CO2 dissolved in water lowers the pHSeeing that the UK was 2 degrees hotter than now in the Roman times shows that we can survive those conditions and thrive. Seeing paintings of bonfires and parties on the Thames in the 1800's shows that climate is quite variable naturally before the Industrial revolution.
The corals used to be thought of being killed off by acidity rising in the oceans, but that theory seems to have gone away now in favour of the heating causing bleaching (?) I was taught that acidity does that chemically, and I have seen no explanation to date as to what the mechanism is for a 1 degree rise in temp doing this. I also dispute that CO2 causes rise in acidity of the oceans - simply because CO2 in an acid environmenrt in seawater creates calcium carbonate and aodium hydroxide both of which are alkali, not an acid. and it is actually neurtralising the acid in the sea instead.
In fact, no one seems to have identified what the acid in the oceona is. I suspect it is acid run off from industrial activity and burning fossil fuels. I would think Sulphuric acid is a possible candidate since it is definitely causing acid erosion. but Nitric acid is possible due to the rise in NOX from petrol and diesel use. Of course, us humans expel hysdochloric acid in abundance since that is what stomach acid is. but then so do animals.
So the chemical reaction between Co2 and NaCl in an acidic environment is more likely to occur which is the more complicated way of looking at the picture. The oceans absorb co2 by storing it in the form of limestone sediments, which is why we find limestone and chalk in our present day lives. When we use cement then it releases the stored CO2 back again. which is one of the major sources of that GHG today. That is how it used to be done, and we should not forget those chemical processes are still occurring naturally.CO2 dissolved in water lowers the pH
“Ocean acidification refers to a reduction in the pH of the ocean over an extended period of time, caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.”
It is soluble in seawater. The process can be found on the net. Seawater does indeed contain dissolved carbon dioxide.So the chemical reaction between Co2 and NaCl in an acidic environment is more likely to occur which is the more complicated way of looking at the picture. The oceans absorb co2 by storing it in the form of limestone sediments, which is why we find limestone and chalk in our present day lives. When we use cement then it releases the stored CO2 back again. which is one of the major sources of that GHG today. That is how it used to be done, and we should not forget those chemical processes are still occurring naturally.
The oceans are not designed to store Co2 in its gaseous form. If you bubble Co2 through a water trap, it does not absorb the gas. Pass it through a limewater trap and it sequesters it, This is also seen in our heating systems and kettles when they fur up by the calcium carbonate coming out of suspension, So the oceans will store Co2 only by conversion to other compounds that are water soluble,.
So the piece you quote is not on my opinion telling us the proper story. It is an oversimplification, If it was true then changes in atmospheric pressure would cause CO2 burps as a storm goes over and the gaseous Co2 bubbles out again. No that is not happening as far as I know. There are other sources of man made acids that leach into the water,
This is correct. The levels of CO2 in the Jurassic were 5 times more than they are here today. This was due to extensive volcanic activity beforehand. There is a lot of evidence for this now. Review what is known as the Slow Carbon Cycle.No not an oversimplification. The main contributor to global warming as we describe is most definitely not down to animal farming. Okay. So let’s put it another way.
Approximately 175 million years ago there was no ice at the poles. There was a larger percentage of seawater on the planet than there is today. (Antarctica was enjoying a more temperate climate for example). The Atlantic Ocean did not yet exist and there was a large Ocean known as the Tethys Ocean straddling the globe from east to west. The world was considerably warmer, the atmosphere was far more fuller of CO2 than it is now. The seas were teaming with phytoplankton which gorged on the sun and CO2 like had not been seen for a long time. This went on for millions of years. The phytoplankton not eaten, of which there was a colossal amount, then eventually died and settled on the bottom of the seabed where layer upon layer was buried in thick layers, and eventually baked at depth by a process known as catagenesis to form hydrocarbon liquid and gas. There it stayed for millions of years, locked under the surface of the earth until 20th century, where man intervened and brought the carbon in its combustible form to the surface where in only 100years half of those resources has been burnt by the petrol engine etc etc leading to millions of years worth of the carbon compound CO2 being pumped into the earths atmosphere in just one century.
Get that. Millions of years worth of hydrocarbons being consumed in 100 years only. Given the source, i.e. C02 from the earths atmosphere 175 million years ago, over millions of years, that is a lot of CO2 that we have pumped into our atmosphere in recent times.
The whole process has gone into reverse. So by far the biggest contributor to global warming is exactly as described above and not cow farts. So don’t worry guys about your sources of food.
Response was off topic so deletedIt is soluble in seawater. The process can be found on the net. Seawater does indeed contain dissolved carbon dioxide.
Consider the process from CO2 to limestone. There are stages in between.
Yes. Climate change is more important.
However by messing with the meat eaters they are barking up the wrong tree. 2nd verse, same as the first.
By not tackling climate change we face more of what is happening in Australia, less land to live on, less fish in the sea, more drought. So no land, no water so meat is lower down the pecking order.
It cannot be off topic if the topic is on the perceived dominant role of farmed meat and dairy produce on planet wellbeing and current attempts or threats to reduce meat consumption. The underlaying assumption of the thread is incorrect and various posters mention climate change.Response was off topic so deleted
I believe the Aboriginals, they are the native people of Australia .Didn't have a lot to add to this thread it has been an entertaining read so far, but :***: are you watching to get your news! All your points have been totally debunked as right wing media spin. Murdoch at his best with the aid of his media cronies. Jeez I always thought people saw through blatant lies but obviously not.
What was that we were saying about choice? Looks like we’re edging one step closer to the removal of it.
People should cut the amount of beef, lamb and dairy produce they eat by a fifth to combat climate change, a report says. It says public bodies should lead the way by offering plant-based options with all meals. But it says if people don’t cut consumption willingly, taxes on meat and dairy might be needed. The report comes from the government’s official advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51210622
I have no problem with Greta, but I have major issues with the media who put her on a pedestal so others can guru-worship like she is spouting the truth. She is not, she is generally reading a prepared speech from autocue in a monotonic voice, We do not know if she writes it or someone else does, The face is a child, but the words that come out are adult beyond her years IMHO I see other schoolkids are now being groomed to take over from her.
She is certainly suspected of being manipulated by others because they need to indoctrinate our children. Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man (St Francis), It is worrying that in infant and junior schools these brainwashing techniques are being used to further a certain message. We will soon have a generation of schoolkids that may never see a farm animal except in old books
The CCC Action plan Jim quotes was based on the Eat Lancet Global Diet for the Anthropocene Era which they published at the end of 2018. This calls for an 80% reduction in animal protein consumption, and the CCC agreed to introduce a 20% target as an annual target. Their progress report at the end of 2019 states very clearly that we did not meet the 2019 target because of Brexit, and that this year would need stronger measures. An annual cut of 20% over several years is still going to meet the stated goal by 2025 so is recoverable.Oh wow Jim. Where do I begin..? Been avidly following this thread. But my thoughts staying on the specific topic..
To many people & dwindling choices.
I feel the "junk food" industry using these meat products should go..
To be fair, along with similar junk food ethos with vegitarian.
There are perfectly good whole food choices whatever anyone's feelings on animal wellfair.. (& putting diabetes aside.)
We are a self awair species at the top of the food chain. (Through a series of misfortunate the events for everything else has put us there.)
Some of our species have health issues & this "self awairness" has evolved to give us the option of choice, actioning & innovating in the name of "self preservation." (Another base instinct?)
We've just come out of the last "ice age" (pleisioncene epoch?) in the grand scheme of things. It only came down as far as Gloucester, then receded.. It may be still getting a little warmer?
Yep, we've been busy since the "industrial revolution."
But adulterating food for the poor hasn't really changed. Now it looks like we could be going back to the days of (from reading the link provided.) "Re foresting for leisure?
Look don't touch, hmm, "poaching" is still an illegal activity in the UK. Though basically comes under "animal cruelty" in the judges book. (Don't get me wrong. I don't see the point of killing anything if you don't plan to eat it.)
We've been sold a lot of stuff that is "covienient" in the hectic moments of our consumer lives.
These ideas are easy to sell in the absence of global common sense with birth control & an interstellar space program..
We are victims of our own success, & all they have basically found is another "sticking plaster."
Of course, I still don't see the actions proposed in your link as an answer to poverty & famine elsewhere on this spinning rock..
In short; it don't serve man nor beast.
Lol, been discussing this topic with my wife.. She wants to know. "Cut a fifth of what?"
Stopped me in my tracks & made me think.. That's why I married her..
What frequency do they think the meat eaters consume? (With the general populace.)
How is it our choice when we, the people, have no power over those making the decisions. No say in the decision making. No ability to stop any legislation?Our choice!
Its the same choice that the veggies on this site keep reminding us about, Perhaps if they were to read this thread they might understand our concerns better.How is it our choice when we, the people, have no power over those making the decisions. No say in the decision making. No ability to stop any legislation?
The CCC Action plan Jim quotes was based on the Eat Lancet Global Diet for the Anthropocene Era which they published at the end of 2018. This calls for an 80% reduction in animal protein consumption, and the CCC agreed to introduce a 20% target as an annual target. Their progress report at the end of 2019 states very clearly that we did not meet the 2019 target because of Brexit, and that this year would need stronger measures. An annual cut of 20% over several years is still going to meet the stated goal by 2025 so is recoverable.
What determines consumption? Well the WHO maintains and collates annual census of every country in the world apart from N Korea and a few others, In UK the Foot and Mouth panic gave raise to legislation requiring all relevant animal births and deaths to be registered at DEFRA and this gives the UK production and the Red Meat levy gives the slaughtehouse (i.e. consumption) along with the import and export records.
We are facing the cliffedge of the no deal brexit in December which will automatically invoke 40% import and export tariffs on meat and livestock entering or leaving the country. This will immediately cause immense pressure on the livestock farmers, and so far the noises from Johnson et al seem to promote this walk away with no deal as if it is of little consequence, thus fuelling my suspicion that it was always planned to go that way.
Will they make us eat less meat? Or will we sleepwalk into it by ourselves? Our choice!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?