As breathing forms an integral part of the carbon-cycle at the surface of the earth, it does not lead to a net loss or gain of carbon in the air.
On the other hand, fossll fuels come from deep inside the earth, as such the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere through its combustion can be considered as a new source for this gas over the earth. For that reason, all emissions linked to fossil fuels can potentially contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas over the earth.
It would have a small negative effect when compared to the billions of trucks, cars, and factories burning fossil fuels.
As breathing forms an integral part of the carbon-cycle at the surface of the earth, it does not lead to a net loss or gain of carbon in the air.
On the other hand, fossll fuels come from deep inside the earth, as such the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere through its combustion can be considered as a new source for this gas over the earth. For that reason, all emissions linked to fossil fuels can potentially contribute to an increase in greenhouse gas over the earth.
I don't think it will contribute for climate change significantly.
I agree with the view of Dr. Saseendran. The CO2 released through respiration (humans and animals) is an integral part of the carbon-cycle on earth surface, no question of loss or gain of carbon in the air.
Regards
Kenneth,
I don't think you understand what a cycle is. The plants absorb CO2 and produce vegetation. We or cows eat the vegetation and exhale CO2. We also eat cows and exhale carbon dioxide from them. Thus CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. We and the cows also excrete organic carbon which is consumed by organism such as bacteria which return the organic carbon to the atmosphere as CO2.
The organic carbon cycle is a constant flow from the atmosphere into the biosphere and back to the atmosphere.
Oh! Ken, you are on about that again are you. How we must but can't capture the CO2 we have produced.
I've already told you how we can do that, but of course you didn't want to know. It is simple. We fertilise the coccolithophores and they will convert the carbon dioxide into limestone.
Also, as the permafrost retreats huge areas of peat land will be created which will also draw down carbon dioxide, just as the forests did in the Carboniferous.
Why be so gloomy? It will all come right in the end.
The Problem with the " System " is that we are gradually eliminating part of the very thing we need to do the recycling. We are cutting down the forrests, burning the trees, and releasing more CO2 than would naturally be sequestered by the trees.
Fertelizing the oceans to grow additional limestone reefs does seem to be a promising solution. We could even compress the CO2, and pipe it to the shallow, warm, and well lit sections of the oceans, and release it slowly and in a controlled way to start new reefs growing. We could choose areas farther from the equator so the new reefs could grow without the over heating problems that are killing off the reefs too close to the equator.
CO2 will be one of the more interesting problems to solve in the next 50 to 100 years. Of course if we just wait long enough, it should get colder again. If my calculations are right ( always questionable ) the next cold spell should be centered 542 years after the last cold spell center of 1680.
That is 1680 + 542 = 2222. If it lasts as long as the previous one, it will be really cold between 2187 and 2257, a duration of 70 years.
Only Time will tell.
Major reservoirs of carbon on the planet - Atmosphere, terrestrial biosphere (freshwater bodies and other organic material like soil carbon), oceans (dissolved carbon in inorganic as well as organic, living and non-living, and marine flora and fauna), sediments (fossil fuels), and planet's interior (Earth's mantle and crust; the carbon is released to the atmosphere or hydrosphere by volcanic eruptions and geothermal activities).
These reservoirs are interlinked by flow of exchanges (Diagram - General flow chart of a carbon cycle - movement of carbon in various layers). The total amount of carbon remains fixed; all of the carbon we have on Earth and in the atmosphere is the same amount we have always had
Regards
Kenneth you said Michael's calculation differs from that of Climatologist Reid Bryson...40 years ago, which of them do think is much accurate and why?
Dr Bryson is a climate change denier, and is little respected now-a -days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ
In the past he was a leading prophet of global cooling, yet his fellow deniers use that belief to discredit present day scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson#Views
As for global warming, and CO2, personally, I like Global warming as it makes for milder winters. Yesterday it was around 70 deg F, warm, calm, sunny, and we were working outside. Today it is 15 deg F. cold, calm, and snowing, and the vehicles were covered with a layer of ice that took 30 minutes to defrost the windows. I will take the Global Warming and be thankful for it. We just get the snow later in the winter, and later in the spring.
I know we need that cold, yuccky white stuff for an annual supply of water, but I still do not like it. I suppose I should not complain. It is free lawn water.
Ken,
That assertion from yet another climate change denier is just another straw man. Deniers are not just those "unsympathetic to the most aggressive activist's claims." They also include people like yourself who deny that climate change is dangerous.
Ken,
Bryson is denying, like you, that we are causing the current global warming by burning fossil fuels!
Dr. Steven L Larson - Thanks for your appreciation and additional information you provided - compartmentalization of carbon, and molecular form of the carbon. Regards
No. These kinds of emissions are compensated by the natural environmental cycles.
According to me not because in question of biomas corresponding to animals that breath has been pratically the same for centuries even millennia (Humans 60% and other animals 40% aprox.), the thing that changes is that the biomas corrsponding to breath animals nowadays is in it´s mostly human (Humans 96% and other animals 4% aprox.).
I hope it´s usefull.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change