There'll be a massive difference between for example South American cereal fed beef and something off a british grass based system? Got to know what the numbers actually work back to.....
EDIT: as I posted others point out the same......
Alarming aspirations from latest climate report...
- Thread starter white_stuffed
- Start date
EDIT: as I posted others point out the same......
wanton dwarf
Member
Isn't it obvious what it would prove ?
You are talking here about the role of certain gases within the atmosphere and their effect on temperature.
Science is based on experimentation and the ability for other people to repeat the experiments and get the same results.
IF claims made for certain gases is true according to "Climate Change" then the gases involved should heat up faster than others exposed to the same level of radiation - so an increase of 100ppm of CO2 should see a definate rise in temperature of say 0.5 degrees plus.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
The atmosphere barely warms in itself as the suns rays pass through. The radiant heat warms the earth's surface and the heat then rises to heat the atmosphere and escape. That's why the atmosphere gets cooler as you rise up it. The hypothesis is that increasing CO2 levels act like a blanket reducing the heat loss.
How does your experimental model test that?
wanton dwarf
Member
You've already stated it.
Thermal radiation passing through a gas with various concentrations of CO2, CH4 or water vapour in isolation. Could be a long glass tube or even a IBC sized box. Doesn't matter as long as it can be calibrated and tested.
You could extend that to passing simulated sunlight onto a concrete surface, tiled roof, grass, vegetation, crops etc to see the varying effects are as regards the creation of thermal radiation on the Earth's surface.
Only a blanket acts like a blanket.
If CO2 acts like anything it will raise the temperature compared to other gases.
Pretty obvious that cities, towns, roads etc will generate FAR more thermal radiation than the countryside. Which is bourne out by the 3 degrees difference in temperatures in cities. Which also extends after sundown due to the net "Heat brick" effect of concrete or indeed any dense solid.
Last edited:
- Location
- South Devon
- Location
- South Devon
Professor Reid Bryson
https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/global-climate-2/bryson-reid-1920.html follow this link to the below information about Reid Bryson. Seems his opinions aren't widely accepted. He died aged 88 in 2008, 13 years ago.
"The scientific community has challenged Bryson's conclusions on global warming, pointing out that his argument is based on incorrect data and personal attacks against other climatologists. For example, his claim that humans have not produced much CO2 in the past 300 years is countered by the fact that, from 1750 to 2005, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 35 percent. CO2 emissions, scientists predict, will at least double this century, barring a switch away from fossil fuels. Moreover, climate models and paleoclimatic data show that the CO2 effect on climate is not marginal, especially when amplified by positive feedbacks in the climate system."
- Location
- Devon
Accept that it's more like 95 million cattle in the USA
white_stuffed
Member
Way-up-thread we were talking about drilling into the figures a bit more to see how the claim of UK cutting ghg emissions by 25% is worked out. This is my version of the planetary diets calculator which used Poore and Nemecek's data to compare emissions and land use across the diets. I've picked out UK baseline diet vs UK vegan. I'll do a separate thread about it shortly but thought this thread might want a quick preview.
My aim is to get a batch of well thought out questions to Joseph Poore by email.
PS don't worry about the 60% imported animal feed across all sectors, I wasted time on thinking that was a significant error. I thought it was being used to generate massive hectares to count against the livestock. In fact it is only used in the carbon sink reforestation bit - to decide how many UK hectares to reforest at uk rate vs global rate. I'll put up a detailed breakdown for some of the foods.
white_stuffed
Member
Here are the detailed calculations for beef, eggs, nuts.You should be able to match them up to the monster spreadsheet in the post above.
its 9 million dairy cattle as he states and its dairy thats coming under the hardest attack there
and you know the old saying about statistics
Don’t believe all you read, we had mass extinctions in the past as well, the planet is supporting 7 billion people and growing while I am sure the planet will happily keep spinning at 1000ppm Co2 we will not be, 7 billion strong when we hit it my guess would be there would only be a few million of us left scattered in small areas around the world.Its all bull $hit - our crops would be much more efficient and desserts would be greening faster if CO2 was 2 or 3 times higher.
The little pockets of land left after sea levels have risen by 10 meters or so, for a start.
That’s most of the cities of the world under water then you move to high ground but your farming on that so what then.
Sure some things are unknown but climate change as a long term trend caused by increases Co2 are not, one of them only the extent and speed of the change is the unknown factor.
Already we are seeming signs that tipping points have been reached, maybe even that we have passed them already.
But I put no faith in rubbish like that article they are the same people that said climate change was not real until they couldn’t Deny that any longer, nor the rises in co2, now they have shifted to it was ok in the pass, but the talk about a past they know virtual zero about, and times that caused mass extinctions on the planet like it’s no big deal.
Don’t believe all that you read.
Just ask the oldest member of your family about winters when they were small. The changes are real, and of growing concern.
FonterraFarmer
Member
- Location
- Waikato, New Zealand
That sounds like $5 each way at the betting shop, should be a win either way.....
Just not the way to do politics or worse environmental policy.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
This report from Joseph Poore's colleagues in the Oxford Martin Climate School has great relevance to this thread: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.518039/full
Quote:
Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthropogenic climate change is caused by multiple climate pollutants, with CO2, CH4, and N2O the three largest individual contributors to global warming (Myhre et al., 2013). Agriculture and food production is associated with all three of these gases, but direct agricultural emissions are unusual in being dominated by CH4 and N2O.
The global food system is responsible for ~21–37% of annual emissions (Mbow et al., in press), as commonly reported using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (more on this later). The composition of gases emitted by the food system does not reflect the overall global emissions balance, however, with agricultural activity generating around half of all anthropogenic methane emissions and around three-quarters of anthropogenic N2O (Mbow et al., in press).
Food system CO2 emissions are somewhat harder to quantify, due to the distinct processes through which they are generated and difficulty in applying uniform accounting methods or sectoral boundaries. A small amount of CO2 emissions occur directly from agricultural production, following the application of urea and lime, but these sources constitute an extremely small portion of total CO2 emissions. Energy-use CO2 from either agricultural operations (e.g., tractor fuel) or embedded in inputs (e.g., fertilizer manufacture and transport) can also be included as food system emissions, but are highly uncertain (Vermeulen et al., 2012), and are considered as energy or transport emissions within the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) accounting framework. The routes to reducing most of these emission sources are likely to be in the overall decarbonization of energy generation, rather than specific agricultural mitigations.
In addition, the food system is the main cause of ongoing land-use change CO2 emissions, primarily from clearing land for crop production or pasture. Net land-use related CO2 emissions are estimated as being responsible for around 14% of annual anthropogenic CO2 (Le Quéré et al., 2018), with 10% directly linked to agriculture (Mbow et al., in press).
A picture emerges of agriculture and the global food system as an important contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions: of CH4 and N2O in particular, but also significant amounts of CO2 depending on whether energy or land-use related emissions are included. Understanding the climate impacts of agriculture, particularly with respect to other sectors, necessitates understanding the distinct impacts of these three greenhouse gases.
Quote:
Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthropogenic climate change is caused by multiple climate pollutants, with CO2, CH4, and N2O the three largest individual contributors to global warming (Myhre et al., 2013). Agriculture and food production is associated with all three of these gases, but direct agricultural emissions are unusual in being dominated by CH4 and N2O.
The global food system is responsible for ~21–37% of annual emissions (Mbow et al., in press), as commonly reported using the 100-year Global Warming Potential (more on this later). The composition of gases emitted by the food system does not reflect the overall global emissions balance, however, with agricultural activity generating around half of all anthropogenic methane emissions and around three-quarters of anthropogenic N2O (Mbow et al., in press).
Food system CO2 emissions are somewhat harder to quantify, due to the distinct processes through which they are generated and difficulty in applying uniform accounting methods or sectoral boundaries. A small amount of CO2 emissions occur directly from agricultural production, following the application of urea and lime, but these sources constitute an extremely small portion of total CO2 emissions. Energy-use CO2 from either agricultural operations (e.g., tractor fuel) or embedded in inputs (e.g., fertilizer manufacture and transport) can also be included as food system emissions, but are highly uncertain (Vermeulen et al., 2012), and are considered as energy or transport emissions within the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) accounting framework. The routes to reducing most of these emission sources are likely to be in the overall decarbonization of energy generation, rather than specific agricultural mitigations.
In addition, the food system is the main cause of ongoing land-use change CO2 emissions, primarily from clearing land for crop production or pasture. Net land-use related CO2 emissions are estimated as being responsible for around 14% of annual anthropogenic CO2 (Le Quéré et al., 2018), with 10% directly linked to agriculture (Mbow et al., in press).
A picture emerges of agriculture and the global food system as an important contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions: of CH4 and N2O in particular, but also significant amounts of CO2 depending on whether energy or land-use related emissions are included. Understanding the climate impacts of agriculture, particularly with respect to other sectors, necessitates understanding the distinct impacts of these three greenhouse gases.
- Location
- People's Republic of South Yorkshire
There is no global warming anymore because the sun is going into a 100,000 cooling cycle we are pretty much in a pickle here. Less sun activity means less magnetic field in the Van Allen belts around the earth. Less magnetic field to off set the earths magnetic field means volcanoes are coming alive under the oceans.
Lets see more 2000 degree lava under the oceans means more water vapor in the air. More hot water vapor in the air means the heated air will push into the polar regions and displace the colder air there (less summer sun light to warm the north pole up). So it will get colder and colder then get displaced by warm air coming up the pacific ocean and Atlantic ocean. Warm moist air coming up across Mexico from the pacific ocean and from the gulf of Mexico mets cold air coming down from the north pole and causes tons of freezing rain and snow.
This pattern is only going to get worse until Chicago is back under a 2 mile thick layer of ice. Thought the change would be faster than people would think but it seems to be happening a lot faster than I imagined it would. Global warming would be great more plant food in the atmosphere (you do know C02 is what plants grow with) and more warmer places to grow food and hence increase the mammal population. It was the increase of mammals causing more CO2 to be produced and thus trapped in the greenland ice samples a result of warming not the cause of warming. They got that one wrong they developed a function for CO2 vs temperature and that function for our level of CO2 shows we should already have temps well above 100 degrees year round. The Model is using an effect as the cause which is why its predictions are totally wrong.
Remember just a few years ago Al Gore predicted that by now snow would never happen again in America because of global warming.
Folks we are going into the big 100,000 year old ice age and there is no way out and it has nothing to do with CO2 but the sun cooling off. After about 100,000 the sun will contract enough to get its nuclear fires burning hotter and start warming the earth again. Remember the sun is two forces fighting each other the nuclear force trying to blow it apart and the gravitational force pulling it together. As the nuclear fire dies off a bit the sun will contract and as we all know geometry (read as closer together) is how nuclear power works. The more concentrated the nuclear material is the more power it has hence that is why atomic bombs explode and destroy cities and nuclear power plants mere get hot enough to melt their enclosures like the one recently in Japan. The explosion was due to the hydrogen gas build up explosion being greater than the containment building's design to keep it from happening structure. Oooops they messed up on that calculation.
Anyway expect more and more very heavy snow and ice storms in the coming years they are not going to get better I am sure we have reached the tipping point. We were already at least 10,000 years late for the start of the next ice age.
Good luck everyone. That is why they changed global warming to climate change and soon when reality really starts to bite they will call it correctly and that will be ice age.
Lets see more 2000 degree lava under the oceans means more water vapor in the air. More hot water vapor in the air means the heated air will push into the polar regions and displace the colder air there (less summer sun light to warm the north pole up). So it will get colder and colder then get displaced by warm air coming up the pacific ocean and Atlantic ocean. Warm moist air coming up across Mexico from the pacific ocean and from the gulf of Mexico mets cold air coming down from the north pole and causes tons of freezing rain and snow.
This pattern is only going to get worse until Chicago is back under a 2 mile thick layer of ice. Thought the change would be faster than people would think but it seems to be happening a lot faster than I imagined it would. Global warming would be great more plant food in the atmosphere (you do know C02 is what plants grow with) and more warmer places to grow food and hence increase the mammal population. It was the increase of mammals causing more CO2 to be produced and thus trapped in the greenland ice samples a result of warming not the cause of warming. They got that one wrong they developed a function for CO2 vs temperature and that function for our level of CO2 shows we should already have temps well above 100 degrees year round. The Model is using an effect as the cause which is why its predictions are totally wrong.
Remember just a few years ago Al Gore predicted that by now snow would never happen again in America because of global warming.
Folks we are going into the big 100,000 year old ice age and there is no way out and it has nothing to do with CO2 but the sun cooling off. After about 100,000 the sun will contract enough to get its nuclear fires burning hotter and start warming the earth again. Remember the sun is two forces fighting each other the nuclear force trying to blow it apart and the gravitational force pulling it together. As the nuclear fire dies off a bit the sun will contract and as we all know geometry (read as closer together) is how nuclear power works. The more concentrated the nuclear material is the more power it has hence that is why atomic bombs explode and destroy cities and nuclear power plants mere get hot enough to melt their enclosures like the one recently in Japan. The explosion was due to the hydrogen gas build up explosion being greater than the containment building's design to keep it from happening structure. Oooops they messed up on that calculation.
Anyway expect more and more very heavy snow and ice storms in the coming years they are not going to get better I am sure we have reached the tipping point. We were already at least 10,000 years late for the start of the next ice age.
Good luck everyone. That is why they changed global warming to climate change and soon when reality really starts to bite they will call it correctly and that will be ice age.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Do you have any reputable references for for that?
This seems to suggest the opposite:
Declining solar activity linked to recent warming - Nature
The Sun may have caused as much warming as carbon dioxide over three years.
www.nature.com
"If the climate were affected in the long term, the Sun should have produced a notable cooling in the first half of the twentieth century, which we know it didn't,"