Still Waters Posted February 26, 2010 #1 Share Posted February 26, 2010 A century of whaling may have released more than 100 million tonnes - or a large forest's worth - of carbon into the atmosphere, scientists say.Whales store carbon within their huge bodies and when they are killed, much of this carbon can be released. US scientists revealed their estimate of carbon released by whaling at the Ocean Sciences meeting in Portland, US. Dr Andrew Pershing from the University of Maine described whales as the "forests of the ocean". Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Promethius Posted February 26, 2010 #2 Share Posted February 26, 2010 A century of whaling may have released more than 100 million tonnes - or a large forest's worth - of carbon into the atmosphere, scientists say. And it's not done the whales much good either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted February 26, 2010 #3 Share Posted February 26, 2010 They are very big animals, so of course killing them would do some serious damage. . . and every living thing stores Carbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
behaviour??? Posted February 27, 2010 #4 Share Posted February 27, 2010 A century of whaling may have released more than 100 million tonnes - or a large forest's worth - of carbon into the atmosphere, scientists say.Read more... Thanks B??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 28, 2010 #5 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) sorry i dont buy it. these animals would have died of old age anyways meaning that said carbon would still have been released. but since most whales eat plankton, and most of earths co2 is changed into o2 by plankton, killing the whales would allow more plankton to live thus more co2 being changed into o2. Edited February 28, 2010 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted February 28, 2010 #6 Share Posted February 28, 2010 sorry i dont buy it. these animals would have died of old age anyways meaning that said carbon would still have been released. but since most whales eat plankton, and most of earths co2 is changed into o2 by plankton, killing the whales would allow more plankton to live thus more co2 being changed into o2. You forget that every single thing humans do contributes to AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 28, 2010 #7 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) You forget that every single thing humans do contributes to AGW. * snip * Edited March 1, 2010 by Saru Removed personal attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 28, 2010 #8 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) Just a bit of mathematical perspective; The worlds human population is currently around 6 billion. Current death rates are generally around 1%/annum. Recent figures place the annual human death rate at 56,000,000 to 57,000,000. Relatively consistent with the 1% figure. By mass, the human body is 18% carbon. Let us take the average human weight at death to be 150 lbs. This figure could likely be refined. 18% x 150 = 27lbs. 27 x 56,000,000 = 1,512,000,000 lbs. = 756,000 tons of carbon/year as a result of human mortality. Edit: Typo. Edited February 28, 2010 by Swede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 28, 2010 #9 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Just a bit of mathematical perspective; The worlds human population is currently around 6 billion. Current death rates are generally around 1%/annum. Recent figures place the annual human death rate at 56,000,000 to 57,000,000. Relatively consistent with the 1% figure. By mass, the human body is 18% carbon. Let us take the average human weight at death to be 150 lbs. This figure could likely be refined. 18% x 150 = 27lbs. 27 x 56,000,000 = 1,512,000,000 lbs. = 756,000 tons of carbon/year as a result of human mortality. Edit: Typo. humans either have to stop dieing or stop breathing and eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted February 28, 2010 #10 Share Posted February 28, 2010 humans either have to stop dieing or stop breathing and eating. It goes back to something Star Traveller said in another thread. If we're in an unfavorable weather spiral that is beyond our control, we would do our best to minimize it. That's not a quote, just the gyst of his comment. We can't stop breathing or dying, but the folks in charge supposedly want to minimize this bad spiral as much as they reasonably can by putting serious controls on corporations. . . if they can earn some money on the side by taxing us for every breath we take, they'll take advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted February 28, 2010 #11 Share Posted February 28, 2010 It goes back to something Star Traveller said in another thread. If we're in an unfavorable weather spiral that is beyond our control, we would do our best to minimize it. That's not a quote, just the gyst of his comment. We can't stop breathing or dying, but the folks in charge supposedly want to minimize this bad spiral as much as they reasonably can by putting serious controls on corporations. . . if they can earn some money on the side by taxing us for every breath we take, they'll take advantage. this is assuming that 1 we are doing anything to cause it. 2 that we can do anything to minimize it. what global warming is about is control over the human population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wickian Posted February 28, 2010 #12 Share Posted February 28, 2010 this is assuming that 1 we are doing anything to cause it. 2 that we can do anything to minimize it. what global warming is about is control over the human population. Our rising population is a problem. If over half of us died there would still be billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.B. Posted February 28, 2010 #13 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Our rising population is a problem. If over half of us died there would still be billions. And if over half of us suddenly died, there would be so much carbon released that GW, if it truly is linked to CO2 like scientists claim, would certainly be AGW as our CO2 release killed the current climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Poacher Posted March 1, 2010 #14 Share Posted March 1, 2010 (edited) - snip - * snip * Edited March 1, 2010 by Saru Don't make things worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilly Posted March 1, 2010 #15 Share Posted March 1, 2010 Ok, enough with the personal remarks...focus on the topic not on sniping at others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now