Anthropogenic global warming?
April 27, 2007 at 8:27 pm #7520
I thought I may as well make good on my word and create this topic (so as not to diverge from a previous one).
Anthropogenic global warming – do you believe Man has caused global warming?
April 27, 2007 at 8:44 pm #71702
How about, how much of global warming is "man" responsible for?
Personally, I blame the termites and cow farts.
April 27, 2007 at 9:38 pm #71707
Not too sure about termites, but surely Man is indirectly responsible for the cow farts?
April 28, 2007 at 3:12 am #71721
April 28, 2007 at 12:03 pm #71737
"The largest emissions should occur in tropical areas disturbed by human activities."
April 28, 2007 at 7:53 pm #71775
Oops, … I was late on this one, by not reading down the topic list far enough to see this topic started,… so ignore my encouragement in the "promising ideas of biology" topic.
Cow farts and termites, of course, are methane producers. Cows (to use this fun, fun word again)… fart… as the unavoidable consequence of digesting and utilizing what they eat.
Humankind, of course, demands lots and lots of meat for eating, which requires raising lots and lots of cows, doing lots and lots of f**ting (am I banned yet moderator?,… I DID try to moderate my use of this term, you see).
So, if methane proves to be a greater issue than CO2, … and humankind demands greater methane producers for our diet, then, YES, (in this sense) humankind might be responsible (in small part) for an overall global effect caused (in part) by methane.
April 28, 2007 at 8:24 pm #71781
It is no doubt that humans are responsible for at least part of this climate changing. The question is, does the planet have what it takes to keep its state of equilibrium in spite of what man is doing?
April 29, 2007 at 5:24 pm #71825
I dunno, …Mr. Mistery,
I think there IS doubt that humankind causes a significant portion of global warming.
Again, I do NOT condone the crap we pour into our atmosphere, but the scary thing is that the Earth’s atmosphere can hold even more of our crap before we can call it truly a global effect.
Frankly, it might be best to leave public opinion where it is, in order to disuade further dumping of crap into our atmosphere. It seems that we have to have our very species survival threatened, in order to give a yawning damn about changing our habits.
May 1, 2007 at 11:06 am #71930
I am steal at the doubt that warring exist…
apart from humans I listen that sun activity is increasing at the last time, and cycles of the climat may be…
By the deadline, temperature at the Antarctida is decrease instead of increasing…
May 1, 2007 at 12:34 pm #71933
Ah, you’re referring to the fact that roughly every 10,000 years the Earth orbits that much closer to Sol and the star itself becomes warmer?
Ah yes and the natural background global temperature cycles. We are just coming out of an ‘ice age’ are we not?
Personally I’m not so sure. Those arguments sound to me like a good excuse… as Robert Kernodle says: it’s not ok to just dump CO2 into the atmosphere because we’re not responsible.
May 1, 2007 at 9:39 pm #71965quote kotoreru:
Each 10000 years become more closer? Listen qaute strange… Wich reasone for this? Simple enormos energy recured for such flucrtuations… I listen another think – that Sun become more active periodicaly, and there is global warming at the Mars to.quote kotoreru:
I am not so shure to! I simply think that it is not one reasone for warming, and it is not happend simply, like sometimes some people (…) want to discribe…
May 1, 2007 at 10:26 pm #71968
May 1, 2007 at 11:36 pm #71969
Here’s how I see it:
I keep my house clean, because I hate to live in a dirty home. This planet is our home; why shouldn’t we keep it clean?
May 1, 2007 at 11:48 pm #71970quote robertkernodle:
I would indeed like to see more official. The rest of the website is in fact really scary and do not inspire trust inn the scientific content of this page.
But even without looking at the rest the idea that our moon can be growing a 6000 km atmosphere of sodium (Or Natrium as they call it, ever wonder why the Chemical symbol for sodum is Na?) lead to serious doubts on the rest of the content…
May 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm #71984
Hmm, yes I cant say that the content of that site is worth the 2kb it takes up on the Web. Sorry RK.
May 3, 2007 at 9:06 pm #72054
The earth is just like any human being… When crap is put into it, it finds a way to dispose of whatever is causing the crap. A sort of means of an immune system… Humans hurt the ozone of the planet, the planet lets in more UV rays, humans begin to die. But I do agree that humans are a large part of the Global warming…
ps(the government put out that they want scientist to begin saying global warming THEORY because they don’t want the world to be in a state of panic or to start blaming the government or expecting them to do something about it)
May 4, 2007 at 1:20 pm #72067
Hmmm. Nice analogy, sounds almost Lovelock-esque to me.
And when you say the Government, please refer to one. The American Government (or rather the Bush admins) are really the only ones fighting this thing. Even the Chinese are holding themselves accountable for goodness sake.
May 4, 2007 at 3:42 pm #72075
You can count Australia in the Bush camp too. And the Chinese position is not clear, they recognize the problem, but are definitely not doing anything…
May 4, 2007 at 4:18 pm #72078
Australia contribute significantly less to the Global carbon budget than the States, and the Chinese are currently in negotiations…they’ll do something, it’s not worth as much as the business they get from the West.
May 4, 2007 at 6:11 pm #72086quote kotoreru:
What is Lovelock-esque?
May 4, 2007 at 9:45 pm #72102
Yeah,… that solar system link obviously is suspect – I didn’t follow it back to the index page.
Still, I wonder what subdued studies or inconclusive reports they might have scavenged to come up with their version of this stuff.
Maybe I’ll try to check some sources later.
May 5, 2007 at 3:58 pm #72144quote :
Google ‘Gaia theory’.
May 5, 2007 at 4:55 pm #72146
KEWL!!!! Man, I didn’t know that my way of thinking has already been thought up…. 😮
May 5, 2007 at 7:28 pm #72156
lol it usually has, don’t take it to heart 😉
May 7, 2007 at 2:39 am #72222quote kotoreru:
SHH!!! Don’t tell anyone!!! Its a secret…. 😯
May 11, 2007 at 7:12 pm #72563
May 11, 2007 at 7:29 pm #72565
I must admit the only part of that I read was the summary paragraph, and that was for good reaon (to my mind). Really; blaming catatrophic event frequency increases on the interstellar medium??
Life on Earth has been going for around 3.5 billion years(?). Seems very convenient that these Earth-altering changes from the Beyond should start appearing just as Humans become able to detect them…
May 14, 2007 at 8:11 pm #72685
Why so strange? Cave men did not have the technology or model development to percieve such possibilities. Certain realizations hinge on the technology timeline, where instrumentation and convergence of enough human experience mounts up to bring forth such awareness.
Strange that we should be moving our bodies at 60mph only now, since the wheel has been around for thousands and thousands of years. 🙂
Is that a mis analogy?
May 14, 2007 at 11:21 pm #72694
You misunderstand me, Robert.
Realisation (or observation) and emergence of a thing are seldom tightly coupled. It’s like going back in time and just happening to be looking at the first cell to engulf another and form the mitochondrial symbiosis we all exist upon, JUST as it happens.
Basically: what are the odds?
I suppose these interstellar disruptions brought about the end of the dinosaurs…
Gah, forgive my closed mind.
May 15, 2007 at 7:40 pm #72729
I simply am suggesting that these forces might have been in operation all along, but our technological and intellectual power could not discern them.
Maybe these other alleged cosmic forces (dare I say "astro-ecological"?) were part of the orchestration of past major climate shifts. Current climate shifts are not the only ones that have ever happened, we know.
I do NOT think that you have a closed mind, by the way,…
May 16, 2007 at 12:16 am #72742
Astro-ecological – excellent! Try it again on the minds of the time in 500 years or so lol
I do feel however that this particular article is more of an excuse than anything else – something the US Government would use to argue Climate change (much like they used Michael Crichton’s new book, oh how we laughed…).
May 21, 2007 at 6:46 pm #72952
May 21, 2007 at 9:16 pm #72957
Those two pages made me do this: sigh. Loudly.
Really RK, where do you find this stuff?
May 22, 2007 at 6:34 pm #73042
Is that a sigh of dismay, a sigh of annoyance, a sigh of "who the hell do I believe?", a sigh of ………..??
The data duels seem unresolved to me.
We really don’t seem to know for sure.
When we start weighing both sides, arguments seem strong either way.
I could see how this might cause a sigh.
May 22, 2007 at 7:02 pm #73044JamesParticipant
The sigh was because its generally all rubbish.
May 23, 2007 at 1:17 am #73065
A quick look at the references section will reveal why I sighed. Rather too much of it is from UK universities…oh the shame.
May 23, 2007 at 6:43 pm #73090
Biased a bit, … are we?
I present a link to seemingly sound numbers and counter arguments to the popular-press-supported status quo, and what I get back is a quick dismissive statement of distaste and a humorous slam on UK universities.
Veeery impressive. 🙂
May 23, 2007 at 10:01 pm #73097JamesParticipant
Is it just an act or are you actually deluded?
May 24, 2007 at 12:24 am #73102
Robert, I see absolutely no references to anything in Science, Nature, the Journal of Bryology (at the least!) or any peer-reviewed papers for that matter.
Much of it is apparently University-produced information sheets, which have probably been taken way out of context.
I dont think I’m being cynical.
(also, James – what have you got against him?)
May 24, 2007 at 2:57 am #73105mehdi71000Participant
ok I’ve heard oxygen cools the earths atmosphere so why not genetic engineer a plactum that reproduce like 100 or more times faster and has more oxigen producing capability. ive heard planctum them selves reproduce like mad.
What do you think. I think all needed it a more promoters in the dna of plactum.
did you know scientist has build a protein that can make O3 that’s ozone. I think its a protein im not sure I cant remember but definitely O3 producing
May 24, 2007 at 11:36 am #73108
Do you mean Plankton? Ouch I dont even know where to start with that…
Put it this way – if making a viable plant/algae that can chuck out 02 like mad was that easy (or even a smart thing to do), it would have already been done.
I think you are referring to C02 drawdown from phytoplankton blooms in the Southern Ocean…now that is interesting stuff.
02 doesnt cool the atmosphere to my knowledge, and in fact is actually not our main concern. DMS (dimethyl sulphide) does cool the atmosphere as it oxidises to sulphate and nucleates water to form cloud…and this stuff is released from phytoplankton blooms as above (Emiliania huxleii the coccolithophore, for example).
03, I cant really comment on…
May 26, 2007 at 8:43 pm #73179
Nope,… just open minded.
How DOES a person measure the entire CO2 contribution of humankind to the whole earth’s atmosphere? Ever think about that?
Just HOW do ya do it? HOW do we assess this in agreement? What’s the technique? What’s the margin of error? Who’s doing it? Who’s checking it? Do we use the same method?
How do you take a graph of temperature change compared to CO2 change "out of context"?
The data either is a flat out lie,… OR the truth is right in front of your face, and you refuse to acknowledge it.
May 27, 2007 at 2:06 am #73185david23Participant
Making O3 is not necessary useful unless it’s in the higher atmospheres, you really just need more O2 first.
To answer why cant they engineer a plant that can make more O2 is little complicated. The current goal is simply allow plants to consume more CO2 first, and as they grow faster from the extra CO2, eventually they will make more O2. The problem however lies in the Rubisco protein that captures CO2, which also waste resources to uptake O2 for no reason at all. The O2 capture process is entirely a wasted of resources.
Two biochemists I know have in the past tried to make the Rubisco protein more efficient at CO2 capture along with many others. Up till now, no one has succeed. So essentially we are stuck.
Oh Robert as to how people measure all the CO2 produced by mankind, it’s simply an average of the CO2 produced in a sample population and then estimated over the whole human raise.
May 27, 2007 at 8:52 pm #73223
Oh,.. by the way,.. did I mention that, up til about eight months ago, I was (and always had been) a firm believer in the anthropogenic global warming premise.
Then, I started to notice some very intelligent people raise some very intelligent objections.
Consider, for example:quote :
Khandekar, M. L., Murty, T. S., and Chittibabu, P. The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science, Pure & Applied Geophysics, Aug 2005 Vol. 162 Issue 8/9, p. 1557 – 1586.
May 28, 2007 at 12:16 pm #73243
They object at the inaccuracies of current models, yet offer no alternatives based on better data! Who are these intelligent people, Robert? Where are their interests vested? Where are they from?
This is all very much, or at least appears to be, a small set of people being given a disproportionately loud voice by Governments who simply do not want to face facts…
Also: I still havent seen anything on ‘that side of the fence’ published in Nature…does that not say anything about credibility?
May 29, 2007 at 8:10 am #73270
About this. I may be paranoid but I am seeing climate changing all around me. Drought, 30 celsius at noon and thunder storms in the evening every day for the last few weeks, hale falling in early spring, snow in late spring but not in winter are only of the few things happening nowadays that didn’t used to happen 10 years ago…
May 29, 2007 at 11:39 am #73275
I’m not so sure many people actually doubt that Global Warming is occuring – just whether it’s anthropogenic or not.
May 29, 2007 at 5:05 pm #73280
The article from which I quoted previously is in a peer-reviewed technical journal,… published by a highly reputable publisher of other peer-reveiwed technical journals.
Is Nature your ONLY source of credible reports,… discounting all the other hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed jounals to total exclusion?
Here’s access to the online, full-text article in Pure and Applied Geophysics:
May 29, 2007 at 8:17 pm #73281blcr11Participant
Most likely I should just emulate Robert Benchly who once commented on his participation in an argument at a party the night before by saying, “Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.” Or Abraham Lincoln who said, “It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than it is to speak and remove all doubt.” I’m certainly no climatologist or meteorologist, so I speak with zero authority on matters climatological, but I don’t think it helps either side of an argument to simply ridicule the opponent. Flame away if you like, but it convinces me of nothing. (And I must also add that, as flaming goes, this has been relatively mild.)
I disagree, though, that Nature and Science (to name two widely read, so-called general interest journals) have been one-sided, publishing only the greenhouse gas alarmist view. I enclose a partial list of required and suggested readings for a class on earth climate given at MIT in 2006 along with the professors’ brief annotations. The point is that both sides of the argument have and are still being presented in reputable journals. Personally, I don’t think either the alarmists or the “natural process” people (sorry—can’t think of a better label) have absolutely proven their point(s). But then, like I say, I’m no climatologist, either.
Veizer, J., Y. Godderis, and L. M. Francois. "Evidence for Decoupling of Atmospheric CO2 and Global Climate during the Phanerozoic Eon." Nature 408 (2000): 698-701.
Questions CO2-climate link b/c Phanerozoic tropical SST record doesn’t agree with simple energy balance model results driven by paleo-CO2 proxy data.
Kump, L. R. "What Drives Climate?" Nature 408 (2000): 651-652.
Skeptical of Veizer results; questions SST proxy record and paleo-CO2 proxy record.
Rothman, D. H. "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels for the Last 500 million Years." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99, no. 7 (2002): 4167-4171.
Berner, R. A. "The Rise of Plants and their Effect on Weathering and Atmospheric CO2." Science 276 (1997): 544-547.
Suggests evolution of rooted vascular plants caused Devonian (~400 Ma) CO2 draw down by enhancing chemical weathering rates. Supports CO2-climate link through Phanerozoic. Exception is Late Ordovician glaciation, explained by "unique paleogeographic circumstances."
Royer, D. L., R. A. Bemer, and D. J. Beerling. "Phanerozoic Atmospheric CO2 Change: Evaluating Geocheimcal and Paleobiological Approaches." Earth-Science Reviews 54 (2001): 349-392.
Excellent review of paleo-CO2 proxies.
Crowley, T. J. "Carbon Dioxide and Phanerozoic Climate." In Warm Climates in Earth History. Edited by B. T. Huber, K. G. MacLeod, and S. L. Wing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 425-444.
Retallack, G. J. "A 300-million-year Record of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from Fossil Plant Cuticles." Nature 411 (2001): 287-290.
Stomatal indices on fossil leaves during last 300 Myr indicate that the only two periods of low CO2 were associated with known ice ages, in support of the CO2-climate link.
Royer, D. L., S. L. Wing, D. J. Beerling, D. W. Jolley, P. L. Koch, L. J. Hickey, and R. A. Berner. "Paleobotanical Evidence for Near Present-day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 during Part of the Tertiary." Science 292 (2001): 2310-2313.
Leaf stomatal indices through "known" warm intervals (Miocene 15-17 Ma, and Paleocene/Eocene boundary (53-59 Ma) indicate low CO2, refuting CO2-climate link.
Tarner, L. H., J. F. Hubert, B. P. Coffey, and D. P. McInerney. "Stability of Atmospheric CO2 Levels across the Triassic/Jurassic Boundary." Nature 411 (2001): 675-677.
Paleosol δ13C data across Triassic/Jurassic boundary (208 Ma) suggests only small CO2 increase associated w/ that mass extinction. Argue therefore that deposition of larger flood basalts at that time (volcanic events) did not cause high CO2 and runaway greenhouse, as previously hypothesized.
Pagani, M., M. A. Arthur, and K. H. Freeman. "Miocene Evolution of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Paleoceanography 14 (1999): 273-292.
Phytoplankton δ13C indicates low CO2 through Miocene warm interval (~14-18 Ma) and no sharp drop associated with the expansion of the East Antarctic Sheet, refuting strong CO2-climate link.
Berner, R. A. "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels over Phanerozoic Time." Science 249 (1990): 1382-1386.
———. "Paleo-CO2 and Climate." Nature 358, no. 6382 (1992): 114.
Freeman, K. H., and J. M. Hayes. "Fractionation of Carbon Isotopes by Ancient Phytoplankton and Estimates of Ancient CO2 Levels." Glob Biogeochem Cycles 6, no. 2 (1992): 185-198.
Hayes, J. M., H. Strauss, and A. J. Kaufman. "The Abundance of 13C in Marine Organic Matter and Isotopic Fractionation in the Global Biogeochemical Cycle of Carbon during the Past 800 Ma." Chem Geol 161 (1999): 103-125.
Popp, B. N., R. Takigiku, J. M. Hayes, J. W. Louda, and E. W. Baker. " The Post-Paleozoic Chronology and Mechanisms of 13C Depletion in Primary Marine Organic Matter." Am J Sci 289 (1989): 436-454.
Well, it’s a list of potentially interesting bedtime reading matter, if nothing else.
May 30, 2007 at 8:40 pm #73302
Well, just because we arent authorities on the matter does not mean we arent entitled to an opinion… though I understand where you are coming from.
Out of interest, blcr11, what is your view on the matter?
That’s a severe list of suggested reads…I think I’ll have a rifle through the ones I havent glanced at already. Many thanks 🙂
@ Robert: I suppose I should apologise lol 😛
May 31, 2007 at 12:08 am #73311
Why, whatever for?
For having an opinion?
Bler11 nails it, I think, in saying that NEITHER side of the debate has proven itself conclusively.
It’s a very complex issue, compared to how the popular press tends to put it.
Yet, people are making up their minds based on popular-press presentations, and politicians are trying to make policies based on one-sided leaning.
As I have suggested before,… it’s probably in human beings’ best long-term interest to let the alarmists take the spotlight, because fear is the only thing that seems to drive us to any sort of action to improve our society.
Local land use patterns are screwing with our health. I think the earth can handle it in the long run, but the biology of human bodies cannot. Cleaner technology is healthier. Better land use patterns are healthier. If we need the proverbial hell scared out of us to improve these things, then maybe we should apply the logic of others’ illogic towards the logical end.
I always find it interesting when people’s (including ME) cherished opinions are challenged. First you have shock leading to name calling. Second, you have controlled disbelief, leading to questioning of data sources and demanding of impeccable numerical proof. All the while, the person demanding such high-calliber data never used such data to form his/her OWN opinion. Opinions are not always made in the face of undeniable facts, and this also is a point I am trying to make.
That’s why I started questioning my own former opinion, because I realized that I had NOT used peer-reveiwed, impeccable, unbiased proof to arrive at it.
May 31, 2007 at 10:31 am #73315
Actually my former teacher once (or rather, repeatedly) ‘planted a seed of dissent’ in our minds – is Global Warming such a bad thing?
Much of the photosynthetic biology of this planet could do with more water and more C02 – two things which are fairly certainly going to increase in availability if current trends continue.
Of course it’s bad news for people (and polar bears), but it’s in everything’s nature to self-preserve regardless of the bigger picture…
But I like living, like the idea of my children living, and who doesnt? Why not try to keep things running well under our direction?
All the pollution is ridiculous and often vastly unneccessary (as well as heedless!), and much of the research is simply trying to work out what effects our outputs are having and whether it’s worth worrying about or not.
The trouble is, of course, that the same argument for Anthropogenic Global Warming can be applied to other controversial issues – take Whaling. Why cant Japan/Norway/Inuits whale? Because there arent enough whales to sustain it. Oh really? Data?? Paper, paper, article, paper, argument, conference (argument argument argument), paper, paper, book.
May 31, 2007 at 7:28 pm #73329
plants would love more CO2? Questionable. It is no doubt true that the optimum concentration of photosynthesis is far greater than the 0.03% in the air. However, plants are currently adapted to this concentration of CO2. If you increase the quantity of CO2 for a long time in a greenhouse, the plants in there die.
More CO2 in the air would, in the short term, reduce the amount of proteins in plants, and in the long term chance the habitats of many plants, modify the numeric value of number of C3 plants/number of C4 plants, and eventually lead to a new mass extinction. Yes, it is true, plants would stabilise in a new equilibrium after that, but it is not easy to imagine how the new world would look.
So, i would advise your teacher not to make affirmations that he/she cannot back up.
May 31, 2007 at 10:28 pm #73333quote MrMistery:
Yes. Becouse more CO2 – more "bielding material" material for plants, and photosithesis will be increased… finelly. Additionally, as more oil, natural gas, and coil, loss CO2 will be available for biosphere, so will be "carbon crisis" – loss of biomass.
June 1, 2007 at 8:17 pm #73375
did you actually read my post? Although it would seem logical that plants would love more CO2, things are not that simple and that obvious.
June 2, 2007 at 1:01 pm #73400david23Participant
yeah high concentration doesnt necessary mean that the CO2 will be used. I said earlier that the CO2 capture power depends on heavily on the Rubisco protein.
June 4, 2007 at 6:23 am #73466lantzyParticipant
can anyone tell me what is nich and the three types of niche?
June 4, 2007 at 1:22 pm #73484
Um, niche – just a nicer word for ‘place (meaning habitat, food etc.) that an organism occupies relative to others within an ecosystem’.
MrMistery, I imagine this particular lecturer really could backup what she was saying about such things. Though I dont doubt for a second she was over simplifying things for us mortals and also looking for a reaction.
n.b. I imagine the C02 thing was not restricted to photosynthetic uses – the increased heat etc. that results from it was probably also in there somewhere…(probably).
September 26, 2007 at 1:44 pm #76380charles broughParticipantquote robertkernodle:
That seems like a really questionable link to me! What could possible cause the atmosphere to grow on other planets in our solar system in a matter of only a few decades!? What kind of a statistic can be of any use that deals with "natural disasters" in general unless one is thinking in terms of "The End Times"(!)? Do they all follow some cycle? That link could be very unreliable.
November 15, 2007 at 10:40 pm #77822
Honestly, why are humans so self-involved? We always think we’re the ones who did everything, we created everything, we’re responsible for everything, we caused all the problems! We cannot possibly control everything! Everyone is tripping on this idea of losing our earth, and yes we will eventually, there’s only so much it can take, but maybe it just needs a break, we stop entire cyclical trends for fucks sake. Okay, in my opinion we’re not exactly HELPING to extend the life of the earth, but there’s nothing we can do to stop it from doing what it naturally does. If their was an ice age before, with no human cause then why can’t there be a warming period with no human cause? If the warming period ends and everything freezes are we going to say it was us again even though it proves that ice ages and warming periods really ARE cyclical?
November 16, 2007 at 2:11 am #77830
November 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm #77863CristgonzParticipant
i think man is the main responsible of the global-warming.
my "cattle ranch’s" teacher said to me that cow’s farts was not an important source of CH4.
if someone could post an official report it could be nice.
November 16, 2007 at 9:32 pm #77869
November 17, 2007 at 2:25 am #77885
wow if you combine enteric fermentation and manure management it’s way more than even landfills and natural gas.
November 20, 2007 at 6:51 pm #78120
First of all, there is no way in hell we can blame global warming on cows, they do produce methane but they’ve done that forever a cow fart is not an evolutionary development. Now what does happen to be increasing is the amount of pollutants we’ve been pumping into the air, IF global warming is caused by humans it’s not because we raise cows it’s because we drive cars and build gigantic industries.
November 20, 2007 at 7:24 pm #78128
The main point behind the cow flatulence is not to blame the cows themselves but the people that keep breeding them and destroying habitats to clear land to raise them.
No matter how you look at it, global warming is a problem caused by humans.
November 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm #78135
Well, how many cows are we ranching compare that to how many cows that used to exist in the wild and you might see a correlation to green house gases. One remedy might be to raise kangaroos instead of cattle.
November 20, 2007 at 10:25 pm #78138
Or big game such as elk and deer? I live in a very small place and hunting is popular, and just the other day I was talking with a friend of mine and they were saying how it would be amazing to raise and kill and sell elk instead of cows. I was wondering at first why this hadn’t happened before, why people didn’t start this, and then it HIT me, hunting is a huge part of the economy in Wyoming and other parts of the mid west, it’s somewhere around 500 dollars for an elk license, if you’re a tourist that wants to hunt! I can assume from this information that there’s a chance the same thing works for kangaroos and other animals that could be raised in bulk to produce food for the U.S. and other countries. So, either we raise cows cheaply and continue to eat beef, or spend large amounts of money raising elk or kangaroos.
November 20, 2007 at 10:40 pm #78140
Why do you assume kangaroos would be expensive to raise? There is an overpopulation in Australia. Plus elk are probably as bad as cattle in terms of methane production. Kangaroos on the other hand don’t produce methane because they have a different set of intestinal fauna.
November 20, 2007 at 11:18 pm #78143
If you read what I put there you’d understand my reasoning.
November 21, 2007 at 3:19 am #78157
Well you said that it’s expensive to hunt elk, therefore you would pay more, however this does not really apply to kangaroos which are plentiful and do not need ranches to raise. And even if you did raise them in a ranch, I already said that they would not contribute to global warming in the same way as cattle thus you get red meat and a smaller ecological footprint. Best of both worlds.
November 21, 2007 at 5:47 am #78166
Hm, kangaroo is one of the few animals that I haven’t eaten yet. I wonder how they taste.
November 21, 2007 at 5:50 am #78168quote mith:
What surprises me is that petroleum is a much lower source than natural gas; I always thought natural gas was supposed to be environmentally friendly.
November 21, 2007 at 7:29 am #78174
Supposedly better than beef 😉
And think of it this way natural gas is methane, while petroleum probably does not generate methane in its burning instead making NO2 and sulfur compounds. So you’re probably still right in that gas is cleaner burning.
November 22, 2007 at 1:54 am #78260quote alextemplet:
Lean meat. The meat is rather "fibrous" like some pieces of beef that I would not be able to name in english (it would be the diaphragm anatomically, and the "hampe" in French). I was not particularly impressed by the taste. But the price tag was impressive. Bu it was in France, this might be a reason, considering that kangaroos are not exactly endemic to the region…
November 22, 2007 at 4:13 am #78272
I work with the US Dept of the Interior – specifically managing federal grazing land. I can attest that grazing (historically more sheep than cattle, but now almost all cattle) has a very immediate and severe impact on ecosystems.
The additional potential harm to global climate, posed by their methane production, is really just insult to injury.
November 22, 2007 at 5:51 am #78275
Are sheep any better for the environment than cattle?
November 22, 2007 at 9:46 pm #78323
Not necessarily. Scientists have a hard enough time pinning down exactly what all the impacts of cattle grazing are (and furthermore extrapolating them into "good" or "bad").
Sheep grazing in the U.S. saw it’s heyday in the late 1800s and early 1900s. You may have heard about "range wars" during those times. Often those "wars" were fought between cattle ranchers and sheep ranchers. Ultimately the cattle ranchers won out.
Well it wasn’t until just a few decades ago that ecological impacts were really much of a factor in our land management decisions. So we don’t have much scientific data from the days of widespread sheep grazing to compare to our contemporary data on cattle grazing.
Historic sheep grazing has been blamed for the disruption of ecosystems across the western U.S. It could be argued, though, that the destruction had more to do with poor management than the destructive nature of the animal. For example in 1880, 4 million sheep were recorded just in the state of New Mexico. Compare that to 2005, where the total count for the states of Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming was 2.65 million.
Sheep graze in a different manner than cattle. For example, they bite a plant off lower to the ground, and they prefer some different species of plants (depending on local ecology). Furthermore, they don’t disturb the ground as much, due to their smaller mass. If in one area long enough, or faced with limited forage, they will eat nearly every green thing in sight – which is exactly what occured in the historic herds of thousands across the western us. They would leave a devastated wasteland in their wake, as the shepherds moved them along.
The biggest problem with sheep grazing, in my humble opinion, is the sheer number of animals. Sheep farmers enounter problems of economy of scale when considering grazing on public rangelands.
If you’re interested in viewing some of my sources or reading into the topic more:
Fleischner, Thomas L. "Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America" Conservation Biology, Vol. 8, No. 3. (Sep., 1994), pp. 629-644.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0888-8 … 0.CO%3B2-N
Denevan, William M. "Livestock Numbers in Nineteenth-Century New Mexico, and the Problem of Gullying in the Southwest" Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 57, No. 4. (Dec., 1967), pp. 691-703.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-5 … 0.CO%3B2-7
http://www.nass.usda.gov/wy/internet/ra … rr0508.pdf
http://www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk/Documents/ … razing.pdf
November 23, 2007 at 2:14 am #78353
Surprisingly the cruel meat of cooped up chickens is one of the least environmentally harmful of the meats.
November 23, 2007 at 5:28 am #78361
Hm, really makes you wonder, which is better, saving the environment or not caging the chickens? I’ll take the environment over the chickens any day.
Thank you, Astus, for that well-thought out explanation. *applause*
November 24, 2007 at 2:07 am #78404
Free range chickens aren’t too harmful either, as long as the numbers are kept down. They’re good for bug-control. Just watch out for the poop when you decide to walk around barefoot. It’s NASTY stuff.
Free range eggs are better for you too, though the meat’s not quite as tasty and soft.
November 24, 2007 at 3:01 am #78408
Yes I’ve eaten cage-free eggs before and they’re delicious.
November 28, 2007 at 5:31 pm #78653
I live in a small community in Wyoming and all around here there are Cattle farms and ranches, and some of your information is a little off. Sheep do over graze sometimes, but it is not as often or has as big of an impact as you think. Cattle over graze is much worse, and causes major drought, so they don’t let it happen, with as little water there is anyway that would be stupid. I don’t think you understand the control that there is over the grazing of livestock, also the population of Sheep and Cattle are kept at a steady number because over population causes disease ESPECIALLY in Cows.
November 28, 2007 at 10:51 pm #78673
I would think that since sheep are so much less numerous than cattle, it would obviously appear that they do not leave as big of an impact on the land. I think Astus meant that, all else being equal, a given number of sheep will be worse for the land than the same number of cattle.
Also, I’m sure there are strict controls on herd sizes, but that still doesn’t mean that cattle ranching isn’t a major contributor to global warming, which is the topic of this discussion.
November 29, 2007 at 2:22 am #78680quote Jones:
If I may defend myself:
I think you may have misread my post – or perhaps I mistated myself. First let me distinguish that you seem to be referring to private agricultural land, whereas I’m dealing with federal public lands. Nevertheless, I think I do have a fairly good grasp of what controls regulate grazing since that happens to be part of my job ;).
I don’t think that sheep grazing (head for head) is as harmful as cow. That much should be obvious, and I think I stated that in one fashion or another in my prior post.
What I do think is that for sheep farmers to compete economically, or produce pound-for-pound with the cattle-ranchers, the sheer number of sheep required may have a comparable or worse effect than cattle. You see, the question I was trying to address was how the impacts of the two species would compare, if the levels of their production were held equal.
Maybe my citation of historic overgrazing by sheep, having devastating impacts, made you think that I considered sheep grazing to be more harmful than cows…? It is true that they graze in a different manner than cows, and that left in an area too long, they will strip it entirely (especially the larger the herd gets). Grass and forbes will be eaten down to their roots, killing them off. So sheep are by no means an inocuous herbivore.
November 29, 2007 at 2:59 am #78686quote AstusAleator:
November 29, 2007 at 8:18 am #78698
Yes I think Jones is once again proving herself to be closed-minded.
November 29, 2007 at 10:17 pm #78727
Ouch! Yes that is what I thought, my mistake I didn’t mean to get the wrong idea, but I’m not talking entirely about privately owned ranches, thank you. I understand what you mean now, I guess the last post could have been taken both ways.
November 29, 2007 at 10:24 pm #78728
And Alex, coming from a soldier of the United States of America, this I shall brush off.
November 30, 2007 at 3:45 am #78740
OK… I think Jones and alex need to be separated for a little while 😀
DON’T MAKE ME PULL THIS CAR OVER!
November 30, 2007 at 6:18 am #78745
ARE WE THERE YET??!!
November 30, 2007 at 7:44 pm #78761quote Jones:
I was a MARINE. Don’t ever call me a soldier again. That’s like referring to a Cadillac as a Kia.
December 1, 2007 at 1:47 am #78781
Sorry to perpetuate a tangent – particularly an unpleasant one – but I was under the impression that anyone who fought, under any leadership or style, was considered a soldier?
December 1, 2007 at 9:35 am #78799
Army = soldier
Navy = sailor
Air Force = airman
Marine Corps = Marine
Civilians don’t see much of a difference, but the actual military branches themselves are pretty picky about these titles.
December 1, 2007 at 6:37 pm #78812
Yeah… sorry… as a civilian you’re all soldiers to me. But I’ll know now not to refer to a marine as a soldier, at least to his/her face. 🙂
December 2, 2007 at 5:56 am #78831
Marines are especially picky since we’re better than the rest of them, so we consider it an insult to be called soldiers. An airman would probably consider it a compliment.
December 2, 2007 at 7:06 am #78836
Funny that on a Marines paycheck it says Dept of Navy.
Who’s your daddy 🙂
Of course this is all in fun, I hope you realize. Don’t shoot.
December 2, 2007 at 7:27 am #78837
We refer to ourselves as the Navy’s men’s department:
And here’s something else that’s just too funny to resist:
I am reminded of one day when I was cooking at Waffle House; my manager was an ex-sailor. One day, it was getting very busy, so he walks to the grill and says, "Okay Alex, let’s rock-n-roll! We’ve got to keep this Navy-Marine partnership going!" I said, "Doesn’t that mean you would send me to do the dirty work while you sit on the boat and drink beer?" He replied with equal humor, "Normally that’s how it would work, but today I’m actually going to help you cook."
And speaking just for myself, I will always have a very deep respect for the Navy as it was Navy medical corpsmen who saved my life when I was wounded. Something like that deserves respect.
December 2, 2007 at 7:47 am #78839
That Caveman thing was just too darn funny. I spit out my drink.
And I understand your sentiment, and glad you made it back.
December 3, 2007 at 6:19 pm #78897
My bad, I’ll restate that:
And Alex, coming from a MARINE of the United States of America, this I shall brush off.
December 4, 2007 at 9:46 am #78914
Is that supposed to be some kind of insult against my beloved Corps?
December 5, 2007 at 5:24 pm #78981
I do suppose it is. How is it you belove something that has given you fear of sleep and has lead you to drink? Spending only a short period of time actually serving your country and having to live with the affects of it the rest of your life is a fair trade? That’s crap, and guess what! They don’t care.
December 5, 2007 at 5:26 pm #78982
They used you, and you know it. They sit back comfortable in their warm offices watching the action, and you get to be terrified the rest of your life of simple dreams.
December 6, 2007 at 2:31 am #78994
There’s quite a few more consequences than that. First of all is the added safety of myself and my loved ones, because of what we did. I don’t care what the cost is to myself as long as the people I love are protected. More than that, I can honestly say that though I am still young, I have done more to make a difference in the world than most people ever will. Because of what I and my brother Marines did, the Taliban will never again be a threat to world peace. Also for the rest of my life I can claim membership in the elite brotherhood of Marines, the finest warriors ever to live, taught to value honor and duty and loyalty to one’s comrades and friends above all else; because of this, I know when I meet another Marine that I have met a brother, whom I can trust with my life because Marines look out for each other. Ronald Reagan was fully correct when he said, "Some people spend their entire lives wondering if they’ve made a difference, but Marines don’t have that problem."
You are right that our government doesn’t repay our military nearly enough for the sacrifices that we all make. However, that is not the fault of the Corps but of its political masters. We Marines, we are brothers; we do not die for our country, but for each other. That kind of devotion that Marines have for each other, that deserves respect, for that is the true definition of honor.
December 6, 2007 at 4:57 am #79000
Okay, okay. Stick to your brotherhood and your self satisfaction. It’s what makes you and a lot of people feel better about this life. I’m sorry I attacked your good intentions.
December 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm #79082
OK. End of recess now. Back to the original topic, and if you want to keep on the subject start a new thread in the off topic, thanks.
December 6, 2007 at 10:10 pm #79096
Right oh captain. 🙂
December 7, 2007 at 12:19 am #79102
Aw. I don’t want to go back to class.
December 7, 2007 at 5:34 am #79114
Of course global warming is anthropogenic. There, the question is solved.
December 7, 2007 at 5:53 am #79120
Good. So we can ramble aimlessly now?
December 7, 2007 at 5:59 pm #79137
It’s always fun to make a point and then stray momentarily in a different direction… I agree though. It’s more likely global warming is caused by humans.
December 7, 2007 at 9:56 pm #79156
I honestly don’t know what else could be causing it, unless God is for some reason seriously pissed off and He’s trying to fry us.
December 8, 2007 at 12:04 am #79166
Alternative solutions that were proposed were:
– sun spots
– natural climate cycles
– and a few others hat I don’t remember.
Not that I agree with those, eh 😉
December 8, 2007 at 12:39 am #79167
The planet seems to have a homeostatic mechanism which is the Gulf Stream. That is to say, the warm air that circulates in the Atlantic is a function of the Gulf Stream, as global temps rise, the glaciers in Greenland melt, this causes the salt of the Atlantic to drop, and hence the Gulf Stream warm air loop is decreased. Since the Gulf Stream lowers, temps in the Atlantic drops, in turn the glaciers begin to reform.
Now the question is, can man create such an extreme as to break this loop. I dunno, and I am sure that no one can say for sure. My thinking is that homeostasis is a loop, thusly cyclic. It is clear that man has affected this naturally running loop. I would consider mans affect as a variable in the damping factor of the loop equation. Even a over or under damped loop will eventually reach equilibrium, but the oscillation within the loop is what should be of concern, and seems to correlate directly with mankind’s intervention.
December 10, 2007 at 7:31 am #79238
What! no response? Don’t let my fancy hoo ha talk fool ya, I am full of crap.
December 10, 2007 at 4:03 pm #79244
I think that deserves to be quoted in the Member Quotes thread.
October 22, 2008 at 12:57 am #86642
Seriously? This is how this thread died? Well fear not Michael, I’ll reply – almost a year later. (This was just before the big "crash" of January ’08 so no surprise it’s drifted off into oblivion)
What makes you think that the so-called homeostatic system is so reliable as to keep our climate relatively stable? If it is, then what were those ancient ice-ages all about?
October 22, 2008 at 1:37 am #86643
I think the controversy is not so much that our climate should be stable but that humans are throwing it seriously out of whack from where it should be.
October 29, 2008 at 3:51 pm #86803
It’s the cows I tellz ya. All that methane.
October 29, 2008 at 6:08 pm #86806
And don’t forget Mexico, with all of their re-fried beans.
October 30, 2008 at 4:15 pm #86839
So how about that Sarah Palin? Governor of Alaska doesn’t think global warming is anthropogenic…
October 30, 2008 at 10:11 pm #86842
I think you could’ve easily stopped your sentence after "Sarah Palin doesn’t think." No more words needed after that one.
December 25, 2008 at 1:53 pm #88070Lightf00tParticipant
It’s all scaremongering and pseudoscience. I’m sick of hearing about it.
And as for the last comment, more fashionable anti-Palin sentiment. Palin is evil, as is George Bush. Climate change is real. Barrack Obama is the man and it’s time for change. Yadda yadda yadda.
And for those global warming alarmists who slate George Bush for not signing the Kyoto protocol, I feel it my duty to inform you that the Clinton-Gore administration refused to sign it too as they realized what a damaging effect it would have on the economy.
December 25, 2008 at 9:13 pm #88076
And here we go again with the usual political bull, where I am automatically branded an Obama-supporter for disliking Sarah Palin. As a matter of fact I am not even close to an Obama fan; stop making assumptions.
Anyway, care to explain why you think of global warming as "scaremongering and pseudoscience"?
December 26, 2008 at 4:50 am #88086quote Lightf00t:
😯 😯 😯
i think you need to take a look at the satellite images of lake chad and Mt Kilimanjaro.The effects are visible in islands of bengal region and maldives.The president of maldives has acttually started to buy land in foreign countries to trans locate his people.
Alex whom do you support??? 😕 😕 Just tell it clearly.
December 27, 2008 at 12:08 am #88098
December 27, 2008 at 10:18 am #88100
Heard of him as a indian origin guy.He is a republican.but know nothing further.I am a person who closely watches African politics more than western politics,so my knowledge is quite dumb
December 29, 2008 at 4:18 pm #88152
Jindall is the governor of my state of Louisiana, and very big on ethics reform and cleaning up corruption in government. He also did an excellent job of handling the preparations and clean-up before and after Hurricane Gustav. He’s also a solid Catholic to boot. 🙂 Although he’s not from India himself, his parents are; he was born in the US. All in all, if he decides to run for the presidency in 2012 (as many think he will), I’ll be voting for him.
December 30, 2008 at 8:44 am #88158
Sure.Anyway i like Obama. May be i am carried away by his charisma.
I am very confused to vote in my country everyone looks bad.hehehe
December 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm #88162
Obama’s got some good qualities , and some good ideas, but I don’t think he’s all that he’s cracked up to be. I almost voted for him, but decided instead on John McCain. I really like McCain, but I lost some confidence in him when he chose Palin as his running mate. That woman makes me want to puke.
December 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm #88165
its your country.Your politics, very diff indian scenario……….
December 31, 2008 at 3:33 pm #88181
I’m very concerned that so many people seem to like Obama for his charisma more than anything else. I admit he’s a talented orator, but that doesn’t come close to making him a good candidate. The last time a nation elected somebody based solely on charisma, his name was Adolf Hitler.
December 31, 2008 at 3:40 pm #88182
i know more guys like colonel Gaddafi of Libya and Mussevini of Uganda who work it out with charisma
January 2, 2009 at 1:45 am #88192
Charisma nice, and an obvious advantage in politics, but if it’s the only reason to vote for someone, we’ve got a serious problem.
January 2, 2009 at 11:43 am #88197
I think Obama’s Charisma is quite good since the international opinion will change but yes we will have to wait and see how he uses it.But i don’t think there is any charismatic leader in India up to date.
January 4, 2009 at 1:19 am #88209
The last really charimatic president we had before Obama was JFK, who in my opinion should be exumed, cloned, and made president again.
January 4, 2009 at 6:56 am #88213
I don’t know about JFK too much,But i think Obama’s charisma is working,Raul Castro recently stressed that he was ready for direct talks with Obama.If anyother person had become president i doubt these words coming out from Castro.But suprisingly he did predict Obama will be assassinated and as we all know assassination attempts did take place.I never thought anyone would go the extent of attempting to assassinate him.
January 5, 2009 at 4:56 am #88231
Doesn’t surprise me a bit. Obama is so intensely hated by half the nation, it’s only a matter of time before someone takes a shot at him.
January 5, 2009 at 11:24 am #88237
I still don’t get why these people hate Obama.Since he is Black???Sometimes its hard to believe the global super power has guys who believe in a shit called racism.I have heard of reports that many American students don’t know to identify many countries in the world,they think India is a muslim nation,etc.America has quality but not quantity I guess.India is opposite to that.Many High caste people are highly learned but follow casteism at the most rigid level.Some are even top national level scientist.India is a really funny country to a foreigner…………..
January 8, 2009 at 2:37 am #88287
It’s not Obama’s race that makes people hate him so much. For many people, it’s the ideas he stands for. As for me, I’m a bit put off by his attitude, which smacks of overconfidence. Dangerous, if you ask me.
January 8, 2009 at 8:44 am #88291
its your country we have nothing to comment on your country.But i am thinking of changing my citizenship to Chinese.India looks boring castist,racialistic,etc.The west looks too expensive to live.
But only time can tell…….
January 8, 2009 at 4:06 pm #88302
The west is expensive but wages are also a lot higher. It’s also, in my opinion, a lot safer.
You’re right, though, that most Americans don’t know crap about the rest of the world. The real reason, in my opinion, is that our education system sucks miserably. But that’s a rant all its own . . .
January 9, 2009 at 10:18 am #88330
As the days in this world continues, everything worldwide is no longer the same as before. When I had attended a scientific session about energy conservation, I was amazed to see many of our scientists in the country. They presented research works and notable contributions to the country including the ways of how energy is efficiently utilized. Even our secretary of the Dept. of energy had been the keynote speaker in the session–all of them opened the concerns, problems, and solutions. I just wondered in myself, with these many scientists–pretty much intelligent people for sure but the world is still a far place to be better. Day by day every one has a dream to change the world, one of them might be our future leaders, too many promises to make, a lot of very convincing power; I don’t wanna say I’ll stop believing them, I still want to give my hope for them.
January 9, 2009 at 11:41 am #88335quote alextemplet:
If you had studied in India you would have taken back that comment for sure.if your educations sucks then our system *****.I college i am doing a bio technology course.In the first year[2 semesters] out of the 11 subject we had only one was related to bio tech, it was bio chemistry.Others were all crap.We had so many experiments in the cell bio lab[abt 10], but we did just 3.The staff says "this is what is going to come in the exam you can get full marks,what else do you want".All this when my college is owned by a powerful politician and is allied to the best University in my State.I don’t have bad words to describe school education.Trust me, your gifted in this issue[atleast compared to India].
January 9, 2009 at 4:38 pm #88347
Well, that sounds a bit like some of the educational philosophies over here, where people care more about getting a grade than actually learning anything. It’s especially frightening when you see medical students sleeping in class. That’s the kind of doctor I want operating on me, one who slept through class. What a good way to keep patients alive.
The problem with our educational system is two-fold. First, it’s too highly localized. Although the United States is, overall, a wealthy nation, many parts are relatively poor. Since education here is the responsibility of local governments, poorer communities have no chance at all at having good schools for the simple fact that they can’t afford them. This means poor people tend to be less educated, and have less chance of breaking out of poverty. It’s a rather vicious cycle, and a nationalized education system would be much better, but that wouldn’t fit with of our capitalist philosophy to keep the rich rich at the expense of the poor.
The other problem with our education is that it’s too highly politicized. The efforts of our conservatives to enact laws forcing our schools to teach religious creationism (I still don’t understand how that’s not a violation of religious freedom) is a perfect example of that. Teaching good science and even good facts don’t seem to matter quite so much as pushing a political agenda. Although, to be fair, our liberals are just as bad, and not above trying to completely rewrite history for our textbooks. That’s beyond sad, in my opinion, to see schools not as educational facilities but as means to brainwash children into believing your particular ideology.
I once heard it said that education should teach you how to think, and not what to think. Too bad more people don’t try to put that philosophy into practice.
January 10, 2009 at 8:58 am #88361quote alextemplet:
Yeah very true 😆 😆
Thats a really good one Alex.Wonderfull example.quote alextemplet:
Well the problem is the same but the reasons are different here.The government schools are filled with staff who don’t teach.They are never updated with the latest happenings although they have a wealth of experience.Its because our system is corrupt.The poor people can only afford to go to government school.But they just end up getting poor knowledge of the subject.And you know the consequences.But still some do come up and serve as examples.So its the same vicious cycle.Until the standards of Government Schools is improved its not possible for any real breakthrough.But i have no comments about capitalism and nationalism.I am really confused about which is better.I like the Chinese for this a communist country with Capitalist cities.quote alextemplet:
Well that debate is not a problem.The supernatural theory is given in the books in school in a small passage along with the other theories for origin.Darwinism and the modern synthetic theory is covered in much more extensively.[like 10 pages i think].Yes education is highly politicized but it doesn’t seem to offend popular sentiments and the syllabus is being prescribed by some person close to politicians rather than by scientists.But there are many different types of "boards" in India some of them are prescribed by scientists, which is not generally followed.No one really cares what is in the book, its only the mark or grade that matters.
January 21, 2009 at 4:01 am #88572MrBParticipant
Clearly humans have had a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and as a result climate change and speicies extinction. The earths finite resources can not sustain the population growth X the average standard of living (consumption and waste).
There are clearly cycles of change within nature, but has there ever been animal that has inhabited earth that has been able to manipulate it’s environment the way we do? Is there hope of reversing the impact of man, or are we by virtue of fact that greed is part of human nature, destined to drown in our own waste?
January 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm #88580quote MrB:
We have the capability to reverse the damage we have done to the environment, although it might still be too late for some species. Which raises another point, many scientists believe we are beginning to see a mass extinction in addition to climate change. We can change it, but from what I’ve seen of human nature, we probably won’t.
January 26, 2009 at 3:29 am #88680
A year or a two, if we stop all the processes that contribute to global warming, the chances of reversing is great. Although the question here is, when?
January 28, 2009 at 10:20 am #88717
alex and mcar – prove it. Like to see the stiochiometry of that, short of ending our civilization presence on earth suddenly. Even had the Kyoto protocol been adhered top religiously, it would have had no significant effect on the projections of global warming effect. Emissions continued to grow since then, and please remember our carbon emissions and vastly more were once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Love the emotional mea culpa of "damage we’ve done".
January 28, 2009 at 1:47 pm #88721
Well, I just think of a very simple natural process where plants–our very own photosynthetic organisms that can definitely perform the healing process. I just wonder however the present percentage of CO2 already present in our atmosphere. Two or three decades ago, researches suggest that the atmospheric amount of CO2 is far more less than what we have today. The problem is, we can’t really stop carbon emissions since most of our activities generating our lifestyle makes most of the gas. If in a year or a two we try stopping our activites, everything for us would be definitely ruined. It’s really a hard thing actually because instead of making the simple natural process work for the best, we try to think of an alternative approach that has the same effects as what the plants can actually do. The more complex the alternative we think of, the more expensive it becomes and the more scientific principles that we have to think about, in terms of physical and chemical relationships that it connect to our alternative plan.
January 28, 2009 at 4:09 pm #88722
"Healing"???? I think that subjective term speaks well to the general absence of any realistic assessment of the matter. What technical approaches have you considered, both in practical application and potential – or was this just subjective?
January 29, 2009 at 1:24 am #88729
Some good examples of evidence for global warming would be the shrinking snow caps on most mountains and changes in the migration patters of many animals to correspond with warmer weather.
January 30, 2009 at 9:13 am #88761
If we can possibly stop or at least reduce all carbon emissions and convert all of our dependencies on renewable sources of energy just to lessen the contributing factors to global warming. Just walk instead of riding an automobile, reduce electrical consumption, develop innovative ways of reusing things, althought this last one may really require greater expenses. Educating our people about the situation pays a lot but the response may take time. Politically, the agenda towards healthy environmental prospects are not the real concerns of the most influential leaders that we have. We may produce lots of plans or objectives for the next 10 years just to make a renewed environment but the thing is it’s not successfully followed or enhanced however.
January 31, 2009 at 3:19 pm #88788
Come on mcar. You’re not in high school. These trivial de minumus actions may make you feel good – even superior – but the math doesn’t add up here. Politically – this is a hot issues – leaders carry no greater concern than that.
Bottom line – every little bit does NOT help. If we want to seriously attack the issue, these are distractions that lose focus on real solutions.
February 2, 2009 at 12:46 am #88814
Why are you so hot? Remember that no two individuals are the same. You can not let others think the way you want. If you want to teach, know your disciples including their needs and readiness.
I never thought being superior here as well. Honestly, it made me realize that I have so many things to learn and to understand.
February 4, 2009 at 10:33 am #88838
Hot? I’m pointing out the silliness of your selfabsorbed suggestion. If the purpose is to make you feel good – then I suppose it’s ok. If you wanted something substantial or significant to be achieved – it’s nothing.
February 8, 2009 at 11:47 am #88885quote :
There were even some tropical fishes found to be inhabiting already the Atlantic ocean.
February 8, 2009 at 3:07 pm #88892
I know you guys are not scientists but try to think like one. Looking for "evidence" presumes the fact and doesn’t test the observation. is not what scientists do – they form an hypothesis and test it.
Take mcar’s comment for example – the observation of so-called tropical fish in the Atantic. The Atlantic is large and h as both tropical temperature and colder regions. The so-called tropical fish may always or even periodically been in areas unexpected – and no temp data were offered.
February 9, 2009 at 12:15 am #88900
Jorgelobo, you are missing the point. We were asked to present evidence that global warming is a real phenomenon; this we did.
February 9, 2009 at 1:30 am #88902
You are missing the point. That is not evidence – it’s coincidence. do try to learn something about science.
February 9, 2009 at 4:41 am #88907
Since you’re the expert on all things scientific, why don’t you go ahead and explain why shrinking snow caps are merely coincidental with – and not evidence for – rising temperature.
February 9, 2009 at 11:31 pm #88933
I understand your ignorance of science alex but I’ll try to explain. The burden of defense falls upon those making the claim – offering the theory. Understand? The fact that you know nothing about the phenomena does not excuse you.
February 10, 2009 at 1:01 am #88935
I love how you neatly dodged the question by pretending to be the only person in the know about scientific thinking.
February 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm #88951
Well when we find a few more Earths’ that we can use as controls and alternative variable tests we can take an undeniably scientific approach to test climate change – it might take a few millenia but what the heck. We might even get some conclusive data on evolution while we’re at it. </sarcasm>
February 10, 2009 at 10:34 pm #88957
poor alex – do try to understand. The question you asked had nothing to do with science. It’s not up to me to find an other explanation. Its up to YOU as YOU are making the claim to prove or validate. Understand? Science is not a matter of "gee – it must be true, i can’t think of anything else."
February 11, 2009 at 12:14 am #88959
February 11, 2009 at 2:44 am #88966
Jorgelobo, did it ever occur to you to treat other people with respect instead of condescension? Or do you only come on this forum to feel better about yourself by trash-talking others?
February 11, 2009 at 2:57 am #88971
Please understand – I’m not your nursemaid. I won’t praise your comments when they’re wrong. When you get out in the real world, you’ll understand you need to make sense and edfend your ideas.
Did it ever occur to you that you might learn from criticism?
February 11, 2009 at 6:41 am #88976
Yeah alex! Can’t you tell tough love when you see it? Here Jorge is just trying to help you be a better scientist and you keep making him out to be some sort of ass… No gratitude I tell ya. Kids these days… 🙄
February 11, 2009 at 7:46 am #88979quote :
Exactly; you may have a point there. But the thing is, I never saw you giving even just one piece of evidence here and what you did is to criticize. You’re forgetting that a bulk of your time here have not contributed much to exploration of different point of views, their experiences and learning. You kept on reminding us how scientists must think but you never did and that’s the truth. The facts are just there, anywhere. The internet is one single fact that all that we need are already one stop there. We just put into formality that we need to test all of the things that don’t meet our satisfaction and if you believe in the idea that we put up knowledge in our efforts to make sense of our surrounding, knowledge will likely emphasize the enhancement of meaning and understanding; therefore knowledge is not discovered nor even corresponds to object reality.
I know that your way is experimental, guided by the steps of the scientific method but you have to be aware too that it’s not the only method that people may learn, it’s just one of the many approaches to gain knowledge and understanding.
February 12, 2009 at 12:01 am #88998quote JorgeLobo:
Did it ever occur to you to practice what you preach?
February 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm #89150
Poor alex – always whining. You see, I KNOW the subject. You do NOT know the subject. Understand the difference? The pity is that you insist on sharing your ignorance with the expectation of praise.
February 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm #89159
Yes, poor me, I don’t know the first thing about science. Such a shame. 🙄
February 16, 2009 at 5:29 pm #89161
Can’t address your knowledge – only your posts and they are not burdened by too much technical fact or scientifcc thought.
February 17, 2009 at 12:28 am #89169
Neither are yours, for that matter.
February 17, 2009 at 12:48 am #89170
Alex – the claim was yours and I offered a technical challenge you couldn’t answer. Understand? Sorry for your hurt ego – but again (!) try to learn something from this discussion
February 18, 2009 at 1:48 am #89192
Technical challenge? I must’ve missed that. From what I remember, you refused to answer a legitimate question, choosing instead to throw insults.
February 18, 2009 at 11:47 am #89199
Poor alex – dishonest as well as ignorant. Nice combination.
February 19, 2009 at 5:04 am #89214
Dishonest? I think not. You still never answered my question.
February 19, 2009 at 10:16 am #89221
Poor alex – still whining. Dishonest? Obviously you are.
February 20, 2009 at 4:21 am #89235
Care to explain how so?
February 20, 2009 at 11:44 am #89241
So we’ll obtuse to your characteristics.
February 20, 2009 at 12:55 pm #89245futurezoologistParticipant
My input on original question:
If the world has drooped so low as to look to a politician (whos greatest achievement was coming second to George Bush) for complex scientific evidence then i think that it will take far too much effort to bring these people back to level headedness so i refuse to supply evidence on this issue and i am simply going to say the earth is far too complex to have its future predicted by simple computer models, the earth has warmed and cooled thousands of times before any human existed and finally that only politicians and greenies believe in anthropogenic global warming.
As a great man once said:
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
– Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), Sherlock Holmes
Just read back 2 pages of aggressive argument (which wasnt even argument, i would call it mindless blabber) and i must say i originally assumed as i saw the topic that there would be hot headedness. To both argumentees/teams: Step 1 STOP Step 2 First party Provides Their Evidence. (evidence is not ‘polar ice caps are melting’, it is, say, images from a reliable source showing consecutive images over a period at which global warming could take place, say 300 years, 1 photo every 10 years at the same time of year, now that would be solid evidence[i know cameras wernt available 300 years ago]) Step 3 The second debater provides their evidence to rebut this argument or will simply say ‘ no firm evidence provided’. If evidence is unable to be rebutted second debater will simply say "one point to you". Now move to step 4 Step 4 Second debater then provides argument point and the cycle continues.
Please PM me in 2020 when argument is finished with final scores. 😉
February 21, 2009 at 1:00 am #89256
agree – global warming is policy not science
October 4, 2011 at 11:49 pm #106644quote JorgeLobo:
October 14, 2011 at 12:30 am #106881quote futurezoologist:
Would you believe… "High School Physics" ?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … ing-shock/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/28/v … xperiment/quote :
Back ? Whaddya mean "back" ?
In 2011 there is a mini Ice Age threat for Europe..instead of the 2000 "No more snow for children ever" threat.
November 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm #107527
OK, this should put a damper on the pathetic Suzukian mewling morons, the self-chastized "climate criminals".
Look at who is emitting more CO2…it’s the backward countries nearer the equator and China as well, of course…Canada and North-Eastern USA and Europe, are GREEN. Australia is a little bit bad..it’s half naughty.
http://www.suite101.com/news/new-satell … ry-a394975
The third world owes us reparations money. Madagascar is a CO2 demon that needs to be tamed.
November 1, 2011 at 7:58 pm #107544
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.