MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
FAO warns agriculture greenhouse emissions have doubled in 50 years
From farming to forestry and fisheries, agriculture greenhouse emissions have nearly doubled over the past 50 years and may increase by another 30% by 2050, according to new estimates from the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“We also see much interest in capacity development on these topics at country level and respond to these needs through regional and country-level activities around the globe,'' he added.
Apr 14th, 2014 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WTF is he trying and failing to say?
50 years ago nobody even knew about “global warming”, the first scare story and wealth generator for the likes of the American crook, the “almost a President” Al Gore and then, because the world was actually COOLING it turned into “climate change”. Now we have farting methane.
And why have we got a big increase in methane? More people in the world and more people have money to eat better. More vegetarians (never thought those poor buggers would be blamed for methane) requiring more crops and the evolution of “synthetic fertilizers”.
The UN are out of control when they publish crap like this.
The latest IPCC Report was a very interesting read full of these lovely thing called facts and evidence unlike this pretty standard ChrisR keeps droning.
Apr 14th, 2014 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where are you facts ChrisR?
Find a fact-base as comprehensive as the latest IPCC report, or previous ones for that matter, an amount of evidence with as much international recognition as them.
One I posted earlier:
Apr 15th, 2014 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0'I note that the first state to 'control' methane is Colorado - pretty sparse on cattle feed lots and on water too! Perhaps Cargill know something we don't.
No problem with Methane clathrates in Colorado! ... Now, if Alaska were to get involved, then we could do something to correct matters - but that is REALLY pissing into the wind.
And has ANYBODY found a way to stop cattle from belching and farting us all to a methane rich climate-changed future?'
............
Does anybody know if there is even basic research on livestock production without gastric fermentation?
Apparently a 38% reduction in world levels of anthropogenically produced methane could be brought about if our meat-on-the-hoof could be made 'wind-less'.
Geoff,
Apr 15th, 2014 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An interesting point. Some years ago The Ecomist published a cover, tongue in cheek perhaps of a cow with green hair, modified by implantation of of vegetative genes which would allow the animal to photosynthesise direct part of its diet.
OK a fantasy perhaps?
Before we place all the blame on farting cows and rotting rice paddies, how much CO2 does every human being on the planet exhale per year?
Methane once called marsh gas,is biodegradable but the end product is more CO2 which seems to be the basic problem.
AzaUk
Apr 16th, 2014 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0What facts and evidence are you referring to in the IPCC report? There is a great shortage of evidence, there are lots of computer modeling claims, but no facts to explain why the world isn't warming, in spite of increasing CO2. It doesn't matter that CO2 is rising, correlation is not causation. Computer models are not science. This vital trace gas is not the planetary thermostat. Temperatures rise before CO2, demonstrating that the main contributor is outgassing from the oceans, not outgassing from cows. There is nothing unique about our current climate, it has been better, it has been worse.
@ 2 AzaUK
Apr 16th, 2014 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is your ability to think for yourself AzaUK?
I stopped reading fairytales stuffed full of “computer models programmed by “Global warming” zealots managed over by a hairdresser (do you remember him in the early days), I bet you were still in nappies then.
If you want to verbally abuse me try harder. And read 5 DennisA.
Get yourself qualified in a science based subject and join the real debate.
5 the world isn't warming? according to the IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
Apr 16th, 2014 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i would suggest in the absence of true evidence on the future climate, because it has yet to happened, Computer models provide the best forecasts unless you would rather go back to witch doctors or perhaps human sacrifices in an attempt to predict or alter the future ?
“Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems.”
cows produce methane at an approximate amount 280 litres of methane each day if you multiply that amount but every cow on the planet as previously stated its very complicated.
evidence for past warming and predictions for are all in the IPCC's report. linked below very interesting read.
http://www.ipcc.ch/
as for 6 suggest I strongly suggest you go back to school yourself and get some up to date qualifications instead of what ever outdated qualification they were teaching way back when. science has moved on old boy, just my opinion no threat or attempt to verbally abuse anyone.
My understanding the half life of knowledge for an engineer even a professional one is only 7.5 years
ChrisR your outdated words are meaningless and are strongly lacking in factually based evidence.
more light reading for you buddy.
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
http://www.ipcc.ch/
@ 7 AzaUK
Apr 16th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think I have hit a nerve here! You DON’T have any science training, never mind qualifications and horror upon horror actual EXPERIENCE do you? As for your “understanding” I have only one thing to say. When YOU have similar (modern) qualifications, experience and ability as I do then I will listen to you.
As for:
“Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”
If you have read this nonsense of expectation and “attributed to” and all the other wishy-washy words used that have NO proof provided and you think this somehow makes it so, then it is no wonder we have deluded politicians about this “science”. SPM 1 is particularly laughable.
AND, not forgetting the other piece of riveting nonsense:
“Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” aka “Copyedit Pending” in RED!
I take it you understand the importance of measurement in the real world, tolerance of measurement and confidence levels (that is the statistical handling of data)?
SO, do you agree with this little gem?
“the observed change between the average of the period 1850–1900 and of the AR5 reference period
(1986-2005) is 0.61°C”
If you do then you really are a patsy for this bunch of self-aggrandising crooks –Al Gore? The holes are bigger than the Channel Tunnel.
BTW I am not, nor will I ever be your “buddy”. I prefer people with intellect and a searching mind for THE TRUTH as my friends: you clearly have neither.
As stated matey, Back to school get yourself an up to date education cause there isn't much chance they were teaching you this amount of ignorance this decade and probably not even the one before that
Apr 17th, 2014 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0you cant seem to see the Forest though the tree mate, its sad really because its not your generation that will have to deal with this mess.
As stated before in previous posted in this forum it its irreverent what qualifications you or i have.
maybe you conciser the IPCC reports wrong but it still a whole lot more that you have offered. anything i offered would be purely opinionated a lot like your previous posts.
50+ years from now will will know until then its a case for probably and numerous predictions and presently these predictions and projections, in the most widely accepted format suggest it wont be so great and the fault for which lays with the dominant species on the planet.
try watching this vid again and see if you get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
have fun ripping it to pieces and missing the point again
thanks
@ 9 AzaUK
Apr 17th, 2014 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“50+ years from now will will (SIC) know “
So you must be a child then if you think you will be around in 50 PLUS years? No surprise there then!
Yes, I looked at this numbnuts video, have you bothered watching some of the others? No, I didn’t think so.
My retort is simple: you cannot win at OXO.
But I do like a comment from someone who wrote:
“.basically a climate-change version of Pascal's Wager, then”
You DO know what that is don’t you?
AND, you think that all the “poor” people should not have the western lifestyle so favoured by your hero Al (the gob) Gore?
We have more chance of millions dying from a global pandemic than this crap.
Get real and stop bothering the grown-ups.
Mate, you are laughable. typical older guy stuck in there selfish way, unchanging, cant admit he was wrong.
Apr 17th, 2014 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the thing with schooling nowadays is your never to old to go back, that is what i feel you need a reeducation, maybe i nice degree in environmental science will give you more understanding, well maybe give you a more generalized understanding in today world.
Doubtful though, leopard cant changes his spots and all that.
Al Gore some sort of former American politician, never really read in to him sorry buddy.
Pascal's wager is a fairly interesting concept and with a few twist im sure it would be reverent. Lesser of two evils bro ;)
grown ups more the grown old and obsolete trying to force his old code on the world. you will fail lol. education is against you
Goodbye sport
@ 11 AzaUK
Apr 17th, 2014 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Al Gore some sort of former American politician, never really read in to him sorry buddy.”
Now we all know you are an imbecile. Gore manoeuvred “the deluded” politicians into a carbon tax scheme of which he was the primary driver and now a billionaire.
As for education I am presently doing a course in Astro-Physics with the MIT distance learning school. At least this is reality.
AND, a parting gift:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10746497/How-did-the-IPCCs-alarmism-take-everyone-in-for-so-long.html
Read the comments as well, FOR AND AGAINST. I doubt however that your entrenched view will allow you to see the reality.
I bet all this “Global Warming” which morphed into “Climate Change” when it was realised that the world was getting colder came as a shock for “acolytes” like you.
This was due to a Yank lowering the recorded temperature figures for the 1930’s so that today’s numbers looked like an increase, and will be discredited by subsequent events and the “scientists” who aren’t, who fudged things for the IPPC will be castigated for eternity.
Real scientists are only interested in the truth and if their theories are proven wrong WITH EVIDENCE, they will gladly concede their errors. Not so with the IPPC, but their comeuppance will arrive, never doubt it.
Now run off and play with the rest of the children who like believing fairy tales.
Chris, Dennis et al
Apr 17th, 2014 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf
It may not be 'science' to some people but, as sure as hell, it looks like science to me.
It is the product of many people who purport to be 'scientists'.
I even understand it, though I cannot replicate the results - the analyses are massively too complex for that!
The first two tables help you to put this Mercopress agricultural (AFOLU) article in perspective.
It's nice to see that the Summary for Policymakers builds on the science and modelling, and then translates it for the non-scientists among us.
interesting your using facts from newspaper articles and you say im not scientific? Ha
Apr 17th, 2014 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/05feb_sdo/
and back to school for you ;)
@ 13 GeoffWard2
Apr 17th, 2014 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It may not be 'science' to some people but, as sure as hell, it looks like science to me.”
And that is the problem, it only looks like science and is presented to “policymakers” aka the politicians, in a deliberate manner to obfuscate the real results. The IPCC have learnt from their ridiculous 2007 report and have drawn their horns in quite a bit. No more bold statements that cannot stand scrutiny of the bright light of day.
“It is the product of many people who purport to be 'scientists'.”
And the important word here is “purport”. Yes, they do have some qualified scientists who for whatever reason are quite happy to skew the conclusions to suit “the cause” but just investigate the named authors and it doesn’t stand up.
Remember that computer modelling is just that. Computer models to develop real “hold it in your hand” things are only as good as the development that takes place from the first result (which invariably is a surprise) to the final component. F1 use such models and very good they are at it BUT they have taken years of actual result driven development of the programme and millions of dollars to get where they are.
Computer models are at risk from the programmers who wrote the thing either not being told the real facts or taking decisions in the programme steps that they are not qualified to make. This is worsened when there is no REAL data to go on (hockey-stick ring a bell) and the initial data (1930’s rainfall) was corrupted deliberately (this IS documented) to again “prove” the climate change advocates “right”.
I have personally written a computer model for a major international telecommunications company for their designers to be able to select various company standard components at will to mix and match the tower suspension clamps for fibre optic cables that carry the data, in this case for 7,000 Km. And it worked and I made a lot of money from it.
Nice to see you're not against computer models per se, Chris,
Apr 18th, 2014 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0otherwise we would never know whether to leave home with an umbrella or sun shades (I bet you secretly check the weather reports ;-)
And you're right, the 'Summary for Policymakers' is just that, a summary for policymakers.
I guess the thousands of truly scientific papers that make up the IPCC main report needs a lot of interpretative work done to make it understandable by you and me.
Even though I have been an academic in one related field - research in water science and lecturing across the Env. Sci. piece - there are still vast areas of Climate-related research that are way beyond my ken.
Very few scientists are true polymaths; their specific skill within the IPCC is in the synthesis of knowledge to find truths in the data accumulated from across the world.
I admire their skill and the integrity that the vast majority of them deploy throughout their working lives.
['Purport' was a tease. I trust you have *read* my link in #13, and have studied the main IPCC 2014 Report.]
@ 16 GeoffWard2
Apr 18th, 2014 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My weather comes from a site in Norway (http://www.yr.no/) and in the three years I have been using it for Uruguay has always been much better than the government effort. No surprise there as nobody I know uses the government either.
BUT, the weather in Uruguay does change without warning and then change back again and has always done so.
Yes, I did speed read both documents which is why I made the comment to AzaUL about the SPM.1. If you want me to deal with it chapter and verse it will not fit on any three posts and what difference would it make: none.
“Very few scientists are true polymaths; their specific skill within the IPCC is in the synthesis of knowledge to find truths in the data accumulated from across the world.”
Herein lies the first hurdle for the truth. An American acolyte of “Global warming” and now of course because the first stab didn’t work (the world is getting colder) we now have “Climate change” as if it’s a new phenomenon, altered the records for the temperatures in the 1930’s thus making it look like the current temperature was much higher.
I could not even begin to think of doing something like this but the IPCC and now even NASA have been caught out getting up to these little tricks for decades it seems to “ensure” the world “gets the right message”. NASA’s Sun Climate has been well and truly thrashed by independent scientists with peer reviewed reports but NASA are still plugging the discredited version.
I do sometimes wonder if it is me always seeking the truth and reality of everything we do that is somehow outdated with all the liars in politics and now “scientists” of spurious qualifications but then I come to the conclusion that has always stood me in good stead: liars always get caught out. The IPCC WILL get its comeuppance but probably not in my lifetime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yx8kGyeOyY
Apr 19th, 2014 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!