Resisting Climate Hysteria

[cynic]

Cynic you are offering totally inane questions that have no scientific reality beyond your own headspace. There is no need to postulate any "transitory" level of CO2. The simple observable fact is that CO2 levels do rise and fall around the globe each year in response to spring and fall seasons in the northern hemisphere.

Unfortunately CO2 levels are also marching upwards a very steady, indeed accelerating, path as result of an extra 30+ gigatons of CO2 injected by human industrial activity. That amount has absolutely nothing to do with the respiration of 6 billion people for the reasons adequately explained by the post I offered and every other biologist who has passed an exam.

Unfortunately that post did not address the matter I raised!

Like yourself, it completely overlooked the blindingly obvious in order to favour of an apocalyptic fantasy!

 

[Tisme]

There's around 16 kg of carbon in the human body.

About 750kg per year of oxygen is used by the body, so that's two molecules of oxygen to one carbon, so we exhale about 370kg of carbon each year, but that carbon comes from eating trees and other carbon sources so the net effect of breathing is zip and therefore if the body fuel runs out the breathing stops.

It's pretty obvious what the solution to carbon sinking = populate...... 112 billion tonnes can't be wrong.

Humans the oil source of tomorrow

 

[cynic]

There's around 16 kg of carbon in the human body.

About 750kg per year of oxygen is used by the body, so that's two molecules of oxygen to one carbon, so we exhale about 370kg of carbon each year, but that carbon comes from eating trees and other carbon sources so the net effect of breathing is zip and therefore if the body fuel runs out the breathing stops.

It's pretty obvious what the solution to carbon sinking = populate...... 112 billion tonnes can't be wrong.

Humans the oil source of tomorrow

But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle, how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?

And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?

 

[basilio]

There is a good, accessible analysis of the long and the short Carbon Cycle in a Nasa website. Worth a read for anyone wishing to understand the big picture.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Another shorter analysis on Columbia University website

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

And another education module on the carbon cycle
http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95

 

[Tisme]

But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle, how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?

And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?

I don't really notice what you have been asking, I'm just posting facts as opposed to postulations:- don't really care for an argument on something none of us are qualified to hold court on.

In answer to your first question : animals merely transfer carbon. Without carbon input there is no carbon output and carbon, as an element doesn't decay or multiply into something else.

In answer to the second probably many times, because perhaps only the few know/care what the key point is,

 

[explod]

But in order for that carbon to travel throughout the cycle, how can the atmospheric CO2 levels remain constant in the face of an exponentially increasing populace?

And how many ways and times, on this thread, must I ask the same question, only to receive responses that completely fail to address the key point?

Tell me and I will try to help

 

[cynic]

There is a good, accessible analysis of the long and the short Carbon Cycle in a Nasa website. Worth a read for anyone wishing to understand the big picture.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/

Another shorter analysis on Columbia University website

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

And another education module on the carbon cycle
http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Earth-Science/6/The-Carbon-Cycle/95

Well done basilio!

Just what this thread needs!

More links to yet more of the same climate change propaganda that has been regurgitated throughout this thread.

Unsurprisingly, none of these sites answer the very basic questions that have been repeatedly raised throughout this thread.

I have been talking about a bigger picture for some time now, but unfortunately, some here are so engrossed in their chosen fantasy, that they are unwilling (or unable) to entertain the possibility that such a thing, as a bigger picture, could even exist.

As someone with a lifelong passion for science, I can confidently state that there is a lot more to the realm of science than the climate brigade is willing to acknowledge!

 

[cynic]

I don't really notice what you have been asking, I'm just posting facts as opposed to postulations:- don't really care for an argument on something none of us are qualified to hold court on.

In answer to your first question : animals merely transfer carbon. Without carbon input there is no carbon output and carbon, as an element doesn't decay or multiply into something else.

In answer to the second probably many times, because perhaps only the few know/care what the key point is,

Your comments were largely fair. And some of the facts you offered are indeed helpful.

However, your claim that the net effect of breathing is zip, is really an opinion that the facts don't necessarily support.

If there is an increase to the number of receptors and emitters (each operating at a constant rate) then the volume of traffic between the two must surely increase!

This is a crucial fact that is being repeatedly overlooked within this thread!

 

[basilio]

You don't have to read any references I post Cynic. They were for all readers on this thread . They offer a scientific basis on which to analyse the various inputs, outputs and flows of the carbon cycle.

Contrary to your views they have little if anything to do with CC propaganda. You'll find similar work undertaken 30-40-50 plus years ago. But of course as science learns more about the world there will be extra information.

That fact that no scientific literature anywhere (as far as I can see) considers human respiration as some extra significant element of the carbon cycle should say something. Despite our numbers we are still only a small part of the biomass of earth. Our impact is certainly immense but that is overwhelmingly because of the agricultural, building, engineering and transport activities we undertake.

Do you have any idea of how much cement we use and the impact that has on the atmosphere ?

Land clearing of forests ? Around urban areas ? CO2 production via transport, power generation, burning fossil fuels ? Try 26 gigatons a year.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=6&t=294&&a=16

The comments section under this article offer plenty of food for thought

 

[luutzu]

HVAC&R is 11% of Australian emissions

Is that before or after accounting for the breathing? Does measure of those breathing account for breather's weight and health status?

 

[luutzu]

Every member of our ecosystem exerts some influence on our environment. It is simply a question of degree, duration and whether that influence represents a problematic aberration of nature!

Come on man. You said you're interested in "bigger picture" stuff and here you are raising issue about CO2 level from human breathing.

We'd get it if you mean industry, land clearing, extra resources spent to support the extra lives... but human breathing?

If CO2 could be problematic if there's enough of it, that's what you're saying right? Then the figures from Basillo and Tisme suggests how insignificant the hundreds of kg from each human when factories and other machineries each exhale it by the tonnes.

Anywho.

 

[cynic]

...
That fact that no scientific literature anywhere (as far as I can see) considers human respiration as some extra significant element of the carbon cycle should say something.
...

One can only speculate on the reasons behind the conspicuous absence of information addressing such a vitally important aspect of the human ecosystem!

I have repeatedly highlighted a logically (and biologically) sound basis for expecting elevated levels of CO2 within the atmosphere.

None of the information presented ,on this thread, to date, has successfully countered my assertions on this!

 

[SirRumpole]

I have repeatedly highlighted a logically (and biologically) sound basis for expecting elevated levels of CO2 within the atmosphere.

Would you care to summarise these ?

 

[cynic]

Come on man. You said you're interested in "bigger picture" stuff and here you are raising issue about CO2 level from human breathing.

We'd get it if you mean industry, land clearing, extra resources spent to support the extra lives... but human breathing?

If CO2 could be problematic if there's enough of it, that's what you're saying right? Then the figures from Basillo and Tisme suggests how insignificant the hundreds of kg from each human when factories and other machineries each exhale it by the tonnes.

Anywho.

400 ppm atmospheric presence versus how many tonnes per year of biological output?

(There's an important piece of information missing here! Hopefully somebody will furnish it!)

Read my last response to Tisme.

Your post fails to counter the crucial fact that I have been repeating ad nauseam.

Can you find a flaw in the logic underlying my statement about volume of traffic between receptors and emitters?

Please note repititious climate mythology is not being called for!

Climate propaganda, phds, years of research etc. aren't required to understand the statement, and repeated attempts at obfuscation via such media shall not be well received.

A simple application of sound logic, contesting the statement, will suffice.

So can you contest the logic? Can you debunk it?

 

[cynic]

Would you care to summarise these ?

Are you deliberately trying to annoy me?

Read back over my last couple of days of postings to this thread!

 

[explod]

Are you deliberately trying to annoy me?

Read back over my last couple of days of postings to this thread!

Seems to me that in typical sceptic fashion you are successfully confusing everyone. In fact I am not even sure if you are a sceptic.

 

[cynic]

Seems to me that in typical sceptic fashion you are successfully confusing everyone. In fact I am not even sure if you are a sceptic.

Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?

An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!

And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!

Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!

 

[noco]

This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using their cracked records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:

 

[luutzu]

Is it really so terribly confusing? Really?

An increased population of lifeforms exchanging CO2/O2 via the conduit of the atmosphere and somehow nobody seems to understand the biological necessity for an increased atmospheric level of CO2!

And somehow those whom don't understand something so terribly basic, continue to claim that they know that science is on their side when they call for reduction of carbon emissions!

Such fanatical lunacy has no business claiming to represent any branch of science!

Quite confusing Monk.

First, a while back, you said we humans are no miniscule and insignificant to dare think we could screw up the planet.

Now you're saying the increased numbers of us small little apes may play a big role in CO2 and hence CC [?]

OK, CC doesn't exists... you're saying human breathing [and breeding] contributes to the natural CO2 levels... But others smarter people have quantify how insignificant that CO2 emission is in relation to the industrial-scale fossile burning.


Man, my head hurts so bad I can't even crack wise tonight

 

[luutzu]

This thread is becoming so boring......It is like a Merry-Go-Round and nobody wants to get off it....The Alarmist keep using their cracked records and keep going over the same ground day after day in the hope of roping in some naive converters. :bonk::horse::horse:

Beating dead horses might add extra carbon noco.