On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 ... really? sigh.... Yeah you do, it's called cellular respiration. It's the exact same process that is producing that CO2 that you are so confused about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration How are you defining 'closed system'? Because it appears to me that you are arbitrarily defining a closed system that does not contain 'stuff from your car' and then declaring because 'stuff from your car' isn't part of the arbitrarily defined closed system, it must be bad. In the context of thermodynamics, the Earth isn't a closed system otherwise entropy couldn't be decreasing on earth and life couldn't exist. But most likely you are talking about the carbon cycle. If so, excluding underground carbon makes zero sense because carbon naturally moves from under the ground to the atmosphere and back through geological processes. Dead dynosaurs that became fossil fuels that we dig up to burn in your car are termed "sequestered" The carrot you eat and then through burning glucose exhale as CO2 is the "closed" cycle. We don't create H2O or CO2. Unearthing the latter is becoming a bit of a problem is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Dead dynosaurs that became fossil fuels that we dig up to burn in your car are termed "sequestered" To clarify, are you suggesting that the majority of fossil fuels are dead dinosaurs? Also, I've never seen the spelling with a y. The carrot you eat and then through burning glucose exhale as CO2 is the "closed" cycle. So a carrot that I eat is going to absorb the CO2 in the future that I eat as I burn that carrot. In physics, there is this thing called causality. You may have heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_%28physics%29 We don't create H2O or CO2. Yes we do. For the zillionth time, it's called cellular respiration. Unearthing the latter is becoming a bit of a problem is all. The fossil fuels that are being 'unearthed' are not CO2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 The carrot already has the CO2. Cellular resperation does not produce H2O. When we burn the fossil fuels H2O is released. Get that grade 5 book out and study awhile want ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 The carrot already has the CO2. Cellular resperation does not produce H2O. When we burn the fossil fuels H2O is released. Get that grade 5 book out and study awhile want ya? Lmfao.....you are priceless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Oops meant to say when we burn fossil fules CO2 is released. Anyway, here is a fairly simple question for you: when you need to give your reading glasses a cleaning, if you have them, and you just put them near your mouth and exhale on the lenses and water vapor forms, you give them a scrub and good to go. Where do you think the water came from? Edited October 10, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Great link. Sums up everything I have said. Humans DO produce CO2 but the amount they create pales in conparison to production from burning fossil fuels. Glad to see you now agree that humans do produce it. Maybe there is hope for On Guard too? I know waldo is a lost cause but here's hoping! The point is, humans are not introducing any new carbon into the system, they are just recycling what is already there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 The point is, humans are not introducing any new carbon into the system, they are just recycling what is already there. Try as you might Wilber, he just doesn't/won't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 So if I make a new thread, you will explain why you disagree with humans and chimpanzees sharing a common ancestor? there's no need for you to create a new thread... as I've suggested now several times just carry on in your prior thread where you started all your strawmaning in the first place. You'll be right in thread where you can showcase directly your strawman effort. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 I know waldo is a lost cause but here's hoping! hey now! So you've now opted for outright trolling; well done, go with your strengths... after all, what other recourse do you have when your "human CO2 breathing production" nonsense has been shown as the insignificant and unrelated thread derail it is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 as for your just claimed, "we were talking about the effects of CO2 fertilization on the Sahara"... who is we? That is you. Why not step forward (in that appropriate thread) and actually substantiate your claim as relates to this smallish, regional Sahel area. Why not start there... in the appropriate thread. Certainly any project that resulted in, as -1 mentions, the "greening of the Sahara", turning it into a tropical rainforest, would absorb an additional ~20 billion tonnes of carbon atoms per year, or about 75 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, roughly triple current human emissions. Of course, such a project would mostly consist of providing the needed amounts of fresh water to the Sahara desert, rather than the CO2 fertilization effect. I just asked (set up) the piguy to substantiate his claim... I doubt your 'rather than' will prod him further! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 I'm gonna persue this CO2 production idea. If I can get that going I will hire myself out to major greenhouse operations and make huge money. Just hang around and breathe all over the tomatoes and collect my pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 I'm not even sure why I'm bothering at this point... The carrot already has the CO2. Carrots contain trace amounts of CO2. After your body absorbs your carrot, new CO2 will be formed as the body burns the sugar through the biological process known as cellular respiration. Cellular resperation does not produce H2O. Yes it does, and it is spelled respiration. When we burn the fossil fuels H2O is released. Correct... oh wait Oops meant to say when we burn fossil fules CO2 is released. Did you just retract your only correct claim in your previous post to claim that cellular respiration doesn't produce water?... if you have them, and you just put them near your mouth and exhale on the lenses and water vapor forms, you give them a scrub and good to go. Where do you think the water came from? Mostly from your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 there's no need for you to create a new thread... as I've suggested now several times just carry on in your prior thread where you started all your strawmaning in the first place. You'll be right in thread where you can showcase directly your strawman effort. So... are you implying that you are willing to explain why you disagree with the theory of evolution in this 'prior thread' you are referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 So... are you implying that you are willing to explain why you disagree with the theory of evolution in this 'prior thread' you are referring to? again, for the umpteenth time I'm asking you to quit derailing this thread... and telling you to go to your own thread where you initiated this discussion (your social experiment)... to allow your strawman effort to be showcased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Wilber, Waldo, On Guard For Thee I am going to ask you a very basic question. Please answer yes or no. Do the majority of living creatures (there are a few exceptions like anaerobic bacterica) on the planet perform a process known as cellular respiration which converts sugar and oxygen into water, carbon dioxide and energy. I'll even give you a link to help you ponder this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration I'll even write out the cellular respiration simplified reaction equation for you: C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + energy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Wilber, Waldo, On Guard For Thee I am going to ask you a very basic question. Please answer yes or no. what's your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 I'm not even sure why I'm bothering at this point... Carrots contain trace amounts of CO2. After your body absorbs your carrot, new CO2 will be formed as the body burns the sugar through the biological process known as cellular respiration. Yes it does, and it is spelled respiration. Correct... oh wait Did you just retract your only correct claim in your previous post to claim that cellular respiration doesn't produce water?... Mostly from your body. I have no idea why you are bothering either. So far you have been able to correct a spelling error but you don't seem to get the difference between production and recycling. I know that grade 5 book probably doesnt go that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Wilber, Waldo, On Guard For Thee I am going to ask you a very basic question. Please answer yes or no. Do the majority of living creatures (there are a few exceptions like anaerobic bacterica) on the planet perform a process known as cellular respiration which converts sugar and oxygen into water, carbon dioxide and energy. I'll even give you a link to help you ponder this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_respiration I'll even write out the cellular respiration simplified reaction equation for you: C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + energy You perform cellular respiration every time you breath. If you don't believe me, try holding your breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 The point is, humans are not introducing any new carbon into the system, they are just recycling what is already there. But you specificially said that humans aren't introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. That was the point I didn't agree with. I'm glad to see you are now on board that humans do produce CO2 even if it is insignificant to the amount we produce from burning fossil fuels. Keeping in mind that CO2 is not the same as carbon and that fact that if humans didn't exist then they would not be converting the glucose to CO2 and H20 and thus the carbon would stay out of the atmosphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 But you specificially said that humans aren't introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. That was the point I didn't agree with. I'm glad to see you are now on board that humans do produce CO2 even if it is insignificant to the amount we produce from burning fossil fuels. Keeping in mind that CO2 is not the same as carbon and that fact that if humans didn't exist then they would not be converting the glucose to CO2 and H20 and thus the carbon would stay out of the atmosphere. They are putting carbon into the atmosphere but not adding to the amount of carbon in our ecosystem. I get your point but that carbon was already there, all our bodies did was combine it with oxygen. That is not the same as taking carbon that took millions of years to accumulate and dumping it into our system over a matter of a few decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 They are putting carbon into the atmosphere but not adding to the amount of carbon in our ecosystem. I get your point but that carbon was already there, all our bodies did was combine it with oxygen. That is not the same as taking carbon that took millions of years to accumulate and dumping it into our system over a matter of a few decades. Wilber, how are you defining what is and what isn't the 'ecosystem' because it seems somewhat arbitrary? Geological processes can release carbon from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the distinction between what is and what isn't a fossil fuel is not always clear. Would you define peat as a fossil fuel for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 But you specificially said that humans aren't introducing new carbon into the atmosphere. That was the point I didn't agree with. I'm glad to see you are now on board that humans do produce CO2 even if it is insignificant to the amount we produce from burning fossil fuels. Keeping in mind that CO2 is not the same as carbon and that fact that if humans didn't exist then they would not be converting the glucose to CO2 and H20 and thus the carbon would stay out of the atmosphere. You seem to forget that even before there were humans there were some big old gnarly animals walking around the earth. Guess what they were exhaling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 Wilber, how are you defining what is and what isn't the 'ecosystem' because it seems somewhat arbitrary? Geological processes can release carbon from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the distinction between what is and what isn't a fossil fuel is not always clear. Would you define peat as a fossil fuel for example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 10, 2014 Report Share Posted October 10, 2014 (edited) Wilber, how are you defining what is and what isn't the 'ecosystem' because it seems somewhat arbitrary? Geological processes can release carbon from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the distinction between what is and what isn't a fossil fuel is not always clear. Would you define peat as a fossil fuel for example? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat The definition of ecosystem is easy to find. I'll go with that. Our burning of fossil fuels is not a geological process. How do geological process release the carbon from coal and oil into the air? It doesn't matter how I define peat, The question is, how does it relate to our living world. Peat bogs are very efficient carbon sinks if not dried out or burned. Oil and coal are also benign until we muck with them Edited October 10, 2014 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 11, 2014 Report Share Posted October 11, 2014 Of course peat is a fossil fuel, you just have to give it time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.