Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

[Robin1966]

Point me to them then. 500k deaths per year should stand out a bit, where are they? Not theoretical deaths on a piece of paper, actual corpses. The world's population is still rising fairly rapidly, especially in the areas that are supposed to be affected most by climate change, if such amounts of excess deaths were being concentrated in certain areas, we'd notice in actual population changes. But we don't notice because they aren't real deaths. They're just computer model deaths and we all know you can get a computer model to say whatever you want it to, because it only works on the assumptions of the people who create it.



We are indeed in an interglacial, because geologically speaking we are still in an Ice Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Incidentally, you make a big deal of science, how about this chart of the temperature of the Holocene period (the current interglacial period) from Greenland ice cores:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoc...TemperatureOfGreenland_VintherEtAl2009-en.svg

And before you ask, yes that chart is from a peer reviewed scientific paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19759618

Were there a lot of SUVs around spewing out CO2 8000 years ago? It was a lot hotter than today, over 2 degrees higher. Look at that rapid rise out of the last Ice age as well, about 10 degrees in less than 2000 years. I wonder what caused that. Cow farts? People going on holiday in planes? Too many coal fired power stations?

See attached report below, especially page 22, please actually bother to read it.

 

[Robin1966]

Point me to them then. 500k deaths per year should stand out a bit, where are they? Not theoretical deaths on a piece of paper, actual corpses. The world's population is still rising fairly rapidly, especially in the areas that are supposed to be affected most by climate change, if such amounts of excess deaths were being concentrated in certain areas, we'd notice in actual population changes. But we don't notice because they aren't real deaths. They're just computer model deaths and we all know you can get a computer model to say whatever you want it to, because it only works on the assumptions of the people who create it.



We are indeed in an interglacial, because geologically speaking we are still in an Ice Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Incidentally, you make a big deal of science, how about this chart of the temperature of the Holocene period (the current interglacial period) from Greenland ice cores:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoc...TemperatureOfGreenland_VintherEtAl2009-en.svg

And before you ask, yes that chart is from a peer reviewed scientific paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19759618

Were there a lot of SUVs around spewing out CO2 8000 years ago? It was a lot hotter than today, over 2 degrees higher. Look at that rapid rise out of the last Ice age as well, about 10 degrees in less than 2000 years. I wonder what caused that. Cow farts? People going on holiday in planes? Too many coal fired power stations?

Regarding the ice age, this study from Nature finds that human greenhouse gas emissions will delay the next ice age by 100,000 years https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

 

[Robin1966]

Point me to them then. 500k deaths per year should stand out a bit, where are they? Not theoretical deaths on a piece of paper, actual corpses. The world's population is still rising fairly rapidly, especially in the areas that are supposed to be affected most by climate change, if such amounts of excess deaths were being concentrated in certain areas, we'd notice in actual population changes. But we don't notice because they aren't real deaths. They're just computer model deaths and we all know you can get a computer model to say whatever you want it to, because it only works on the assumptions of the people who create it.



We are indeed in an interglacial, because geologically speaking we are still in an Ice Age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial

Incidentally, you make a big deal of science, how about this chart of the temperature of the Holocene period (the current interglacial period) from Greenland ice cores:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holoc...TemperatureOfGreenland_VintherEtAl2009-en.svg

And before you ask, yes that chart is from a peer reviewed scientific paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19759618

Were there a lot of SUVs around spewing out CO2 8000 years ago? It was a lot hotter than today, over 2 degrees higher. Look at that rapid rise out of the last Ice age as well, about 10 degrees in less than 2000 years. I wonder what caused that. Cow farts? People going on holiday in planes? Too many coal fired power stations?

As for your comment about the last emergence from an ice age, if you actually bothered to look at the studies on Skeptical Science you'd see that that was due to an orbital cycle. The reason, Goweresque, why you are so full of ess H one tea is because you steadfastly refuse to look at the evidence when it is put in front of your face. Typical climate change denier idiocy.

 

[Robin1966]

Climate scientists aren't really scientists in the true sense, they can't conduct experiments or do any research as such. They can only examine data, which really just makes them statisticians, and feed that into a computer to predict the future.

A reminder that no-one has ever predicted the future accurately or reliably - just look at weather forecasts.

Oh FFS!! ??????????

 

[Robin1966]

Here's a nice list of apocalyptic climate predictions going back over 50 years, all based on 'the science' of the time, none of which were proved by the passage of time to be true:

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

When climate scientists keep making failed predictions, why should we listen to them any more?

You are an idiot Goweresque. I just refuse to talk to you anymore.

 

[Robin1966]

If some farmers here steadfastly refuse to respect the expertise of other professionals (climate scientists) why the hell should I bother to listen to them? It is those climate change denying farmers who are helping to actually attract the anger of the majority of people in the world who want to do something about climate change against farmers. Most farmers here deserve my respect and my willingness to act as an ally. But the climate change deniers here can go and jump in the nearest slurry lake as far as I am concerned. ???

 

[Two Tone]

If some farmers here steadfastly refuse to respect the expertise of other professionals (climate scientists) why the hell should I bother to listen to them? It is those climate change denying farmers who are helping to actually attract the anger of the majority of people in the world who want to do something about climate change against farmers. Most farmers here deserve my respect and my willingness to act as an ally. But the climate change deniers here can go and jump in the nearest slurry lake as far as I am concerned. ???

Your language and respect for other members on this forum is utterly disgraceful.
Everybody, including yourself is entitled to their own opinion.
Just because other’s opinions don’t coincide with yours does not give you the right to behave like you do.

People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
Yet you assume that what you say are facts, when much of the evidence you present, such as on page 22 of the Climate Vulnerability Monitor contain words like “estimate”.

We have some highly respected Forum members on this thread that you attempt to disgrace.
I think we know who is the disgrace.

 

[ajd132]

If some farmers here steadfastly refuse to respect the expertise of other professionals (climate scientists) why the hell should I bother to listen to them? It is those climate change denying farmers who are helping to actually attract the anger of the majority of people in the world who want to do something about climate change against farmers. Most farmers here deserve my respect and my willingness to act as an ally. But the climate change deniers here can go and jump in the nearest slurry lake as far as I am concerned. ???

What do you do out of interest? I do agree with much of what you say but you do need to calm down abit.

 

[Robin1966]

Okay ladies and gents. I am done here (the forum that is. I am available on other platforms and by email for those who want to contact me). Have a good day.

 

[TelesnaAg]

As for your comment about the last emergence from an ice age, if you actually bothered to look at the studies on Skeptical Science you'd see that that was due to an orbital cycle. The reason, Goweresque, why you are so full of ess H one tea is because you steadfastly refuse to look at the evidence when it is put in front of your face. Typical climate change denier idiocy.

This is correct, orbital variance is whats staterd the recovery and snowballed from there.

From what researchers can gather from the usa ice age is that iy may not take much to start the snowball affect and not much to reverse it.

Ant...

 

[WorkerDrone]

Okay ladies and gents. I am done here (the forum that is. I am available on other platforms and by email for those who want to contact me). Have a good day.

I have no doubt whatsoever that you firmly believe in the theories you proclaim on this forum. However, it is perhaps a pity that you are completely intolerant of any person who takes an opposing view to yourself. Why are you so angry......??

Those partly responsible for the Earths current state are possibly residing in the UK, but if current scientific lore is to be believed, those with the ability to redress the major problems don’t even live on this continent.

The CC issue is frightening.......and presents issues that (akin to those raised in religion) are perhaps beyond the comprehension of Charlie Fred on the Clapham Omnibus. Every solution proposed throws up further questions and liabilities and responsibilities affecting us all.

I humbly suggest that it is in fact You (referring to and an earlier post you made) who are the person ”digging in his heels”.
Btw, in no way do wish to appear condescending......I am sure that approached from a less recalcitrant attitude you may well have gained further support for your theories rather (as it appears) to have alienated the majority.

 

[n.w]

https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/what-is-el-nino.php

Not seeing much mention about the naturally occurring event "el nino" which brings drought, floods and strong winds to the Pacific areas

 

[Muck Spreader]

Climate scientists aren't really scientists in the true sense, they can't conduct experiments or do any research as such. They can only examine data, which really just makes them statisticians, and feed that into a computer to predict the future.

A reminder that no-one has ever predicted the future accurately or reliably - just look at weather forecasts.

I am sorry, but it's a naive statement to suggest climatologists are just statisticians. The job is can be hugely complex involving lab work, extremely high end mathematics and physics, fieldwork in some of the most inhospitable parts of the world. And probably all our futures depend upon their work.

 

[Suffolk Serf]

The trouble is, our friend the journalist is now going to contact his old mate Monbiot and tell him that he was right, crack on and ruin agriculture because it isn’t worth saving because we’re all a bunch of climate change “deniers” which in there world is the worst that anyone could possibly be.

 

[Goweresque]

You are an idiot Goweresque. I just refuse to talk to you anymore.

So you don't think that a litany of failed predictions has any impact on the validity of the current ones?

 

[farmerm]

The way many people talk, you’d think that CO2 was the most abundant gas in our atmosphere.
It is 404ppm, which is 0.04% of it!

To get this into context, there have not been a million days since Jesus was born. In fact only 737,833 of them!
If the proportion of CO2 was expressed in days since Jesus was born, it would be 295 days.
OR 22nd September in the year 0!



(Actually 21st September if it is/was a Leap year!)

Just because CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere does not automatically make it any less important. It you found yourself exposed to Sarin gas at a dose equivalent to 0.04% of your bodyweight you would be very dead very quickly!

The farming analogy would be filling your sprayer... When you fill your spray tank what ppm of active ingredient do you think your tank mix contains? The water in your tank doesn't harm your target organism but the active ingredient mixed in at very low parts per million certainly will. In the atmosphere Nitrogen and Oxygen are the water, they do not trap heat in the atmosphere, CO2 is the active ingredient.

 

[Two Tone]

Just because CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere does not automatically make it any less important. It you found yourself exposed to Sarin gas at a dose equivalent to 0.04% of your bodyweight you would be very dead very quickly!

The farming analogy would be filling your sprayer... When you fill your spray tank what ppm of active ingredient do you think your tank mix contains? The water in your tank doesn't harm your target organism but the active ingredient mixed in at very low parts per million certainly will. In the atmosphere Nitrogen and Oxygen are the water, they do not trap heat in the atmosphere, CO2 is the active ingredient.

I don't dispute any of that.

However, considering how minute the proportion of CO2 is in the air, it makes me wonder just how hard it is for plants to extract it from the air to photosynthesise into O2 and Carbohydrate.

This is worth a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41671770
Without CO2, our planet's average temperature would be 33 degrees lower at -18C. And yet it is only 404ppm or as I said:
If the proportion of CO2 was expressed in days since Jesus was born, it would be 295 days.
OR 22nd September in the year 0! In other words very small indeed.

Even more amazing is that it is only because of photosynthesising plants that developed 2.5 Billion years ago that we now have O2 at the levels we have today (21%). But it took them until 20 Million years ago to reduce CO2 levels to below 300ppm, from what would have been level of about 20% in the air, before photosynthesis began.

And what is the primary action of what we do as farmers? We cultivate plants, which we fertilise to photosynthesise even more.

Even more amazing is to wonder how those original plants did it, considering there must have been such a high concentration of CO2 then, that the word "Greenhouse" planet must have been a severe under-exaggeration!
Therefore, those scientists that reckon that CO2 actually cools the planet, might have a point insofar that it would have to had done for the planet to cool in the down in the first place.

We know that plants can cope with higher levels of CO2, because they had to in the past.
All of which makes me wonder if we could develop in future, a use for CO2 as fertiliser, perhaps reducing the amount of Nitrate we use now. Greenhouse tomato production already uses a type of this technique, by artificially increasing the level of CO2, within the Greenhouse.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I read somewhere that there are such people lurking on message boards sowing doubt and confusion, and that they are in the pay of oil companies etc. Probably nonsense, but most of this thread now is anyway. You have your conspiracy theories. I have mine.

I don't know about paid trolls lurking, but their are plenty of websites and bloggers financed by corporations with vested interests. Just look at the Seventh Day Adventist Church for example. They are one of a number of the key propagandists behind the Vegan message. Among its members are 25,000 “literature evangelists” tasked with “spreading” this message, they produce 70,000 podcasts each year in 229 languages promoting this cause. And these figures are 5 years old. Add all the other organisations supplying labour or finances into climate change denying or veganism and agriculture has a powerful enemies.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I don't dispute any of that.

However, considering how minute the proportion of CO2 is in the air, it makes me wonder just how hard it is for plants to extract it from the air to photosynthesise into O2 and Carbohydrate.

This is worth a look at:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41671770
Without CO2, our planet's average temperature would be 33 degrees lower at -18C. And yet it is only 404ppm or as I said:
If the proportion of CO2 was expressed in days since Jesus was born, it would be 295 days.
OR 22nd September in the year 0! In other words very small indeed.

Even more amazing is that it is only because of photosynthesising plants that developed 2.5 Billion years ago that we now have O2 at the levels we have today (21%). But it took them until 20 Million years ago to reduce CO2 levels to below 300ppm, from what would have been level of about 20% in the air, before photosynthesis began.

And what is the primary action of what we do as farmers? We cultivate plants, which we fertilise to photosynthesise even more.

Even more amazing is to wonder how those original plants did it, considering there must have been such a high concentration of CO2 then, that the word "Greenhouse" planet must have been a severe under-exaggeration!
Therefore, those scientists that reckon that CO2 actually cools the planet, might have a point insofar that it would have to had done for the planet to cool in the down in the first place.

We know that plants can cope with higher levels of CO2, because they had to in the past.
All of which makes me wonder if we could develop in future, a use for CO2 as fertiliser, perhaps reducing the amount of Nitrate we use now. Greenhouse tomato production already uses a type of this technique, by artificially increasing the level of CO2, within the Greenhouse.

I think you will find that most plants can only cope with slightly elevated CO2 levels. This is due to the fact that as the CO2 levels rise, the ability of the plant to utilise Nitrogen decreases.

 

[Two Tone]

I think you will find that most plants can only cope with slightly elevated CO2 levels. This is due to the fact that as the CO2 levels rise, the ability of the plant to utilise Nitrogen decreases.

I wonder if as CO2 levels rise and the ability of plants to utilise Nitrogen reduces, is fairly well balanced?
Nitrate enhances photosynthesis (as a catalyst). If CO2 is more freely available, does it need a much Nitrate anyway

Another question to ask the Dutch Greenhouse tomato grower maybe?