EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 671
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
rafealsivar
2 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On October 09 2017 19:28 Ghostcom wrote: Wat? Same user name, same post content on ~10 different random game related forums over the last 3 hours. I predict a long carreer to rafealsivar, full of fruitful contributions ! | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On October 09 2017 22:06 Ghostcom wrote: I worry for your prowess as a stalker Adept at googling is another interpretation | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11828 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
rafealsivar
2 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11828 Posts
Directly, no. Because the CO2 that we humans emit is not really "additional" CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon for that CO2 comes from stuff that you eat, which comes from plants we grow to eat or to feed to stuff to eat. That means that the whole process is carbon neutral because we take the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere that we later release into it. It is thus irrelevant how much CO2 a person emits in their breath. Indirectly, yes. There are multiple factors confounding this: 1) We breed a lot of animals to eat, which emit methane. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and this means the process in this case goes CO2 from atmosphere ---> plant --> Cow ---> CH4 to atmosphere. Since methane has a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, this is not a climate neutral process, and the more meat you eat, the more the earth heats up. 2) We destroy forests to make room for food production. Forests store carbon in their wood. If we burn a forest down, the carbon gets released as CO2. 3) Industrial Food production uses energy, both in the form of electricity and in the form of cars and agricultural machines. This energy is usually not carbon neutral, because it comes at least partially from fossile ressources like oil or gas. The more you eat, the more industrial food production is needed, and the more energy gets consumed by it. 4) Meat needs another large amount of energy when compared to the same calories in vegetables. Obese people usually have a more meat-rich diet. 5) Obese people require more energy to transport, which is once again usually not carbon neutral energy. There are probably a few more, these are just those that i just came up with. So yes, fat people heat up the earth. | ||
|
urmomdresslikafloozy
191 Posts
On October 12 2017 08:18 Simberto wrote: Ignoring the impoliteness of the formulation of your question and your name, there are two answers: Directly, no. Because the CO2 that we humans emit is not really "additional" CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon for that CO2 comes from stuff that you eat, which comes from plants we grow to eat or to feed to stuff to eat. That means that the whole process is carbon neutral because we take the same amount of carbon from the atmosphere that we later release into it. It is thus irrelevant how much CO2 a person emits in their breath. Indirectly, yes. There are multiple factors confounding this: 1) We breed a lot of animals to eat, which emit methane. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and this means the process in this case goes CO2 from atmosphere ---> plant --> Cow ---> CH4 to atmosphere. Since methane has a stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, this is not a climate neutral process, and the more meat you eat, the more the earth heats up. 2) We destroy forests to make room for food production. Forests store carbon in their wood. If we burn a forest down, the carbon gets released as CO2. 3) Industrial Food production uses energy, both in the form of electricity and in the form of cars and agricultural machines. This energy is usually not carbon neutral, because it comes at least partially from fossile ressources like oil or gas. The more you eat, the more industrial food production is needed, and the more energy gets consumed by it. 4) Meat needs another large amount of energy when compared to the same calories in vegetables. Obese people usually have a more meat-rich diet. 5) Obese people require more energy to transport, which is once again usually not carbon neutral energy. There are probably a few more, these are just those that i just came up with. So yes, fat people heat up the earth. Agreed on the carbon dioxide output, but what about the methane output? They say Cow's methane output is significantly higher than a deer or ostrich. Just trying to deduce if a larger human being could secrete more methane into the environment via dietary choices. | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45856 Posts
| ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
the more soya/GMO based protein cocktails they ate, the more methane they released; when grass fed/grazing their released methane levels decreased to normal or similar to "a deer or ostrich" output but besides some japanese+ a couple EU dudes, no one cared because ... money. with forest burning and tree cutting things are way more complex and we know about 15% - 20% at best on how CO2 soil sequestering works. leaving aside the CO2 released on burning the wood, trees have the ability/capacity to directly store CO2 into the soil through their roots so when cutting, the damage is two fold. some obscure research into this says that only trees with deep roots can effectively sequester CO2 into the soil(some symbiotic fungi associations and what not). the vast majority of orchards planted now are based on shallow root trees pumped with fertilizers then sprayed with fungicides/pesticides, that do fuck all for returning CO2 into the soil. if we'll ever have a breakthrough(talking Nobel prize level here) vis-a-vis global warming, it'll come from "soil sciences". fat or otherwise, the value of an e-pen squabble over farts, equals the one of a tweet from Trump. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On October 05 2017 04:39 Epishade wrote: If I want to get drunk without drinking, can I pour some alcohol in a syringe and inject it right into my bloodstream? Will I pass a breathalyzer test if I do that? If you're asking this question genuinely, you have a problem and need help. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
On October 13 2017 00:46 Mohdoo wrote: If you're asking this question genuinely, you have a problem and need help. What's wrong with everyone here? Learn to detect a genuine question from a fake one. It's not like it's even hard. My next couple posts are clearly jokes about being a pilot. Goddamn you guys are dense. | ||
| ||
