Industrial Farming and Climate Change

I believe that some of the weather changes have to be down to our behaviour such as nuclear tests, depleting the pzone layer etc. I know the weather has strange patterns at times but we do not help. Good article to remind us to conserve what we can. Hubby and I have never had a car and so think we are eco firenldy compared to many these days but we also waste other resources.

I started reading Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth recently. It's an excellent overview of climate change, with evidence that's pretty hard to ignore.

Until society makes major changes, we as individuals must. Thanks for some excellent pointers.

BMcPherson,

You say there is evidence "that changes are occurring in our climate." But there was never a time when evidence of climate change was NOT available! Change is just what climate does. I think you mean to refer to "evidence of a human cause of dangerous global atmospheric warming." Because otherwise there's just no reason to do anything about it, is there?

So, what is that evidence? Everyone tells me it's "overwhelming" but won't say what it is. Do you know what it is? I have not seen any, so I cannot say that there's any link between human activities and dangerous events in the climate. The idea of fighting the climate is impossible, incredible bunkum.

You mention three "main gases" in the greenhouse effect but don't mention water vapour, which is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, with some estimates up to 26 times stronger than CO2. All the other gases, including CO2, are minor atmospheric gases measured in parts per million or less.

Your description of the greenhouse effect is very misleading, for it implies that the more greenhouse gases in the air, the higher the temperature will get (like a closed car). This is just not so. There is a natural limit to the amount of heating from these gases, for the return is inversely exponential. You get less and less heat for the same amount of gas. Past a certain point, the increase is negligible.

We passed that point before the Industrial Revolution in 1750.

"Tracts of forest … release carbon when burned. This combines with the oxygen in the air to form carbon dioxide."

Incredible. Where did you learn your chemistry? Rather: wood, when burned, releases carbon dioxide. Clean, vital carbon dioside, the universal plant food, even for aquatic plants. Levels now are among the lowest they've ever been and plants are practically starving.

"Nitrous oxide helps warm the planet," you say. But the amount of warming caused by humanity's contribution of N2O is infinitesimal and cannot be measured. Natural sources contribute about 60% of the current atmospheric concentration of 314 ppbv. The current level of carbon dioxide is 390 ppmv — compare that with the perfectly trivial nitrous oxide level of 0.0003 ppmv!

Our selfish contribution of 40% of 0.0003 comes to 0.00012 parts per billion. How much do you think the temperature soared after that lot, then? I can't work it out, because even the IPCC are unsure how much temperature rise we've caused in the last hundred years. They think the total is somewhere between 0.4°C and 0.6°C. Not much, is it?

"Actually cow farts are nearly pure methane, another greenhouse gas." You could mention eructation (belching), which is the primary method of expelling methane from the digestive tract.

"The practise of feeding large grain rations to confined livestock produces methane in their digestive systems." Actually, eating grass also creates methane, although a diet of grain produces more methane than grass does.

"Traditional farming methods do not confine livestock but allow it to forage and consume little or no grain and the animals fart far less." This is misleading in two ways. First, traditional farming methods have long employed winter housing in barns or houses in higher latitudes, with a diet of grain. Second, even a 100% grass diet still produces prodigious quantities of methane and CO2.

We must remember that all the gases emanating from an animal have just been ingested from the environment, and it's all part of a natural cycle. No additional warming is caused by this. If you recall that farming has increased the numbers of farmed animals, then remember it is balanced by a matching reduction in the great ancient herds of other grazing animals like bison, mammoth, elephant, wildebeest, deer, antelope, rhino and hippo by human hunting and land clearance.

Your recommendation of our part to play in minimising climate change proposes perfectly puny countermeasures which will have no effect whatsoever on warming. Even if carbon dioxide did cause dangerous warming, not buying palm oil won't reduce its level in the air, and knowing where food is produced won't reduce it, either.

You seem to mistakenly conflate global warming with other environmental problems.

On the surface, a mild propaganda piece with weak scholarship. But actually a grievous confirmation of prevailing ignorance, helping to consolidate expensive and dangerous economic and social experiments around the world.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold.

Dear Richard,
Have you ever read An Inconvenient Truth? You will find plenty of evidence there of human-based origins of climate change.

Also, an example of traditional agricultural practices vs. modern-day ones: manure used to be left in the field where it fell. Manure left to dry out in this way does not emit methane. Manure that is stored, on the other hand, does emit methane.

themerryonion,

Thank you. Have you read AIT yourself? Could you just summarise the evidence proving the connection, please?

I find that hard to believe. How do you store manure without it drying out? Why would you? But emissions from the manure once evacuated are puny. The "problem" is with the continuous process of digestion causing scores of litres of methane per hour to be belched.

btw, are you talking about the same AIT found by a British judge to contain so many scientific errors that children could not be shown the movie at school without hearing a statement that it contained errors?

I'm talking about the book, not the movie. I haven't seen the movie and won't comment on it. I believe you that it has errors, but it doesn't mean everything in it is wrong.

I'm partway through the book right now. I'll let you know, once I've finished reading it.

Richard, thank you for taking the time to present your viewpoint and to point out possible errors in my story.
This is a good example of the diverse stands on what may become a catastrophic chapter in human history. Of course climates change, especially as the continents drift and reconfigure. That in itself will bring its own problems. What I am concerned about is whether human activity is "pushing" a natural trend to warming. You mention other environmental concerns in your comments. A basic tenet of ecology is "Everything is connected to everything else". Unsustainable agricultural and industrial practises may be helping to accelerate global climate change in ways that we have yet to contemplate. You mention the powerful part that water vapour has in warming the planet. Of course you are right. A tiny temperature increase in ocean temperature leads to much more water vapour in the atmosphere and ocean temperatures have been rising, not everywhere, not all at once, but in critical polar waters. I'm not at fan of "The Inconvenient Truth" and haven't actually read it, but base my dislike of it on its main proponent who seems to ignore the inconvenient truth that he leads an unsustainable lifestyle. As I said previously, everything is connected to everything else and if billions of people take puny measures to live in a more sustainable way it will add up to big changes. The alternative is to party on until Mother Nature presents her bill.

BMcPherson,

In general I agree with what you say, however:

Nobody has found evidence of a human cause of dangerous global warming. Because of this lack of evidence, you can only say unsustainable practices "may" be accelerating global warming, which is actually mere scare-mongering, and you link global warming to unrelated problems such as the unspecified costs of shipping food from beyond one's "local" area. But mentioning one problem does not prove the existence of another.

Ocean surface temperatures have been falling for about three years, which "shouldn't" be happening if the theory of dangerous AGW is correct. To dislike the contents of a book based on a judgement of the lifestyle of the author and without reading it is simply unsound.

There is no such thing as "the" alternative to the puny measures you champion; there are many alternatives. You hint at Nature building up some deficit which will damage us, but you give no evidence of it. In your article you say believing the evidence is optional.

But evidence is everything! You ignore the evidence at your peril.

Cheers.

BMcPherson,

In general, I agree with what you say, however:

Nobody has yet found any evidence of a human cause of dangerous global warming, and because of this, you can only say that unsustainable practices "may" accelerate global warming, which, without evidence, is actually mere scare-mongering.

You also link global warming with unrelated problems, such as unspecified costs of shipping food from outside one's local area. But mentioning one problem does not establish the existence of another.

Sea surface temperatures have been dropping for several years.

To base your dislike of a book on a judgement of the lifestyle of the author and without reading it is just unsound.

You hint that increases in water vapour could result in "runaway" warming, which is a common theme among those who champion a reduction in our use of fossil fuels. But it's impossible to believe that what has never happened in four billion years of Earth's climate is now about to happen.

It is incorrect to refer to "the" alternative to taking the puny measures you recommend; there are many alternatives.

Finally, your article treats evidence as being optional. But evidence is everything!

You ignore the evidence at your peril.

Cheers.