Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Does breathing contribute to CO2 buildup in the atmosphere?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.

Climate Myth...

Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup

"Pollution; none of us are supporting putting substances into the atmosphere or the waterways that might be pollutants, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that's got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat. So that is absolute nonsense." (Ian Plimer)

The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.

It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently. 

This new animation published by Dr. Patrick T. Brown (Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford University) in September 2018 explains the process:

Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. We are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!

Update information: This rebuttal was updated on September 12, 2018 to swap the graphic showing a - to some - "odd looking cow" with the new video we happened to notice on Twitter. Thanks to Patrick T. Brown for making it available on YouTube!

Last updated on 13 September 2018 by BaerbelW . View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 135 out of 135:

  1. @Dr Bill,
    Could you please link to a written transcript? The computer I currently have access has no sound. I do like a good lecture, probably more than most, but unfortunately can't currently follow your points until I get to a computer with speakers. I would love to see what this fuss is actually all about.
    Regarding your comment above, "if for no other reason than to modify any so-called "forcing" effect, which if it operates at all, does not do so only in response to industrial CO2."
    That seems to be stating the obvious but in a way that is an attempt to obfuscate.
    Of course it matters little the source of the CO2 as to the relative forcing. The source matters when calculating the relative net increase in atmospheric CO2. All fossil fuel CO2 is old carbon added to a roughly balanced system. So even though the biosphere is a self adjusting complex biological system, the quantity of old CO2 being released is greater than the biosphere's capability to adjust currently. The net CO2 concentrations rise. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations mean increase solar heat retained in the system. The “greenhouse” effect. The IPCC assessment may not be perfect, but that part they got roughly correct. Rapidly cycling CO2 in the biosphere does not have the same net effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration as slower old cycle carbon that has been out of the system for millions of years.
    When it comes to respiration, that only results in a net increase in CO2 levels when the other side of the carbon cycle (photosynthesis) is simultaneously reduced as respiration increases. As long as we are careful not to reduce photosynthesis by destroying ecosystem function, then respiration can’t cause a net increase in atmospheric CO2 levels beyond a very short term peak usually disappearing in a matter of months. It is self limiting. This is what gives the graph a saw tooth pattern.

    Image source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

    What gives the graph the smoothed out steady increase is a combination of fossil fuel use and ecosystem degradation, mostly due to agriculture.
    If there is a blind spot in the IPCC assessment, it could be in underestimating the impact of agriculture in degrading ecosystem function. This is a case I have made elsewhere on this forum. However, the assessment is certainly correct in ignoring for the most part the short term biosphere cycle of photosynthesis and respiration as roughly canceling each other. There is no net increase in CO2 due to animals breathing. That’s just the natural carbon cycle signal, nothing to do with AGW.

  2. I still do not understand what point you're trying to make. The net addition of carbon to the atmosphere is the problem, the only problem. 

    The net increase is the only thing that matters; it is not, and can not physically be caused by animals breathing. They get their carbon from the atmosphere, through organisms that have the ability to absorb it and integrate it in their structure. The bulk of these organisms is made of plants. How is the animal activity going to change the balance? Animals just shift the carbon around in short term small cycles. They do not add carbon to the atmosphere that wasn't taken out of it in the first place, so why does that matter when considering the bigger picture?

    Response:

    [RH] Go to the link for Bill's video lecture and start about at minute 12:00. In a nutshell, he's attempting to say (not joking here) that the change in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to the increase in human population. 

  3. RedBaron  Sorry, I never made a transcript. I had notes, but never typed them up.  I am quite familiar with the summary data of Mauna Loa, thanks.

    That said, it is not the summary data that matters in my analysis, and I suspect others have something of that confusion when they "do not understand what point [I'm] trying to make" {Phillippe}.  The summary data collects all the CO2 from industry and breathing and all sources, less that which returns to biomass, terrestrial and aquatic, or to the oceans directly.  It has many issues of validity, but that's not for here and now.

    What is for here and now is that Mauna Loa is like the old flip-chart 'digital' clock, that flipped over once a minute.  Real CO2 is the sweep hand of a better clock, counting continuously.  The sun does not wait for the report from Mauna Loa, if it does anything, CO2s effect is there all seasons, all times, neither just when the sun's out, nor only when it's summer, nor only when industry is running.  It's not that hard to see: the addition of CO2 by vastly accelerated conversion (as fossil fuel) or much slower accelerated conversion (as digestion/respiration) or still slower conversion (simple rot), leads to some measureable level of CO2 on a moment by moment basis, an increase, by the explanation I've given, that seems to cause much consternation.  Any decrease, by plant growth or subduction in the sea around Antarctic  would do something that made the final totals at monitoring sites change, but until such decrease took place, the CO2 from all sources I've mentioned is still in the air and still doing what CO2 does.

    Moreover, it does not matter which process is faster and which slower, since the production rate is the sum of both industrial production and digestion/exhalation, like the sweep second hand (or if the circularity of the sweep overwhelms is graphic value of smooth and unrelenting, consider a pail with a hole in it, being dripped into by two sources (I actually might like that one better myself).  At the moment we are not concerned by the drip, or even how full the pail might get, but only in the amount of something inherent in the water that might be able to do some harm.  Would it serve to say we've identified the problem because we found a leaking faucet over the pail, while ignoring a smaller leaking faucet?  Since the drip keeps the pail from filling up quickly, are we being good pail-monitors to just evaluate the level monthly and deny the smaller faucet?

     

    As an OT, on this thread, I would enjoy finding a thread that addresses the process I have heard called "positive feedback loop".  Where might I find it most discussed in terms of its physics?  TIA

    Response:

    [DB] "I would enjoy finding a thread that addresses the process I have heard called "positive feedback loop""

    Unlike the simple example of positive feedback we learned in high school, the increase from every round of feedback gets smaller and smaller, in the case of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It is a significant factor in the overall warming, but it does NOT lead to a "runaway" trajectory for temperature.

  4. Dr Bill Hoffman @100:

    "[T]he equation I showed, Tom, was directly copied from their 2005 Report that I used ..."

    The IPCC had only two reports in 2005, that on Carbon Capture and Storage and that on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer.  I have skimmed the first of these and found nothing resembling your formula.  Nor, obviously is there anything resembling it in the relevant chapter of the 2001 report (the current assessment report in 2005).  The formula doesn't appear in the 1995 assessment report (SAR) either, although Table 2 (page 17) could be interpreted as supporting such a formula, however Table 2 is explicitly labeled as "...the anthropogenic carbon budget...", and makes no claim to be a complete carbon budget.  With regard to that, it says:

    "The estimate of the 1980s' carbon budget (Table 2) remains essentially unchanged from IPCC (1994). While recent data on anthropogenic emissions are available, there are insufficient analyses of the other fluxes to allow an update of this decadal budget to include the early years of the 1990s."

    Looking to figure 4 (page 21) of the 1994 report (Radiative forcing of climate change) clearly shows the other fluxes to include global net primary production and respiration.  These are also discussed in the First Assessment Report (1990), as can be seen in Figure 1.1 (Page 8).

    In short, the formula is not justified by any IPCC report prior to 2006, and certainly in none after it.  If you wish to maintain the contrary, you will need a precise citation, ie, the report by full title, together with the page number at which the formula appears.

    "I said 40% more, and you want to argue 33%...tomayto tomahto...they found industrial CO2 and stopped accounting"

    First, you claimed 50% in the video, not 40%.  In otherwords, even at face value you exagerated the effect by 50%.  If you think pointing out a 50% exageration is mere quibbling, you are no scientist.

    Second, as clearly shown by my review of their literature above, the IPCC since day 1 (First Assessment Report 1990), have included "respiration" which includes respiration by animals and plants, along with the emission of CO2 by decay of organic matter and by fires.  Since the fourth assessment report (2007), they have also included volcanic emissions. 

  5. Dr Bill, I don't see any clarification with this addition of words. The issue is the physically nonsensical argument that the CO2 from respiration is of a same non-polluting nature as that which is produced by oxydation of fossil fuels previously sequestered in the crust. The implication of Plimer's quote is that some of the atmospheric CO2 we are experiencing is due to animal respiration.  You seem to concur with that, without clearly stating it, so far as I can recall.

    I see nothing in your contribution here that would actually support this argument. I see no explanation of how animal respiration can cause a net increase in atmospheric CO2, which is the real problem, as I have stated above. I see no possible source for animal generated carbon other than the atmosphere itself, you offer no alternative. 

    You stated yourself at #100 earlier that "No one said it was a net addition to the carbon budget." 

    This suggests that you are trying to hypothesize that the atmosphere can go from 300 to 400 ppm in a very short time without a net addition, only by shuffling carbon around (possibly by way of animals) and loosing sinks, while the ocean is still absorbing enormous amounts of it. If so, you must come up with a loss of sink so gigantic that no geological event in the relevant past could foot the bill, certainly not the known land use changes, subject of abundant litterature.

    Meanwhile of course, the oxydation of fossil fuels is real and ongoing, regardless of any other hypothesis, as are the isotopic signature changes in the atmosphere and multiple other elements consistent with the net addition of fossil carbon. 

    I am not thus far enclined to spend any time on your YouTube vids.

  6. Imagine a model system in which plants are grown in a sealed, airtight compartment.  Suppose conditions are such that the growth of the plants is limited only by energy input (ie, sunlight).  As the plants grow we feed in CO2 until the plants are mature.  We then seal the system so that any further growth of plants can only be achieved by reducing CO2 concentration within the model system.  After a period of time an equilibrium concentration of CO2 will be achieved.  Plant growth will be CO2 limited, in that addition of further CO2 to the system would allow an increase in plant biomass within the system, but as CO2 was fed in until the plants were near maturity, the CO2 limit on further growth will not be much below the energy limit on further growth.

    What happens when we introduce a small population of herbivores, predators, and such other organisms so as to allow a stable ecology in to the system?

    The obvious first effect is that plant biomass will be reduced, and replaced by animal biomass.

    However, there will not be a one-for-one replacement of animal biomass for plant biomass.  That is because of the energy pyramid.  As you proceed up the trophic levels, from plant to herbivore, from herbivore to carnivore etc, each level converts energy to biomass with an efficiency of about 10%.  As an example, suppose in our model system, equilibrium is reached when the herbivores reduce total plant biomass by 10%.  Then of the energy stored in that plant biomass, only about 10% will be converted to herbivore biomass.  Similarly, only about 10% of the energy storage of herbivore biomass consumed will be turned into carnivore biomass. Consequently the total biomass in the model system will be reduced.  

    The difference between the carbon content of the original plant only biomass and the plant plus animal biomass will by stored in other carbon reservoirs.  That may be as soil carbon, but due to the processes of animal respiration and decay, some of it will be as an increased CO2 concentration.

    This is the mechanism explicitly mentioned by Grumpymel @93, and possibly is the mechanism discussed by DrBill @95.  To the extent that it is the mechanism envisioned by DrBill, his claim that increased animal biomass will result in increased atmospheric CO2 is correct, although his calculation of the effect is not necessarilly valid.

    Ignoring for simplicity the potential increase in Soil Organic Carbon, and any uptake by standing water, and other carbon compounds, the increase in atmospheric CO2 in our model system will be:

    (((Final plant biomass - initial plant biomass) x % of carbon by weight in plant biomass) - ((final animal biomass - initial animal biomass) x % of carbon in animal biomass)) x 44/12

    The final factor can be ommitted if you measure the CO2 concentration by mass in units of GtC rather than Gt-CO2.

    With regard to the IPCC's treatment of this, the first thing to note is that they do report on the change of Carbon due to the change in plant biomass.  Specifically, in IPCC AR5 they report that plant biomass has decreased by 30 +/- 45 GtC.  That means that, unless animal biomass has decreased, they have over estimated the total change in biological carbon reservoirs (ignoring the controversial issue of SOC).  Further, the total change in animal biomass, which has increased; represents a further reduction in CO2 available for other reservoirs including the atmosphere.

    So, if this is what DrBill is drawing attention to, he is right that the mechanism can increase total atmospheric CO2 (by reducing plant biomass); but wrong in assuming it is neglected by the IPCC, who do their best to quantify the positive side of the equation (ie, the loss of plant biomass) even if they neglect the much smaller (by an order of magnitude) negative side from the increase in animal biomass. 

  7. Here's a video from NASA on this topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85TQHzS88L4

  8. I understand the idea Tom. You expand quite well on what I described a little too quick as "shuffling carbon around." My opinion is that the kind of biomass change that would be required to explain the past 100 years increase in atmospheric carbon is so immense as to preclude a major role in this change, especially while the oceans are still acting as a sink. The idea that all of the increase could be due to biomass changes is simply not believable.

    Perhaps Dr Bill is trying to make the argument that the biomass contribution is underestimated, although the bulk of what he said was innuendo on IPCC intentionally skewing the issue, which was unwarranted, as you showed. My understanding is that there is quite a bit of litterature on the subject and that the range of possible contribution of biomass changes is fairly well constrained. I don't see at first glance that Dr Bill has anything revolutionary to overturn the current state of knowledge on the subject.

    www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

    Intesresting discussion here:

    www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

  9. As this is your first post, Skeptical Science respectfully reminds you to please follow our comments policy. Thank You! Since  breathing is nessasary to sustaining our life seems like a moot point for discussion. Unless you are proposing extermination on a significant part of the population.  The 34.7 Billion tons from fossil fuel combustion a year however IS something we can change. Old figure 2009. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/08/7_billion_carbon_sinks.html

  10. Nearly 8 yrs elapsed  since the first question on this topic was posted: "Does breathing buildup CO2 in the atmosphere?"

    With the use of many technological advances in research and data analysis over these 8 years, is the answer different? I would appreciate a review and updated opinion presented for both basic and intermediate level readers. Thank you. 

    Response:

    [TD] Nope, there are no changes in the conclusions.

  11. Update information: The basic version of this rebuttal was updated on September 12, 2018 to swap the graphic showing a - to some - "odd looking cow" with the new animation we happened to notice on Twitter. Thanks to Patrick T. Brown for making it available on YouTube!

  12. As a chemical engineer I feel it's misdirection to talk about the carbon cycle and say that an increase in human resperation does not add to atmospheric CO2. It may turn out to be a trivial amount, I'd have to find some numbers to guage it, but this post is meant to give a little background.

    If all the carbon on earth were solid carbon and suddenly you changed it all to gaseous CO2 (this can't actually happen according to the gas law) and did this back and forth and back and forth according to the "carbon cycle" argument since there's no change in net carbon we are supposed to ignore atmospheric carbon going from nonexistant to "lots" and back again. "Hey - the cabon cycle is balanced." If more CO2 is put into the atmosphere from breathing the "cycle" itself gets bigger, the partial pressure of CO2 increases. Since biomass is a scrubber of CO2 (plants eat CO2) then there could be a net effect if the additional CO2 isn't eaten by plants. That's the issue. So to me, whipping out the carbon cycle doesn't make a whole lot of sense. My quick take is figure the volume of the atmosphere and the CO2 percentage and get that amount (huge # of moles) and then figure the amount in the resperation of 8 billion more people and see if the CO2 exaled from people is of the same order of atmospheric CO2. And keeping in mind that everything is an estimate - we don't know how many moles of carbon or anything else are on Earth. We don't know the exact volume of the atmosphere - they are estimates. 

    It may not factor in, but saying "the carbon cycle accounts for more breathing" is misdirection, it is just saying the net amount of carbon on Earth is staying the same, and that's not what the issue is.  The net amount of gold on Earth is staying the same, too. Everything is - excepting new material from meterites and junk we send away in rockets that reaches outer space.  We should be arguing about the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

    'Ol Wikepedia says this "The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels."  It's like soda pop - if the ocean warms slightly, CO2 is released into the atmosphere increasing the partial pressure of CO2. Since the CO2 level seems to be cyclic  

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

    perhaps periodic ocean warming is the culprit. People argue that the older peaks are not as high as the current peaks, but remember the latest data is from direct measurement, the older values are taken from ice core samples and perhaps while the samples show higher CO2 values the peaks are lost from gas loses at the sample boundries, handling issues, etc.

    Of course, industrial CO2 factors in.  Let's run some real numbers!

    Response:

    [DB] "the CO2 level seems to be cyclic"

    CO2 levels in the past were driven by known natural factors.  None of those factors are in play during the recent increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2.  The human forcing is now the largest forcing, dwarfing all natural forcings, including that from the sun itself.

    NCA4 2017 Radiative Forcing

    "perhaps periodic ocean warming is the culprit"

    Not so.  Please read this post.  The oceans are a net sink of CO2 released by human activities, which is why they are still acidifying.

    The 18-part 'OA is NOT OK' series, written by subject matter experts in that field, as summarized in Parts 1 and Part 2 is a worthy study.

  13. Lasterday @112,

    As a "chemical engineer" you should have had no problem quickly sourcing those "real numbers" to "run" but as you have not returned with your findings, may I take up the challenge.

    The CO2 expelled in human respiration has been calculated as equivalent to 6% or 9% of the anthropogenic emissions from fossil-fuel-use (although the emissions values cannot include emissions from land-use-change and still appear out-dated relative to the world population figures used). Using more up-to-date (all for 2016) figures (latest Global Carbon Project figures are for 2016) drops the results to to 4% to 6%.

    However, such analysis does lead to the question - Where does the 55kg/head/yr or 90kg/head/yr of carbon required for such breathed CO2 come from? Of course, the source is our food which has, as a primary source of carbon, that obtained through vegitable photosynthesis, which in turn gains carbon from atmospheric CO2.

    The one remaining question relating to human respiration as a contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels would be whether there are carbon pools that have diminished because of that increased cycling of carbon (atmosphere > plants > food > humans > atmosphere). There are more humans with an 18½% carbon content (or 11½kg per head). That would suggest that the rise in human population over recent years (80M/yr) would be sequestering carbon equal to 0.008% of our global FF+LUC CO2 emissions. There is also more plants/food within the cycle but this increase probably sequesters far less carbon than the releases from the land being 'cleared' for agriculture which is responsible for 11% of our CO2 emissions.

    I thus can find no dimishing pool of carbon that is not being accounted within the calculations of human CO2 emissions, or for that matter any significant increasing pool of carbon.

  14. "It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, "Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!"

    This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

    These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently"

    Only one problem, not all plant life is cycled through animal or human consumption. And, although you talk about plant respiration and proclaim that it is a very small contributor of carbon dioxide, it seems you forget that plants release carbon through decay which, when mixed with oxygen, then becomes carbon dioxide. Also, seems the issues of "carbon" and "carbon dioxide" are being confused here. Although humans may consume carbon, they produce carbon dioxide when they exhale. So, to suggest human respiration is carbon neutral is not true and to suggest plants make up for what carbon dioxide it is humans exhale doesn't seem viable either. Plants are only carbon neutral in that they take in the CO2 of which they themselves produce and convert it to O2. However, C (carbon) is produced in the form of waste, or decay. And, when that C (carbon) is exposed to oxygen, it then becomes carbon dioxide of which the plants, again, recycle and turn into oxygen and, again, into carbon in the form of waste/decay. And, the cycle goes on, and on, and on, and on. As I type this, it is autumn and I am watching the leaves fall off the trees. These leaves will decompose and, although some animal and insect life will consume some of these leaves, they will not consume all of these leaves and these leaves will decay and produce carbon. And, when said carbon is mixed with oxygen? It will become carbon dioxide. Of which, of course, these trees will use to produce new leaves when spring time arrives and will also use to continue to live throughout the rest of autumn and through winter.

  15. 9 billion live people would add about 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per day to the earth’s atmosphere. All else remaining the same, the atmospheric change in carbon dioxide would be 9 million metric tons lower every day if every human was not here.
    17.6 living people produce the same amount of CO2 as burning 1 gallon of E10 gasoline.
    Humans every day contribute as much CO2 to the atmosphere as burning about 5 million gallons of E10 gasoline.
    If you don’t consider everything you get distorted and untrue results.
    The world burns about 1 billion gallons of gasoline each day. This contributes about 200 times as much CO2 as 9 billion breathing humans.
    If carbon dioxide causes global warming it doesn’t matter its origin. I am absolutely sure that CO2 is not the cause of all global warming.
    Carbon Dioxide is plant food.

    Response:

    [PS] Hopefully you are able to think of data that would change your mind rather than being wedded to an ideological argument. Your comment is full of misconceptions readily checked by data. Please see CO2 is plant food and CO2 is from Ocean (because it points to evidence that CO2 rise is from fossil fuel burning) and finally Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared to natural which is where you mostly go wrong.

  16. bsettlem @115,
    You say "If you don’t consider everything you get distorted and untrue results," so are you taking everything ito account?
    Yes, the average person exhales something like 1kg of CO2 per day, comprising 27% carbon and 78% oxygen. So if, as you say "all else remaining the same," this average human (who weighs something like 62kg comprising 18% carbon) would be losing 270g of carbon each day through breathing. So, "all else remaining the same," in six weeks time the human race will have run out of carbon to breathe with, and so will be dead. And with 9 billion humans exhausting all their carbon in this way, the atmospheric concentration of CO2, "all else remaining the same," would have risen by a whole 0.05ppm.
    And I am not just "absolutely sure" about this: I know it.

  17. Bsettlem, your post makes no sense at all. You're acknowledgeing that total contribution from human respiration with a population of 9 billions would be only 0.5% of just gasoline burning emissions, therefore an even smaller fraction of all fossil fuel CO2. And somehow that makes it a bigger problem than fossil fuel? Indeed CO2's radiative properties are independent of its origins, and of anyone's opinion as well. As you stated yourself, human respiration generated CO2 is a tiny fraction of that coming from other sources, so these other sources, over which we have control, are what matters. You being absolutely sure of anything does not make it real. Some people are absolutely sure that the Earth is flat.

  18. Philippe Chantreau, Thank you for your response.
    I humbly respond to your reply. I have sectioned your message and responded in italics

    ****************
    Bsettlem, your post makes no sense at all. You're acknowledgeing that total contribution from human respiration with a population of 9 billions would be only 0.5% of just gasoline burning emissions, therefore an even smaller fraction of all fossil fuel CO2.
    **********
    Yes, I essentially said the above. But the fact that my post makes no sense at all to you IMO tells me you need to read it more closely and reason it without self inflicting more information than I have written
    **********
    And somehow that makes it a bigger problem than fossil fuel?
    **********
    I never said this!

    **************

    Indeed CO2's radiative properties are independent of its origins, and of anyone's opinion as well.
    **********
    Yes, I essentially said this but not in these words. CO2 does have an effect on the radiative relationship between the sun and Earth.
    **********
    As you stated yourself, human respiration generated CO2 is a tiny fraction of that coming from other sources,
    ************
    Yes I said this!
    *************
    so these other sources, over which we have control, are what matters.
    ************
    This is not something I said in my writing. What I conclude is that all CO2 counts even that discharged by humans exhalations, and I add now, that this quantity is approximately 4X that produced by humans when I was born. But there are other somewhat small sourceses which we do not have control over.
    *************
    You being absolutely sure of anything does not make it real.
    *************
    There is some evidence that Antarctica was once a paradise of life and during this time the Earths average atmospheric temperature was much warmer than it is now. And during the “ice ages” the atmospheric temperatures were much lower. It is absolutely real that the sun warms the earth and it is absolutely real that some atmospheric conditions create an imbalance to the amount of the suns energy that the earth accepts and rejects. The state of balance is the radiative equilibrium. And I am absolutely sure that human behavior is negatively affecting the probability that humans will survive until the earth will no longer be able to sustain life
    ***********
    Some people are absolutely sure that the Earth is flat.
    ************
    And I am sure that your opinions interfered with what you thought I was writing.

    Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?  By breathing out, we are simply returning to the air the same CO2 that was there to begin with.

    Response:

    [DB] Note that in this venue, an overusage of bold font is considered shouting.  Please keep its usage to a minimum.

    Also note that the usual custom when quoting someone is to put their text between quote marks and in italic text.  For additional clarity, you can indent the passage.  Like this:

    "I have sectioned your message and responded"

  19. MA Rodger
    Good numbers math but horrible science
    Humans are similar to engines, fuel them and they burn the fuel. Are you assuming that humans can continue to function without eating until they burn up all their carbon content?

    Response:

    [DB] Please limit the usage of bold font.

  20. bsettlem @119,

    The prospect is "horrible" indeed. Golly!! Lucky you spotted that!!!

    So then, from where do humans get their 270g carbon fuel to allow continued breathing out of a kg of CO2 per day? As a human yourself, you should have some idea. Do you chew on a lump of coal for breakfast? Or perhaps you have a bedtime pint of crude oil?

    Biomass of planet

    Of course the problem is not just humans. We are a minor part of the animal kingdom. And bacteria & fungi - they breathe. And even plants breathe when the sun doesn't shine. With all that breathing out of CO2 (the graphic shows biomass, Fig 1 from here), where does all this carbon come from?

  21. Bsettlem, you're not making any more sense than previously, sorry. It seems you may even somewhat contradict yourself. In any case, I don't have that kind of time. It's not that difficult to be clear and concise. Try.

  22. MA RODGER
    Thanks for the Chart.
    Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent,
    It wasn’t always this way. Humans are responsible for this.
    A similar situation exists for birds. Poultry biomass is about three times that of wild birds.
    It wasn’t always this way. Humans are responsible for this too.
    Where did all this carbon come from you ask. Best guess, from a cloud of hot gases and other mass that resulted from the explosion of a very large star about five billion years ago.
    It is speculated that this early ball of mass was surrounded with an atmosphere mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapor.
    I comment on one part of your message, Plants breathe day and night. During the day they do their photosynthesis thing, and produce oxygen. During the night it’s air in and air out. A very few plants are especially talented and do produce oxygen during the night.

    regards

  23. I'm still not sure exactly what your point is. All the yelling and grandstanding certainly doesn't help.

    Human respiration can not cause a net addition to the carbon cycle. That would violate thermodynamics. Extracting carbon from the crust and releasing it in the cycle does, so would intense sustained volcanic activity or a carbon-containing space object impact. Once carbon has been injected in the cycle, it will of course be found throughout the cycle. However, if 9 billion humans were to produce all their energy from carbon neutral sources, inluding producing nitrogen and phosphate rich fertilizers through carbon neutral chemical processes, their respiration would not increase the atmospheric content of CO2. Long term storage of carbon can cause subtraction, that's what happened in the carboniferous. Shifts in biomass do not constitute net addition or subtraction.

    As for warming attribution, if you know of some other forcing, it should be verifiable and its effect should be quantifiable. It should also be discussed on the appropriate thread.

  24. Bottom of carbon cycle is plants. When a plant dies, the carbon in it is eventually oxidized and returns to the atmosphere. If it is eaten by anything, then that carbon is going back into atmosphere via respiration somewhere down the track. It doesnt change the amount of carbon in atmosphere whatever the relative no. of human to other organisms is.

    Fortunately, we can test the truth of hypothesis. All carbon in the normal cycle contains the C14 isotope. Carbon in fossil fuels has no C14. If the increase in CO2 in atmosphere was due to humans, the atmospheric concentration of C14 wouldnt change. If the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is due burning CO2, then the C14 would be diluted. Guess what the actual measurements show.

  25. bsettlem @122,

    While you highlight the increase in the biomass of mankind with its domesticated flocks, in your comparison with wildlife you manage to ignore the decrease in the biomass of wildlife that is also a by-product of human activity. This rather makes your grand theory (that there are tons-more animals exhaling CO2 into the human-dominated world) less than the drama you hope. Not that it makes a ha'p'orth of difference as it is the source of the carbon that is the important issue here, this being the fuel "they burn" according to you comment @119.

    So where does this carbon comes from so as to fuel all these humans and noisy old bleating goats that we meet? You answer @122 is rather poor. You say it was ejected from an exploding star 5 billion years ago. (There is probably an "over" missing from within that reply.) Then miraculously the carbon reappears in the Earth's Hadean atmosphere (of course a hypothetical composition) whence we lose track of it again before it magically reappears for a second time within the breath of today's biomass. I think it's safe to say, bsettlem, you will never make it as a detective with such threadbare reasoning. You would be laughed out of court!!

    (It is interesting that your final point is presaged by the words "I comment on one part of your message." It suggests that only in this final point you were not trolling.) As a plant tend to grow in size with passing time, it is thus accumulating carbon. My understanding (which is not great on this particular matter) is that plant respiration is from all parts of the living plant and it obtains its carbon from the glucose produced by photosynthesis. Thus the living plant as a whole will be a net absorber of carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and a net emitter of carbon through respiration during periods without photosynthesis (or diminished photosynthesis). And I think it is very likely there is a wider lesson to be had here about that damned ellusive source of carbon harnessed for human respiration.

  26. MA Rodger
    You continue to read superfluous content into my messages. Such as your statement: “you manage to ignore the decrease in the biomass of wildlife that is also a by-product of human activity”. Wildlife was not on your chart and I never ignore wildlife.
    And your statement:”You say it was ejected from an exploding star 5 billion years ago.”
    Your question was: where does all this carbon come from?

    Exactly what I said was: Best guess, from a cloud of hot gases and other mass that resulted from the explosion of a very large star about five billion years ago.
    There are many thoughts, theories if you like, about an answer to a poorly presented question at the end of a paragraph with incorrect information in it. My guess was one to attempt to satisfy your poorly developed comprehension and reasoning. An irrefutable answer, I do have, I’m sure would not be understood by you.

    I’m leaving this venue as there are no preceptors here for me.

    Response:

    [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

  27. scaddenp
    CO2 does not burn. And I don’t have to guess!
    The CO2 exhaled by humans is additive to the atmosphere.
    Simply stated, your post does not justify the Lie.
    I’m leaving this venue as there are no preceptors here for me.

    Response:

    [DB] This participant has opted to recuse himself from further participation here.

  28. Yes, of course, it contributes to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    And no in the big scheme of things it is not all accounted for by the carbon cycle. It almost feels like some people are trying to answer this question so that their children won't feel bad about breathing.

    Ask yourself this question:

    What type of machinery plows the fields where the crops grow? What does that machine run on?

  29. While human population breathing out does not in itself cause harm - more humans mean more homes. The majority of homes use fossil fuels both during construction and while habitated. Homes are often built on de-forested land too, so my argument would be that an increase in population would absolutely cause an increase in CO2 emmissions. The manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels will contribute greatly to the impact on the environment, not to mention the thousands of square miles of land they'll require and their affects on widlife and the countryside. I think it's time we stopped thinking so negatively about nuclear power, and concentrate our efforts into building the thousands of nuclear power plants that will be required over the next 25 years. They will have less net impact on the environment over the long term, and economies of scale will make them cheaper.

  30. Tallguy1000,

    I posted a reply to you here where it is on topic.

  31. I believe breathing is a good thing and should not be interrupted for very long.

    Let me summarize what seems to be relevant to people adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  First, an adult produces about 1 kg CO2 each day, or 365 kg CO2 each year.  Second, there are about 8 billion adults & children doing this.  So how much CO2 does human respiration add each year?  Here comes the math:

      (8 billion people)*(50 kg/person average) = 0.4 GT live biomass

       (365 kg CO2 per year)/(62 kg person) = 6 kg CO2 per year per kg live biomass

      (0.4 GT)*(6 GT CO2/yr per GT live biomass) = 2.4 GT CO2 per year

    For comparison, motor vehicles generate about 3 GT CO2 per year.  All fossil fuels (& cement making) generate maybe 40 GT CO2 per year.  It looks to me like respiration should not be discounted or ignored.  Especially when livestock, earthworms, and marine critters are added.

    From what I saw in Wikipedia on Biomass, the total livestock mass is about 0.7 GT.  Also, the total for ants, worms, and termites is maybe 7 GT.  Marine adds 2 GT.  All these are rough estimates, so the total is roughly 10 GT living biomass.

    If all the living things generate CO2 at the same rate we do, then the total respiration rate is 60 GT CO2 per year.  This exceeds all the fossil fuels & cement production.

    In conclusion, I'd say respiration is a significant source of CO2.

    Response:

    [DB] Scientists know through due diligence that the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2 is from the human combustion of fossil fuels due to the unique and characteristic isotopic nature of that rise and because it occurs in lockstep with the decline in atmospheric oxygen levels.  Because they've done the research demonstrating both.

  32. Paul @131 ,

    if you consult Wikipedia more closely, you will see that you have forgotten to add in a vastly greater living mass ~ plants , fungi, and various types of mono-cellular microbes. 

    They all  respire CO2.   And even though their metabolic rate is slower than warm-blooded humans, the sheer enormous size of their biomass means that they exude CO2 at a total rate enormously higher than humans.

    So there's that.

    Worth consideration !

    I wonder why the expert scientists are not the slightest concerned about that? 

  33. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't human respiration contributing to the accumulation of CO2 per the simple fact that the majority of fertiliser used in commercial farming is derived from fossil fuel sources? 
    Annually, more than 200 million tonnes of synthetic fertilizer is used to produce plants consumed by humans. Granted, that carbon is accounted for in natural gas consumption statistics, and therefor can mathematically be cancecelled out if we declare human respiration as carbon neutral. That doesn't make human respiration technically carbon neutral, however.

  34. tokenterprises @133,

    While it is an interesting consideration that you make, is it not the case that the "majority of fertiliser", while manufactured from natural gas, does not inherit carbon from that natural gas? Thus the carbon in human respiration is not FF carbon. The hydrogen obtained from the natural gas is FF hydrogen but the FF carbon release is a by-product of the process. The argument thus rests on that the FF hydrogen requiring the  FF carbon release (and this can be released as CO2 if the CO is used to extract further hydrogen from water) but that 'requirement' is also present for the burning of FF to power the tractor to plough and harvest the crop as well as to bring the crop to the factory to be processed, the powering of that processing, and so on....

    I think your argument would stand up only if firstly there was direct use of FF carbon on the fields that ends up in the food consumed by us respiring humans, and secondly where that FF carbon ending up in the plant is not a direct substitute for atmospheric/soil carbon. Such conditions might hold less with fertilsers that contain carbon but with the CO2 used in greenhouse operations. ("The most common method of CO2 enrichment for greenhouse application is the combustion of fossil fuel.") Yet there is a further condition which would be met ony if this were the 'majority' situation, or at least some significant part of it. I would think it isn't a 'majority' situation but solely some small proportion of the planet's vegitable consumption. The area of greenhouse cultivation is 500,000 ha which, if it all used enhanced CO2, should be compared with the 1,600,000,000 ha of global croplands, just 0.03%.

  35. Tokenterprises @133 , It's worse than that.

    Even the bubbles you absorb from your Coca-cola     ;-)

    (But isn't most synthetic fertilizer a nitrogen-based compound ~ though admittedly there's a huge amount of fossil fuel usage in the production.)

  36. Tokenterprises @133
    MA Rodger @134

    I would like to make an argument on human exhalation in much simpler form on the following premises using inductive reasoning:

    1. Sustaining of life requires exhalation.
    Stopping of exhalation terminates life.
    2. Sustaining life of 7.5 billion people on Earth requires fertilizers.
    3. Fertilizers are produced using fossil fuels.
    4. Fossil fuels used in fertilizers production contributes to concentration of CO2 in atmosphere.

    If we agreed to above premises the general conclusion has to be: supporting life of more than 7 billions people on the Earth requires emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to atmosphere. Therefore, in order to sustain human civilization human exhalation has to influence amount of CO2 in atmosphere.

  37. @136 antjrk,

    The same sort of logic fallacies are present in your line of reasoning as are often found in the "anti-herbivore" propaganda.

    1 is a vacuous truth red herring.

    2 is a false premise.

    3 is a hasty generalization association fallacy.

    4 is true

    "If we agreed to above premises the general conclusion has to be: supporting life of more than 7 billions people on the Earth requires emission of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels to atmosphere." is circular reasoning where the conclusion is exactly the same as the premises. Especially 2 being a false premise makes the conclusion unsupported as well.

    To boil it down to the essence, yes agriculture currently contributes to AGW, but there is no reason to assume it MUST contribute to AGW. In fact there is plenty of evidence that agriculture could be managed in a way that is net negative on the carbon cycle to the atmosphere, by sequestring a large % of the primary products of photosynthesis into the soil. A process that also has a side effect of greater yields without the need for haber process nitrogen fertilizers.

    Clearly the primary fallacy of declaring human breathing as an emissions source causing AGW is the double counting fallacy. But since agriculture can be done in many many ways, and not all require nitrogent fertilizers made from fossil fuels, the hasty generalization is flawed. More importantly, it does not lead to any solutions. 

    Address the complex nature of agriculture does indeed suggest many solutions. So your flawed reasoning is not useful in any reasonable AGW discussion that includes potential solutions.

  38. antjrk @136,

    I will set out different argument to that @137.

    Simply, if there is no audit trail of the carbon content of FF being transferred to fertiliser and thence to a food crop and thence this same carbon being consumed by humanity and exhaled into the atmosphere; if this autid trail is missing, then your argument could also be applied to the fuel used in the tractors on the farm and the lorries bringing the crop to the consumer, the processing and packageing of the food, and finally the cooking of it. Where would you stop? And how about keeping humanity warm? That can be essential to life and utalises FFs. Or flying them round the world on holiday? After all, of those billions of polluting humans, one-in-ten obtains a livelihood from tourism.

    So let's stick to that audit trail. Most fertilisers do not contain carbon so there is no audit trail.

    And while urea is used as a fertiliser and that does contain carbon (NH2)2CO, that carbon is not part of the fertilising process and does not transferred to the plant. All carbon contained in food crops is drawn from the atmosphere and consuming such food simply returns that carbon whence it came.

  39. @137 RedBaron
    Accusing me for “anti-herbiviore” propaganda and “vacuous red herring” is political, offensive and unscientific approach and is not helpful in finding the truth. This kind level of discussion does not make any sense  to be  productive to carry on.
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    MA Rodger@138
    I agree let’s stick to the audit trail. Let’s look into urea. Urea does contain carbon atom which will be finally converted by biochemical processes to CO2 and release to atmosphere. Another part might be incorporated into humic acids especially in soils rich in clay/bentonite and release latter straight to atmosphere. As another example, the carbonate calcium often used in soil conditioning process is a source of calcium which is one of the essential ingredients for sustaining the life on the Earth. When decomposed release CO2 to atmosphere. In both cases they are not directly exhaled and not in the food chain. However, without them the food chain could not exists. For tackling the problem in more efficient way, I would brake human exhalation on two components: direct and indirect. Direct will be exhalation by breathing and indirect like those by urea or calcium carbonate which produce CO2 straight to atmosphere without entering the food chain but is necessary for the process to exist. In order to make it more clear, I would propose pseudo-mathematical formula:
    Direct(inhalation) + indirect(inhalation) = life (7.5 billions people on the Earth)
    Both components are necessary for existence of 7.5 billions people on the earth.

  40. Antjrk @139 and earlier,

    you have divided the food-chain [human outbreathed] fossil carbon into "direct" and "indirect" components.

    As RedBaron and MA Rodger have indicated, the direct transfer of fossil carbon via vegetable-based & animal-based food . . . seems to be negligibly tiny.  Indeed, it's likely that your outbreath contains far more "fossil-based" CO2 deriving from you drinking Coca-cola or other soda-pop , than it does from any fertilizer (synthetic or natural fertilizer).

    You are quite right that there's a large "indirect" contribution, from fossil fuels energizing the production of synthetic fertilizer, and transporting it, and spreading it.  And the same indirect contribution, in harvesting the food, in transporting it and processing & packaging it, and distributing it . . . and refrigerating it . . . and in transporting purchasers to the shops . . . etcetera.   The whole fossil fuel economy we conduct, has a fossil CO2 contribution woven into almost everything we do and use, in our modern lives.   # And that is exactly what we need to change, of course.

    You could even point to the fossil fuel burnt by the school bus that conveyed the farmer to the local school when he was a boy.

    All that said ~ it is very unclear to me what is the precise point you are wishing to make about CO2 and food and outbreath.    Please clarify !

  41. antjrk @139,

    I cannot accept your clain that this accounting of CO2 emissions identifies "components ... necessary for existence of 7.5 billions people on the earth."

    Picking up on a few parts of your comment:-

    • The agricultural use CaCO3 is, like the larger component from cement production, a source of CO2 emissions which is in addition to fossil-fuel use.
    • The use of CaCO3 on farmland is not because "calcium ... is one of the essential ingredients for sustaining the life on the Earth" but because it reduces soil pH.
    • You fail to provide anything that constitutes part of the direct(inhale) component and were you to identify such, it doesn't lead to anything that establishes a source of CO2 emissions that is any different to the usual FF+cement+land-use-change.
    • Just as creating a world without coal/gas-fuelled powerstations and petrol-fuelled cars is proving difficult but is not impossible, so the feeding of the planet without FF-derived fertiliser will require big and difficult but not impossible change.
  42. Eclectic @140

    I would like to clarify my position by bringing the Haber-Bosch syntheses which requires to use fossil fuels. It’s estimated that nitrogen fertilizer now supports approximately half of the global population. In other words, Haber and Bosch — the pioneers of this technological breakthrough — are estimated to have enabled the lives of several billion people, who otherwise would have died prematurely, or never been born at all. As one could see, this is just not the size of the problem how much CO2 is in Coca-Cola. This is very series issue in our world. Without nitrogen fertilizers and associated fossil fuels half of human population could not exists. I can read or hear people saying very often lightly, “don’t worry breath easy this does not contribute to AGW”. This might be true for someone who is lucky to be in the first half of the population. What about second half of the population? What we can say to them? Clearly, for this part of population, fossil fuels, nitrogen fertilizers means life or death and being on this planet. I hope my “direct(inhalation) + indirect(inhalation) = life (7.5 billions people on the Earth)” is easier understood now. I am also afraid because looking into world history there were dictatorships that experimented with agriculture. As the results millions of population experienced malnutrition, starving and death. Therefore, wherever we are taking about exhalation/breathing we should be very careful and consider broader full picture so future generations can avoid a catastrophe.

    ------------------------------------------

    MA Rodger @141

    In addition to what I wrote above I would like to ad about CaCO3. You right is used to adjust PH of soil. But this is only one part of the story. Soil in order to function properly requires also micro-elements like calcium, magnesium and several others. CaCO3 is also the source of calcium. Calcium is main components of human bones as well as animal bones. Cows are eating grass producing milk reach with calcium that latter is used by humans building their bones. Yes. It is essential for the life on Earth unless you think about species without bones.
    I did not invoke cement production here. Is off-the topic in my argument.

  43. @ 142 antjrk,

    The first plant to use the Haber-Bosch process at industrial scale started in 1913. Over 100 years on nothing much has changed. This is no longer a technilogical breakthrough, but rather antiquated technology that is well known now to cause far more harm than good long term.

    Haber himself new the technology was only a stop-gap when he patented it over a century ago.

    “Nitrogen bacteria teach us that Nature, with her sophisticated forms of the chemistry of living matter, still understands and utilises methods which we do not as yet know how to imitate. Let it suffice that in the meantime improved nitrogen fertilisation of the soil brings new nutritive riches to mankind and that the chemical industry comes to the aid of the farmer who, in the good earth, changes stones into bread.”- Fritz Haber (emphasis mine)

    I absolutely can assure you our knowlege of the chemical processes and nutrient pathways in a healthy functioning soil food web are light years more advanced than when Fritz made that statement. 

    What this means is that the statement, "Without nitrogen fertilizers and associated fossil fuels half of human population could not exist" is a critically flawed logic fallacy. Haber process fertilizer is not required nor even the best way to feed the populace. You have made a false dichotomy that we either use haber process nitrogen, or have no alternatives, and that simply is false.

    Converting to regenerative agriculture not only can easily support the current population, it also would barely scratch the surface of food production potential of the world, for both humans and wildlife. The "side effect" of this sort of agriculture, besides much higher yields per acre, is that copius quantities of carbon become sequestered back into the soil where it belongs. 

    In fact there is far more carbon missing from the soil than extra in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrialized age.

    So not only is the statement a logic fallacy and completely unsupported, this failure of critical thought is also an obsticle to restoring a properly functioning biological carbon cycle that can mitigate AGW.

  44. Antjrk @142 ,

    thank you for expanding your comments : but I do not follow your logic.

    If I understand correctly, the Haber-Bosch process is an economically valuable contributor to "First World" agricultural production ~ but not much in the "Third World" or subsistence farming area.

    Without the Haber-Bosch process, food in the First World would be marginally more expensive.  I doubt I could put a percentage figure to that ~ but when First Worlders look around, you see a great deal of obesity and food waste.

    Without the H-B process, other technologies would have developed, perhaps involving more organic methods and including the wider recycling of sewage.

    For humanity, the cereal crops are the mainstay.  And for that, one could argue that the role of phosphates is more important than the nitrates.

  45. Eclectic @144

    I think you are bringing a very good point “you see a great deal of obesity and food waste.” Obesity might be the sign that is too much food so there should be no need for that much of fertilizer. This is rather social/behavioral and political issue that I would prefer not to go too deep there. Thus, for example I can see a huge waste of food in restaurants. Very often people can’t eat all the food they ordered in restaurant throwing the big portion of it into garbage. For me this is very sad to watch this. Such behavior shows not only lack of regards for human work but additionally produces unnecessary large emission of CO2 to atmosphere. Problem is that many people see food only by the scope of price/pound which is relatively cheap and nothing else. The food we have is a fruit of hard work of many people, and gift of our nature for us to have a life. We are trying to figure out how to decrease CO2 emission yet people are working against this.
    On the other hand approximately 40 millions of people are not able to put food on their table asking for food stamp. In present time of pandemii we can see as well as a huge lines of people at food banks asking for free food because they can’t support their families. All of this is in the first world which knows how to produce enough food. I am worry that increasing food price by changing agriculture might put many more people on food stamp or at food bank. They might consider themselves as be in third world.
    In third world food is expensive or very expensive for much larger part of population than in the first.

    I totally agree that other technologies than H-B could be developed including involving more organic methods and recycling of sewage. But they should be implemented without rising food price so everyone can afford it. This should be based on science not politics.

    “For humanity, the cereal crops are the mainstay. And for that, one could argue that the role of phosphates is more important than the nitrates.”

    I would incline toward nitrates because nitrogen is more basic for human body than phosphor. Every cell of our body contains nitrogen but not every cell contains phosphor.

  46. RedBaron @143

    I am not going to use ocean of ink to defend my case. I will not use words “fallacy’, "anti-herbivore" propaganda, vacuous truth red herring, logic fallacy e.t.c.

    In spite of more than 100 years ago Haber and Bosch invented their process this is still used very widely. As of 2018, the Haber process produces 230 million tonnes of anhydrous ammonia per year.
    Thanks to those two great chemist as well as Nobel laureates billions of people could enjoy their life including me. In past, now and hopefully in the future.
    I never said/write that this process can not be or should not be substituted by different one. In some point of time will be. However, needs to be done extremely carefully base on the scientific not a political merit assuring that there is no tragedy involved and no one is losing his life or experiencing starving. That’s what worry me at most.
    As another example of more than 100 years old invention and still being used, I can give you the Einstein’s theory of relativity. Thanks to him today we could enjoy GPS and no one complains that is so old invention.
    I wish you well.

  47. @146 antjrk,

     Yes, in 2018 the haber process produced 230 tonnes anhydrous ammonia. This is a significant source for AGW. I do not dispute that at all.

    The logic flaw is in assuming that this supports a type of agriculture that is the best yields per acre of food for people, thus required. That is not true. In almost every case maximum yields are better using regenerative methods that do not use haber process nitrogen.  So actually changing agriculture will not risk making even more people starve. In fact the opposite is already happening.

    Since you seem skeptical of this, I will give a real world example. SRI (system of rice intensification) SRI can be done either completely organic or with chemical fertilizers, or often many various degrees between.

    However, the biggest yields, in fact world record yields, all come from farmers using no haber process nitrogen at all.

    India's rice revolution

     

    This is not a one-off or fluke either. Across the board improved yields. But more importantly to a discussion about global warming, is the dramatic differences in greenhouse gasses between conventional paddy rice production and SRI.

    The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)…
    … is climate-smart rice production

     

    So changing agriculture to fix the carbon cycle also eliminates the need for haber process nitrogen and also INCREASES  yields per acre. Exactly the opposite as your conclusion based on flawed logic. 

    That's just rice, one of the big three. But the same can also be said for wheat and corn too. Changing methods to all the various new regenerative ag methods INCREASES  yields per acre on average. (usually after about a 3 year recovery period, but in some cases yields surpass those with haber process nitrogen year one)

    Your supposed risk of starving 1/2 the population of the world is completely unsupported. In fact because of the properties of biological carbon in the soil, they actually dramatically reduce  the risk of famine caused by drought or flood and/or a whole host of other stresses.

  48. antjrk,

    This comment thread drifts off-topic and now has more of the feel of an exercise in reinforcing a false & crazy theory than anything else. I will thus break off my participation but with a couple of Parthian shots.

    () While calcium is an essential ingredient of both bones and milk, it is not essential for the dairy industry. If agriculture stopped liming fields this would not result in cattle being unable to form skeletons or provide milk.

    () The CO2 emissions from fertilisers using FF is assessed as 467Tg(CO2)/yr or ~120Mt(C) of a total anthropogenic CO2 emission of 12,000Mt(C). Essential or not (and most here appear unconvinced of your agruments for it being essential), if that 1% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions were to become a major remaining target in the fight against AGW, I would myself consider the climate crisis pretty-much done and dusted.

  49. Antjrk @145 and earlier :-  You are wrong on many points.

    (A)  <"Every cell of our body contains nitrogen but not every cell contains phosphor.">

    Incorrect.   Every human cell contains phosphorus.  Phosphorus compounds are vital structural and nucleic and operational components of living cells.

    (B)  For the subsistence farmers of the Third World, the use of synthetic fertilizer is expensive for them, and gives a risky Value-Cost Ratio.   To quote FAO : "In the case of poor small-scale farmers, the cost of fertilizers can represent a high proportion of the total variable cost of production, an investment that they can particularly ill afford where there is a risk of crop failure."   In consequence, they are usually safer using traditional fertilizing techniques.

    (C)  In rich countries (e.g. USA) one observes that "the poor people are fat".   The price of food "at the farm gate" is small in comparison to the retail price at the shop ~ so an increase in farming cost of produce  (e.g. from loss of the Haber-Bosch nitrogenous fertilizers) will produce only a very small percentage price increase of food for the consumer.

    And the [current 2020 crisis] huge lines of Americans queuing (in rather expensive cars) to get free food at food banks . . . reflects sudden loss of disposable incomes.   Also for the chronic users of "food stamps", this can largely be attributed to the conjunction of low income and high rental/accommodation costs ~ a matter of "social injustice" rather than the cost of Haber-Bosch economics.

    # Antjrk : as MA Rodger points out, your comments have been somewhat off-topic for this thread.  The Haber-Bosch nitrogenous fertilizers produce a negligibly small direct contribution to CO2 in human outbreath.   Which still leaves our readers [including me] wondering if you are going to raise any valid point of disputation.

    But if you do have such a point in the back of your mind, then please bring it forward and explain it clearly.

  50. RedBaron @147
    MA Rodger @148
    Eclectic @149
    Haber-Bosch is still producing 230 millions ton/year synthetic product. I am skeptical that this will be terminated in the next few decades. Therefore, until last Haber-Bosh plant on the earth is shut down my equation: Direct(inhalation) + indirect(inhalation) = life (7.5 billions people on the Earth) will have some merit.

Prev  1  2  3  

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us