So all we have to do is stop reclaiming sewage!

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
We simply dump it in the ocean, like the whales do, and we offset our carbon footprint and global warming ceases to be an issue!

SOURCE

Sperm whales 'offset carbon emissions with their own faeces'

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:19 AM on 16th June 2010

Sperm whales offset their carbon footprint by stimulating plant growth with their own faeces, scientists have discovered.

Australian researchers worked out that Southern Ocean sperm whales release about 50 tonnes of iron when they defecate every year.

This stimulates the growth of phytoplankton - which absorb carbon dioxide during photosynthesis.

Phytoplankton are marine plants which are eaten in turn by tiny marine animals - zooplankton - which are then eaten by larger sea animals.

An estimated 12,000 sperm whales that inhabit the Southern Ocean absorb about 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice the amount they release by breathing, said scientists from Flinders University in South Australia.

'They eat their diet, mainly squid, in the deep ocean, and defecate in the upper waters where phytoplankton can grow, having access to sunlight,' marine biologist Trish Lavery said.

'Sperm whale poo is rich in iron, which stimulates phytoplankton to grow and trap carbon. When the phytoplankton die, the trapped carbon sinks to the deep ocean,' Lavery said.

'They've well and truly bypassed being carbon neutral. They've actually gone one step further,' she said.

The whale study was published in the Royal Society's biological research journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences.

Lavery said that without whaling there may have been 120,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean and around two million tonnes of carbon may have been removed from the atmosphere each year through this process.

An estimated 12,000 sperm whales that inhabit the Southern Ocean absorb about 400,000 tonnes of carbon each year, twice the amount they release by breathing, said scientists from Flinders University in South Australia.

'They eat their diet, mainly squid, in the deep ocean, and defecate in the upper waters where phytoplankton can grow, having access to sunlight,' marine biologist Trish Lavery said.

'Sperm whale poo is rich in iron, which stimulates phytoplankton to grow and trap carbon. When the phytoplankton die, the trapped carbon sinks to the deep ocean,' Lavery said.

'They've well and truly bypassed being carbon neutral. They've actually gone one step further,' she said.

The whale study was published in the Royal Society's biological research journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences.

Lavery said that without whaling there may have been 120,000 sperm whales in the Southern Ocean and around two million tonnes of carbon may have been removed from the atmosphere each year through this process.
Click to expand...
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
Unfortunatly, human poo is not iron-rich. You want to offset a large part of our carbon footprint? Stop factory-farming animals. Go back to the mixed farm method. Cows at pasture eating grass which doesn't have to be fertilized, tilled, watered or reaped. Rotate the fields that they're on to allow the grass to reach maturity again. Add chickens to the mix to eat the bugs drawn by the manure and help spread it. No anti-biotics, no pesticides or herbicides and most importantly...no need to grow corn to feed the cows. No fuel spent transporting feed-corn AND unlike the manure piles created by the factory-farms which don't decompose properly and often lead to contamination of the water-table, ranched cows' manure feeds the fields that they in turn feed off of.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying it's not a good idea, and a good thing to feed um naturally and stuff.
I'm talking strictly about the global warming impact.

Any, and all emissions from all the animals in the world, including humans
is a minuscule percentage of an equation the might, or might not even be true.

We have nothing on a volcano erupting.
We cannot control the environment to a very great extent.
Not to say we shouldn't pick up after ourselves. I can stand litterers, myself.
I do also think there has to be emissions control to an extent, just not as
great of an extent as some people.
 
jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
MrBishop said:
Unfortunatly, human poo is not iron-rich. You want to offset a large part of our carbon footprint? Stop factory-farming animals. Go back to the mixed farm method. Cows at pasture eating grass which doesn't have to be fertilized, tilled, watered or reaped. Rotate the fields that they're on to allow the grass to reach maturity again. Add chickens to the mix to eat the bugs drawn by the manure and help spread it. No anti-biotics, no pesticides or herbicides and most importantly...no need to grow corn to feed the cows. No fuel spent transporting feed-corn AND unlike the manure piles created by the factory-farms which don't decompose properly and often lead to contamination of the water-table, ranched cows' manure feeds the fields that they in turn feed off of.
Click to expand...

That discounts the footprint of the amount of land required. While one tract sits unused waiting for the manure to do its job and the grass to grow the other is being used for the cows. That is a 50% land use loss. Factory farming reduces the amount of land required even if the feed has to be trucked in.
 
spike

spike

New Member
catocom said:
Any, and all emissions from all the animals in the world, including humans
is a minuscule percentage of an equation the might, or might not even be true.

We have nothing on a volcano erupting.
Click to expand...

That's completely backwards cat.

"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)"

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/2D72819F-F8A3-46BB-BB55-82504DEF65BA/
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
um, that's a gov. entity est.
got an independent study, from somewhere, that's not a hack?
because what you just posted means nothing in the way of trustworthiness.
 
spike

spike

New Member
catocom said:
um, that's a gov. entity est.
got an independent study, from somewhere, that's not a hack?
because what you just posted means nothing in the way of trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

How about you go ahead and support your claim? Obviously volcanoes are minor compared to human controlled emissions. If you got anything that proves otherwise I'd be glad to have a look.
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
yeah, I'll look it up some more tomorrow. (deeper)
All the new global warming articles seem to have buried the old figures from
the old school science numbers, on google.

Some big money has definitely been spent on the propaganda.
 
MrBishop

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
jimpeel said:
That discounts the footprint of the amount of land required. While one tract sits unused waiting for the manure to do its job and the grass to grow the other is being used for the cows. That is a 50% land use loss. Factory farming reduces the amount of land required even if the feed has to be trucked in.
Click to expand...

Not really...because when the meat/yard^2 is calculated, it doesn't take into effect the amount of land needed to grow the corn the cows/pigs are being fed.

Grass is a perennial. Corn is not.
Grass requires sun and rain. Corn requires tilling, irrigation, pesticides, herbicides, seeds yearly, petroleum fertilizers etc etc...
Grass grows where it's needed. Corn requires shipping.

You do know that 30% of your country's annual crop of corn and wheat go to feeding livestock, right? Livestock that is a ruminant herbivore?
 
catocom

catocom

Well-Known Member
spike said:
How about you go ahead and support your claim? Obviously volcanoes are minor compared to human controlled emissions. If you got anything that proves otherwise I'd be glad to have a look.
Click to expand...

ok, here's the thing.
we're both right, and or both wrong at the same time.
While Human may be emitting more of certain types of emissions,
one has to take into account the difference, and apply natural absorption rate...

I'll offer this site for explanation...
much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks
Click to expand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
 
spike

spike

New Member
catocom said:
ok, here's the thing.
we're both right, and or both wrong at the same time.
While Human may be emitting more of certain types of emissions,
one has to take into account the difference, and apply natural absorption rate...

I'll offer this site for explanation...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Click to expand...

It's funny that you complained about my source and then linked to a completely biased source. The bias is right in the subtitle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top