Climate Change in the Northeast

[Neil]

Yeah, I should have specified: red meat is the major culprit mentioned in the article. Easier to get people on board too if fish and chicken are OK.

(Aside:We have enviro problems with the pork industry in Quebec. Last year there was some breakthrough in that they reduced harmful fecal effluents by a factor of two. The pork industry spokesman said that was great news for pork producers because now they could increase production by a factor of 2!)

Yes and what is a good protien source beside meat?.....beans.

Oh-Oh. I can smell more greenhouse gasses coming my way.
Tofu is good. We used to have it once a week but fell back into the meat pattern.

 

[Chip]

We haven't been eating much beef lately anyway. Someone needs to rank animals on a Flatulence Scale so we know which to avoid.

For a sobering look at what some people are willing to do to solve these issues, search "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement", or "VHEMT" sometime. Since (they believe) it's all "our" fault, the only permanent solution is no more "us".

 

[beverly]

This thread

......has officially derailed, with the discussion being complicated by the global farting skeptics!
Beef! - no, chicken! - no, beans! And what do you think Tofu is made out of, Neil?

Just don't let those cows or bean-eating vegetarians on airplanes

Flatulence on Plane Sparks Emergency Landing

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Yes and what is a good protien source beside meat?.....beans.

Yes, but a serving of beans produces 1 fart-day of CO2. A single serving of beef produces approximately 3.7 fart-weeks. There are several reasons for this. A single serving of beef requires multiple days gerowth of the cow. Also note that 1 cow-fart = 7.8 human-farts.

 

[Puck]

Yes, but a serving of beans produces 1 fart-day of CO2. A single serving of beef produces approximately 3.7 fart-weeks. There are several reasons for this. A single serving of beef requires multiple days gerowth of the cow. Also note that 1 cow-fart = 7.8 human-farts.

Thanks Pete...I have heard that 83.7% of all stats are made up on the spot.

 

[giggy]

might sound like an ignorant question - but what is the major problem of a warming trend? and not to us as outdoors folks that the new LL bean snowshoes or skies won't get used - but what would it matter to the "average person".

no science munbo jumo here - what would john smith who's hobbie is baseball card collecting - in central mass have to say about this - besides - "hey great, less money in oil for heating in the future". How will this hurt john smiths offspring in 100,200,300 years - assuming we are not wiped out by something else by then?

better yet: what does someone in rural china, russia, chile, tanzania, etc... think - or for that matter care enough to actually do something, pay more $$, etc..

its a serious question.
I hear blah blah blah about the diaster awaiting us - thats what I am skeptical about - not the fact that humans contribute.

 

[Puck]

might sound like an ignorant question - but what is the major problem of a warming trend? and not to us as outdoors folks that the new LL bean snowshoes or skies won't get used - but what would it matter to the "average person".

no science munbo jumo here - what would john smith who's hobbie is baseball card collecting - in central mass have to say about this - besides - "hey great, less money in oil for heating in the future". How will this hurt john smiths offspring in 100,200,300 years - assuming we are not wiped out by something else by then?

better yet: what does someone in rural china, russia, chile, tanzania, etc... think - or for that matter care enough to actually do something, pay more $$, etc..

its a serious question.
I hear blah blah blah about the diaster awaiting us - thats what I am skeptical about - not the fact that humans contribute.

There is lot on this. Usually every documentary an article covers t he scenerios. The effects range from more turbulent weather, to droughts, heat waves bring about agricultural losses. There is the rising levels of oceans, the divergence of the guld stream that could convert UK into a Labrador.

 

[DougPaul]

I just read in my local Montreal newspaper that beef cattle produce more greenhouse gasses per animal than my car!

IIRC, cattle largely produce methane (NH4). Cars mostly water and CO2.

All have greenhouse effects, don't know off hand which has more effect.

Also IIRC, termites produce even more NH4...

Doug

 

[dug]

might sound like an ignorant question - but what is the major problem of a warming trend? and not to us as outdoors folks that the new LL bean snowshoes or skies won't get used - but what would it matter to the "average person".

no science munbo jumo here - what would john smith who's hobbie is baseball card collecting - in central mass have to say about this - besides - "hey great, less money in oil for heating in the future". How will this hurt john smiths offspring in 100,200,300 years - assuming we are not wiped out by something else by then?

better yet: what does someone in rural china, russia, chile, tanzania, etc... think - or for that matter care enough to actually do something, pay more $$, etc..

its a serious question.
I hear blah blah blah about the diaster awaiting us - thats what I am skeptical about - not the fact that humans contribute.

Biggest thing I can think of if there is a drastic change in the climate toward a warmer average temperature (manmade or natural) would be melting of some sea ice, would some project could increase the levels a foot or two or a few. That could in turn could cause some environmental damage.

Would it affect my daily life living 40 miles inland? Depends on what the environmental damage is....Someone mentioned that wheat will have to be grown in more in Canada than the US, so maybe beer prices will skyrocket?

 

[Neil]

IIRC, cattle largely produce methane (NH4). Cars mostly water and CO2.

All have greenhouse effects, don't know off hand which has more effect.

Also IIRC, termites produce even more NH4...

Doug

Here ya go....from:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_qa.htm

Methane is worse for the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide, because it's much better at absorbing infrared radiation as it leaves the earth.

Just how much worse it is depends on how long a period you're looking at. Methane doesn't last in the atmosphere as long as CO2 does, so it's impact is strongest over the short term.

Over 100 years (the standard period for measuring greenhouse gas impact), 1 tonne of methane has the same heating effect as 21 tonnes of CO2, so methane is 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas.

But over 20 years methane is 64 times worse than CO2.

The next step is to convert one 8oz. sirloin steak into GGE's for x miles on the highway of various types of vehicles at various speeds!

(GGE = greenhouse gas equivalents)

 

[Gris]

Not a dumb Q at all Giggy. In fact, it is perhaps THE most pertinent Q anyone can ask about global warming (behind only "does it matter what we do about it - can we make a real difference?" And it certainly represents the majority view. I understand and agree with your point completely. That is, if your point is "we got a lot more pressing things to worry about." IMO, running out of and/or weaning ourselves off oil is way more important for a wide variety of reasons. Ironically, weaning ourselves off oil would - supposedly - go a long way towards correcting the so-called global warming crisis...

 

[DougPaul]

Ironically, weaning ourselves off oil would - supposedly - go a long way towards correcting the so-called global warming crisis...

It is unlikely that we will decrease the over-all energy consumption, so it depends on what you replace it with--coal would probably be worse.

Ain't no free lunch...

Doug

 

[Gris]

It is unlikely that we will decrease the over-all energy consumption...

Actually, we will ultimately (whether in 50 or 100 years) HAVE to (i.e. be forced to) decrease energy consumption as it is predominantly based on finite resources...

 

[nartreb]

Giggy - one very major problem nobody has mentioned yet is only indirectly related to rising temperatures. You've heard of acid rain? Try acid oceans. Rising C02 concentrations in the air also means rising C02 concentration in the ocean. This means an increase in ocean acidity (actually "just" a decrease in alkalinity), which affects all kinds of marine life. This is not theoretical, it's quite measurable. In particular, we're nearing the point at which it becomes just about impossible to build calcium carbonate shells (not for a few decades, but even if we stop producing CO2 now, ocean concentration will keep increasing for nearly that long). This affects not just molluscs and corals but many kinds of plankton as well. There's a real risk of wiping out a large chunk of the planet's plankton, thus changing the whole ocean ecosystem, not only wiping out useful food species (which will be gone in a few decades from overfishing anyway) but erasing a signicant source of oxygen for the atmosphere. Carbonate-shelled plankton also constitute a hugely important carbon sink (because their shells sink to the bottom, trapping carbonate in sediment). As they start to die off, the problems of atmospheric CO2, which other people have already mentioned, will accelerate.

See
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/305/5682/362
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6802/full/407364a0.html
See also http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/

Long story short: the Earth is a closed system.

Dougpaul: Methane is CH4. NH4 is ammonium.

 

[Whiteman]

And the beat goes on

Giggy: Some of the nasty effects were mentioned above. Sea levels rising several feet is pretty nasty for those low-lying countries. If memory serves, I think the rate of rise is around .1 inches per year, but if Greenland starts unloading faster it would be faster. As I pointed out above, we would lose some 4000 footers, harshly affecting lists for list-maniacs (OK, I'm one of them).

Effects on agriculture might be severe as well. There is a link above in one of my posts about wheat crops moving north. Great for Canada, but it makes us an importer of wheat, one of our great exports and a very yummny food.

With climate changes over long periods, plants have a chance to move north and south with the climate. Big dramatic shifts leave species in the dust.

I don't think it has been mentioned above, but permafrost is melting. Not only is that bad for houses and roads, it is also releasing enormous quantities of methane, that nasty greenhouse gas. Ironically, the melting of permafrost in Alaska has hampered oil exploration because they can't move those big rigs around in the mud.

One of the effects in Alaska is reduced pack ice during winter storms. The effect of that is rapid coastline erosion, since the coast is no longer protected from the large waves by the ice. Many towns in Alaska have had to be moved far inland.

Sea level changes may also affect fresh water salinity in rivers and aquifers.

If you want to get further depressed, here is a nice little piece on Climate Change Impacts .

Cheers.

 

[giggy]

Thanks all - some great answers.

 

[arghman]

So, I think the total carbon dioxide produced by burning a gallon of gas would be less than 21 (or 22) pounds, not 25 pounds as stated.
You guys know better. Confirm or explain, please. Thanks.

I'm not a chemist, but I agree. I found this site (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml) which quotes 20. The C-to-H ratio of octane & other similar hydrocarbons is slightly more than 2 H atoms per carbon atom (e.g. slightly more than 2g H to 12g carbon, so C should be roughly 85% of gasoline by weight).

(what Mark Driscoll was saying)

I would think if soot or CO were any significant portion of a car's exhaust, said car would fail emissions tests.

===

I'm not getting involved in the rest of this topic, I've had enough tilting at windmills this year already. If you believe in something, make sure it makes sense, do what you can, put your energy towards something that might make a difference, try to understand the opposing viewpoint, agree to disagree, realize that the world is unpredictable and uncertain, and put down the keyboard and do something else besides argue on the computer.