Global warm.. wait, what?
- Thread starter Sawell
- Start date
Explain?
IIRC, pound for pound, methane (if you want to focus on the surplus of cows) is around fourteen times better at trapping heat than CO2.
This is tad off-topic and probably old but is very interest documentary on how the Earth would heal its self when people are no longer about, shows how powerful our planet is.
Is called Life After People. (Done in 9 parts - youtube)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3Vag0Ugu4
Is called Life After People. (Done in 9 parts - youtube)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3Vag0Ugu4
Indeed, but as it tastes so nice I think I will continue, sorry world.
Apologies but this point is not accurate:
Volcanoes release 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. Emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons). Here
by starving a huge number of people to death in the ensuing food shortage, we couldn't produce enough vegtables and other products to comensate for the lack of meat.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
you mean with the inner earth lizards of course. (reffer to "this is interesting" thread)
damn I thought we had earth beat, we'll have to find another way to destroy it
Then surely if its empty inside, we can use nukes to blow a maahhooossive hole and make our descend into the inner earth and steal their pies?
... Hang on a minute, what were we on about before the pie derailment?
We could just start eating people instead
Big Chav Burger
Muslim Pitta
anyone?
Chinease Sweet & sour
Explain? I thought the further down the food chain you went, the greater the embodied energy yield of the foodstuff. Surely growing a field of grain every year for the lifetime of a cow yields far more nutrients than that of the cows that you could feed with one field's worth of food.
Doesn't meat contains different minerals then say that field of grain. So you will need to spend energy to produce them anyway. Besides I read somewhere that meat is accepted and converted into energy by our bodies far easier then vegetables and what not, so eating a ton of them wouldn't be as efficient or something.
In the end, people should just stop being hippies and eat meat, its good for you and tastes better then grass
In the end, people should just stop being hippies and eat meat, its good for you and tastes better then grass
True, but you need to remember a large proportion of the stuff going into the atmosphere from a volcano is far worse than CO2 (depending on how you want to argue it) Generally the idea is if a large volcanic eruption occurs the earth actually cools (see Pinatubo, St. Helens and Krakatoa for exampes) because of the particulates and other gases ejected into the atmosphere which reflect the suns rays back into space.
A large Volcanic eruption (say one of VEI 8) would probably cause a dramatic cooling event over decades, maybe even longer (there is talk of ice ages due to eruptions of this magnitude). Something in the region of VEI 6 would cause cooling for around a year (for example Pinatubo, which caused global cooling of around 1 degree from what I recall) and even a small explosive eruption could cause a slight drop in temperature far outweighing the increase in CO2 in the short term.
Doesn't meat contains different minerals then say that field of grain. So you will need to spend energy to produce them anyway. Besides I read somewhere that meat is accepted and converted into energy by our bodies far easier then vegetables and what not, so eating a ton of them wouldn't be as efficient or something.
In the end, people should just stop being hippies and eat meat, its good for you and tastes better then grass
I'm not a vegetarian by any means, but you could get all the nutrients you need from plants if you wanted to. Getting them from meat means you end up with less edible biomass per hectare.
Nothing to do with the natural scycle of the Sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
Otherwise we'd get lots of cooling and warming bouts every decade. The sun plays a role in the temperature of the earth, but not to such a long term extent.
The Earths temperature has been rising for the the last 100 years on average (obviously some years it cooled).
Also, to admit that the world is saving itself, you have to admit Global Warming exists. Also, the massive oceans have always acted as a massive store of CO2 as it increased.
edit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
I can get you this paper if you wish and afterwards you can write your scientific paper in response.
Or you could try to defend Dr Svensmark's paper which propised the idea if you understand it. Why are sceptics blindly believing this one paper? 99% don't even understand it. I don't either, but if its being disputed by so many UK scientists, then I will belive in the consensus. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hypothesis which stands at the moment.
edit2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
If we really wanted to cool the earth, there are lots of chemicals which can do this. This was actually the cause of the original global cooling hypothesis earlier in the last century.
Last edited: