Originally posted by Wajoma It does contribute CO2, not a great amount, but yes we breath out more CO2 than what we breath in. This is extremely basic biology.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Basic Biology (respiration)
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + heat
Work out where our bodies get the glucose brainiac.
We do not contribute to CO2 by breathing just because we exhale more than we inhale!
You should take it easy on the sarcasm, you might end up paying for it.
If one puts a plastic bag over ones head, one would eventually die from lack of oxygen, the oxygen being gradually replaced with CO2. We take in carbon in our food and oxygen from our breathing and expel CO2.
Perhaps you'd like to drop the sarcasm and explain exactly how exhaling more CO2 than we inhale does not contribute CO2.
Originally posted by sh76 Whodey, let's play a game. We'll call this game the "direct, positive post" game.
The game works as follows. I will post a question. You then give your honest, well thought out answer.
If you do, you win.
You lose if your answer contains any of the following:
1. Derision
2. Sarcasm
3. Attacking someone else's position
4. Blaming any government o ...[text shortened]... e of pollution in general and carbon dioxide in particular into the atmosphere?
Have fun![/b]
What can western governments do to monitor and control activity on the sun? to control volcanic activity? And to control the natural warming tendency of the earth's core?
Can any actions of humans alter the constant fluctuations of the earth's climate?
Originally posted by Wajoma You should take it easy on the sarcasm, you might end up paying for it.
If one puts a plastic bag over ones head, one would eventually die from lack of oxygen, the oxygen being gradually replaced with CO2. We take in carbon in our food and oxygen from our breathing and expel CO2.
Perhaps you'd like to drop the sarcasm and explain exactly how exhaling more CO2 than we inhale does not contribute CO2.
Carbon cycle.
Like all living things we are carbon-neutral.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Carbon cycle.
Like all living things we are carbon-neutral.
I understand carbon cycles, there is more than one carbon cycle.
Your claim is that if there were no humans there would be the same amount of CO2 in the air as if there were 7 billion humans living on the planet (disregarding burning fossil fuels)? Just want to be clear on your position.
Originally posted by Wajoma Your claim is that if there were no humans there would be the same amount of CO2 in the air as if there were 7 billion humans living on the planet (disregarding burning fossil fuels)? Just want to be clear on your position.
That's not my claim.
1. Humanity has pumped a lot of CO2 into the air from burning fossil fuels
so from that point of view there would be less CO2.
2. 7 billion humans is a lot of bio-mass (I estimate 100 billion kg of Carbon)
but you have to offset millennia of deforestation.
3. Therefore I will PASS on that question.
What I am stating is that breathing does not contribute to overall CO2
increase - its part of a cycle. We are in fact just recycling Carbon.
Originally posted by sh76 ===Will Western efforts be sufficient without the cooperation of China and India? ===
No. Cooperation of both is essential. Indonesia and Japan too.
To answer the question, I would say:
1. Invest heavily in wind and solar power; not so much in companies that currently offer it, but in research into making both more efficient
2. Increase gasoline tax ...[text shortened]... investing a few bucks to study methods to combat global warming if necessary is not a bad idea.
Actually China is putting in far more effort than the West, so what we should be asking is 'will Chinas efforts be sufficient without Western cooperation'.
It is important to start by reducing subsidies on fossil fuels.
I disagree about nuclear energy. Other renewables are more than sufficient for the worlds needs with proper investment.
Originally posted by CalJust Solar and wind cannot (yet, without storage) provide baseload electricity. So nuclear should be pushed heavily, but here we have to change public opinion.
Nuclear is not necessary. Wind, solar, biogas and other renewables are cheaper than nuclear and are perfectly capable of supplying baseload. Don't listen to the nuclear and oil industries propaganda.
25 Sep '14 01:07
More climate change propaganda
Back to Top