Oh here we go...
Discussion
Agrispeed said:
Interestingly, this is not true.
Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
Thanks for posting that ...very interesting readGrowing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
technogogo said:
So, again, the models are not currently good enough to have accurately predict *recent* measurements/observations. I'm with that. Still. I think that is all you are saying?
But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.
The only faith is in the position that the models are correct. They are patently wrong.But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.
What they do prove is that the climate moves in mysterious ways and we currently don't know how to predict it.
Agrispeed said:
Interestingly, this is not true.
Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
Do most of the cows we eat come from "farms"? Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
That looks like a bunch of carefully selected facts but together by the Beef Marketing Board. Especially the bit that points the finger at vegetarians.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whop...
Randy Winkman said:
Agrispeed said:
Interestingly, this is not true.
Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
Do most of the cows we eat come from "farms"? Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
That looks like a bunch of carefully selected facts but together by the Beef Marketing Board. Especially the bit that points the finger at vegetarians.
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whop...
The article above shows one of the major problems with greenhouse emissions from livestock, yes they produce gasses, and yes they do add up to a large percentage of total emissions, but the mere fact of cattle living off grassland captures more than they produce, as I said a study that does not take this into account can easily be used to show how damaging farming livestock is, but fails to show the effects of carbon lockup of pastures.
Furthermore, much of the land that is used for livestock production is too poor to be used for growing cereal crops, and even much of the higher quality land used in dairy production would not be able to even possibly produce a sustainable cereal crop yield without massive nitrogen abuse.
Vegetarianism is of course a valid choice, but it is not and never will be an answer to the problem of carbon emissions, or lack of food production, even if we used GM crops.
WinstonWolf said:
technogogo said:
So, again, the models are not currently good enough to have accurately predict *recent* measurements/observations. I'm with that. Still. I think that is all you are saying?
But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.
The only faith is in the position that the models are correct. They are patently wrong.But how do you then assume that there is no *long* term trend in global temperatures? To do so, don't you have to blindly assume that temperatures have peaked and will start to go down? Or at worse stay at their current levels. That seems to be a faith position.
What they do prove is that the climate moves in mysterious ways and we currently don't know how to predict it.
My other point about lay people being too quick to draw conclusions or cherry picking to suit their beliefs is something I still hold. Notably above vournikas produces some (interesting) historical data but turbo bloke says"we don't know what the score is...." I think talking about lack of data? I think this world needs more people willing to say "I don't know, what do the experts say?"
technogogo said:
I think this world needs more people willing to say "I don't know, what do the experts say?"
The problem is when the "experts" are not willing to say "I don't know maybe we should collect more data." and instead sprout nonsense claiming 95% confidence in something they have not measured.turbobloke said:
Fiddled data is widespread.
What we do know is that there's no causality to humans and we've now had 19 years without overall warming and models are failing now as they've always done.
Yes fiddled data exists. Also data we don't know how to interpret. Also there are different views on the size of error bars to place on the data. Even from direct measurements.What we do know is that there's no causality to humans and we've now had 19 years without overall warming and models are failing now as they've always done.
But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate. We can't model it because we do not fully understand it. If we do to understand it we can't state that it isn't changing due to human activity?
2.5pi said:
Agrispeed said:
Interestingly, this is not true.
Growing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
Thanks for posting that ...very interesting readGrowing animals on a grass fed diet actually locks up carbon, among other gasses into the grassland, which is then put into the soil via the roots. The key is to use different grass types, and plants such as chicory, for example as well as other grasses to increase the soil mass available to lock up carbon, although normal pasture is still effective.
It is actually difficult to make a farm bad for the environment, certainly many farms that produce environment audits show that no matter the diesel used and cow numbers, there is still negative carbon use; I.e; more is used than produced, the methane a cow produces does not actually damage the environment, and reducing grassland through livestock reduction would actually have a detrimental effect.
Furthermore, several studies show that was the world to become only vegetarian and organic, the additional acres of rainforest having to be removed would produce an additional 500 billion tonnes of co2, which is more than the accumulative co2 emissions so far and it would require an additional 5 billion cattle to fertilise, which to put it into perspective, there are only 1.3 billion currently.
Vegetarian diets often impact global emissions more due to the increased use of plants such as soya which are grown in south america, and on cleared land, and are then transported.
The problem with many of these studies that show the negatives of farming usually have an agenda, or are incomplete, through poor research or to follow the authors opinion, Farming is not a popular industry in the eyes of those who are particularly, ahem, militant about global warming, perhaps because it does not follow other views that the lobby seems to hold in regards to animal rights, or otherwise.
Save the world, eat a cow!
technogogo said:
Yes fiddled data exists. Also data we don't know how to interpret. Also there are different views on the size of error bars to place on the data. Even from direct measurements.
But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate. We can't model it because we do not fully understand it. If we do to understand it we can't state that it isn't changing due to human activity?
The climate has changes for billions of years and will continue to do so.But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate. We can't model it because we do not fully understand it. If we do to understand it we can't state that it isn't changing due to human activity?
The same models that predict, extrapolate and exaggerate MMGW cannot explain how the climate has changed in the past.
Given that the models consistently fail to model observed climate changes, it's quite clear that the key assumptions they are based on - man-made C02 emissions and positive feedback loops are fundamentally flawed.
To anyone with an ounce of scientific credibility, the science is certainly not settled...
(And that's before you take into account that previous warming trends (and comparisons with historic climate) were exaggerated by fudging the data to present a very different picture than the raw data suggests).
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 4th September 20:31
technogogo said:
But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate.
I can state it plainly because it's accurate. It has nothing to do with not being able to model the climate, it has everything to do with data (i.e. real world data from observations, not gigo from computers).Anyway the solution to this is simple.
You can post up the data with a global climate signal carrying unambiguously established causality attributed to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Then I'll agree with you.
We can wait, but please be aware that we've been waiting for at least the time I've been on PH since I asked believers to do so long ago. Also IPCC has acknowledged that there is no established causality but don't let that deter you.
technogogo said:
Yes fiddled data exists. Also data we don't know how to interpret. Also there are different views on the size of error bars to place on the data. Even from direct measurements.
But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate. We can't model it because we do not fully understand it. If we do to understand it we can't state that it isn't changing due to human activity?
Because we don't even know if there is a problem - those that say there is a problem have been shown to not know what they are talking about (The initial theory was that rising CO2 levels caused the end of the last ice age - this was shown to be nonsense as temperatures always rises first) . Next they said rising CO2 emissions would cause rising temperatures - the last 17 years have shown this to be a nonsense. They said never have temperatures risen so fast - same rate of rise from 1910-1940 (this period was before, under their own rules, AGW could happen).But I do not to see how anyone can state plainly "no causality to humans" when at the same time saying we cannot model the climate. We can't model it because we do not fully understand it. If we do to understand it we can't state that it isn't changing due to human activity?
They say (and be careful to listen closely) that without "greenhouse gases" the earth would be 30 degrees colder - of course the entirety of the CO2 in the atmosphere only makes up the last .9 degrees of that of which mankind is responsible for only a small amount of that.
They say CO2 traps IR because if absorbs from the earth then emits in all directions - without taking into account it also absorbs in all directions.
They say the output of the sun does not vary enough to account for temperature changes when they only use one measure and do not have a grasp of the entropy between TOA and BOA never mind the interaction of 2/3rds ocean surface and variable albedo.
They also haven't proven that dipole moment changes can induce kinetic energy changes in gasses when it is only collisions that can transfer kinetic energy (IR emitters tend to "heat" via absorption by solids - which then vibrate and hence increase kinetic energy of the gasses in contact - gasses can only transmit energy via momentum - most energy is moved around gasses via convection).
So if the experts are consistently wrong what are they expert in? (well grant applications obviously
)turbobloke said:
I can state it plainly because it's accurate. It has nothing to do with not being able to model the climate, it has everything to do with data (i.e. real world data from observations, not gigo from computers).
Anyway the solution to this is simple.
You can post up the data with a global climate signal carrying unambiguously established causality attributed to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Then I'll agree with you.
We can wait, but please be aware that we've been waiting for at least the time I've been on PH since I asked believers to do so long ago. Also IPCC has acknowledged that there is no established causality but don't let that deter you.
I don't have a position as such. I am happy tto not disagree with the scientific consensus. My whole point is to question how non climate scientists who doubt MMGW can have arrived at that position. To me it seems to necessitate cherry picking of available information.Anyway the solution to this is simple.
You can post up the data with a global climate signal carrying unambiguously established causality attributed to human emissions of carbon dioxide. Then I'll agree with you.
We can wait, but please be aware that we've been waiting for at least the time I've been on PH since I asked believers to do so long ago. Also IPCC has acknowledged that there is no established causality but don't let that deter you.
Your statement "i can state it plainly because it is accurate" sounds like "Jesus is lord because it says so in the bible".
I'm exaggerating for effect there. Quite a lot :-)
Jinx said:
The black line is the bridge - the red areas are the model predictions in the state of the bridge. Let's say at 14.4 the bridge collapses (therefore the majority of models have shown the bridge has collapsed) - would you cross and how much credence would you give the modellers?
Where does it come from? Reference?
What data is it based on?
Astacus said:
Pretty graph.
Where does it come from? Reference?
What data is it based on?
IIRC it was taken from WUWT as such, but it's said to originate from Dr Ed Hawkins of Reading University.Where does it come from? Reference?
What data is it based on?
The coloured spread represents the outputs/predictions of 138 IPCC climate models in terms of mean global temperature.
The black line is actual temperature data from one of the near-surface gridded datasets, looking at it and to the best of my knowledge it may well be HadCRUT4 up to 2012 at which time the real world was close to dropping off the model ranges. According to more recent reports/data the temperature has indeed now dropped out below the lowest of the IPCC model predictions.
The PHer posting the chart may be along soon to correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Astacus said:
Pretty graph.
Where does it come from? Reference?
What data is it based on?
This one is nicer, more specific:Where does it come from? Reference?
What data is it based on?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-mode...
jshell said:
No.
NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
Please can you show where they state that? NASA clearly stated that a 15 year pause or hiatus in warming trend would demonstrate a clear failure of the models. We've hit well over 15 years and the bandwagon still rolls on, and on, and on...
That's what they said in black and white.
I'd like to use it as a reference, as it flies in the face of the alarmists' comeback that the "pause" is acceptable as part of multidecadal variation, and disagreement at that level is blatantly not consensus.
TIA.
jshell said:
Anyone got a link to a warmist response to this? I'd quite like to see their side of the story, because if I were trying to model something and I was that far off, I'd consider a new career. Or was the response just heads in the sand and denial?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff