Wilber Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange Then why do the enviros say we're reducing oxygen production be cutting down forests? Edited September 30, 2014 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 The point is that in any popularly understood sense people do make CO2, and trees do make oxygen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 The point is that in any popularly understood sense people do make CO2, and trees do make oxygen. True but that's not the issue. Deforestation and the killing of oceans ability to produce oxygen is one thing, another is, the more carbon atoms you combine with oxygen atoms to form CO2, CO and noxious gases such as NOX, the fewer O2 atoms will be free in the air to breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Wow you can be condescending. You deserve it. Do you want me to bring up all your past scientific understanding fails as well? How goes your nobel prize in physics since you have determined that our understanding of heat engines like hurricanes is wrong? Most of it between 280 and 360 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period. Wrong again. Most of it is from the cretaceous period, not the carboniferous. Your only off by 200 million years... How many humans were on earth when C02 concentrations were 2000 ppm? Zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 (edited) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange Wrong again. Most of it is from the cretaceous period, not the carboniferous. Your only off by 200 million years... Wrong. There are three major forms of fossil fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. All three were formed many hundreds of millions of years ago before the time of the dinosaurs – hence the name fossil fuels. The age they were formed is called the Carboniferous Period. It was part of the Paleozoic Era. "Carboniferous" gets its name from carbon, the basic element in coal and other fossil fuels. The Carboniferous Period occurred from about 360 to 286 million years ago. At the time, the land was covered with swamps filled with huge trees, ferns and other large leafy plants, similar to the picture above. The water and seas were filled with algae – the green stuff that forms on a stagnant pool of water. Algae is actually millions of very small plants. Some deposits of coal can be found during the time of the dinosaurs. For example, thin carbon layers can be found during the late Cretaceous Period (65 million years ago) – the time of Tyrannosaurus Rex. But the main deposits of fossil fuels are from the Carboniferous Period. For more about the various geologic eras, go to www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html Zero. Exactly Edited September 30, 2014 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange True but that's not the issue. Deforestation and the killing of oceans ability to produce oxygen is one thing, another is, the more carbon atoms you combine with oxygen atoms to form CO2, CO and noxious gases such as NOX, the fewer O2 atoms will be free in the air to breath. Back to this insane BS again? "Oh noes! If we burn too much fossil fuels we will run out of air to breath!" 21% of the atmosphere is Oxygen, less than 400 ppm of the atmosphere is CO2. That means there is more than 525 times as much Oxygen as Carbon in the atmosphere. You could burn all the Fossil Fuels in the world several times over and still not put a significant dent in O2 levels via the substitution effect. Furthermore, as temperatures increase due to higher CO2 levels, more Oxygen is released from the Oceans since oxygen solubility in water decreases with temperature; this effect more than offsets the minor effects of substitution of O2 with CO2. Finally, oxygen levels are primarily balanced by forest fires. If O2 gets too low, forest fires become impossible. If it gets too high, forest fires are rampant and plant life has difficulty growing. Your guardian article is terrible and full of incorrect fact after incorrect fact after incorrect fact. The presentation of the few correct facts is horribly misleading; typical of alarmist idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Wrong. We were talking about the oil sands in particular. Which formed primarily during the cretaceous, not the carboniferous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 We were talking about the oil sands in particular. Which formed primarily during the cretaceous, not the carboniferous. Nice stick handling but the great majority of fossil fuels were formed during the Coniferous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Back to this insane BS again? "Oh noes! If we burn too much fossil fuels we will run out of air to breath!" Never said that but CO2 requires one atom of carbon and two of oxygen or is that simple arithmetic beyond your giant brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 30, 2014 Report Share Posted September 30, 2014 Nice stick handling but the great majority of fossil fuels were formed during the Coniferous. Self projection? Reread what I wrote. I specifically was referencing the oil sands. You were the one trying to refute my claim with your lack of understanding of science. As for recycling, where was the majority of the carbon of the oil sands 150 million years ago? It wasn't in the oil sands because those didn't exist. It was in the atmosphere, when CO2 concentrations were over 2000 ppm. It is still being recycled, the time frame is merely longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 How many humans were on earth when C02 concentrations were 2000 ppm? Zero. How well do you think humans would have fared if they'd been around when concentrations of CO2 were that high? Most everything else went extinct coincidentally. I realize there's no firm link but it's certainly been hypothesized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 How well do you think humans would have fared if they'd been around when concentrations of CO2 were that high? Most everything else went extinct coincidentally. I realize there's no firm link but it's certainly been hypothesized. Have you ever been indoors? 2000 ppm CO2 is completely safe to humans and humans can live a full healthy life in 2000 ppm CO2. As for extinctions, which mass extinction event are you referring to because I wasn't referring to a mass extinction event. Atmospheric CO2 levels have historically (over geological time) been much higher than current levels. Am I correct if I were to say that your response is due to a lack of understanding of the Earth's geological history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Have you ever been indoors? 2000 ppm CO2 is completely safe to humans and humans can live a full healthy life in 2000 ppm CO2. I'm talking about adapting to an environment and world radically altered by a rapid spike of CO2 levels in a relatively short time, not breathing in a room. As for extinctions, which mass extinction event are you referring to because I wasn't referring to a mass extinction event. The end-Triassic during which rising atmospheric CO2 has been cited as a possible trigger. You usually refer to how blissful life will be in a high CO2 environment. In fact you suggested the government should subsidize the release of more CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have historically (over geological time) been much higher than current levels. Yes and we evolved in a world in which it wasn't very high at all. Go figure. Am I correct if I were to say that your response is due to a lack of understanding of the Earth's geological history? No, it's due to having seen you in action before. Edited October 1, 2014 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'm talking about adapting to an environment and world radically altered by a rapid spike of CO2 levels in a relatively short time, not breathing in a room. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. The context of the last few posts was Wilber's fantasy that burning fossil fuels will cause the oxygen to run out. The end-Triassic during which rising atmospheric CO2 has been cited as a possible trigger. You mean the beginning of the Triassic period right? The Permian-Triassic mass extinction event? Yes and we evolved in a world in which it wasn't very high at all. Go figure. Yes, yet Humans can survive just fine indoors were higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations exist. Humans also evolved primarily in East Africa where it is very warm (thus human preference for room temperature around 23 C compared to the global average temperature of 15 C). What is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 The point is that in any popularly understood sense people do make CO2, and trees do make oxygen. Do you understand the difference between emitting and producing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Do you understand the difference between emitting and producing? Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Do you? Yes I do. A recent post of yours here made me wonder if you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Yes I do. A recent post of yours here made me wonder if you do. So are you saying we emit CO2 and not produce it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 So are you saying we emit CO2 and not produce it? Yep. We emit it by recycling it. The problem is if we recycle all of it by digging it up from the swamps, we might just not be able to live here anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Yep. We emit it by recycling it. The problem is if we recycle all of it by digging it up from the swamps, we might just not be able to live here anymore. Too funny. I guess you don't know the definition of emit is to PRODUCE and discharge. Lol e·mit iˈmit/ verb produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation). "coal-fired power stations continue to emit large quantities of sulfur dioxide" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Too funny. I guess you don't know the definition of emit is to PRODUCE and discharge. Lol e·mit iˈmit/ verb produce and discharge (something, especially gas or radiation). "coal-fired power stations continue to emit large quantities of sulfur dioxide" LOL. You don't really get it. The CO2 is just like the H2O in this world. It's all still here. Most of the H2O is at the poles. Most of the CO2 is under the ground. If we release all of either/both of those we are truly F'ed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 LOL. You don't really get it. The CO2 is just like the H2O in this world. It's all still here. Most of the H2O is at the poles. Most of the CO2 is under the ground. If we release all of either/both of those we are truly F'ed. I can tell you don't get it. When H2O reacts with CO2 in photosynthesis it becomes oxygen and sugar. It is no longer H2O....at all. The only thing that remains constant is the number of atoms (C, H, O...etc) The amount of water at any given time fluctuates based on these processes. So does the amount of CO2. This is why people talk about it affecting the balance. The bottom line is that when we breathe we produce CO2. If we didn't breathe that CO2 would not exist. The carbon would but not the CO2. It's the exact same when we burn fossil fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I can tell you don't get it. When H2O reacts with CO2 in photosynthesis it becomes oxygen and sugar. It is no longer H2O....at all. The only thing that remains constant is the number of atoms (C, H, O...etc) The amount of water at any given time fluctuates based on these processes. So does the amount of CO2. This is why people talk about it affecting the balance. The bottom line is that when we breathe we produce CO2. If we didn't breathe that CO2 would not exist. The carbon would but not the CO2. It's the exact same when we burn fossil fuels. Boy you really don't get it. CO2 existed long before we got here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 Ever heard of a volcano? A hell of a lot of CO2 comes out of them, with or without us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Boy you really don't get it. CO2 existed long before we got here. And the amount of CO2 fluctuated before we got here due to natural PRODUCTION from burning of hydrocarbons and photosynthesis. Have you figured out the difference between atoms and molecules yet? Edited October 1, 2014 by Accountability Now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.