Influence of CO2 discharges from human respiration

[zac]

I see more than the disappearance at sea; it feeds shrimp and it's good shrimp

@+

PS: for polo; 20ans I practice and it does not work

[Polo]

I am rather for recycling: give your body to science and medicine!

[thejoker]

it is very interesting to see a eugenistic strategy put in place even under cover of irony ..

Did you know that the good prince albert dreams of being reincarnated as an AIDS virus to fight against "overpopulation" .....
he is a WWF member of course just like the prince consort of Holland ...

[elephant]

in the straight line, from what I said above, I suggest this article appeared on yahoo today:

http://fr.biz.yahoo.com/25062007/347/l- ... cueil.html

for cremation enthusiasts, I suggest adapting the law and doing like Americans: you are renting a beautiful coffin for the ceremony and you are burned in a polythene bag. (In some crematorium, we see the coffin enter the oven lit, I find it very traumatic for the audience)

[Woodcutter]

Symmpa! I want that: a coffin shaped egg recycled fibers!

[elephant]

Yeah! It connects me enough, what I like most is the tree above, some form of metempsychosis, somehow.

Death as the basis of life ... a whole philosophy

I wanted to be cremated, I might change my mind

[moinsdewatt]

Hello everyone !

I would like to raise a point, certainly questionable by its nature (with regard to the measures to be taken), but which deserves to be mentioned ...

We reject ALL of the CO2 by our simple breathing: for simplicity, our body works like an engine, it burns carbonic compounds thanks to the oxygen we breathe to reject CO2.

I "had fun" calculating the CO2 emissions from the breathing of 6 billion people alone. At the rate of average figures of 0.3 grams of CO2 per minute (figure from a doctor friend, but to be confirmed ...) each of us rejects about 160 Kilo of CO2 just by breathing ... or 30% of the famous 500 kilos of "CO2 capital" per person per year.

Compared to CO2 releases from 70 Million barrels of oil equivalent consumed daily by humanity, our breathing accounts for about 15%.
Indeed, each of us therefore rejects 0.3 * 60 * 24 = 432 g CO2 per day. However, in a (modern) engine, when we consume 1g of fuel, we release 2 to 3 g of CO2. All those who consume (directly) less than 150 g of fuel per day "pollute" more by their breathing than by their displacement ... Obviously to be rigorous it is necessary to take into account the indirect rejections (electricity, food ...) ...

In short, this figure is NOT NEGLIGIBLE but I repeat it I would like to confirm these figures however NOBODY has ever mentioned it in any study on the greenhouse effect ... It is unacceptable! Obviously the "solutions" to this problem are not simple and relate more to ethics than technology ...

What do you think ?

The CO2 of human respiration does not participate at all in the CO2 balance sheet of the planet.

This human CO2 it comes from or?

Oxidation of the carbohydrates it feeds on.

If it comes from fruits, vegetables, cereals and legumes, well this carbon comes just from the CO2 of the air a few months before.

If it comes from the meat, well it comes from the grass and soya cake and the like, and we come back to the previous point.

If it comes from the fish, it finally comes from the plankton (possibly via intermediate poisons if it is carnivorous fish), plankton that has absorbed CO2 carbon.

In conclusion, the CO2 emitted by humans is just a re-circulation of carbon captured by the life cycle.

Finally, as long as we do not make artificial meat based on petroleum. What will come may be a day.

[Did67]

Totally agree.

Eternal confusion between CO² of fossil origin, which is "added" to that which turns in loops, that is to say CO², an oxidized form of carbon in the organic chemistry of "living things".

Always remember that the C is like batteries.

Only carbon (carbon, for example - fossil or carbonization of wood) or reduced (in combination with H), we have organic matter, including hydrocarbons. The C and the H are then rich in potential chemical energy (it is the liason of both)

If it is partially or totally oxidized, it reverts to CO², an oxidized form, poor in energy ("empty batteries"). A waste of exernegetic "oxidative" phenomena. Ditto for H²0, which is the oxidized waste of H.

This oxidation can be brutal: fire, which "heats violently". Or explosion (biomethane in an engine).

It can be gentle because it is catalyzed in the cells, so as not to destroy them: "respiration", with, at the end, release of mechanical and calorific energy ... This is also the case for all the natural processes of " decomposition "if aerobic [which concerns the majority of the biomass!]

Thanks to photosynthesis, chlorophyllian plants have the ability to recharge these batteries, that is to say to convert CO² and hydrocarbon molecules (glucose, fructose, starch, cellulose, ligin, etc ...) ...

Hence the complementarity "animal" / "plant" (more exactly saporphytic / chlorophyllian plants).

There is therefore a need for a "stock" of CO² to feed photosynthesis, a stock which rotates in the vital processes, at a very variable rate: the CO² fixed by wheat this spring may be in your baguette this fall and you can release it in your breathing in the days that follow [it also works with beer alcohol!] ... Wood, if you heat yourself with it, it will have taken a few decades to accumulate, and it will clear very quickly. But if it is lumber, the CO² can remain sequestered for a very long time, while you burn your floor or your furniture, or you let them "rot"!

There are therefore a multitude of oxidized C / reduced C "cycles", which entangle at a different rate ...

We should still talk about soil organic matter, humus, etc.

Global warming is linked to the very rapid release of CO² from fossil hydrocarbons who have sequestered CO² for millions, tens of millions of years. There, we are on a cycle at the scale of the geological eras. It is the brutality of the release, in two generations, of these enormous volumes of C in the form of CO² which poses no doubt a problem ... Not the principle ...

Of course, it adds other greenhouse gases.

In addition, there are the enormous stocks of CO² sequestered in the soils (humus), in the oceans (as in CocaCola), with an effect induced by the reheating on the "release" of these stocks (the ocean which by reheating makes " pschitt ", acceleration of the degradation of organic matter in the soil under the effect of reflow - tundra, etc ...). But also extension of the forest towards the North, qi will "sequester" CO² where there were only thin bushes ...

Hence the complexity of the equations and the uncertainties and the "bit of everything and no matter what" that we can currently "prove"!

In short, the "key" is therefore simple: is it CO² from of fossil energy ? Or not ?