Natural CO2 emissions versus human created

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course, Si will argue that the people at this site pepper their arguements is inaccuracies and falsehoods. After all, even the scientists at the AGU cannot be right if they disagree with Si

https://sites.google.com/site/aguclimateqaservice/

I swear. Plant respiration is not too difficult to understand. Even you might understand it.

From this second post, it is apparent that you do not. Or are you denying that plants do not emit CO2 at night, or when decomposing?

Plants absorb CO2, and the negligible amounts they absorb is from the CO2 they absorb and fail to convert to sugars and O2 during the day. Saying plants emit CO2 as a bit like saying humans exhale O2, technically true, but totally ignoring what actually occurs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't even know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide? Plants breathe out carbon monoxide?

Stop playing at science. You soil it with your political agenda.

Plants don't even breath out CO2, they breathe out O2.

In daylight plants produce oxygen through photosynthesis. In darkness, CO2.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Table of Contents
What is Photosynthesis? | Leaves and Leaf Structure | The Nature of Light | Chlorophyll and Accessory Pigments
The structure of the chloroplast and photosynthetic membranes | Stages of Photosynthesis | The Light Reactions

Dark Reaction | C-4 Pathway | The Carbon Cycle | Learning Objectives | Terms | Review Questions | Links

What is Photosynthesis? | Back to Top
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants, some bacteria, and some protistans use the energy from sunlight to produce sugar, which cellular respiration converts into ATP, the "fuel" used by all living things. The conversion of unusable sunlight energy into usable chemical energy, is associated with the actions of the green pigment chlorophyll. Most of the time, the photosynthetic process uses water and releases the oxygen that we absolutely must have to stay alive. Oh yes, we need the food as well!

We can write the overall reaction of this process as:

6H2O + 6CO2 ----------> C6H12O6+ 6O2
Most of us don't speak chemicalese, so the above chemical equation translates as:

six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen
PHOTOSYNTHESIS

Plants do not produce CO2, they release a portion of the CO2 they absorb, and fail to convert, during the day. Even the CO2 they release during decomposition is less than they absorb from the environment, and was all there to begin with. I am not mocking him for saying plants emit CO2, I am mocking him for not putting it into context.

 

[IanC]

this whole argument over whether plants produce CO2 or not is useful in considering the context of 'consensus' and 'settled science'. it is technically true that plant cell activity produces CO2 24 hrs a day. but that amount is overwhelmed by the amount of CO2 used to produce sugars in the chloroplasts.

likewise scientists have to agree that increased CO2 from mankind is helping warm the planet because it is true. but it doesn't mean that anthropogenic CO2 is the most important factor, just that it is a factor. they also have to agree that there is some non-zero chance of catastrophic warming, even though the chance of it is very small.

scientists don't like to out and out lie because they will often get caught but they can misdirect the population by the emphasis they put on certain things and what they omit. case in point- Phil Jones had to admit that the warming since 1995 was not statistically significant. because it is true. but then he added 'but only just'. that was a misdirection that is allowed because there is no definition of 'only just'.

 

[liebuster]

Dude, you cut and pasted that fromt he link and it said that plants emitt CO2?

All those supposed scientists that contributed to that article are a bunch of idiots then.

Nuff said.

Plants breathe. In the absence of light they emit CO2.

I stand corrected. I never knew that. I only thought they emitted Oxygen.

 

[Intense]

Dude, you cut and pasted that fromt he link and it said that plants emitt CO2?

All those supposed scientists that contributed to that article are a bunch of idiots then.

Nuff said.

Plants breathe. In the absence of light they emit CO2.

I stand corrected. I never knew that. I only thought they emitted Oxygen.

If you have ever visited Someone in a small hospital room, with abundant flowers and plants, and poor ventilation, you could be warned about air quality. Even the cut flowers breathe.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you guys had looked at the link you would have seen that the 2 in CO2 had been lost because of the font in the cut&paste.

mind you there is nothing to explain why they think plants give off CO2 rather than use it to make food.

overall the site is very simplistic, with appeals to authority and highly charged wording ("The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs
every second"). there is nothing new there but it is easy to see how people with no background in science or critical thinking could be swayed by the alarmist tone and casual dismissal of counter evidence.

I actually assumed that, but that does not excuse Old Rocks not proofing his post. Nor does it excuse him posting something that was so far off in the science that it is laughable, especially since he claims science credentials himself.

No, I do not claim scientific credentials. I do have about three years of university level classes in Geology over 40 years ago, but no degree or credentials. I have maintained an interest in the subject to the point of exploring formations in most of the western states, and western Canada. Using USGS quad maps for guidence, of course.

But I did learn how to research when I was in school, and, when addressing a subject, still do that today. I also learned how to judge sources, Limpbaugh or the Cato Institute are not the equal of the USGS, NOAA, NASA, or the National Academy of Sciences when addressing a scientific subject.

 

[Old Rocks]

I swear. Plant respiration is not too difficult to understand. Even you might understand it.

From this second post, it is apparent that you do not. Or are you denying that plants do not emit CO2 at night, or when decomposing?

Right, yet the net reaction is what?

Idiot.

Sheesh. Unless the plant is buried, and turned into coal, the net result is zero. When the plant remains complete rot, (oxidize), the carbon in the chemical compounds in the plant release all the carbon as CO2. It is cyclic.

Now scientist, you apparently had forgotten the little fact about plants emitting CO2 at night, and do not care to acknowledge the nature of the natural CO2 cycle.

No, plant respiration is not difficult to understand. Even you might, with a little study, gain an understanding of it.

 

[Si modo]

From this second post, it is apparent that you do not. Or are you denying that plants do not emit CO2 at night, or when decomposing?

Right, yet the net reaction is what?

Idiot.

Sheesh. Unless the plant is buried, and turned into coal, the net result is zero. When the plant remains complete rot, (oxidize), the carbon in the chemical compounds in the plant release all the carbon as CO2. It is cyclic.

Now scientist, you apparently had forgotten the little fact about plants emitting CO2 at night, and do not care to acknowledge the nature of the natural CO2 cycle.

No, plant respiration is not difficult to understand. Even you might, with a little study, gain an understanding of it.

I hadn't forgotten a thing.

But, I find it amusing that your partisanship has you arguing with me against your case and I'm pretty sure you don't even realize it. It's just kneejerk for you.

Now, what posters and/or scientists have ever argued that man does not emit more CO2 than nature?

Your strawman is showing like a cheap slip.

 

[Granny]

Well - it's an interesting thread. I've learned from the OP that humans are not natural beings and are no part of the natural order of things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you guys had looked at the link you would have seen that the 2 in CO2 had been lost because of the font in the cut&paste.

mind you there is nothing to explain why they think plants give off CO2 rather than use it to make food.

overall the site is very simplistic, with appeals to authority and highly charged wording ("The rate of energy building up since 1970 is equivalent to 2.5 Hiroshima bombs
every second"). there is nothing new there but it is easy to see how people with no background in science or critical thinking could be swayed by the alarmist tone and casual dismissal of counter evidence.

I actually assumed that, but that does not excuse Old Rocks not proofing his post. Nor does it excuse him posting something that was so far off in the science that it is laughable, especially since he claims science credentials himself.

No, I do not claim scientific credentials. I do have about three years of university level classes in Geology over 40 years ago, but no degree or credentials. I have maintained an interest in the subject to the point of exploring formations in most of the western states, and western Canada. Using USGS quad maps for guidence, of course.

But I did learn how to research when I was in school, and, when addressing a subject, still do that today. I also learned how to judge sources, Limpbaugh or the Cato Institute are not the equal of the USGS, NOAA, NASA, or the National Academy of Sciences when addressing a scientific subject.

You can put down Cato all you want, but you clearly lack the ability to judge the sources, or you wouldn't have posted that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From this second post, it is apparent that you do not. Or are you denying that plants do not emit CO2 at night, or when decomposing?

Right, yet the net reaction is what?

Idiot.

Sheesh. Unless the plant is buried, and turned into coal, the net result is zero. When the plant remains complete rot, (oxidize), the carbon in the chemical compounds in the plant release all the carbon as CO2. It is cyclic.

Now scientist, you apparently had forgotten the little fact about plants emitting CO2 at night, and do not care to acknowledge the nature of the natural CO2 cycle.

No, plant respiration is not difficult to understand. Even you might, with a little study, gain an understanding of it.

Wrong. Even if the plant is buried for millions of years and turned into the dirtiest possible fossil fuel and burned the net effect is a reduction in CO2.

 

[Trajan]

One can tell the depths of ignorance or dishonesty in a poster when they start the yap-yap about how miniscule man's CO2 emissions are compared to natures. Of course, they just happen to fail to mention that nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. At least for the present.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf

Humans are raising CO2 levels 2
When you look through the many arguments from
global warming ‘skeptics’, a pattern emerges. They
tend to focus on small pieces of the puzzle while
neglecting the bigger picture. A good example of this
is the argument that human carbon dioxide (CO2 )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO2 and
outgassing from the ocean. Natural emissions add
up to 776 billion tonnes per year. Without a full
understanding of the carbon cycle, our emissions
seem tiny when compared to nature’s contribution.

CO2 and huge amounts of
CO2 dissolve into the
ocean. Nature absorbs 788
billion tonnes every year.
Natural absorptions roughly
balance natural emissions.
What we do is upset the
balance. While some of our
CO2 is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO2
emissions remain in the air.

Edited-CO2

how much CO2 is in the air? break it down for us please......