Historian Slams Greta. I Don't See Her in Beijing or Delhi.

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

In Canada there is a $0.10 deposit on every can, $0.25 on things over a litre. Damn straight those things get recycled.  Even if you toss them in the garbage some homeless person will fish them out of the trash.

When I was in Arizona I asked the hotel staff where the recycling was and they looked at me like my head was on backwards.

I was shocked at Xmas this year while visiting family in Houston and the garbage was full of food, plastic containers with lids that could be washed and used for storage cans and bottles all in the same trash, crazy.

Perhaps I have been living in a third world country for too long?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/24/2020 at 3:26 PM, ronwagn said:

https://summit.news/2020/01/22/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing-or-delhi/

 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Historian Slams Greta Thunberg: “I Don’t See Her in Beijing or Delhi”

Why are the biggest polluters being ignored?

My point exactly. I am a "hard-core" greenie, but I am also a scientist, economist, and geo-political expert. We cannot tackle climate change without leadership from China.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/24/2020 at 10:10 PM, frankfurter said:

I understand GT is handicapped mentally and emotionally, and a teenager with limited education. To be pushed into the limelight, she must have handlers behind her. Overall, I understand her message, but I find the actions of her handlers exploitative and reprehensible. GT is a victim. Worse, is western society. To recognise her message is one thing, but any society that chooses a mentally handicapped teenager as their leader is sick and doomed. 

You are the one who is sick and doomed Mr Frankfurt. GT is a young lady who is mature well beyond her years and will make a big difference where idiots (armchair communists) like you have failed. You called me a hater but I think you are a hypocrite given your anti-Semitic and anti-American views on the world? Are you a Russian agent trying to depose Trump because you fear him?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 1/24/2020 at 10:10 PM, frankfurter said:

I understand GT is handicapped mentally and emotionally, and a teenager with limited education. To be pushed into the limelight, she must have handlers behind her. Overall, I understand her message, but I find the actions of her handlers exploitative and reprehensible. GT is a victim. Worse, is western society. To recognise her message is one thing, but any society that chooses a mentally handicapped teenager as their leader is sick and doomed. 

Who are your handlers? How many roubles per month do they pay you?

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 1/24/2020 at 9:29 PM, Ward Smith said:

1) Which map of Africa? The one showing particulate matter? Or the one showing other countries scrunched into the continent? 

2) What does "sth" mean? I'm still not emotional, but suspect you are. 

2) What does "sth" mean? I'm still not emotional, but suspect you are. What does sth mean, IHNFC

I don't get most of them either and its obviously a language used by people who are constantly on their phones or addicted to forums etc, I understand FFS etc but beyond that the symbols before a word etc mean JS to to me. 

So hopefully this may assist us old gits to get with the millennial program and start communicating correctly.

[Marcin2 + 726]

This list is awesome

Edited May 15, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 726]

Please forward link to the site with this abbreaviations.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Marcin2 said:

1) The one with countries scrunched into the continent (it was so Monty Python). The other about PM2.5 and PM10 particles was just mostly irrelevent to this discussions as PM2.5 and PM10 particles results mostly are.

I believe sb (standard abbreviation for somebody, look up in your dictionary) already mentioned that sub 100nm particles are the ones that are really killing us. Most of stations measuring PM2.5 and PM10 particles measure them by mass. So 1 particle about 2.5 micrometers in size gives printout 1 on the device. Exposition to a lot of such big particles over long time can cause some respiratory problems, but in overall not a big deal. But 30,000 particles 20 nm - 100 nm in size will also show as 1 on this device as having in total the same mass. But 30,000 ofthem, they go inside blood vessels, to the brain, they go everywhere into you r body and really kill you over time. It is difficult to measure how efficiently they kill, there are still studies on the topic, probably mostly by various types of cancer as most of them are muthagenic and cancerogenic (spare my spelling).

The largest source of these sub 100 nm microscopic killers, in  modern urban conditions are diesel engines.

2) standard abbreviation for something.

I've never once heard of your "standard". I'm curious if anyone else has. 

"Most of stations" do not measure by mass. They use something like This, which "sb" here already mentioned. 

[EvFoley 0]

On 1/24/2020 at 11:33 PM, Rob Plant said:

Just because a magazine sticks her on their front cover for a month doesn't mean the Western world has chosen her.

She has been exploited by the very people who should be protecting her which is abhorrent IMO.

The 2 things are very different.

Climate activists see a young girl who isn't scared to voice her opinions on a subject she is misinformed on as their poster girl. That's exploitative and just plain wrong. The Western world, from what I have seen, rightly thinks she is the victim of this whole thing and genuinely feels sorry for her. The people behind this are to blame, not Western society

Sorry it's not clear, but what is she misinformed on exactly? Is she really saying anything new anyway? Isn't she just repeating a message governments and the oil and natural gas industries have acknowledged as fact for decades?

They largely are meant to be acting on the Paris Agreement (unless you're from Australia where #scottyfrommarketing lost that memo), plus they are highly motivated to act on findings of the October 2018 IPCC report, - hurried along by public pressure - and all the reports which have followed since, because those documents are extremely hard to ignore. They say- with credibility - we are cactus if change isn't immediate (but like, that's gonna happen, right, because how many people are bogged down in the fact Greta lives with Asperger's like millions of people do in the world, and somehow that's a global issue?).

Her Asperger's did not create Australia's bushfire season from helll, the drought which is beyond dire or the water crisis which has half the country on water restrictions and many towns  out of water for a year now.

It's true, the existence of the IPCC reports doesn't mean industry or governments aren't ignoring them. You can eat money after all  Fortunately, in the USA, the transition to renewables now means the renewables industry is the largest and fastest growing employment sector for the USA. So someone there is listening and acting.

When you live in a country as I do where you can recall in your first 20 years of life, 1 dust storm... The huge rolling wave kind.. 1 dust storm in 20 years... Then I reflect back on the past five months (Sept 2019-present) and can count 20+ massive dust storms PLUS for the first time ever more than 15 days of air quality 60 times higher than recommeded health levels from bushfire smoke produced 500 Kilometers away, well, I bet you could even live with Asperger's and still recognise the effects of climate change on local weather patterns as a problem worth solving. 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/25/2020 at 5:34 AM, ronwagn said:

Focusing criticism on advanced nations which have already made progress and are continuing to do so is not, by itself, a good plan for reducing worldwide pollution. It is just a scam to bleed them dry while they are asked to import more people from Third World Countries. Another goal is to demonize European culture and its accomplishments around the world.

The logical approach is to encourage ALL countries to do the best they can, and show them how to do it. Only when they are willing to abandon coal can they move to a combination of natural gas and renewables. Coal gasification, coal seam gas, and coal to oil are other possibilities that should be considered but managing the leavings remains a major pollution issue. 

Agreed. I would however point out the worst offenders are the Gulf states with loads of money and huge emissions. They have the most capability to reduce their emissions with investments in efficiency and renewables - in most cases solar. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I've never once heard of your "standard". I'm curious if anyone else has. 

"Most of stations" do not measure by mass. They use something like This, which "sb" here already mentioned. 

Err that is measuring in mass - it measures the mass of particulate in micrograms per cubic metre of air. 

The detection concentration range is 0 µg/m3 to 1,000 µg/m3.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I've never once heard of your "standard". I'm curious if anyone else has. 

"Most of stations" do not measure by mass. They use something like This, which "sb" here already mentioned. 

He is partly referring to particle count number which is also relevant in research measurement but not generally used as regulatory or guidance standard for ambient pollution or occupational safety standards - in virtually all causes mass per m3 is used. 

Some examples PCN meters 

https://www.tsi.com/products/cleanroom-particle-counters/

[NickW + 2,714]

On 1/25/2020 at 4:57 AM, ronwagn said:

Obviously that is not a worry in ambient air.

Maximum CO2 levels vary for time of exposure but are far beyond outdoor air levels. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html

Particulates are the main issue, especially toxic ones from coal such as sulfur which creates acid rain and water in lakes and the ocean. Coal also leaves mercury, and other pollutants. 

https://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/emissions-of-hazardous-air.pdf

Another strawman argument - I have never argued that 415ppm of CO2 in atmosphere creates any respiratory issues for people. 

Global warming and local pollution are separate issues. Addressing one issue does not prevent addressing the other. 

 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

54 minutes ago, NickW said:

He is partly referring to particle count number which is also relevant in research measurement but not generally used as regulatory or guidance standard for ambient pollution or occupational safety standards - in virtually all causes mass per m3 is used. 

Some examples PCN meters 

https://www.tsi.com/products/cleanroom-particle-counters/

If you reread what he wrote, he insinuated that the machine would be overwhelmed by the mass of the particles. How the machines work is totally different than how they are rated. 

Have you ever been to a Class 10 Cleanroom? The machines used for environmental reading are a totally different design then clean room equipment for semiconductor fabs. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

53 minutes ago, NickW said:

Another strawman argument - I have never argued that 415ppm of CO2 in atmosphere creates any respiratory issues for people. 

Global warming and local pollution are separate issues. Addressing one issue does not prevent addressing the other. 

It was your Strawman argument Mr 50% CO2 concentration. Furthermore it was also you who conflated pollution numbers as evinced by PM charts with CO2, another kind of Strawman and misdirection. Shall I quote it all again here, or leave you the chance to edit your posts and pretend you never said it? 

[John Foote + 1,135]

3 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

IHave you ever been to a Class 10 Cleanroom? The machines used for environmental reading are a totally different design then clean room equipment for semiconductor fabs. 

Funny thing about those semiconductor cleanrooms. How many of the overall manufacturing sites are, or should be, a Superfund site. Nasty shit going on inside process chambers. And the particle count inside a PVD chamber operating at 10x-9 torr is significantly better than in the space the Space Station operates in. Fascinating stuff.

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

It was your Strawman argument Mr 50% CO2 concentration. Furthermore it was also you who conflated pollution numbers as evinced by PM charts with CO2, another kind of Strawman and misdirection. Shall I quote it all again here, or leave you the chance to edit your posts and pretend you never said it? 

No I didn't. You been overdoing the Moonshine / Largactil  combo's tonight? 

The original argument was being made against GT whose campaign is about Global Warming

NF and PW make arguments that she should be focussing on the 'worst polluter's The heading goes - why are the worst polluters being ignored with a map below  of PM exposures across the globe showing a sea of red from NW Africa to East Asia

I made the point that:

A: her campaign is primarily about GW gases not local pollution issues

B: That PM chart is misleading because in many parts of the world PM exposure is primarily due to natural sources (ie North Africa). 

C. As her campaign is about A then its appropriate to focus on the most intense / biggest emitters which would be as per the list I previously produced. 

[NickW + 2,714]

21 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

If you reread what he wrote, he insinuated that the machine would be overwhelmed by the mass of the particles. How the machines work is totally different than how they are rated. 

Have you ever been to a Class 10 Cleanroom? The machines used for environmental reading are a totally different design then clean room equipment for semiconductor fabs. 

There is a long paragraph about health risks of Nano particles* but applying Occams Razor you said 

"Most of stations" do not measure by mass** They use something like This, which "sb" here already mentioned. 

And then post a link to a Meter that measures by Mass

* anything below about 300nm will pass through standard laser scattering particulate meters as if they were invisible so they won't register at all. 

** assuming here you mean air quality stations to measure particulate pollutants - they virtually all measure in mass to compare against the ubiquitous PM 2.5 / 10 regulations / standards / recommendations

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

46 minutes ago, NickW said:

And then post a link to a Meter that measures by Mass

I posted to a meter that's rated by mass. Or perhaps you could explain by Occam's razor how a laser beam measures mass?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Another strawman argument - I have never argued that 415ppm of CO2 in atmosphere creates any respiratory issues for people. 

Global warming and local pollution are separate issues. Addressing one issue does not prevent addressing the other. 

 

 

Saying that CO2 is a pollutant is a strawman IMHO. Yet you have more agreeing with you than I do. I do not believe it is important in the global  warming issue but lots do. Soi, I support natural gas to eliminate coal, that is what America does and it has made us the winner (amongst large nations) at reducing air pollution levels. Europe chose to not produce their own natural gas and are paying twice as much for energy as we are. Our regressives would like to eliminate fracking and force feed us pure wind and solar. 

[Marcin2 + 726]

This discussion alone is a proof that Greta deserved Time Magazine Person of the Year designation.

She somehow influenced seasoned oil and gas professionals at oilprice forum to discuss how we can make our planet a better, cleaner place. Down to details how particle measuring instruments work.

People discuss what she is preaching for hours even that they claim that she is damn wrong and puppet.

Bravo Greta, you are the most accomplished young person with Asperger Syndrome.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

I posted to a meter that's rated by mass. Or perhaps you could explain by Occam's razor how a laser beam measures mass?

Generally Mie and Rayleigh scattering techniques can be used for particle size distribution.  That combined with knowledge of the average particle density and the total obscuration (or absorbance) can get you very close to mass measurements.

Alternatively, for large objects, you can use a laser of known power (force) and then measure the acceleration of the object (m=F/a).

For a supermassive object you could use the laser to measure curvature of space by seeing how much it is deflected (gravitational lensing).

Photoelectric effect, and measuring the energy of the displaced electron can also be used for some atomic scale measurements.

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

23 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Generally Mie and Rayleigh scattering techniques can be used for particle size distribution.  That combined with knowledge of the average particle density and the total obscuration (or absorbance) can get you very close to mass measurements.

Alternatively, for large objects, you can use a laser of known power (force) and then measure the acceleration of the object (m=F/a).

For a supermassive object you could use the laser to measure curvature of space by seeing how much it is deflected (gravitational lensing).

Photoelectric effect, and measuring the energy of the displaced electron can also be used for some atomic scale measurements.

 

Lol

Always fun to see you play at science. 

Here's the definition of density: Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume. ... The average density of an object equals its total mass divided by its total volume. 

So, to be clear, your "invention" measures the mass of a particle by knowing the mass of the particle? Better patent that quick before someone here steals it! Rotflmao  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

50 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Lol

Always fun to see you play at science. 

Here's the definition of density: Density is a measure of mass per unit of volume. ... The average density of an object equals its total mass divided by its total volume. 

So, to be clear, your "invention" measures the mass of a particle by knowing the mass of the particle? Better patent that quick before someone here steals it! Rotflmao  

Obviously you combine techniques.  Optical data for most measurements combined with some other physical tests (filtration and weighing, settlement rate in a fluid (stokes), etc.).

My lab had one of these: https://www.horiba.com/scientific/products/particle-characterization/particle-size-analysis/details/la-960-laser-particle-size-analyzer-20235/

And one of these

https://www.malvernpanalytical.com/en/products/product-range/mastersizer-range/mastersizer-3000?creative=311633610439&keyword=malvern mastersizer&matchtype=p&network=g&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxfWmnZGj5wIVYh6tBh13WA9EEAAYASABEgJXC_D_BwE

And had some of this NIST standard:

https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/view_detail.cfm?srm=2783

I was highly involved in a study where we where measured Arsenic and Lead concentrations in near pristine air (far north) by filtration and ICP-MS.

You love to insult me, but it doesn't phase me; it just makes you appear juvenile, carry on...

I don't "play" science.  I've told you before I just have a B.Sc in Chemistry and did mostly analytical chem for a living.

 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

56 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

So, to be clear, your "invention" measures the mass of a particle by knowing the mass of the particle? Better patent that quick before someone here steals it! Rotflmao  

Knowing the size of the particle, and a good estimate of it's density, gives you mass.  All measurements have uncertainty.

Edited January 27, 2020 by Enthalpic