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

[wanton dwarf]

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.

Last time I looked the movement of energy had nothing to do with poisons.

Get real .. energy is absorbed and emitted by every single atom in existance and not limited to CO2 or climate gases.

NOTHING TRAPS HEAT AT ALL EVER.

 

[Two Tone]

Last time I looked the movement of energy had nothing to do with poisons.

Get real .. energy is absorbed and emitted by every single atom in existance and not limited to CO2 or climate gases.

NOTHING TRAPS HEAT AT ALL EVER.

You correctly refer to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

However.....

Are we talking about traping energy/heat or reflecting it?
As in Water Vapour and CO2's ability to reflect it, therefore trapping it from escaping into Space?

 

[wanton dwarf]

You correctly refer to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

However.....

Are we talking about traping energy/heat or reflecting it?
As in Water Vapour and CO2's ability to reflect it, therefore trapping it from escaping into Space?

Regardless of what you are talking about you'll find atoms do not adjust their focus, rotate and send/reflect/trap energy back to the Earth only.

Trapping does not exist.

There is a case for a change in the rate of emission or absorbtion in the Atmosphere or Earth but that is not trapping the energy is constantly moving be it as electro magnetic (light) and kinetic (air, earth & sea).

 

[wanton dwarf]

Are we talking about traping energy/heat or reflecting it?

What are we actually talking about ?

For example cities are 3+ degrees higher in temperature than their surrounding countryside.

What temperatures are included in these graphs ? where do they come from ? has the place/time/environment changed over the past 200 years ?

Are we comparing like for like ?

Knowing that Cities are 3+ degrees higher than their surroundings why has nothing been done to reduce that temperature difference by for example putting in more green stuff in our cities ?

Given the "Climate Crysis" why have our dear environmental groups stood by and let the Amazon rain forests burn for 2+ decades ? Why isn't Brazilian Beef heavily taxed ? Why are UK businesses allowed to import Oil Seed rape by ship from Ukraine grown using seed treated with Neonics ?

 

[farmerm]

Regardless of what you are talking about you'll find atoms do not adjust their focus, rotate and send/reflect/trap energy back to the Earth only.

Trapping does not exist.

There is a case for a change in the rate of emission or absorbtion in the Atmosphere or Earth but that is not trapping the energy is constantly moving be it as electro magnetic (light) and kinetic (air, earth & sea).

Why is it the air inside a greenhouse is water than the air outside the greenhouse?

 

[Muck Spreader]

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?

The tomato growers show some amazing results even up to 1000ppm. I think more generally the increase in CO2 levels to the current high of 400ppm has theoretically had a positive effect on the world's flora. However, the LSCE here in France has shown this to ultimately be temporary effect as the plant becomes acclimatised. Couple this with the accelerated heat stress from the rising temperatures and the yields will ultimately reduce. And that's before you get to the effects water stress.

 

[brigadoon]

And what inaccuracy was that exactly?

Let me put this very simply and clearly. If you want to deny man-made climate change, back up your arguments with evidence. Meanwhile I will do the same.

This is Skeptical Science. It has loads of evidence regarding man-made climate change. If I link to it in a conversation with a climate change denier, I expect them to read it: https://skepticalscience.com/

The same goes for Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/ and by the way, if you scroll down on this particular site, on the right hand side, there are loads of links to other climate science websites, with masses of evidence.

The same goes for NOAA: https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...te-education-resources/climate-change-impacts

The same goes for NASA climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/

The same goes for the Royal Society: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/royal-society-climate-change-briefings/

The same goes for the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia: https://www.tyndall.ac.uk/

The same goes for Nature Climate Change: https://www.nature.com/nclimate/

The same goes for Climate Central: https://www.climatecentral.org/

There is absolutely ZERO excuse for being wilfully ignorant when there is so much evidence regarding man-made climate change.

So if you carry on defending climate change deniers Brigadoon, I will hit the Ignore button on you too. I don't mind in the slightest.

Since you acknowledged it you are fully aware of the inaccuracy referred to - and you are of course free to exercise your individual right to self determination at any time you choose

We are currently burning 15M tonnes of oil per day and god alone knows how much coal I think it would be surprising if it did not have some long term effects and you will find it difficult to locate anything from me denying that climate change exists.

You would perhaps do better if you kept your knickers on

 

[wanton dwarf]

Why is it the air inside a greenhouse is water than the air outside the greenhouse?

Water ? Hotter ?

Because the rate of emission from the Green house is lower than absorbtion.

Same happens when you heat the green house using a burner at night.

 

[farmerm]

Water ? Hotter ?

Because the rate of emission from the Green house is lower than absorbtion.

Same happens when you heat the green house using a burner at night.

sorry, yes hotter

CO2 allows short wave radiation (sunlight) to pass though it unhindered like greenhouse glass but it has a capacity to absorb longwave infrared energy radiated back from a surface warmed by the sun. This energy absorption reduces the rate at which solar energy is emitted back into space.

 

[wanton dwarf]

sorry, yes hotter

CO2 allows short wave radiation (sunlight) to pass though it unhindered like greenhouse glass but it has a capacity to absorb longwave infrared energy radiated back from a surface warmed by the sun. This energy absorption reduces the rate at which solar energy is emitted back into space.

But the energy isn't simply absorbed and goes nowhere.

It will get emitted again in all directions, the same as all atoms.

I'd also point out that the greenhouse doesn't get hotter and hotter. It gets hotter until the rate of emission of energy matches the rate of energy being absorbed.

 

[manhill]

How much less Co2 has been released in heating northern hemisphere homes this winter?

 

[Dan Powell]

Oh look, this is futile!

 

[Two Tone]

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!)

I am slightly EDITING this post because there was no year zero (O). We jumped from 1BC to 1AD, missing out 0.

Therefore:
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 (as of 29/01/2020)!
If the proportion of CO2 was expressed in days since Jesus was born, it would be just 295 days.
OR 22nd September in the year 1 (the first year AD and it not being a leap year)!

 

[SteveHants]

Which is why scientific papers need to be reviewed and checked by other scientists even after publication, as I mentioned. I didn't know that about the CCC I must admit. However, the main point I was trying to make about Poore & Nemcek 2018 is that it doesn't support the argument that everyone everywhere has to convert to veganism. What it DOES do though is point to the fact that different foodstuffs have different impacts, which means that SOME types of meat do indeed have serious impacts on the environment/climate. Therefore the CCC is absolutely right to advocate a degree of meat reduction. The fact that it isn't doing so to the same extreme extent that Monbiot is, is welcome and encouraging.

If there are some farmers here who think they can just dig their heels in and steadfastly refuse to do anything at all to counter climate change, my message to you is to think again. Everyone will have to do their bit, even farmers, but that needn't involve the destruction of the farming industry if it is done properly. To those farmers who do insist on doing absolutely nothing, I am afraid at some point I will lose patience and be almost as vociferous to you as Monbiot is being, in my own way. I do wish to help farmers and work with farmers in advocating and leading a transition towards a more climate-friendly farming industry, but that doesn't mean I am going tolerate some farmers thinking they can get away with doing nothing at all. Not going to happen.

The more concise version of this is something that I keep trying to get across: It is not the science itself, but the misrepresentation of it by secondary publishers (eg the newspapers) that offers an opinion/bias.

You can take a sentence/passage out of context and twist it to say whatever suits your agenda and the media are very, very good at that.

 

[Two Tone]

This looks interesting
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/n...oducts-could-become-big-business-finds-study/
It goes into greater detail here (but it is quite long!)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1681-6
So it seems there may be ways of using CO2 that might be to our advantage and that technology will help us solve the problem. And be good business too.

I am a huge fan of Sir John Beddington. I have met him twice at a couple of parties. He lives only a few miles from me. I thought he did a fantastic job when he was our Chief Scientific Advisor. He is one of my Life Hereos and last time I saw him, I told him so.

We got used to seeing him on tv and hearing him on the radio when he was CSA. He talks so well and understandably that when I first met him, we had a long chat as if we had both known each other for many years! It only dawned on me after about 10 minutes, that we hadn't actually ever met before and I apologised for perhaps coming over as too friendly. He replied that it is his Forest of Dean accent and that it happens to him often!

After he retired he revisited his famous "Perfect Storm" at a lecture given at the Oxford Martin School. Here it is:
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/v...er-security-in-the-context-of-climate-change/
Look at this from 38.40 to 45.40 and see what you think?

It would great if we could get him on board @allimcg ?

 

[Scribus]

This looks interesting
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/n...oducts-could-become-big-business-finds-study/
It goes into greater detail here (but it is quite long!)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1681-6
So it seems there may be ways of using CO2 that might be to our advantage and that technology will help us solve the problem. And be good business too.

I am a huge fan of Sir John Beddington. I have met him twice at a couple of parties. He lives only a few miles from me. I thought he did a fantastic job when he was our Chief Scientific Advisor. He is one of my Life Hereos and last time I saw him, I told him so.

We got used to seeing him on tv and hearing him on the radio when he was CSA. He talks so well and understandably that when I first met him, we had a long chat as if we had both known each other for many years! It only dawned on me after about 10 minutes, that we hadn't actually ever met before and I apologised for perhaps coming over as too friendly. He replied that it is his Forest of Dean accent and that it happens to him often!

After he retired he revisited his famous "Perfect Storm" at a lecture given at the Oxford Martin School. Here it is:
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/v...er-security-in-the-context-of-climate-change/
Look at this from 38.40 to 45.40 and see what you think?

It would great if we could get him on board @allimcg ?

I hate to crow but since nobody else is likely to do it for me I just ought to point out that recycling carbon is precisely what I've been banging on about, often to much derison from others. Good to see others catching up.