New records for sea ice loss, greenhouse gas in 2012 (Update 2)

Aug 06, 2013 by Kerry Sheridan
Mosaic of images of the Arctic by MODIS. Credit: NASA

The world lost record amounts of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and spewed out all-time high levels of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, international climate scientists said Tuesday.

Last year was among the top 10 on record for global land and surface temperature since modern data collection began, said the State of the Climate report issued annually by researchers in Britain and the United States.

"The findings are striking," said Kathryn Sullivan, acting administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

"Our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place," she told reporters.

The peer-reviewed report did not go into the causes for the trends but experts said it should serve as a guide for policymakers as they prepare for the effects of rising seas and warming weather on communities and infrastructure.

Furthermore, it points to a new normal in which record-setting events are typical, particularly in the Arctic, where surface temperature rise is fast outpacing the rest of the world.

"It's hard to read the report and not be led to the conclusion that the task of reducing carbon emissions is now more urgent than ever," said Michael Mann, a leading US climatologist at Pennsylvania State University who was not involved in the research.

Globally, according to four independent analyses cited by the study "2012 ranked as the eighth or ninth warmest year since records began in the mid-to-late 1800s.

"The year was 0.14°C-0.17°C above the 1981-2010 average, depending on the dataset considered," said the report published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

When it comes to Arctic sea ice, a new record low was observed in September and another all-time low for snow cover was recorded in the Northern Hemisphere, it said.

"Surface temperatures in the Arctic are increasing at a rate about two times faster than the rest of the world," said Jackie Richter-Menge, research civil engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

"In the Arctic, the records or near records being reported from year to year are no longer anomalies or exceptions," she added.

"Really, they have become the rule for us, or the norm that we see in the Arctic and we expect to see for the foreseeable future."

The melt is also contributing to rising sea level. Average global sea level reached a record high in 2012, 1.4 inches (3.5 centimeters) above the 1993 to 2010 average.

"Most recently, over the past seven years or so, it appears that the ice melt is contributing more than twice as much to the global sea level rise compared with warming waters," said Jessica Blunden, climatologist at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Meanwhile, permafrost temperatures reached record highs in northern Alaska and 97 percent of the Greenland ice sheet showed some form of melt, four times greater than the average melt for this time of year.

The amount of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels also hit new highs, after a slight decline in recent years that followed the global financial crisis.

"In spring 2012, for the first time, the atmospheric CO2 concentration exceeded 400 parts per million at seven of the 13 Arctic observation sites," said the report.

Global average carbon dioxide reached 392.6 ppm, a 2.1 ppm increase from 2011, it said.

Droughts and unusual rains struck different parts of the globe last year, with "the worst drought in at least the past three decades for northeastern Brazil," it said.

"The Caribbean observed a very wet dry season and it was the Sahel's wettest rainy season in 50 years."

Sullivan said the findings "caution us, perhaps, to be looking at a likely future where extremes and intensity of some extremes are more frequent and more intense than what we have accounted for in the past."

On a positive note, the climate in Antarctica remained "relatively stable overall" and warm air led to the second smallest ozone hole in the past two decades, the report found.

Explore further: Sea-level surge at Antarctica linked to icesheet loss

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Aging Africa

Aug 29, 2014

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

Aug 29, 2014

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

EU project sails off to study Arctic sea ice

Aug 29, 2014

A one-of-a-kind scientific expedition is currently heading to the Arctic, aboard the South Korean icebreaker Araon. This joint initiative of the US and Korea will measure atmospheric, sea ice and ocean properties with technology ...

User comments : 46

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

radek
2.2 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
"The world lost record amounts of Arctic sea ice in 2012 and spewed out all-time high levels of greenhouse gases by burning fossil fuels, international climate scientists said Tuesday."

why they don`t mentioned about global sea ice which remains stable?



rug
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Ummmmm they did mention sea ice.....look in quote in you own post. sheesh
radek
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 06, 2013
Ummmmm they did mention sea ice.....look in quote in you own post. sheesh


they did mentione "Arctic sea ice" and that is true: it`s decreasing raopidly. But Antarctic sea ice area is growing. Globaly it`s stable.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
"The world lost record amounts of Arctic sea ice in 2012...."

A simple headline producing cherry pick?

This year, 2013, record *high* sea ice extent has been recorded this month in the Antarctic where 90% of planetary ice is located, and the measly Arctic has recovered a whopping 50% of last year's loss:

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Most of Arctic ice isn't the slush floating at the North Pole but the Greenland ice mass, and though coastal ice melting affords an overall ice mass loss during our interglacial era, exactly half of that lost mass is being regained as Antarctic ice mass, according to the IceSAT satellite, since in a naturally warmer and thus humid world both the Greenland interior and all of Antarctica represent subzero moisture sinks that helps moderate sea level rise.

"Amplified Global Warming theory falsified? Hey, let's scream about the weather!"
rug
2.4 / 5 (17) Aug 06, 2013
Yet, some how every study I've read shows that the Antarctic ice is melting and the sea ice is shrinking.......interesting.

What are your qualifications?
What are your sources?

Oh yeah, that's right, you have none. Denial is a natural part of grieving. Now, it's been over a decade since the information has come to light. Get over it, we are all screwed.
radek
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2013
Yet, some how every study I've read shows that the Antarctic ice is melting and the sea ice is shrinking.......interesting.

What are your qualifications?
What are your sources?

Oh yeah, that's right, you have none. Denial is a natural part of grieving. Now, it's been over a decade since the information has come to light. Get over it, we are all screwed.


just put your links in the post to show your sources

acces to this data is open:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
"2012 ranked as the eighth or ninth warmest year since records began in the mid-to-late 1800s."

SPOT THE LIE: Records did not begin in the 1800s. Just as Stradivarius was producing violins so too were technicians manufacturing thermometers, so real thermometer records began in the 1560, actually:

http://nikfromnyc...m/ldAOoE
rug
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
Hey Nik, learn to read a graph. Shows a downward trend of both of them.

It's not the sea ice that is a most of the problem. The Ice caps from Greenland and Antarctica could rise sea levels. Sea Ice does not. Kinda like ice in my tea, the ice melts and the tea level stays the same. If I put an new ice cube (that wasn't floating) my tea level increases. It sucks when the tea is already to the rim of my glass.
NikFromNYC
2.5 / 5 (20) Aug 06, 2013
It's a bake off. In one corner we have "rug" and in the other we have NASA's James Hansen:

(1) "Now, it's been over a decade since the information has come to light." -rug, 2013

(2) "The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing." James Hansen, 2013
radek
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2013
Hey Nik, learn to read a graph. Shows a downward trend of both of them.

It's not the sea ice that is a most of the problem. The Ice caps from Greenland and Antarctica could rise sea levels. Sea Ice does not. Kinda like ice in my tea, the ice melts and the tea level stays the same. If I put an new ice cube (that wasn't floating) my tea level increases. It sucks when the tea is already to the rim of my glass.


are you suggesting that " lost of record amounts of Arctic sea ice in 2012" is not important?

You said that EVERY source You read shows that "Antarctic ice is melting and the sea ice is shrinking" but You can`t show any link?

You can judge trends easily
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
rug
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Just put your links in the post to show your sources

acces to this data is open:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


No need, you just did for me. Strikes me as funny how you use graphs that clearly show a downward tend to say they "remains stable" If you notice in the graph the daily sea ice area has slowly been loosing steam. The growth has not gotten as high and the melt has been slightly sinking. Not to mention this nice little quote. From that same site. "Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%."

So once again I say show me your sources or get over it.
NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (18) Aug 06, 2013
rug taught me: "The Ice caps from Greenland and Antarctica could rise sea levels."

They are never above the melting point of water except for a few days a year along the surface.

The IPCC agrees that such subzero masses will *reduce* instead of increase sea level rise in a warming world, as does high school physics.

IceSAT summary:

"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry."
radek
2.1 / 5 (14) Aug 06, 2013
Just put your links in the post to show your sources

acces to this data is open:
http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg


No need, you just did for me. Strikes me as funny how you use graphs that clearly show a downward tend to say they "remains stable" If you notice in the graph the daily sea ice area has slowly been loosing steam. The growth has not gotten as high and the melt has been slightly sinking. Not to mention this nice little quote. From that same site. "Sea ice extent averaged over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased correspondingly over the past 50 years (shown right). The largest change has been observed in the summer months with decreases exceeding 30%."

So once again I say show me your sources or get over it.


where do You see downtrend?

Back to my first post and think globaly not by the perspective of Northern Hemisphere only! I shown You clear trends You`ve shown nothing.
NikFromNYC
2.2 / 5 (17) Aug 06, 2013
Sorry rug, for calling you radek. I can't tell who's who when I go online.

The arbitrary horizontal zero lines in those ice charts prevent one from judging if there's any trend change going on as CO₂ emissions surge:

http://s13.postim...mage.jpg
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2013
The blessed element Water, as its incarnation of ice, blesses the world by absorbing the element fire we release with the foul air element you call CO2.
Where therefore is the removal of fire from the world if its temperature is growing? Look to the patterns in Arctic and Antarctic winds. These reveal all: Heat and cold paradoxs are no longer enigma in the benediction of Water.
rug
2.9 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2013
are you suggesting that " lost of record amounts of Arctic sea ice in 2012" is not important?

Nope, just saying it's not as important as the land ice sheets.

You said that EVERY source You read shows that "Antarctic ice is melting and the sea ice is shrinking" but You can`t show any link?


Here are the things you really need to worry about if you live close to a coast line. http://nsidc.org/...d-today/
http://news.natio...science/
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
NikkieTard provides the following link to sea ice area, in response to an article about Sea Ice VOLUME.

"http://arctic.atm...ive.html" - NikkieTard

The TardieBoy claims to have a degree from MIT, but I have checked and MIT offers no degrees in dishonesty and stupidity.

Poor NikkieTard. Caught in yet another lie.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
"You can judge trends easily" - RadeKTard

The new TardieBoy follows in NikkieTard's footsteps and confuses sea ice volume with sea ice area.

Morons.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 06, 2013
VendicarE: The guys at M.I.T. that I collaborated with as a postdoc were geeks who needed to call us Harvard nerds over to add some creative spice to their clean room bunny suit projects when their sadly hyped up Media Lab failed to do so.

Claiming to have a degree from M.I.T. is beneath me, and the Ph.D. with honors is from Columbia. It was in organic (carbon) chemistry.

It's interesting that you must lie about what I have claimed, in order to catch me "lying."

Are you related to climatologist Peter Gleick who recently presented fake agenda documents along with identity theft obtained Heartland Institute donor lists, to try to associate mainstream grassroots skepticism with conservative think tanks?

How many of these other users are just your sockpuppets?

Role call!
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (19) Aug 06, 2013
In 2011 a study attributed recent Arctic ice variation not to warming itself but to shifts in wind currents that blow ice out towards warmer ocean areas:

http://www.the-cr...011.html

Though Global Warming may itself shift wind currents, so too may smooth or abrupt variations in ocean currents which due to the chaotic nature of fluid dynamics are by their very nature unpredictable.

Also, black carbon (soot) from coal plant expansion in China and now India at times may accelerate melting directly, so spending tax money on solar companies won't help, whereas using that same money to develop better scrubbers will indeed give ocean life more time to adapt to mildly enhanced natural warming. Both solar and scrubbing technology will develop vastly more effectively as soon as boondoggle money is channeled back into basic science R&D.

My audience here isn't smirkers, but popular book writers who will find these online posts as creative guides.
Water_Prophet
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2013
In 2011 a study attributed recent Arctic ice variation not to warming itself but to shifts in wind currents that blow ice out towards warmer ocean areas:

Though Global Warming may itself shift wind currents, so too may smooth or abrupt variations in ocean currents which due to the chaotic nature of fluid dynamics are by their very nature unpredictable.


Verily, Nik from the New City, as I prophesied.
djr
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2013
Nik - "This year, 2013, record *high* sea ice extent has been recorded this month in the Antarctic"

On other threads - Nik claims that climate scientists are engaged in fraudulent manipulation of the data - and that Nik is highly qualified to identify that this fraud is occuring. Yet - in a discussion of the issue of ice data - Nik clearly misrepresents the facts. A quick google search regarding ice data makes several things very clear. 1. Arctic ice continues to decline significantly. 2. The Antarctic is a much more mixed picture - extent is increasing, but volume is decreasing. 3. On balance - the Arctic and the Antarctic are losing ice.

This information is very easily accesible. Here is just one of many links that came us with a quick search. http://www.smartp...ker/7056
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2013
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2012 State of the Climate report revealed that Arctic sea ice reached a record low, while sea levels and greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning hit all-time highs last year.

I guess Nik is so all knowing to have his own State of the Climate report; (not). Didn't think so.

ekim
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2013
The problem with denying climate change is that it offers no useful predictions. According to denialists nothing is wrong so people should continue to build and invest based on historical trends. Insurance premiums will not rise due to increased natural disasters and 100 year events will only happen every 100 years on average. None of that is true.
The truth is that the best theory for predicting future events is the current theory of global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2013
"M.I.T. that I collaborated with as a postdoc" - NikkieTard

Sweeping their floors doesn't count toward your education TardieBoy.

If it did, you might actually have gotten more than a grade school education, and actually learned the difference between area and volume.

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2013
This is the first sentence in NikkieTard's own reference.

" Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate."

Which he claims says...

"In 2011 a study attributed recent Arctic ice variation not to warming itself but to shifts in wind currents" - NikkieTard

Liar.. Liar... Pants on Fire...

rug
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2013
The truth is that the best theory for predicting future events is the current theory of global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.


That is exactly the point I try to make to everyone. Even if you don't think it's true, can you really afford to ignore it? The way I see it. due to the overwhelming amount of these denialists a good chunk of life on this planet will be extinct. The human race being one of them. All because a lot of people cannot face the fact we are killing our selves.

I think we have enough to worry about with everything else the universe can wipe us out with. There is no need to be the ones that pull the trigger.
rug
2.4 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2013
There are some people that say we can't change the climate. It's to big for us to affect. I think these people need to look at the fact we have changed every bit of environment we come in contact with. We cut down trees until there is very little if any or the forest left. Pump out water from aquifers millions of years old until they are basically dried up. Till up the land so nothing will grow except what we want. So when it comes to the idea that we are pumping chemicals into the air that are changing the climate. It's really not that much of a stretch.

I think agent Smith in the Matrix had it right.
You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
radek
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2013
"You can judge trends easily" - RadeKTard

The new TardieBoy follows in NikkieTard's footsteps and confuses sea ice volume with sea ice area.

Morons.


there is one big difference between ice area and ice volume - we can MEASURE ice area changes precislly on daily basis but we can only ESTIMATE ice volume using some measurements and MODELS.

So You BELIEVE to models.
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2013
Vendicare:

I don't know why you worry about this so much. It's not like YOU can do anything to change the situation one way or another.

It is a societal problem which exists at the civilization scale. We need to cut 30 to 40% of all net carbon production, but the rate of population growth is still higher than the rate of cutting carbon production. Every billion humans produces 0.1ppm CO2 per year just from breathing, not counting the livestock, agriculture, and fuel needed just to feed and clothe them, even if they were otherwise hermits living a minimalist lifestyle.

Then the vegans want to say not to eat the meat, because they claim it's a waste of farm land. I explained that a lot of the livestock is raised on land which is insufficient for farming of ordinary crops, but grasses thrive on such land anyway. Moreover the animals aren't just fed grain, but also the shrink and waste parts of the plant crops, such as corn stalks and such.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
The point of all that is you cannot reduce a billion people's carbon footprint to any less than about 0.2 to 0.3ppm, even if you totally replaced all combustion engines with electric powered by solar and nuclear, which we are nowhere near achieving.

While it might be possible to accomplish that within several decades time, it would require massive, immediate action by all governments and corporations.

Every building which is currently on a coal grid needs to be covered in solar panels, or the coal plant replaced with nuclear.

Every desert or open space not suitable for agriculture or forestry needs to be converted to a solar farm. After all, you can't count acreage directly for the amount of solar energy you harvest. You waste slightly more than half the space because of required maintenance access, and other structural or organizational needs. This means you need at least twice as much land as the solar constant equivalent as you're harvesting.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
There are no solar or wind projects underway, anywhere, except maybe Germany, which are more than a drop in the bucket.

Some of the proposed offshore wind projects in the New York area are already being politicized and corruption is already evident, just in the proposals.

Oh yeah, maybe we need regulations and a study, so that all new homes in the U.S. in the south, at appropriate locations to be determined by Department of Energy, should be required to have a solar water pre-heater which can be used during the 6 warm months. I've seen people with home made units on the internet claiming it cut their energy bill by 20 to 30% or more for 6 months out of the year.

Yesterday, I was outside using the water hose, and when I first turned it on, I knew the water in the hose would be hot, but I didn't know it was THAT hot. There was scalding water, hotter than the electric heater coming out of a green hose that had just been lying on the ground, and it was like that for about a minute.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
Now that was just lying on the ground; no back mirror, no insulation or plexiglass to trap the heat longer, and it wasn't even black, it's a green hose.

I don't think vacuum insulated heat exchangers are required. I think you can just jury rig a grid of several black pipes, have tap water enter through the bottom and the warm water exit through the top. Instead of worrying about expensive vacuum tubes and heat exchangers, just put it in a wooden box, paint all the pipes and the interior surfaces of the box black, and caulk everything so it's air tight, and put a sheet of plexiglass over it.

If a green hose got as hot as that thing was yesterday, I think the device described above would get boiling hot. You would easily need a pressure release valve on the pipe for safety, and you'll also need a pressure release on the box itself to prevent the air pressure from blowing off the plexiglass. Yet that's a lot simpler and cheaper than the professional systems with the vacuum tubes.
wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2013
It's not the sea ice that is a most of the problem. The Ice caps from Greenland and Antarctica could rise sea levels. Sea Ice does not.


That's wrong directly and indirect:

1) Thermal expansion. Its not catastrophic, but it is the major cause of currently observed sea level rise over the last century.

2) Without sea ice the ocean becomes MUCH darker. Open ocean albedo is 0.06. This represents a huge positive feedback; if the sea ice goes the whole region heats up(including inland ice)

wwqq
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2013
Then the vegans want to say not to eat the meat, because they claim it's a waste of farm land. I explained that a lot of the livestock is raised on land which is insufficient for farming of ordinary crops, but grasses thrive on such land anyway.


Meanwhile, in the real world, grains that could otherwise feed 800 million people are fed to cattle in just the US alone. Grass fed beef might be a nice idea, but for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.
Lurker2358
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
Meanwhile, in the real world, grains that could otherwise feed 800 million people are fed to cattle in just the US alone. Grass fed beef might be a nice idea, but for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.


It does exist. Of course everything is supplemented with grain, but that only makes sense. Lots of people have grazing cattle. I don't know where you live, but I know we have them, and I know at least a few other people in the area who have cattle which are fed almost entirely from the grass.

Even some of the bigger operations on the farm network channel have cattle fed almost entirely from grass.

I'd also like to see some figures of where you got that value, that it would be enough grain to feed 800 million people. Grains can't do everything in people's diets anyway. Just look at the people in Asia who eat rice 3 times per day and have vitamin deficiencies. LSU even engineered a rice that makes vitamin A to try to solve the problem, but I think it wasn't used.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
Of course you know you can't just live on grain anyway. Our grain food products are artificially fortified with vitamins and minerals in order to make up for some of the slack. The grain is filling, and has energy, but it doesn't have many of the vitamins and minerals humans actually need. So I think your claim that the grain would feed 800 million people is bogus. Even if you did "feed" that many people with it, they'd be sick and deficient from not having the vitamins, minerals, and proteins they really need to live.

So your source is probably inflating the numbers, or using a piece of data in an unrealistic way, because in reality if you were going only for vegan diet, you'd still need to replace much of that grain with things like beans, butternut squash, nuts and peanuts(vs allergies), avacado, and other fruits and vegetables, etc.

Now not all of those things grow well in the same places as grain, so that conversion would still be unrealistic anyway.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
If beans and nuts are going to be your primary source of protein, I hate to break it to you, but nuts are nowhere near as energy dense, and protein-dense per acre as raising cattle, because you also have to take into account start up time for the nut trees to reach productivity, and that can be anywhere from several years to a few decades before the tree even produces; you have to count that against the lifetime average food-energy productivity and protein-productivity of the operation. Additionally, a tree has much more waste in terms of percent of it's body mass that is food value as compared to grains, cattle(via grass), potatoes and carrots, or even most vegetables. Which is to say, compared to the total energy a fruit or nut tree takes in, only a tiny amount goes into the food mass. Whereas in a potato or grass for grazing, almost all of the energy goes into the food mass. Since cattle have about a 40% shrink rate, bone es recycled to gelatin, then grass biomass is 60% efficient.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
Another thing I forgot to mention:

Most of the "shrink" from cattle, i.e. the hide, organs and such, goes into belts and other leather products, pet food or fishing bait. You certainly cannot say the same for the shrink from a bean plant, because bean and pea plant's biomass is too rich and can make cattle sick, meaning that unlike corn and grains, you can't feed the bean stalks to cattle; well, you can, but you have to "cut" it into a low enough concentration, which most farmers don't have the time or resources to be bothered with. So it makes more sense to raise grass, corn, and other grains, and feed the grass and the corn stalks to cattle, rather than to have twice as many bean stalks rotting in the fields.

If the wasted plant biomass tha thumans don't eat or use directly is going to decay anyway, you may as well feed it to animals and capture some of the energy and nutrients for later storage.

I don't "get" why you guys don't "get it". It's pretty obvious.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
Negative me if you like.

You're also forgetting that grains and grasses require less water than the fruits, nuts, and vegatables you'd need to supplement that vegan diet. So replacing the cattle and also replacing some of the grain fields with vegetable, fruit, and nut operations would actually put more stress on the water budget per calorie.

Vegetables are a lot more delicate and require more management and picking to be truly efficient, compared to grains. When they harvest grain, they take it all in one go, as the parts of the field they find most ready to harvest.

If you want vegetable gardening to be efficient, you really have to pick through each plant every day or two by hand to find the ripened produce. If you miss a day, it over-ripens and rots on the vine. Pick it too soon and it's too small and a waste.

While large scale tomato farming is done with near total automation now, there is much to be wanted, with only one picking, and all the rejects thrown back for seed.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
While I'm probably the least agriculturally inclined male in my family, the fact remains that unlike most Americans in my generation, I grew up picking fields by hand for my grandparents and a few aunts, and even my parents in many cases.

Why don't you try picking a half acre, or a full acre of beans by hand, and then come back and tell me which is easiest: Raise a few cows on an acre, or pick an acre of beans by hand.

And no, people who have farms of less than about 600 acres can't afford advanced harvesting machinery like combines and such. Even farms that large often have to share equipment with others because it's too expensive to be practical.

If you have 300 acres with cattle on it, I can sure as hell guarantee you that's a hell of a lot easier to harvest and manage than 300 acres of beans or nuts. You can harvest cattle as you need them or as they reach peak growth performance, with minimal labor. Harvesting stuff like beans and nuts takes either automation or a workforce.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
Another thing you may not be aware of is these small and medium scale farming operations do have some benefits over larger ones. The man I had in mind with the 300 acres worth had mixed fields and forests for the cattle to graze in. The cattle keep the shrubs from robbing the trees of nutrients, and their droppings fertilize the area, so they are able to grow trees for lumber efficiently while simultaneously grazing cattle on grasses and shrubs for massively efficient food production.

Unfortunately, the man I have in mind recently passed away, but the point remains I saw this in operation. He didn't have truck loads of grain coming in. He had hundreds of cattle basically free grazing on, I think, 3 segments of land.

The deforestation involved was only selective, as he sold trees that were big enough to be harvested, but they were replaced in most cases.

You people are so naive and narrow minded about this. A guy who never once set foot in a field wants to tell farms how to operate..
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
Now I went and checked the labels on the protein for nuts (pistachios w/ sea salt,) and (cooked)red beans.

What I found is to make your recommended 50g per day protein allowance, you'd need to eat 8.33 servings, or about 17oz. of Pistachios. This would account for 1400 calories of your diet. You have not yet eaten any veggies or fruits, and haven't drank class of milk yet.

In other words, it's not possible to get a balanced diet from Pistachios as your protein source, because by the time you eat the other stuff you need for calcium, potassium, vitamins, etc, which comes from, dairy, veggies, etc, you'd be way over your calorie limits.

I checked peanut butter and that is much more protein dense than beans or pistachios, while having a much lower total calorie count than the Pistachios for the same amount of protein. All natural peanut butter has more 'good' fats than bad, so it is a reasonable option, but many people are allergic.

Beans are far, far more protein efficient than nuts.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
In order to reach 50g of protein from a can of cooked red beans ( used Blue Runner brand,) you would need to eat 6 servings of the beans, or an entire can of 27oz. This provides 980 calories.

So the beans are actually less protein dense per unit weight than the nuts, but they have a much lower calorier per unit protein ratio, making them easier to fit into a balanced diet.

Now it's true you get a few grams of protein from a glass of milk, and pick up a few more grams randomly from everything else you eat, so that might reduce the needed value by a serving for those solid foods, but who wants to eat 23oz of beans every day, or 14 oz of nuts, or 5 tablespoons of peanut butter...every day? Those things are edible and whatever, but they are nowhere near anyone's favorites.

In protein density the peanut butter was best.

In calories vs protein ratio, the beans had the lowest value, leaving the most calorie room to work in other balancing foods, but you have to eat 1.5 POUNDS per day...
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2013
Now let me re-stress what I was saying.

Even though the individual nuts have more protein per unit mass than the beans, the nuts have too much carbs and fats, even though some of the fats are good fats. Additionally the nuts do not produce as much per unit land, by the time you count "down time" for the first few years of the tree. So the beans are clearly better than the nuts, even though you'd need to eat 1.5 pounds per day to get the RDA of protein. Peas and beans also work well as a "cover crop" for corn, because they fix nitrogen. However, if you grow them that way harvesting and sorting edible parts will be much harder.

At any rate, in order to have a "balanced diet" you'll still need to fit in lots of greens, vegetables and fruits; the saying goes that you should eat something from each color of the rainbow every day.

The nut problem is a big reason why humans eat so much meat, as meat is far more protein dense than nuts compared to both calories and mass.
Lurker2358
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2013
80% lean chuck is 600 calories per 52g protein.

Now you tell me which one is healthier?

600 cal per 52g protein for meat. (amazingly 10oz!)
980 cal per 50g protein for beans. (27 oz)
1400 cal per 50g protein for pistachios. (16oz)

you're fricken ignorant.

Hamburgers (minus the mayonaise which I don't like,) are literally healthier than the nuts or pistachios, and they are so much more protein dense per unit mass, and protein dense per unit calorie that its a joke.

1000lbs of nuts doesn't grow on a tree in 2 years. 1000lbs of meat does grow on cattle in about 2 years.

I know an acre doesn't produce 500 pounds of actual shelled beans in a year, but a cow can grow from calf to 1000 pounds in about 2 to 2.5 years, on 2 acres of land, with use half/save half strategy.