Climate Science 101

[Pliny]

I told you not to do it Pliny!

If you have a beef with that wyly quote you offer, I expect you should take it up with wyly... notwithstanding your grandiose obtuse, boring, idiot self.

You took it up for him, waldo. I'm just saying the generation of CO2 from any source contributes to overall CO2

no, again... they do not. Again, Pliny - just think about open versus closed loops and effective net contribution... sure you can!

I don't know if you are confused yourself or are just trying to confuse people. I suspect both, really.

You are talking about the cycling of carbon in open and closed loops. I am talking about the chemical combining of one part carbon and two parts oxygen. No matter how look at it, it is CO2 and, if I'm not mistaken, total CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, is the concern.

[Pliny]

deep! Pliny Deep™!

Glad you liked it, (w)aldo. Sorry, I don't have a mathematical formula you can use. As difficult as it may be, you'll just have to figure things out for yourself. You could probably make a scale of probability as to which person belongs in which category but you would have to agree with the premise. You could make a whole thesis on it.

What's a good one as an example. I know, the brain goes out of kilter entirely by chemical imbalances. Therefore we just have to add chemicals that will re-balance the brain's chemicals. There's a whole billion dollar industry behind that one. You just have to forget that people have volition and therefore everyone is not responsible for their actions. After all, no one really knows how to control the electro-chemical process that occurs in their brain to keep the proper balance therefore we can all be irresponsible. Unfortunately, that means we are all insane. Scary, to even consider. Isn't it, waldo?

Observation tells me that the premise is, in all probability, wrong. And the electro-chemical processes are effects not causes.

It's another glorious day! Have a good one, waldo.

(P)liny

Edited November 18, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

wyly has things in hand distinguishing the carbon isotope variants of CO2... let me just add a bit to dispel what I initially read as levity over the (now several) references to human respiration affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a human/animal bodily input, eating plants or eating animals that eat plants... the human/animal bodily output causes no effective net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere - the amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was originally taken out of the CO2 in the air by plants through photosynthesis. Of course, burning fossil fuels is the real (enhanced greenhouse effect) culprit - putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that plants previously removed.

The discussion centered on identifying the anthropogenic cause for the relatively recent increase in atmospheric CO2... mass spectrometry puts a real damper into one of the life-bloods of you deniers - hey?... providing definitive proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2.

however; I do note you're still struggling with that exhalation point... you know, the point made that human/animal respiratory CO2 exhalation has no net contributing input to the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - as before, Pliny... just think about open versus closed loops. Do that and it just might click for you... but beware, it'll probably give you denier indigestion.

I'm just saying the generation of CO2 from any source contributes to overall CO2

You are talking about the cycling of carbon in open and closed loops. I am talking about the chemical combining of one part carbon and two parts oxygen. No matter how look at it, it is CO2 and, if I'm not mistaken, total CO2 in the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, is the concern.

bugger off... there were two distinct separate discussions - the nonsensical one concerning human exhalation affecting net additions of CO2 to the atmosphere... and the boring, idiotic one concerning carbon variants in/of CO2 that you principally championed trying to argue with yourself! Go re-read your previous post to see how you managed to bridge both - hey, Mr. Wizard?

[waldo]

Proper nouns are almost always capitalized. A rule I generally follow is that a proper name not capitalized by the user is an indication the user does not consider individuality important. Another reason is that typing a capital letter requires the burdensome pressing of the caps key. It isn't long before I can determine which reason applies to which person.

deep! Pliny Deep™!

I got nuthin!

deeper! Even deeper than Pliny Deep™!

[GostHacked]

Overall I agree Pliny

Even when they talk about anthropogenic globaw warming (mad made) are they talking about the CO2 that comes out of our mouths or the CO2 we put into the air through buring fossile fuels?

Both froms of CO2 can be categorized as anthropogenic.

PLANT FOOD ??? hehehehehehhehehehhe AHAHAHAH LOLS.

Waldo Shallow.

[waldo]

Overall I agree Pliny

excellent! By the way, which of you knobs talked about holding your breath?

[GostHacked]

excellent! By the way, which of you knobs talked about holding your breath?

Well, since I am not one who buys into the hype where the claim is that CO2 is the biggest concern, i am more than happy and content with giving some plants some food.

We have screwed this planet up in so many other ways, this CO2 bit seems almost irrelevant to me. GM foods, geo-enginering, toxic and radioactive wastes, .... CO2 is a distraction from the REAL problem. And I am not really sure what the biggest problem is anymore, we have a lot of people telling us the sky is always falling but the reaons are always changing.

The CO2 story has been chaning so much over the past decade, I am not sure if they really believe what they are telling us.

My plan would reduce all these toxic emmissions while at the same time it would take care of the CO2 problem. Toxicity is what your focus should be. ALL toxins. You are being tricked into thinking that the CO2 is going to kill us all.

[Keepitsimple]

Back to the Royal Society....who claim that CO2 persistence in the atmosphere is over a thousand years. I believe the IPCC says that CO2 stays around for in the area of 200 years. Yet.....there are recent peer reviewed studies that show that persistence is closer to 10 years. This major plank of APG Global Warming would appear to be in jeopardy of being discarded. I'm surprised (well, not really) that this hasn't gotten more play. Would the alarmist community be prepared to admit that if true, this revelation would seriously alter the theory that has us on the road to doomsday?

Of great concern to Dr Kaiser was one paragraph under the heading The Carbon Cycle and Climate where the RS says:

“Current understanding indicates that even if there was a complete cessation of emissions of CO2 today from human activity, it would take several millennia for CO2 concentrations to return to preindustrial concentrations” [emphasis added].

Dr Kaiser’s article raises questions about the competence of authors of the Royal Society document. The German chemist expertly counters the claims by the Royal Society that it would take “millennia” for atmospheric CO2 to return to preindustrial levels. Such a claim, he says, “cannot be true.”

Kaiser refers to several peer-reviewed papers reporting the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere to be “between 5 and 10 years.” The chemist calculates that with a half-life of 5 years means that more than 98% of a substance will disappear in a time span of 30 years.

The German then poses the question that if CO2 were to stay in the atmosphere for millennia, why has its level in the atmosphere not doubled in the last 15 years, or gone up tenfold-plus over the last hundred years?

Link: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

[Pliny]

bugger off... there were two distinct separate discussions - the nonsensical one concerning human exhalation affecting net additions of CO2 to the atmosphere... and the boring, idiotic one concerning carbon variants in/of CO2 that you principally championed trying to argue with yourself! Go re-read your previous post to see how you managed to bridge both - hey, Mr. Wizard?

Those are just chemical reactions and neurons and synapses snapping and popping there, waldo.

Need a re-balancing agent?

CO2 is CO2. Agreed?

[Pliny]

Overall I agree Pliny

Even when they talk about anthropogenic globaw warming (mad made) are they talking about the CO2 that comes out of our mouths or the CO2 we put into the air through buring fossile fuels?

Both froms of CO2 can be categorized as anthropogenic.

PLANT FOOD ??? hehehehehehhehehehhe AHAHAHAH LOLS.

Waldo Shallow.

They just say CO2 is a GHG. We produce CO2 when we breathe so we are contributing to the total production of CO2. Most of our activities producing and using energy produce CO2. It all adds up making a total.

In my opinion, guys like Maurice Strong, who drew up the Kyoto accord, was leaving a legacy.

I am reminded of the joke people took seriously but bankers must have laughed at when it was said that, "Money does not grow on trees.". In fact "money" had become a fiat "paper" currency. Harvest it, cut it up, put some fancy printing on it and Voila! "Money" did in fact grow on trees.

But carbon taxes in any form, be they direct taxes or carbon trading, are a means of taxing everyone's existence because they are going to need to use energy, and the more they use the more they will be taxed, individually and as nations, businesses and large corporations.

[Pliny]

Back to the Royal Society....who claim that CO2 persistence in the atmosphere is over a thousand years. I believe the IPCC says that CO2 stays around for in the area of 200 years. Yet.....there are recent peer reviewed studies that show that persistence is closer to 10 years. This major plank of APG Global Warming would appear to be in jeopardy of being discarded. I'm surprised (well, not really) that this hasn't gotten more play. Would the alarmist community be prepared to admit that if true, this revelation would seriously alter the theory that has us on the road to doomsday?

Link: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

Error! Error! Does not compute! Need chemical re-balancing agent!

[dre]

They just say CO2 is a GHG. We produce CO2 when we breathe so we are contributing to the total production of CO2. Most of our activities producing and using energy produce CO2. It all adds up making a total.

In my opinion, guys like Maurice Strong, who drew up the Kyoto accord, was leaving a legacy.

I am reminded of the joke people took seriously but bankers must have laughed at when it was said that, "Money does not grow on trees.". In fact "money" had become a fiat "paper" currency. Harvest it, cut it up, put some fancy printing on it and Voila! "Money" did in fact grow on trees.

But carbon taxes in any form, be they direct taxes or carbon trading, are a means of taxing everyone's existence because they are going to need to use energy, and the more they use the more they will be taxed, individually and as nations, businesses and large corporations.

But carbon taxes in any form, be they direct taxes or carbon trading, are a means of taxing everyone's existence because they are going to need to use energy

No it will tax people that use energy sources that produce lots of co2. Youre statement assumes we cant make energy without high co2 emissions, and thats not true. Why would a person using nuclear energy be taxes? Or a person using hydroelectric energy?

Theres absolutely no reason why we cant use TWICE as much energy as we do now, while producing a fraction of the CO2.

They just say CO2 is a GHG. We produce CO2 when we breathe so we are contributing to the total production of CO2. Most of our activities producing and using energy produce CO2. It all adds up making a total.

Increased population means increased CO2 being breathed into the atmosphere. Carbon taxes and carbon offsets mean we are already being taxed for it.

With all due respect the above quotes and all the other nonsense about humans breathing co2 is really ridiculous.

The co2 we breath out comes from a process called "cell respiration" or "cellular oxidation". This is the exothermic process that produces energy in our cellular mitochondria, and provides energy for all other cell functions. The process requires two different "fuels". Oxygen (which we breath in), and glucose which is where the carbon comes from. Oxygen and Glucose combine to make CO2, and thats why we exhale it.

The glucose comes from carbohydrates, fats and proteins that you consume by eating plants and animals. If you didnt eat those plants and animals the carbon in their tissue would still be released when something else ate them, or they eventually rotted.

Every single bit of carbon that you breath out is carbon you have already taken from the natural carbon cycle, all youre doing is closing the cycle by putting it back in.

But when we burn fossil fuels we add carbon into the cycle that has been trapped in the ground for millions and millions of years. That carbon WOULD NOT be in the cycle otherwise.

Edited November 19, 2010 by dre

[waldo]

Back to the Royal Society....who claim that CO2 persistence in the atmosphere is over a thousand years. I believe the IPCC says that CO2 stays around for in the area of 200 years. Yet.....there are recent peer reviewed studies that show that persistence is closer to 10 years. This major plank of APG Global Warming would appear to be in jeopardy of being discarded. I'm surprised (well, not really) that this hasn't gotten more play. Would the alarmist community be prepared to admit that if true, this revelation would seriously alter the theory that has us on the road to doomsday?

Link: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

Simple... is... very persistent!

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.

from the last time Simple tried to flog residence time as the next 'smoking gun':

The key word again is "concensus" - which leaves considerable room for scepticism of how much of a driver CO2 actually is. One of the major planks of the CO2 theory is "residence time" - how long CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being recycled by the oceans. Almost all studies have shown that CO2 residency time is relatively short - 10 years or less. The IPCC and their models use a residency time of 100 years. Was that choice driven by "consensus" or by convenience?

Link: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5e507c9970c-pi

Here's some peer-reviewed (not that it counts for much these days) information about CO2 Residence Time:

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC.

Link: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

almost all studies, hey Simple? Without even giving your Solomon "The Denier's" graphic any consideration... how many of those studies are considering the molecular level of CO2 versus it's residual time within a fluid dynamic system... oh, say... one like the carbon cycle, perhaps! Again, you continue to generically reference "IPCC models" - in this particular reference you make, care to specify which particular models you're so designating? Didn't think so... /snarc

Simple, when in doubt, check the search function within MLW - as we've danced on this residence point, at least once previously - here, with special consideration towards your citation reference, R.H. Essenhigh: that post, once again, with emphasis!

Even though there are several statements of probability, there are also several key statements of certainty. For the IPCC, at least some important fundamental science is settled. The following is an example of one of the IPCC's statements of certainty:

“Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the time scales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere. {7.3, 10.3}”.

In the article “Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO2 in the Air”, available here, Tom V. Segalstad, Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, The University of Oslo, Norway, writes:

“In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO₂ in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO₂, the molecule ¹²CO₂, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule ¹⁴CO₂ is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. ...”.

Putting aside R. Essenhigh’s main assertion concerning CO2 residence times, within that same linked to article, R. Essenhigh also throws in an assortment of other claims that have (also) been soundly refuted… R. Essenhigh also offers the following false assertions: that:

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa.”

False

– the accepted feedback system is one where a CO2 induced temperature increase results in warming that causes oceans to outgas CO2 to the atmosphere in response to a lowering of CO2 solubility in warmer ocean water…increased warming causes increased atmospheric CO2 which brings forward the greenhouse effect….. in terms of global warming, temperature increases do not drive CO2 increases.

-

R. Essenhigh states

: “Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapour.”

False

– anthropogenic CO2 upsets the rough natural carbon cycle emission-absorption balance… where a percentage of human CO2 emissions are not being absorbed and remain in the atmosphere.

False

– Essenhigh’s claim reflects upon water vapour’s radiative transfer impact range as limited to the lowest 2km of the atmosphere and discounts the radiative transfer aspects of CO2 within the 2km-to-8km portion of the atmosphere… notwithstanding, the positive warming feedback loop between increased CO2 and water vapour.

In regards R. Essenhigh’s principal assertion concerning CO2 residence times, he addresses the simple molecule focused residence time of CO2 and completely discounts the much longer effective residence time relative to the near equilibrium between ocean/atmosphere and atmosphere/biosphere. The following paper from David Archer, one of the world’s pre-eminent climatologists, soundly refutes any of R. Essenhigh’s claims concerning CO2 residence times:

Summary

The carbon cycle of the biosphere will take a long time to completely neutralize and sequester anthropogenic CO2. We show a wide range of model forecasts of this effect. For the best guess cases, which include air/seawater, CaCO3, and silicate weathering equilibria as affected by an ocean temperature feedback, we expect that 17–33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10–15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30–35 kyr.

A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 104 years is in start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a sensible number to choose, because it captures the behaviour of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of 300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime, and hence its interaction with major ice sheets, ocean methane clathrate deposits, and future glacial/interglacial cycles. One could sensibly argue that public discussion should focus on a time frame within which we live our lives, rather than concern ourselves with climate impacts tens of thousands of years in the future. On the other hand, the 10 kyr lifetime of nuclear waste seems quite relevant to public perception of nuclear energy decisions today.

A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ‘‘300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.’’

Edited November 19, 2010 by waldo

[waldo]

Link: http://www.suite101.com/content/royal-society-humiliated-by-global-warming-basic-math-error-a296746

from the linked article:

Leading Canadian climate scientist, Professor Tim Ball...

:lol:

Tim Ball... disinformer!

Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that over the course of his career Ball published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years. Ball's degree is in historical geography.

Ball and the oil industry

Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS).

Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project" (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources.

DeSmog recently uncovered information showing that two of the founding directors of the NRSP are lobbyists for the energy sector.

Ball is on the board of research advisors for the Frontier Center For Public Policy. According to its website, FCPP receives 9% of its funding from national corporations and 74% from foundations. However, the think tank's individual funding sources are not listed. FCPP describes itself as "an independent, non-profit think tank founded to undertake research and education in support of economic growth and social outcomes which will enhance the quality of life in our communities."

Friends of Science Oil Connection

In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the Friends of Science admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry.

In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature, FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding this fact. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.

Ball inflates credentials

Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball. His degree was in historical geography, not climatology.

[waldo]

With all due respect the above quotes and all the other nonsense about humans breathing co2 is really ridiculous.

The co2 we breath out comes from a process called "cell respiration" or "cellular oxidation". This is the exothermic process that produces energy in our cellular mitochondria, and provides energy for all other cell functions. The process requires two different "fuels". Oxygen (which we breath in), and glucose which is where the carbon comes from. Oxygen and Glucose combine to make CO2, and thats why we exhale it.

The glucose comes from carbohydrates, fats and proteins that you consume by eating plants and animals. If you didnt eat those plants and animals the carbon in their tissue would still be released when something else ate them, or they eventually rotted.

Every single bit of carbon that you breath out is carbon you have already taken from the natural carbon cycle, all youre doing is closing the cycle by putting it back in.

But when we burn fossil fuels we add carbon into the cycle that has been trapped in the ground for millions and millions of years. That carbon WOULD NOT be in the cycle otherwise.

ah yes, a fresh dose of reality... will Pliny finally... get it?

wyly has things in hand distinguishing the carbon isotope variants of CO2... let me just add a bit to dispel what I initially read as levity over the (now several) references to human respiration affecting CO2 levels in the atmosphere. As a human/animal bodily input, eating plants or eating animals that eat plants... the human/animal bodily output

causes no effective net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere

- the amount of exhaled CO2 represents carbon that was originally taken out of the CO2 in the air by plants through photosynthesis. Of course, burning fossil fuels is the real (enhanced greenhouse effect) culprit - putting CO2 back into the atmosphere that plants previously removed.

The discussion centered on identifying the anthropogenic cause for the relatively recent increase in atmospheric CO2... mass spectrometry puts a real damper into one of the life-bloods of you deniers - hey?... providing definitive proof that the burning of fossil fuels is the cause of increased atmospheric CO2.

however; I do note you're still struggling with that exhalation point... you know, the point made that human/animal respiratory CO2 exhalation has no net contributing input to the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere - as before, Pliny...

just think about open versus closed loops

. Do that and it just might click for you... but beware, it'll probably give you denier indigestion.

[dre]

ah yes, a fresh dose of reality... will Pliny finally... get it?

BTW... When we breath it doesnt contribute to AGW but when we fart it does. The bacteria that digests your food produces methane, and a given ammount of methane causes about 20X as much global warming as the same ammount of CO2.

Thats why I support the Fart Tax!

[Pliny]

Every single bit of carbon that you breath out is carbon you have already taken from the natural carbon cycle, all youre doing is closing the cycle by putting it back in.

But when we burn fossil fuels we add carbon into the cycle that has been trapped in the ground for millions and millions of years. That carbon WOULD NOT be in the cycle otherwise.

Very good. The closed system. If the population were stably kept the same I could see the point. However, we are increasing in numbers and the generation of CO2 is increasing regardless of the fact it is a natural carbon cycle. The total generation of CO2 is the concern. The increase in population means more carbon is being cycled and added to the total generation of CO2 in both of what is described as the closed and open system.

[Pliny]

BTW... When we breath it doesnt contribute to AGW but when we fart it does. The bacteria that digests your food produces methane, and a given ammount of methane causes about 20X as much global warming as the same ammount of CO2.

Thats why I support the Fart Tax!

You mean the CO2 we breathe out is not CO2? As I said, even in the closed natural cycle of carbon our increasing numbers are contributing to an increase in the total amount of CO2.

A fart tax must, by definition, be included as a part of carbon offsets and carbon taxes since farts do contribute to total generation of GHGs. If cow flatulance is a contributor large enough to warrant millions of R&D dollars then our contribution must also be factored in.

[dre]

Very good. The closed system. If the population were stably kept the same I could see the point. However, we are increasing in numbers and the generation of CO2 is increasing regardless of the fact it is a natural carbon cycle. The total generation of CO2 is the concern. The increase in population means more carbon is being cycled and added to the total generation of CO2 in both of what is described as the closed and open system.

The increase in population means more carbon is being cycled and added to the total generation of CO2 in both of what is described as the closed and open system.

Yes. Increasing population will put more carbon into the cycle not because people breath , but because they do things like cut down forests, farm cattle, and burn fossil fuels.

[Pliny]

Yes. Increasing population will put more carbon into the cycle not because people breath , but because they do things like cut down forests, farm cattle, and burn fossil fuels.

True of the closed and open loop cycle of carbon but that isn't the argument. We are talking about the overall increased generation of CO2.

Here's the simplicity. Breathing generates CO2. And CO2 is CO2

1 person = x amount of CO2 generation from breathing

2 persons = 2x amount of CO2 generation from breathing

6.5 billion persons = 6.5 billionx amount of CO2 generation from breathing

Breathing doesn't put more carbon into the cycle. It means the closed loop in the cycling of carbon is getting larger because of population increases.

Total generation of CO2 from the closed and open loop of the carbon cycle is determined by number of people breathing plus energy they are consuming that creates CO2, things like cutting down forests, farm cattle, and burning fossil fuels, plus all other unmentioned sources such as volcanoes, forest fires, etc.

Essentially, CO2 is CO2 and all factors generating it must be included. The closed loop and open loop premises are pretty much just differentiating sources of CO2 in theory, not unlike the spectro-analysis of carbon is used to identify isotopes of carbon, thus determining the sources of the generation of CO2.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

Breathing doesn't put more carbon into the cycle. It means the closed loop in the cycling of carbon is getting larger because of population increases.

Total generation of CO2 from the closed and open loop of the carbon cycle is determined by number of people breathing plus...

Mr. Wizard... again - as several people keep telling you: exhaled CO2 has already been accounted for... by breathing (cellular respiration), we are simply returning to the atmosphere the same carbon that was there to begin with. It's not a difficult concept, Pliny... it's fundamental/basic - why do you struggle so?

[dre]

True of the closed and open loop cycle of carbon but that isn't the argument. We are talking about the overall increased generation of CO2.

Here's the simplicity. Breathing generates CO2. And CO2 is CO2

1 person = x amount of CO2 generation from breathing

2 persons = 2x amount of CO2 generation from breathing

6.5 billion persons = 6.5 billionx amount of CO2 generation from breathing

Breathing doesn't put more carbon into the cycle. It means the closed loop in the cycling of carbon is getting larger because of population increases.

Total generation of CO2 from the closed and open loop of the carbon cycle is determined by number of people breathing plus energy they are consuming that creates CO2, things like cutting down forests, farm cattle, and burning fossil fuels, plus all other unmentioned sources such as volcanoes, forest fires, etc.

Essentially, CO2 is CO2 and all factors generating it must be included. The closed loop and open loop premises are pretty much just differentiating sources of CO2 in theory, not unlike the spectro-analysis of carbon is used to identify isotopes of carbon, thus determining the sources of the generation of CO2.

Here's the simplicity. Breathing generates CO2. And CO2 is CO2

No thats why youre getting this wrong. Breathing doesnt "generate" C02 any more than a fan "generates" air. It basically just moves it around.

Essentially, CO2 is CO2 and all factors generating it must be included.

Its silly to compare moving carbon around in the cycle with adding large ammounts of new carbon in by releasing carbon thats been sequestored for millions of years.

[TimG]

No thats why youre getting this wrong. Breathing doesnt "generate" C02 any more than a fan "generates" air. It basically just moves it around.

Then why do 'cow burps' generate methane?

[dre]

Then why do 'cow burps' generate methane?

Iv already explained this.

[jbg]

Iv already explained this.

Where?