Mountains of mollusk shells along the California coast are a testament to the fact that Paleo Indians liked shellfish.
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Wagathon
↧
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Brian
Wasting water?
EPA says what about:
Activities such as taking a bath requires up to 70 gallons of water. A five-minute shower uses 10 to 25 gallons.
A running toilet can waste up to 200 gallons of water per day.
Over 713 gallons of water go into the production of one cotton T-shirt.
The average faucet flows at a rate of 2 gallons per minute.
The New York City water supply system leaks 36 million gallons per day.
It takes 39,090 gallons of water to manufacture a new car.
At 1 drip per second, a faucet can leak 3,000 gallons per year.
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Wagathon
For eco-whacko-global warming alarmists too much acid may be the problem.
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Beth Cooper
Or eggs from caged birds.
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Scott
Sorry to say but growing cotton and feed in the desert of the southern california great valley uses most of the water in california. Around 85% although there is a lot in almonds and grapes as well, (to be fair) Big issue is the subsidized cost of 44/acre foot vs $40+ to pay for energy to pump it down south. San Diego at Carlsbad is starting up their desalination plant. Haven’t seen those costs but at least they don’t kill salmon in drying up rivers. Got to realistically price water from the bay delta and drip irrigate appropriate crops with costs equivalent to desalination. Plus don’t kill salmon, trout and smelt in the delta.
Scott
↧
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Scott
$4 is the subsidized cost per acre foot, not 44.. No wonder we are short water when it is cheaper to waste it than to conserve. Water industry feels a lot of water in river is wasted, when in fact it is the life blood of the ecosystem. Need nuclear fusion to be successful in the mid to long term.
Scott
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by johanna
Tony, it may well be that “grain fed beef” use that much water – I wouldn’t know. But it is thoroughly dishonest to spruik that number around as if it applies to all beef production. The large beef-producing nations, like Australia, Argentina, the US etc primarily raise beef on grass and water fed by natural precipitation. What’s more, it is done sustainably – the cattle move (or are moved) around, and the pasture regrows constantly.
The country being used is not suitable for much else – otherwise people would be using it for something more profitable.
Raising beef entirely on grain is very expensive, and I’d hazard a guess that it is a small fraction of total world beef production.
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by xanonymousblog
If one ignores habitat destruction, over use of fertilizers and run off, land deterioration associated with over grazing, etc…it’s quite reasonable to argue more grazing animals (if developed in a sustainable fashion) could actually enhance ocean co2 sequestration via silicic acid fertilization, as has been the case during the last 8 million years of global cooling where silicon rich grasses have come to dominate the landscape. Cows cause global cooling in climate with high sensitivity? lol
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer
Looks like a giant cone of silence descended on Tibet.
↧
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker
Eric
The problem with Steven Mosher’s explanation is his categorization of things that change our planet’s climate into what he calls “forcings” and what he calls “noise” (or “unicorns”).
There is actually no difference between the two – it is strictly a matter of giving one or the other a name.
Our planet’s climate has been changing far more than the recent warming blip over its geological time, from snowball Earth periods when CO2 was several thousand ppm to warmer periods when life flourished.
To take a CO2 concentration of 280 ppmv, which is estimated to have occurred some 260+ years ago as a baseline for “anthropogenic forcing” is a fairly arbitrary decision.
To ASS-U-ME that we know all the things that make our climate behave as it does is foolish.
To write off the many unknowns as “noise” or “unicorns” (since they cannot be explained) is not only foolish, it is also arrogant.
Max
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer
The switch away from daylight savings is done at 2am so it’s actually the longest night not the longest day.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Bob Ludwick
@ Rick A
‘We don’t know.’, ‘We don’t know.’ and ‘We aren’t sure.’ are YOUR answers, Rick.
Clearly, John Cook and his friends over at ‘Skeptical Science’ DO know. If they DON’T know the results of inaction, the results of action, and the benefits of action vs inaction, why would they be advocating something so otherwise prima facie insane as drastically increasing the price of energy through taxes and drastically decreasing its supply by regulating ACO2 emissions? They HAVE to know the horrific impact on our technological civilization that will result by restricting the supply of energy and increasing its price, so if they don’t understand, quantitatively, the efficacy of their proposed policies, what could possibly motivate them to advocate them?
↧
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH
Tibet = 1,228,400 km²
World = 148,300,000 km²
0.8% of world land surface
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by David Springer
Might be Mongolia. My Asian geography ain’t what it should be.
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by RichardLH
Seems to match Tibet quite well.
http://www.maphill.com/china/xizang-zizhiqu-tibet/location-maps/political-map/
↧
Comment on Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? by manacker
Steven Mosher
1. easterbrook fabricates data
2. GCRs constitute a tinier fraction of the atmosphere than C02.
3. C02 matters where there is no water.
1. EVERYBODY fabricates data: IPCC, GISS, NOAA, NSIDC, etc.
2. You are on thin ice here, Mosh. The “fraction of the atmosphere” is not really what matters (CO2 is ALSO only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, right?) What is important is the effect. A small change in cloud cover has the same impact on climate as a doubling of CO2
3. CO2 may “matter where there is no water”, but there is a helluva lot more water than CO2 and, again, what is important is the effect. Even Gavin Schmidt agrees that the effect of H2O constitutes 75% of the natural (or natural + anthropogenic) GH effect (and other estimates put this even higher).
Max
↧
↧
Comment on Livestock’s long shadow by Brian H
The population is not increasing rapidly. It’s headed for a Pause — yes, another one — and peak at about 8bn in 2045, declining thereafter as far as the eye can see.
If the cows weren’t belching methane, the vegans would be.
↧
Comment on Open thread by RickA
Bob:
I agree – my answers are my opinion.
As to Skeptical Science – they think they know – but the observations don’t back them up.
All I know is that the ocean level has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years or so. 119 meters is caused by nature. 1 meter may be caused by humans, but it could be as small as 1/2 meter – we just don’t know accurately enough. 1/120th is only .8333 %.
If you look at the big picture, our current warming is fully expected and nothing out of the ordinary. It was warmer during the last interglacial and it will be warmer when we arrive at the height of the interglacial this cycle.
If we do make the cost of food, energy and fuel more expensive and it doesn’t make any appreciable difference (because a significant portion of the warming is natural), history is not going to look kindly on Skeptical Science.
↧
Comment on Open thread by pokerguy (aka al neipris)
Maybe someone with a stronger stomach than mine will want to read this fantastical b,s, from “The Nation” concerning “climate justice”
“From Occupy to Climate Justice
There’s a growing effort to merge economic-justice and climate activism. Call it climate democracy.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/178242/occupy-climate-justice
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
