The CO2 is sequestered in the bioshere by the lants so it is absorbed in a sense. And yeah, through the carbon cycle, CO2 will return to the atmoshere. Some of it will be sequestered in the ocean though.
The CO2 is sequestered in the bioshere by the lants so it is absorbed in a sense. And yeah, through the carbon cycle, CO2 will return to the atmoshere. Some of it will be sequestered in the ocean though.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
As CO2 levels rise, the pH of the blood drops and this causes increased respiratory rate. You can breathe pure oxygen with little to no harmful effect.
Or go back and watch Apollo 13, they weren't so much worried about running out of O2 as they were about CO2 reaching lethal levels.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...ffect#Greenhouse_gases
"Discussion of the relative importance of different infrared absorbers is confused by the overlap between the spectral lines due to different gases, widened by pressure broadening. As a result, the absorption due to one gas cannot be thought of as independent of the presence of other gases. One convenient approach is to remove the chosen constituent, leaving all other absorbers, and the temperatures, untouched, and monitoring the infrared radiation escaping to space. The reduction in infrared absorption is then a measure of the importance of that constituent. More precisely, define the greenhouse effect (GE) to be the difference between the infrared radiation that the surface would radiate to space if there were no atmosphere and the actual infrared radiation escaping to space. Then compute the percentage reduction in GE when a constituent is removed. The table below is computed by this method, using a particular 1-dimensional model of the atmosphere. More recent 3D computations lead to similar results.
Gas removed percent reduction in GE
H2O__________36%
CO2__________9%
O3___________3%
By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 9%, but the effect of removal of both of these constituents will be greater than the total that each reduces the effect, in this case more than 45%. An additional proviso is that these numbers are computed holding the cloud distribution fixed. But removing water vapor from the atmosphere while holding clouds fixed is not likely to be physically relevant. In addition, the effects of a given gas are typically nonlinear in the amount of that gas, since the absorption by the gas at one level in the atmosphere can remove photons that would otherwise interact with the gas at another altitude. The kinds of estimates presented in the table, while often encountered in the controversies surrounding global warming, must be treated with caution. Different estimates found in different sources typically result from different definitions and do not reflect uncertainties in the underlying radiative transfer."
I remember being told that plants expire more CO2 at night then in the day. Also that plants absorb CO2 at all times, night or day and sometimes absorb oxygen as well and release CO2.
Anyways who said at 25% O2 we will blow up? That's absurd. I believe our atmosphere had as high as 35% O2 levels millions of years ago. That's what "supposedly" lead to giant bugs and creatures benefiting from an oxygen rich atmosphere.
And yea, nothing wrong with 100% O2 on humans for a short time, but studies have shown that long exposure to 100% O2, especially at higher pressures does have negative, even dangerous effects.
YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Moderator<br>A/V & Home Theater<br>Elite member
- Aug 6, 2001
- 31,205
- 45
- 91
As I understood it, the 25% O2 content was a big deal because burning of things like wet wood could take place. Fires would be a lot more prevalent due to this even if we don't "blow up" or have the atmosphere itself ignite somehow.
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
100% oxygen for a short while is fine. Of course you will quickly start to hyperventilate, collapse and eventually die.
Plants take in CO2 and H2O and give off pure O2 (oxygen). The excess carbon and hydrogen are stored as simple sugars that can be processed into aptly-named hydrocarbons.
Humans and animals eat sugars, basically carbon and hydrogen, and inhale oxygen. We then do the opposite of plants: breaking up the carbon-hydrogen compounds, the carbon combines with the oxygen to make CO2 that we exhale. We also produce water with the excess hydrogen and some of the oxygen. That's (partly) how little kangaroo rats and parakeets and things can survive without drinking anything. I think that's also part of what heats us - hydrogen and oxygen combining creates heat in a form of combustion. One could say we are internal combustion engines? No... nevermind that.
Humans and animals eat sugars, basically carbon and hydrogen, and inhale oxygen. We then do the opposite of plants: breaking up the carbon-hydrogen compounds, the carbon combines with the oxygen to make CO2 that we exhale. We also produce water with the excess hydrogen and some of the oxygen. That's (partly) how little kangaroo rats and parakeets and things can survive without drinking anything. I think that's also part of what heats us - hydrogen and oxygen combining creates heat in a form of combustion. One could say we are internal combustion engines? No... nevermind that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter