Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Next
Comments 4951 to 5000:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:09 AM on 11 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @22,
Under the items found by a search on SkS for "agriculture" you will see a November 9, 2021 item by Evan called "The Keeling Curve: Part III".
That article appears to contain a lot of information that is similar to the points you have shared regarding agricultural climate change impacts.
I recalled reading about the topic recently. And I suspected it had been here on SkS. But I needed to look a little to find it.
I look forward to seeing what new information the study you are referring to provides.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:31 AM on 11 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @22,
Thank you for clarifying that "I noticed that, so far, no one on this thread has commented on the present number of domestic bovines ..." was not meant to be what it can be understood to imply.
I am certainly not the most familiar or best able to point you to what you are seeking on this website. But as a regular reader/user of SkS I am aware of the following which may help you find what you are looking for.
- Check out this SkS item from 2020 "A Skeptical Science member's path to an experiment on carbon sequestration"
- Use the Search feature on SkS to search for "agriculture". There are 12 related "Skeptic Arguments" found, and many Blog Posts, that may interest you.
- Searching for "livestock" finds 3 related "Skeptic Arguments" (a subset of the 12)
- A variety of other searches like "cattle" also find items that may be of interest that are not found by the "agriculture" or "livestock".
- You can also use the "Search" feature on SkS and search for RedBaron, the individual the first article I pointed to is about, expanding the search to include "Comments".
My primary interest is increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and understand how to help reduce harm done and develop sustainable improvements for global humanity. I regularly visit Skeptical Science to learn. I occasionally comment when the situation motivates me.
Climate change impacts caused by the developed and developing ways of living are likely the most significant impediment to achieving sustainable improvements of living conditions for humans, particularly sustainable improvements of conditions for the least fortunate.
Skeptical Science is very informative on the matters it focuses on which are well described by the website header statement: "Our mission is simple: debunk climate misinformation by presenting peer-reviewed science and explaining the techniques of science denial."
The science denial aspects of this website are particularly helpful. They help me appreciate the diversity of denial and misrepresentation that happen when people resist learning more about something that contradicts their developed interests and beliefs. And the developed socioeconomic-political systems have developed a lot of "interests and beliefs" that need to be robustly contradicted and corrected by increased awareness and improved understanding.
-
MA Rodger at 08:48 AM on 10 December 2021It's albedo
blaisct @104,
The paper you obtain the Figure 3 from is Goode et al (2021), the latest in a series of papers (spawned by Flatte et al 1992) which have been trying to establish Earthshine measurements as a useful data source. There is a distinct lack of rigour within the work as well as a worrying denialistic flavour to it. The paper linked in the moderator Response @104, Dübal & Vahrenholt (2014) suffers from similar problems but does use the latest CERES data which Goode et al fails to use.
As for the cause of the reduced cloud cover identified within the CERES data, it is a known feedback from AGW. This Yale E360 article from 2020 explains. -
swampfoxh at 05:34 AM on 10 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
One Planet...
No, I was not looking for anyone to introduce the topic of animal agriculture in this particular thread, I was inquiring if this Skep/Sci forum had a body of materials on the topic that I might not, previously, have noticed. I don't usually comment on Skep/Sci as I am pretty well tied up as a climate science writer and am forced to look at a lot of materials to support my offerings/editorials, etc. The Human Development Report (2020) has not struck me as "on point" to the matter of Global Warming/GGEs, ecological change etc etc. That's just my own two cents worth. If my initial comment, above, has generated all of this conversation, my apologies for taking up y'all's time. I will, however, be sure Skep/Sci gets a copy of the first published study I referred to, above. I think it will be quite a useful piece of work in the hands of our decisionmakers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 10 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
nigelj,
Many sources (potentially hundreds) confirm the understanding you present, that the richest portion of the global population is significantly higher harmfully impacting per-person than people who are less wealthy.
But it is important to understand that there is a differentiation within any "general group". Some of the richest, but likely not the majority, strive to live less harmfully than their peers, and less harmfully than those who are less wealthy, even though it admittedly is "a competitive disadvantage in the competition for perceptions of superiority" for them to do that (people like Al Gore can have lower impressions of wealth than their peers because of their choice to try to have less harmful impact).
The same can be said about the importance of differentiating within Republicans (some like Liz Cheney stand out positively, and many Republicans who have recently left politics, like Jeff Flake, stand out tragically), and Democrats (some like Joe Manchin stand out negatively).
My understanding is that there are harmful over-consuming people in almost every nation on the planet (a few Island nations and places like Bhutan may be exceptions to that). So it is even incorrect to target a nation or region of a nation or to excuse everyone in a low impacting region. The harmfully selfish deserve to be the targets. The more harmfully wealthy and powerful a person is the bigger a target for correction they deserve to be. And diplomacy and gentle cajoling are unlikely to influence the wealthiest and most powerful members of the harmfully selfish group. Reducing their ability to maintain their developed perceptions of superiority, with peer penalties like sanctions, are required to get them to be less harmful (revolutionary actions by the less fortunate has a history of not really working out as sustainable improvements and usually causes massive harm to the poorest.)
What can be pointed out is the total harmful impact of the harmfully selfish in any group or region or nation for comparison to other groups, always keeping in mind that the Total Group Impact is not equally attributable to its members. The highest harming portion of any group needs to be targeted for correction by the portion of that group that is able to effectively penalize them, because the threat of penalty can sometimes be enough to get the more harmful people to "learn to change their mind."
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:41 AM on 10 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
swampfoxh @4,
I did not say the wealthy were harmful. But, to be blunt, someone making-up that interpretation is understandable (making-up stuff is the refuge of those who resist learning).
I do say the wealthy need to be required to prove they deserve their status by being leaders, providing examples of living more sustainably and less harmfully than others who would be expected to aspire to be like the Leaders or develop to be superior to the current Leaders. Suggestions?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:24 AM on 10 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Rabbit meat having only 2 g of fat per 100 g of meat sounds like an excellent meat as long as the consumer is aware that they are getting very little fat with the meat. The low fat content means that even if all of it is harmful fat there is less harmful fat than many other meat options.
The following reasonably reliable resource (Canada's Government of Northwest Territories) would appear to contradict the claim that rabbit meat is a poor source of nutrition.
And this Washington Post article "From fish to bacon, a ranking of animal proteins in order of healthfulness" presents the case for the benefits of low fat content in meat (get healthier fat from other sources or eat the meat with lower content of harmful fat and higher content of helpful fats.
An important point is that it is wasteful to eat more than 4 oz (100 g) of meat in a meal. Many sources indicate that even a high performance athlete's digestion will only extract the protein benefit from 4 oz of meat. Many sources indicate the body will only process 30 g of protein from a meal. And 3 to 4 oz servings of meat contain 30 g of protein (100 g of rabbit meat contains 30 g of protein).
Also, nutrition Guides call a meat serving 3 oz. And, aligned with what swampfoxh points out, the Washington Post article refers to research indicating that "... consuming just two to four servings per month of fish and two to four servings per month of poultry can provide benefits ...".
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:43 AM on 9 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh @20,
I noticed how this thread's content has primarily been responses to your initial comments.
Now you claim that your addition of "animal agriculture" should have been introduced by someone else for some reason ... what reason would that be?
My interest in the promotion of the pursuit of all humanity living sustainably as a part of the robust diversity of life on this planet includes concerns about grain production as well as bovines. Specifically, my concern would be having all the collective impacts be within safe global impact boundaries (refer to the Planetary Boundaries understanding which is aligned with the SDGS and is presented as part of the understanding presented in the 2020 Human Development Report).
btw, Tongue-in-cheek, but semi-seriously: Outlawing any harmful impacts from the actions of the wealthiest and most powerful 1% of the global population would be more beneficial than "outlawing industrial agriculture". And I would support "industrial agriculture" that is more aligned with achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and limiting impacts exceeding Planetary Boundaries than "non-industrial agriculture" that is less aligned with achieving those objectives. In other words, I do not believe new technological developments are "de facto improvements" but new technological developments can be sustainable improvements.
-
blaisct at 07:22 AM on 9 December 2021It's albedo
The data presented earlier in this thread has been updated in document Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine
Figure 3
“Earthshine annual mean albedo anomalies 1998–2017 expressed as reflected flux in . The error bars are shown as a shaded gray area and the dashed black line shows a linear fit to the Earthshine annual reflected energy flux anomalies. The CERES annual albedo anomalies 2001–2019, also expressed in , are shown in blue. A linear fit to the CERES data (2001–2019) is shown with a blue dashed line. Average error bars for CERES measurements are of the order of 0.2 .”
This new data shows a good agreement between earth shine data and CERES satellite data one can also add the earth’s temperature for this time to this graph and fined good agreement with the albedo (+0.4'C or 0.8 W/m^2 in 20 years). The implication is that the earths albedo change can account for all the temperature rise over this time period. The document suggest that this albedo change was possibly due to reduced cloud cover. Leaving the question what caused the reduced cloud cover.Moderator Response:[BL] edited picture for width, and shortened link, to preserve page formatting.
Your posting history here has previously required frequent intervention from moderators. Please read the Comments Policy and make more effort to abide by it.
Your reference to "data presented earlier in this thread" is too vague and meaningless.
Your reference to a title "Earth's Albedo 1998–2017 as Measured From Earthshine" is insufficient to allow readers to easily find the source of your information.
There is a possibly more recent paper here: Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001–2020 that covers a similar topic, and this paper has been discussed at another blogs such as the following:
No, it probably isn’t mostly due to changes in clouds!
The implication is that your "implication is that the earths albedo change can account for all the temperature rise over this time period" is lacking evidence and is mostly likely wrong.
-
nigelj at 06:28 AM on 9 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
Swampfox @4 I couldn't find anything analysing whether democrats or republicans buy more electric cars.
Wealthy people do have more carbon emissions than lower income people. There are numerous studies for example:
"World's richest 1% cause double CO2 emissions of poorest 50%"
"The statistics are startling. The world's wealthiest 10% were responsible for around half of global emissions in 2015, according to a 2020 report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute"
However I dont see any point demonising / blaming the rich, and that won't change behaviour. It needs a bit of diplomacy and gentle cajoling.
Moderator Response:[BL] Shortened links that were causing page formatting issues.
-
nigelj at 06:10 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox @6 & 7. Thanks. You are making more sense now and it does raise questions about whether rabbit farming is of any real use. Just dont make sweeping claims that rabbit meat is all protein when there is some fat, although a quick check shows its very little about 2 grams per 100 grams. You are right most appears to be in the brain, and I can assure you under no circumstances apart from extreme starvation would I be eating rabbit brains.
-
swampfoxh at 06:04 AM on 9 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
nigelj
As you like. Not being a Democrat or a Republican, I've no skin in this game. But looking up the "far more likely to buy elctric cars" is different than the evidence that the actual buyers fall into a social-economic category comfortably dominated by Republicans. Of course, that proves nothing with the actual polling question addressing political affiliation, which as I look back on it...didn't. So you have my mea culpa.
I don't see a connection between wealth and being harmful. I do see a connection between ignorance and bad conduct, including picking up your own trash and buying McDonald's hamburgers, etc. I think it risky to bottle up the "rich" into a handy "controlling people" group and flail at them until the masses turn and smite them, because since they are much less than 1% of the global population their "climate footprint" can't amount to much. "Climate footprint", seems to me, has nothing to do with socio-economic status, or power status (for that matter). It's behavior.
-
swampfoxh at 05:34 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
nigel
One more quick thing. As you probably are aware, an animal, generally, just won't eat anything. Certainly, coprophagic organisms like domestic dogs are fairly happy eating other dog's excrement, but even here, not all dogs are "big" on foreign excrement and very few eat their own waste. Nature seems to have a sort of guard against an animal eating a certain substance...and some say such discrimination is a survival instinct.
Your particular experience with rabbit meat is one shared by many people...yuck! To speculate, to develop a hypothesis, to investigate the evidence and to formulate a testable theory about a "natural" safeguard against a "food" that a particular organism should consume or avoid could be a key to longevity. Why do some "turtles" live so long. Why do humans live much shorter lives than their telomeres might otherwise predict? Food (ingestion) choices? Is "rabbit" really unfit for human consumption?
-
swampfoxh at 05:14 AM on 9 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
nigelj
The 5.6 grams of fat per 100g of "rabbit" is a value arrived at by the rabbit-raising industry. The location of the majority of this "fat" is the rabbit's brain, which is not likely to be served to humans as "food". Yes, I think it unlikely that First World countries would "do a lot of rabbit", but these critters are still "rodentia", and unlikely to gain any more market value than they ever have in First World countries. Still, the risk of protein poisoning from rabbit meat is a caution most nutritionists voice. This might mean rabbits are best left as the nuisance in nature, they and their relatives, the rats, have been since the dawn of civilization.
Since I don't have time, at present, to go out and look for the peer reviewed source you and SkepSci require for conducting dialog on this site, I withdraw my allegations as "un-evidenced".
Regards,
Swampy
-
swampfoxh at 04:45 AM on 9 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
I noticed that, so far, no one on this thread has commented on the present number of domestic bovines (1.544 billion, world-wide) that, lined up, nose to tail, would wrap the planet at the equator...(along with humans)... another hundred times.
Is industrial animal agriculture off the table of discussion and I'm just not aware that contributors to this site consider this topic of little concern? I am a participant in a peer review of a new study on animal agriculture's impact on the climate. It is, frankly, a shocking piece of work. The peer reviewed references supporting the study are thirty-five pages long. Essentially, industrial animal agriculture and its products are shown to be responsible for 34% of GGEs and another average 33% of at least eight crucial environmental problems: desertification, deforestation, europhication/contamination of fresh and salt waters, wild animal and plant habitat loss, species extinction, risky land use conversions, a number of human health maladies (beyond heart, artery and genetic malformation), outsized fresh water use... and refrigeration/freezer energy usage/transport, storage, waste disposal and spoilage.
Curiously, the outlawing of industrial animal agriculture would be the shortest route to a significantly measurable reversal of adverse climate change, because conversion to a plant based diet could be made simultaneous to the elimination of animal agriculture...making the transition essentially painless, (some may say: tasteless).
We expect the study to be published in mid-spring 2022. Until then, is this topic worth an in-depth discussion on this site?
-
nigelj at 16:30 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh
Yes cutting the human population from 8 billion to 1.5 billion would reduce environmental prolems quite substantially (all other things being equal) but I dont see how we can do that quickly. You can't line people up and shoot them, and enforced one child policies can have unintended side effects and will never happen in democracies.
Western countries already have easily available contraception and most people are choosing to have relatively small families, about two children. The high income people that consume most and have the biggest environmental impacts are actually those who are already having the smallest families. Bear that it mind. Low income people around the world arent causing many CO2 emissions, but they do contribute to conversion of natural wilderness to farmland and the consequent loss of biodiversity.
A fertility rate of two children is slightly below replacement rate and will cause population to fall to two billion people eventually probably about five centuries time. A fertility rate of 1.5 over the next decade or so will take it to two billion people by about the year 2300 (I played with this on a population calculator).
The trouble is most people like to have two children minimum for obvious reasons and it may be difficult to persuade them to have just one.
Because our options to reduce population are limited in the short term, we have to think about per capita consumption and like OPOF says its the high income group that do consume the most. However shifting that wont be easy. I really get a bit pessimistic about this.
The issue isn't really about population versus consumption either. Its about both issues and how we can realstically move the dial on each one. Its useful to think about it mathematically:
"I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment."
"I = P × A x T"
"The expression equates human impact on the environment to a function of three factors: population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T). It is similar in form to the Kaya identity which applies specifically to emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide."
-
nigelj at 15:59 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox
"Rabbit meat is all protein."
Wrong. You cite no specific source for this with an internet link. I gave you sources with links stating rabbit meant contains fat and one was a nutrionist. Other souces say much the same. Rabbit contains approximately 5.6 grams fat per 100 g about the same as a lean cut of chicken or pork.
Yes the human body needs fats and more than a rabbit can provide alone, but nobody is suggesting people in a place like America live on a diet exclusively of rabbit. You would eat other more fat rich meats as well, or get fats from other sources. Although to be honest I tried rabbit once and didn't much like it.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:01 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh,
Again (ad nausium, but I will repeat as required, though not on every comment string), the population problem is being addressed by the pursuit of understood helpful objectives like the Sustainable Development Goals (and the Millennium Development Goals that preceded them). If that effort can be improved, By All Means Provide Suggestions (read the 2020 Human Development Report to better understand some of what is already understandable and suggested).
The problem that is not being effectively addressed is the harmfully over-developed, and continuing to grow, consumptive ways of living "enjoyed" by a small portion of the global population setting bad examples for others to aspire to develop to match or exceed. Suggestions - other than deflecting to claim that the problem is the total human population?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:44 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
swampfoxh,
I share the concern that humans need to adapt to live as sustainable members of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet. And I focus on the need for the portion of the population that is percieved to be more advanced or superior to be living in the most sustainable ways, setting the best examples for others to aspire to (and others can be expected to be tempted to aspire to develop to live like those who are perceived to be superior).
I believe the number of domestic cats and dogs in the USA is even larger than the massive number you have presented.
My starting point was the AVMA Pet ownership statistics based on the 2017-2018 U.S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. That source says 58 million cats (plus 76 million dogs). And that would be a "low number" because it excludes feral domesticated cats and pets that don't get taken to vets.
Other sources like Petpedia indicate the USA feral cat population is an additional 70 million cats.
But the 2 million "Pet Horses" in the USA are also a significant concern. I am not sure of the comparative levels of impacts between Cats, Dogs and Horses. But I sense that mass ratio is a reasonable basis.
The average cat is 10 lbs (range of 5 to 25 lbs). Medium size dogs weigh 20 to 60 lbs. A horse weighs 900 to 2000 lbs. So pet horses appear to be the Biggest part of the Pet Problem in the USA (back to the richest being the biggest problem).
-
swampfoxh at 13:33 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Let's take another view of the size of the human biomass. If we lined up everybody, shoulder to shoulder at the Equator, we could wrap the human race around the planet about a hundred times. Another view of the current global presence of 1.544 billion "cows" wrapped around the Earth at the Equator would be another hundred times. This combined biomass is our main problem. Suggestions?
-
swampfoxh at 13:25 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
A similar issue to the dog and cat population problem is the human population problem. There are almost 8 billion people in the world. The planet's estimated carrying capacity, considering what we have already used up, is about 1.5 billion at current rates of consumption and current volumes of human carbon footprints. This will have to be addressed, sooner than later. Sooner is a painful short time from today. Suggestions?
-
swampfoxh at 13:10 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Semantics again. I use the dictionary definition of "radical" to mean "fundamental". Others use radical to mean "wild eyed whacko" or something similar. Some of us environmentalists strive to deal with the fundamental life services of the environment. We adhere to the notion that the environment is not easily manipulated by humans...that we should adapt to the "natural" environment in which we find ourselves, like other animals do, and stop altering "nature".
As to cats and dogs. There are 63 million of these critters in the US alone. A reduction of at least 62 million would be a prudent aid to environmental wellbeing.
-
swampfoxh at 12:49 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Perhaps it is my use of the term: nutritional value. While protein can be called a nutrient because it is used by the body to build muscle structures, human bodies need fats for energy production. Lipids are 1 of 6 essential components in animal life forms and are essential in an every-day diet. Protein is needed, of course, but in infrequent amounts. Animal organisms can do without protein for extended periods (like starving prisoners of war) but fat intake is a daily dietary need for humans.
-
swampfoxh at 12:34 PM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Go to literature not published by commercial agricultural interests. Rabbit meat is all protein. Routine periodic consumption of this animal causes protein poisoning which can and eventually will kill you. In regions of the world where food options are scarce, rabbit is a consumption item because it is plentiful since rabbits breed like rabbits (humor intended). Nutritionists in First World countries do not recommend eating rabbit because they provide no fat, which is required in the human diet. Rats are rodents, of course, as are rabbits. We should not eat rats either, for much the same reason: protein poisoning.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:07 PM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
I wasn't comprehensive or specific enough in my earlier responses.
There is probably a lack of research findings regarding bird kills by off-shore wind turbines because the evidence quickly disappears and there are very few observers of the turbines seeing it happen. It would probably take some serious government interest and investment to set up a rigorous methodology for doing the research into that issue.
This is something that would potentially be researched if there are declines in bird populations that are serious enough to attact significant global government research funding (like so many other harmful developments, investigate after it is too late). However, the on-shore evidence and understanding of bird kills should be expected to extend to off-shore locations where the evidence almost immediately disappears.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:28 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
More specifics regarding the negative impacts of off-shore wind turbine installations may not be avaialable because the industry promoting and building them is affected by the legacy of the developed economic game that encourages evasion of rigorous investigation of potential harm.
Government money should be flooding into better understand the potential harm of all new approved developments and all the already developed stuff. But that is not popular or profitable.
There are very few instances of sustained government leadership that has acted in helpful, but economically unpopular and unprofitable, ways. That explains any lack of investigation and reporting of harm and potential harm. There will likley be a lot learned about the harm done by the most popular and most profitable (lowest cost) actions attempting to address the climate change problem, not just the later learning of negative impacts of off-shore wind turbines.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 09:18 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
Regarding bird kills, the book "Rebuilding Earth" makes reference to the September 6, 2014 article in The Treehugger by Michael Graham Richard, with the most recent update of the article (Oct 23, 2020) here
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:48 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj @8,
Turbines over water immediately adjacent to the consumers they power would work, provided that bird migration patterns and marine impacts are avoided. More remote power generation to overcome the delivery losses from remote power generation produces more impact, unless it is done to avoid marine and avian (or any other negative) impacts.
Having to do more or pay more to avoid harmful impacts is "correct economics". Moving a harmful problem away from human sense or thought, by distance or into the future, is simply unethical no matter how much more popular or profitable that may appear to be.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:40 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
scaddenp,
Many sources address the bird kills by talll buildings.
This CNN report is only one of many on the subject.
The major concern is buildings lit up at night. But, as mentioned in the article, daytime bird strikes can also happen because of reflective glass covering a building or plants next to windows fooling the birds.
-
nigelj at 06:00 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
OPOF fair points, but putting wind turbines offshore might still be better overall, where its practically feasible from an electricity supply perspective. Its likely going to reduce bird strike problems, and would definitely reduce insect strike problems, and does virtually eliminate the visual problem. Offshore wind farms do not seem to have too many negative impacts on ocean ecosystems. Refer:
www.dw.com/en/how-do-offshore-wind-farms-affect-ocean-ecosystems/a-40969339
-
scaddenp at 05:49 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Does the book cite research to back the problem of tall structures on bird routes? Can you give me the cites please? I would say outright that it is over-generalization and certainly doesnt bother all species.
This 2021 literature review doesnt seem to find any insurmountable problems but does emphasize the importance of planning and mitigation.
-
nigelj at 05:43 AM on 8 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
Swampfox could you please provide proof of your assertion that rabbit meat contains low nutritional value for humans, because 1) it defies basic commonsense and 2) a quick google search shows a vast quantity of credible publications stating rabbit meat has a particularly high nutritional value for humans. The first three hits are below:
www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/22711.pdf
www.livestrong.com/article/342037-nutrition-in-rabbit-meat/
foodstruct.com/compare/rabbit-meat-vs-chicken-meat
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:29 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj,
Teresa Coady's book I referred to also points out that tall structures along any migratory bird route is a problem, even off-shore. In addition, marine impacts of off-shore human developments also need proper consideration. Otherwise, putting wind turbines off-shore is just another harmful development akin to "moving coal power plants out of the city" which is the UnSolution of "Problem moved away - perhaps even being more harmful but out of sight so Okay?"
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 8 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
nigelj,
The term "radical environmentalist" is problematic. It can mean anything. I would support the "radical environmentalists" being the ones deciding what happens if they are "radical" by including "Social" considerations in their pursuit of increased awareness and improved understanding of what is going on and the application of their learning to pursue the end of social and environmental harm done by human developments and make amends for harms that have already been caused.
I agree that people should be concerned about the harmful impacts of human development, including harm done to birds.
But the focus of that bird concern deserves to be on buildings that are more than, say, 6 stories tall. There are plenty of easy to access resources explaining that tall buildings kill lots of birds, especially the glass covered ones, especially if they have inside lights on at night. It is likely that a tall building kills more birds than an equally tall wind turbine. So it may be that it would be less harmful for tall buildings to be replaced by 6 storey buildings with wind turbines above them (and the total harmful impacts of building and operating shorter buildings would also be less than the impacts of the tall buildings - "Rebuilding Earth" by Canadian Architect Teresa Coady, is the most recent item I have read that includes this type of information as part of the understanding of how to address the climate change problem and many other problems caused by human development).
But the biggest killers of birds are domesticated cats. And that relates to a "population problem of concern" than can and should be acted on - Reducing the harm of pet over-population. Some domesticated animals are helpful. But many pets cause harm and increase demand for resources. Reducing the harmful impacts and consumption caused by unnecessary Pets could be a helpful step while the human population problem is brought under control by the continued pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals through the next 40 to 50 years (peak global population may occur in the 2060s).
But even if the human population problem is controlled, the problem of harmful over-consumption by the highest consuming and most harmful portion of the population could persist, even becoming a bigger problem as the total global population declines.
So the real problem/solution is reducing the harmful over-consumption that some humans have developed a liking for. Free choice to believe and do whatever a person wants is not a solution. It is a problem. Reduced the energy demand will reduce the amount of harm done by "required" power generation systems like wind turbines.
The wealthiest are the ones who can afford to live the lowest energy consumption lifestyle. The required global fundamental understanding needs to be that the wealthiest and most powerful should be required to prove they deserve to be wealthier and more powerful by living with less benefit from harmful actions than those who are less fortunate. Wealthier or more powerful people should not be Freer to Choose to be more harmful, even if they can afford it or abuse their power and influence to get away with it.
That "Winning by harmful pursuers of status" is an Age Old Problem. But problems can only be solved by increased awareness of the actual fundamental problem.
Radical environmentalists could be the solution, depending on what type of person that term actually refers to.
-
swampfoxh at 23:55 PM on 7 December 2021Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits
I wasn't sure where to start with the above essay, so much of it is grasping for straws. 0.6% of the land necessary to erect solar power grids, then employed for the reasons listed, is itself a discussion about nothing at all. We would be better off just planting trees on an equivalent area on the other side of town, or converting cattle grazing land to riparian. As far as raising rabbit goes, current nutritional science has proven that eating rabbit is equivalent to eating rats, insofar as nutrient values are concerned. There are no nutrient values in rabbit meat...not for humans. Regarding bee habits, we beekeepers know that bees enjoy sunshine and love the floodplain of rivers as forage areas, although they will harvest the nectar of flowering trees, especially tulipfera species which cannot grow under a solar panel. My apologies, I could go on about several other points made in this post, but my essay is long enough as it is. ...someone else's turn.
-
nigelj at 11:33 AM on 7 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
Don't let radical environmentalists decide what electricity generation gets built, because nothing would get built. Solar power looks relatively benign environmentally. Wind turbines are more problematic because of the big visual footprint on hills that some people dont like, and they kill insects and some birds, lets not pretend otherwise. The solution is really to locate them offshore, something central governmnet should require by law, maybe 50% offshore and gradually increased from there.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 04:09 AM on 7 December 2021Book Review: Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe
UniteHumankind @6,
I understand the intention, but yes, it is very silly. To have any validity, a poll must be taken on a representative sample. Many precautions enter in the rather complex selection process that allows for a representative sample. In your case, not only that is not the case, but you are even down to attempt overcoming a manipulation of the poll with a counter-manipulation maneuver. What validity can the poll have? Close enough to zero to be negligible.
-
swampfoxh at 01:10 AM on 7 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
It would be best if radical environmentalists had the final say on site selection, since they have no monetary or political axe to grind. We are happy with eliminating as much fossil fuel usage as possible, but not happy with collateral damage to the environment from insensitive projects.
-
swampfoxh at 01:02 AM on 7 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
We should not lose sight of appropriateness in site selection...and we are. In the rush to renewables, many proposed sites are moneymakers but are deleterious to the environment. Here in Rockbridge/Bottetot County, a wind turbine site proposal has 100% opposition from area radical environmentalists.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 6 December 2021Can genetically engineered seeds prevent a climate-driven food crisis?
John Hartz @2,
Thanks for pointing out the article.
It is an interesting perspective on the well established understanding that has been written about in different ways by many different people in recent years. It alings with the understanding shared by Gaya Herrington after she revisited, and performed an update on, the "The Limits to Growth" study published by the Club of Rome in 1972 (one article about this is The Guardian reporting on her study).
An important understanding is that Over-population is not the real problem. And the population problem is undeniably being more effectively addressed than the climate change problem.
The real problem is harmful over-consumptive ways of living that some humans have developed a liking for. And those harmful over-consumers provide harmful unsustainable examples that others can be tempted to aspire to develop to match or exceed.
There are many sources of information to help people improve their understanding that Total Population is being address and that the harmful over-consumption problem fails to be effectively addressed. People who claim to be concerned just need to act on that concern and become better educated. But it is undeniably difficult to get people to learn something that contradicts their developed preferences or that contradicts something they want to claim to excuse not understanding the real problem. Proof of that difficulty is the lack of effective actions to limit harmful over-consumptive ways of living like the ways of living that cause the growing climate change problem and people continuing to claim that "over-population is the problem".
-
Eclectic at 11:40 AM on 6 December 2021Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Thank you, BaerbelW.
The new Potholer54 video has aready scored 60,000 views in approx 24 hours.
Entertaining and informative - typical for Potholer54.
I particularly benefited from his relating the development of the "Hansen Prediction" myth about New York being submerged by 2018 (or earlier).
-
UniteHumankind at 01:05 AM on 6 December 2021Book Review: Saving Us by Katharine Hayhoe
Hello everyone! I could not figure out how to post a general message to the group so I am hoping this will work. I started a poll on LinkedIn regarding climate change and cause where initially the majority had chosen Climate change occuring, human caused however some deniers have statred sharing my post to their network to get more votes. Now I know this is super silly but would appreciate anyone's support. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/garthovermyer_activity-6871992734962520065-p8MG
-
michael sweet at 23:37 PM on 5 December 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #49
The Guardian has an article that says the International Energy Agency, IEA, projects that 95% of new electricity generating capacity worldwide from today to 2026 will be renewable energy.
Renewable energy is being built out because it is now cheaper than fossil fuels almost everywhere. This winter coal, gas and oil have increased greatly in price while renewable energy has only increased a little. Hopefully businesses will increase installation of renewable energy to save money. It will help with the climate issue. Every kilowatt generated by renewables is less generated by fossil fuels.
Another article stated that one of the primary bottlenecks for wind energy was obtaining permits to build. Governments can speed up the permitting process to increase renewable energy.
-
BaerbelW at 21:26 PM on 5 December 2021Sea level rise predictions are exaggerated
Peter Hadfield has a new video out on his potholer54 YouTube channel which is now also mentioned in the further viewing section above.
-
BaerbelW at 21:24 PM on 5 December 2021Sea level rise is exaggerated
Peter Hadfield has a new video out on his potholer54 YouTube channel which is now also mentioned in the further viewing section above.
-
nigelj at 07:41 AM on 5 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
Swampfox. Your assertions are simply not correct. Numerous polling studies (eg Pew Research) find huge difference on climate issues between republicans and democrats, where republicans are generally more sceptical than democrats about the science, carbon taxes, and wind and solar power (although the gap is smaller for wind and solar power). A simple google search found Democrats far more likely to buy EVs than Republicans. It shouldn't be like this, but it is like this.
-
what should we do at 06:57 AM on 5 December 2021Thanksgiving advice, 2021: How to deal with climate change-denying Uncle Pete
Unfortunately, there isn't so much information in this post as there is social reinforcement--it goes back to the old trope of the crazy uncle and serves to encourage thinking the other side is stupid.
I also notice that certain supporting information like that the pentagon takes climeat science seriously neglects to mention that all, that is all, of their predictions about climate were wrong. The Climate Discussion Nexus offers a lot of actual, real information without so much "snide." This one is about the Pentagon predictions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj83l0mcWUY
We should be focused on the actual pace of change and its effects as well as what to do about it, not scoring points on who was right or wrong all along. This video needs to be posted so it's clear this article is not a font of scientific accuracy, but what we need to do is focus on reasonable action.
This article fails in that way and can only serve as candy for true believers.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:16 AM on 5 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
Swampfoxh,
It is possible to understand that "What is needed is not support of a political constituency, rather the declarations and positive actions of dictators who, from scientists, know what has to be done." is a misled belief.
Any type of leadership will work. The commonsense requirements is that the leadership (winners) all pursue increased awareness and improved understanding of what is harmful and aggressively act to rapidly end the harmful activity in "the least harmful way", with the political differences being different perspectives that create a diversity of effective ways to rapidly end the harm being done. An important understanding is that "perceptions of harm done by the ending of harmful activity" need to be restricted to concerns to ensure that everybody live at least a basic decent life - No Poverty. It is important to understand that it is not harmful for supposedly superior people to become less superior because harmful activity they benefited from is ended.
The key is to end the nonsense belief that any developed perceptions of prosperity deserve to be maintained as the harmful activity is ended. That legacy argument that excuses incredibly harmful things like oil extraction in California to continue because it "was initially permitted and therefore is grandfathered into being allowed to continue" has to be scrubbed from the system.
Sustainable activity by all of humanity is the only starting point that can be constantly continued or improved on by the development of better "also sustainable harmless" alternatives. Humanity has millions of years to enjoy this planet, so the accumulated impact of actions of each generation have to be essentially harmless.
The challenge of today is "getting to the starting point of all of humanity living sustainably, all people living decently, no harmful poverty". That means everyone learning and pursuing living in ways that are not harmful to others or the environment of the planet that is essential to all future life on this planet (a key point being the understanding that technology can be helpful, but is not essential to life). And the "wealthy and powerful" need to be required to be leaders of the correction of what has developed. The alternatives to that responsible leadership are ultimately disastrous for humanity.
The problem is the small portion of humanity who develop a liking for benefiting from being harmful. That small group have been in control of much of humanity since the earliest days. The evidence is growing that the growth of that type of "controlling people" has always been a harmful growing problem. It has now grown past the point of being able to be ignored or excused. And a growing number of people are realizing that ... including the gerrymandering types using their powers to prolong their ability to be harmful Winners who are just like the harmful dictators and populist pursuers of power.
Something has to be done. Hopefully it will be the Winning by responsible thoughtful people. The alternative is a growing disaster in the making. (btw, the likes of Trump owning a Tesla as one of their personal vehicles obviously does not represent their overall actions and impacts).
-
swampfoxh at 00:29 AM on 5 December 2021Gerrymandering is a climate problem
There is clearly no connection between sensible, practical and necessary methods to remedy human behavior in seeking solutions to climate and environmental problems, based on political affiliation or the assumed leverage of a majority constituency. People and groups working proactively on climate are doing so with no regard to their own political party affiliations. If Democrats were really better at this work than Republicans, progress would be significant because the Yale study back in 2012 showed that more people identifying as Democrats were delivering support to reducing fossil fuel consumption, but it's Republicans whom are buying the electric cars. What is needed is not support of a political constituency, rather the declarations and positive actions of dictators who, from scientists, know what has to be done. Consequently, nothing will be done. Humans are an outlaw species on planet Earth and will just have to try and pick up the pieces after the coming extinction event runs its course.
-
BaerbelW at 15:27 PM on 3 December 2021FLOATER: A Tool-Kit for evaluating Claims
@Nigel - your comment reminded me to delete my name from the author list. It was only in there because I copied the article over from Melanie's Thinking is Power website and forgot to take it out after it went live on SkS on Wednesday. So, credit for this FLOATER article - and all the other of her reposted articles - needs to go to Melanie.
Prev 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Next
