Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

geordie_joe

shaven-monkey wrote: »

Oxygen gas is most usually liberated in the earth's atmosphere by photosynthesis.

Ben84 said it can only be "created in its free form by respirations of photosynthetic organisims"

shaven-monkey wrote: »

We haven't figured out a way to sustain fusion on a large enough scale to produce the stuff out of hydrogen on demand yet.

I didn't ask if "we" had figured out a way of producing it, I asked, in the light of Ben84 saying it can only be created by "respirations of photosynthetic organisims", why it was the third most abundant gas in the universe?

In other words, can it only be produced by "respirations of photosynthetic organisims", or can it be produced another way, even if we don't know what that other way is?

Put simply, was all the oxygen in the universe produce by plants, or was some of it produced another way. Given that the may not know exactly what that other way was?

Saying that all the oxygen on earth was produced by plants may not be right if it can be produced by other means.

Ben84

The word 'free' is important here. Oxygen is already present as part of compounds, but not as free oxygen. Photosynthesis releases the oxygen from CO2 when it breaks it down.

This process that happens inside plants has had a big effect on the Earth's atmosphere.

Understanding photosynthesis is a key point here, it's well worth looking up.

geordie_joe

Ben84 wrote: »

The large amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere, which can only be created in its free form by respirations of photosynthetic organisims is a good example of this effect.

I'm off to bed now, but the above should give you a head start for tomorrow.

Cardew

So Earth is getting warmer - or it ain't!

Does anyone disagree that there has been huge swings in our climate over the last Xthousand years?

If the latest warming is happening, do we subscribe to the 'Al Gore' theory that man is causing it, or contributing to it?

Are we justified in spending literally £Trillions to take measures to reduce our carbon footprint?

Can we persuade China, India and other less developed countries to do the same?

I read somewhere that if the UK reduced our output to zero - i.e. became an unpopulated island - that our 'saving' would be 'used up' by China in less than a year.

shaven-monkey

It's more a question of fair and equitable distribution of resources.

http://forum.eastwestcenter.org/blog/2008/05/07/per-capita-carbon-emissions/

has a nice graph showing that the UK per capita fossil fuel use is over twice that of the chinese. We have enjoyed the freedom to burn whatever we wanted for as long as we wanted since the 1600s without much control of emissions until the 1970s and it allowed us to develop into an almost post industrial society. What justification do we have for telling the chinese, indians and other expanding economies that what was good for us is not allowed for them?

If the anthropogenic theory of climate change is accurate then the chinese have as much to lose as everyone else but they also have more people in the top 25% of intellectual ability in school right now than we have people in total. They'll deal with the problem when their need to outweighs their need to expand their economy.

In the mean time we'd be wise to invest in development of better energy technologies just so we can sell them something when they rule the universe.

Volcano

geordie_joe wrote: »

I'm off to bed now, but the above should give you a head start for tomorrow.

If you put the word 'created' into its context: "created in its free form" then that'll help you out no end.

Ben84

geordie_joe wrote: »

I'm off to bed now, but the above should give you a head start for tomorrow.

I doubt you take the word created so literally every other time you hear it. If you still don't understand the difference between oxygen and free oxygen, then look up photosynthesis and all will become clear.

I could describe photosynthesis to you in reasonable detail, but it seems pointless when there is such an abundance of clear well written stuff about it in books and online. Looking it up will give you a better description.

Cardew

shaven-monkey wrote: »

What justification do we have for telling the chinese, indians and other expanding economies that what was good for us is not allowed for them?

If the anthropogenic theory of climate change is accurate then the chinese have as much to lose as everyone else but they also have more people in the top 25% of intellectual ability in school right now than we have people in total. They'll deal with the problem when their need to outweighs their need to expand their economy.

We have no 'justification' at all and I certainly wasn't suggesting that it was an option.

As they are super-intelligent, perhaps we should follow their example and limit every married couple to one child - unmarried pregnant females and any second child would have to be aborted. That is one way they are dealing with their problem and what 'justification' do we have to breed as we wish, when they can't;)

I was merely pointing that the UK spending £billions to reduce our carbon emissions without getting these countries to do the same is like trying to put out a forest fire with a water pistol.

shaven-monkey

Cardew wrote: »

As they are super-intelligent, perhaps we should follow their example and limit every married couple to one child - unmarried pregnant females and any second child would have to be aborted. That is one way they are dealing with their problem and what 'justification' do we have to breed as we wish, when they can't;)

Nah, they're average intelligent but outnumber us 16 to one... or it may be 16,000 to one.
Our only option is to breed prodigiously until we outnumber them.

moonrakerz

Cardew wrote: »

I read somewhere that if the UK reduced our output to zero - i.e. became an unpopulated island - that our 'saving' would be 'used up' by China in less than a year.

Absolutely correct !