Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

hahahahahaha

I see that organic chemistry degree is paying off.

[/sarcasm]

Never taken it, but I do try to learn how things work.

Do you disagree that the oxygen byproduct from photosynthesis comes from water?

If so, you're wrong.

2H20 –> 4 e– + 4 H+ + O2

Perhaps you would instead argue that this is pedantic, but oxygen from CO2 ends up split between phosphate and sugars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ketsuko

There are those who say yes, but they mean you, of course, not them.

Breathing is carbon neutral. You exhale carbon which came from the air. Burning fossil fuels is not carbon neutral.

Of course, if you stop breathing you will eliminate your carbon footprint.

And there are those who advocate for it.

Thankfully, they're a minority, but it's still sick. We've had those threads from time to time though.

How should we lower the population and who gets to live?

People who do that are never thinking their number will get called.

a reply to: ketsuko

How should we lower the population

I don't know.
But reducing its rate of growth would be a start. Similar to reducing the rate of CO2 production.

Policy changes could be on a high enough scale to affect our future for the better or worse. One way or another, we have to live with the consequences of our choices.

a reply to: Greven

Keep trying.

The equation you posted is for electrolysis. Photosynthesis is 6CO2+6H2O ---> C6H12O6+6O2.

Notice that's 12 atoms of oxygen produced. 6 molecules of water contain 6 oxygen atoms. Not that it even matters: the process uses 6 carbon dioxide molecules and produces 6 oxygen molecules. You can argue that 6 of them came from the water all you want; it's irrelevant. 6 carbon dioxide go in, 6 oxygen come out. No carbon dioxide goes in, then no oxygen comes out.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Breathing is carbon neutral. You exhale carbon which came from the air. Burning fossil fuels is not carbon neutral.

Nope.

The carbon dioxide we breathe out is produced as part of the cellular energy production processes, by oxidizing the carbon found in sugars. The resulting carbon dioxide is exhaled, oxygen is inhaled, and the process continues.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Where does that sugar come from? Coal or plants?
Where do the plants get it from? Oil or the air?

I refer you to here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Phage

It comes from food (both plant and animal). Obviously.

I see your point. You're trying to say the oxygen/carbon dioxide cycle is carbon neutral. For the most part it is, but photosynthesis does not differentiate between carbon dioxide produced by respiration and carbon dioxide produced by oxidation. Any non-respiratory carbon dioxide is simply absorbed into the cycle, whether it is produced through combustion, tectonic activity, or any other means. The troposphere will reach a new balance point of flora vs. fauna.

In other words, it is not possible to separate carbon dioxide vs. oxygen levels based on the source of the carbon dioxide.

And breathing itself is still not carbon-neutral.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: network dude

We exhale carbon dioxide.

Should we stop breathing?

How about a compromise?

I'll just inhale.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The troposphere will reach a new balance point of flora vs. fauna.

Not as long as fossil carbon continues to be added to the atmosphere at a rate greater than carbon sinks can cope with.

And breathing itself is still not carbon-neutral.

Yes, it is. It does not contribute to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. The carbon we exhale came out of the atmosphere, quite recently.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Keep trying.

The equation you posted is for electrolysis. Photosynthesis is 6CO2+6H2O ---> C6H12O6+6O2.

Notice that's 12 atoms of oxygen produced. 6 molecules of water contain 6 oxygen atoms. Not that it even matters: the process uses 6 carbon dioxide molecules and produces 6 oxygen molecules. You can argue that 6 of them came from the water all you want; it's irrelevant. 6 carbon dioxide go in, 6 oxygen come out. No carbon dioxide goes in, then no oxygen comes out.

Sigh... the equation for photosynthesis is really: 6CO2 + 12H2O → C6H12O6 + 6H2O + 6O2
It gets reduced to 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 by cutting 6H2O out of both sides, which has misled you and many others along with completely obscuring the most remarkable thing about photosynthesis:
It splits water and carbon dioxide.

That's where the water product comes from - the split hydrogen atoms (from water) and the split oxygen atoms (from carbon dioxide)

I don't know why you refuse to learn , but it's a continuing theme with you.

You might notice there's a link in my first sentence. It goes to a paper that was published in 1941. This ain't new, and it's been replicated quite a lot.

Said paper used O18 in either H2O or CO2 to trace where the O2 product of photosynthesis originated from: solely from water.

You'll also note that this is information is all over the literature. It's well-accepted science.

a reply to: Phage

I disagree. The balance point may be dynamic, changing with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it will continue to seek a balance. There may be a domain beyond which the balance is unobtainable by natural means, but I do not believe we are anywhere close to that. The much higher levels indicated in prehistory attest to the wide domain where a stability point is obtainable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Guess where happened to those higher levels. Guess where that carbon is now.

a reply to: Greven

Again, the point is the same. The process produces an oxygen molecule for every carbon dioxide molecule consumed. If you do not input any carbon dioxide, you won't get any oxygen. The fact that water is consumed during the process is not relevant to the conversion. Under normal conditions, carbon dioxide is the limiting factor, not water.

Oxygen produced by the atoms in water is no different from oxygen produced by the atoms in carbon dioxide.

If 12 molecules of water are used, and 6 molecules are produced, the net result is that 6 molecules were used in the process. That's why the formula does not indicate 12 in and 6 out: it is irrelevant to the overall process. Try that explanation in any chemistry course and you'll be laughed out of the room.

The only context in which this matters in the least is in the attempts to create artificial photosynthesis. In that context, we need to understand the internal bond dynamics so they can be duplicated. That's the only reason it was even tested using isotopes.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Don't have to guess. The system achieved stability. We have the same system today; no one has changed how the cycle operates. It will therefore achieve stability again, probably through increased flora production over an increased area suitable for flora growth due to slightly higher temperatures.

Layman's terms: if the carbon dioxide level increases, it will lead to faster plant growth to use more carbon dioxide. If the carbon dioxide level increases temperature slightly, it will lead to more plants growing in more areas and for longer periods, using more carbon dioxide. That means more food. Not exactly a disaster.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Don't have to guess.

Right. We know the carbon was sequestered over millions of years and things stabilized. Until we started burning stuff. We are unsequestering it rapidly. Faster than it took to put it underground.

It will therefore achieve stability again,

Doesn't seem to showing any signs of doing that so far. Just keeps increasing. The sinks don't seem to be keeping up with the rate we're putting it out.

If the carbon dioxide level increases temperature slightly, it will lead to more plants growing in more areas and for longer periods, using more carbon dioxide.

Ah, so across all latitudes and areas the results will be the same. I did not know that. But unless those plants are packing that CO2 away somewhere, they are not CO2 sinks. Especially if they are crops, because we'll just exhale all that extra carbon.

But then some sinks may become sources as those "slight" temperature increases occur. But maybe you're right, maybe everything will be ok. In a few million years. It's the next 100 or so that are the problem.

Our results indicate that grass-dominated Cerrado may be an important regional CO2 source in response to the warming and drying that is expected to occur in the southern Amazon Basin under climate change.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: network dude
big wup the average temp has risen less than 2 degrees since start of industrial revolution and are you sure it because of us and not the sub just warming up

a reply to: proteus33

Pretty sure the sub is not warming up.
Pretty sure the sun is not warming up either. At least not in the past 30 years and not enough to account for the rise in the average temperature.

a reply to: Phage

That's an awful lot of speculation Phage.

First point: a faster increase than the system can balance will not lead to a broken system. It will lead to maximum adjustment rate until stabilization can occur. If you are correct, then we know that the total amount of carbon dioxide available is not in excess of the system's ability to cope.

Second point: it will not show signs of slowing until stability is achieved. Then it will stop (or slightly overshoot and settle, depending on the exact characteristics of the feedback loops involved). That is expected.

I am talking about carbon dioxide levels here, not temperature. I disagree that we have proof of increasing temperatures globally. We have sketchy evidence and unproven hypotheses.

Final point: Plant residue contains carbon compounds that become part of the soil. Human and animal waste contain carbon compounds that we routinely bury. Carbon is still being sequestered.

During the time of the dinosaurs, the exact same processes that you claim led to oil deposits today were essentially identical to those happening today. Plants grow, are eaten, respiration occurred, and the processes repeated. There was no magic that caused dinosaurs to sequester carbon dioxide better than humans do. Humans are just burning oil in addition to breathing.

TheRedneck

ETA: please fix the italics tag at the end of your post. It's bleeding the italics through to my post. I had to include the end tag to fix it.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Translation: "AGW isn't real because it feels better to stick my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist."

If we're past the "point of no return", what difference does it make?

Eat, drink, and be merry. There's no longer any need for your damn laws and regulations.



Or are we not past the "point of no return"? Which scientists are you choosing to agree with today?

Ok, here's how it goes, if you guys change your behavior, I won't shoot you.

:time passes:

Ok, it looks like you didn't change your behavior. You now have a choice, do you want to be shot in the foot or in the stomach? Your behavior determines the response.