- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
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!
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.
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?
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?
Well done 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
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,
HVAC&R is 11% of Australian emissions
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!
...
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.
...
I have repeatedly highlighted a logically (and biologically) sound basis for expecting elevated levels of CO2 within the atmosphere.
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.
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!
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!
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:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?