Possible global cooling?

[bucketface]

ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.
Yup. After our next act will be gun control.

remember, people need to be controlled, so long as we are the ones doing the controlling!!

we are controlled..
well how do you propose that population be managed?

you don't need gun control, you need bullet control. remember guns don't kill people bullets kill people.

 

[TheMailMan78]

thanks, i forgot to x 365 my daily number

anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?

I think it would be tough to tell unless you could measure the exact isotopes from humans.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I don't think you know exactly how military mobilization works. There is a reason they call it that ya know?

They call it logistics. All the bases around the world need to be supplied regardless if there is war. You can't buy an Apache tail rotor at your local hardware store, ya know, and you can't exactly trust UPS to get it there either (customs and all).

anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?

edit found something: http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-breathing-contribute-to-co2-buildup-in-the-atmosphere.html

They "exclude" it from emissions total because it is supposed to be neutral. The fact is, any CO2 emission, no matter the source, is only neutral if plant life either put it in the dirt or released it as O2 back into the air. I'm not convinced this is happening so it is wrong to exclude it from totals.

 

[TheMailMan78]

They call it logistics. All the bases around the world need to be supplied regardless if there is war. You can't buy an Apache tail rotor at your local hardware store, ya know, and you can't exactly trust UPS to get it there either (customs and all).

Yeah I know about logistics and Apaches don't operate near as much during peace time as they do during war so the tail rotor doesn't need to be replaced near as often hence LESS TRANSPORT = LESS co2.

 

[W1zzard]

we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.

anything wrong with my assumption?

 

[bucketface]

They "exclude" it from emissions total because it is supposed to be neutral. The fact is, any CO2 emission, no matter the source, is only neutral if plant life either put it in the dirt or released it as O2 back into the air. I'm not convinced this is happening so it is wrong to exclude it from totals.

then you'd have to take into account all co2 from all life and that is rather difficult to determine. easier to just quote all "artificial" co2 emissions.

we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.

anything wrong with my assumption?

yeah thats about as simply as you can put it.
plants absorb and release co2 and all at varying rates. cows apparently release significant quantities of methane which has supposedly 10x the effect of co2.

 

[TheMailMan78]

we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.

anything wrong with my assumption?

Define "eat".

 

[W1zzard]

Define "eat".

our only source of body mass and energy is plants + o2

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah I know about logistics and Apaches don't operate near as much during peace time as they do during war so the tail rotor doesn't need to be replaced near as often hence LESS TRANSPORT = LESS co2.

Sure they do. Even in peace, the DoD still gets some $400+ billion/year. The only difference between our operations in the Middle East and training the states is the wear and tear the sand puts on the equipment.

we eat plants or we eat meat, meat eats plants, plants eat co2.

anything wrong with my assumption?

This is true for the corpse but speaks nothing to respiration. That is to say, a single plant can process more air in its lifetime than any given animal produces in its lifetime.

Oxygen in the atmopshere decreasing...
http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/o2/O2_2_Atmosphere.htm

then you'd have to take into account all co2 from all life and that is rather difficult to determine. easier to just quote all "artificial" co2 emissions.

Exactly why there is a massive margin of error here (often goes unmentioned)--especially when you weigh in algael blooms which may suck tons of CO2 out of the air rapidly.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Sure they do. Even in peace, the DoD still gets some $600+ billion/year. The only difference between our operations in the Middle East and training the states is the wear and tear the sand puts on the equipment.

I made a small adjustment to you number. Also they do NOT operate near as much in peace time Ford.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I said $400+ billion as reference to the 1990s where there was relatively peace. The $200+ billion increase in the decade since is largely blamed on the weakening dollar. Adjust for inflation as well and we've been spending approximately the same amount in the 1990s as we are today.

 

[W1zzard]

That is to say, a single plant can process more air in its lifetime than any given animal produces in its lifetime.

in order to grow 1 kg of food you need 1 (milk) - 20 (beef) kg of plants

 

[cadaveca]

It's silly to dispute that we have some sort of impact on the environment. The real question, is how do we reverse those effects, and if we did, would it prevent any "warming" or "cooling"?


I mean, I see alot of talk. Not just in this thread, but in general. Lots of talk, and no action.


Do you know how much in fossil fuels I burn each year?

ZERO.

Ok, sure, I use "natural gas" for heat. No way around that as I am currently renting the home I live in.

But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.

Sadly, I'm probably the only one here that can say that.

I'm doing more than my part...are you?

Arguing about policies and such is jsut that, arguing. The energy is better spent actualyl doing something, no matter how small.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I said $400+ billion as reference to the 1990s where there was relatively peace. The $200+ billion increase in the decade since is largely blamed on the weakening dollar. Adjust for inflation as well and we've been spending approximately the same amount in the 1990s as we are today.

And the 1990's saw a massive downsize in base count also.

It's silly to dispute that we have some sort of impact on the environment. The real question, is how do we reverse those effects, and if we did, would it prevent any "warming" or "cooling"?


I mean, I see alot of talk. Not just in this thread, but in general. Lots of talk, and no action.


Do you know how much in fossil fuels I burn each year?

ZERO.

Ok, sure, I use "natural gas" for heat. No way around that as I am currently renting the home I live in.

But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.

Sadly, I'm probably the only one here that can say that.

I'm doing more than my part...are you?

Arguing about policies and such is jsut that, arguing. The energy is better spent actualyl doing something, no matter how small.

How do you do all that without driving?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

in order to grow 1 kg of food you need 1 (milk) - 20 (beef) kg of plants

Not all plants produce food though (in fact, most don't). Additionally, a vegetarian diet produces far less CO2 than a high-protein/-fat diet. There's a lot of variables here...


My point is that the most effective way to deal with carbon dioxide is to plant more trees, grasses, and bushes and halt deforestation and the creation of concrete jungles. No matter the source of the carbon dioxide, they put it in the dirt more efficiently than any other known method and produce O2 to boot.

 

[W1zzard]

Do you know how much in fossil fuels I burn each year?

ZERO.

Ok, sure, I use "natural gas" for heat. No way around that as I am currently renting the home I live in.

But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.

Sadly, I'm probably the only one here that can say that.

I'm doing more than my part...are you?

Arguing about policies and such is jsut that, arguing. The energy is better spent actualyl doing something, no matter how small.

+1 for making an effort. if everybody did that we'd have much less to worry about

 

[TheMailMan78]

+1 for making an effort. if everybody did that we'd have much less to worry about

I wanna know how he does this without gas.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

But, in the past 16 months, I've spent not a single penny on gas, and I do everything I gotta do to survive, like getting groceries, getting kids back and forth to school, etc.

How do you think the "groceries" get to the store so that you have access to them? A huge chain of CO2 dependent industries from the farms, to the processors, to the transportation.

If you don't live like the Amish, you got a substantial CO2 footprint. Even the Amish have to burn something (most likely wood) for heat in the winter so they're not entirely free of guilt either.

 

[W1zzard]

if you burn wood you're co2 neutral, you just release the co2 back in the atmosphere that the tree took up during its lifetime, which is about 2.6 tons per acre of trees per year

 

[Wrigleyvillain]

Frankly, I am most concerned about mass extinctions (and of course I don't just mean animals and fish and such) and the effect on the whole ecosystem, especially insofar as the oceans are concerned. It's such a toxic mix of negative factors and I see only see signs of it worsening as simply too many people on the planet more and more of whom become heavily industrialized. And that's even if everyone agreed and even cared so much more.

Yeah the point should be use as little as possible; at least be conscious of it. Ahhh crap I gotta get back to actual work. Good discussion.

 

[cadaveca]

How do you do all that without driving?

I don't? I have a cart like you see old people use that i lug back and forth to the mall. A few trips a week is all it takes. But at the same time, other than my shoulder, I'm in fantastic shape, as I definitely get my share of exercise. It's 2.2 kilometers to the mall, so bare minimum, I walk about 6 kilometers each time, with tripping around the mall.

How do you think the "groceries" get to the store so that you have access to them? A huge chain of CO2 dependent industries from the farms, to the processors, to the transportation.

If you don't live like the Amish, you got a substantial CO2 footprint. Even the Amish have to burn something for heat in the winter so they're not entirely free of guilt either.

You are right, but I personally can't do much about that. I'm doing what I can. I live in a city of 1.2 million, with good access to everything. My wife uses public transportation to get back and forth from work, and it takes about 20 minutes. I go to local "farmer's markets" when I can, not only to conserve on gas, but because it's also much cheaper.

It's not perfect, but at least it's something. you don't find me taking much of an active role in arguing who's right or wrong, do you?

 

[TheMailMan78]

I don't? I have a cart like you see old people use that i lug back and forth to the mall. A fwe trips a week is all it takes. But at the same time, other than my shoulder, I'm in fantastic shape, as I definitely get my share of exercise.



You are right, but I personally can't do much about that. I'm doing what I can. I live in a city of 1.2 million, with good access to everything. My wife uses public transportation to get back and forth from work, and it takes about 20 minutes.

It's not perfect, but at least it's something. you don't find me taking much of an active role in arguing who's right or wrong, do you?

I live 21 miles one way to the nearest grocery store. 10 miles one way to my little ones school....cart my ass.

 

[cadaveca]

I live 21 miles one way to the nearest grocery store. 10 miles one way to my little ones school....cart my ass.

Oh well. I moved into a home where it was possible. I make no excuses.

It's also why i can afford all the toys I do. Priorities are very much in a different place for me, in general.

If society, on a whole, was organized that such was possible for everyone, things would be much different. Perhaps the approach to identifying the problem is wrong, not the problem itself.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Priorities are my children. Best school I could find is why we live here.

Anyway kudos to you for making an "effort" and you are right arguing policy makes no difference......however when laws are passed from the arguing that effects me thats when I get pissed. You get "good" intentions based off of bad science and special interests. So yeah do your part just leave "your part" out of my life.

 

[cadaveca]

I don't make any claims as to who is right or wrong. The fact of the matter is that I very purposefully have arranged my life so as to have minimal impact on the environment, and to live in-expensively. I'm relatively powerless, yet I was successful in reaching that goal.

Society has alot of peple driving an hour or two, just so they can work. Um, why?

The wrong policies are being changed, period, I think we will agree on that as a whole. Legislation or whatever that leads to restrictions aren't the answer...to me, the answer lies in making the restrictions themselves unnessecary. It's not possible immediately..would take a generation or two.

But of course, like mentioned, those that influence policy aren't really there long enough to actually do anything. So those that do care, do what they can. Whiel the reasoning for what they do may not be clear now, you really need to keep in mind the big picture, and think of what severe policy now, can turn into in the future.