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: 3037 | Rating: (2.2) | Category: Science | Added by: drawman61
Page: 13 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:34:16 PM
@5Cats:
I've told you at least a dozen times. If we change the content of the atmosphere, we change climate. The more rapid we change it, the more rapid climate changes.

Nature can adapt, but not if the changes are catastrophic. If the changes are too quickly, many species will go extinct. Since we're at the top of the food chain, that's a big problem.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:23:27 PM
@ 5Cats: Sorry, didn't address one of your questions in my last post. The reason livestock GHG emissions are considered as part of the AGW equation is simply because they are something we have some control over--as opposed to natural sources of GHG. It's as simple as that.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 2:16:06 PM
@ 5Cats: It's cow burps, actually, not cow farts. Cows are foregut fermenters so the methane comes out the front; humans do their fermentation in the gut, so the methane comes out the back.

I think you all need to keep in mind that when it comes to methane emissions of livestock, we're talking about a relatively small part (but by no means negligible part) of the GHG problem (~14% or , in fractions, about one-seventh of what we need to be concerned with). If mankind can find a way to reduce GHG emissions in transportation, electricity generation, and industry, those of you who want to can still have a juicy steak or two every week.

Regarding your research, 5Cats, no, I don't have those numbers offhand. What you're looking for is the combined weight of the *hydrosphere* (key term) and the atmosphere. I'm sure Wikipedia will either have the info or its references will be able to point you to it.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22048 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 2:00:23 PM
A valid point @Squrlz4 but still not covering why cow farts are fully counted as "Human Caused AGW"... Humanity should get 4.2% CREDIT for wiping out those farting bison... (this is only half-a-joke, half serious!)

@mesovortex: Blue-Green Algae (whatever it's technical name may be) is the #1 biomass on the plane: more than ALL OTHER LIFE COMBINED!

Tell me again how humans can destroy the Earth's water & atmosphere...

@Squrlz4: Do you know off-hand what the Earth's water and atmosphere weigh? I gotta go shop for food, but I could look it up later... if you happen to know save me the brain-strain.

Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 5992 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 1:06:32 PM
I was going to stay out of this thread because I'm already in danger of overdosing on climate skeptic dopiness. But I can't help myself.

5Cats and CrakrJak, scientists have studied this topic. Exhaustively. You really think that in the past 50 years not one climate scientist has thought to ask "How did the methane emissions of the North American bison herds compare to today's cattle?"

Short answer: Today's cattle produce roughly three times the methane emissions (140 Tg CO2e) compared to the bison that used to roam the Great Plains (46 Tg CO2e).

References:

Kelliher & Clark (2010)

"Cattle Burps and Climate Change." A short article referencing the above.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:59:44 AM
@CrakrJak:
Your photo is absolutely NOTHING compared to the amount of livestock and how many resources it uses. 100,000 is nothing. There are 40,000,000 cows in the US. Alone.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:58:28 AM
@5Cats:
No it's not. I explained why. Your reading comprehension level is not very high, is it?

If you think 7 billion people compares to a collection of bison, then you're woefully ignorant about a great many things.

@CrakrJak:
I'm sorry, but if everyone wanted to live at the consumption level of the US, we'd only have resources for 1.5 billion people. The world doesn't have enough stuff for everyone to live like you do. That's a fact.

Whenever a population outnumbers its resources, it stops growing. That's also a fact.

Finally, if you want to let the scientists do what they need to do, then why are you against climate scientists and evolutionary biologists?

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16150 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:30:27 AM
Andrew: "Depopulation is the only answer to fight the problem proposed in this particular discussion."

Eugenicists have been spouting that nonsense since before WWII. It's been used as their excuse to sterilize and kill tens of millions of people.

The fact is, our technology has allowed us to increase production to keep up with population. I was told back in grade school that the world could not sustain 6 billion people, here we are at over 7 billion people and there is no mass starvation, except that caused by war.

Even when people are undergoing starvation, the US through the UN and USAid gives away millions of tons of food, vaccines and resources all over the world.

Policymakers just need to chill out and let our scientists and humanitarians do their work, they need to quit scaremongering people into detrimental economic situations that cost jobs and raise prices on everything.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22048 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:54:51 AM
@mesovortex: You've lost sight of "the point" ok?
>>14% of "Human AGW" comes from cows METHANE. (specifically!)
>>Cows have simply replaced other bovines & herd animals in the ecosystem, so THEY ALSO made a similar amount of methane!
>>NO CHANGE (overall) in the (global) environment!
...nature has already adapted to it.

You said it!

Corn grows, wheat grows, grass grows, it's ALL the same! If anything there's MORE forests & trees than before since humans put out wildfires. Just FYI: fire destroys more forest every year (in North America I mean) than humans cut down.

@Andrew155: Correct! Human population is our #1 problem, but absolutely nothing is being done about THAT eh?

Nickel2
Male, 50-59, Europe
 3947 Posts
Sunday, September 29, 2013 3:24:31 AM
I don't have to worry about causing any of this, all my beef comes from white Styrofoam trays in the supermarket so does not contribute to global yawning.
Cows, cows and more cows

Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2464 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:31:38 PM
Under the conditions we have been given, we are facing apocalypse. An apocalypse that is unavoidable with 7, 8, 9, or 10 billion living like people in developed countries live.

So under these conditions, the world of the future can't properly exist. If the current level of cows (of all things) is unbearable, imagine in 2050 when 8-10 billion will be eating like Americans. And even if they cut their meat sharply to malnourishment levels - there will still be a crap ton more cows than now.

So where does that leave the Central Planners in way of options to fight this "apocalypse"? Depopulation is the only answer to fight the problem proposed in this particular discussion. That is, if you accept the conditions we've been given.

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16150 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:28:42 PM
mesovortex: "The buffalo herds did not explode in population or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing."

The buffalo herds didn't have to "explode in population", they were indigenous here for thousands of years. They ranged from northern Canada to Mexico and from the mid-Atlantic to Oregon. When they ran, it felt like an earthquake for many miles away. The dust they generated could be seen well beyond the horizon. They were simply a force that was unprecedented anywhere else on earth, even today.

I'm not romanticizing or exaggerating the buffalo's effect on the environment. These were direct observances by people of that time.

Just one, of many, pile(s) of over 100,000 buffalo skulls.


Andrew155
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 2464 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:24:57 PM
The joke is that people actually think that the 1 billion people who are Westerners (N. America, Europe, Japan) could have an impact on all of this just by eat a little less meat.

What about the other....6 billion people. They want to live like us. In fact, they are clamoring to. We have given our right ball to just stop emissions from growing, imagine how difficult it will be to actually cut them by 50%. But while we're busy doing that, the other 6 billion will totally surpass us. And the population of Africa will go from the current 1 bil to 3-4 billion in the near future. How's that going to work out?

I mean, if apocalypse is truly near, this is the time bomb. And no, lowering the number of cows by 10, 20, or 30% would not impact anything. I can assume this is what the UN will say when it wants to "cull the herd".

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:18:58 PM
@Rune:
Nobody says you have to. It's about sustainability. Buy local, consume less overall.

We simply do not have the natural resources for everyone in the world to live at the standard of living you do.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 9:17:35 PM
@5cats:
Most of our livestock isn't grass fed. It's corn fed. Corn takes up a lot more water/energy to grow than just letting them wander on a grassland. You need to produce the water to irrigate the crops, the electricity to run the equipment to harvest it, etc.

The same with livestock, you need to ship the food to the animals. You have to ship the meat to distributors. You have to have people to work it, and they have to use fuel too.

If you don't think our food/livestock consumption has no effect, then I have no idea what to tell you.

Runemang
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 1642 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:55:36 PM
I'm not giving up meat for your pissy little "environment" thing. Go put your environment somewhere else.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22048 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:53:37 PM
@mesovortex: "...or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing."

I'm REALLY certain that Bison eat just as much, if not MORE than your average cow! Just, you know, saying!

As many human as there are? IT'S NOTHING! Nothing compared to other species! Ants? Termites? Blue-Green Algae??? (It's the #1 bio-mass on the planet, BY FAR).

It's pure hubris to imagine that ONLY humans have caused the MASSIVE Earth to change.

Yes, over the past 100+ years we've done a lot, cleared land, pumped out pollution, laid roads and rails. However? As a % of the Earth's surface? What have we really done?

Before humans there were forests, plains, rivers and oceans. Species came & went. The temperature went UP & DOWN without a single human to blame!!!

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

OldOllie
Male, 60-69, Midwest US
 11744 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:31:17 PM
I can has cheezburger.

You can go f*** yourself.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:13:24 PM
@CrakrJak:
The buffalo herds did not explode in population or consume the same amount of resources that our Livestock production is doing. It's not only getting more livestock, it's the electricity to slaughter them, and the fuel to ship them around the country - and the food to feed the livestock. It's a different ballgame.

Also, it's about rates. If the PPM goes to 1000 over a long period of time, then plants and animals may adapt to it, sure. But if it happens over two centuries or less - then nature may not be able to adapt in time.

Why do you guys not understand this?


CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 16150 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 8:06:46 PM
mesovortex: I quoted in a previous thread, that we are well under 400ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and that the 100% saturation rate for most plants is over 1000ppm. We aren't even close to 50% of what the plants, we have today, can easily absorb.

There were buffalo herds that dwarfed the cattle herds we have today. We know that we killed over 31,000,000 buffalo and there were likely many millions more uncounted for.

The average herd of cattle we have today is 44-45 head and they are spread out all over the country. Buffalo herds ranged from a few hundred to over 10,000 in 1800 and created trails so wide and long that the railroads later bought the right-of-ways to them.

mesovortex
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 406 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 6:58:57 PM
And here we go with the idiotic viewpoints of the denialists who have no idea what they are talking about.

@5cats - Dinosaurs did not rapidly populate themselves to the extend that we are doing with livestock over such a small timespan. Human population has exploded, and thus our consumption of things such as fuels and livestock and foods have also exploded. Ergo, man has DIRECTLY caused livestock to be a contributor of greenhouse gases.

Termites produce 15% of the globe's methane, yes, but their population hasn't exploded and nature has already adapted to it.

The key is the rate of grown and time spans. If a population rapidly grows, nature is less able to adapt to it. If it grows more slowly, nature adapts more readily.

Such scientific illiteracy in this thread. Ugh.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 22048 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 4:46:58 PM
I bet dinosaurs farted a LOT! No wonder they're extinct...

The point is: AGW "Scientists" include cows as "human pollution" as if there were NO BOVINES before humanity came along... (as @Gerry1 correctly pointed out).

EAT MORE MEAT! SAVE THE WORLD!!

Also: termites produce more methane than cows... it's a fact! (on a global scale I mean!)

Excellent post @drawman61!

ferdyfred
Male, 40-49, Europe
 8233 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 3:11:46 PM
Cows fart more than Bison?

Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 33697 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 2:38:01 PM

Before the cows got there the plains were covered by American Buffalo {yes, I know they're really bison}. The buffalo ate grass and farted so what's the difference?

ferdyfred
Male, 40-49, Europe
 8233 Posts
Saturday, September 28, 2013 1:33:56 PM
Beat me to it bex !!

Page: 13 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.