And man as a producer of CO2 and CH4

[andre-34]

Hello,

I had fun doing a stupid calculation concerning the production of a man who breathes 15 once a minute while exhaling 500 ml of CO2 every time.

Well that's in the year as a car taxed max (250 g / km) that ran 35000 km around ...
This would mean that nothing that the inhabitants of France would "pollute" (CO2 is not a pollutant) more than 3 times the French car fleet (and again composed practically only of large sedans, large 4x4s or large minivans)

Am I mistaken?

Elements:
1 liter of CO2 approx 2 grams
15 expirations per minute of 500 ml of CO2 each

The rest is easy

Now I would like to calculate the average volume of CH4 that has been outclassed and now represents 39 times that of CO2 expelled by an average man over a year ...

[Christophe]

I caliped a long time ago on the CO2 of human respiration, we found roughly for 6 billion of man, about 20% of CO2 releases of oil ...

Far from being negligible so your reasoning is legitimate.

On the other hand your calculation seems to me errated: you speak not liter or gram of CO2? How do you go from one to the other?

Looks like you think 1 ml = 1 gram as for water?

Then 2ieme error: we are far from rejecting 100% of CO2 ...

In the worst case we reject if I remember 16 18% O2 ... so 5% max max CO2 ... all this in volume after convert to mass ...

In any case, this calculation is doubly erratic (I've learned since pkoi) because the CO2 that is rejected by breathing remains in the plant cyclethere would be 60 Billion men on earth, there would be no more greenhouse effect because of their breathing.

What counts on the other hand is the fossil CO2 (and CO2 equivalents like NOx, CH4) which were necessary for the "creation" of human food.

But direct human (or animal) breathing has no influence on the greenhouse effect

[andre-34]

easy :

1 - at room temperature and a standard pressure, we get 1,97 kg: m3 so 1 liter weighs 2 grams practically.

2 - we inhale and exhale several liters with each breath (I have a lung capacity of 7 liters that I have to use 50%) but I read that the expired CO2 was about 500 ml (one gram) .
IT IS ON THESE 500ML THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CONFIRMATION OR INFIRMATION ....
One could know it indirectly by knowing for example the lifespan of a crew of a submarine sunken and without oxygen and who die because of the expired CO2. Or in a bag tightly sealed on the head ...

The rest is very simple, you multiply by 60 for one hour, 24 for a day and 365 for the year ...

Then you divide by 250 ....


If this is true, since many countries have very few cars, the human population, just for the CO2 must explode the numbers of cars.

This must be situated almost in the lead with heating at home and part of the industry !!!!

If you add methane then there ...

That allows you to relativize a lot huh? especially with energy-saving lamps ...

If on that you count the animals ....

THIS BECOMES HUGE


When the shot of vegetable CO2, I do not agree!
Man and animals are not plants!

Even the latter, moreover, have succeeded in having the carboniferous thermometer fired.

The huge herds of sheep and cattle produce a great deal of methane, and besides, these critters manage to cut entire meadows in not very rainy corners.

The more men there are and the more animals there are, the higher the concentrations of these gases.

I caliped a long time ago on the CO2 of human respiration, we found roughly for 6 billion of man, about 20% of CO2 releases of oil ...

Far from being negligible so your reasoning is legitimate.

On the other hand your calculation seems to me errated: you speak not liter or gram of CO2? How do you go from one to the other?

Looks like you think 1 ml = 1 gram as for water?

Then 2ieme error: we are far from rejecting 100% of CO2 ...

In the worst case we reject if I remember 16 18% O2 ... so 5% max max CO2 ... all this in volume after convert to mass ...

In any case, this calculation is doubly erratic (I've learned since pkoi) because the CO2 that is rejected by breathing remains in the plant cyclethere would be 60 Billion men on earth, there would be no more greenhouse effect because of their breathing.

What counts on the other hand is the fossil CO2 (and CO2 equivalents like NOx, CH4) which were necessary for the "creation" of human food.

But direct human (or animal) breathing has no influence on the greenhouse effect

[highfly-addict]

Good evening!

When the shot of vegetable CO2, I do not agree!
Man and animals are not plants!

I think Christophe was just saying (and he's right) that the CO2 that humans and animals release when breathing does NOT go back to the atmosphere, where it was taken ..... by plants.

Unless one feeds directly on fossil carbon compounds, which to my knowledge does not exist or is VERY VERY marginal.

[andre-34]

Not at all...

You filter oxygen through your lungs that passes into the blood.

This oxygen is used to fuel the machine and is expelled as CO2, a product of the combustion of energy in your body.

Try and see: shut up in a hermetically sealed room whose volume you know and go there.
You will stand out front feet because you will have quickly burned the oxygen of the room to rebalance in the form of CO2.

On the other hand, as I wrote, I do not know how many times it expires each time which could make my calculations wrong.

I understand what Christophe meant.
It actually says that you burn an oxygen produced by plants and not by materials in which the carbon is stored and which is released by the industry in particular.

But do not agree. Any CO2 product is added unless the plants proliferate and then pose the bp of methane ...

Good evening!

When the shot of vegetable CO2, I do not agree!
Man and animals are not plants!

I think Christophe was just saying (and he's right) that the CO2 that humans and animals release when breathing does NOT go back to the atmosphere, where it was taken ..... by plants.

Unless one feeds directly on fossil carbon compounds, which to my knowledge does not exist or is VERY VERY marginal.

[Leo Maximus]

About natural releases of CO2 into the atmosphere, calcareous soils when watered by rain, always weakly acidic, reject a lot of CO2.

There are BRGM PDF documents on this subject and CO2 releases in the Massif Central, for example, sometimes reach 7000 tonnes per km2 and per year.

[highfly-addict]

Not at all...

You filter oxygen through your lungs that passes into the blood.

This oxygen is used to fuel the machine and is expelled as CO2, a product of the combustion of energy in your body.

Try and see: shut up in a hermetically sealed room whose volume you know and go there.
You will stand out front feet because you will have quickly burned the oxygen of the room to rebalance in the form of CO2.

On the other hand, as I wrote, I do not know how many times it expires each time which could make my calculations wrong.

I understand what Christophe meant.
It actually says that you burn an oxygen produced by plants and not by materials in which the carbon is stored and which is released by the industry in particular.

But do not agree. Any CO2 product is added unless the plants proliferate and then pose the bp of methane ...

Hoot! I misspoke or well?

In your opinion, where does the carbon (C) of the CO2 expired by our small lungs come from?

Well, it has been fixed in various substances such as sugars, lipids and proteins BY PLANTS (PHOTOSYNTHESIS) FROM CO2 NATURALLY present in the air and thus rejecting O2.
We eat these substances, spend (for some) energy that allows us to move our muscles, think, etc ... and we reject some of the waste of the mobilization process of this energy (CO2) breathing.

Do you know the notion of system (in the physical or ecological sense)? Dynamic balance? Because YES, it is necessary to distinguish between the CO2 emitted from fossil fuels and the one emitted as part of the dynamic equilibrium of the Earth system by animals (or the man who is nothing different from them on this point).

Moreover, I do not understand what you are trying to demonstrate with your experience of the closed room. Indeed, the rates of CO2 and O2 will respectively increase for one and decrease for the other, so what? It's called breathing, that's all.

Breathing (in the biological sense of the term) consumes O2, rejects CO2 and photosynthesis captures it and rejects O2, that's the dynamic equilibrium that we upset by throwing the CO2 the C comes well from buried stocks.

It is better ?

[andre-34]

I understand better ...
But biomass is decreasing, and livestock in particular are increasing exponentially.
Am not sure there is a balance ...

There is also the CH4, not insignificant. But there I have no marbles ...

Hoot! I misspoke or well?

In your opinion, where does the carbon (C) of the CO2 expired by our small lungs come from?

Well, it has been fixed in various substances such as sugars, lipids and proteins BY PLANTS (PHOTOSYNTHESIS) FROM CO2 NATURALLY present in the air and thus rejecting O2.
We eat these substances, spend (for some) energy that allows us to move our muscles, think, etc ... and we reject some of the waste of the mobilization process of this energy (CO2) breathing.

Do you know the notion of system (in the physical or ecological sense)? Dynamic balance? Because YES, it is necessary to distinguish between the CO2 emitted from fossil fuels and the one emitted as part of the dynamic equilibrium of the Earth system by animals (or the man who is nothing different from them on this point).

Moreover, I do not understand what you are trying to demonstrate with your experience of the closed room. Indeed, the rates of CO2 and O2 will respectively increase for one and decrease for the other, so what? It's called breathing, that's all.

Breathing (in the biological sense of the term) consumes O2, rejects CO2 and photosynthesis captures it and rejects O2, that's the dynamic equilibrium that we upset by throwing the CO2 the C comes well from buried stocks.

It is better ?

[Christophe]

andré, stp take a step back and re-read what we noted instead of spreading false truths! highflyaddict is right, that's what I said earlier and more briefly ...

ANIMAL BREATHING WILL NOT COME INTO THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT! POINT BAR !!

What intervenes is the culture and the transformation of the nouriture (the CH4 left for the meat and the milk for example) and it is exactly the same thing with the BIO-AGRO-FUEL ...

And take a good

+ 1 with Leo on geological emissions!

ps: andre, for the form, we answer after the quote stp not before

[Leo Maximus]

I understand better ...
But biomass is decreasing, and livestock in particular are increasing exponentially.
Am not sure there is a balance ...
There is also the CH4, not insignificant. But there I have no marbles ...

From memory, a sheep must reject 7 kg of methane per year. But, AMHA, a sheep is surely less harmful to nature than a man.