Natural CO2 emissions versus human created

[Si modo]

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.

LOL. And then there is the people who created the site;

• Dr. John Abraham, Associate Professor of
Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul,
Minnesota
• Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Prof. Andrew Dessler, Department of Atmospheric
Science, Texas A&M University
• Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global
Change Institute, University of Queensland
• Prof. David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences,
University of Melbourne
• Prof. Scott Mandia, Physical Sciences, Suffolk
County Community College
• Dana Nuccitelli - Environmental Scientist, Tetra
Tech, Inc.
• James Prall, The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University
of Toronto
• Dr. John Price, www.grandkidzfuture.com
• Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
• Prof. Peter Reich, Sr. Chair in Forest Ecology and
Tree Physiology, University of Minnesota
• Prof. Riccardo Reitano, Department of Physics and
Astronomy, University of Catania, Italy
• Prof. Christian Shorey, Geology and Geologic
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
• Suffolk County Community College MET101
students
• Glenn Tamblyn, B Eng (Mech), Melbourne
University, Australia
• Dr. André Viau, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Dr. Haydn Washington, Environmental Scientist
• Robert Way, Department of Geography, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Canada
• Dr. Ray Weymann, Director Emeritus and Staff
Member Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories,
Pasadena, California; Member, National Academy
of Sciences
• James Wight
• Bärbel Winkler, Germany

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

That still doesn't change the fact that they do not know plant respiration.

 

[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 confess. I went to the link and did notice that the link had it right.

However, I dismissed the link almost immediately. It is wrought with rhetoric and peppered with inaccurate science.

Bullshit. It had facts that disagree with your political agenda. Worse yet, for people like yourself, it had a referance section complete with real scientists.

 

[Si modo]

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 confess. I went to the link and did notice that the link had it right.

However, I dismissed the link almost immediately. It is wrought with rhetoric and peppered with inaccurate science.

Bullshit. It had facts that disagree with your political agenda. Worse yet, for people like yourself, it had a referance section complete with real scientists.

I have no political agenda when it comes to science. Now, go study plant respiration. It's not difficult.

 

[Old Rocks]

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/

 

[Si modo]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

I confess. I went to the link and did notice that the link had it right.

However, I dismissed the link almost immediately. It is wrought with rhetoric and peppered with inaccurate science.

Bullshit. It had facts that disagree with your political agenda. Worse yet, for people like yourself, it had a referance section complete with real scientists.

I have no political agenda when it comes to science. Now, go study plant respiration. It's not difficult.

While I would like to have the time to study plant respiration in depth, I do remember, from a biology class, that plants give off CO2 at night. And when the plant matter dies and decomposes, it gives off CO2 if there is complete oxidization, when there is not, it creates CH4.

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

 

[Si modo]

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?

Right, yet the net reaction is what?

Idiot.

 

[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.

 

[Intense]

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 CO 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 (CO )
emissions are tiny compared to natural emissions.
The argument goes like this. Each year, we send over
20 billion tonnes of CO into the atmosphere. Natural
emissions come from plants breathing out CO 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.

CO and huge amounts of
CO 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
CO is being absorbed by
the ocean and land plants, around half of our CO
emissions remain in the air.

Why are you talking about Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide as if it is the same thing?????

Please clarify?????

If you go to the site, you will see that CO2 has the 2 in subscripts, and it failed to copy the subscripts.

That is something you should have corrected. I'll get it.

 

[Intense]

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.

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

 

[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.

 

[Si modo]

And, I'm wondering what posters and/or science has ever said that man does not emit more CO2 than nature. Smells like straw to me.

 

[Intense]

In all fairness to Rocks, everyone makes mistakes, tolerance is rewarded with tolerance. Check your Copy and Pastes, it is good form.

In fairness to all other posters, not everyone trusts links, or takes the time to click them. It is wrong to have expectations. On the surface, the post was mis-representative and false, because of a glitch, something the reader had no part in.

 

[Intense]

Sounds like by manipulating sunlight, it's effects, and duration, or imitating it effect the cleanup of excess CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In all fairness to Rocks, everyone makes mistakes, tolerance is rewarded with tolerance. Check your Copy and Pastes, it is good form.

In fairness to all other posters, not everyone trusts links, or takes the time to click them. It is wrong to have expectations. On the surface, the post was mis-representative and false, because of a glitch, something the reader had no part in.

I've made some boneheaded typos no doubt abou tit, but I could not resist the urge to lock in OR's CO CO2 goof, I was on it like a leopard on a limp.*


*Thomas Harris came up with the unforgettable "leopard on a limp" phrase

 

[westwall]

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 confess. I went to the link and did notice that the link had it right.

However, I dismissed the link almost immediately. It is wrought with rhetoric and peppered with inaccurate science.

Bullshit. It had facts that disagree with your political agenda. Worse yet, for people like yourself, it had a referance section complete with real scientists.

The only group with a political agenda is yours olfraud. The only group that must get politicians to pass onerous laws that will enrich the supporters of those laws is yours!

 

[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.

 

[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.

LOL. And then there is the people who created the site;

• Dr. John Abraham, Associate Professor of
Engineering, University of St. Thomas, St. Paul,
Minnesota
• Paul Beckwith, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Prof. Andrew Dessler, Department of Atmospheric
Science, Texas A&M University
• Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global
Change Institute, University of Queensland
• Prof. David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences,
University of Melbourne
• Prof. Scott Mandia, Physical Sciences, Suffolk
County Community College
• Dana Nuccitelli - Environmental Scientist, Tetra
Tech, Inc.
• James Prall, The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University
of Toronto
• Dr. John Price, www.grandkidzfuture.com
• Corinne Le Quéré, Professor of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
• Prof. Peter Reich, Sr. Chair in Forest Ecology and
Tree Physiology, University of Minnesota
• Prof. Riccardo Reitano, Department of Physics and
Astronomy, University of Catania, Italy
• Prof. Christian Shorey, Geology and Geologic
Engineering, Colorado School of Mines
• Suffolk County Community College MET101
students
• Glenn Tamblyn, B Eng (Mech), Melbourne
University, Australia
• Dr. André Viau, Laboratory for paleoclimatology and
climatology, Department of Geography, University
of Ottawa, Canada
• Dr. Haydn Washington, Environmental Scientist
• Robert Way, Department of Geography, Memorial
University of Newfoundland, Canada
• Dr. Ray Weymann, Director Emeritus and Staff
Member Emeritus, Carnegie Observatories,
Pasadena, California; Member, National Academy
of Sciences
• James Wight
• Bärbel Winkler, Germany

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

And every single one of them have the entire process of photosynthesis backwards. That tells me that they are all as dumb as you.

 

[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.

I kind of hope he never does, it is amusing.