Alarming aspirations from latest climate report...

[DaveGrohl]

I'm not sure people were persuaded to vote for Brexit because they necessarily thought the EU are the "root of all evil", more like they just wanted a say in the UK's future direction where they have not had that opportunity before, at least now when there is a complete balls up we know exactly who is to blame!

Yeah, great that Brexit has been brought up into a thread that has been running for quite a while discussing all things scientific. This is not a politics thread no matter how sidelined it has become today. Can we get back on track now please?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

CIEL 2020 states that all livestock in the UK emit 6% of total GHG emissions, with crops emitting 4%.

So if we export our livestock and crop production abroad, UK GHG emissions would fall by 10%.
I don't think so. I've said on here before that if you added up all of the GHG emissions claimed by every business, utility provider, transport sector etc, you get closer to 1000% than 100%. The NHS claims 5%. Their electricity provider will be claiming the NHS electricity too. It's all nonsense.
The difference between the rest, and us, is that we are the ones constantly in the firing line, so we should be refuting the nonsense, not producing documents for Global environmental conferences that say 'guilty as charged'.

You have certainly hit on a valid point there. Often people, especially the mainstream media, quote such percentages from different studies which used different assessment boundaries and so are not actually comparable. That is one of the big faults, i have read, with the figures used by Joseph Poore and Mike Berners-Lee. Allegedly they used comprehensive lifecycle assessments for red meats but only partial ones for plant based foods and other industries.

Whether this was knowingly or accidentally is open to question, especially in the case of Joseph Poore who is known to be a vegan campaigner but didn't declare that bias in his work.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

For all the folks who believe that our message should be 'some forms of livestock agriculture are good, some are bad', a challenge.
Which of these three - entirely different - production systems are good, and which are bad ? A, B, C.

A.

View attachment 988746

B.

View attachment 988747

C.

View attachment 988749

The environmental impact of keeping livestock varies depending on how they are fed and managed. A grass only suckler herd would have a much more benign impact than a housed animal fed on maize for instance.

Ok, we're being scapegoated but it doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. For example, there's grass fed and grass fed.

 

[white_stuffed]

Recent studies have
suggested the use of a revised GWP* measure, which
differs from the standard used to date by most LCAs, as
previously recommended by the IPCC. GWP* accounts for
the differences between short-lived and long-lived gases
over time by relating cumulative CO2
emissions to the
current rate of emission of short-lived climate pollutants,
such as methane (Allen et al. 2016, 2018; Cain et al. 2019).24

For example, using this approach, Del Prado et al. (2021)
found that the whole European sheep and goat dairy
sector had not contributed to additional warming in the
period between 1990 and 2018.

This Del Prado paper is the first study I've found using gwp* in the lca calculations. I can't even begin to understand the methodology but evidently it can be done.

Therefore, it can be/should be applied to some of the data analysed by Poore. (He hasn't come back to me after my email asking him about the IPCC suggesting lifecycle analysis should consider using other metrics I.e. gwp*)

 

[white_stuffed]

https://nationalsheep.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ab49bd3283&id=5583e7a687&e=137aa1da28

This came along with the NSA newsletter. Would it have been included in the NBA newsletter?
(Apologies if is already in with TFF references.)

@JP1 please can we have a new resources heading for resources to help us during cop26 and can this nsa paper be added to it?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Recent studies have
suggested the use of a revised GWP* measure, which
differs from the standard used to date by most LCAs, as
previously recommended by the IPCC. GWP* accounts for
the differences between short-lived and long-lived gases
over time by relating cumulative CO2
emissions to the
current rate of emission of short-lived climate pollutants,
such as methane (Allen et al. 2016, 2018; Cain et al. 2019).24

For example, using this approach, Del Prado et al. (2021)
found that the whole European sheep and goat dairy
sector had not contributed to additional warming in the
period between 1990 and 2018.

This Del Prado paper is the first study I've found using gwp* in the lca calculations. I can't even begin to understand the methodology but evidently it can be done.

Therefore, it can be/should be applied to some of the data analysed by Poore. (He hasn't come back to me after my email asking him about the IPCC suggesting lifecycle analysis should consider using other metrics I.e. gwp*)

I suspect your question is rather inconvenient for him.....

Mike Berners-Lee needs asking when he intends revising his influential books to take account of this IPCC advice as well......

 

[JP1]

@JP1 please can we have a new resources heading for resources to help us during cop26 and can this nsa paper be added to it?

Thanks

I no longer have Moderator tools so I'll tag a few @Bald Rick @Shutesy @Andy26

 

[DaveGrohl]

Recent studies have
suggested the use of a revised GWP* measure, which
differs from the standard used to date by most LCAs, as
previously recommended by the IPCC. GWP* accounts for
the differences between short-lived and long-lived gases
over time by relating cumulative CO2
emissions to the
current rate of emission of short-lived climate pollutants,
such as methane (Allen et al. 2016, 2018; Cain et al. 2019).24

For example, using this approach, Del Prado et al. (2021)
found that the whole European sheep and goat dairy
sector had not contributed to additional warming in the
period between 1990 and 2018.

This Del Prado paper is the first study I've found using gwp* in the lca calculations. I can't even begin to understand the methodology but evidently it can be done.

Therefore, it can be/should be applied to some of the data analysed by Poore. (He hasn't come back to me after my email asking him about the IPCC suggesting lifecycle analysis should consider using other metrics I.e. gwp*)

Great find, thank you. Not a surprise but great to be able to quote an authoritative source.

Just need the mainstream media to pick up on it after the NFU's made them aware........

 

[white_stuffed]

 

[Cowabunga]

 

[delilah]

Apologies i'm not very good on attention span, what's the gist ?

 

[C.J]

I fell a sleep after the first hour but Patrick has a good understanding of natural climate variation.

There was a paper published yesterday confirming that it was 1.5 degrees warmer, than today ,in the Medieval Warm Period and that sea levels were about a meter higher.This can all be backed up by archaeological evidence - the Vikings grew barley on Greenland and Pevensey Castle is no longer on the coast etc.

The modern warm period is NOT unprecedented .

 

[essexpete]

You have certainly hit on a valid point there. Often people, especially the mainstream media, quote such percentages from different studies which used different assessment boundaries and so are not actually comparable. That is one of the big faults, i have read, with the figures used by Joseph Poore and Mike Berners-Lee. Allegedly they used comprehensive lifecycle assessments for red meats but only partial ones for plant based foods and other industries.

Whether this was knowingly or accidentally is open to question, especially in the case of Joseph Poore who is known to be a vegan campaigner but didn't declare that bias in his work.

 

[white_stuffed]

Apologies i'm not very good on attention span, what's the gist ?

It's just a good explainer of the gwp* metric "from the horse's mouth," (Michelle Cain being one of the scientists who developed it). Followed by a good call to arms from 19 minutes to 25 minutes about why we need it, to correct conclusions drawn by research which has been skewed by the use of gwp100.

 

[essexpete]

I fell a sleep after the first hour but Patrick has a good understanding of natural climate variation.

There was a paper published yesterday confirming that it was 1.5 degrees warmer, than today ,in the Medieval Warm Period and that sea levels were about a meter higher.This can all be backed up by archaeological evidence - the Vikings grew barley on Greenland and Pevensey Castle is no longer on the coast etc.

The modern warm period is NOT unprecedented .

A young meteorologist teaching our boys, some 15 years ago, was concerned by the recent speeds of change rather than the change in it's self. Is there any data on how quickly temperatures and sea levels changed historically?

 

[C.J]

A young meteorologist teaching our boys, some 15 years ago, was concerned by the recent speeds of change rather than the change in it's self. Is there any data on how quickly temperatures and sea levels changed historically?

This is the graph that Patrick is referring to when he says that the warming between 1690 -1730 was much greater than the current warm period.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

View attachment 991419

This is the graph that Patrick is referring to when he says that the warming between 1690 -1730 was much greater than the current warm period.

Mmm, looks like a minor blip compared to this century

 

[Top Tip.]

I fell a sleep after the first hour but Patrick has a good understanding of natural climate variation.

There was a paper published yesterday confirming that it was 1.5 degrees warmer, than today ,in the Medieval Warm Period and that sea levels were about a meter higher.This can all be backed up by archaeological evidence - the Vikings grew barley on Greenland and Pevensey Castle is no longer on the coast etc.

The modern warm period is NOT unprecedented .

I wish someone would tell the BBC !!

 

[delilah]

Have just dropped MBL a line, pointing him to this thread and asking if he is now using the new method for calculating the impact of methane.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Andrew Loftus speaks very well and makes some excellent points about UK's role in the debate, highlighting the fact that UK beef and sheep producers are effectively cooling the planet wrt methane using GWP*. How the heck do we get the NFU to take their dark glasses off and start to quote some proper science in their discussions with the great and good and also the media?