to that.  She stated that she was totally committed to save the planet.  So we have committed to her that if she does all the things needed to stop the coming planet-wide catastrophe for 6 months, then we will also join with her and we will do all the same things too. 

Our daughter agrees with the girl on TV that the Carbon emissions and 'carbon footprints' of her parent's and grandparent's generation are to blame for ‘killing our planet’. So that means that she will live like her great-grandparents. Our daughter now goes to school on a bicycle, because driving her by car puts fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere.  It will be winter soon, and she asked us about an electric bicycle, but we have told her about the devastation caused to the planet as a result of mining for Lithium and other minerals used to make batteries for electric bicycles and cars. So she agreed that she will be pedaling or walking.  After all, her great grandparents used to cycle and walk to school when they were her age - even in winter.

Since the girl on TV demanded “we need to get rid of our dependency on fossil fuels” and our daughter agreed with her, we have disconnected the heater in her room. The temperature is now dropping, but we have promised to buy her an extra sweater, hat, tights, gloves and a blanket. After all, her great grandparents did not have heaters in their bedrooms. For the same reason, she can only take a cold shower, and although reluctant to accept that at first, our daughter is bravely sticking to her commitment.  After all, her great grandparents did not have hot showers.  She also washes all her clothes by hand, with a wooden washboard, because the washing machine is a big power consumer. And since the dryer uses even more power, she washes by hand and  hangs all her clothes on the clothes line to dry, just like her great grandparents used to do. 

Speaking of clothes, the ones that she had were all synthetic and made made from petroleum by-products. So we took all of her designer clothing to the secondhand shop, and we found an eco store where they sell clothes made from undyed and unbleached linen and cotton.  She was not happy about that at first, but she understood when we said it was to save the planet and her great grandparents did not have synthetic designer clothes.  After a few weeks, we saw on her Facebook that she was angry with us. This was not our intention, so we cancelled her mobile data and turned off WiFi - and now we only switch it on after dinner for two hours. We have also removed her music system and TV from her room, because they also use electricity. She now concentrates on her books and homework more, like her great grandparents did, and her grades have improved.

We told our daughter that the carbon from making modern food, and that a 'Zero Carbon Footprint' means no processed and store bought meat, fish or chicken. That also means no meat substitutes that are based on soy, because soy grows in farmers’ fields, that use machinery to harvest the beans, trucks to transport to the processing plants, where more energy is used, then trucked to the packaging plants, and trucked once again to the stores.  It also means no imported food, because that has a negative ecological effect. And obviously no chocolate, no coffee and no tea, because the ingredients are grown on farms, and they require fossil fuels for production, packaging and transport.  Our daughter now only eats vegetables and fruit that has been grown in the back yard, because they are organic and carbon free. We showed her how to grow her own food, and how to look after a few chickens for their eggs.  She now knows that bread is still possible in the future, if she can grow wheat in the backyard. But butter, milk, cheese and yogurt, cottage cheese and cream all come from cows on farms, and they emit excessive planet destroying gases.  It was hard at first, but our daughter has also accepted that she cannot have ice cream, soft drinks, and energy drinks.

We replaced her memory foam pillow top mattress, with a jute bag filled with straw, and her duck-down pillows with those made from horse hair.  That was not well received, and she was really upset when we also told her she can no longer use makeup, soap, shampoo, face cream, skin lotions, conditioner, and toothpaste - because they are all made from the by-products of fossil fuels - but she eventually accepted this to save the planet.

Our daughter has been living like her great grandparents did for almost 2 months now. She is living just like it was before our last two generations of 'climate changers' destroyed her future.  She is now doing her part to prevent mass extinction, water levels rising, and the disappearance of entire ecosystems. 

However, I must say that lately we both think that our daughter has begun to question if she truly believes that girl on TV anymore.  Call it a parent's intuition, but we feel she is becoming less and less committed to 'saving the planet'. Perhaps this is just a 'phase' she is going through, and she will re-embrace her new way of life and continue to 'save the planet'.  She only has just over 4 months to go, and then we will join her.  

I wonder what else we can do to help her save the planet in the meantime 
 

[Changnam43]

If she holds her breath for six months that would reduce CO2 emissions.

[AussieBob]

10 minutes ago, Changnam43 said:

If she holds her breath for six months that would reduce CO2 emissions.

True - but she wants everyone to do the same 

[kerryd]

Yawn.
I just did a lengthy post about how climate change actually happens, based on the work of actual scientists, not "angry 16 year olds".

And as I said there, there is NO way we (mankind) can control the climate until we figure out how to stabilize Earth's orbit around the Sun and stop the "axial tilt".

Because "climate change" is a natural process that has been going on ever since this planet was formed and will continue to happen in the future long after man has become extinct.

Man has an "effect" on the climate but we do not "control" it. 

By the way, do the research. When all the ice has melted in the oceans and the glaciers on Greenland are gone, we will be in what is called a "greenhouse earth" phase.

Which real scientists believe is the state the planet has been in for about 85% of it's existence.

And take a wild, wild guess at what happens when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere decline ?

The planet starts to cool down. If it cools enough, it goes into a "glaciation" phase where everything starts to freeze.
The oceans. The rivers, The lakes. And guess what all that ice is made of ? 
Fresh, drinkable water. Meaning far less of that will be available for us to drink.

If the glaciation phase lasts long enough, we could be in a full blown Ice Age, where everything freezes right down to the equator. 

And take another wild, wild guess at what happens if the Earth freezes over like that ? Like it's done at least 4 times in just the last 700 million years.

That's right, almost all life on the planet DIES !!

Let's do the math.
Warm planet= more water to drink, more land to live/farm on, life flourishes.
Frozen planet= less water, less land, life dies.

But don't worry. It's not like the Ice Ages last 10s of millions of years or anything. (Except that they often do. The Cryogenian Ice Age last 85 million years !)

The good news is, according to actual scientists, is that all the CO2 we've been pumping into the atmosphere may actually be delaying the onset of the next glaciation phase by anywhere from 500-1,500 years !

One (real) scientist actually calculated that if we burnt every scrap of carbon on the planet (oil, wood, gas, etc), it would delay the onset of the next freezing phase by maybe 5,000 years !!

Of course, if we work hard and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now, we can maybe bring on the next Ice Age in just a few generations !!

And because we have NO idea how to regulate the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we will probably screw it up and plunge the planet into an extinction event that will wipe out most life on the planet.

Won't Greta be happy then !! I wonder who she'll blame for "stealing her future" (because you can be sure she won't take any responsibility for it herself).

[Bluesofa]

18 minutes ago, kerryd said:

Yawn.
I just did a lengthy post about how climate change actually happens, based on the work of actual scientists, not "angry 16 year olds".

Do you have a link to this post (or is it all pasted as above)?

[thai3]

You need to tell her that Co2 is a mere 0.04 % of the atmosphere and of that 97% is natural leaving only 3% of that 0.04% as the human contribution. Also, that the climate has always been changing and that Greta is a silly, uniformed girl with several mental issues.

[Bluesofa]

3 minutes ago, thai3 said:

You need to tell her that Co2 is a mere 0.04 % of the atmosphere and of that 97% is natural leaving only 3% of that 0.04% as the human contribution. Also, that the climate has always been changing and that Greta is a silly, uniformed girl with several mental issues.

I hadn't realised she wore a uniform, I must have missed that.

[JamesE]

6 minutes ago, thai3 said:

You need to tell her that Co2 is a mere 0.04 % of the atmosphere and of that 97% is natural leaving only 3% of that 0.04% as the human contribution. Also, that the climate has always been changing and that Greta is a silly, uniformed girl with several mental issues.

This your car?

 

[Ubon2530]

56 minutes ago, JamesE said:

This your car?

No it's Jeremy Clarkson's...

[thai3]

1 hour ago, Bluesofa said:

I hadn't realised she wore a uniform, I must have missed that.

Drinking too early as usual!

[kerryd]

1 hour ago, Bluesofa said:

Do you have a link to this post (or is it all pasted as above)?

 

[HuaHinHappy]

Rather than ridicule the  "girl". I have respect for her. She is trying to be a good person. Certainly better than being a self centered slob.  The comments about the clothing, energy use, cold showers etc. are not fair, nor reasonable. There are ethical and sustainable production methods now. In her great grand parents day, they used coal or wood for heat, whale oil, paraffin or gas for lighting. Let her plug into some solar panels then. Even lithium can be mined ethically and with minimal environmental damage.  Yours is an all or nothing position, which is just as extreme as the position of the Extinction Now nutters. The reasonable approach for  this is moderation and responsible behavior. She should start with not purchasing anything sourced from China or Russia and then India. China not only  pushes out its toxic heavy pollution but it promotes the building of dirty coal fired energy plants around the world. Russia is notorious for its leaking oil pipelines which have devastated its northern regions and promote fossil fuel use. India is another heavy polluter. Let her boycott Indonesian and Thai products since they are two of the worlds worst offenders for intentional burning of  vegetation. And then there is Brazil which continues to destroy the Amazon.   If she starts there,it will more than offset the use of a warm shower heated by sustainable renewable energy or the wearing of a synthetic yarn coat.

 

[thai3]

He should not respect juvenile stupidity

[Bluesofa]

2 hours ago, kerryd said:

Thanks for that.
I saw the article about the paralympic athlete climbing on the plane. Your post was I think almost a day later and the last one (at the moment) on that thread.

An interesting and informative read. I'd never heard about Milutin Milanković or his work before.

[HolyCowCm]

We recycle everything and try to do our part the best we can. 

BTW. I didn't see rice in your post. Responsible for 1.5% of all green house gas. Also if not rain fed eats up a tremendous amount of water. I actually wrote a large program using SRI for soybean using the SRI program used for rice. Based on many meetings with some professors. It is nice she is concerned, but she needs to do it in moderation within reason.

Rice is the nutritious staple crop for more than half of the world's people, but growing rice produces methane, a greenhouse gas more than 30 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Methane from rice contributes around 1.5 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions, and could grow substantially.

 

[kerryd]

2 hours ago, Bluesofa said:

An interesting and informative read. I'd never heard about Milutin Milanković or his work before.

I'd never hear of him either until I read an article that discussed the "Milankovic" cycles and then had to read up on him and (some of) his work.

Then there was more reading on how scientists today are still trying to refine his theories to try and better define the "cycles", though that is probably near impossible.

I don't know that we have the technology today to accurately measure how much deviation there is in the Earth's orbits around the sun.
As we are still in a "warming period", are we drifting 10-20 kms closer to the sun every year or 100-200 ? Is that "drift" more (or less) depending on, for example, the location of Mercury and Venus (which, if they were between the Earth and the Sun, might slightly lessen the pull of the Sun and result in the Earth drifting a wee bit further away).
But if their orbits don't come between us and the Sun, do we drift a wee bit closer each orbit ?

Until such time as we "wobble" for some reason and drift away again (which would eventually lead to a cooling period).

I recall there was discussion about the Earth's "axial tilt" and it's "frequency" (not the "how often" kind of frequency but more of the "radio wave" kind of frequency).

For example, the sun doesn't really move from the Equator north to the Tropic of Cancer and then in June start moving south towards the Tropic of Capricorn.

The Earth's "tilt" makes it seem like though. It's the Earth "tilting" back and forth that makes it look like the sun is moving (and is the "reason for the seasons).
But when it tilts, things like the magnetic field fluctuate and the magnetic pole shifts.

It seems that "tilt" has a resonance that they are trying to measure (the "frequency") and determine what effect that has on climate change.

They know, for example, that the more ice in the oceans, glaciers in the mountain and snow on the ground, the more of the sun's rays that are reflected back into space, thus speeding the cooling process.

But when the ice melts, there's more ocean for creatures like phytoplankton to thrive and those little buggers account for 50-75% of Earth's oxygen. (Yeah, not the rainforests.)

More open ocean equals more phytoplankton equals more oxygen. And Oceans are also huge "thermal sinks" meaning they help retain heat and keep the planet warm.

Another interesting fact. Apparently an acre of grassland produces almost 5 times more oxygen than an acre of trees. (But trees are larger "carbon sinks" - until such time as they burn up and release it all back into the air of course.)

Other things factor in as well like volcanic and tectonic activity. Before Greta (and mankind in fact) the planet produced CO2 as the result of volcanoes erupting (or just venting gases) and from earthquakes, both on the surface and undersea quakes.

As I mentioned before, when enough accumulated, the planet warmed up and life sprouted up.

Way back when, the cycle would continue until the planet (and animal) life grew to such an extent that it was absorbing more CO2 than the planet was producing.
That would start another "cooling phase" which would continue until basically most life on the planet was dead.
Then there was nothing to absorb the CO2 and it would gradually accumulate in the atmosphere again and start warming the planet again.

Fossil evidence points toward plant life growing significantly larger during periods of high CO2 levels. They "evolved" to be able to capture more and more CO2.
And therefore produced more and more Oxygen as a biproduct, which is theorized as the reason why so many prehistoric creatures (like the dinosaurs) were so large. Lots and lots of oxygen to breath, lots of huge plants for the herbivores to eat, lots of large herbivores for the carnivores to feast upon.

Meanwhile, back at the fart factory. 

There is no doubt at all that climate change is a natural event and has been going on for billions of years (I love ancient history though I don't generally go that far back).

But people are generally so short-sighted when it comes to history that they can't grasp the concept of something taking thousands of years to develop (or hundreds of thousands).

Then they go into a panic because they suddenly realize that building massive cities at sea level was maybe not the smartest idea and instead of, oh I don't know, planning for what will likely happen in the future (rising water levels) they panic and try to change something they have absolutely no control over (the climate) and almost no concept of the possible consequences of their actions (early onset of the next Ice Age) because those consequences probably won't happen in their lifetimes so who cares !

(I really need to stop typing or I'll be here all night.)

In short. Greta is wrong. Plan for the future because we can't change the past. 

As we used to say in the Army - plan for the worst, hope for the best.
 

[Bluesofa]

28 minutes ago, kerryd said:

They know, for example, that the more ice in the oceans, glaciers in the mountain and snow on the ground, the more of the sun's rays that are reflected back into space, thus speeding the cooling process.

I'm sure I've missed the obvious here.
Why are the sun's rays being reflected back into space and not 'absorbed' by the oceans and snow to reduce the cooling process, I would think they should be absorbing the heat?

[AussieBob]

35 minutes ago, kerryd said:

I'd never hear of him either until I read an article that discussed the "Milankovic" cycles and then had to read up on him and (some of) his work.

Then there was more reading on how scientists today are still trying to refine his theories to try and better define the "cycles", though that is probably near impossible.

I don't know that we have the technology today to accurately measure how much deviation there is in the Earth's orbits around the sun.
As we are still in a "warming period", are we drifting 10-20 kms closer to the sun every year or 100-200 ? Is that "drift" more (or less) depending on, for example, the location of Mercury and Venus (which, if they were between the Earth and the Sun, might slightly lessen the pull of the Sun and result in the Earth drifting a wee bit further away).
But if their orbits don't come between us and the Sun, do we drift a wee bit closer each orbit ?

Until such time as we "wobble" for some reason and drift away again (which would eventually lead to a cooling period).

I recall there was discussion about the Earth's "axial tilt" and it's "frequency" (not the "how often" kind of frequency but more of the "radio wave" kind of frequency).

For example, the sun doesn't really move from the Equator north to the Tropic of Cancer and then in June start moving south towards the Tropic of Capricorn.

The Earth's "tilt" makes it seem like though. It's the Earth "tilting" back and forth that makes it look like the sun is moving (and is the "reason for the seasons).
But when it tilts, things like the magnetic field fluctuate and the magnetic pole shifts.

It seems that "tilt" has a resonance that they are trying to measure (the "frequency") and determine what effect that has on climate change.

They know, for example, that the more ice in the oceans, glaciers in the mountain and snow on the ground, the more of the sun's rays that are reflected back into space, thus speeding the cooling process.

But when the ice melts, there's more ocean for creatures like phytoplankton to thrive and those little buggers account for 50-75% of Earth's oxygen. (Yeah, not the rainforests.)

More open ocean equals more phytoplankton equals more oxygen. And Oceans are also huge "thermal sinks" meaning they help retain heat and keep the planet warm.

Another interesting fact. Apparently an acre of grassland produces almost 5 times more oxygen than an acre of trees. (But trees are larger "carbon sinks" - until such time as they burn up and release it all back into the air of course.)

Other things factor in as well like volcanic and tectonic activity. Before Greta (and mankind in fact) the planet produced CO2 as the result of volcanoes erupting (or just venting gases) and from earthquakes, both on the surface and undersea quakes.

As I mentioned before, when enough accumulated, the planet warmed up and life sprouted up.

Way back when, the cycle would continue until the planet (and animal) life grew to such an extent that it was absorbing more CO2 than the planet was producing.
That would start another "cooling phase" which would continue until basically most life on the planet was dead.
Then there was nothing to absorb the CO2 and it would gradually accumulate in the atmosphere again and start warming the planet again.

Fossil evidence points toward plant life growing significantly larger during periods of high CO2 levels. They "evolved" to be able to capture more and more CO2.
And therefore produced more and more Oxygen as a biproduct, which is theorized as the reason why so many prehistoric creatures (like the dinosaurs) were so large. Lots and lots of oxygen to breath, lots of huge plants for the herbivores to eat, lots of large herbivores for the carnivores to feast upon.

Meanwhile, back at the fart factory. 

There is no doubt at all that climate change is a natural event and has been going on for billions of years (I love ancient history though I don't generally go that far back).

But people are generally so short-sighted when it comes to history that they can't grasp the concept of something taking thousands of years to develop (or hundreds of thousands).

Then they go into a panic because they suddenly realize that building massive cities at sea level was maybe not the smartest idea and instead of, oh I don't know, planning for what will likely happen in the future (rising water levels) they panic and try to change something they have absolutely no control over (the climate) and almost no concept of the possible consequences of their actions (early onset of the next Ice Age) because those consequences probably won't happen in their lifetimes so who cares !

(I really need to stop typing or I'll be here all night.)

In short. Greta is wrong. Plan for the future because we can't change the past. 

As we used to say in the Army - plan for the worst, hope for the best.
 

I dont agree with all that, but I do agree with the sentiment. Whilst it is not a good idea to pump out so much ever increasing pollution from cars, planes, factories, coal generators etc. - the solution is not to tax the world into economic ruin - the solution is to give tax breaks and incentives to those who buy electric cars trucks etc.  I cannot see how taxing Australians for using carbon is going to make any difference when the country contributes less in one year than China does in a few days - nor will China see it as an 'example to the world' - they will not care a rat's rear end. 

[AussieBob]

7 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

I'm sure I've missed the obvious here.
Why are the sun's rays being reflected back into space and not 'absorbed' by the oceans and snow to reduce the cooling process, I would think they should be absorbing the heat?

When the earth is cooler and covered in a certain amount of snow and ice (they dont really know exact amount) what happens is that the UV rays are reflected more and not absorbed as much. That causes more ice and snow - and on it goes until there is a new ice age.  The geological data is irrefutable - the earth has been almost fully covered in ice and snow in the past and continually goes through cooling and warming periods. If there was zero carbon in the atmosphere, the earth's temperature would be -20 celcius.  Life needs carbon - it was after the last huge ice age that @kerrydhas mentioned previously that animal life emerged - carbon based animal life forms emerged and rapidly evolved - and somehow it also resulted in us evolving too. 

 

[Bluesofa]

2 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

When the earth is cooler and covered in a certain amount of snow and ice (they dont really know exact amount) what happens is that the UV rays are reflected more and not absorbed as much. That causes more ice and snow - and on it goes until there is a new ice age.  The geological data is irrefutable - the earth has been almost fully covered in ice and snow in the past and continually goes through cooling and warming periods. If there was zero carbon in the atmosphere, the earth's temperature would be -20 celcius.  Life needs carbon - it was after the last huge ice age that @kerrydhas mentioned previously that animal life emerged - carbon based animal life forms emerged and rapidly evolved - and somehow it also resulted in us evolving too. 

'When the earth is cooler and covered in a certain amount of snow and ice (they dont really know exact amount) what happens is that the UV rays are reflected more and not absorbed as much'

Am I missing something about basic physics? Why does the temperature of the earth alter how much of the sun is reflected?

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

10 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Our daughter was moved to tears by the speech of Greta Thunberg at the UN. She started to become more and more angry with our generation 'who had been doing nothing for decades' and who are 'destroying the planet'.  She complained that the 'two generations' that came before her (us and our parents) are destroying the planet. She stated that it was not her great grandparents' fault but us and our parents, and that she feels ashamed of us.

So now her generation will forfeit their electronic devices (so no mor Greta to watch, no Instagram, tic tok or Facebook), no mor cosy transportation (that includes push bikes) as there is NO green production and transportation to sales sites, no more food (other than what is grown and bartered without using transportation that has used fossil fuels to get it to you), and pity her teachers did not teach her about her great grandparents (maybe great great grandparents) as she would have liked living in the time of the industrial revolution). Please sir, can I have some more? 
 

Some people seem to believe the grass was always green in the past. Get her to shit in a bucket and then ditch it down the hole when full, as there is only so much that we can build and function with that is totally green. 
 

I think I will just wait for the Vogon construction fleet to arrive to build the interstellar galactic bypass. Until then I will stock up on my towel and crisps, and 6  bottles of Leo. 
 

So long and thanks for all the Fish.

[AussieBob]

20 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

'When the earth is cooler and covered in a certain amount of snow and ice (they dont really know exact amount) what happens is that the UV rays are reflected more and not absorbed as much'

Am I missing something about basic physics? Why does the temperature of the earth alter how much of the sun is reflected?

Reflecting sunlight to cool the planet will cause other global changes: Solar geoengineering proposals will weaken extratropical storm tracks in both hemispheres, scientists find -- ScienceDaily

What's the coldest Earth's ever been? | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

But then we all never listen ….. from 1969.

 

In the year 2525
If man is still alive
If woman can survive
They may find

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lies
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545
Ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555
Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
Your legs got nothing to do
Some machine is doing that for you

In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube, whoa

In the year 7510
If God's a-comin' he ought to make it by then
Maybe he'll look around himself and say
Guess it's time for the Judgement day

In the year 8510
God is gonna shake his mighty head then
He'll either say I'm pleased where man has been
Or tear it down and start again, woah woah

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wondering if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing, woah woah

Now it's been 10, 000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what he never knew
Now man's reign is through

 

[Bluesofa]

21 minutes ago, AussieBob said:

Reflecting sunlight to cool the planet will cause other global changes: Solar geoengineering proposals will weaken extratropical storm tracks in both hemispheres, scientists find -- ScienceDaily

What's the coldest Earth's ever been? | NOAA Climate.gov

Thanks. It all came back mentioning about light coloured objects reflecting the sun and dark coloured objects absorbing it.
Having said that, in countries with seasonal snow, it melts when the sun's out, hence the temperature becoming warmer. There again it's a lot smaller amount in these instances.

[BuffaloWhisperer]

I'm also tempted to join Greta's crusade, but does Mr. Soros pay equal wages? Although I consider myself still quite young, I'm not exactly a pig-tailed teenage girl.