Scaremongering Climate Experts Spread Absurd Myth That HOME GARDENING Is Hazardous For The Planet
"A recent study wants to stop people from being sustainably food-independent and discourage them from growing their own food in urban settings. The research indicated that resorting to garden-to-table produce causes a far greater carbon footprint than conventional agricultural practices, such as rural farms.
This research by University of Michigan scientists, which was published in the journal Nature Cities, looked at how much carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced when growing food in different types of urban farms. It found that, on average, a serving of food made from traditional farms creates 0.07 kilogram (kg) of CO2. Meanwhile, the impact on the environment is almost five times higher at 0.34kg per portion for individual city gardens, as per the study.
The paper’s first author Jake Hawes said: “The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”
[quote]but I've yet to hear a rational explanation of how miniscule increases in an atmospheric trace gas such as CO2, causes the earth to warm.[/quote] It's because CO2 & methane are transparent to visible light but more opaque to infrared. The solar energy comes pouring in via the visible spectrum, but the heat can't leave so easily via the infrared spectrum due to that opacity. Kids' version: https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/explainer-co2-and-other-greenhouse-gases idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
[quote] In order to actually prove human carbon emissions influence climate, all variables would have to remain constant[/quote] Nope. With multiple data points we can solve for multiple variables simultaneously. Detailed climate models account for all the variables you list and more. They are verified and calibrated based on 700,000 years of prior climate data. http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html
[quote] Global warming models are based on small amounts of data. The earth is 4.6 billion years old, and we are expected to believe they can draw conclusions based on a hockey stick graph with 50 years of data?[/quote] Nope, not 50 years, 800,000 years, covering about 7 ice ages. The climate data comes from bubbles in glacial ice, and is corroborated by data from lake & sea floor sediments. https://icecores.org/about-ice-cores CO2 & methane & temp data Here's [i]where[/i] the various data sets were collected: The most salient thing about the 800,000 years of climate data is the rate of change during those previous 7 ice ages compared to the current rate of change this century.
[quote] Where does the money for climate research come from?[/quote] Fair question - it comes mostly from the National Science Foundation. Equally fair: where does the money for climate denial come from? The US oil industry makes about $110 [i]billion[/i] per year; coal another $20 billion. Big Oil spends $3.6 billion per year on advertising; a sum equal to about 8X the whole NSF climate budget. You're not naive enough to believe [i]none[/i] of that money goes to propaganda, are you?
@ElwoodBlues the human component is unpredictable, and one of the ways this shows up is that humans have been cutting their CO2 & methane outputs over the last few decades. So the older models based on 1990 outputs or year 2000 outputs are now in need of adjustment. The "tipping points" predicted earlier have been pushed into the future by humanity's reductions in greenhouse gasses.
Some try to paint this as a failure of the models. In a technical sense, their predictions are no longer accurate, however, it is the publicizing of the models that has driven humanity's change, so in another sense, it's a huge success of the models.
USA per capita CO2 reductions - down over 30% in the past 2 decades! Europe has had less dramatic reductions, but Europeans' avg output started at less than half of ours.
That sounds like it was likely funded by big farms. Rooftop gardening is what works. Slows run off increases affordability doesnt take up space that could be used otherwise. But the industry side of things wont profit if ppl grow their own food. Thus what will allieviate the consumers suffering isnt what benefits the industry. Capitalism. Has drawbacks. Healthier to grow ur own and it decreases depression actively growing ones own food.
Guess who’ll cruise down the political and ideological highway? One car will. The other won’t until the great “pop” sound is heard when heads are pulled out of asses breaking suction! Hey conservatives… time for new fucking wheels! Wake the fuck up!!
[quote]“The most significant contributor to carbon emissions on the urban agriculture sites we studied was the infrastructure used to grow the food, from raised beds to garden sheds to pathways, these constructions had a lot of carbon invested in their construction.”[/quote]
The conclusion is don't construct those fancy sheds, ijit!!
idealized quantitative model: https://www.climate-policy-watcher.org/coriolis-force/a-simple-mathematical-model-of-the-greenhouse-effect.html
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/climate.html
