It's the hope that kills you....
Alarming aspirations from latest climate report...
- Thread starter white_stuffed
- Start date
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
That's where it would be delicious to be on a live media panel interview when an anti ruminant campaigner quoted his figures to be able to casually say "oh, you mean those obselete figures that were calculated using the old science instead of the more accurate one"....
white_stuffed
Member
I like the 'Our world in data' visualisations but I do think the researchers have an agenda, have a look at this article.
www.wired.co.uk
Should we kill trillions of animals to save the planet?
While switching from beef to chicken can have big environmental benefits, it also means many more animals living terrible lives
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
They are still using JPs food emissions data....I like the 'Our world in data' visualisations but I do think the researchers have an agenda, have a look at this article.
Should we kill trillions of animals to save the planet?
While switching from beef to chicken can have big environmental benefits, it also means many more animals living terrible lives
white_stuffed
Member
I
I've emailed Dr Ritchie (with the same question I asked JP a couple of weeks ago) pointing out that the AR6 report (and the Levasseur report that it references) suggest careful choice of emission metric and careful communication of the resulting data.
I've asked for their perspective on re-running the P&N report with the GWP* metric, and "if not, why not."
Dr Hannh Ritchie is the lead researcher re food systems at our world in data and the author of that Wired article. She appears very frequently on radio 4 science programmes.
I've emailed Dr Ritchie (with the same question I asked JP a couple of weeks ago) pointing out that the AR6 report (and the Levasseur report that it references) suggest careful choice of emission metric and careful communication of the resulting data.
I've asked for their perspective on re-running the P&N report with the GWP* metric, and "if not, why not."
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I was thinking yesterday that I must challenge Hannah Ritchie on the Poore data still being used in our world in data for their for climate impact infographics.
It now counts as misinformation imho.
white_stuffed
Member
Frame & Macey: Two-basket approach no free ride for farmers - NZ Herald
Dave Frame and Adrian Macey write a two-basket approach to climate police makes sense.
www.nzherald.co.nz
This is a useful paragraph:
The basic points we made were featured in Chapter 1 of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on 1.5 Degrees, which said "When combined using GWP*, cumulative aggregate GHG emissions are closely proportional to total GHG-induced warming[...]. This is not the case when emissions are aggregated using GWP, with discrepancies particularly pronounced when SLCF [short-lived gases] emissions are falling." That's the IPCC's way of saying "if it's warming you care about, GWP* works, and GWP doesn't."
And the matching bit in this video, from Michelle Cain herself, is from 9.54 minutes to 12.14 minutes.
If anyone needs to point to why gwp100 is no longer relevant and why the dietary climate calculators need to be re-run, there it is, right there in the latest IPCC report.
I will share with NFU and AHDB.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
We need to be pushing this at every opportunity now.Frame & Macey: Two-basket approach no free ride for farmers - NZ Herald
Dave Frame and Adrian Macey write a two-basket approach to climate police makes sense.
This is a useful paragraph:
The basic points we made were featured in Chapter 1 of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on 1.5 Degrees, which said "When combined using GWP*, cumulative aggregate GHG emissions are closely proportional to total GHG-induced warming[...]. This is not the case when emissions are aggregated using GWP, with discrepancies particularly pronounced when SLCF [short-lived gases] emissions are falling." That's the IPCC's way of saying "if it's warming you care about, GWP* works, and GWP doesn't."
And the matching bit in this video, from Michelle Cain herself, is from 9.54 minutes to 12.14 minutes.
If anyone needs to point to why gwp100 is no longer relevant and why the dietary climate calculators need to be re-run, there it is, right there in the latest IPCC report.
I will share with NFU and AHDB.
The IPCC have been honest and open in the AR6 report by saying that methane wishing reductions should take place but that this will just buy time to cut fossil CO2 emissions "deeply and permanently". They also point out that fossil methane emissions can be cut relatively easily so should be a key focus. Interesting that the BBC posted yesterday that researchers have found a large mains gas methane leak near the COP26 site in Glasgow. They then quantified it as equivalent to the emissions of 500 cows
. It's NOT the same as it is fossil sourced methane.So much disinformation being produced....
white_stuffed
Member
Kicking the can on methane
There is a real risk that focusing on methane will mean we take our foot of the accelerator of CO2 reductions - where we've traditionally had a pretty poor record.
www.newsroom.co.nz
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
My only issue with that piece is q4 at the end. The UK Agriculture industry ceased causing methane related climate warming long ago when our ruminant numbers started falling.Kicking the can on methane
There is a real risk that focusing on methane will mean we take our foot of the accelerator of CO2 reductions - where we've traditionally had a pretty poor record.
Last edited:
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Spot on. Exactly correct. Even if numbers remained stable, it wouldn't increase atmospheric methane one bit because it degrades as quickly as it is produced. It is not cumulative.
Yup, everyone on this thread understands the actual facts completely, but there are a lot of farmers out there who have no idea and are desparing at why their industry is being castigated at every level. As you explained on another thread we need to keep explaining relatively simple maths far and wide. Few actual climate scientists seem to understand basic maths never mind politicians and the media.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I'd have more respect for the anti ruminant campaigners and lobbyists if they were honest and said "we know UK ruminants aren't causing warming but they offer us a short term relief while we campaign hard for a deep cut to fossil fuel use". I wouldn't like it but it would be scientifically accurate.
Instead they are effectively saying that we must cull animals because other countries are breeding too many..
white_stuffed
Member
Some good responses in the reply to this tweet.
- Location
- Carmarthenshire, West Wales
Climate change can be reversed through diet, if 80% of the world's population stopped eating, climate change would stop, but that would mean stopping eating both Meat and Vegan/vegetarian diets!
- Location
- North Wales
What the climate needs is a good old global pandemic. Preferably Russian as Chinese stuff can be a bit cheap and nasty and not up to the job.
Cowabunga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion,Wales
Oddly, climate change has never stopped for the last 4.2 billion years, so it is unlikely that even the extinction of the human race would stop it.
- Location
- Devon
80% eh? That's a new high in their history of made up statistics 
They just can’t help themselves. Ironically, when people see ever more ridiculous claims being made they start to wonder if they’re being told the truth.80% eh? That's a new high in their history of made up statistics