Global warming

[Clint]

We should set up a factory farm like the matrix and shove a methane collecting tube up their butt.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheAntiLion]

Hehe, I think I saw an SNL skit about that JLAP.

Yeah, but I have to wonder if they are just shoving off the blame towards "natural" causes to get us distracted from man made causes. I've seen it said that termites, cows, and a lot of other creatures produce greenhouse gases, but it seems to me that they've been here a lot longer than the industrial revolution. Therefore, shouldn't be a major contributer to global warming.

 

[endparenthesis]

Quote[/b] (TheAntiLion @ Dec. 04 2006,11:01)]Yeah, but I have to wonder if they are just shoving off the blame towards "natural" causes to get us distracted from man made causes. I've seen it said that termites, cows, and a lot of other creatures produce greenhouse gases, but it seems to me that they've been here a lot longer than the industrial revolution. Therefore, shouldn't be a major contributer to global warming.

We have to keep breeding more and more cows (among other things) to fill humanity's gaping maw. We're so overpopulated that there's literally not enough available biomass on the planet to feed us all without making some severe ecological alterations, like mowing down acres of rainforest for pastures and crops.

I don't know any actual cattle statistics, but I would bet there are far more cows on the planet now than there were 10,000 years ago. I don't know if they're truly a global warming contributor on their own, but when they start replacing rainforest it's a problem.

 

[Finch]

Yes but there are far less of the megaherds of bison, reindeer, antalope, etc roaming the earth thn 10,000 years ago also

 

[Mokele]

Quote[/b] ] find it hard to believe that raising a cow causes more ecological damage than driving a SUV, "silly usless vehicle". Just think of the damage caused by mining the metals, rubber and producing the plastics of just one vehicle. Not to mention obtaining the oil and the polution it causes. I am just not buying it.

There's that, yes, but also remember that much of cattle-raising occurs in South America, and in order to make pastures, they cut and burn huge areas of rainforest. Aside from the ecological damage, that also releases *all* the carbon locked in those trees into the air, hundreds of tons of it per acre.

I'm not saying I disagree, only that I suspect slash-and-burn is a big part of cattle-farming's impact.

Quote[/b] ]I am no chemist by any stretch of the imagination but wasn't it the UN back in the 70's that got the auto industry to install catalytic converters so that our cars produce MORE CO2 and less CO ? We were saving the world from acid rain right ? Instead we end up causing more greenhouse gas to cause global warming.

Not really; the CO would eventually become CO2 via oxidative reactions in the atmosphere. So CO2 from cars is just a greenhouse gas, while CO is nasty, toxic, *and* eventually turns into a greenhouse gas.

Quote[/b] ]Yes but there are far less of the megaherds of bison, reindeer, antalope, etc roaming the earth thn 10,000 years ago also

But how much less; those were sustainable herds, with their populations limited by predators and other factors. These are huge, artificial herds with all limits removed.

And these aren't the first ruminants; before there were herds of bison, the US plains were filled with reptilian ruminants the size of bull elephants. And I can only imagine the methane a 150 ton Argentinosaurus would release in a single fart.

Mokele

 

[Finch]

ell, actually those wernt ruminants. It is " any hooved animal that digests its food in two steps, first by eating the raw material and regurgitating a semi-digested form known as cud, chewing it and then eating it again"

i dont think Argentinosaurus could have passed a cud up through its looooong Esophagus, but if so, it could have been very interesting to wach.

 

[TheAntiLion]

I haven't thought about those things. I'm still a bit skeptical, but I always am when people make major claims about something on scientific grounds.

Quote[/b] ]And I can only imagine the methane a 150 ton Argentinosaurus would release in a single fart.

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]I'm still a bit skeptical, but I always am when people make major claims about something on scientific grounds.

and what grounds would this claim be acceptible by?

 

[Travis]

Is a hole in the ozone considered global warming? Sure a hole in the ozone is caused by CO2 (cars, lawn mowers, power plants, etc., etc.) I don't believe in global warming...that does not mean I do not believe we are doing damage/harm to "Mother Earth".

 

[endparenthesis]

Nope.

Quote[/b] ]Ozone can be destroyed by a number of free radical catalysts, the most important of which are the hydroxyl radical (OH·), the nitric oxide radical (NO·) and atomic chlorine (Cl·) and bromine (Br·). All of these have both natural and anthropogenic (manmade) sources; at the present time, most of the OH· and NO· in the stratosphere is of natural origin, but human activity has dramatically increased the chlorine and bromine. These elements are found in certain stable organic compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which may find their way to the stratosphere without being destroyed in the troposphere. Once in the stratosphere, the Cl and Br atoms are liberated from the parent compounds by the action of ultraviolet light, and can destroy ozone molecules through a variety of catalytic cycles. In the simplest example of such a cycle, a chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule, taking an oxygen atom with it (forming ClO) and leaving a normal oxygen molecule. A free oxygen atom then takes away the oxygen from the ClO, and the final result is an oxygen molecule and a chlorine atom, which then reinitiates the cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

 

[Lauderdale]

Quote[/b] ]There's that, yes, but also remember that much of cattle-raising occurs in South America, and in order to make pastures, they cut and burn huge areas of rainforest.  Aside from the ecological damage, that also releases *all* the carbon locked in those trees into the air, hundreds of tons of it per acre.

 Cattle are raised in every country on earth, not just South America.
Cars travel on roads and building these roads destroyed MILLIONS of square miles, of the earth.  Nothing, I mean nothing, grows on a road or parking lot.
Do you have any idea how many cows it would take to duplicate that type of destruction?
In many countries, cow manure, is burned as fuel, therebye saving trees.
The United Nations, as usual, is totally wrong in its' assement.
Can any of you find a flaw in my assement?

 

[rattler]

i say we blaim the real cause..................NATURE!

you guys do realize we are coming out of an ice age right?

you guys realize that it was warmer in the middle ages(approximately 700 years ago) than it is now right?

you guys realize that there were once farms on Greenland and there seems to be evidence that the Chinese took a boat trip around the Artic and didnt run into any blockages of ice?

is it possible that we are causing changes to the climate..............yeah slightly, but in all reality its not going to matter in the long run to anything but our species. temperatures have been on the increase for more than the last 100 years, it started before the modern industrial factories and such kicked in. any concern over global warming is 100% in our own interest and nothing more. extinction is a natural part of the evolution process. and while i dont avocate the fact that we should just pave over everything i am not nieve enough to figure that we can save every critter thats dieing out. nor do i see the need to other than our for our own selfish purposes. the earth does not NEED us to do this.....species will die and if there is a niche new ones will evolve tot ake their place.

 

[PlantAKiss]

I agree with Rattler. A few months ago our speaker at the rock club, head of the Geology Department at the University of Richmond, spoke about global warming. I don't remember all the technical geological stuff but basically for millions and millions of years the earth has cycled through warming and cooling spells (Ice Ages). Its totally natural, totally unpreventable. Human beings (AND cows) may be helping speed the process a little, but there is really nothing that can be done to stop this. The fact that we humans found a comfortable niche in the climate of the last few hundred years doesn't mean its going to stay this way forever. Climates change, species evolve or die off, the continents shift. We find this hard to accept because we see time in decades or centuries...not millions of years. Our planet will not even look the same in a few million years as the continents continue to drift. Volcanic activity changes our planet every day.

So...its going to be hard for us to see some things change and it may not be to our liking, but its just Mother Earth changing as she must. Nothing is forever. That being said, of course we need to try NOT to pollute the Earth. No need to speed things up more than need be.

 

[Finch]

you guys realize that we cant drastically affect the atmosphere without something changing, right?

The resedent climatologis here has something very different to say, PAK. You have to understand that each has their own opinion and evidence, but...

Quote[/b] ]you guys realize that it was warmer in the middle ages(approximately 700 years ago) than it is now right?

Recent evedence shows that the Alps experiencing warmest time in 1,300 years

Quote[/b] ]you guys realize that there were once farms on Greenland and there seems to be evidence that the Chinese took a boat trip around the Artic and didnt run into any blockages of ice?

i need a source. Please?

For evidence to support the man-made causes, i will point to major scientific agencies.
Inter-govermental panel on climate change, wich i would point out is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.
NASA's Global Hydrology and Climate Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Center for Atmospheric Research .
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
There is a consensus amoung the MAJOR scientific ogranizations that the cause is man-made.

 

[rattler]

while the Chinese thing hasnt been proven to my satisfaction either. the farms on Greenland have long been known about. if Greenland was warm enough to have productive farms than it stands to reason that maybe the Arctic could have been circumnavigated, after all you could do it and never be out of sight of land for more than a couple of days if there was no ice. the stretch between Iceland and Greenland is the longest stretch of open sea and the Vikings did that without much problems, least till the global temps dropped during the mini ice age after about 700AD

AND even if we are the main cause(that is a HUGE if) there is nothing we can do to stop it. the main up and coming source of pollution in China and they are not going to do anything the west insists on unless its in their own interest.

http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/index.asp the chinese boat trip info i have on quick referance......unfortunatly the wifes 'puter isnt letting me set it up as a link so you have to copy and paste

 

[Finch]

But according to Basic facts about Greenland from greenland.com, agriculture still exists on the island. And by farming, could you be refering to sheep farming? It seems that that is the most common 'farming' both past and present, but you are right; agriculture existed then.

About the link, It also claims that chinese were in New Zealand, New Zealand i ssomething i know about, and i havent heard that. Also, they provide no proof for that claim, either. There is nothing there to suggest that anyhing they found can be exlusivly linked to the chinese, and if it were, that it did not get there through trade routs.

 

[rattler]

you do realize the wife is in Florida and im trying to put out a newspaper and i have never done most of my wifes part of the buisness and what i have done of it most of that was over a year ago

will get back to yah...................dont think im tucking tail on this just yet.......

like i said....im not sold on the Chinese link yet but i think the circumnavigating the Arctic was possible at that time................

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]...................dont think im tucking tail on this just yet.......

of course. I would be dissapointed if you did.

 

[rattler]

figured as much, if we get done early ill jump back in tonight, if not ill start up again on Wednesday evening but ive really got to ignore this place so i can get some work done...........

 

[endparenthesis]

I wish I could get my hands on historical documents written on our century from 500 years in the future (assuming they'll exist). I really want to know what people have to say about us regarding this whole "saving the ecosystem is too hard and expensive" thing.

I fear it'll be "thanks a lot, jerks", but who knows.

"Perhaps I should let you all in on a little secret. No one likes you in the future." -- self-proclaimed time traveler John Titor