Global warming

<< < (2/4) > >>

Benjammin (January 18, 2011, 07:44:05 AM):
I first saw the game theory argument in a youtube video, produced by a science teacher. Lots of people have made similar arguments.

My main point is the graphical one of % scientists. I am not an expert on climate, I trust the scientists who have spent their life studying this. They say we should be get below 350 ppm, the idea behind Bill Mckibben's project.
Brian (January 18, 2011, 08:04:34 AM):
Is it true that cattle fart produces more methane and CO2 than all the vehicles on the planet?
says inter alia:

Exhibit 26 summarizes the estimates of total methane emissions from livestock by region and production system. Total emissions are estimated at about 78.5 million tons. The pattern of emissions across regions and production systems is very similar to the pattern for enteric fermentation emissions because manure facility emissions are relatively small. As shown in the exhibit, Asia, OECD, and Central and South America have the largest emissions, accounting for about 58 million tons of emissions, or nearly 75 percent of the total. As a group, the mixed farming, rainfed production systems have the largest emissions, accounting for about 40 million tons, or 50 percent of total emissions.

The reports contradict each other depending who's done the research (vested interests). Has this been confirmed/rejected?
BoogieMonster (January 18, 2011, 16:52:29 PM):
Livestock farming is a human invention, and we do breed them en-masse for our consumption, hence we are still the source of that CO2 (I realize you probably didn't imply that we were not responsible, but being clear) and methane.

And just as luck would have it, I recently encountered on the webs a means of lowering that output while still producing the same amount of protein: Eating insects. Marcel Dicke: Why not eat insects?

I believe in human-induced climate change. You can't burn the amount of fossil-fuel we have in the last century, without having some effect on the atmosphere. And as we now realise, it has effects greater than our own input: We create X CO2, that increases temperature by Y, that melts a bit of ice, which releases Z amount of methane, which feeds back into front of equation...

However to address it we're not going for the easy wins:

Thus fixing a relatively small number of ships could solve more problems than fixing all of the world's cars.

But if you love the environment, really love it: Don't have kids, you will save the earth from an entire lifetime of rampant pollution.
Hermes (January 19, 2011, 15:00:11 PM):
Ocean-going vessels now belch out more of the major air pollutant sulfur dioxide than all of the world's cars, trucks and buses combined, according to a study released Thursday.
Ocean-going vessels move more tonnage than the world's cars, trucks and buses combined. They are the most fuel-efficient form of transport, followed by electric trains. Sulfur dioxide is a pollutant, but not a greenhouse gas and actually causes climatic cooling.

Though not a climate issue, it appears that marine diesel contains an exceptional amount of sulfur dioxide and should be improved.
st0nes (January 19, 2011, 15:13:24 PM):
Ocean-going vessels move more tonnage than the world's cars, trucks and buses combined. They are the most fuel-efficient form of transport, followed by electric trains.
This is possibly true. The last ship I served in before swallowing the anchor carried 50,000 tonnes of containers fully-laden and burned 120 tonnes of heavy fuel oil per day. It took 12 days to get from Cape Town to Southampton (~6500NM), burning a total of 1440 tonnes fuel. Say a small car weighs about 1 tonne, then 50,000 small cars drove from Cape Town to Southhampton on 1,440,000 litres of fuel, or 28.8 litres each. 6500NM = 12,038km giving a fuel consumption for each car of 0.24l/100km. Not too shabby.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page