[quote]Sonny S wrote:
Since I want to bang Sheryl Crow, I’m going to make an argument on her behalf :
I’m pretty sure she means women should use only 1 sheet after doing #1, not after taking a dump.
jwillow wrote:
Good catch. I think you’re right. It’s easy to forget that girls don’t just shake the drops off their peepee after they tinkle, like boys do.[/quote]
Except that she was joking from the start. C’mon, people!
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
George BUsh supported the findings of the IPCC report.
That would make him a communist, correct?[/quote]
No, that make him another voice that does not matter.
Though he does have socialist tendencies.
Do you have any other appeal to authority up your sleeve or are you going to explain to us yet how more C02 leads to global warming and where how and when it was tested that this is actually happening.
You also have the tendency to combine the issue of global warming and of man-made global warming and to claim that the scientific consensus is strong for man- made global warming is a stretch, at best.
[quote]CELTIC-DEVIL wrote:
…
George BUsh supported the findings of the IPCC report.
That would make him a communist, correct?[/quote]
George Bush is blowing smoke. Anything he said was for political expediency. He will not cut CO2 emissions.
You don’t need a lot of toilet paper if you eat enough fiber.
And hippies smell.
Global warming is a bunch of BS.
[quote]escot4 wrote:
lantzcaper wrote:
dre wrote:
Toilet paper? Who still uses toilet paper? Flushable wet wipes are where it’s at!
Wipe your ass with toilet paper and when you are done, use a wet wipe. You’ll be amazed at how much sh*t the wet wipe cleans up. And that’s after you clean with toilet paper.
Try’em, your ass will thank you.
Agree 100%. Would never go back to toilet paper. Imagine that you’re full of mud someone gives you a dry paper towel or a wet facecloth to clean up…which one is going to do a better job? No contest in my opinion.
I was one of those people (forgive me Sheryl) who looked like I was wearing a toilet tissue mitten, I’d ball so much on my hand before wiping, and still wouldn’t feel clean…or else I’d have to wipe so much that I’d be rubbed raw. With the wet wipes…one…two at a maximum…and I’m squeaky clean.
I can’t actually believe I posted this…LOL!!
How can one gain access these wet wipes? Are they available over the counter? Are they competetively priced?[/quote]
Well, I get mine at Target. They are right next to all the toilet paper. I think they cost about the same as toilet paper.
But you never need more than two. Ok well maybe, after a night of heavy drinking and hot wings!
CELTIC DEVIL, here’s another straw…
World Population and Global Warming
L. David Roper
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid
It is well established that carbon dioxide and the Earth?s average temperature form a mutual positive feedback system. (http://www.roperld.com/science/CO2_Temp.pdf)
As far as I can tell the figures given (see below) for the emissions of carbon dioxide by
“human activities” does not include the carbon dioxide breathed out by humans. This short paper is an attempt to quantify the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans breathing and to compare it to the emissions due to other human activities.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Breathing of Humans
Each day the average person breathes about 15,000 liters, or approximately 35 pounds, of air.
(Toxicology - PhD Programs - Graduate Education - Education - University of Rochester Medical Center) Since air is 21% oxygen (molecular weight 16) and 78% nitrogen (molecular weight 14) by volume, oxygen is 23.5% by weight and nitrogen is 76.5% by weight in air. So the amount of oxygen breathed in per day by the average person is 35*0.235 = 8.2 lbs.
The molecular weight of O2 is 32 and the molecular weight of CO2 is 12+32=44. Therefore, humans emit 44x8.2/32 lbs = 11.3 lbs of CO2 every day or 4127 lbs = 2.1 tons per year per person.
In 2005 the Earth population was about 6.66x109. So the emitted CO2 per year by their breathing was about 14x109 tons.
In 2002 CO2 emissions due to human activities were 25x109 tonnes = 27.6x109 tons. Breathing adds about 14x109 tons, or about 51% more. (http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/077.asp)
Globally, annual average emissions of carbon dioxide per capita due to human activities (other than breathing) have been fairly stable since 1990. For 2002, this figure was up to 3.93 tonnes from 3.85 tonnes in 2001.
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/077.asp Per capita CO2 emissions for 2002 = 3.93 tonnes/person = 4.33 tons/person. Breathing adds about 48% more (2.1 tons per person per year)
It appears that a figure of 50% increase of CO2 emission over the emission due to human activities is caused by the breathing of the huge number of people on Earth.
Do the emissions calculated as due to “human activities” include animals used for food and labor? If not, the effect of a high human population will be much larger.
This calculation just adds to the realization that the global-warming problem is, in essence, a population-explosion problem. Global warming may be one of nature?s ways to decrease human population.
For the long term the best way to reduce global warming is to reduce human population in a benign way by educating women and providing world-wide free contraception information and devices. If humans do not consciously do that, nature will do it due to the effects of global warming, the decline of petroleum extraction and the eventual entry into the next 115,000-year Major Ice Age.
(See http://www.roperld.com/science/HumanFuture.pdf .)
Do your part and stop breathing.
[quote]Raimisch wrote:
There was also a time when pretty well every respected scientist said that the world was flat, and the universe revolved around the earth. It was only a few who believed else wise and challenged that train of thought.
[/quote]
Are you referring to the Greeks? Pretty much since the 1st century AD, Earth was generally agreed to be spherical among the educated in the western world. Again, the people doing early astronomy quickly figured out that the solar system is heliocentric, but were kept from voicing this opinion by the church.
[quote]
Just because scientists say something and most of them agree, doesn’t mean that they are right, what you need to do is not just listen to what they say, but read the studies yourself and draw your own conclusions. And not just read the ones that support what you think but also read the ones that go against your thought process.
After reading many studies on the global warming issue, I came to the thought that yes we are just in a natural cycle, which we may possibly be affecting to make it more severe or speeding it up, but we are not the cause of it. I could be wrong, but from what I have read this what I have concluded.[/quote]
Wikipedia has some nice plots illustrating evidence for climate change.
CO2 record - File:Milankovitch Variations.png - Wikipedia
Solar variation due to Milankovitch cycles with various gas concentrations -
The wikipedia article in general is pretty good, I’d say the only better source is to actually read through the journal articles. Climate change - Wikipedia
[quote]kroby wrote:
CELTIC DEVIL, here’s another straw…
World Population and Global Warming
L. David Roper
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid
It is well established that carbon dioxide and the Earth?s average temperature form a mutual positive feedback system. (http://www.roperld.com/science/CO2_Temp.pdf)
As far as I can tell the figures given (see below) for the emissions of carbon dioxide by
“human activities” does not include the carbon dioxide breathed out by humans. This short paper is an attempt to quantify the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by humans breathing and to compare it to the emissions due to other human activities.
Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Breathing of Humans
Each day the average person breathes about 15,000 liters, or approximately 35 pounds, of air.
(Toxicology - PhD Programs - Graduate Education - Education - University of Rochester Medical Center) Since air is 21% oxygen (molecular weight 16) and 78% nitrogen (molecular weight 14) by volume, oxygen is 23.5% by weight and nitrogen is 76.5% by weight in air. So the amount of oxygen breathed in per day by the average person is 35*0.235 = 8.2 lbs.
The molecular weight of O2 is 32 and the molecular weight of CO2 is 12+32=44. Therefore, humans emit 44x8.2/32 lbs = 11.3 lbs of CO2 every day or 4127 lbs = 2.1 tons per year per person.
In 2005 the Earth population was about 6.66x109. So the emitted CO2 per year by their breathing was about 14x109 tons.
In 2002 CO2 emissions due to human activities were 25x109 tonnes = 27.6x109 tons. Breathing adds about 14x109 tons, or about 51% more. (http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/077.asp)
Globally, annual average emissions of carbon dioxide per capita due to human activities (other than breathing) have been fairly stable since 1990. For 2002, this figure was up to 3.93 tonnes from 3.85 tonnes in 2001.
http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/077.asp Per capita CO2 emissions for 2002 = 3.93 tonnes/person = 4.33 tons/person. Breathing adds about 48% more (2.1 tons per person per year)
It appears that a figure of 50% increase of CO2 emission over the emission due to human activities is caused by the breathing of the huge number of people on Earth.
Do the emissions calculated as due to “human activities” include animals used for food and labor? If not, the effect of a high human population will be much larger.
This calculation just adds to the realization that the global-warming problem is, in essence, a population-explosion problem. Global warming may be one of nature?s ways to decrease human population.
For the long term the best way to reduce global warming is to reduce human population in a benign way by educating women and providing world-wide free contraception information and devices. If humans do not consciously do that, nature will do it due to the effects of global warming, the decline of petroleum extraction and the eventual entry into the next 115,000-year Major Ice Age.
(See http://www.roperld.com/science/HumanFuture.pdf .)
Do your part and stop breathing.
[/quote]
Too bad Mr Roper didnt do his research. People breathe out only 0.57 kg of CO2 per day according to my calculations.
From Respiratory system - Wikipedia “In an average resting adult, the lungs take up about 250ml of oxygen every minute while excreting about 200ml of carbon dioxide. During an average breath, an adult will exchange from 500 ml to 700 ml of air.”
So per day, we excrete 200 * 60 * 24 = 288000 ml or 288 liters of CO2.
From http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00306.htm,
one kg of CO2 is 509.1 L
So we exhale 288/509.1 = 0.57 kg of CO2 every day. Thats 208 kg every year (0.23 US tons).
Using his figures for world population, the total amount of CO2 emitted is 1.5e9,
a factor of 10 smaller than the number he provides, making breathing safe for everyone again.
[quote]DW wrote:
I’m glad that I live in a country where people wash their asses.[/quote]
And what country is it that has such an enlightened asshole as you in it?
[quote]TShaw wrote:
Except that she was joking from the start. C’mon, people![/quote]
It sure wasn’t reported that way.
So here’s what she actually said. Joke, or not? T-Nation members, you decide:
[quote]moeity wrote:
…making breathing safe for everyone again.
[/quote]
I think the point that I got was that it is alright for us to breathe, regardless of the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. That there is so much CO2, being a total concentration of 0.035% atmospherically, I believe, makes me consider that the natural processes of this planet are sufficient to maintain equilibrium.
Looking at the dynamic flux of gasses in the air, be it from continuous effluents or spikes from random events to the CO2 sinks as it is readily absorbed into the oceans as well as through plant respiration, there is no model that can accurately predict any future. There are simply too many variables. Period. Until there is, it is scientific postulation and devoid of empiricalness.
Consider: Humanity has been created by Nature. I mean, we started as just another life form. We still are a part of this relationship, hence all we do is still “natural,” in the strictest sense of this relationship. So, if we are doing what is natural… what are you so bloody worried about? We are agents of Nature. The catalyst between cause and effect. Not the cause, not the effect. A participant.
CELTIC DEVIL, is there some cut off date that if we pass and we haven’t minimized or arrested CO2 emissions, that life will cease to exist? If those computer models are so damn accurate, there must be a doom-date. Give it to me.
[quote]jwillow wrote:
TShaw wrote:
Except that she was joking from the start. C’mon, people!
It sure wasn’t reported that way.
So here’s what she actually said. Joke, or not? T-Nation members, you decide:
http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786
[/quote]
If it was sacrasm, I didn’t receive it. It read pretty seriously.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
jwillow wrote:
TShaw wrote:
Except that she was joking from the start. C’mon, people!
It sure wasn’t reported that way.
So here’s what she actually said. Joke, or not? T-Nation members, you decide:
http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786
If it was sacrasm, I didn’t receive it. It read pretty seriously.
[/quote]
Didn’t seem she was joking about the “dining sleeve” either.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
If it was sacrasm, I didn’t receive it. It read pretty seriously.
Didn’t seem she was joking about the “dining sleeve” either.[/quote]
I’ll have to give her one thumb up for this. I mean, she’s an entertainer. If she’s not entertaining, she really is worthless. She makes me laugh; as if what she says could actually be construed as educated. Bah.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Consider: Humanity has been created by Nature. I mean, we started as just another life form. We still are a part of this relationship, hence all we do is still “natural,” in the strictest sense of this relationship. So, if we are doing what is natural… what are you so bloody worried about? We are agents of Nature. The catalyst between cause and effect. Not the cause, not the effect. A participant.
[/quote]
I agree, we’re participants, and up until a few hundred years ago, our effects on the Earth weren’t anything nature couldn’t handle. After the industrial revolution, we moved beyond just being participants. We are now able to reshape rivers, remove mountains, build mountains, create GM organisms, find and consume raw material on vast scales.
We now have the power to affect things globally. With all this new power comes responsibility. Our activities have been the catalyst for world-wide changes, including changes in arctic ice levels (at an all time low), melting of permafrost, temperature changes, etc. These things are all happening now, we provided the catalyst, so we should also provide the inhibitor.
Though the whole one sheet of TP idea is a bit extreme, I don’t think it is too outlandish to be preaching ideals of conservancy and moderation.
There may or not be a correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming, however, it is a bit foolhardy to go with the notion that there is no correlation until one is proven. I say foolhardy simply because what happens if it is proven and we’ve already engaged upon an irreversible course?
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Though the whole one sheet of TP idea is a bit extreme, I don’t think it is too outlandish to be preaching ideals of conservancy and moderation.
… [/quote]
I agree. I am a strong supporter of conservation and I practice what I preach. That is why conspicious consumers like Al Gore and Sheryl Crowe piss me off. They are huge hypocrites.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
Though the whole one sheet of TP idea is a bit extreme, I don’t think it is too outlandish to be preaching ideals of conservancy and moderation.[/quote]
You and Zap are exactly right here.
Why don’t we practice conservation for the sake of conservation? Why don’t we pursue alternative fuels because we’re going to have to use them eventually and it would be wise to get ahead of the curve? Plus we could take our money outside of the crazies in the Middle-East and let them rot.
There are so many pluses for conservationism and alternative that we have no need for a fictional boogey man to try and scare us. GW has become so politicized that the entire ‘environmentalist’ arena now has enemies where there didn’t have to be enemies. Dreaming up global warming (and global freezing before that) has done nothing but hamstring the environmentalist and alternative fuel movement.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
There may or not be a correlation between rising CO2 levels and global warming, however, it is a bit foolhardy to go with the notion that there is no correlation until one is proven. I say foolhardy simply because what happens if it is proven and we’ve already engaged upon an irreversible course? [/quote]
You have to be careful when dealing with correlations in fields where there is little truly known about the details. We don’t know how the climate truly works, so we don’t know which correlations are accurate, which are garbage, and (most importantly) what the causations are.
There is as much evidence that suggests CO2 levels rise as a result of higher global temperatures as there is vice versa.
We just don’t know either way, and in the absence of evidence, I see no reason to make drastic changes that would significantly damage our economies.
It is also my own personal opinion that the Earth is far tougher than we give it credit for. I don’t think we humans could destroy it or alter something as fundamental as the climate even if we wanted to, much less by accident.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Under Capitalism, you have a chance to earn an honest living or to become rich without exploiting others (unless you call employing someone exploitation). Name another system where this is possible.
You can’t. Other systems rely on governmental theft and extortion. Those systems rely on whatever shred of productivity slaves have left and then robs them. Sweden is an excellent ex of this.
[/quote]
Hrmm well there’s barter and there’s anarchical independence.
There’s also the fact that we don’t have a free market capitalist system. We pay significant taxes that benefit social programs. The government plays a big role in allowing businesses to sell their product and funding businesses that suit the governments needs and interests.
That’s why we have 100% clean, plasma generators that can run off anything from garbage to agent orange and produce electricity and they aren’t used. That would take burden off the electric grid and completely solve our landfill problem. Landfill owners won’t let this happen and cities don’t purchase these generators.
[quote]Taquito wrote:
…
That’s why we have 100% clean, plasma generators that can run off anything from garbage to agent orange and produce electricity and they aren’t used. That would take burden off the electric grid and completely solve our landfill problem. Landfill owners won’t let this happen and cities don’t purchase these generators.
[/quote]
Don’t forget about engines that run on water and perpetual motion machines.
