AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[TimG]

Oh come on, you know damn well breathing is part of the natural carbon cycle

The 'natural carbon cycle' causes CO2 levels to swing quite dramatically over time. Why are human emissions cycle any less 'natural' than those of the forests during the carboniferous era or the volcanoes of the permian?

Breathing doesn't introduce one atom of new carbon into the atmosphere. Because our bodies are 18% carbon, we actually pull carbon out of the atmosphere.

Nonsense. When our bodies metabolize carbohydrates we create CO2. This is new carbon that was previous locked in organic matter (basically the same stuff that is in fossil fuels). Now you may wish to argue that the CO2 in organic matter came originally from the air but the same is true for fossil fuels. Whether we burn fossil fuels or eat we are releasing new CO2 into the air.

But the analogy is the same. Modern human society is a entity in itself and it needs energy. The bulk of the this energy must come from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and saying we should stop emitting is like me saying you should just stop breathing if you want to limit emissions. It is not going to happen.

Edited September 30, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The 'natural carbon cycle' causes CO2 levels to swing quite dramatically over time. Why are human emissions cycle any less 'natural' than those of the forests during the carboniferous era or the volcanoes of the permian?

Nonsense. When our bodies metabolize carbohydrates we create CO2. This is new carbon that was previous locked in organic matter (basically the same stuff that is in fossil fuels).

But the analogy is the same. Modern human society is a entity in itself and it needs energy. The bulk of the this energy must come from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and saying we should stop emitting is like me saying you should just stop breathing if you want to limit emissions. It is not going to happen.

What a narrow minded approah. Guess what, there are only so many fossils left. Your approach seems to be we wait until the last one is burned (assuming we can still breathe) and then figure out what to do next. And no we don't create CO2 by breathing.

[TimG]

And no we don't create CO2 by breathing.

Why do you lock yourself in an air tight room for a few hours. It will give you a good chance to experience your personal CO2 production up close.

[Wilber]

The 'natural carbon cycle' causes CO2 levels to swing quite dramatically over time. Why are human emissions cycle any less 'natural' than those of the forests during the carboniferous era or the volcanoes of the permian? Nonsense. When our bodies metabolize carbohydrates we create CO2. This is new carbon that was previous locked in organic matter (basically the same stuff that is in fossil fuels). Now you may wish to argue that the CO2 in organic matter came originally from the air but the same is true for fossil fuels. Whether we burn fossil fuels or eat we are releasing new CO2 into the air.But the analogy is the same. Modern human society is a entity in itself and it needs energy. The bulk of the this energy must come from fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and saying we should stop emitting is like me saying you should just stop breathing if you want to limit emissions. It is not going to happen.

The carbon we consume and emit is already part of the existing carbon cycle, not carbon that has been trapped for hundreds of millions of years. It astonishes me that you can't comprehend the difference.

[TimG]

The carbon we consume and emit is already part of the existing carbon cycle, not carbon that has been trapped for hundreds of millions of years. It astonishes me that you can't comprehend the difference.

Organic matter was trapped before and could be trapped again but instead we choose to eat and turn it back into CO2. You are making phoney distinctions. There is no 'unnatural' carbon - all of it is part of the carbon cycle. Nor is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere a constant. It changes constantly. There is nothing 'natural' about keeping the CO2 levels constant. Edited September 30, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Why do you lock yourself in an air tight room for a few hours. It will give you a good chance to experience your personal CO2 production up close.

We are in an airtight room. I bet you think we produce water as well?

[Wilber]

Organic matter was trapped before and could be trapped again but instead we choose to eat and turn it back into CO2. You are making phoney distinctions. There is no 'unnatural' carbon - all of it is part of the carbon cycle. Nor is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere a constant. It changes constantly. There is nothing 'natural' about keeping the CO2 levels constant.

Who said anything about carbon itself not being natural. We, are releasing amounts of carbon that took many millenia to store, into the atmosphere in a matter of a few decades. That is not natural and you are the one who is making phoney distinctions.

[On Guard for Thee]

The comment that we produce cO2 by breathing has got to be one of the phoniest.

[Keepitsimple]

The comment that we produce cO2 by breathing has got to be one of the phoniest.

How so? What's phony?

[Wilber]

How so? What's phony?

Well, to begin with you could explain how our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing.

[Keepitsimple]

Well, to begin with you could explain how our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing.

You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

[Wilber]

You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

Not kidding at all. How do our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing? Where does the carbon come from that we combine with oxygen to turn into CO2 when we breath?

[Mighty AC]

Not kidding at all. How do our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing? Where does the carbon come from that we combine with oxygen to turn into CO2 when we breath?

The carbon was ultimately created through fusion in stars. However, more immediately it comes from glucose in the food we consume. Cellular Respiration: C6H12O6 + O2 =======> H2O + CO2 + Energy

Is your point that we don't manufacture carbon, we consume it and convert it into a gaseous form?

Edited September 30, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Accountability Now]

Not kidding at all. How do our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing? Where does the carbon come from that we combine with oxygen to turn into CO2 when we breath?

Glucose (C6H12O6) is produced in our bodies by breaking down larger more complext carbohydrates. We breath in Oxygen (O2) to burn the Glucose which then produces CO2 and H2O.

Simplified reaction: C₆H₁₂O₆ (s) + 6 O₂ (g) → 6 CO₂ (g) + 6 H₂O (l) + heat ΔG = −2880 kJ per mol of C₆H₁₂O₆

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration

So yes...our bodies are taking solid carbon and turning it into CO2.

[Accountability Now]

The comment that we produce cO2 by breathing has got to be one of the phoniest.

Did you not take grade 5 science. You know....we breath air that plants make and they breath air that people make.

Cellular Respiration and Photosynthesis are almost opposite processes because photosynthesis removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while cellular respiration puts back carbon dioxide. Cellular respiration uses oxygen and has it's waste product of carbon dioxide (CO2).

[Keepitsimple]

Not kidding at all. How do our bodies manufacture carbon out of nothing? Where does the carbon come from that we combine with oxygen to turn into CO2 when we breath?

The food and drink we eat can be broken into carbon compounds, one of the most simple being glucose (C6H12O6). When that reacts with oxygen (O2) in the cells, it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). C6H12O6 plus 6O2 gives 6CO2 plus 6H2O plus energy. We use the energy and the carbon dioxide is breathed out as gas.

How much CO2 do humans - and other mammals produce in relation to fossil fuels? Tough question - but likely only a small contribution from what I've gathered.

From the nature of your posts, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent poster - yet you did not know/believe that humans actually produce CO2 (along with On Guard for Thee). That's not really that surprising and should serve as a good example of the general population's lack of perspective on CO2.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[eyeball]

Yeah but c'mon, what you're really saying between the lines here is that that anyone who's concerned about CO2 that want's to be taken seriously about it should hold their breath while walking or riding their bikes to the CC debate.

Is this is what passes for the reasonable discussion you're trying to start in another thread?

[Mighty AC]

From the nature of your posts, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent poster - yet you did not know/believe that humans actually produce CO2 (along with On Guard for Thee). That's not really that surprising and should serve as a good example of the general population's lack of perspective on CO2.

Wilber's post asked specifically about carbon, not carbon dioxide. We don't produce carbon we simple convert it into another compound, which makes us part of the carbon cycle. We help return the atmospheric carbon which plants capture and convert to glucose, to the atmosphere.

The problem is we are overloading the atmospheric portion of the cycle by digging up and releasing massive quantities of stored, ancient carbon and simultaneously deforesting the planet.

[TimG]

Wilber's post asked specifically about carbon, not carbon dioxide.

Carbon is a short hand for CO2 used in AGW policy discussions. It would be incredibly silly for someone to mean elemental carbon in this context.

[Keepitsimple]

Yeah but c'mon, what you're really saying between the lines here is that that anyone who's concerned about CO2 that want's to be taken seriously about it should hold their breath while walking or riding their bikes to the CC debate.

Is this is what passes for the reasonable discussion you're trying to start in another thread?

Absolutely not. In fact to the best of my knowledge, if you took all the humans, cattle, sheep, horses, cats and dogs - the amount of CO2 that they produce through respiration would be less than 10% of what is produced by our burning oil, gas, coal and wood. My response is to On Guard's saying it was phony - and Wilbur's disbelief that humans actually emitted CO2.

Seems like reasonable discussion to me, no?

[Mighty AC]

Carbon is a short hand for CO2 used in AGW policy discussions. It would be incredibly silly for someone to mean elemental carbon in this context.

Possibly. But when asking how carbon is created from nothing it turns out to be a good lead into the carbon cycle.

Animals certainly do return carbon to the atmosphere but the overload is being caused by burning massive quantities of ancient, stored carbon. This is made worse by deforestation.

[eyeball]

Absolutely not. In fact to the best of my knowledge, if you took all the humans, cattle, sheep, horses, cats and dogs - the amount of CO2 that they produce through respiration would be less than 10% of what is produced by our burning oil, gas, coal and wood. My response is to On Guard's saying it was phony - and Wilbur's disbelief that humans actually emitted CO2.

Seems like reasonable discussion to me, no?

No it sounds exactly like the sort of derailing mealy mouthed crap that's usually thrown into these discussions.

[Keepitsimple]

No it sounds exactly like the sort of derailing mealy mouthed crap that's usually thrown into these discussions.

You mean like......uh, facts? The very basic fact that humans, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, cats, & dogs emit CO2? Facts that at least two pro-alarmist posters were blissfully unaware of? Indeed, the fact that you say this "derails" the thread says a lot about the Alarmist mindset - and of course, mindset is the intent of this thread.

[eyeball]

Well, when I see the vast vast majority of climate scientists and experts recommending that animals and people be fitted with CO2 scrubbers I'll pay attention to this line of reasoning

[Wilber]

Carbon is a short hand for CO2 used in AGW policy discussions. It would be incredibly silly for someone to mean elemental carbon in this context.

No it's not you can't produce CO2 without carbon.