Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 262

Subscriber

#1674314 19-Nov-2016 20:49

jmh:
CO2 is not pollution and scientists do not KNOW (capitals do not make it MORE true) the future. When the scientists start including the effects of ocean temperature and sun radiation in their models I'll start listening. At the moment, reality is not meeting the models. However, many more billions are being spent each year to try and prove that man is more powerful that the earth's oceans and the sun.

I think you might be confusing industrial pollution and global warming as a side effect of this. Excess CO2 production is a by product of the process of industrialisation, primarily from burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil. I believe this is the accepted definition of the cause of excess co2 production and is no longer being debated. You will be aware that 193 countries (out of 196) have signed the paris agreement on this.

As CO2 is produced its effect is to trap heat in the atmosphere which is what causes the global warming. The technical term for it i think is called "radiative forcing" and it is measured in watts per sq. metre.

The definition of a pullutant is something that is intruduced into an environment such as the atmosphere that has undesirable effects. So by this definition and the fact that global warming is undesired, I would call it pollution.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

TwoSeven

1649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 262

Subscriber

#1674323 19-Nov-2016 21:16

jpoc:
frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The cycle of the oxygen that we breath and the food that we eat must be balanced. It cannot not be. You cannot consume more oxygen than was produced by growing the food that you eat. How on earth could you?

Some plant absorbs one molecule of CO2 from the air. It harvests some sunshine and uses the energy in the light to convert that one molecule of CO2 into a single carbon atom that it can accumulate into it's tissue and it releases the two oxygen atoms into the air in the form of one molecule of O2. You eat that one atom of carbon and your body metabolizes it in a process that means that you breath in one molecule of O2 - two oxygen atoms - and you combine them into one molecule of carbon dioxide which you breath back out into the air.

You cannot consume more, or less, oxygen that was produced in the course of growing your food.

The upshot is that, while there are many good reasons to grow lots of trees, producing the air that we breath is not one of them.

I might point out that probably much of the oxygen that exists was likely created by stars in a process called nucleosynthesis.

I think Most plants that photosynthesise sunlight produce oxygen as a result, not just food plants.

Photosynthisys is where clorophyll and sunlight are used to break down water (H2O)to produce oxygen (O2) which is then used to convert CO2 into carbohydrates (sugar) - a process called carbon fixation which is as I understand it part of the calvin cycle. I dont think it would be right to say CO2 is converted into oxygen as I think the oxygen comes from the water. Also, it would be worth while considering the role that the worlds oceans play in producing oxygen as well.

...they/their/them...

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#1674344 19-Nov-2016 23:03

TwoSeven:
jpoc:

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The cycle of the oxygen that we breath and the food that we eat must be balanced. It cannot not be. You cannot consume more oxygen than was produced by growing the food that you eat. How on earth could you?

Some plant absorbs one molecule of CO2 from the air. It harvests some sunshine and uses the energy in the light to convert that one molecule of CO2 into a single carbon atom that it can accumulate into it's tissue and it releases the two oxygen atoms into the air in the form of one molecule of O2. You eat that one atom of carbon and your body metabolizes it in a process that means that you breath in one molecule of O2 - two oxygen atoms - and you combine them into one molecule of carbon dioxide which you breath back out into the air.

You cannot consume more, or less, oxygen that was produced in the course of growing your food.

The upshot is that, while there are many good reasons to grow lots of trees, producing the air that we breath is not one of them.

I might point out that probably much of the oxygen that exists was likely created by stars in a process called nucleosynthesis.

I think Most plants that photosynthesise sunlight produce oxygen as a result, not just food plants.

Photosynthisys is where clorophyll and sunlight are used to break down water (H2O)to produce oxygen (O2) which is then used to convert CO2 into carbohydrates (sugar) - a process called carbon fixation which is as I understand it part of the calvin cycle. I dont think it would be right to say CO2 is converted into oxygen as I think the oxygen comes from the water. Also, it would be worth while considering the role that the worlds oceans play in producing oxygen as well.

Good grief, why is it so hard to understand.

The total amount of oxygen breathed in by the entire human race (and any food animals that we eat) is exactly equal to the amount of oxygen released into the atmosphere by the food plants that we and our food animals eat. Of course there are other interactions going on - we dig up coal and burn it which converts oxygen in the atmosphere into carbon dioxide and we can grow trees that convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into carbon compounds and free oxygen in the atmosphere but they are are not part of the "oxygen that we breath" cycle.

Of course there are all of these things going on but claiming that trees produce the oxygen that we breath is nonsense - as long as we are growing enough food to eat then that food production must be releasing an amount of free oxygen into the air that exactly equals the amount the we (and our food animals) consume.

frankv

5690 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3649

Lifetime subscriber

#1674404 20-Nov-2016 09:53

jpoc:

I might point out that probably much of the oxygen that exists was likely created by stars in a process called nucleosynthesis.

Good grief, why is it so hard to understand.

Firstly, the source of oxygen *atoms* (stars in a process called nucleosynthesis) is irrelevant. What we're concerned about here are oxygen *molecules*.

The total amount of oxygen breathed in by the entire human race (and any food animals that we eat) is exactly equal to the amount of oxygen released into the atmosphere by the food plants that we and our food animals eat.

Whilst this is true biologically (human bodies are neither a source nor sink of O2 or CO2), it's irrelevant. Firstly, there are lots of human activities which *do* remove O2 from the atmosphere, or add CO2 to it. e.g. anything made of iron that hasn't rusted, any fuel (fossil or wood) burnt, any plastic that hasn't decomposed. Secondly, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been stable for at least hundreds if not thousands of years, despite the growth in human population.

Of course there are all of these things going on but claiming that trees produce the oxygen that we breath is nonsense - as long as we are growing enough food to eat then that food production must be releasing an amount of free oxygen into the air that exactly equals the amount the we (and our food animals) consume.

Again, it's irrelevant to pigeonhole oxygen-that-we-breathe separately from oxygen-that-we-use-to-make-steel.

ajw

1933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 349

#1674417 20-Nov-2016 10:47

Why isn't there consensus among all climate scientists that this is happening. And no I don't want to get into a debate on global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cdgITRc-s&t=1208s

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1674753 21-Nov-2016 07:06

Ive read that the support is now 97-98%

ajw

1933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 349

#1675100 21-Nov-2016 17:48

tdgeek:

Ive read that the support is now 97-98%

Can you provide link to this info please.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1675146 21-Nov-2016 19:31

ajw:
tdgeek:

Ive read that the support is now 97-98%

Can you provide link to this info please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

References at the bottom

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675150 21-Nov-2016 19:45

PhantomNVD:
ajw:
tdgeek:

Ive read that the support is now 97-98%

Can you provide link to this info please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

References at the bottom

Cheers for that. I've watched so many docos on climate change and that its rubbish and global cooling which surprisingly isn't talked about, yet we have these sceptic posts. Ignore the hyperbole and focus on the science.

Global cooling is the effect that smoke particles are large compared to dust that has water attached in the atmosphere that adds a great deal of filtering of the sun. Thereby reducing the global warming effect.

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1675162 21-Nov-2016 20:44

tdgeek:

Ive read that the support is now 97-98%

There's some commentary on this, amongst other things in this article http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

It's quite an interesting perspective on the subject. I haven't checked any of the references but it was presented at the Royal Society so you would hope that it isn't all just made up.

I'd be interested to know how this ties in with the "consensus"

TwoSeven

1649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 262

Subscriber

#1675590 22-Nov-2016 17:54

ajw:

Why isn't there consensus among all climate scientists that this is happening. And no I don't want to get into a debate on global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cdgITRc-s&t=1208s

In my post above I mentioned that the Paris Agreement has been signed by about 98% of countries (I think 60% odd have ratified it so far). I would suggest that it could be resonable to assume that many of those countries might have gotten their chief climate people to brief them at some point in time - this is just my guess though. It is worth while reading the Paris agreement on climate change. I mention this because to me, that agreement would imply some semblance of concensus somewhere.

I would suggest that it is often worth while checking the authoritative source of information and references against those sources. Also to looking to see if data being referred to is up-to-date or if the interpretation is correct can be useful as well as understanding the meaning of terms that are being used.

...they/their/them...

ajw

1933 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 349

#1675591 22-Nov-2016 17:58

TwoSeven:

ajw:

Why isn't there consensus among all climate scientists that this is happening. And no I don't want to get into a debate on global warming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cdgITRc-s&t=1208s

In my post above I mentioned that the Paris Agreement has been signed by about 98% of countries (I think 60% odd have ratified it so far). I would suggest that it could be resonable to assume that many of those countries might have gotten their chief climate people to brief them at some point in time - this is just my guess though. It is worth while reading the Paris agreement on climate change. I mention this because to me, that agreement would imply some semblance of concensus somewhere.

On a slightly different note and perhaps this might not be relevant to your question, but in PR (Public Relations) there is a technique known as 'spin'. I think the the idea behind it is to create some form of doubt or bias about a subject or message with the effect that people end up doing nothing or take an alternate action. Spin kind of can work by sounding authoritive but not necessarily being entirely factual.

I would suggest that it is often worth while checking the authoritative source of information and references against those sources. Also to looking to see if data being referred to is up-to-date or if the interpretation is correct can be useful as well as understanding the meaning of terms that are being used.

Don't be surprised if Donald Trump rips up the agreement made in Paris.

shk292

2873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2012

Lifetime subscriber

#1677586 25-Nov-2016 18:57

Another "datapoint" - although judging by the tumbleweeds blowing around in this thread since my first "non-consensus" post, this will engender a similar reaction:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

tdgeek

29819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9155

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1677641 25-Nov-2016 20:44

shk292:

Another "datapoint" - although judging by the tumbleweeds blowing around in this thread since my first "non-consensus" post, this will engender a similar reaction:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

Cool. So explain "tumbleweeds"

Ive seen them in Texas. So what you are saying is those that see climate change effects as real are "tumbleweeds"?

Hammerer

2477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 801

Lifetime subscriber

#1677726 26-Nov-2016 00:08

tdgeek, if I understand shk292 correctly, "tumbleweeds blowing around in this thread" are erroneous ideas. These include the often repeated idea that forests, particularly the Amazon rainforest, are nett generators of atmospheric oxygen. This results from oxygen "turnover" statistics in rainforests being confused with oxygen "production" statistics.

Many posts in this thread repeat such commonly-held misconceptions. Perhaps you didn't mean nett oxygen yield but that is what I understand you to be saying here. You mention it alongside the CO2 actually does produce a nett benefit. And if the nett benefit is not being talked about then why would the amount of rainforest matter.

tdgeek:

The Amazon rainforest is huge oxygen generator, and CO2 user, thats reducing every day.

Here's a short, easy to understand explanation why forests are not usually net generators of atmospheric oxygen:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-08/965676157.Bt.r.html

Recent satellite imaging of net oxygen yields confirms what was found by earlier research. The primary net producer of atmospheric oxygen appears to be marine algae. Incidentally, from memory, this was most clearly shown by the NASA Earth Science satellite programme (which we are told Trump will cut funding for).

http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/

1 | 2 | 3 | 4