Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forest fires emit greenhouse gases and the carbon previously sequestered in the trees.
Folks here just don't seem to catch on to the Carbon Cycle, so...one more time:
Plants take co2 from the air and turn it into glucose and then connect 'em together to make cellulose. Some of that is eaten by animals who turn it into glucose and then back into co2 and breathe or fart it back out into the air--so--over that time, the level of co2 in the air DOES NOT CHANGE.
The plants & animals die and decompose: bacteria and fungi oxidize the plants and animals and turn them back into co2: the co2 level in the air DOES NOT CHANGE. Burning is just rapid oxidation: the net co2 in the air DOES NOT CHANGE.
The only way atm co2 goes up is when you take fossil fuel, which contains carbon that has been locked underground, out of the atmosphere for millions of years, burn it and form new co2...or... when a naturally warming ocean releases co2 dissolved for 10s of thousands of yrs back into the air....or... when a volcano erupts and releases co2 stored underground for millions of years.
In the graph posted above, burning fossil fuel only accounts of 0.03% of all the co2 being moved around each year. Over the past 20 yrs, co2 levels have risen 40ppm ( 14%), but only 0.03% comes from fossil fuel. o.o3% of 40 ppm is only 0.12ppm....That means if we had not burned any fossil fuel over the past 20 yrs, co2 levels would have still gone up by 39.82ppm instead of 40ppm.
We can't control volcanoes. We can't control natural warming. And if we stopped burning all fossil fuels for 20 yrs, we'd only save 0.12 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere. BFD. QED.
I was thinking about that, large scale campaign regarding foods high in cholesterol and emphasize beef is one of the offenders. Public opinion has relatively swayed against McDonald's fried food and soda etc, same should happen for beef.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, the pro high cholesterol (or cholesterol numbers don't matter), pro high fat, pro low carb crowd have, in the past several years, changed the narrative using shoddy 'evidence' so that they've convinced quite a few people that all carbs are bad, and that there is "no" link at all between dietary saturated fat and cholesterol intake/blood levels and heart disease.
The meat Americans (and the world) consume on a yearly basis contributes mightily to greenhouse gases. In other high cholesterol threads on this forum, some have tried to publicly call me out on this, yet when I provided documented evidence (and plenty more of them exist) proving a link between saturated fat/cholesterole and heart disease, these people suddenly crawled back into their holes in shame, unable to provide any evidence to refute my claims. You can't argue with the science.
Folks here just don't seem to catch on to the Carbon Cycle, so...one more time:
Plants take co2 from the air and turn it into glucose and then connect 'em together to make cellulose. Some of that is eaten by animals who turn it into glucose and then back into co2 and breathe or fart it back out into the air--so--over that time, the level of co2 in the air DOES NOT CHANGE.
The plants & animals die and decompose: bacteria and fungi oxidize the plants and animals and turn them back into co2: the co2 level in the air DOES NOT CHANGE. Burning is just rapid oxidation: the net co2 in the air DOES NOT CHANGE.
The only way atm co2 goes up is when you take fossil fuel, which contains carbon that has been locked underground, out of the atmosphere for millions of years, burn it and form new co2...or... when a naturally warming ocean releases co2 dissolved for 10s of thousands of yrs back into the air....or... when a volcano erupts and releases co2 stored underground for millions of years.
In the graph posted above, burning fossil fuel only accounts of 0.03% of all the co2 being moved around each year. Over the past 20 yrs, co2 levels have risen 40ppm ( 14%), but only 0.03% comes from fossil fuel. o.o3% of 40 ppm is only 0.12ppm....That means if we had not burned any fossil fuel over the past 20 yrs, co2 levels would have still gone up by 39.82ppm instead of 40ppm.
We can't control volcanoes. We can't control natural warming. And if we stopped burning all fossil fuels for 20 yrs, we'd only save 0.12 ppm of co2 in the atmosphere. BFD. QED.
The average depth of the ocean is over 12000 feet. So what if it goes up a hundred feet. BFD
Oh wait over 40% of us will be under water. Maybe it is a BFD
Unfortunately, the pro high cholesterol (or cholesterol numbers don't matter), pro high fat, pro low carb crowd have, in the past several years, changed the narrative using shoddy 'evidence' so that they've convinced quite a few people that all carbs are bad, and that there is "no" link at all between dietary saturated fat and cholesterol intake/blood levels and heart disease.
The meat Americans (and the world) consume on a yearly basis contributes mightily to greenhouse gases. In other high cholesterol threads on this forum, some have tried to publicly call me out on this, yet when I provided documented evidence (and plenty more of them exist) proving a link between saturated fat/cholesterol and heart disease, these people suddenly crawled back into their holes in shame, unable to provide any evidence to refute my claims. You can't argue with the science.
Actually, data on the chol & sat fat vs CAD relationship shows that, while there may be a statistically significant correlation, it is clinically insignificant: EG: statins given in secondary prevention trials show a consistent improvement in MI rates reported as 25-30% improved RRR (relative risk reduction). In fact, that's only a 2% ARR (absolute risk reduction). That translates to a "Needed to Treat number" of 45-- ie you gotta treat 45 people (who've already had an MI, so, they already have known CAD) with statins to prevent one additional MI.
Furthermore, the only large scale trial of statins for primary prevention declared that statins were unequivocally successful, yet their own analysis was only positive at the p= 0.15 level-- ( p= 0.05 being the usual standard for "success."
The coefficient of correlation for chol:CAD is only about 0.3--not a heck of a lot better than a coin flip. How much of that correlation is explained by the known natural rise in chol with aging? Who gets MIs, young people or old people? How much of it is explained by the known high values of chol in diabetics. (Diabetes is no longer considered a "risk factor" for CAD. Now it's considered a CAD equivalent: if you're diabetic, you have CAD.)
The rate of MI in people with no elevated risk factors is 4 per 1000 per yr. Chol 300+ raises that to 8/1000 (double the risk!), BUT: smoking raises it to 80/1000, and diabetes 40/1000. For chol, that means 998/1000 don't have an MI if chol is low, and 996/1000 if it's high. Big Deal.
The HDL: tot chol number has a higher correlation with CAD than does the simple tot chol number. An individual with a 250:50 (ie- 5:1) has the same statistical risk as one with 150:30. And the real fly in the ointment is that the guy with 100: 20 has about 4x the risk as those other two guys-- low HDL greatly increases risk regardless of LDL or total chol.
It's entirely possible that chol only figures in as a "chronic phase reactant", analogous to acute phase reactants: your WBC count & temp go up with infection. Taking aspirin to lower the fever or chemotherapy to lower the WBC won't treat the infection. Chol levels may rise as a result of arteriosclerosis rather than being the cause.
The rise in obesity rates & diabetes in the US has occurred because the USDA has encouraged eating more plant material (carbs) and less meat (fat). Please note that the primary physiological function of insulin is to turn carbs into fat (lipogenesis) and to prevent the burning of fats (lipolysis). Its role in lowering glucose levels is secondary and required only by nephrocytes. Carbs make you fat, not fat in the diet. (I can go into a longer explanation of a plausible evolutionary scenario illustrating this if you like.)
Back to food & environment: raising cattle uses less fertile land than growing crops, and can use land too infertile to use for crops. Less land for ag = more land for natural habitat. Raising livestock burns less fossil fuel than raising crops. Going vegetarian means more fuel burned in transporting out-of-season produce back to the vegans.
Eating meat is better for your health and better for the environment.
If "the science is settled", why are governments and others still spending money and other resources on more "studies" to generate more "proof"? Another of those studies (Canadian) of Global Warming was canceled due to excessive ice recently. I will not provide a link because there are dozens of articles about it. Of course, more ice is proof of Global warming as is less ice and exactly the same amount of ice.
If "the science is settled", why are governments and others still spending money and other resources on more "studies" to generate more "proof"? Another of those studies (Canadian) of Global Warming was canceled due to excessive ice recently. I will not provide a link because there are dozens of articles about it. Of course, more ice is proof of Global warming as is less ice and exactly the same amount of ice.
Science is never settled. We continue the research to refine the models and enhance our understanding of how to mitigate bad stuff.
Science isn't looking for more "proof" that will convince you. Some are destined never to learn.
Science is never settled. We continue the research to refine the models and enhance our understanding of how to mitigate bad stuff.
.
Thank you for at least admitting that science is never settled.
The problem with the GW argument is that the whole thing is based on models. Models of a chaotic system can only give you an idea of what could happen, not what will happen. If you're at all familiar with the math of chaos, you'd know there are "bifurcation points"-- one value of an input factor can give more than one value of result. This is why weather forecasting is so inaccurate in general. It's hard enough to predict the weather tomorrow--impossible to predict it 20 yrs from now.
Another problem is that only so many factors may be put into the program and other factors, some of which are unknown, are left out. The contribution of cloud cover to weather is left out of many of the programs used to "prove" global warming (!!??) for instance.
BTW- EVERY prediction made by the warmists 20 yrs ago has proven to be wrong. At what point do you declare a theory wrong?
The average depth of the ocean is over 12000 feet. So what if it goes up a hundred feet. BFD
Oh wait over 40% of us will be under water. Maybe it is a BFD
Actually, sea levels are falling around the Pacific rim (The Lame Stream Media doesn't publish that too much, do they?) This is the real reason The Great Barrier Reef in Australia seems to be dying: newer coral deposition is being exposed as sea level falls.
Around the Atlantic, sea level is rising 2mm/y, yet daily tide fluctuations are on the order of several feet per day. Is there a problem with 2mm/yr?
Of course sea levels vary over geologic time--Siberian-Canadian land bridge/populating NA, etc but no need to panic-- just move your multi-million dollar sea side resort back a few feet next century.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
