Eating Beef more harmful to Earth than driving a car

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock.. sorry you feel that way.  I have seen the evidence.. I have seen them reversing themselves and I will say that we will go into a cooling cycle soon enough no matter what we do as a people.

I think it is arrogant and idiotic in the extreme to think we can control the weather of the globe.  

I am not anti environment.   I simply feel that I am having smoke blown by the doom and gloomers and have been around long enough to recognize their style.

I find it amusing that those who are rabid acolytes of the "man made global warming" religion and who also like beef are saying that beef is too important to limit.   They are unwilling to stop eating beef.

Does that make all beef eaters "anti environment"?  

I use less energy than al gore.   I use less than most of the euros who fly around in jets and boats just to see other countries and vacation.   I am not wasteful in most things... far less than most... I am wasteful in others that I enjoy.    I enjoy hot rods.   My house is energy effiecient to a degree and I don't really waste a lot of energy like most.  I have an electric mower for instance..

I eat beef... nothing about a theory on the climate will change that.. just like someones theory on cars won't change what I drive.

If you believe all the stuff the "scientists" are saying about our contribution or... what the weather will be in 100 years then I would put it to you that you are not only the idiot here but unable to use simple logic....  What prediction do you believe?   yesterdays where the oceans will rise 3 inches in 100 years or last years where it was gonna rise 30 feet in two decades?

did you know that 98 was the peak and that 4 of 7 of the years since have all been cooler?  even if you believe the stations that monitor temp that are all reading high because of urban sprawl and neglect to the care of the stations?   (see surfacestations.org)

don't you feel a little stupid when they change their predictions every week?

When they can't predict next months weather or next years but they say they can tell you what will happen in decades?

Who is the moron here?  

lazs

Same goes with tension based earthquakes and volcanic eruptions Lazs. You can say it's gonna happen, and roughly when and how strong, but that's just about it.
Last big quake that hit us here was predicted to be 6+ on Richter, and to arrive within 12 days. It was 6.5 and came within 4 days. Not bad.
Now we have a volcanic forecast, - probably within 4 years. The final forecast will be a scramble warning, for 30 minutes.
Scientists base their forcasts and estimates on the data they have as well as the knowlege they have. (Some people on these boards make fun of their data gathering). This is how mankind gathered the knowledge to navigate, grow crops, tell the time, and even predict the tide with 100% accuracy!
And as for this:
"I think it is arrogant and idiotic in the extreme to think we can control the weather of the globe.   "
I reply:
We can not yet control the weather of the globe, but to think we don't influence it at all is complete idiocy.
Oh, where's the "SUN STUPID" quote this time? Did you swap it out with "MORON"?

[Excel1]

I know about the ban because of BSE Rolex. But it's not a permanent situation. Access for US beef in the Asian markets is being reopened. The Asians ( the Japanese and Koreans in particular) are tough nuts to trade with and know how to srcew down a good deal, so it's no real surprise they have milked the BSE thing for all it's worth but I don't have much doubt that the US will eventually get most of it's market share back. But the US is going to have to work hard as the Aussies and NZ aren’t going to roll over and easily give up the gains we made why you guys were made to go stand in a corner:)
 
But the premise I was working from in previous posts is that the US will again export beef in large quantities to asia before long.

Btw, NZ beef is grass fed and any trade restrictions or consumer resistance to buying grain fed beef would probably be very beneficial to us in the short term at least. But I think it's better to look at the bigger picture and the long term and for all producers to take a uniformed stance to try and combat what I see as a trend that is unjustified and a damaging threat to international trade.

[Angus]

Meat consumption in the far east is rising.
And the people are getting taller as well. (There is a connection)
As a result, more land is needing per feeding each person. They will later on buy meat, from USA and Canada as an addition to what they already buyng from Aussies and NZ.
The price will also go up, both because the law of business (demand-offer) as well as natural causes touching the law of business, - production capacity. Milk price on the market has been influenced by the same law, and the price has gone up some 30% within a year. Or more maybe?
So, better days ahead for beef farmers.
And here I will toss to you all a little fact of life.
I breed cattle on wild pastures in cool atmosphere. I also have potatoes on the dryer parts of the land.
A "production unit" of cattle consists of A cow, a calf, and the yearling, - 3 of them.
A thumb rule in this climate is to calculate about one ha (2.2 acres) for each. I's actually say that's a tad low but allright if you grow intensive, - good field and well fertilized will make that.
The production unit thereby has 3 ha. and will deliver one animal to the butcher every year, - that's going to be a bull of some 300 kg's deadweight.
(after that you have a loss of some 30% - bones etc)
On the same 3 ha. you would get some:
a) 9 tonnes of barley. or:
b) 40 tonnes of Potatoes. or:
c) 60 tonnes of carrots.

Numbers are rough, but good enough, and apply to this climate.
Then the fun starts calculating the nutrition. You need some 4 kg's of potatoes to match the kg of Barley for instance. And so and so much barley to match a kg of beef. But the difference is none the less, stunning.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.

However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.

This study shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.

Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.

Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.

Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.

Counter = 1

[Rolex]

Hi Excel,

I don't know enough about the Korean import market to make a comment. I don't share your opinion that the US will regain anything close to its previous market share in Japan. In other Asian countries, sure, but not in Japan. The distribution system changes and investment with (primarily) Australian producers won't change back to the US quickly. Since money is now made throughout the process, not just distribution and sales in Japan, it will take some heavy price dumping by the US to overcome that. It appears they are willing to do that, but there is still a deep consumer resistance that has to be overcome, and that's the main hurdle.

The advertising industry in Japan and the US will probably make more money than the beef producers will from the marketing money being spent to promote US beef. All the fast food chains in Japan are locked in to Australian sources, though, and no premium quality US beef is available at any supermarket. Japanese are not clamoring for US beef. I've only seen it twice and the store couldn't give it away.

There was, and is, a little diplomatic nose twisting going on with the BSE ban. The lessons being taught are do not take the market for granted, and it is not your "right" to sell into or bully a market. Distributors found it easy to work with Australian sources. Travel is easier now since buyers visiting Australia are not harassed and demeaned at immigration like they are in the US. That shouldn't be discounted. A substantial number of Australians in many industries have learned to speak Japanese and have business experience in Japan, so it was easy to get started without those barriers.

On a side note, there is still plenty of market room for you Kiwis to expand fruit exports to Japan...  

[Excel1]

Angus, The growing demand for beef in Asia is predicted in NZ to be more of a boost for grass fed beef than grain fed. NZ has being sending an increasing and substantial amount of it's prime beef production to Korea, Taiwan and Japan for a few years now and less manufacturing beef to our biggest and traditional market, the US. The Asians are developing a taste for grass fed beef which is good for us and won't really hurt the Aussies either as they can supply both grain or grass fed beef. But like I said in my last post the Asian countries are tough to get a good deal out of, and with the US re entering the market competition among exporters will be fierce. But as you say better prices means better times for beef producers. From our perspective though the times would be even better if the trade was on a level playing field and our trading competitors were like us and didn't have the protection of those girly subsidies;)

[Excel1]

Hi Rolex

Thanks for the overview on the Japanese scene.

I didn't know that Aussie beef was that entrenched in Japan. A few years ago the feeling here in NZ was that Aus and NZ should get in to the Asian market and make the most of it before the inevitable return of the US beef suppliers.

And your right about the risks of taking a market for granted. We have had some experience in that department. Up until some 35 or so years ago almost all of New Zealand's exported produce was sent to Britain. But when Britain joined the European Community in the early 1970s we lost most of that market in a short space of time which left the country virtually broke and floundering through out the 70's.

[lazs2]

angus... predicting a quake is or volcano in not the same as telling us what the weather will be in a few decades based on co2.  I can build an engine and predict it's hp within about 3%... does that mean I can predict the weather?  What does predicting volcanoes or earthquakes have to do with weather?

More like hurricanes.. and we all know how well they do at that.

Hortlund.. interesting study... even more interesting graph.. it shows one measure of suns activity... and indicator at that.. not even real activity and... it shows a very tiny slice of time... If you look at a graph that shows hundreds of years and if you show it on a scale that is not hundredths of a degree (you couldn't on a large scale) you would see that the tiny little blip they show is just that.. a tiny little blip.

If you are saying that it can't be the sun because of the tiny little blip then how do you say it is co2 when there are huge areas where co2 is rising and temp is falling.... you can't have it both ways and... the suns activity is always leading the temp rise or fall.

I say the chart proves we are about to go into a global cooling cycle... I say the "scientists" know it and are panicked to get "something done" so that they can take credit for the sun...

In the end...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
Hortlund.. interesting study... even more interesting graph.. it shows one measure of suns activity... and indicator at that.. not even real activity and... it shows a very tiny slice of time... If you look at a graph that shows hundreds of years and if you show it on a scale that is not hundredths of a degree (you couldn't on a large scale) you would see that the tiny little blip they show is just that.. a tiny little blip.

[/b]
And still that tiny little blip disproves your preferred explanation model. Aint life a *****? Im not sure you understand that it does however, but thats probably something you should take up with the grade school you went to.

If you are saying that it can't be the sun because of the tiny little blip then how do you say it is co2 when there are huge areas where co2 is rising and temp is falling.... you can't have it both ways and... the suns activity is always leading the temp rise or fall.

[/b]
Now, Im not expecting you to understand the following, but I shall type it out anyway.

Among many other factors the ocean has an important control on CO2 concentrations which is why alag of a couple of hundred years is no surprise. During the change from cold glacial to warm interglacial conditions it’s not CO2 which is moving first and somehow driving primarily the system.

So, in laymans terms, CO2 does not trigger the warmings, but it contributes to them, and  Greenhouse Gas forcing (thats the CO2) is the largest factor in the ultimate change.

Feel free not to understand what I just said, and just pull something out of context from my quote.

I say the chart proves we are about to go into a global cooling cycle... I say the "scientists" know it and are panicked to get "something done" so that they can take credit for the sun...

[/b]
Yeah, but you dont know what the heck you are talking about.

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.

However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.

This study shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.

Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.

Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.

Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.

Counter = 2

[lazs2]

again hortlund...  there is a tiny little blip... when co2 lags temp for eons... or when the temp goes down for decades and co2 is going up... well.. that is simply an "anomaly" huh?

You can't have it both ways... a tiny blip is less than a huge dip.   solar activity leads climate change... co2 lags it.  co2 is a result not a cause.

Solar activity seems to be going down.. it is a leader.. we will begin to see a lowering of temp globally.. then.. co2 will follow.. there may be hundreds of years involved since co2 is such a weak player and so laggy.

In the US we use USHCN for all of our climate change info.

It is a series of about 1200 weather stations throughout the US

Go to surfacestation.org and you will see that all of them are in pretty bad shape.. reading higher than they should in almost every case... to close to industry or cement or otherwise badly placed.   We are already seeing a cooling.

It is cooler here this year than last so far.  The whole US we can all feel it.

in the end tho...

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

sorry your doomsday scenario is falling apart.  but then....

think about it..  what doomsday scenario has ever really played out?   even a little bit?  they are batting zero your "scientists" in the "end of the world game"

lazs

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
angus... predicting a quake is or volcano in not the same as telling us what the weather will be in a few decades based on co2.  I can build an engine and predict it's hp within about 3%... does that mean I can predict the weather?  What does predicting volcanoes or earthquakes have to do with weather?

In the end...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

lazs

No it isn't. Read up on it, I belive Straffo gave you a link
Weather, as fluid as it is is actually very hard to predict, untill it comes to the longer scale. Same to the Volcanoes and quakes.
And CO2 or methane....you can test their effects in the lab. There is no question about HOW they work in the atmosphere.
It's not just the sun. (I'm skipping the stupid word because I am trying to improve my ways)

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
again hortlund...  there is a tiny little blip... when co2 lags temp for eons... or when the temp goes down for decades and co2 is going up... well.. that is simply an "anomaly" huh?

You can't have it both ways... a tiny blip is less than a huge dip.   solar activity leads climate change... co2 lags it.  co2 is a result not a cause.

No, actually I just explained to you why there is a lag. Apparently you didnt read that part...or perhaps you merely didnt understand it?

Solar activity seems to be going down.. it is a leader.. we will begin to see a lowering of temp globally.. then.. co2 will follow.. there may be hundreds of years involved since co2 is such a weak player and so laggy.

LOL I find it amusing to no end to see you make statements as if you knew the first thing about what you're talking. Its like watching a 10 yrold kid from Idaho who has never left his hometown trying to tell a retired sailor about the best way to get laid in Bangkok.

In the US we use USHCN for all of our climate change info.

It is a series of about 1200 weather stations throughout the US

Go to surfacestation.org and you will see that all of them are in pretty bad shape.. reading higher than they should in almost every case... to close to industry or cement or otherwise badly placed.   We are already seeing a cooling.

Heh, I find it funny when the anti-environment types reach for this argument. Because its excellent proof that they dont know **** all about what they are talking. My guess is that old lasz here is just pulling talking points from some retarded anti-environment site somewhere on the web.

See there is another direct measurement record that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. Basically, this involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature at various depths. This gives us information about century scale temperature trends as warmer or cooler pulses from surface changes propogate down through the earth's crust. This way of inferring surface temperatures smooths out short term or yearly flucuations so we can not know anything about individual years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html

ITS THE SUN STUPID.
 

Remove the sun and there will be no weather or global warming because there will be no radiation for the atmosphere to trap. If you have no solar radiation, then you can change the atmosphere to whipped cream if you like, it wont matter. So yes, its definitively the sun.

However, if you remove the atmosphere of a planet you change how much heat the planet can trap. Similarly, if you change the composition of the atmosphere you can change how much heat it can trap. Depending on how you change it, the planet will be able to trap more or less heat.

This study shows that the heat available from the sun is not corresponding with the increased heat on Earth. Or to put it in laymans terms. Its getting warmer on Earth without a corresponding increase in solar output.

Since the solar output is not increasing, and the temperature on Earth is increasing, that means that what has changed is how much heat from the sun is trapped by the Earths atmosphere and that is the cause of the increased temperature on Earth. And, like I said earlier, the amount of heat trapped is changed by the composition of the atmosphere.

Which brings us to our atmosphere. We know that the composition of the atmosphere has changed over the past years, we know that these changes mean that more heat gets captured, we know that the temperature on Earth is rising, and now we can also confirm that this is not caused by an increased solar output.

Now, there you have it lasz. There you have the explanation. Every time you say its the sun, I will post this little explanation as a reply to that post of yours. I will even include a little counter, so we can all see how many times you must read this reply before you understand it.

Counter = 3

[Angus]

Hehe.
The counter is going to tick and tick....
As for this:
"LOL I find it amusing to no end to see you make statements as if you knew the first thing about what you're talking. Its like watching a 10 yrold kid from Idaho who has never left his hometown trying to tell a retired sailor about the best way to get laid in Bangkok. "

Hehe. I am saving this little gem

[lazs2]

ah... so you have nothing then hortlund?   I tell you that a more representitive graph... one that shows solar activity for hundreds of years and temp change shows that solar activity always leads temp change.. I point out that co2 always lags temp change and the now they are claiming that it is leading and you simply say... of course... but it is different now.

I point out that the data being used is from stations that are wrong... I point out that the temp has risen and fallen much more in over the span of the planet and that solar activity always led the way..

You point to one tiny study hastily thrown together to counter the very real arguement that...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

face it... you are in a panic cause your religion is about to collapse... it is gonna get cooler  you want to cash in on it by saying that you and your scientists and socialists and big government "did something"...  you can do nothing and... face it.. people are smarter than you guys think... they won't suffer over your unfounded theories.

Angus... be honest... if the temp rises and falls 1 whole degree every 100 years or so and you know these clowns can't even predict next years weather..

Do you really think that they are being honest when they give these 100 year  predictions?   Honestly... aren't you the tinniest bit uncomfortable that they change their predictions almost monthly?  what happened to the 30' rise in the ocean in the next few decades?   now it is maybe 3" in the next 100 years...   be honest... they don't know crap and you know it.

lazs

[Angus]

Lazs: the long time swings (who's researching such as ice core drills have been critisized by ... you) are in many ways easier to predict than tomorrow.
Kind of like the waves vs the tide. You can foresay the tide, but not how big the waves will be.
BTW, I just read a very interesting article about the climate in ancient times. Turns out that a greenhouse gas disaster is not a new thing, - happened like 4 times before, just not so recently. In all cases it almost wiped out life on the planet, but luckily it never went into the vicious circle that Venus caught.
Bottom line: Mankind does have an impact on the climate, and if it's the sun (stupid...ehh) on top of it, that's even worse.