Internet use contributes to global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yeah right... There wouldn't be industries producing for 6 billion people if there weren't 6 billion people.

---

That isn't over population. Six billion people on Earth is just six billion people on Earth. At what point do you start saying it is overpopulation? At the point the Earth's resources can't naturally replenish to sustain the population size. In return, you have starvation etc..

Are we at the point that the Earth's resources can't naturally replenish to sustain the population size? Yes and no. The problem is inefficiency. Inefficiency works as a multiplier effect, which it is artificially created. Not only is it artificially created, but it is preventable.

Lets see, how can I illustrate what I'm saying? Look at globalization with a microscope. All the countries unified as one entity, isolated on a rock in space. Now, take this thought and apply it to one country. Look at the country as a unification of states as one entity, isolated from the rest of the world. Lets say that one country is all that is on the world. Can that country self sustain itself? Yes it can, but it isn't. The effects of negligence etc. would be comparable to what happens on a global scale of what you call over population. The country can't self sustain itself because of inefficiency. On a greater scale, there is not one country in the world that can self sustain itself because none are self sufficient. Does overpopulation cause this? No.

If overpopulation were genuinely real, then the Earth will purge us to normalize. It seems many think that is already happening because of starvation in Africa etc.. But like I said before, that is artificially created.

You see, overpopulation is an illusion and inefficiency is a control mechanism.

Just a different perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Good good. And the carbon in the food you eat comes from..?

---

Ultimately plants, yeah.

And the plants get it from?

Atmosphere.

That doesn't change the point you know. Plants have a reservation of carbon in them. The amount of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere is controlled by a very delicate balance, and there is a maximum speed plants can absorb carbon dioxide at. If there are more animals producing it than plants can absorb, you have increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your breathing does contribute for global warming. If plants are capable of neutralizing it or not is a whole new deal.

Or do you think burning wood doesn't count?

Plants neutralising it? Animals producing more than plants absorb??

Have you ever studied the carbon cycle? How is even possible that animals could 'produce more than plants absorb'? Where would it come from? Very quickly everything would die.

It's really very simple: the plants make carbon dioxide gas into sugars, we eat the sugars, and make the sugars back into carbon dioxide gas.

We're a temporary CO2 sink if anything. If we didn't eat the plants they would die and decompose and the CO2 would be released anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Plants neutralising it? Animals producing more than plants absorb??

Have you ever studied the carbon cycle? How is even possible that animals could 'produce more than plants absorb'? Where would it come from? Very quickly everything would die.

It's really very simple: the plants make carbon dioxide gas into sugars, we eat the sugars, and make the sugars back into carbon dioxide gas.

We're a temporary CO2 sink if anything. If we didn't eat the plants they would die and decompose and the CO2 would be released anyway.

---

Plants are a reservatory of carbon, you genius. To consume them is to use the reservatory.

Seriously, I studied the carbon cycle a hell lot already.

Also, plants also make sugars into proteins and lipids, and we make proteins and lipids into energy and carbon dioxide.

And nah, the plants wouldn't die and release the CO2. Or we wouldn't use wood for furniture.

The carbon cycle is not as simplistic as you make it seem.

Quote:

---

Plants are a reservatory of carbon, you genius. To consume them is to use the reservatory.

---

Um yes fellow genius I know there is a store of carbon in plants, but if animals produced more CO2 than plants absorbed for a period of time then this reserve would quickly run out, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

And nah, the plants wouldn't die and release the CO2. Or we wouldn't use wood for furniture.

---

So all of the CO2 from dead organisms goes... where?

Apparently you've never heard of saprotrophs.

The only way breathing contributes to global warming is that it keeps us alive to cause it.

edit:

btw,
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/fq/emissions.html#q7

I guess forum genius Kromoh should notify NASA of their error... he does know a hell lot about the carbon cycle after all, and the important role which the existence of furniture plays in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I guess forum genius Kromoh should notify NASA of their error... he does know a hell lot about the carbon cycle after all, and the important role which the existence of furniture plays in it.

---

I notified them on his behalf. Why do you think they are outsourced to private interests? I hear the next space craft design is going to look like a rocking chair.

I laughed :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Guess I'm clean, all my power is hydro-electric. The rest of you... shame on you :P.

But yeah, it's the production of electricity and manufacturing of a product that can release greenhouse gases. By this article's logic, drinking a cup of coffee or playing the guitar contributes to global warming.

---

By this articles logic, every second you have with your electricity turned on is contributing to global warming. Even sitting around in the dark contributes to global warming because you haven't switched power companies yet...

But seriously, that article was kind of redundant. We already know that using power contributes to global warming, why point out the small things?

Definitely move to SB

Farting causes global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk

By this articles logic, every second you have with your electricity turned on is contributing to global warming. Even sitting around in the dark contributes to global warming because you haven't switched power companies yet...

But seriously, that article was kind of redundant. We already know that using power contributes to global warming, why point out the small things?

---

I posted it because not everybody connects all dots. Internet forums are cesspools for global warming alarmists, and the irony in that is a laugh riot.

You know, global warming is about how much carbon there is on the atmosphere (aka, one of the parts of the carbon cycle), not on the carbon cycle as a whole. Of course, one influences the other, but let's not make the mistake of assuming one is the other.

Breathing contributes to global warming, photosynthesis contributes to global cooling. If they balance each other out in the end is a different thing. It's like two forces and a resultant in kinematics.

Magazines and newspapers only show the opinions of stupid writers and pseudoscientists, people who never had real contact with science.

Breathing doesn't contribute to global warming. To say that breathing contributes to global warming is to say that breathing is the problem. But breathing isn't the problem. Chopping down forests is.

If we don't chop down forests and jungles and keep the ocean reefs alive, there is enough plant life to keep the carbon dioxide exchange between animals (including humans) and plants STABLE. And seeing as how these forests and reefs were already here, making all of our breathing balanced, BREATHING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem has to do with how we alter the environment, not our bodies. Our bodies are not a problem. Do you understand the subtle difference? When something contribues to global warming it is out of balance. Breathing isn't out of balance. Chopping down forests is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

Breathing doesn't contribute to global warming. To say that breathing contributes to global warming is to say that breathing is the problem. But breathing isn't the problem. Chopping down forests is.

If we don't chop down forests and jungles and keep the ocean reefs alive, there is enough plant life to keep the carbon dioxide exchange between animals (including humans) and plants STABLE. And seeing as how these forests and reefs were already here, making all of our breathing balanced, BREATHING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem has to do with how we alter the environment, not our bodies. Our bodies are not a problem. Do you understand the subtle difference? When something contribues to global warming it is out of balance. Breathing isn't out of balance. Chopping down forests is.

---

Breathing does contribute to global warming. If the effect of breathing is neutralized by photosynthesis is another thing. Suppose there wasn't photosynthesis, and we all got food from a hypothetical magical source. Our breathing would contribute to global warming. Get the point?

There are two ways to solve the problem: reduce carbon dioxide emissions or increase carbon dioxide absorption. Both work.

I'm not arguing from a philosophical/reflective point of view like you are (and I agree with you in that matter). I'm arguing fro ma practical point of view. Breathing contributes to global warming -- it's a simple fact. Now, whether we should fight global warming by breathing less or by putting an end to polluting industries... that is what my initial argument was all about.

I've been wondering lately if we had a set time once a day where everyone holds their breath for about 10-20 seconds. Do you think this would slow or stop global warming? hehe I think it's an interesting option, imagine how much c02 we are breathing out all the time, all 6.5 billion of us.

Quote:

---

global warming.

---

Your kids and your modern fairy tales.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loaf

Your kids and your modern fairy tales.

---

You elderlies and your hard-headedness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You elderlies and your hard-headedness.

---

You kids and your scams to get money off idiotic environment loving hippies who live in pure ignorance and root through garbage. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Magazines and newspapers only show the opinions of stupid writers and pseudoscientists, people who never had real contact with science.

---

What.

Quote:

---

Breathing does contribute to global warming. If the effect of breathing is neutralized by photosynthesis is another thing. Suppose there wasn't photosynthesis, and we all got food from a hypothetical magical source. Our breathing would contribute to global warming. Get the point?

---

Just give it up Kromoh. The whole point is there isn't a magical source. By that logic eating food contributes to my morbid obesity. Except I don't have morbid obesity, because, due to a magical process, that food leaves my body.

Quote:

---

I've been wondering lately if we had a set time once a day where everyone holds their breath for about 10-20 seconds. Do you think this would slow or stop global warming? hehe I think it's an interesting option, imagine how much c02 we are breathing out all the time, all 6.5 billion of us.

---

No tommo as we've just been discussing it makes no difference at all, because CO2 is constantly cycling out of the bodies of living things, into the atmosphere, and back into the bodies of living things. Breathing is simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere. If we didn't eat the food something else would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Just give it up Kromoh. The whole point is there isn't a magical source. By that logic eating food contributes to my morbid obesity.

---

Eating contributes to obesity, yes. Exercise prevents it. The result (aka, if you will be obese or not) depends on the final balance.

Quote:

---

If we didn't eat the food something else would.

---

Doesn't mean that something else doesn't contribute to global warming.