Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by timojin, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    Is there any correlation with human increase and CO2 rise in the atmosphere ?
    Each of us emits CO2 and H2O as we metabolize food , therefore as the population increase so should be an increase in Global warming gases .
    Also we consume large amount of meat , so there will also be an increase of animals which will also produce CO2 and water .
    Perhaps we should not blame only the fossil fuel .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,713
    Yes. But compared to the amount of carbon we burn, the amount we exhale is infinitesimal in comparison, as is the exhalations of our farm animals. Now, if you add in the amount of fossil fuels we burn to make fertilizer to grow the alfalfa for the meat, and the fuel we burn bringing it to market - then you start to see a more significant percentage.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Not to mention, when there were less humans, there were more animals. In the 1600s there were 50 million bison alone in North America. By mass (and therefore metabolism), that's about 3x as much bison as there are people in North America today.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    Pardon. I think there are 6 x more people in north America as there were Bison's on 1600 , I don't know if we have less cattle at the present then the 50 million ?
    Beside I assume we have smokers
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,796
    The biomass of the earth has not changed very much over the last 100 years. The burning of fossil fuels has increased dramatically over the last 100 years - that is where the CO2 is coming from.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
    Write4U likes this.
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes but they were like sugar cane alcohol fueled cars - every gram of carbon they exhaled (or that went out the car's tail pipe) was first removed from the air - no net addition of carbon to the air.

    In fact in both cases, (bison and ethanol cars) there is a slight net negative release of carbon. In the bison case, some of the grass carbon that went in the mouth end of the digestive tube comes out the other end as a quasi-solid, that dries on the ground storing carbon that was in the air as CO2 for more years than the grass does. And the part that returns to be grass again, has on average added several years to the average storage time.

    A system of cars running on sugar cane alcohol would be even more net carbon negative as there would ALWAYS be tons of carbon which had been removed from the air in their individual car fuel tanks, in the fuel tanker trucks delivering alcohol to the fueling stations, and more in the large tanks of the distribution system (smallest is usually underground at the filling stations, in large fields of large tanks at the importation ports - if you have ever driven along I-95 thru NJ, you'll understand) and still larger tanks we call ocean tankers.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,041
    The amount of blame due to fossil fuel burning has been measured, by comparing isotope ratios at other info at Mauna Loa and other sampling stations.

    Almost the entire rise in CO2 levels since the 1700s on this planet has been due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, according to their data.
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    He's correct. Human activities produce carbon, even without fossil fuels. For instance, rice farming produces huge amounts of methane, a situation that started some 10K years ago. Native Americans burned significant areas of forest to make deer proliferate. So humans have been changing the planet for a long time.
     
  12. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Lifeforms just recycle the carbon, they don't produce it to the same extent that burning fossil fuels does.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    I believe that has been pretty well confirmed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    I find it tragic that we have an accessible source of near infinite non CO2 producing energy, the sun. And this source energy is woefully underused, IMO.

    Is there no way to convert this :
     
  15. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    Necessity is the mother of invention. In the 1960 70 from what I remember there were solar cell but they were sensors , then in the 1980 or earlier come the water heaters in the roof . As society realized about
    possible global warming , so other form of energy was searched . (I have my water heater since year 2000 then in 2005 I obtained 700Watt solar panels. ) Now we have wind farms , tidal waves, ete. ete. There was time fossil fuel was great , but we as society got complacent
    Up to 1960 world population was about 3 billion , 2013 6.5 billion . In the 1960 there was no complain about global warming , we had big gas guzzler and we did not mind . In the 1980 the fuel went up,up, then we started to reduce the consumption , but the population increase fueled up the consumption , and now we scream do something we have GLOBAL WARMING.
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,042
    Can you site on wat year was study done .
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    Fossil fuel cause of CO2 is BS.


    http://drtimball.com

    His book is ....well informative to say the least.
     
  18. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Oh look, river is once again on the side of a known crank and crackpot. How typical.
     
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    Uninformed
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,558
    Correct, and therein lies the problem.
    The natural result of increased use of natural resources, due to our complacency of relying on fossil fuel.

    btw. Since the Industrial Revolution, a few centuries of our (human) use of fossil fuels have released billions of years of "sequestered" (removed from the air and water) CO2 back into the ecosphere.

    That's why we now scream of GLOBAL WARMING and "do something about it". Surely you are not suggesting we should remain complacent?

    If we can spend trillions on warfare against other people, we should be able to spend a few trillion on warfare against a much more dangerous natural enemy of our own making.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,041
    It's ongoing - data collected every day of every year since the establishment of the Mauna Loa facility.

    Isotope analysis is not bs. It's standard, unquestioned, nuts and bolts scientific technique.

    Maybe. But his website is full of crackpottery and wingnuttery. Did the same guy write the book as the website essays?
     
  22. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,162
    They were fudging the books iceaura. Bottom line the Human part of the CO2 equation is BULL SHIT they were flat out caught. The E-mails were leaked out. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC. lied. They had all along.

    The CO2 is non-sense , get it non-sense.
     
  23. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Incidentally, the USA government is the largest consumer of limited resources as well as the largest polluter on the planet - in human history. But, hey, Terrorists.
     

Share This Page