What is Digg?201 Comments
- plugues, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26@badnewsblair
well, thank you for that, but as you can notice most people don't care and they don't wanna know, hence they mod me down
basically, cattle is responsible for more carbon emissions than the world's entire automobile fleet. there's a total of 6 billion heads of cow in the world. it's an economical waste, and the ecological impact is never accounted into the price of beef (at least not in brazil, where i live, world's #1 beef producer). the digestive process of cows emits a lot of methane into the atmosfere, and though it stays in the air less than carbon dioxide, it's much more toxic.
what happens nowadays in brazil is just terrible. the amazon forest is being eaten up by soy farms, and it's soy destined to feed animals, not the one vegetarians eat. just think about it. how much does a cow weight? brazilian cows never go hungry. still, 20% of the HUMAN population suffers from hunger. why not feed them with cereals?
i'm really NOT making this up, it's all over the media. well, perhaps not in the united states, the only country left in the world that's still debating whether or not global warming is even a reality. - tvc15, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13@ plugues
wow, i would never have guessed from your first comment that you were pro veggie. you just sounded grumpy.
please in the future try to make comments like your second one which is cogent and less like the first one. - vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@plugues
Yes, domesticated livestock, ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes. However, methane emissions from enteric fermentation (e.g. cow farts) only totalled to 115 TgCO2 equivalent in 2003.
That is less than the losses that occur during the production, processing, storage, transmission, and distribution of natural gas - 125.9 TgCO2 equivalent in 2003. It is also less than the largest human-related source of methane in the U.S. - landfills, at 131.2 TgCO2 equivalent in 2003.
The total US CO2 emissions from the consumption and flaring of Fossil Fuels in 2003 was 6,793.05 Tg.
115 / 6793.05 = 1.7%
summary: Methane emissions from domesticated livestock were equivalent to 1.7% of the CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use in 2003.
1 teragram (Tg) = 1 million metric tons
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@wm2010russ: I saw Gore's movie too. I don't recall any specific predictions about 2006. Would you care to provide a quote? Or did you make it up?
- skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18That's like saying evolution might exist, but if it does, it's all coincidence.
- ImOscar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"Unfortunately there is very very little humans can do to curb the global natural cycle of temperature changes and weather patterns."
This is true, however it is not relevant to slowing global warming. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8far-left? Clearly you either are ignorant to, or misunderstand the political spectrum.
Far left to conservative Americans seems to be middle and only slightly to the left to the rest of the world. Its just sad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7There are over 17,000 signatures. How many have backgrounds in biology, physics, mathematics, etc... if you say those have nothing to do with climate change then you are mistaken. Climatologists owe everything to those fields.
- justgeorge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Hope this helps - and yay to an inconvenient truth - answers stuff like this and much more.
taken from: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html
It's important in this context to compare the atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 and H20. A molecule of water vapor spends about a week in the atmosphere where carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for 5-200 years. Water vapor fluctations are significant but, unlike CO2, they are rapidly precipitated out of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere now will be around for your great grandchildren's children.
Here's a list of the atmospheric lifetimes of various greenhouse gases on the IPCC site
http://grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/016.htm
and plenty of information about water vapor from the American Geophysical Union.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html - ulmedas, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12RE:wm2010russ- '...a small majority of scientists...'
Heh...a small majority. I love that one. There has yet to be a trained scientist (who's research is not funded by oil conglomerates) that denies global warming is an issue. Not one. It may be of course, that only a 'small majority of scientists' have studied the issue.
Heh...small majority, makes me laugh. - badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@plugues
In the name of good discourse, I didn't digg you down immediately. Explain what you mean please. - neszis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Why is it that people refuse to even look for two sides of issues?
The Kyoto Accords (international agreement to cut industrial production to prevent global warming) were flawed, which is the reason why the Bush administration did not ratify them. The accords only apply to developed, industrialized countries, and only those would be forced to limit their CO2 emissions. Thus, if we signed them, we would have to cut our production drastically, while countries like China and India would not have to do a thing, and our economy would be swamped by them. At least, swamped faster.
President Bush's first responsibility, sadly enough, is to do what is best for the United States. That is, not the world -- just the United States. And he did his job well, because what's best for the United States was to not ratify the Kyoto Protocols.
(I might also mention that those that have signed the Protocols have more or less ignored them) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Some of the givens in the abstracts above are biased and therefore the basis for the entire paper is false.
Nice try though... I can cite specific line by line if you wish. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18"Humans are putting huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere."
Really?
Less than 5% of the Carbon Dioxide emitted is from humans. Everything else is natural.
Less than 1% is from cars, and 2.5% is from burning oil for heating.
Natural emissions far outweigh our puny attempts.
Consider the fact that the sheer tonnage of insect biomass FAR outweighs that of us humans, and you'll be forced to realize that we're not as important as we think we are. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I may be biased because I myself signed the petition years ago... :-)
Increased CO2 levels do have benefits on agriculture and therefore food production. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"and the US is the only country that didnt sign it"
China only signed it when they were exempted from doing anything. That's the problem. The Kyoto protocol simply causes job outsourcing to China at a faster rate. - zwei, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12@lyph
You aren't counting all the forest burning/slashing ...not only are we putting more CO2 up there via burning, but we are removing certain natural processes that used to remove some of it.
Not to mention population is going up faster than anything seen in our history ...more people == more resources needed. Even if we are only adding 5% ...every year it will get larger. This stuff doesn't just go away when the new year rolls over. It builds upon itself.
People are ignorant if they think we don't need to do anything to curb it. Ignorant or just plain selfish. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Percentage of scientific peer reviewed articles that agree with global warming being a threat that must be changed and that it is a man-made phenomenon: 0%
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Here's some more education for you, spock627corfu
"Naomi Oreskes of UCSD surveyed nearly 1000 peer-reviewed climate reports. The result? Exactly 0% disagreed with the position that global warming is largely human induced."
That is utterly meaningless. Let me explain why. Scientific papers are not opinion papers. Scientists do not write about what they think, they write about what they know. What they know is so little as to require a labyrinth of qualifiers and special case explanations. In short, your average scientific paper usually says very little, about a very narrow portion of scientific endeavor, in a very meek way. Most ethical scientists who have data that they don't understand usually de-emphasize it or don't publish it, making the signal-to-noise ratio for the average human being even worse.
The reality is you can survey as many scientific papers as you want. This time, ask them all how many of them disagree with the existence of extraterrestrial life. I guarantee that 100% of them will not disagree with the existence of alien life. Does that mean we're about to be invaded? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7its funny that they call themselves conservatives..
what exactly are they trying to conserve? they back a president who tears down our liberties, ruins the environment, puts america in more risk, makes america the most hated country in the world..
how is the conservativism?
conservatives would stand up to bush and his misuse of power..
they would try to keep the government 'equally' divided, they would protect their rights as citizens, they would try to protect america's soverenty
bush doesnt even know the meaning of the word (he really doesnt!) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6So you are saying they are going to put limits on the most potent greenhouse gas H2O....
Typical combustion yields CO2 and H2O... Are we going to store these as solid waste? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12wow this thread scares me..
it is a fact that the earth is warming
it is a fact that the co2 levels are higher now than they have ever been before as far back as we can check (hundreds of thousands of years)
it is a fact that they have been growing well over 'natural warming trend' levels for the last 30-40 years
its a fact that if people dont pull their heads out of their asses, and first accept it as truth, and 2nd do something about it the world we give to our kids is going to be ruined
even if your too stupid and stubborn to realize that it IS caused my man.. at least admit the undeniable fact that the earth IS warming drastically, and that co2 levels are higher than they have ever been.. which will lead to temperatures (as it already is) that are hotter than they have ever been
last year was the hottest year in recorded history, this year was even hotter
10 of the hottest years in history happened in the last 15 years... doesnt that tell you something is wrong?
ofcourse the real tragedy here is that the old 'santa lives at the north pole' line to your kids isn't going to work after all the ice at the north pole has finished melting - BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7But... uhm... he's right. You can't stop global warming by curtailing pollution. I mean seriously folks, you can't. Kyoto is nothing less than a global attempt at a redistribution of wealth. It is the rest of the world saying, "uhm, we cannot compete with America, so we'll invent a handicap system so that a winner is you." Kyoto won't do jack to the global temperature. Canada knows this, even though they signed on. Lots of other countries are slowly beginning to listen to the scientists who disagreed on this international policy.
Bush may be dumb, he may be a coke-head, he might have a group of retards for advisors, but he's not wrong on Kyoto. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You don't really understand evolution, do ya? I mean.. theory or fact, your last comment only proves that you don't have a clue what it is you are arguing about. You managed to 1. equate monkeys with apes (incorrect) 2. assume that one animal evolving from another results in the original always ceasing to exist (incorrect) and 3. bring up something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (global warming) I assume because you feel that everyone who disagrees with you about topic a will hold a specific opinion about topic b. Not only is that stupid and likely to only piss people off who might agree with you on one issue and not the other, but it shows you for the obvious right wing religious sheep that you are.
Congrats on losing everyone who might have been with you until you went completely nuts in the last paragraph. Dumbass! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It depends on the plant... increased CO2 leads to increased photosynthesis ... if the plant doesn't get enough sun it will have no change in growth.
One of the studies on that page mentioned a nitrogen deficiency... If nutrients aren't there you won't see increased growth either.
Some plants will love increased CO2 and other won't "adapt or die". - PaulusVictor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11@wm2010russ
The reason for a lack of major storms this year wasn't because global warming is a lie made up by Al Gore. In fact the reason was because of a very active African dust storm season. These dust storms stifle a hurricane's ability to develop.
(http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/10226/32598/01525627.pdf?arnumber=1525627 pdf) if you don't want to take my word for it. - ontain, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8while the cycle of change is a natural thing. the rate at which we've helped it along is not.
- toconnor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I was with you up to the bit about evolution.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The lifetime in the atmo doesn't matter with a constant source... If I suffocate you with a pillow for 10 minutes or suffocate you with several pillows at a minute a piece you still die. The effect is still there.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6You don't like sex?...
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Summary is terrible. No mention of the EPA at all.
- EgoFumPapa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4In Europe, corporations have far too much power, they can get away with far too much. You should be grateful that you now have the ability to challenge those corporations, and win, if they're in the wrong.
Oh yeah, like always, everything is Americas' fault. Europe never does anything wrong. - blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Environmentalism is the reason I'm a vegetarian. The (in)ethical practices of the meat industry have something to do with it, but trying to avoid ***** up the planet is the main reason. And yes, I hear often about how damn tasty meat is, and I agree that it is, but I try in this regard to make the ethical decision rather than the one that favors my tastebuds.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The other question is, what if the cost to human welfare to fix global warming is greater than the benefit? What is your measure of human welfare? Restricting energy use, if no other good solution is available, has a ripple effect in the economy which will play out worst for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Everything gets more expensive, and the poor suffer the worst of it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I for one would like to live in the tropical paradise of the dinosaurs... I can't wait for global warming to take hold.
- mynameistim, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So one of two things is occuring: global warming is happening, and it's 100% not anything close to our fault...or global warming is happening and it is some percentage above zero our fault.
we can do one of two things: absolutely nothing, and know that we will continue to allow global warming to happen as it is / accelerate at some percentage above zero...or do something. and do our zero/some percentage above zero bit of help.
no brainer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Fortunately we don't add CO2 that fast to the atmo. :-)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's easy to show damage from CO2 (as acid rain) but there is no way to link that CO2 to human activity.
- neszis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You think people haven't tried? It's that the data is only correlating, but cause cannot be determined because the laboratory, more or less, is the entire planet. There can be little to no control over the experimental circumstances. Also, much of the data's old (or non-existent, except for ice cores), and it takes gigantic amounts of time to experiment on a planetary scale.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"wow this thread scares me..
it is a fact that the earth is warming
it is a fact that the co2 levels are higher now than they have ever been before as far back as we can check (hundreds of thousands of years)
it is a fact that they have been growing well over 'natural warming trend' levels for the last 30-40 years
its a fact that if people dont pull their heads out of their asses, and first accept it as truth, and 2nd do something about it the world we give to our kids is going to be ruined"
It's a fact that the level of seafaring piracy is dropping.
It's a fact that the ocean is getting warmer.
You need to show correlation. That's where the science comes in. The models developed strongly suggest humans are part of the problem, but as with all science, it is reasonable to always question your assumptions. Calling sceptics names is not scientific, nor is it productive. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4the dilemma of our educated, western society understanding (well, beginning to) what must be done, while emerging countries increasingly use coal and two-stroke motors, is also very real.
The answer is to keep our eye on the prize, and strive to become CARBON NEUTRAL. How this is achieved is regional (ie. one person's coal fired electricity in the wall plug, versus my hydroelectric electricity) but includes things like avoiding overpackaged goods, buying local as much as possible, and doing things to sink carbon (like maybe growing a garden, or letting your lawn go)
There's lots of ways to become Carbon Neutral in our world and it doesn't have to adversely effect the low income earners or countries, but it must happen now, and must not be put off even another day. the next generation relies on this. why are people contesting this? - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Fatola: None of your latest post clarifies, makes sense of, or makes valid any of the previous one. You are being dugg down because you make no sense, spew propaganda and are a nutjob. Enough said.
- phishtaco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5First of all if you believe that there is really global warming then you believe in Santa Clause. This Global Warming junk is a lie from the pit of hell.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5You are right that you don't have to prove it, climatologists do... So far not a single one has.
It's entirely possible that one never will. The amount of data needing to be sampled and analyzed is so massive that the world's fastest super computers couldn't handle it. It is more complicated than weather patterns and we have trouble enough with that.
Even if we cut CO2 emission global warming will not stop... What is the point of wasting resources on a pointless cause? - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Okay, idiots, don't go bitchin' about government waste of money when stupid ***** like this is allowed to go to court. This will go no where, thankfully.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Hey, spock627corfu...
I have been reading scientific journals/papers for a few years now. I'm not talking about media, I'm talking about the writings of the actual scientists themselves.
I have a degree in Physics.
I am not 13 years old.
Al Gore is wrong, there is argument, Consensus among scientists is a complete and utter myth that is sold to you by people who would use your own fears for your political allegiance. There are valid and perfectly rational reasons to believe:
1) The current warming is normal and expected.
2) The current warming is caused by solar cycles.
3) Any warming caused by humans is too small to be detected by our current measurements.
Oh, and I have never received a red cent from anyone in the oil industry. I work in the Aerospace industry. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4With most stuff the EPA regulates, the effects of concentration levels of pollutants in the atmosphere is well understood, and limits can be set accordingly. Are the computer models for global warming good enough to assign a safe level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
- jmg4j, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still apes?"
Seriously. Are you seriously questioning evolution in that way? Did you get past ninth grade Biology? Are you being ironic?
I hope you're mocking the people who don't "believe" in evolution (as if that's an option), as some sort of subtle analogy mocking the people who don't "believe" in Global Warming. - apetrie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Growing, developed and non-exempt: Canada.
One of the first to sign: Canada.
I'm just saying, doesn't quite fit in well with your theory. Not that it has been perfect with it (especially not with our new government) and not that its easy to follow either. - EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@wm2010russ: you make an awful lot of assumptions based on no real information.
Whether or not global warming is caused by Man, it is real and increasing and to do nothing would cost the world (and the US) far more than some of the better proposals for what we can do to help.
The truth is, at this point, cutting CO2 emissions may be too late. But if we're going to employ other solutions, the very least we should do is not make the problem worse. -
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is