Yeah so global warming huh...

[onejayhawk]

You continue to spout opinions instead of citing sources to back up your claims. What's the deal?

You dispute that much of California is a desert? Seriously?

J

[onejayhawk]

Wait...the Browns might win the Super Bowl!?!?!?

Old Joke:

A Houston born Texan was sent to hell. When he arrived it was 100° and 95% humidity. He took off his jacket and said, it must be May. They cranked it to 120° and 99.9%. He started telling stories about custom cutting in a combine with no AC. They decided to go Norse and dropped the temperature to -10°. He started yelling, "The Astros won the Pennant. The Astros won the Pennant." It was 2005.

The year before a Bostonian was sent to hell...

J

[Teenwolf]

Just a quick search on the internet shows a ridiculous spread on the amount of water to produce any of those meats.

For instance, one site tells me it takes 518 gallons for a pound of chicken, and 704 gallons for a pound of lentils. The site also quotes 258 gallons for a pound of asparagus. Another site reports 2,464 gallons for a pound of beef.

Now I think there is a difference between how much water it takes to produce something and how much water is actually consumed, which I would guess is not taken into account in some of these numbers. Water in the production of many products can be re-used, put back into the water table, and so forth.

Either way, I think your numbers are over-inflated for the production of those meats. Sites I think you would consider referencing are 30-70% lower than your numbers. EPA.gov suggests 1799 gallons for a pound of beef.

You're making my point for me.

How is using 30 times or 50 times or 100 times the water for meat production any more sustainable than the numbers I listed?

I'm writing this on my phone at work. Will dig into actual numbers later if necessary.

[bryanbutler]

Very few of the studies (hence my appropriate use of the word "paucity") put the natural forcings at .1%. Most of the studies attribute 100% (or more) of the current global warming to human factors. Frankly, I'm not sure why you are confused about this. I am thankful we've gotten to apologies from sighs, though, because that was fucking annoying.

"i see a claim that 100% of global warming is caused by human factors as indefensible as a claim that there is no global warming, or that 0% of it is caused by human factors."

It's this kind of statement that reinforces the notion, at least to me, that you're just not getting it. What if, and this is far more common in the studies, the natural forcings and internal variability numbers were at 0.0% or -0.1%? Then the determination that all global warming we're currently experiencing is wholly due to human causes. The majority of studies attribute little (.1% max) to none (0.0%, -0.1%) of the current global warming to natural causes. None of this is "indefensible". You're just not understanding what's going on. Between 2-4% of climate experts claim that humans are responsible for less than half of global warming since 1950 --- easily the minority. A much more prominent position is that our planet is in a phase of natural cooling that has been totally undone by human factors. In fact, the best guess is that we're responsible for 110% of current global warming (obviously accounting for what would otherwise be a cooling trend).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]614[/ATTACH]

"The probability density function for the fraction of warming attributable to human activity (derived from figure 10.5 in IPCC AR5). The bulk of the probability is far to the right of the ‘50%’ line, and the peak is around 110%. Source: RealClimate "

don't make me sigh again, damnit!

the two most important words in your post are "What if." yes, but what if it's +0.1%? which is certainly allowed within the current (even accepted) models. do the integral under that PDF that you linked for values < 1.0. you'll get a substantial fraction. eyeballing it, i'd guess about 40%. this means that 40% of studies say that the amount of warming due to human factors is less than 100%. *that* is why i'm saying it's indefensible to state that 100% of the current warming is due to human factors. what *is* defensible is an unequivocal statement that it is not possible, within the current understanding and modeling, that 0% of the current warming is caused by human factors. in fact, that PDF effectively reaches 0 by about 50%, so i'd feel safe saying that at least 50% is caused by human factors. i'm just not willing to say 100% is unequivocally caused by human factors, nor do i think others should. it just muddies the waters.

[bryanbutler]

So you're saying that the conclusions of the majority of peer-reviewed studies conducted by climatologists are "indefensible". That can't be what you're saying, but it sure sounds like it. I am not sure what PDF you're referring to.

PDF = Probability Density Function

it's the image that you attached in your own previous post (that i was replying to).

an integrated PDF is called a CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function). it gives the likelihood that all values less than a given value occur (i.e., it accumulates all the values to the left of a given value, by integrating the PDF). so the CDF at 1.0 would be the likelihood that any value 1.0 or less happens. they always have a sort of "S" shape. see the wiki page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution - the images in the right-hand panel show three PDFs (upper panel) along with their associated CDFs (lower panel).

what i'm saying is indefensible is an absolute belief that 100% of all global warming is caused by human factors, without even the admission that it is possible within the current modeling uncertainties that it might be less than 100%.

your own attached figure shows that somewhere around 40% of current models show less than 100% of the warming comes from human factors. you've made my point for me.

Because the fact remains that the majority of peer-reviewed studies attribute ALL of our recent warming to anthropogenic factors --- the earth wasn't warming naturally but we made damn sure that changed.

but not even close to all of them do. what i'm arguing against is the promulgation of the idea that there is a consensus in the scientific community that 100% of all global warming is caused by human factors. that is far from true.

Most studies attribute all warming to human factors. Even among those that don't attribute all warming to humans, humans have still contributed the majority (>50%).

most, but not all. as i stipulated in my previous post, i fully agree that a statement that 50% of current global warming is caused by human factors could be considered consensus. but not 100%.

i agree with most of what you're saying on this topic. what i don't agree with is this firm conviction that 100% of global warming *must* be caused by human factors. it simply cannot be stated that unequivocally, given the uncertainties in the current modeling.

[onejayhawk]

You're making my point for me.

How is using 30 times or 50 times or 100 times the water for meat production any more sustainable than the numbers I listed?

I'm writing this on my phone at work. Will dig into actual numbers later if necessary.

There is a big difference between using and consuming. Water passes through the system and returns, for the most part. That is why manufacturing beer is different. You ship it far away, so it is effectively lost. I see no reason why grass fed beef is a problem. You might be able to make a case for grain fed, but not a big one IMO because water is cyclical. If you want evidence that there is a water cycle, I can do that. Most 2nd graders are aware of it.

If you want to discuss water on something topical, try depleting aquafirs. That is an area that could use attention.

J

[Teenwolf]

Just a quick search on the internet shows a ridiculous spread on the amount of water to produce any of those meats.

For instance, one site tells me it takes 518 gallons for a pound of chicken, and 704 gallons for a pound of lentils. The site also quotes 258 gallons for a pound of asparagus. Another site reports 2,464 gallons for a pound of beef.

Now I think there is a difference between how much water it takes to produce something and how much water is actually consumed, which I would guess is not taken into account in some of these numbers. Water in the production of many products can be re-used, put back into the water table, and so forth.

Either way, I think your numbers are over-inflated for the production of those meats. Sites I think you would consider referencing are 30-70% lower than your numbers. EPA.gov suggests 1799 gallons for a pound of beef.

Now that I'm home, I can actually research this stuff.

It seems that different climates require different amounts of water in order to raise different types of livestock and vegetation.

Meat produced in different parts of the country requires different amounts of water. Meat produced in the Southeast takes much less water to produce than meat produced in other regions; you don't need to irrigate nearly as much thanks to more rain during the growing season in the Southeast. Arizona and Colorado meat, on the other hand, take even more water than California.

The reason that more water is used to produce a pound of beef than a pound of pork or chicken, by the way, is that the pork and poultry industries in the United States are generally concentrated in areas where grain fields need little or no irrigation, and because pigs and chickens are more efficient at converting feed to flesh than are cattle.

[The Feral Slasher]

There is a big difference between using and consuming. Water passes through the system and returns, for the most part. That is why manufacturing beer is different. You ship it far away, so it is effectively lost. I see no reason why grass fed beef is a problem. You might be able to make a case for grain fed, but not a big one IMO because water is cyclical. If you want evidence that there is a water cycle, I can do that. Most 2nd graders are aware of it.

If you want to discuss water on something topical, try depleting aquafirs. That is an area that could use attention.

J

Why do you think the aquifers are being depleted ?

[Teenwolf]

There is a big difference between using and consuming. Water passes through the system and returns, for the most part. That is why manufacturing beer is different. You ship it far away, so it is effectively lost. I see no reason why grass fed beef is a problem. You might be able to make a case for grain fed, but not a big one IMO because water is cyclical. If you want evidence that there is a water cycle, I can do that. Most 2nd graders are aware of it.

If you want to discuss water on something topical, try depleting aquafirs. That is an area that could use attention.

J

Here's an article about the effect of livestock on the global water supply. It's pretty terrifying, and actually pretty clear. 93% of water depletion is from the agriculture sector, as shown in graph 4.1 on pg. 3. Within the agriculture section, livestock are both depleting and polluting our existing water sources at disgusting and alarming levels. Look at the pig crap situation in North Carolina, then extrapolate those problems to developing countries which are producing even more livestock for North American consumption.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e04.pdf

[bryanbutler]

It seems to me that you're quibbling over semantics.

yes, i am, because i believe the semantics are important. it's some of the wording you use for your argument that i think can be misleading. for example, what started the discussion:

Even though Bryanbutler said "there are other contributions to global warming" there is a paucity of evidence to support that assertion.

and yet something like 40% of studies say there are other contributions. i'd call that more than a "paucity."

or:

There is a consensus that human factors are largely to blame for global warming.

it's the "largely" that's a problem here. maybe you call 50% (because 50% is the number i'd peg for the consensus) "largely," but i hesitate to do so.

there is a continued insinuation in your discussion, a sort of undercurrent, that all global warming is caused by human factors, and, as i've said repeatedly, the research supports otherwise (well, of order 40% of it).

i know you agree - we're kind of in violent agreement about the fundamentals - we just disagree about the presentation.

[Judge Jude]

and presentation is crucial. bryanbutler's thesis is practically bulletproof, the other not so much. I know a little bit about disseminating a message, and bulletproof is WAY more effective.

[Pogues]

You're making my point for me.

How is using 30 times or 50 times or 100 times the water for meat production any more sustainable than the numbers I listed?

I'm writing this on my phone at work. Will dig into actual numbers later if necessary.

I'm not disputing that meat uses more water in its production. I'm disputing your specific numbers that as far as I can tell are inflated. I'm also stating that production and consumption mean two different things, and doesn't explain the actual loss of water for each pound of meat. I think THAT is the important number when it comes to beef production, chicken production, and so forth.

[bryanbutler]

i've tried to be civil in my posts on the matter, and think i have, pretty much. i'd be OK with continuing the discussion, but your confrontational style has soured me on that, elD. maybe it was my initial snark that brought out the talons, but for somebody that likes to argue so much i'd think it would behoove you to develop thicker skin.

it's OK - as i've said we agree on the fundamentals. i'd just advocate that if you're trying to convince others of your position, you could think more about the way in which you present it. many already have their minds so made up that it will make no difference (on both sides), but you might gain some converts.

[Teenwolf]

I'm not disputing that meat uses more water in its production. I'm disputing your specific numbers that as far as I can tell are inflated. I'm also stating that production and consumption mean two different things, and doesn't explain the actual loss of water for each pound of meat. I think THAT is the important number when it comes to beef production, chicken production, and so forth.

The number variations are based on location. That's all. Nothing to be suspicious of, it says as much in the study you're quoting from.

The water usage vs. water depletion statistics are in the article I posted earlier. Although only 70 percent of our water is used in agriculture, it results in 93% of our water depletion. Livestock are the reason for this. The waste in feeding both food and wate to an animal over months or years, then stripping it of its flesh is an extremely wasteful use of resources, and again, it's not sustainable. California is showing us this. Sao Paolo is also. It will only get worse.

[chancellor]

Why do you think the aquifers are being depleted ?

Because the Koch brothers eat meat, silly.