• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is strong evidence to suggest global warming is indeed caused by man but I am definitely against the sensationalism and alarmism that politicians and the media like to concoct. It is detrimental to the cause and arms deniers. No, the world isn’t going to end in 12 years (looking at you, AOC).
 
mydoortotheworld said:
There is strong evidence to suggest global warming is indeed caused by man but I am definitely against the sensationalism and alarmism that politicians and the media like to concoct. It is detrimental to the cause and arms deniers. No, the world isn’t going to end in 12 years (looking at you, AOC).
Click to expand...

No it’s more like a slow cancer that can take decades to do its dirty work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Old enough to see the devastation in my lifetime. If you think otherwise you’re just delusional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
 
Round Oak Weather- Zeb said:
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
Click to expand...

Global warming would make that more difficult. Natural processes will cull the population for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
Global warming would make that more difficult. Natural processes will cull the population for us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Seems like global warming would allow more places to support growing.

@Round Oak Weather- Zeb We have enough money and food to feed the world’s population. The problem is the greed and corruption and evilness of mankind. If all of that were replaced by benevolence, there would be zero hungry people on the planet.

Has it occurred to anyone that many of the problems we face could be solved if the political will was there to solve them? Unfortunately, there are way too many people in power who are controlled by power and money, whether it’s direct influence and pressure or their desire for more. And many of these problems are more beneficial to that paradigm than the solutions. It isn’t rocket science. But it’s something you won’t hear on Fox or CNN. Just fall in line and think red and blue and it’s all good (or bad, depending on what color you like).
 
Round Oak Weather- Zeb said:
Theirs a whole lot worse things to worry about at this point like how are we going to feed 9 billion people by 2030. Were already taking up a lot of our land that we can use for farming with industry and if we were to put in solar panels and wind turbines that would take up even more land that we can’t spare.
Click to expand...

This issue already has a solution (or at least a first step) that ties back to the overall topic at hand here. Meat production is absurdly inefficient and unsustainable in practically every aspect, and cutting down on the amount of meat humans consume would allow for much higher efficiency in available calories. I feel like I should directly clarify: I am not suggesting the entire world go vegan. That would be ridiculously impossible (and something I couldn't even imagine myself being capable of). But people can and should be cognizant about the amount of meat products they eat in their day to day life, and when they could easily go without.

The Youtube channel "Kurzgesagt-- In a Nutshell" probably gives a much better argument than I could try to in this video. The video's a bit cheesy at times, but overall does a great job hitting on a number of important subjects on the meat industry: the huge amount of resources meat production consumes, the cruelty in animal treatment, and on the other hand why meat is so appealing and hard to give up and the misleading nature of organic foods. They suggest a similar immediate solution to the one I said above: "taking a meat-free day per week already makes a difference." I highly suggest anyone curious check out the video, but here are the most relevant statistics (citations in the video):

83% of farmland (26% of Earth's total land area) is used for livestock, including both pastures and land for feed crops.

Animals are highly inefficient at converting proteins and calories fed to them into meat (e.g. cows convert 4% protein, 3% calories they eat, and 1kg steak requires 25kg grain)

Up to 3.5 billion additional people could be fed if all crops going towards meat were eaten by humans (looking at the source, this does not include converting freed up pasture land into additional farm land).

Animal products make up about 18% of the calories we consume (This lacked a citation, but I believe it can be calculated from the rest of the sources/stats in the video)

The meat industry accounts for 15% of all GHG emissions (the EPA lists agriculture closer to 9%, although the video may be considering transportation of food, and/or the EPA is a US statistic whereas this number is likely a global statistic. It could also have to do with how "emissions" are being calculated, e.g. volume of GHG emitted vs. CO2 equivalent).
 
RVD said:
This issue already has a solution (or at least a first step) that ties back to the overall topic at hand here. Meat production is absurdly inefficient and unsustainable in practically every aspect, and cutting down on the amount of meat humans consume would allow for much higher efficiency in available calories. I feel like I should directly clarify: I am not suggesting the entire world go vegan. That would be ridiculously impossible (and something I couldn't even imagine myself being capable of). But people can and should be cognizant about the amount of meat products they eat in their day to day life, and when they could easily go without.

The Youtube channel "Kurzgesagt-- In a Nutshell" probably gives a much better argument than I could try to in this video. The video's a bit cheesy at times, but overall does a great job hitting on a number of important subjects on the meat industry: the huge amount of resources meat production consumes, the cruelty in animal treatment, and on the other hand why meat is so appealing and hard to give up and the misleading nature of organic foods. They suggest a similar immediate solution to the one I said above: "taking a meat-free day per week already makes a difference." I highly suggest anyone curious check out the video, but here are the most relevant statistics (citations in the video):

83% of farmland (26% of Earth's total land area) is used for livestock, including both pastures and land for feed crops.

Animals are highly inefficient at converting proteins and calories fed to them into meat (e.g. cows convert 4% protein, 3% calories they eat, and 1kg steak requires 25kg grain)

Up to 3.5 billion additional people could be fed if all crops going towards meat were eaten by humans (looking at the source, this does not include converting freed up pasture land into additional farm land).

Animal products make up about 18% of the calories we consume (This lacked a citation, but I believe it can be calculated from the rest of the sources/stats in the video)

The meat industry accounts for 15% of all GHG emissions (the EPA lists agriculture closer to 9%, although the video may be considering transportation of food, and/or the EPA is a US statistic whereas this number is likely a global statistic. It could also have to do with how "emissions" are being calculated, e.g. volume of GHG emitted vs. CO2 equivalent).
Click to expand...
What I think needs to really be pushed is local grown agriculture and better facilities for processing of the meat for these facilities because it has been proven that grass based anything is better for us and the environment around us. Im in college right now for AG business and want to see more food grown locally. This is off topic from climate change I was giving an example of one of our problems we could be facing in the nxt 10-15 years over 100 years down the road.
 
Rain Cold said:
Seems like global warming would allow more places to support growing.

@Round Oak Weather- Zeb We have enough money and food to feed the world’s population. The problem is the greed and corruption and evilness of mankind. If all of that were replaced by benevolence, there would be zero hungry people on the planet.

Has it occurred to anyone that many of the problems we face could be solved if the political will was there to solve them? Unfortunately, there are way too many people in power who are controlled by power and money, whether it’s direct influence and pressure or their desire for more. And many of these problems are more beneficial to that paradigm than the solutions. It isn’t rocket science. But it’s something you won’t hear on Fox or CNN. Just fall in line and think red and blue and it’s all good (or bad, depending on what color you like).
Click to expand...

No it will make farming more difficult as it will take decades or even centuries if you count possible feedbacks before the climate stabilizes and becomes less erratic after we stop adding CO2.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The gorilla in the room is the massive amount carbon stored in the permafrost which is left over from the last ice age. If that gets released it could double or even triple the amount of CO2 in the air pushing the planet towards a Cretaceous like climate which is uninhabitable for humans. If it wasn’t for the permafrost we could probably go carbon neutral soon and settle into a Pliocene like climate which would be habitable and stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like every ones ideals on here, but I myself do not buy into Global Warming. That just my take on it, as i see many have other ideals on the subject.
 
BHS1975 said:
The gorilla in the room is the massive amount carbon stored in the permafrost which is left over from the last ice age. If that gets released it could double or even triple the amount of CO2 in the air pushing the planet towards a Cretaceous like climate which is uninhabitable for humans. If it wasn’t for the permafrost we could probably go carbon neutral soon and settle into a Pliocene like climate which would be habitable and stable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
So ... all we can do, is perhaps put a big refrigerator north of the arctic circle, running on oil from ANWAR no doubt, to "save" us from permafrost with CO2 that's been there, naturally, since before Noah?

EDIT:

I must ask - Why when Greenland damn near thawed in the late 900's throgh the early 1100's, and it was cultivated and used for grazing, did the world not end then?
 
Last edited:
I think it's important to note that the climate has changed numerous times over the course of the history of the earth, naturally, as a result of various internal and external influences. A great example is the Sahara Desert. This area actually used to be filled with lakes, rivers, grass and trees. Over time the climate changed drying out this area and turning it into the vast desert it is now. It's interesting to read up on the history of the Sahara Desert and various theories out there as to what exactly caused such a drastic change.
 
Stormlover said:
View attachment 15570
Click to expand...
This cartoon highlights my concern precisely, just in the other direction. Here is the scientist trying to explain a complex problem, while the little boy is basically “poo-pooing” the whole issue and the scientific community at large, which is my bigger concern. If a significant majority of the experts who study the climate are at least at a consensus that AGW is a legitimate concern, why are out policy makers and the public in large so strongly push back or just deny there could be any problem? Sure,there are very reasonable reasons and data that one can use to debate the issue, as some of our posters do admirably well, but the disconnect between the science and how the average Americans feels about it is alarming to me. This utter distrust of science has been ongoing for centuries (see Galileo and biologicall evolution), and the same arguments were used to try to disprove scientists concerns about leaded gasoline and CFCs affecting ozone this past century. So this cartoon simply shows how much a lack of trust their remains between the average person and scientific thought in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top