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.
Spot on.
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.
That is frigging brilliant... or is that a CO2 rich atmosphere?? Lazy farmer or 2hr lunchbreak or 2050??
The relevant bit of the video, to this thread (4.08 to 10min), is that doubling of methane , would only result in a rise of 0.012 degrees Celsius.The water vapour "issue" has been ditched by the great and the good because there’s no money in it, but I’m sure you knew that anyway.
The video says it would take 300 years , to double , at current increments.Doubling of methane from what source?
By source I meant atmospheric (ie ruminants/rice etc) rather than fossil. Fundamental difference, but hey ho.The video says it would take 300 years , to double , at current increments.
I don't know if the different isotopes of Carbon( C12,C13,C14 etc) cause different amounts of warming , but we all know methane from ruminants hasn't changed much over the years.
Following the chain you don’t have to go far to see Ritchie referencing herself making factual errors. Fossil methane has a warming factor of 28 times using GWP100 but ruminant methane is 25 using the same broken methodology. She’s oblivious to that. Never mind all the cluelessness when it comes to actual nutrition. It’s just tiresome.
A little twitter spat with Hannah Ritchie and her Our World in Data analysis of the Poore and Nemecek data.
(The Our World in Data food systems analysis has just been 'redesigned' on the OWID website but it looks same-old-same-old to me.)
This would be so much simpler if we had a carbon tax.Chap from Rothamsted just been talking about the need to measure available protein when assessing environmental impact. He said beef has 100% available protein in the human gut, bread 45%.
This is beyond important when looking at what the cartel have signed themselves - ie us lot - up to. 50% of the protein they sell is to be non-meat.
And do you honestly think as a farmer your be allowed to benefit?This would be so much simpler if we had a carbon tax.
We might hear all about it if shouted loud enoughAnd do you honestly think as a farmer your be aloud to benefit?
This would be so much simpler if we had a carbon tax.
And you are still a member?It would. But then the cat would be out of the bag that all of the damage is the other side of the farm gate. Hence the cartel keep paying the NFU to make sure that farmers take the blame; far cheaper than a carbon tax on all those food miles.
And you are still a member?
or close to your enemies to see what's coming next.!!!!Yup. Close to your friends....
You must have a smallholding as the NFU charge per acre and alot of acres are a total rip off!!or close to your enemies to see what's coming next.!!!!
Using the DIAAS protein scoring system puts it all in the correct light. Meat and dairy are way out on their own. No surprise but it’s a good system to jeopardise the narrative.Chap from Rothamsted just been talking about the need to measure available protein when assessing environmental impact. He said beef has 100% available protein in the human gut, bread 45%.
This is beyond important when looking at what the cartel have signed themselves - ie us lot - up to. 50% of the protein they sell is to be non-meat.