Our climate models are WRONG: Global warming has slowed

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptFun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
I love the gobbledygook "We estimate that humans appropriate 10 to 55% of terrestrial photosynthesis products. "

Translation We estimate that humans appropriate 10 to 55% of sunlight"
Click to expand...
That would be a very faulty translation, since terrestrial photosynthesis uses only a small percentage of total sunlight.
And note how precise she is "10 to 55% of terrestrial photosynthesis products "
Click to expand...
If the “she” you refer to s Elizabeth Sawin, she was not the author of the Scienc article. She was just the author of the Grist article that reported on the Science article, which she did not write. But even if we take the lower bound of 10%, that is still of some significance, or was of significance way back in 2001. As weller2 pointed out, these figures are no longer needed sinc we have more accurate ones now.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The article in Science said nothing about direct uses of solar energy, so I don’t know why you are citing this irrelevant fact… It was specifically and only about the fraction of photosynthesized solar energy that is directed ultimately toward human use. Even if you consider adding previously barren land to human use, that will add to both the numerator and the denominator of the fraction, thus making it even higher. The only way we could actively bring down that fraction would be to develop barren land and then leave it for other life forms to use - like that would ever happen!
Click to expand...
Do you know what grazing land is? pastoral lands?

We do in fact do this. The human race is not composed of Darth Sapiens.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
This sounds like an argument against something, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what.
Click to expand...
lol, did you not say, “The only way we could actively bring down that fraction would be to develop barren land and then leave it for other life forms to use - like that would ever happen!”

Well, PEOPLE don’t graze in pastoral fields, OK?
 
RGCheek said:
lol, did you not say, “The only way we could actively bring down that fraction would be to develop barren land and then leave it for other life forms to use - like that would ever happen!”

Well, PEOPLE don’t graze in pastoral fields, OK?
Click to expand...
What does graze in pastoral fields? Cows. We eat the cows. OK?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
What does graze in pastoral fields? Cows. We eat the cows. OK?
Click to expand...
But we are leaving it for other animals to use, OK?

🙂

Your objection does not seem to be that other animals actually get use from it but that you don’t want human beings having an y use of it in any form or fashion.
 
RGCheek said:
But we are leaving it for other animals to use, OK?

🙂

Your objection does not seem to be that other animals actually get use from it but that you don’t want human beings having an y use of it in any form or fashion.
Click to expand...
I have not voiced any objection to how resources are being used. It may seem like an implied objection, just quoting the percentage of photosynthesis products that are ultimately for human use, but that is for others to decide. I am merely clarifying what the Science article was about, and that article did indeed count cows raised for human consumption as “for humans” in its statistics. One thing you don’t get out of this kind of use is biodiversity. So if I were to voice any criticism at all of this use pattern it would be that.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I have not voiced any objection to how resources are being used. It may seem like an implied objection, just quoting the percentage of photosynthesis products that are ultimately for human use, but that is for others to decide. I am merely clarifying what the Science article was about, and that article did indeed count cows raised for human consumption as “for humans” in its statistics. One thing you don’t get out of this kind of use is biodiversity. So if I were to voice any criticism at all of this use pattern it would be that.
Click to expand...
‘Biodiversity’ now means ‘anything that is not advantageous to people?’
 
RGCheek said:
‘Biodiversity’ now means ‘anything that is not advantageous to people?’
Click to expand...
No, biodiversity means what it always meant - a wide diversity of life forms. If you have any doubt as to whether or not land bent toward human use has less biodiversity, just look at a field of corn or soybeans or sunflowers some time, and compare that to what you will find in a tropical rain forest, or even a northern wilderness.

Biodiversity is our hedge against future needs. It is ultimately for our own good to preserve it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, biodiversity means what it always meant - a wide diversity of life forms. If you have any doubt as to whether or not land bent toward human use has less biodiversity, just look at a field of corn or soybeans or sunflowers some time, and compare that to what you will find in a tropical rain forest, or even a northern wilderness.

Biodiversity is our hedge against future needs. It is ultimately for our own good to preserve it.
Click to expand...
But you do admit then that pastoral fields, which are largely untouched and left to nature other than grazing vows on them, are in fact more ‘biodiverse’?

I think that ‘biodiversity’ is being used as just another hook to attack our economy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top