CO2 levels in exhaled breath,

middleground

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2014
Messages
996
Leading by self-imposing rules which a) lower the quality of life whilst b) making no detectable difference to the problem. Ireland is not Canada. Canada is a top 10 emitter. Ireland is an undetectable rounding error.
Spot on, individually there is no point in any of us voting in national elections as we would also be undetectable rounding errors. In fact, we may as well stay in bed altogether!
 


Pabilito

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
5,703
Just breath on a tree.
It balances out.

Digging up dinosaur juice and converting it into a gas which you spew into the atmosphere doesn't balance out.
Recently I got me one them fancy Dyson Air Purifier yokes and have to say at €600 it’s impressive.. along with a phone app where I can see the air quality at home when I’m abroad.. it reacts immediately when I start frying an egg…..it huffs and puffs and gets particularly annoyed when I open the windows and the NO2 gets in.. .
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,742
Twitter
Deiscirt
Spot on, individually there is no point in any of us voting in national elections as we would also be undetectable rounding errors. In fact, we may as well stay in bed altogether!
I fixed your flawed analogy:
Spot on, individually there is no point in any of us voting in an election where the only party we can vote for will take 0.5% of the seats in the house. In fact, we may as well stay in bed altogether.
I get the "we must all do our part" and we should. Within reason. Reason is missing in the Irish approach. It is false piety and ignorance of what role Ireland can actually play. The narcissistic belief that we are somehow "leading" or providing an example for others is laughable. Most people on earth haven't heard of Ireland and the big emitters are totally oblivious to what Ireland does. If anything, they're having a laugh that ye're choking your own economies whilst theirs are growing rapidly.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
In terms of bits of ice lying around on this island, glaciation has ended.

But in terms of the planet, it's not over yet, and is a part of climate change. We still have glaciation at the poles, which is abnormal.

Greenhouse earth 85%, icehouse earth 15%, is about the average.

in terms of the last 750,000 years or so, for which we have good data on temperature & CO2 levels, we have been in what is termed an 'Interglacial' for over 10,000 years.
actually, one might have expected that the planet would have commenced descending into an Ice Age, some thousands of years ago.

the timeline on the link you provided is 4.5 billion years - the climate of 4.5 billion years ago has little relevance to that of more recent times, & by recent I mean the last million years or so.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
Footprint - this thread is about what we exhale, not cars and so on.

So we exhale 2,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 as a species every year, and will do so long after we are down to "zero emissions". Nobody said that on TV in words of one syllable.
sorry - I hadn't realised that this was a "taking the piss" thread,
& of course you're correct - my comment was totally inappropriate for a 'taking the piss' thread.
so inappropriate, that I will repeat it now -

depending on the region of the planet - some of your "humans" have carbon footprints in excess of 20 tons CO2 p.a., while others have footprints as low as 0.1.
& we on our small island are up near the top of this league.

didn't Regan once say that he noticed that all of those in favour of Abortion were already born !
reckon it's the same for those advocating the removal of the right to be born, in order to limit carbon emissions.
& it tends to be that it's those who are likely to have small rather than large carbon footprints that they have in mind, when they're thinking of removing the right to be born.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,012
Twitter
No
//my comment was totally inappropriate for a 'taking the piss' thread.
so inappropriate, that I will repeat it now -

depending on the region of the planet - some of your "humans" have carbon footprints in excess of 20 tons CO2 p.a., while others have footprints as low as 0.1.
& we on our small island are up near the top of this league.
//

I get you 100%, relax fella.

Just that nobody had mentioned our own exhaled breath as a big source of CO2. Even the green party.

Any taking the piss is not being done by me, but by the devotees of the cult who are making sweeping assumptions without really looking at the really basic stuff.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
I get you 100%, relax fella.

Just that nobody had mentioned our own exhaled breath as a big source of CO2. Even the green party.

Any taking the piss is not being done by me, but by the devotees of the cult who are making sweeping assumptions without really looking at the really basic stuff.
sorry, if I hurt your feelings by describing your thread as a "taking the piss" thread.

you say - "Just that nobody had mentioned our own exhaled breath as a big source of CO2."

wrong - many have.
but I don't recall ever hearing either a Denier like yourself or a Believer claiming that "exhaled breath" contributed significantly to GW.
perhaps because your suggestion is total BS is the reason for that ?

on the other hand, is it because, nobody has an intellect as fine as yours ?
who knows - maybe you'll have the last laugh ?
maybe you'll be the first Irishman to get the Nobel prize for Science for your discovery that "exhaled breath" is a major contribution to Global Warming?
LOL !!!!!!!
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,567
sorry, if I hurt your feelings by describing your thread as a "taking the piss" thread.

you say - "Just that nobody had mentioned our own exhaled breath as a big source of CO2."

wrong - many have.
but I don't recall ever hearing either a Denier like yourself or a Believer claiming that "exhaled breath" contributed significantly to GW.
perhaps because your suggestion is total BS is the reason for that ?

on the other hand, is it because, nobody has an intellect as fine as yours ?
who knows - maybe you'll have the last laugh ?
maybe you'll be the first Irishman to get the Nobel prize for Science for your discovery that "exhaled breath" is a major contribution to Global Warming?
LOL !!!!!!!
Or maybe you will provide data to support why you claim exhaled breath contributes to CO2 emissions as being "total BS". On the face of it, it is very plausible but I'm not a scientist. I hope you are with the above post.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
Or maybe you will provide data to support why you claim exhaled breath contributes to CO2 emissions as being "total BS". On the face of it, it is very plausible but I'm not a scientist. I hope you are with the above post.
i'm not a scientist either - just Leaving Cert level of science from the Christian Brothers.
& I didn't claim that "exhaled breath contributes to CO2 emissions as being "total BS".
that's my opinion, & did you not notice the '?'

I also said to mr McTell-
"maybe you'll be the first Irishman to get the Nobel prize for Science for your discovery that "exhaled breath" is a major contribution to Global Warming?"

did you miss that?

LOL !!!
 

Watcher2

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2010
Messages
34,567
i'm not a scientist either - just Leaving Cert level of science from the Christian Brothers.
& I didn't claim that "exhaled breath contributes to CO2 emissions as being "total BS".
that's my opinion, & did you not notice the '?'

I also said to mr McTell-
"maybe you'll be the first Irishman to get the Nobel prize for Science for your discovery that "exhaled breath" is a major contribution to Global Warming?"

did you miss that?

LOL !!!
No, I did not miss it but it dressed itself up as being a serious post. Apologies for my misinterpretation.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,012
Twitter
No
sorry, if I hurt your feelings by describing your thread as a "taking the piss" thread.

you say - "Just that nobody had mentioned our own exhaled breath as a big source of CO2."

wrong - many have.
but I don't recall ever hearing either a Denier like yourself or a Believer claiming that "exhaled breath" contributed significantly to GW.
perhaps because your suggestion is total BS is the reason for that ?

on the other hand, is it because, nobody has an intellect as fine as yours ?
who knows - maybe you'll have the last laugh ?
maybe you'll be the first Irishman to get the Nobel prize for Science for your discovery that "exhaled breath" is a major contribution to Global Warming?
LOL !!!!!!!

Not at all, I hadn't heard about it.

You hear much more about cow farts, TBH. And I'm not a "denier", but will ask Qs about how much warming is man made, and how much would happen anyway, and still nobody knows.

Just like I started doubting the church when they put a new lightning conductor on ours. You ask Qs. Most of us don't.

The "gilets jaunes" laid it bare, when it came out that most of the new french carbon tax was not to be spent on green projects. Just taxes to buy votes. The differ between an excuse and a reason.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
Not at all, I hadn't heard about it.

You hear much more about cow farts, TBH. And I'm not a "denier", but will ask Qs about how much warming is man made, and how much would happen anyway, and still nobody knows.

Just like I started doubting the church when they put a new lightning conductor on ours. You ask Qs. Most of us don't.

The "gilets jaunes" laid it bare, when it came out that most of the new french carbon tax was not to be spent on green projects. Just taxes to buy votes. The differ between an excuse and a reason.
it's correct that you ask questions & question the answers.
but did you really think that you might have been on to something with your "exhaled breath" causing Global Warming ?

anyway - your question has been answered by a couple of posters, I think, already on this thread.

yes humans & indeed all animals exhale CO2.
the source of the CO2 is the food we eat.
the exhaled CO2 is absorbed by plants (photosynthesis), which we in turn consume, & as a result exhale CO2.
it's a closed cycle, unlike the situation with fossil fuels.

the graph in the link below illustrates this.
Faster CO2 rise expected in 2019

as is clear the CO2 level is increasing stealthily.
re the wave effect - this is as I understand it -

during Spring/Summer in the Northern hemisphere, plants re growing & absorbing CO2 at a faster rate than that at which we are adding CO2, so the level of CO2 drops.

in Spring/Summer in the Southern Hemisphere plants are also growing & also absorbing CO2, but because there is significantly less land in the South than in the North, the rate of absorption of CO2 is less than that at which we are adding CO2, so the CO2 level increases.

that's my understanding of it anyway.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,012
Twitter
No
//

that's my understanding of it anyway.

Yes, I agree. Just that "zero emissions" is impossible, so let's drop it and tell the truth.

Anyway CO2 is good for all plant species, so maybe this debate is swings and roundabouts. With people living on a shoreline feeling anxious about the inevitable.

Our emissions are speeding up yet another "greenhouse earth" process, of which the earth has seen hundreds, where the ice melts on *both* poles.

But the experts won't agree how much difference we are making, be it 10%, 40%, over 50%. Just that we are making some difference. A child could tell you that.

The devoted will say that weather has nothing to do with climate, but when europe had its recent heatwave, everyone pointed at our emissions as being completely to blame. I find this a dishonest method of raising our taxes by billions, and if that makes me a "denier", then I must be a denier.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
4,229
Fact 1: Cutting carbon by penalizing its use puts significant costs on the Irish economy lowering the living standards of Irish people.

Fact 2: If Ireland were to cease all carbon output tomorrow the difference to the planetary environment would be literally undetectable.
Three cheers for selfishness!
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,742
Twitter
Deiscirt
Three cheers for selfishness!
Not injuring the Irish economy and standard of living for no good reason is not selfish. As per your usual style, you have utterly failed to grasp the matter properly.
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
unlike most of the AGW Deniers here who post a comment & then run away when challenged, you at least stay around.
sorry though - I have to say that IMO many of your comments don't make much sense.
as I have a little time to spare I will try & respond to your latest comments.

Yes, I agree. Just that "zero emissions" is impossible, so let's drop it and tell the truth.
I never mentioned "zero emissions".
'zero net emissions' are a long way off.
there is however a limited amount of fossil fuels, so some time in the distant future, when you & I will be long pushing up daisies, I imagine that there will be 'zero emissions'

Anyway CO2 is good for all plant species, so maybe this debate is swings and roundabouts. With people living on a shoreline feeling anxious about the inevitable.
yes, I understand that higher levels of CO2 would improve plant growth,
& if CO2 were not a greenhouse gas, there would be no problem with increased levels.
BUT co2 is a Greenhouse Gas & that's why increased levels of it are a problem.
BTW you can have all the CO2 you want in the Sahara desert & other parts of the planet, but you wont get much plant growth.

Our emissions are speeding up yet another "greenhouse earth" process, of which the earth has seen hundreds, where the ice melts on *both* poles.
I understand that there were times in the long & distant past, when there was no ice at the poles.
it might have been possible to grow spuds in Greenland & Antarctica then, but I wouldn't have fancied your chances growing spuds in Labasheeda !!



But the experts won't agree how much difference we are making, be it 10%, 40%, over 50%. Just that we are making some difference. A child could tell you that.
I think that the "experts" can calculate fairly accurately the expected temperature rise for a given CO2 rise.
but that's only a small part of the story.
it's in the feedbacks like the decrease in ice/snow cover, methane release, increased H2O vapour .……… where the main uncertainty lies, & where we are in territory totally unknown to homo sapiens.
if it was only CO2 & no feedbacks, I don't think that there would be such a huge problem.

The devoted will say that weather has nothing to do with climate, but when europe had its recent heatwave, everyone pointed at our emissions as being completely to blame. I find this a dishonest method of raising our taxes by billions, and if that makes me a "denier", then I must be a denier.
if you don't understand the meaning of 'weather' or 'climate, consult a dictionary or mr Google.
& NO - "everyone" did not blame "our emissions as being completely to blame" for recent record temperatures.
on the contrary, climatologists, even our weather forecasters continually point out that individual isolated events like a hot/cold spell are not on their own necessarily proof of Global Warming or indeed Global Cooling.
 

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
11,742
Twitter
Deiscirt
I never mentioned "zero emissions".
'zero net emissions' are a long way off.
there is however a limited amount of fossil fuels, so some time in the distant future, when you & I will be long pushing up daisies, I imagine that there will be 'zero emissions'
Can you explain your reasoning (I'm assuming you support it) behind Ireland implementing policies which will harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW?
 

mangaire2

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
9,656
Can you explain your reasoning (I'm assuming you support it) behind Ireland implementing policies which will harm the economy and quality of life and do nothing to address AGW?
& what might these "policies" be.
 

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
7,012
Twitter
No
///
it's in the feedbacks like the decrease in ice/snow cover, methane release, increased H2O vapour .……… where the main uncertainty lies, & where we are in territory totally unknown to homo sapiens.
if it was only CO2 & no feedbacks, I don't think that there would be such a huge problem.

///

Yes, yes, this is the unknown, but same goes, you would never fly if you took into account all the risks.

The infamous "burps of death" of yesteryear could happen again, and so on.



An unknown possible and very future risk is not a sound basis for taxation.

I am all in favour of solar and wind to make us more self reliant. I also welcome a warmer island, sorry bout that.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top