Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

[Tee Kay]

That makes no sense. Human respiration is a closed loop, all the carbon was previously taken out of the air via photosynthesis, there's no net addition to the atmosphere.

Insects too.

 

[Zelig]

And I've mailed my electricity company saying that I'll move to electric heat once they start sequestering some of their carbon.

I'm consistently annoyed that they won't let you sign up for Time of Day based billing unless you have an electric thermal storage system installed in your home.

 

[El_Machinae]

That makes no sense. Human respiration is a closed loop, all the carbon was previously taken out of the air via photosynthesis, there's no net addition to the atmosphere.

Yeah, the reasoning is faulty. The tidbit that I like to remind myself of is the "13 calories of fossil fuel per calorie eaten". So, while the food was originally photosynthesized, a whole bunch of fossil carbon was burnt in the creation of that photosynthesis.

If we ate food from a balanced ecosystem, then putting on fat would be a type of carbon storage. However, the food isn't from a balanced ecosystem.

You knew the reasoning was faulty, and my tidbit, already. It's just what springs to mind when people talk about breathing CO2.

 

[Arwon]

Indeed.

The problem is the sudden release of millions of years of accumulated carbon over a very short period, adding a lot of new carbon to the carbon cycle at the same time as we are reducing the carbon storage capacity of the biosphere.

To point out that there's a pre-existing carbon cycle consisting of things like plants and human breathing is all sorts of useless.

 

[El_Machinae]

But then it gives you the cool opportunity to show the magnitude of fossil CO2 contribution.

Each year, there's a cycle of plant growth and plant decay driven by the seasons. While there are opposite on-going seasons, the northern hemisphere dominates the cycle due to the fact that it has most of the land mass. In the summer, plants 'suck in' CO2. In the winter/early spring, their decay (or digestion) causes CO2 to increase

So, there's a yearly cycle of the planet breathing. We can imagine the magnitude of this breathing, the entire ecosystem in some type of homeostasis.

Here's a graph of CO2 ppm levels in the atmosphere.

And then we can see that fossil carbon added 10% of this magnitude, each year. It perturbed the planet's breathing by 10%, each year. And more than 10% nowadays.

I think that helps give a scale of how much CO2 we're adding. Why wouldn't the climate be changing if every few years, the ppm 'low' is higher than the ppm 'high' of a decade earlier?

 

[Arwon]

So the zig-zag is the respiration cycle, right?

That's a great graph.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, though the expression "the planet's breathing" is poetic license, obviously

 

[Abegweit]

See? You're way, way back here. Loaded language: "plant food". Partisan vitriol. First principles denial.

Imagine it. Plant food is "Loaded language" "Partisan vitriol" "First principles denial".

Just how weird is that?

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean that "plant food" is loaded language. The rest of the posting is partisan vitriol and first principles denial.

CO2 is not just plant food. For example, increasing CO2 does not increase the food value of our C4-chain crops (corn, etc.), but decreases it. It also changes water acidity and acts as a GHG. Sure, it can help plants but it doesn't necessarily help us.

Water is also useful for plants, but an improperly designed dam can have negative effects upon downstream people. You wouldn't call a flood 'just plant food', even though water is an essential plant resource. And you'd certainly not entertain debate about whether 'too much water' is a problem, either. It's worse than a red herring.

But why should I even exchange unpleasant postings with someone whose opinion on Climate Change is so regressive that he's unsure about what negative effects CO2 could have? At what possible credibility could that person have regarding concerns about 'gov't conspiracy' or 'improper scientist behavior'?

"Plant food". You're bringing strawmen to a discussion, and got called on it.

 

[Narz]

And guess what, Sherlock: ninety percent of the animal biomass on the planet is INSECTS. And there you have the answer. When you pointed out cattle, you were looking in the wrong place.

I think with cows methane is the issue, not CO2. Beef should be heavily taxed, not subsidized.

If humans can exhale a significant portion of that huge spike in CO2 levels, and insects can exhale ten times as much (actually, more than that--insects exhale more per unit body weight because of their very small ratio of volume to surface area), then a fairly modest growth in insect populations could account for the whole thing.

That's not fact. Just a theory. But if you can't disprove it.....

It's a pretty inane theory.

 

[GamezRule]

People here need to learn about cellular respiration.

Cells require oxygen and carbohydrates, which they turn into water and carbon dioxide.

Plants take in carbon dioxide and water, which they turn into oxygen and carbohydrates.

Also, 1 glucose molecule and 6 oxygen molecules have the same atoms as 6 co2 and 6 water molecules. We breathe out (and pee out) water also, but people seem to overlook this.

EDIT: Here is a good description of it, albeit a little bit confusing at first.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Imagine it. Plant food is "Loaded language" "Partisan vitriol" "First principles denial".

Just how weird is that?

http://www.niu.edu/writingtutorial/punctuation/punctuation.html

Enjoy

 

[Arwon]

Insects too.

That said, if a warmer world leads to more insects that could count as a positive feedback loop I suppose.

 

[BasketCase]

Holy smack. I'm absent for five days, and this whole thread goes to Detroit in a handbasket.

Sure. One thing I found out in the distant past (i.e. three years ago) was that ten percent of all human greenhouse gas emissions come from......drum roll.....HUMANS. Not cars, and not factories. From humans BREATHING.

Great. So, what about the other 90%? Should we just pretend it's not there?

Not at all. You just didn't carry it through all the way. Human CO2 emissions are huge. At least, they're huge if you believe everything the alarmists tell you in the press. So, if human breathing is ten percent of huge, and insect life is ten times the biomass of humans, and if insects exhale more per unit biomass (actually, that's not an "if") then, the simple act of breathing, by all the other animal life on Earth besides humans, is what?

Starts with an H. Yes, the answer is "huge". The point being, animal biomass all by itself can produce big swings in planetary CO2 levels. Doesn't mean they do--just that they can.

, what? So if there's more volume relative to surface area, the CO2 in the extra volume just disappears?

You've got it backwards. "Small ratio of volume to surface area" means more surface area and less volume. Smaller animals lose more heat through their skin. That's the reason you can live on a two-pound cheeseburger a day, while a mouse needs to eat a quarter of its entire body weight a day. And no, the pattern doesn't break with insects (though it's not always perfect). Some fleas eat several TIMES their own body weight each day, especially when producing eggs. Even a pregnant human female doesn't eat that much.

Though I've met one or two that come close......

CarlosMM, you must appreciate that a scientist has to be skeptical.

I normally hesitate to perform the "me too", but I gotta second this one. Science has to be skeptical and rely on proof. What most global warming alarmists do is simply assume the problem is real and then try to find stuff to prove what they already believe. Which is why I don't listen to them. I figured that out when I was a pre-teen messing around with my first chemistry set and learning how to make my own explosives; it's pretty sad when a kid in fourth grade does better science than a grown-up with a college degree, but then I guess there's a reason they call it a "BS" degree.....

That makes no sense. Human respiration is a closed loop, all the carbon was previously taken out of the air via photosynthesis, there's no net addition to the atmosphere.

Yeah. And guess what, you know all that oil and coal Americans are burning? That's a closed loop too. Where the hell do coal and oil come from?? From dead plants and animals that, as you said, already took the carbon out of the air. It's all closed loops.

So, you didn't actually answer the question--if a big chunk of our own emissions come from simply breathing, and if human beings are actually only a small percentage of the animal biomass on Earth, what conclusions can you draw? Already covered that a few moments ago, but it's worth repeating. Simple fluctuations in animal biomass and its activity level can produce big transient spikes in planetwide CO2 levels. Yes, we are seeing a spike right now--but that doesn't prove where it's coming from.

So, there's a yearly cycle of the planet breathing. We can imagine the magnitude of this breathing, the entire ecosystem in some type of homeostasis.

Why should said homeostasis be perfect? Or exist at all, for that matter? The system is only (reasonably) stable over the long term, and then only on a large scale. Life of all kinds has suffered huge dips and spikes for as long as there has been life (again, before human beings ever came along).

News flash, folks. "Avatar" was a MOVIE. Nothing you saw in that movie actually happened, and in fact most of what you saw is physically impossible. Except maybe the sex scene (and why the hell did they cut it, it was just two Smurfs plugging their USB cables together. Sheesh) The only way all life is connected is in that all living things are thinking one of two things: either "geez, I'm hungry, I need to eat something" or "oh, crap, that monster's trying to eat me!!!! NOOOOO!"

That said, if a warmer world leads to more insects that could count as a positive feedback loop I suppose.

This one's my favorite right here. I've heard it too: the line by global warming alarmists saying "a warmer Earth will result in plagues of annoying insects". This is actually 100% true. But this alarmist claim still deceives, by way of what it leaves out.

Global warming will be beneficial to insects--and it will benefit almost every other species on the planet as well. Insects will benefit--but so will the Amazon rainforest, which I'm sure you'll all agree is a good thing unless you get eaten alive by one of those really big snakes.

And yes, global warming will be harmful to polar bears. This alarmist claim, too, deceives, and in the same way. Polar bears are just about the only species that will suffer. The reason it's polar bears used in this argument and not grizzly bears (or deer or wolves or something closer to home) is that they can't find any other endangered animal to serve as a poster boy.

The alarmists cherry-pick all the bad things (burgeoning insects and starving polar bears) they can find, and leave out the good things. Such as expanding rainforest and more bountiful crops.


Phew. Lotta typing. Wonder how much I missed. Oh well, even I can only do so much.....

 

[Earthling]

You've not provided any evidence to any of your claims nor evidence that your claims mean what you wish them to mean regarding climate change theory, such as this one.

So, if human breathing is ten percent of huge, and insect life is ten times the biomass of humans, and if insects exhale more per unit biomass (actually, that's not an "if") then, the simple act of breathing, by all the other animal life on Earth besides humans, is what?

Starts with an H. Yes, the answer is "huge". The point being, animal biomass all by itself can produce big swings in planetary CO2 levels. Doesn't mean they do--just that they can.

(for the record this claim being the one thing that one could possibly with a straight face say resembles something called science even though again you haven't provided evidence, it's at least a reasonable point of discussion , as opposed to claims like this)

Polar bears are just about the only species that will suffer. The reason it's polar bears used in this argument and not grizzly bears (or deer or wolves or something closer to home) is that they can't find any other endangered animal to serve as a poster boy.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

And no, the pattern doesn't break with insects (though it's not always perfect).

Oh good, just conveniently ignore the rest of my post. What, too many inconvenient biological truths?

 

[choxorn]

Yeah. And guess what, you know all that oil and coal Americans are burning? That's a closed loop too. Where the hell do coal and oil come from?? From dead plants and animals that, as you said, already took the carbon out of the air. It's all closed loops.

Which took it out of the air millions of years ago, and didn't put it back in. We're basically re-adding CO2 to the atmosphere that's not been in it for millions of years.

Millions of years ago, there was way more of it in the atmosphere than there was now. So, I guess you could call it a closed loop, but only if you want to use a timescale of millions of years.

Such as expanding rainforest and more bountiful crops.

Yes, I'm sure the rainforest will expand when our bad logging practices make it shrink every year, and I'm sure the crops will stand up well to desertification and rising sea levels.

 

[BasketCase]

Oh good, just conveniently ignore the rest of my post. What, too many inconvenient biological truths?

I did say at the end of my post that I wondered how much I'd missed. I can't possibly know how much I missed, because if I knew what I missed then I wouldn't have missed it.

Post again if you think it's really important. Preferably fewer than forty-seven questions at once.

 

[Berzerker]

polar bears will be fine

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

more bountiful crops.

And also conveniently ignore what El_Mac said about the effects of increasing carbon on plants that utilize C4 photosynthesis, i.e. the world's major food crops.