1 of 2
1
The actual cause of Earth tilting, climatic change and it really IS our fault?
Posted: 20 June 2012 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8381
Joined  2005-04-17

Maybe we better start redistributing all that weight?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/439/abstract

The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass

Sarah C Walpole, David Prieto-Merino, Phil Edwards, John Cleland, Gretchen Stevens and Ian Roberts

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Public Health 2012, 12:439 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-439
Published: 18 June 2012
Abstract (provisional)
Background

The energy requirement of species at each trophic level in an ecological pyramid is a function of the number of organisms and their average mass. Regarding human populations, although considerable attention is given to estimating the number of people, much less is given to estimating average mass, despite evidence that average body mass is increasing. We estimate global human biomass, its distribution by region and the proportion of biomass due to overweight and obesity.
Methods

For each country we used data on body mass index (BMI) and height distribution to estimate average adult body mass. We calculated total biomass as the product of population size and average body mass. We estimated the percentage of the population that is overweight (BMI > 25) and obese (BMI > 30) and the biomass due to overweight and obesity.
Results

In 2005, global adult human biomass was approximately 287 million tonnes, of which 15 million tonnes were due to overweight (BMI > 25), a mass equivalent to that of 242 million people of average body mass (5% of global human biomass). Biomass due to obesity was 3.5 million tonnes, the mass equivalent of 56 million people of average body mass (1.2% of human biomass). North America has 6% of the world population but 34% of biomass due to obesity. Asia has 61% of the world population but 13% of biomass due to obesity. One tonne of human biomass corresponds to approximately 12 adults in North America and 17 adults in Asia. If all countries had the BMI distribution of the USA, the increase in human biomass of 58 million tonnes would be equivalent in mass to an extra 935 million people of average body mass, and have energy requirements equivalent to that of 473 million adults.
Conclusions

Increasing population fatness could have the same implications for world food energy demands as an extra half a billion people living on the earth.

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 June 2012 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21

Eh… I can see it requiring additional food upkeep and whatnot, but NOT any effect, whatsoever, on the planet’s alignment, axial tilt, or orbit. For one, the amount of humanity on this speck of dirt is VERY insignifigant compared to the overall weight of the planet. For two - We’re even insignifigant compared to other species - beetles alone have us outweighed by a considerable margin. For three - it doesn’t matter how much we eat, it’s still not changing the mass of the planet in the least, as all the elements and whatnot are already on the planet.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2012 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Senior Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  534
Joined  2009-08-10
Robin Bobcat - 20 June 2012 01:28 PM

it’s still not changing the mass of the planet in the least, as all the elements and whatnot are already on the planet.

I’ve wondered about this from time to time. Obviously space missions have taken some resources off of the planet, metals and fuel etc, there is the odd addition when a meteor strikes the earth, but what about plants? Plants require resources that are already on the Earth; soil/nutrients and water, but they also use sunlight; so is a plant the sum of the parts of nutrition, water and sun and as such is accumulating mass by absorbing the sun’s energy? It might be a tiny amount of mass, but does any one have an answer?

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2012 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21

Umm.. energy doesn’t add mass*.  Basic physics. E = MC2 and all.

There is some material added - space dust, particles of solar wind, and even the odd meteorite. By the same token, bits of our atmosphere are also blown away. On the whole, though - the overall mass of the earth doesn’t change. Plants grow, but they do so by absorbing chemicals from the earth and recombining them into more plant.

Math time!

Let’s see.. Wiki sez that the earth recieves 3,850,000 ExaJoules per year. That is a LOT of mojo. Of that, only 3,000 Ej is actually used by plants. STILL a lot of mojo. Now then.. one gram of matter, if you were able to convert it directly into energy, would be 89.9 TeraJoules. This works out to 42,825 kilograms of matter converted into energy by the sun to provide our annual sun quota, but only 33.3 kilos required to satisfy every green thing on the planet. Now the trick is, they aren’t converting that energy back into matter. They’re just using it to restructure elements and suchnot.

*Caveat: Some energy particles DO have mass.. but it’s very, very, VERY low…

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2012 06:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8381
Joined  2005-04-17

While I was being facetious about growing human body mass vs Earth’s axis, both of you do inspire other questions though.  Obviously plants, animals and minerals exchange stuff from each other constantly and while there are chemical changes, everything keeps exchanging back and forth, even stuff that moves up into the atmosphere generally comes back down again though some just keeps moving off into space….while then some stuff from space eventually finds its way here. 

But, what happens to energy (generating from here)?  Some remains I’m sure, but probably not all of it.  Each living organism generates energy….what happens to that energy when they stop generating it?

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2012 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

And then the knowledge that the average human has 5 lb inside him/her in organic matter. I.e. bacteria, fungi, creepy crawlers and his/her lunch.
All tilting…

 

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 June 2012 11:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6926
Joined  2005-10-21
hulitoons - 21 June 2012 06:04 AM

While I was being facetious about growing human body mass vs Earth’s axis, both of you do inspire other questions though.  Obviously plants, animals and minerals exchange stuff from each other constantly and while there are chemical changes, everything keeps exchanging back and forth, even stuff that moves up into the atmosphere generally comes back down again though some just keeps moving off into space….while then some stuff from space eventually finds its way here. 

But, what happens to energy (generating from here)?  Some remains I’m sure, but probably not all of it.  Each living organism generates energy….what happens to that energy when they stop generating it?

Well, living critters generate three kinds of energy.

The first is chemical energy. This isn’t strictly speaking E=MC2 energy (though it is if you look at it close enough), and generally, it sticks around. In fact, this is pretty much the purpose of eating something: it has high chemical energy, and/or enough building blocks that your chemical energy can turn it into something you need. That energy isn’t going to be leaving the food chain, really. Either it’ll get eaten, or decomposed (which is eating on a very small level), and in some cases, the chemicals will fall apart on their own. Either way, it’s not going anyplace.

The second is electrical energy. Nerves carry signals, etc. It’s not a LOT of energy mind you, but it’s there. This does generate electromagnetic fields, however weak. Still, it’s going to stay insie the organism, with an incredibly tiny (the technical term is ‘non-zero’ amount of that energy making it outside our planet due to electromagnetic induction or other exotic mechanisms. Again, nothing to write home about. It’s just too weak, and there’s too much ‘noise’.

The third is heat energy. Critters actually produce a LOT of this. Fun trivia: by volume, a human being produces more heat than the sun! Of course, the sun has a LOT more cubic meters… Still, this is radiant electromagnetic energy at its finest. Most of this will be trapped in the atmosphere, but it’ll also radiate outwards. This is why it’s good that we’re getting energy from the sun and food and such, because otherwise, we’d lose it all to space.

There are a couple other exotic forms of energy, but those are covered under the aegis of just about any chunk of matter. For example, everything has mass, and therefore produces gravity.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2012 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8381
Joined  2005-04-17

So, we’re all pretty darn pathetic and all that ego-magnetism some believe they have doesn’t amount to a few fallen beans in the end…......

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 June 2012 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

So if the heavy weights bent over in the same direction and break wind, they should be able to push us back.
It´s all about emissions nowadays. And were to put them.

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2012 01:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26038
Joined  2004-11-08

A slight aside…

Robin Bobcat - 21 June 2012 05:28 AM

Umm.. energy doesn’t add mass*

Yes it does.  Energy and mass are the SAME THING.  Increasing one is the same as increasing the other.

Wikipedia - Mass-energy equivalence - 18 April 2014 03:54 PM

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy, and energy is a property of all mass, and the two properties are connected by a constant.

If you take an object and heat it up you have increased its mass.  As it cools it looses mass in the form of heat energy.  For a really funky one try winding a clock spring.  Doing so stores potential energy in the spring, which according to Einstein increases the mass of the spring.  This isn’t one of those “well, if you look at it from this point of view it kinda works out that way…” ideas either.  It’s an actual, physical fact of life.  Light traveling though space has mass.  It affects planetary orbits.  And all of that from a ‘massless’ particle.*

Of course the amount of mass is so staggeringly small as to be unmeasurable when used with everyday objects, though I’m sure someone could estimate the amount of the earth’s mass that comes only from sunlight.  Since the earth also radiates energy back into space I’m not sure what the net gain/loss would be though.  I imagine it fluctuates over time.

Mass-energy equivalence via Wikipedia

* how a particle that contains energy can be said to be massless eludes me.  As far as I understand it we should theoretically be able to gather enough photons and create an apple from them, or at least from the energy they contain.  I’m afraid an actual physicist might have to answer that one.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2012 09:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8381
Joined  2005-04-17

Thank you Chary, we are NOT so pathetic then!!! 

 Signature 

SilentTone: hulitoons blog of just plain silliness?
UBUNTU’ in the Xhosa culture means: ‘I am because we are.)”  So, I AM because WE are

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 June 2012 03:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  26038
Joined  2004-11-08

That’s not quite true.  The article itself seems rather sensible.  Increasing the average size of humans is equivalent to increasing the number of humans.  This should be taken into account when estimating the impact increasing population has, though I’m not sure if it even falls outside of the standard margin-of-error for such calculations. 

I think the main argument being made against this report is your use of the word ‘Tilt’ in the header.  This word appears nowhere in the report, and the report doesn’t seem to address, at all, our impact on the earth itself as opposed to its biosphere.  While we most certainly can and do affect the biosphere, our affect on the earth as a planet is essentially nonexistent.  Even our impact on the surface of the earth will eventually be almost completely erased by plate tectonics.

 Signature 

Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically.
All the angels must be snoring.  Who could stand perfection for eternity?

Not me. - George Hrab

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Invisible gorillas      RIP Caroline John ››