I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Real Truth Behind Global Warming

Hits: 3050 | Rating: (2.2) | Category: Science | Added by: drawman61
Page: 1 2 3 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16954 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 9:41:12 AM
mesovortex: "Your numbers don't at all add up - which makes me think you made them up."

They come from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the numbers do vary by category according to seasons and the economy.

For instance there is more jet fuel used during the holidays, less fuel used by farms in the winter, more recreational fuel use in the summer.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 9:09:26 AM
You know nothing of agriculture.

@mesovortex: OBVIOUSLY! I mean my extended family has only farmed on the Canadian Prairies for 100 FREAKING YEARS NOW!
I have NO CLUE!!!!

I've already accurately stated the amount of fuel burned in farming is TRIVIAL compared to other industries! AND farming (growing crops) acts as a CARBON SINK! For F*CKS SAKE.

Even making those solar panels create MORE greenhouse gasses than farming every year! On a global basis...

Put your "Medallion Of ESP" away Bro, it seems to be broken...

Next you'll say I know nothing about CATS...


5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 9:01:21 AM
agricultural practices

@Squrlz4: As a prairie person? I include ALL aspects of farming and ranching when I hear that phrase... my assumption! Sorry.
How else can our "practices" be done in a "greener" way except by less fossil fuel burning? Cow burp reclamation? That wouldn't come cheaply...

yet here you are talking about the killing of "billions" of humans.

It's a fact...

Contrary to your assertion... it is the world's poor who will most suffer.

Um, NO? I said the OPPOSITE of this! I said the poor will suffer the MOST and the "poorest of the poor" will DIE IF PRO-AGW rules are emplaced.

Doubling the price of everything = bad!

Finding ways to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea.

YES! I agree! But lets find ways that do NOT destroy humanity, OK?

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 408 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 5:49:03 AM
@CrakrJak:
Your numbers don't at all add up - which makes me think you made them up.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2833 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 4:49:40 AM
@5Cats

"It's not "black & white" ok? It's complicated! It amazes me that Pro-AGW folks think it's so absolutely simple. It's NOT."

It IS complicated.
We DON'T think it's simple.
We LISTEN to those far smarter than you and us who have gone through all those complexities FAR more thoroughly than your Wikipedia flailings ever could.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2833 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 4:47:31 AM
@5Cats

"The absurdity of AGW's request: The "One Ton Challenge"."

Things like that aren't meant to be the solution unto themselves. They're meant to be the first baby step towards getting you and others to think about your lifestyle and see what you can change for the better.

Kind of like those "walk 5,000 steps a day" things, or "eat 5 fruit and veg a day". Nobody thinks those are the whole answer to living healthily; they're meant to be a first step.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2833 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 4:42:34 AM
@CrakrJak

"Correct! Human population is our #1 problem, but absolutely nothing is being done about THAT eh?"

Yes, human population is our number one problem.
No, things are being done about it.

I'm not having any kids. That's a small contribution.

And I imagine the same is likely true about you, CrakrJak.

So we're helping.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2833 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 4:32:09 AM
@5Cats

"Humans have caused SOME environmental change, but to claim we're utterly destroying the planet in the next 100 years is NONSENSE."

We're not going to utterly destroy the planet.

What we WILL do is make it worse for our species in particular to live here.

This isn't about putting the planet's needs ahead of our needs. This is about putting OUR long-term needs ahead of our short-term needs.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16954 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 1:23:01 AM
mesovortex: One weeks commute by people to and from work, uses more fuel then do all the farmers in this country in one month. In fact, the numbers aren't even close. Farmer's use 13-15% of refined fuels, commuters use over 60%. The rest is used by semi-trucks 9-10%, airplanes 9-11%, trains & buses 3%, recreation and the military 1-3%.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16954 Posts
Monday, September 30, 2013 12:44:54 AM
Squrlz: Let me quote the Buffalo Field Campaign, a group that helps protect the Yellowstone herd.

"Although no one will ever know exactly how many bison once inhabited North America, estimates range from twenty-five to seventy million."

"William Hornaday, a naturalist who spent considerable time in the West, both before and during the most severe years of the slaughter, comments on the seemingly infinite bison population and the impossibility of estimating their quantity: It would have been as easy to count or to estimate the number of leaves in a forest as to calculate the number of buffaloes living at any given time during the history of the species previous to 1870."

75 to 100 million, doesn't seem to be an over estimation when writers of the time describe of herds 5-6 miles wide and reaching from beyond each horizon (12 miles in each direction, a total of 24 miles).

There is nothing in past or present history that can compare

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 408 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:10:53 PM
@5cats:
Also, you have no idea how much fossil fuel is used by agriculture. Fly over the plains of Canada or the Midwestern US some time.

You also have to deal with fertilization and tilling of the soil every year.

You know nothing of agriculture.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 408 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 11:07:35 PM
@5cats:
One beef/dairy cow has a larger carbon footprint than one bison. No fossil fuels are used for natural grasslands. However, plenty are used for the growing of cornfields (seed transporation, farm equipment, irrigation pumps, etc.). Fossil fuels are used to get the livestock from one farm to another if they are sold for breeding purposes, or to the slaughterhouse (which is not always next to the farms due to waste pollution). Then, there are fossil fuels involved in taking the beef (which is heavy) and transporting it.

How come you can't figure this out on your own?

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:58:57 PM
(Cont'd)

Contrary to your assertion, many studies have found that if the Earth continues to warm, it is the world's poor who will most suffer. Why? Because many of the world's poor are barely suriving now on subsistence level agriculture. Subjecting those millions to more extreme weather, lengthier droughts, and less fresh water for irrigation could make lives that are already difficult even worse.

If you'd like to read an article that discusses this at more length, here is a good one, published just a couple days ago.

Time for bed. Goodnight! =^.^=

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:56:47 PM
(Cont'd)

3. FARM MACHINERY
You stated: "To count the oil burned by farm machinery is ridiculous!"
RESPONSE: When did farm machinery come into this discussion? I've never said one word about it. Please keep to the topic at hand.

4. ON KILLING "BILLIONS" OF HUMANS
You stated: "(Addressing global warming) will double the prices of ALL foods thus killing billions of humans."
RESPONSE: ~facepaw~ I find it interesting that you so often rant about the "scare tactics" of those who support AGW science--yet here you are talking about the killing of "billions" of humans.

(Cont'd)

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:55:52 PM
@ 5Cats:

1. BISON VS CATTLE NUMBERS
You stated: "Even with "only" 30M? There were as many of them as there are cows now."
RESPONSE: Not even close. As of Jan. 1, 2012, there were over 103M cattle in the U.S. and Canada.

Source: USDA Ecomic Research Service

2. FOR AND AGAINST
You stated: "So if cows are counted AGAINST humans, why aren't lack of bison counted FOR humans?"
RESPONSE: In a way, they *are*: If the bison herds somehow were still existing on TOP OF the 103M cattle we're farming, CO2 emissions would be higher than they are. But again, you are missing the point, 5Cats: CO2 emissions have been climbing steadily ever since we've been burning fossil fuels. Finding ways to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea.

(Cont'd)

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:04:24 PM
I'm using "made up numbers" (that should be obvious!) and speaking ONLY of food production, but the overall picture is true.

Remember the "price shock" when the USA instituted "ethanol laws" and corn, rice, millet and other "staple foods" JUMPED all over the world?
Good for farmers & BIG Business
Bad for everyone else
Fatal for the poor...

The USA is making Ethanol the WRONG WAY! Don't use corn! Use corn stalks! And other by-products even the pigs won't eat. THAT is how to make it! But it costs 3X as much (or more, I forget), so it's utterly un-economical that way.

Get it?
The "cure" is worse than the disease!
And if the USA used ALL it's crops to make ethanol? It STILL wouldn't be enough to replace oil!

See? Complicated!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 8:57:29 PM
@Squrlz4: Is that Plains Bison or all 3 kinds Really? Even with "only" 30M? There were as many of them as there are cows now. And bison are 2X as big!

So if cows are counted AGAINST humans, why aren't lack of bison counted FOR humans? Just like the trees: some produced, some removed.

The growing foods the cows (& bison) eat also ABSORB CO2, just like TREES do! Again that's a "neutral" production.

To count the oil burned by farm machinery is ridiculous! It's MICROSCOPIC compared to 1,000 other things!

Again: demanding humans cut CO2 in farming is like asking Canada to cut CO2... but NOT CHINA!

It's NOT a case of "every little bit helps" ok? it's a case of:
Plan A - Will cost Millions and do 2%
Plan B - Will cost Billions and do 4%
Plan C - Will cost Trillions and do 6% AND will double the prices of ALL foods thus killing billions of humans...

AGW Supports ONLY Plan C...

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:39:20 PM
@ 5Cats: If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that if man weren't raising livestock in North America, which are producing methane, there would be herds of bison here, which would be producing methane.

Two points:

(1) Per Kelliher & Clark (2010), today's cattle are producting roughly THREE TIMES the GHGs that the bison produced. If you haven't read the study or the article that cites it already, please do.

(2) For the sake of argument, let's say that today's cattle are producing the exact same amount of methane as the bison herds used to. So what? The key point is this: Atmospheric CO2 has been on a slow but steady rise (it's known as the Keeling Curve) ever since we've been burning fossil fuels. Anything we can do to slow or reverse that trend is a good idea. Ergo, it's sensible to look at all sources of GHG that we have some control over--including agricultural practices.


Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:26:05 PM
@ CrakrJak: The 30M figure that is most often used by scientists, such as Kelliher & Clark (2010), is based on the available habitat, available foodsources, predation of, lifespan, and breeding habits of the bison. That's a far better way to arrive at an estimate of peak population than anecdotes from hunting expeditions or from Native American folklore.

As far as PBS goes, on the PBS.org website, they state:

[quote">Scientists estimate that there were more than 30 million bison in North America when the first European settlers arrived on the continent...."[/quote">
PBS article on bison

I think we can both admit no one really knows exactly how many bison there were. But until you can point me to some information more convincing than Kelliher & Clark (2010), I'm going to go with the number most often used by scientists: 30M.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16954 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:40:19 PM
Squrlz: I know the references you are citing of 30 million buffalo, but that is just the number that we counted in the process of killing them. Much of that slaughter was not accounted for at all. I've heard the PBS "Nature" program claim 100 million buffalo were here before colonization and that amount was estimated due to the size of their tracks and Indian folklore about them.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:37:33 PM
@Squrlz4:
Ok: HERE at Wiki Wiki has both Bison AND "American Bison" pages, slightly different!

My point is: 14% of "AGW" gasses are from animals which, if humans weren't around, would STILL produce the CO2 (or methane) naturally!
Cow or bison? Same thing! If there were no humans and no cows? There'd be just as many burping BISON producing the same (as the cows) Green House Gasses!

Humans cut down trees = yes.
But if humans vanished? More trees would burn in fires every year!

It's not "black & white" ok? It's complicated! It amazes me that Pro-AGW folks think it's so absolutely simple. It's NOT.

As for "biomass"? Humans are just LITTLE FISH in the biomass of the Earth. Messy? Yes, but still rather small.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:21:13 PM
@ 5Cats: A request and a question:

(1) Please provide a reference for your figure of 60M bison in North America prior to 1492. All my sources are stating 30M. (For example, see the first three references for the "Cattle Burps and Climate Change" article I linked earlier in this thread.)

(2) What is the point that you are arguing? Pardon my saying so, but you're a little all over the place and I'm lost.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 6:04:15 PM
Squrlz4: Bison are also "four gut feeders" too: They Are Bovines As Well!
So they mouth burped methane just as well as cows do! Better! They're usually bigger you know!

@mesovortex: Wiki says: apx 60 million Bison in North America before 1492... check those facts Bro!

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:48:53 PM
The absurdity of AGW's request: The "One Ton Challenge".

In Canada, the Pro-AGW people asked each Canadian to reduce his "carbon output" by 1 ton each year. Sounds easy? Not really, but lets see how much that would change things:

Canada emits: 16.5 tons per person
544,000,000 as a nation.

China emits?
6,100,000,000 or over 10X as much.

Dropping Canada's emissions by 33,000,000 tons would be about 0.00113% of the Earth's output...

An snowball in Hell has more effect...
Wiki Source

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 24965 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:38:07 PM
@Squrlz4: "hydrosphere" Ooo! Nifty word! Useful for finding information on Wiki

All from Wiki:

1,400,000,000,000,000,000 Tons = Hydrosphere
5,000,000,000,000,000,000 Tons = Atmosphere Of Earth
17,500,000,000,000 Tons = CO2 In The Air
29,000,000,000 Tons = Human CO2
Humans produce 0.6% of the Earth's CO2 each year? Did I get my fractions right??

Humans emit: 29 gigatons of CO2 per year. Apx 8% of that is from breathing = Natural CO2 is 0.035% of the total mass.
Plant activities? 439 gigs, or 14X as much.

YES YES! I KNOW! Plants absorb 450 Gigs! Don't both repeating it!

My point is: If ALL HUMANS VANISHED the animals they tend would be replaced by wild animals. Forests would not be cut down (true) BUT they'd BURN MORE (also true!) each year!
The biggest difference would be no more fossil fuels...

Page: 1 2 3 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.