Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[turbobloke]

Monbiot: "Beef is like a loaded gun pointed at the living world. It is an absolutely disastrous product."

From the political blog Climate Depot, a mere secondary source in this hogwash imaginary hobgoblin scaremongering.

Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study: ‘Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon.
‘Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.’

Carnegie Mellon Study said:

Following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas emissions per calorie

Paper published in Environment Systems and Decisions.

A grant-funded study is urgently needed to see how harmful pro-agw bovine excreta is for the environment.

[turbobloke]

Yummy...eating the recommended healthy planet-saver foods aka a mix of fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood, increased the environmental impact in all three relevant categories: Energy Use went up by 38%, Water Use by 10% and GHG Emissions by 6%

Awesome! Did you know New York would be under water by 2015?

[wc98]

turbobloke said:

Monbiot: "Beef is like a loaded gun pointed at the living world. It is an absolutely disastrous product."

From the political blog Climate Depot, a mere secondary source in this hogwash imaginary hobgoblin scaremongering.

Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study: ‘Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon.
‘Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.’

Carnegie Mellon Study said:

Following the USDA recommendations to consume more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood is more harmful to the environment because those foods have relatively high resource uses and greenhouse gas emissions per calorie

Paper published in Environment Systems and Decisions.

A grant-funded study is urgently needed to see how harmful pro-agw bovine excreta is for the environment.

they will have to prise my blt's from my cold dead hands or does the tomato cancel out the lettuce ,hmm.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study: ‘Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon.

Shock Result They didn't say that at all

Shockinger result, Turbobloke ups the recycling ante by digging up four year old "news"

[turbobloke]

Dr J N Myers piddles on heatwave bonfires.

AccuWeather Founder/CEO:
‘No evidence extreme heat waves are becoming more common'
'In the USA 26 of 50 states set all-time high temperature records during 1930s’

Also see Doerr & Santin for 'wildfires not increasing'.

More climate carp hits the buffers faced with reality. Tax gas still on holiday.

[Wayoftheflower]

turbobloke said:

Also see Doerr & Santin for 'wildfires not increasing'.

Also see Doerr & Santin 2016. Shock Result
The researchers, however, also warn about the serious implications of climate change... For instance, climate change has already led to a lengthening of the fire season in parts of North America and is likely to increase fire occurrence and severity in many regions of the globe including the UK.

Edited by Wayoftheflower on Monday 12th August 10:29

[jet_noise]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Also see Doerr & Santin for 'wildfires not increasing'.

Also see Doerr & Santin. link
The researchers, however, also warn about the serious implications of climate change... For instance, climate change has already led to a lengthening of the fire season in parts of North America and is likely to increase fire occurrence and severity in many regions of the globe including the UK.

Phew, thank goodness for "climate change". It reduces the incidence of wildfires - longer season but the number of fires is not increasing.
Is there anything climate cannot do?

[Kawasicki]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment
Carnegie Mellon Study: ‘Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon.

Shock Result They didn't say that at all

Shockinger result, Turbobloke ups the recycling ante by digging up four year old "news"

Yes, it is nuanced. I've stopped eating lettuce though. Every little bit helps. Eating that stuff is like pointing a loaded gun at the earth. Disgusting.

[LongQ]

Wayoftheflower said:

Also see Doerr & Santin 2016. Shock Result
The researchers, however, also warn about the serious implications of climate change... For instance, climate change has already led to a lengthening of the fire season in parts of North America and is likely to increase fire occurrence and severity in many regions of the globe including the UK.

Isn't this sort of end of report type comment just a standard requirement these days?

Sort of like a copyright or attribution requirements notice. Publication cannot go ahead without it.

Not only does it cover the authors for any eventuality over time but presumably is the only way to ensure they don't get blackballed by some extreme activists whilst at the same time keeping themselves in the game as far as research grants are concerned.

Given that sort of situation I think most of would tack on such a message. What is there to lose by doing so?

[Kawasicki]

Wayoftheflower said:

turbobloke said:

Also see Doerr & Santin for 'wildfires not increasing'.

Also see Doerr & Santin 2016. Shock Result
The researchers, however, also warn about the serious implications of climate change... For instance, climate change has already led to a lengthening of the fire season in parts of North America and is likely to increase fire occurrence and severity in many regions of the globe including the UK.

Edited by Wayoftheflower on Monday 12th August 10:29

So Denier (Turbobloke) posts link to paper where scientists report a decreasing trend in global wildfires.

Then Believer (Wayoftheflower) posts the last paragraph with the aim of showing that the scientists involved are believers too, and that Turbobloke is sort of misrepresenting their work.

This is such fun.

[Wayoftheflower]

Kawasicki said:

So Denier (Turbobloke) posts link to paper where scientists report a decreasing trend in global wildfires.

Then Believer (Wayoftheflower) posts the last paragraph with the aim of showing that the scientists involved are believers too, and that Turbobloke is sort of misrepresenting their work.

This is such fun.

Small correction, I don't believe tb posted a link to the paper.

Wildfires and their severity are also subject to research simply for risk management regardless of climate change. Many forest ecosystems cannot live without regular burning which has to be managed by forestry depts. However "catastrophic" fires result from a combination of environmental factors and forest management. tb trying to turn a very complex issue into a soundbite is typical of him.

"global area burned has seen an overall slight decline over past decades" Doerr & Santin 2016. Could imply that we're getting better at controlling forest fires with practice, or simply due to increasing liability more resource is put towards controlling them.

Of note is tb's failure to respond to his completely fabricated "Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment" quasi-quote.

[jshell]

Wayoftheflower said:

jshell said:

Wayoftheflower said:

So it would be fair to say it's difficult and complex and a subject worthy of a lot of very hard work by thousands of people using bleeding edge equipment and subject to continual technological and methodological advance but not impossible?

Well, no. We're told the science is 'in'. We should be saving money on those thousands of people timewriting to the cause. Or, are they so unsure that they have to keep going? What's the point, if we're fked, we're fked and we don't need more climate science being done - we need to change what's happeneing...

Lots makes no sense here.

I don't think anyone would argue that the models are perfect and can't be improved. Just like the troposphere temperature problem discussed on the last pages. The models now seem to have resolved that discrepancy, but it did take years. The more we understand the system the better off we'll be.

To me the weapon of last resort on climate change is geoengineering, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to roll out schemes like that until I fully understood what's the likely outcome. The lowest risk thing to do at the moment, is to stop doing what we've doing, ie. CO2 release into the atmosphere.

2 things:

Not everyone is working on the models, many, many, many are off getting funding for studying all sorts of aspirationally related subjects to CC. They hold either be looking at mitigation measures only, or being fecked off onto the dole.

Stopping releasing CO2 into the atmosphere has a cost. The cost is almost everything related to the way of life we have now. Society would be utterly fecked out of the park.

[jshell]

On a slighty off-point topic, I was playing about with Facebook last night. I have a number of Norwegian 'friends' and last night one of them posted an anti-wind turbine rant relating to everything from eyesores to grid instability to cost. The weird thing was the number of Noggies that piled in to support him - this is virtually unheard of in the bastion of renwables generating, fossils selling, carbon credit scamming world of Norway!!!!

[LongQ]

jshell said:

On a slighty off-point topic, I was playing about with Facebook last night. I have a number of Norwegian 'friends' and last night one of them posted an anti-wind turbine rant relating to everything from eyesores to grid instability to cost. The weird thing was the number of Noggies that piled in to support him - this is virtually unheard of in the bastion of renwables generating, fossils selling, carbon credit scamming world of Norway!!!!

I think they don't see the point given how much Hydro capacity they have. And, apparently, Thorium should that ever become a popular energy source.

And in my experience of working with a variety of Norwegians some years back, they generally love their countryside and many enjoy the scenery via cross-country ski trips, So huge turbines would not be an attractive proposition for them even if they had a genuinely useful purpose for Norway.

I can't imagine that building a significant number of turbines in a country that enjoys rather low temperatures for much of the year makes any sense at any level - certainly not on top of a mountain in a difficult to access location if that is what they have in mind.

[robinessex]

COP26: Glasgow could host 2020 UN climate change summit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-wes...

A major United Nations climate change summit will take place in Glasgow if a bid to attract the event to the UK is successful, it has been announced.
The UK and Italy have lodged a joint bid to host the 26th Conference of the Parties, known as COP26.
While Turkey is still in the running for the event, the UK is now seen as the clear favourite.
It has been proposed that the UK would host the main conference, with a preliminary meeting held in Italy.
If that bid is successful, the event would take place at Glasgow's Scottish Events Campus (SEC) at the end of 2020.
Up to 30,000 delegates are expected to attend the conference.................continues

[poo at Paul's]

Don't worry lads and lasses, Goldsmiths University (yes, that's THE Goldsmiths University) has banned the sale of hamburgers on campus, so the planet is officially saved.

Hurrah!!

[turbobloke]

futile
/ˈfjuːtʌɪl/
adjective
incapable of producing any useful result;
fruitless, vain, pointless;

[LongQ]

poo at Paul's said:

Don't worry lads and lasses, Goldsmiths University (yes, that's THE Goldsmiths University) has banned the sale of hamburgers on campus, so the planet is officially saved.

Hurrah!!

There's an educational message in that decision somewhere.

Probably something like "If you cannot successfully eradicate free thought just eliminate it by banishment".

Thunberg's first theory?

[mko9]

Wayoftheflower said:

Kawasicki said:

So Denier (Turbobloke) posts link to paper where scientists report a decreasing trend in global wildfires.

Then Believer (Wayoftheflower) posts the last paragraph with the aim of showing that the scientists involved are believers too, and that Turbobloke is sort of misrepresenting their work.

This is such fun.

Small correction, I don't believe tb posted a link to the paper.

Wildfires and their severity are also subject to research simply for risk management regardless of climate change. Many forest ecosystems cannot live without regular burning which has to be managed by forestry depts. However "catastrophic" fires result from a combination of environmental factors and forest management. tb trying to turn a very complex issue into a soundbite is typical of him.

"global area burned has seen an overall slight decline over past decades" Doerr & Santin 2016. Could imply that we're getting better at controlling forest fires with practice, or simply due to increasing liability more resource is put towards controlling them.

Of note is tb's failure to respond to his completely fabricated "Vegetarian Diets 'Worse For Climate Change', More Harmful to the Environment" quasi-quote.

Pretty sure those burns were managed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years without forestry departments. Shockingly, the whole world wasn't burnt to ashes.

[Wayoftheflower]

mko9 said:

Pretty sure those burns were managed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years without forestry departments. Shockingly, the whole world wasn't burnt to ashes.

Fires were managed around private property and infrastructure for millions of years? I think we have ourselves a Scientologist. What's Xenu's take on all this?