@iAyori No, but I usually make into a tomato marinara sauce base. Can be used for pasta and pizza, and any other recipe that uses tomato/tomato paste/etc.
@iAyori I'll have to remember the proportions...
spices: oregano, marjoram, italian parsley, thyme, 1 tiny bit of rosemary if fresh 1/4 onion, 3-5 cloves garlic, add spices, light sautée reduction in EVOO low then med heat,
(pinch of all the spices, adjust per dish) ...
@iAyori Cook till garlic is golden brown,
Pull the garlic pending on dish, (more garlic flavor, leave it in, otherwise its a chef's appetizer.)
Then add tomatoes, stir, and simmer.
If the dish doesn't need further cooking then med simmer till tomatoes & spices and oil are fully mixed.
2/ The details of the poll are fascinating! There's actually a majority to 60-70% majority for many pro-climate topics. Remember, this poll was taken as the smoke started to hit the entire West Coast. I'm not sure how many west coast ppl were participants.
3/ Question 11 is a beauty!
See page 45! Majority support to supermajority support for GND, decarbonizing the grid by 2035.
1/ I was tracing out how much carbon we should remove to get a nice climate by 2100, & found that we should realistically remove all we've emitted based cumulative emissions listed in the Global Carbon Project and wrote about it in my preprint paper: doi.org/10.1002/essoar…
2/ The paper says if we act fast enough (i.e. before setting off more tipping points), we just need to remove all the CO₂ we've emitted. I ended up seeing in the experiments, was we must also stop using fossil fuels, to get to about <0.1ºC by 2100. bit.ly/cdrmexprj
'Japanese workers simply waste a lot of time. Crushingly long hours in the office leave them too exhausted to be fully productive. Companies tend to value employees based on how much time they put in, not how much they actually get done.' @Noahpinion
A bit shocked to see the percentages below 30% for women in government. Hopefully, ppl will make headway towards equality.
So, yesterday I feel like I snuck out of the house... I went riding to Mt. Tam. I talked to no one. My only interaction was with the road, traffic, smokey air, touchless paying for gas w/ my phone as I had full protective gear. Felt like discovering a new country. ...
I would visit this area often as a child and teen, so to see the low visibility from ash and smoke, mixed with the marine layer was rather new. It didn't feel like those childhood memories, the majestic cannons that meet Muir Woods now obscured by smog. ...
It felt like we burned Endor. The acrid smokey air mixed with the lush backdrop of overgrown evergreen forests. COVID lockdowns, and rains have really made the entire area extra lush. Under the ashy-smokey air, you could feel the forests breathing.
Megafires and Climate Change thread
Active Pacific Tipping Points:
* Pacific West Forests destruction, from Washington State to Mexico, a larger forest area than just Boreal forests
* El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate.gov/enso doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1…
Climate change cause: red and brown bars, Fossil Fuel emissions since 1750, and land-use change since 1750. CO₂ Emissions get absorbed by either land in green, or oceans and air in blues. Oceans & air increase in CO₂ concentration cause warming and ocean acidification. 2/4
Some of the earlier pink bars are El Nino years.
These should not be seen as a safe target to return to.
By 2100 we should reach for the bars in darker blue not just salmon which is <1.5ºC. 3/4
Decarbonization explainer thread:
Here I'll explain decarbonization, net-zero, carbon-neutral, CDR, NETs, NBSs, or decarbonizing the electric grid and how those come together to help stop the climate crisis. Depending on how much we act, we might be able to reverse the crisis.
Decarbonization means stop using fossil fuels (FF) and it may mean to remove some or all of human-caused (anthropogenic) emissions. We use FFs in electricity, transportation, and heat for buildings & making building materials: metals & rock. Decarbonization would be to move ...
... most if not all of those on to renewable sources.
Net-zero aka carbon-neutral (for yearly emissions) means no new anthropogenic emissions for the year.
Negative Emissions Technologies - NETs
Carbon Dioxide Removal - CDR
Nature Base Solutions - NBSs
Are all major ...
And extra income can be an emergency stopgap to avert escalations that lead to abuse. It can allow extra padding to get out of an abusive relationship or circumstance. & allows one to not have to risk abusive ppl when trying risky or unknown endeavors like startups.
Many nonleft heavily oppose social svcs as they worry it doesn’t inspire people to continually better themselves. Yet @Noahpinion shows these fears are unfounded for universal Medicare bloomberg.com/opinion/articl… & baby bonds, as those would have a net improvement to the economy.
End to FF extraction in public lands
Rollback Trump environmental deregulation
Science-based agricultural conservation practices by 2040
Seek at least 75% of zero-waste
Mfg Jobs, and job (re)training
Reinvigorate national lab R&D & STEM jobs
$60 B to Black universities & colleges
"Leading the world in the technologies and innovations that will help us achieve a clean economy starts with fully funding our federal science and research agencies, national labs, and partnerships. ...
In, 'Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biodiversity' I found the first pic:
It looks like starting in 1850 you see a dramatic increase in extinctions over early & preindustrial times.
It's a zoom-in of the second picture from: grimstad.uia.no/puls/climatech….
It's pretty clear extinctions follow CO2 emissions. This makes me wonder, is only seeking just below 1.5ºC by 2100 good enough?
What about going lower? What about returning to the climate (minus the unseasonable cold) of the 1750-1820s?
I did this in MAGICC, and again in pymagicc. When I modeled it a few years ago, I modeled CDR assuming we'd have peak emissions in 2020 and go sharply negative. I was able to hit close to 0.1ºC. But there are problems with this experiment.
This thread outlines Trump & GOP campaigning corruption to tip the election. GOP has used highly targeted ads, memes, bots & trolls finding turnable voters. Expect psychological propaganda and disinformation crafted to block ppl from voting.
21%+72% = 93% of 362 polled
24%+67% = 91% of 430 polled
9% likely Biden didn't vote in poll to 6% likely Trump w/ margin of error at ±6%. More likely Biden voters might switch or not vote.
2016 swing state voter difference was 80K (or less). Dems at min need to sweep all swing states or reform electoral college. 9 said no to reform. Senate GOP said no to HR1.
In 2016: Washington Post 80K: washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/w…
NPR 50K were Sanders voters: npr.org/2017/08/24/545…
I figured out why when I extrapolated the Keeling curve (inc updated for corona lockdowns) I achieved a later year for 450 ppm and exceeding the IPCC carbon budget. The IPCC carbon budget is predicted to be exceeded in a minimum of 7.5 years, or earliest reach at about 2028.
When I extrapolated the Keeling curve to 450 ppm, I extrapolated carbon increases to atmospheric and ocean inventories from fossil fuel emissions increases. The IPCC carbon budget includes the land sink inventory. (Note, I included a declining 1%-.8% growth FF and COVID pause.)
My experimental model runs in MAGICC and pymagicc weren't affected as they are static and drop before exceeding the IPCC carbon budget (very hard, well worth it hypothetical model goal.) github.com/hsbay/cdrmex
Fossil fuel emissions since 1750, have spread between the air, oceans, and land. By the latest count per the globalcarbonproject.org, the distribution looks like the linked chart. Multiply by 3.664 to convert the amounts to gigatonnes carbon dioxide. (1.7 Tt CO₂ & 2.4 Tt CO₂)
How big is this amount? The brown+red bars equals about 656 Gt Carbon by weight which is about 2M Empire State buildings. This amount is roughly equal to all green and blue bars and should be removed to restore the planet. bluebulbprojects.com/measureofthing…
SR 1.5 recommended we stay below 1.5ºC by 2100, yet oddly allowed for overshoot pathways. An overshoot would cost us in biodiversity and global food security, as well as further weaken the climate by accelerating warming past more tipping elements.
To avoid hitting more tipping elements, we need to switch from fossil fuels to renewables asap, increase energy efficiency, & deploy more renewable power. All the while increase DAC R&D. Tons of room for innovation here! IEA is already planing iea.li/2VQB0Pn
Opt 1, leave it the way it is. Requires us to reach carbon neutral. The climate is prone to storms & more warming. It's activated the first set, some of the second set tipping elements, & Arctic Winter sea-ice and permafrost due to local warming. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1…
Option 2, requires us to reach carbon neutral (aka stop emitting ghgs) & remove some of the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere. Some climate models show this is roughly a target of holding below 1.5ºC.
No human deserves a death penalty and justice preempted because of their skin color. Why is this still happening in America in 2020? MLK had a dream, this nightmare is far from it.
#Iamnotok, until there is justice for Mr. George Floyd. US Democracy is NOT OK, until there is justice for Mr. George Floyd, Mr. Ahmaud Arbery, Ms. Brianna Taylor & others. Until due process & justice is restored, we are not a free nation. Tyranny to the few is tyranny for all.
Riots and violence just supports the alt right agenda to further divide the US. Pls be safe.
We need to go carbon neutral by:
Never; climate change is a hoax; love the Exxon & the carbon majors
By 2040; still exceeds 450ppm. Exceeds most tipping elements, accelerates warming
By 2030; doesn’t exceed 450ppm nor largest tipping elements
ASAP; stops exceeding tipping points.
2040, provides smaller carbon budget overshoot yet it still exceeds 450ppm. It also exceeds most tipping elements except largest tipping elements.
1/How much Carbon needs to get removed from the air (and oceans) reach pre-Anthropocene, CO₂ 281 ppm?
A)At 2018, latest emissions reported from Global Carbon Budget Project bit.ly/31gq2TV, we need to remove about 460 Gt Carbon or ≈1.6 Tt CO₂. bit.ly/2m7GNB3
2/And what’s the fastest rate could we pull this out of the atmosphere?
This question isn’t simple, as we don’t know what’s the optimal rate to pull Carbon out of the atmosphere.
2.1/Here are some hypotheticals. If were to remove all Carbon from human emissions, in the next twenty-five years, we’d need a fast rate of removal, say slightly over 18 gigatonnes of Carbon (or about 67 gigatonnes of CO₂) per year.