Thursday, January 13, 2011
Global Warming Effects of Breathing
This morning I did a very interesting calculation of the total amount of carbon emissions produced by the breathing of human beings. I came up with 3.1 billion tons of carbon (not CO2) per year, assuming 6.7 billion people in the world, a lung tidal volume of 0.5 liters, 15 breaths per minute, that air is 1/5 oxygen, and 100% efficiency in converting inhaled oxygen to exhaled CO2. Note that this amounts to about 1/3 of the annual world fossil fuels emissions of 9 billion tons of carbon! Assuming further that 50% of our exhaled CO2 enters the atmosphere, it would increase atmospheric CO2 concentration by 0.75 ppm per year. Even if we didn't burn any fossil fuels, would our breathing alone cause global warming? Is this another argument for limiting population growth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very interesting! We will comment on this source of CO2 in a subsequent post.
ReplyDeleteBut, we would like to continue the subject matter started on the email thread regarding how such a tiny amount of a substance can have such a large effect.
********************
Your response regarding Co2, that because it is so "potent" even tiny amounts can have a large effect, brings up our next question. We do understand how this principal works. It can be seen in the positive effect that even a miniscule amount of Co2 has for life on our planet. It is essential to all living creatures and plantlife.
What are the mechanics of this phenomnon in the atmosphere? Can you illustrate that for us, i.e. Chemistry for Dummies? Your analogy about cancer cells illustrates that a small amount of a substance can have an effect on a much larger body. However, we doubt that cancer cells work in the same way. This is not an argument, just a request for more information. Is there a better analagy that follows the mechanics of Co2 that would help us understand this?
Michael and Joy
PS Perhaps the CO2 discussion should go on a seperate blog entry.
ReplyDeletePPS We don't want to make this into a Global Warming argument. There are so many concerns, that we all have in common, that we can also discuss. And this seems like a great opportunity to share knowlege as well as opinions.
Michael and Joy
Thanks for explaining this phenomenon in more detail.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, scientists are in agreement about the function of greenhouse gasses. However, in spite of what Al Gore said, there is no consensus that greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating. This should be an ongoing and vigorous debate. Moreover, there is substancial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth. Here are two links to current articles that document the beneficial results of the increase in CO2 levels.
First, the "rain forrest" (formerly known as the jungle) that caused some people so much concern over it being cleared for agriculture, is growing back so fast that some farmers cannot keep the cleared areas viable for farming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/health/30iht-30forest.19798720.html?_r=1
Secondly, the biosphere is booming with vegetation. Satelite photos show an increase in vegetation of about 6% since the earliset satelite photos were taken.They (NASA satellites) found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
Please understand, that Joy and I do believe in conserving the earth's natural resources. Waste not Want not was ingrained into us in our upbring.
STAY TUNED: We are composing the argument to end all arguments.
You posed the question "Should we limit population in order to limit CO2 emissions from human breathing?" (By the way, we should really add in all the breathing by the livestock that human beings breed and keep for feeding ourselves. That could be decreased, also, if population decreases.)
ReplyDeleteHowever, even if such an idea were successfully promoted by the leaders of the world, which of the world's various populations would comply with this? In our opinion, only the more educated and caring people would limit families for the sake of the environment. The people who would comply are the very ones who are leading the fight to "save the planet" . We would be breeding ourselves out of existance.
So, our answer is no. Let Darwinism take it's course.
Addendum from Michael.
ReplyDeleteLook at China. Their government imposed Draconian policies to limit population growth. It now has an increased gender imbalance, increased use of abortion, and has been ineffective in the countryside where the majority of the people live, because it is impossible to enforce.