Heatwave

[Jacob]

‘Very rare’? Lamb is a major meat type.

Tiny, compared to poultry, pig and beef. Meat and Dairy Production

......, no, I don’t agree that because crops are more efficient, we should stop meat production.

That isn't the reason. Its more than meat production creates a huge demand for animal feed and the vast acreage needed to grow it - the main reason for de-forestation everywhere and particularly in S America

It’s a rather negative and somewhat extremist view. The middle way is normally the best way.

CC is a game changer. The cards are off the table! The middle way is what has got us here. Massive changes are on the way whether we like it or not.
I think a lot of people just haven't caught on yet.

Grazing of heathlands maintains them. If it didn’t happen, you would have regen forests

Regen forest and peat is what we need. LIFE Peat Restore - Restoring Peatlands, Sequestering Carbon

(and you’d have to cull out the deer as well).

Yep. Or bring back the wolf! And the beaver whilst you are at it! Rewilding and beavers.

This is happening very near to me. Projects to improve things like this are more convincing to me than people who have decided not to eat meat telling everyone else not to, for spurious reasons.

Most of them are doing it for good reasons. Not me personally yet!

 

[Fergie 307]

Well you tell us! Why should there be an underlying trend in the first place?
Lots of variable causes and effects over time don't amount to a trend unless there is an identifiable trend

Global temperature has changed significantly over millions of years, so what were the causes? I dont know but it seems foolish to suppose that whatever factors caused these changes are no longer in play. Take tectonic plate movement for example, something that will alter ocean currents and so on. We dont notice this because it takes place so slowly, and in the blink of an eye that humans have existed we dont percieve any great change, but they are still moving and will continue to do so
Now of course you could argue that these natural phenomena are typically very slow acting, so it might take thousands of years to see a change of a few degrees. But unless you have complete stability then there will be a trend in one direction or another. The reality I suspect is that the whole conversation is arguably pretty pointless. We are a selfish, destructive species and i think short term self interest will prevent politicians from taking the necessary steps to address the problem until its far too late. We will probably have become largely extinct long before any natural phenomena have an effect. The sad thing to contemplate is how many other species we will destroy along the way.

 

[Jacob]

Global temperature has changed significantly over millions of years, so what were the causes? I dont know but it seems foolish to suppose that whatever factors caused these changes are no longer in play. ,,,,,,

But nobody said that!
Rather - it seems foolish to imagine that CC science is ignoring other factors affecting CC.

 

[Fergie 307]

"Intelligence is not a winning survival trait”
(Netflix Love Death & Robots" short animation)

Seems true to me. It simply gives us greater capability to destroy our environment faster and faster.

Frankly we're a plague on the planet and we're going to wipe ourselves back to the stoneage.
Nothing wrong with that. Species populations rise and fall. Nature will grow back over millennia.
Maybe the Octopii will do a better job of it next time around.

Have to agree, being "intelligent" has made us by far the most destructive species ever to have existed.

 

[julianf]

Someone’s dietary choices are a private matter, but I’m moved to comment when things start to get preachy.


I don’t quite get it. Do laying hens and dairy cows not count?
-How many (male) chicks are slaughtered in the production of laying hens? Millions.
-Almost all laying hens are slaughtered well before their natural lifespan (usually about 1 year old).
-Ditto dairy cows.

The slaughter happens in exactly the same facilities as those which process the animals for meat. You don’t happen to eat the resulting muscle and fat tissue, but the process nonetheless continues to make your food.


Again, I assume you eat eggs and milk which is the ‘middle bit’. If we all went vegetarian there would be no-one eating the spent hens and cows, which would be a tremendous waste.

Eggs are nutritionally different from wheat, and both form part of a balanced diet. Meat is nutritionally different from grass, the major diet of all ruminants. I would concede that farming has got a little obsessed with grain feeding cattle in recent times. We should switch over to more grass-reared stock, since grass is extremely easy to grow, and requires hardly any fossil fuel input compared to cereal crops.

Issues of poor welfare and sustainability are not necessary parts of meat production (which is the same as dairy/egg production, but the meat is not consumed). It can be improved rather than just stopped.

It’s unlikely I’ll change your world views, of course, but you both subscribe the the same industry that you’re arguing against. Animals are reared and slaughtered for your dinner; you simply ‘don’t inhale’. That is no basis for sanctimony.

I remember, as a teenager, going out to shut up the fowl one evening. A friend was with me.


Some of the batams would spend the night outside, and some in barns. Their choice.


My friend who was with me exclaimed (when seeing the birds up the trees), "But how do we get them down?!?"


I'm not sure if he had considered that they KFC box was actually from a bird, that might actually be able to fly.


For you to base your justification on "spent animals" is somewhat dishonest, as we both know very well that ex battery hens do not end up in the human food chain.

The comment attaining to there not being enough arable land to supply the food industry without the inefficient energy transfer to meat first shows a lack of understanding of very basic physics.

My initial comment was not intended to convert people to a plant based diet, but to highlight the reasons for lack of interest in environmental consciousness.

Again, I wasn't looking for a row, but considering the flurry of posts you have just made on the subject that, you yourself, rather ironically I might add, open by stating as a "private matter" (its in the very text I've just quoted from you) it does rather look to me as if you are, indeed, looking for some sort of debate on the matter.

I'm not sure I want to get involved to be honest. You've made statement that you know to be untrue, and you've made statement that any GCSE level physics student knows to be incorrect (others have already pulled you up on this).

Remember I've been dealing with people like you and their ignorant and / or intentionally dishonest comments almost my entire life. A sensible debate can sometimes still be interesting, but I somewhat fear that you're not at that level, especially in light of the contradiction in your very own text.

I honestly think I'd just be running through the same tedium with you, so I'll leave it to an enthusiastic teenager instead.

 

[rogxwhit]

Frankly we're a plague on the planet and we're going to wipe ourselves back to the stoneage.
Nothing wrong with that. Species populations rise and fall. Nature will grow back over millennia.

Well perhaps the thing wrong with that is the amount of suffering involved ...??

The planet, of course, is itself 'doomed' in the long run - when the sun dies out the Earth's had it, whether or not humanity's self-destructed long before then.

I can't help feeling though that the nature of the universe will always remain much beyond our ken - and who knows what the nature of consciousness is or what realms of existence are possible?

Grazing of heathlands maintains them. If it didn’t happen, you would have regen forests (and you’d have to cull out the deer as well).

So there you are - more carbon capture and ecological diversity along with a replacement meat source ... ;-)

 

[guineafowl21]

For you to base your justification on "spent animals" is somewhat dishonest, as we both know very well that ex battery hens do not end up in the human food chain.

To some extent, battery hens are used for processed meat, and should be more. Spent dairy cows certainly end up being eaten, and again should be more. The vegetarian diet rides on the coat tails of the meat industry.

you yourself, rather ironically I might add, open by stating as a "private matter"

There was a ‘but’ straight afterwards.

 

[Garno]

Scientists really are not that stupid!

That depends on what thread we reading, I recall scientists being called stupid many a time on here.

 

[Oldnut]

It is all down to the milankowitz cycles! The world is indeed warming but not man made, same as co2, billions of years ago we had 12% co2 we had the largest mammals and trees ever on the planet, we are allowed to work 8 hours at i think 10%

 

[Jacob]

It is all down to the milankowitz cycles! The world is indeed warming but not man made, same as co2, billions of years ago we had 12% co2 we had the largest mammals and trees ever on the planet, we are allowed to work 8 hours at i think 10%

Phew that's a relief! So everything is OK then?
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-c...l-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Several posters have made an argument for a vegetarian diet vs the consumption of meat which requires many times the land area and is therefor a greater contributor to climate change.

If the land were not used for meat production, it would not somehow become sterile. Instead it gets covered in grass, plants and trees which grow , die and rot. Livestock from the small (ants, mice etc) to large (sheep, deer, elephants etc) colonise. They eat, defecate, f*rt, die, rot etc just as occurs with livestock farming.

Thus it seems a vegetable based diet may enable a greater part of humanity to be properly fed, but seems to make little difference to climate change.

 

[Jacob]

Several posters have made an argument for a vegetarian diet vs the consumption of meat which requires many times the land area and is therefor a greater contributor to climate change.

If the land were not used for meat production, it would not somehow become sterile. Instead it gets covered in grass, plants and trees which grow , die and rot. Livestock from the small (ants, mice etc) to large (sheep, deer, elephants etc) colonise. They eat, defecate, f*rt, die, rot etc just as occurs with livestock farming.

Thus it seems a vegetable based diet may enable a greater part of humanity to be properly fed, but seems to make little difference to climate change.

Yebbut we don't deforest half the world to grow millions of tons of food to feed the farting denizens of the natural world, as well as our farting selves!
Which of course leads to the methane component of farm animal farts, in turn a major greenhouse gas!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Yebbut we don't deforest half the world to grow millions of tons of food to feed your farting denizens of the natural world, as well as our farting selves!

Precisely the point.

A vegan diet may likely preserve a more diverse and abundant natural flora and fauna, and improve food supply.

It has little or nothing to do with climate change - the principal common argument for its adoption.

I will sleep better as a carnivore knowing that I am not contributing to ever rising global temperatures!

 

[Jacob]

Precisely the point.

A vegan diet may likely preserve a more diverse and abundant natural flora and fauna, and improve food supply.

It has little or nothing to do with climate change - the principal common argument for its adoption.

I will sleep better as a carnivore knowing that I am not contributing to ever rising global temperatures!

No you've missed the point completely.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/bl...ble for,The destruction of forest ecosystems.

 

[powertools]

On youtube there is a channel called Harrys Farm he gives a good idea of what is happening from a farmers point of view.

 

[Oldnut]

Absolutely, Harry telks it the way it is, beef grown on land not suitable for cultivation is absolutely sustainable, the US style feed lot style is not sustainable, but the bald facts are that whatever we as hunans do has little or no impact on global warming, it would still happen if man was not here, just the same as we will have a mini ice age every +/- 50,000 years and a major ice age about 100,000 years, never mind the tilt of the earth and the north south magnetic poles reversing, as it does, now that would throw a real curve ball! Now, if we are talking emmissions in city centres, then yes we are, can, should be doing something about that, but don't kid yourself, until we have 100% renewable all you are doing is moving the emmissions out of town into the countryside

 

[niemeyjt]

I wonder if there is enough productive land available to feed every one as a vegetarian?

I am sure there is. However, whether the environmentalists will approve of ploughing up meadows and other marginal lands to plant human edible vegetables is a different matter.

 

[Jacob]

I am sure there is. However, whether the environmentalists will approve of ploughing up meadows and other marginal lands to plant human edible vegetables is a different matter.

No need. We just use the land already used for growing animal feed for human feed instead.

Interesting this thread - the number of people still in denial about it, even though it's happening all around them now, in front of their faces, and all around the globe!

 

[Tris]

Yebbut, it's worth more for biomass/bioethanol. That's why no US politicians will endorse a switch to food production

Last place I worked used to do a daffodil open garden day for charity, when they started in the 50s it was 2nd week of April, by mid 00s it was early March. Daffs are temp sensitive and the winter of 2010 put it back to April again.
Phenology will provide lots of similar examples

 

[Billy_wizz]

That one has already been sorted Billy .... many times...the best was a Dutch study from 1994 ish that differentiated the change in solar flux from sun spots with overall warming...ie global rise minus changes in incoming radiation( sorry, too busy today to find ref). There is still excess warming not covered by changes in external radiation. The Daily Telegraph reported the study as all warming was due to sun spots so if you choose sources like DT, D Mail etc then you may have a different view of climate change.
Atmospheric CO2 levels .... and other adsorbant chemicals are increasing. They take in a range of solar wavelengths & give out heat.... climate change!
As far as I can see it is fairly straight forward, unless you are being paid by some fossil fuel company to make it seem different.
&...... as Jacob's maps show.... it is occurring globally.....now!

I wasn't inferring that it was being caused just by sunspots I meant that sunspots are a contributing factor and that the interplay between multiple interconnected causes makes it very complicated to determine exactly what is causing it!