MisterNiceGuy’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  There are a couple of comments posted above that suggest widespread starvation would occur if CAFO agriculture ended.

   

  I think that suggestion might be a little overwrought.

   

  There are many millions of vegetarians in this world, and their diet would not be affected in the slightest if all meat CAFO’s ceased operation tomorrow.

   

  The millions of vegans among them wouldn’t be affected if the dairy and egg CAFO’s disappeared too.

   

  If the vegetarians and vegans would not notice the loss of CAFO, let alone starve, why would the loss of CAFO cause meat-eaters to starve?

   

  They might be forced to become unwilling vegetarians and learn to fulfil their dietary needs without meat or dairy, and that is a learning challenge that shouldn’t be glossed over, but vegetarians are living proof that the loss of CAFO agriculture needn’t result in anyone’s starvation.

   

  Please note – I’m not looking for a debate about vegetarianism.  I’m just commenting about the claims of imminent starvation.

   

  ----------

   

  Hope this helps…

   

   

   

   

   

   

  On Another symptom of swine flu: instant amnesia posted 6 months, 1 week ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Animal respiration is CO2 neutral

  A commenter above said that humans breathe out 6 tonnes of CO2 per person per year.  That number seems to be incorrect.

  The 6 tonnes per person per year is probably pretty close to the amount of air the average human breathes per year.  But the CO2 content of human exhalation is only about 4.5% by volume.

  The USDA has apparently estimated that the average human breathes out about 900 grams of CO2 per day, or about 330 kg per year.

  -----

  The same commenter asked whether human and animal expiration of CO2 in their breath causes atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise.

  The short answer seems to be:  No.

  Regardless of human or animal population, their respiration seems to be essentially CO2 neutral.

  Virtually all of the carbon they exhale as CO2 has entered their bodies as food.  All food in the food chain traces back to flora, which for the most part gets its carbon directly or indirectly from atmospheric CO2.

  Thus every ton of CO2 emitted by respiring animals appears to be a ton that was previously taken from the atmosphere by flora, regardless of animal population numbers.

  There are many ways that humans and animals are net emitters of GHG's, but our respiration doesn't seem to be a significant one.

  -----
  

  Hoping to be nice.

  On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Don't need to be "sure" to be cautious

  Some attention above has been directed at the question of whether scientists are "sure" that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other GHG's are accelerating the long-term rate of global warming.

  That desire for certainty is good, but it's very important that we realize we don't need to be anywhere close to "sure" about a potentially bad outcome to justify caution.

  My chances of being killed in a car accident today are only about one in three million.  The odds are very slim.  But the consequences are so serious (being dead) that I'm going to put on my seat belt despite the slim odds, because it's a cheap and easy way to reduce my exposure.

  The IPCC seems to think it is likely our GHG emissions will cause trouble for future generations.  The word "likely" implies odds far greater than the one-in-three-million odds that prompt us to put on our seatbelts while driving.

  Everyone who understands the logic of wearing their seatbelt thus sees the wisdom of using a "GHG seatbelt" in their daily lives.

  Using a "GHG seatbelt" means taking easy steps to regulate the amount of CO2, methane, N2O, and other GHG's we dump into the atmosphere as long as there are uncertainties about the negative effects those emissions might have.

  It's very easy for me to use less fossil fuel by walking, cycling, carpooling, driving a more efficient vehicle or not driving at all, using public transit, living close to work, telecommuting, etc.

  It's easy for me to buy organic food, and to buy local produce in season.  It's easy for me to eat less meat [zero, actually, but you must make your own choice there].

  It's very easy for me to live in a multi-unit building with energy-saving shared walls, and to turn down the heat in my home and wear extra clothing.  If I needed air conditioning it would be easy for me to set it to a higher temperature, but instead I just wear short pants.  I can use a programmable thermostat to reduce my energy use when I'm away from home.  It's easy for me to air-dry my laundry indoors most of the year.

  Many of these easy-to-do things save me money on top of being easy.

  I'm also fortunate to live in a democracy where I can vote for the additional risk-reduction measures that only governments can administer, such as:

  • Changes to urban planning, raising energy-efficiency requirements in building codes, and improving public transit;
    
  • Moving toward renewable, low net-GHG power sources for our public utilities;
    
  • Making long-term policies aimed at smoothly transitioning to a low GHG society over the next 40 to 50 years.

  -----

  If, as time goes by, research indicates with absolute certainty that human-caused GHG's are no problem, we can take off our "GHG seatbelt" if we choose (though by then we might be so happy with the reduced air pollution that we won't want to go back).

  I don't need to be "sure" that CO2 and other human-caused GHG's are accelerating the rate of global warming in order to justify caution.  As long as it is "likely" that this is happening, that's more than enough risk to justify the steps described here.

  Everybody who willingly wears their seatbelt understands this.

  -----
  

  Hoping to be nice.

  On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Minor correction: 1850 - 1910 CO2: > 280 ppm

  The following statements were made in a comment above:

  <<
  they admit they cannot explain the early 20th century warming cycle when there was very little CO2 [emphasis added]
  >>

  and:

  <<
  they do not even mention the late 19th century warming cycle, when there was essentially no CO2 [emphasis added]
  >>

  Both of those statements seem to be slightly incorrect.

  Ice core data seems to indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the 1850 to 1910 time frame were somewhat above 280 ppm.

  The current atmospheric CO2 concentration seems to be around 380 ppm.

  The atmospheric CO2 concentration circa 1850 to 1910 thus seems to have been around 75% of current CO2 concentrations, not zero or almost zero CO2 as implied by the quoted statements above.

  -----

  The potential impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 1/3 since 1900 is, of course, close to the center of this issue.

  -----
  

  Hoping to be nice.

  On Climate change must be examined over decades, not years posted 1 year, 6 months ago 68 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Lifestyle threats

  The following question was asked:

  <<
  ...what is the greatest threat to our consumerism lifestyles?
  >>

  Tragically, the answer appears to be:

  <<
  ...our consumerism lifestyles.
  >>

  -----
  

  Hoping to be nice.

  On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 109 Responses