This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Environment Thread

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
The thought that immediately comes to mind is why is he filling dams with groundwater which then evaporates instead of irrigating directly from groundwater ?
Click to expand...

Not seeing the whole picture Rumpy. The model this farmer is working on is retaining water on his farm and letting it seep into the ground. That is the point of the contour weirs.
The sub soil mositure is critical for pasture growth and/or cereals.

I believe it's called keyline design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyline_design
 
On this Bas;

"Back from the Brink: How Australia's Landscape Can Be Saved
Book by Peter Andrews"

Read this a few years back now. There are some great solutions out there bt a certain dogma insists that "you can't shift the goal posts"

Party time now
 

Sounds good.

I reckon drought assistance could be made conditional on farmers adopting methods like this. Then they may not need drought assistance !
 
What will be the effects on human health through eating plastic? Looks like we are going to find out.

Microplastics found in human stools for the first time
Study suggests the tiny particles may be widespread in the human food chain

Microplastics have been found in human stools for the first time, according to a study suggesting the tiny particles may be widespread in the human food chain.

The small study examined eight participants from Europe, Japan and Russia. All of their stool samples were found to contain microplastic particles.

Up to nine different plastics were found out of 10 varieties tested for, in particles of sizes ranging from 50 to 500 micrometres. Polypropylene and polyethylene terephthalate were the plastics most commonly found.

On average, 20 particles of microplastic were found in each 10g of excreta. Microplastics are defined as particles of less than 5mm, with some created for use in products such as cosmetics but also by the breaking down of larger pieces of plastic, often in the sea.

Based on this study, the authors estimated that “more than 50% of the world population might have microplastics in their stools”, though they stressed the need for larger-scale studies to confirm this.

The Environment Agency Austria conducted the tests using a new procedure the researchers said shed fresh light on the extent of microplastics in the food chain. Samples from the eight subjects were sent to a laboratory in Vienna where they were analysed using a Fourier-transform infrared microspectrometer.

Philipp Schwabl, a researcher at the Medical University of Vienna who led the study, said: “This is the first study of its kind and confirms what we have long suspected, that plastics ultimately reach the human gut. Of particular concern is what this means to us, and especially patients with gastrointestinal diseases.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...tics-found-in-human-stools-for-the-first-time
 
Great this is finally coming to light SirRump. My Brother handed me "Back from the Brink" by Peter Andrews some 5 years back now. Excellent approach but has taken a long time to hit the mainstream. Hope the show tonight gets plenty of attention.
 
SirRumpole said:
Very disturbing report.



More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning





https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

--
Click to expand...

As long as we have crocodiles and cockroaches we have the basis of a new phylologeny.

Now they are survivors.

Humans will do ok as well.

Whenever I see a statement such as "More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning" my immediate reaction is to call bull****.

Go to https://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html
for an explanation.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Whenever I see a statement such as "More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning" my immediate reaction is to call bull****.
Click to expand...

Probably over reach in that statement I agree.

But loss of habitat due to land clearing and other human activities can't be denied.
 
I'm one of those people who don't know what to think on Global Warming. You have the Right, calling it all a hoax, then Studies like the above come out.
 
Darc Knight said:
I'm one of those people who don't know what to think on Global Warming. You have the Right, calling it all a hoax, then Studies like the above come out.
Click to expand...

The problem DK is that a lot of studies are done by environmentalists with an agenda. There is little to no independant studies done by disinterested parties which will gain any air time as there is a green agenda at play with a lot of money behind it. Anyone who has an opposing view will be quickly discredited and silenced. It is like drawing a chart. If I have a belief in a stock or commodity I can draw you a chart "proving" it will go up, this is why charts can fail, bias. I like to chart stuff of little or no interest to me as I have no bias one way or the other and tend to get the potential outcome fairly correct most of the time. The science of "no bias" is sadly lacking in this whole non-debate. There is no debate as dissenting views are never allowed to be aired. Any dissenting view is howled down immediately. This tells me there is pressure put on those with any legitimate argument against the the whole "science" of global warming. I have a lot more to say on this subject but now is not the time.
 


I wouldn't call NASA environmentalists with an agenda.
 
SirRumpole said:
I wouldn't call NASA environmentalists with an agenda.
Click to expand...
Why not Sir Rumpy? You really should read more on this subject but as I said before, this is not the time, however not to shirk your reference. Please note the last sentence of the quote.

This is a quote from NASA ...

"But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."4 Hansen's testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change
 
SirRumpole said:
Neither did Galileo in his time.
Click to expand...
Galileo faced problems that would be familiar with today’s scientists, including finding funding, and dealing with publishing pressure. Any Scientist with opposing views to accepted climate change views is in the same boat as Galileo.
 
I will address this whole subject at a later stage, not now and not on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Global economist David Hale on the economy, recession, and political assassination
Replies
1
Views
5K
lakemac
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...