Originally posted by AThousandYoung Carbon neutral maybe, but we transform biomass into CO2 when we eat it and breathe it out. We're not CO2 neutral.
Its relative. If we did not eat the food, something else would.
Of course if we did not grow the food, then the soil (in some locations) would contain more carbon.
Originally posted by twhitehead Its relative. If we did not eat the food, something else would.
Of course if we did not grow the food, then the soil (in some locations) would contain more carbon.
Not necessarily. Petroleum is carbon that was never eaten by anything.
The carbon in plants comes from the air, not the soil.
Originally posted by whodey Do you deny that dinosaurs emitted more CO2 a year back in the day than humans do today?
Irrelevant.
If you have to ask that question you clearly do not understand
the Carbon Cycle and should not be participating in Climate
Change discussion as if you knew something.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Over a lifetime (plus a bit for decomposition!) we are Carbon neutral.
Over a lifetime we have no net effect on CO2.
Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.
The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.
Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.
Originally posted by Wajoma Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.
The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.
Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.
All things considered, it is just about the height of arrogance for humans to presume they can manipulate or alter the weather intentionally, when nobody can truly agree on the extent that man's previous actions had an effect on the climate, which has varied from before man is know to have existed.
If you have to ask that question you clearly do not understand
the Carbon Cycle and should not be participating in Climate
Change discussion as if you knew something.
So the mere fact that dino's were producing more carbon is irrelevant?
Originally posted by whodey The climate has always changed Shav.
It's like trying to sell the notion that the sky is blue. It's blue, but not because of what any of us have to do with it.
I concede that living organisms have some effect on the never changing weather. For example, dino's created more cabon emissions than humans. Did their passing gas kill them all off? I've not ...[text shortened]... creation of a "big pot of money" created by political leaders around the world, at our expense.
How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?
Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.
Originally posted by Wajoma Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.
The only way you could argue humans (regardless of fossil fuels) did not add CO2 to the atmosphere would be if the pop was static or that each new human removed some other critters from the equation.
Edit: To clarify, there isn't one carbon cycle each CO2 producing unit (human or otherwise) has it's own cycle.
Originally posted by shavixmir How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?
Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.
You know what would happen if bullfrogs had wings?
Originally posted by shavixmir How do you know dino's created more carbon emission?
And you do realize that if the perma-frost in Siberia melts, we're all gonna die by mammoth dung, don't you?
Yes. The climate has always changed.
To think that the current state of affairs doesn't affect it in any way is contradicting rationality and every single scientific report.
That is what scientists say silly so it must be true!
Obviously, they farted themselves into extinction. I've personally come close a couple of times.
Originally posted by Wajoma Agreed, but each new CO2 producing unit that is added also adds it's own CO2 to the atmosphere.
NO NO NO
That "unit" as you call it can only get Carbon from food. The Carbon
in that food came from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you don't get that
it's pointless carrying on a discussion.
That "unit" as you call it can only get Carbon from food. The Carbon
in that food came from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you don't get that
it's pointless carrying on a discussion.
If we didn't consume the food then how does it get into the atmoshere.
25 Sep '14 15:40
More climate change propaganda
Back to Top