21 Nov 19
1 edit
@DeepThought
1 stone = 14 pounds. So you are 120 pounds soaking wet?
What has that to do with going veggie?
My daughter is 5 10 and maybe 140 or so and is full veggie and is very healthy.
You just have to know what veggies have protein and what has carbs and vitamins and such. I mainly don't eat red meat but do eat chicken and fish and a lot of fruit.
6 foot 1 and 16 stones, if 1 stone = 14 pounds.
@metal-brain saidCorrect. So what? Are you saying more natural gas extraction is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? You can't have it both ways.
The methane is being leaked. If it can be captured before it leaks into the atmosphere it can be burned as a low carbon fuel.
They just want coal out of the way so they have less competition. Coal is too cheap for them to compete with and the US has a lot of it.You are delusional.
Coal is about as cost effective as natural gas. More so in some parts of the world and less so in some parts of the world. It just depends where you look and coal isn't particularly cost effective in the US and in at least some parts of the US is more costly than gas;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
So this "Coal is too cheap for them" (for who? Who are these "them"? Scientists?) is just BS.
@sonhouse saidAt the top end of my current weight range I have a Body Mass Index of 16. This is on the boundary between severely underweight and underweight. At the bottom of my weight range I have a BMI of 15, which is on the boundary of very severely underweight and severely underweight [1].
@DeepThought
1 stone = 14 pounds. So you are 120 pounds soaking wet?
What has that to do with going veggie?
My daughter is 5 10 and maybe 140 or so and is full veggie and is very healthy.
You just have to know what veggies have protein and what has carbs and vitamins and such. I mainly don't eat red meat but do eat chicken and fish and a lot of fruit.
6 foot 1 and 16 stones, if 1 stone = 14 pounds.
Based on the figures you've given your daughter has a BMI of 20 which is in the bottom half of normal range (18.5 to 25). Your BMI is 29, which is overweight, but not badly so and since just under 60% of American males have BMI's over 25 I don't think you have too much to worry about, especially if you have a large frame.
I simply cannot risk losing more weight. Part of this is behavioural, I'll eat breakfast if it's a bacon and eggs, but won't if it's cereal. If I eat breakfast I eat lunch, otherwise I don't. By evening I don't mind vegetarian or vegan food.
Just a point on vegetarianism though, what distinguishes the vegans from the vegetarians is dairy products and cheese is made from milk which implies a dairy herd. From an environmental point of view I imagine that there isn't a tremendous amount of difference between a dairy and a meat herd.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
21 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidYou're wading into existential crisis waters with this statement. How do we know anything does anything? Plants grow while we're observing them, but what about when we're not looking? How would the chemical properties of an inert gas change when you release it from a lab?
They are both greenhouse gasses in a box. There isn't any evidence they are in the atmosphere. The claim one is the main problem over the other is a mere guess. There isn't really any science to back up that hypothesis. Lots of false rumors, but no actual science to confirm it.
Since you've stated that there isn't any real science to support greenhouse gas theory, is there an experiment that could be done to close the loop for good?
21 Nov 19
@DeepThought
One thing positive for me is my weight has been around the same, 100Kg for the past 10 years at least so it is stable at least.
So it sounds like you need a diet high in protein. I guess you have an extra high metabolic rate.
I found a site talking about metabolic rate and weight gain:
https://spoonuniversity.com/how-to/how-to-slow-down-your-metabolism-to-maintain-or-gain-weight
21 Nov 19
@humy said"Correct. So what? Are you saying more natural gas extraction is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? You can't have it both ways."
Correct. So what? Are you saying more natural gas extraction is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? You can't have it both ways.They just want coal out of the way so they have less competition. Coal is too cheap for them to compete with and the US has a lot of it.You are delusional.
Coal is about as cost effective as natural gas. More so in some parts of the world ...[text shortened]... rce
So this "Coal is too cheap for them" (for who? Who are these "them"? Scientists?) is just BS.
I'm not saying either. I'm saying a carbon tax would increase methane emissions thereby undercutting your greenhouse gas reduction goal. You would just be replacing one greenhouse gas with another and for all you know methane could be the main cause of anthropogenic GW.
Your popular solution of a carbon tax would be completely ineffective and a waste of time and money. It could even possibly make it worse since there is no evidence CO2 warms the atmosphere more than methane. Heck, there is not evidence CO2 warms the planet at all. Could be nitrous oxide for all you know. My guess is as good as yours.
21 Nov 19
@wildgrass said"How do we know anything does anything?"
You're wading into existential crisis waters with this statement. How do we know anything does anything? Plants grow while we're observing them, but what about when we're not looking? How would the chemical properties of an inert gas change when you release it from a lab?
Since you've stated that there isn't any real science to support greenhouse gas theory, is there an experiment that could be done to close the loop for good?
You don't in this case. The IPCC has a graph that has CO2, methane and nitrous oxide levels all in one graph. How do you know which gas is the main driver of AGW? You don't.
Al Gore started the CO2 blame game based on a lie. CO2 lagged behind temps in the ice core samples and so did methane. In fact, methane has a lesser lag time behind the temp rises than CO2. Why did he omit methane from his propaganda film?
@metal-brain saidsomething called the evidence which comes from something called science.
. How do you know which gas is the main driver of AGW?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
"...The table below (derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models) shows changes in radiative forcing between 1979 and 2016.[19] The table includes the contribution to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 12 and 11; and fifteen other minor, long-lived, halogenated gases.
...
(large data table shown here)
...
The table shows that CO2 dominates the total forcing, with methane and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) becoming relatively smaller contributors to the total forcing over time.[19] The five major greenhouse gases account for about 96% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gas increases since 1750.
...
Most of this increase is related to CO2. For 2013, the AGGI was 1.34 (representing an increase in total direct radiative forcing of 34% since 1990). The increase in CO2 forcing alone since 1990 was about 46%.
..."
Completely conclusive to any non-moron.
22 Nov 19
@humy saidMore climate model nonsense. That is not evidence.
something called the evidence which comes from something called science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
"...The table below (derived from atmospheric radiative transfer models) shows changes in radiative forcing between 1979 and 2016.[19] The table includes the contribution to radiative forcing from carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O ...[text shortened]... ase in CO2 forcing alone since 1990 was about 46%.
..."
Completely conclusive to any non-moron.
22 Nov 19
@sonhouse saidDon't worry about it unless your physician is. I couldn't access the site, I did the "I'm not a robot" test and was then told that the site isn't available in the UK. This may mean that the advice there is faulty, so I'd recommend viewing what they say with a healthy dose of skepticism.
@DeepThought
One thing positive for me is my weight has been around the same, 100Kg for the past 10 years at least so it is stable at least.
So it sounds like you need a diet high in protein. I guess you have an extra high metabolic rate.
I found a site talking about metabolic rate and weight gain:
https://spoonuniversity.com/how-to/how-to-slow-down-your-metabolism-to-maintain-or-gain-weight
22 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI'd provide references but you wouldn't read them.
"How do we know anything does anything?"
You don't in this case. The IPCC has a graph that has CO2, methane and nitrous oxide levels all in one graph. How do you know which gas is the main driver of AGW? You don't.
Al Gore started the CO2 blame game based on a lie. CO2 lagged behind temps in the ice core samples and so did methane. In fact, methane has a lesser lag time behind the temp rises than CO2. Why did he omit methane from his propaganda film?
I'd provide evidence but you'd dismiss it.
I'd say Al Gore wasn't a scientist but you'd keep invoking his name.
I'd argue that we don't know the 'main driver' of cancer either, but that doesn't stop the development of new targeted treatments.
I'd ask why you're watching propaganda films instead of reading your own reference material, but it'd be in vain.
Since we cannot know anything, then we shouldn't try.
22 Nov 19
@deepthought said50 pushups a day, avoid the gym, take the stairs.
Don't worry about it unless your physician is. I couldn't access the site, I did the "I'm not a robot" test and was then told that the site isn't available in the UK. This may mean that the advice there is faulty, so I'd recommend viewing what they say with a healthy dose of skepticism.
22 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidA carbon tax can easily be constructed to take into account total emissions, including wastage during production. This, incidentally, would hit coal as well, since coal beds are one of the sources of natural gas. Before the UK used North Sea gas we used coal gas, a major problem was the CO content, which was a popular method for suicides.
Natural gas extraction is a major source of methane emissions. A carbon tax would increase that since NG is low carbon. The sick irony is that a carbon tax would worsen methane emissions, a fuel that could be burned instead of wasted.
22 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidI've been avoiding seeing a GP (=physician) for the last decade and a half, it's probably time to see them. I spent 3 months recently trying exercise. It made no noticeable difference, and like all these things is difficult to maintain. It's probably a good idea on general principles, but it shows no sign of affecting my weight.
50 pushups a day, avoid the gym, take the stairs.
22 Nov 19
@deepthought saidI could never maintain the exercise routine into a schedule. The key (for me) is not trying to exercise, but simply doing a few things each day to get the heart rate up. Pushups first thing in the morning take < 5minutes and I walk the stairs to work on the 10th floor. Easy to maintain since it takes very little time. Doesn't do much for weight but improves fitness and mood.
I've been avoiding seeing a GP (=physician) for the last decade and a half, it's probably time to see them. I spent 3 months recently trying exercise. It made no noticeable difference, and like all these things is difficult to maintain. It's probably a good idea on general principles, but it shows no sign of affecting my weight.