Thread: Internet use contributes to global warming.

Originally Posted by Xei

No tommo as we've just been discussing it makes no difference at all, because CO2 is constantly cycling out of the bodies of living things, into the atmosphere, and back into the bodies of living things. Breathing is simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere. If we didn't eat the food something else would.

Um. What?
The point is, it wouldn't be cycling out of all of our bodies for however long we held our breath. Which would stop a lot of c02 from being released.

Except it wouldn't.

Originally Posted by ArcanumNoctis

Is war carbon neutral?

I wonder how many more people would support an invasion of Iran if they learned that it would substantially reduce global warming.

Originally Posted by Xei

Except it wouldn't.

Nah, it would.

Get a clue Kromoh. You actually think the ratio of 10 seconds to 24 hours (0.0116%) multiplied by the ratio of respiration of humans to the ratio of every other respiring organism on the planet (considering we constitute about 0.005% of the Earth's biomass) is a big number?

Also I think you'll find the ongoing respiration of the human body actually requires you to breathe? It doesn't do it for the bloody sake of it. You think that CO2 is just going to build up in your body? How have you got into a decent medical school if you're ignorant of oxygen debt?

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by Xei

Get a clue Kromoh. You actually think the ratio of 10 seconds to 24 hours (0.0116%) multiplied by the ratio of respiration of humans to the ratio of every other respiring organism on the planet (considering we constitute about 0.005% of the Earth's biomass) is a big number?

Also I think you'll find the ongoing respiration of the human body actually requires you to breathe? It doesn't do it for the bloody sake of it. You think that CO2 is just going to build up in your body? How have you got into a decent medical school if you're ignorant of oxygen debt?

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Just because it's insignificant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I agree with you it's insignificant. I disagree with you it doesn't happen.

The insignificance of it is exactly my initial argument: carbon dioxide produced from internet usage is insignificant comparing to other sources.

Stop trying to sound like you know more than me about ventilation and respiration. I've already finished my biochemistry course. Stop trying to take away from the fact I'm in med school, studying what we are arguing right now, and you aren't.

Also, if you really close your respiratory channels (aka mouth and nose), no CO2 will come out of you. Or perhaps you might also want to kill yourself and have your body frozen, to avoid carbon dioxide emissions. Take out your water and bone, and all you have is compounds that, decomposed, will generate carbon dioxide and ammonium, both greenhouse effect gasses.

Also, I wonder if you know that the main reason why you breathe in non-stress conditions is to keep your blood pH stable...

Thanks Kromoh. I was actually looking for an intelligent answer to my question. So thanks.

No, you were looking for somebody who said you were right. I gave you a perfectly coherent answer.

Just because it's insignificant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I agree with you it's insignificant. I disagree with you it doesn't happen.

Except the statement I was responding to in the first place was 'it would stop a lot of CO2 being released'.

Stop trying to sound like you know more than me about ventilation and respiration. I've already finished my biochemistry course. Stop trying to take away from the fact I'm in med school, studying what we are arguing right now, and you aren't.

Stop appealing to med school and actually address what I said. :l

Also, I wonder if you know that the main reason why you breathe in non-stress conditions is to keep your blood pH stable...

I didn't know that, but then again I don't think it's really true. There is no 'main reason'; there are various reasons which are 100% crucial to survival. For example, providing oxygen to your brain (which still uses just as much energy in 'non-stress conditions') for respiration which you would die without; also, I wonder if you know that around half of the energy used by the human body is not used for locomotion but rather active transport out of cells to maintain homeostasis, which again happens during non-stress and again we would die without. Keeping blood pH steady is of course also a vital function of breathing but saying it is 'more vital' than the others is meaningless.

But let's say for sake of argument that pH was the main reason to illustrate my point. If we held our breath for a while, our blood pH would start to fall due to the excess of carboxylic acid which couldn't be removed via breathing. Then, once we started breathing again, our lungs would have to work extra hard to remove the extra CO2, and we would end up breathing out just as much in the first place.

Holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's metabolism for goodness sakes. Exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced regardless and will have to be expelled in the breath at some time or other.

Originally Posted by Xei

No, you were looking for somebody who said you were right. I gave you a perfectly coherent answer.

Coherent, yes. Intelligent....

Except it wouldn't.

No.

Originally Posted by Xei

But let's say for sake of argument that pH was the main reason to illustrate my point. If we held our breath for a while, our blood pH would start to fall due to the excess of carboxylic acid which couldn't be removed via breathing. Then, once we started breathing again, our lungs would have to work extra hard to remove the extra CO2, and we would end up breathing out just as much in the first place.

Holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's metabolism for goodness sakes. Exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced regardless and will have to be expelled in the breath at some time or other.

This is what I was looking for also. But if you held your breath and then continued breathing normally, you wouldn't expel any more c02 right? You would only expel extra if you started breathing really quickly afterward I would assume.

Coherent, yes. Intelligent.... No.

But Kromoh's response of

"Nah, it would."

was intelligent?

To be honest I was joking around and probably being a bit of a jerk when I responded the second time but I did think I had properly explained the big picture to you the first time; anyway, I did elaborate properly in the post afterwards.

This is what I was looking for also. But if you held your breath and then continued breathing normally, you wouldn't expel any more c02 right? You would only expel extra if you started breathing really quickly afterward I would assume.

Nah, because the CO2 concentration in each breath would be higher.

It's a letter O in CO2 btw, not the number 0; it means the molecule consists of a carbon atom joined to two oxygen atoms.

Ok fair enough. So the body compnesates by expelling more CO2 and taking in more O2, even if you don't breathe any more deeply or faster after holding your breath?

Yeah I know, I just CBF thinking about it, it looks pretty much the same anyway lol

Originally Posted by Xei

I didn't know that, but then again I don't think it's really true. There is no 'main reason'; there are various reasons which are 100% crucial to survival. For example, providing oxygen to your brain (which still uses just as much energy in 'non-stress conditions') for respiration which you would die without; also, I wonder if you know that around half of the energy used by the human body is not used for locomotion but rather active transport out of cells to maintain homeostasis, which again happens during non-stress and again we would die without. Keeping blood pH steady is of course also a vital function of breathing but saying it is 'more vital' than the others is meaningless.

But let's say for sake of argument that pH was the main reason to illustrate my point. If we held our breath for a while, our blood pH would start to fall due to the excess of carboxylic acid which couldn't be removed via breathing. Then, once we started breathing again, our lungs would have to work extra hard to remove the extra CO2, and we would end up breathing out just as much in the first place.

Holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's metabolism for goodness sakes. Exactly the same amount of CO2 will be produced regardless and will have to be expelled in the breath at some time or other.

Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe in? 20%. Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe out? 19%. It's the reason why the kiss of life works. The sensation of asphyxiation is actually triggered by your blood becoming more acid.

Lul and yes I know how the body uses energy. You'd be surprised by how much of that non-stress energy is used for reasons other than active transport. It only shows that you know little about it. You'd be surprised by how much ATP or GTP is used just to grow and keep the cytoskeleton. How much ATP is used to activate proteins. How much ATP is used in cell transport and muscular contraction.

Yes, holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's carbon emission (not in the long term), but it does reduce your metabolism, especially if you pass out

You can always kill yourself to cut your carbon emission. Yes, bacteria will continue to emit what you didn't, but then no-one can say it's your fault.

Once again, my initial argument was about the significance of carbon emissions, not their veracity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Stop appealing to med school and actually address what I said. :l

You're the one who attacked me and my uni lol

Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe in? 20%. Do you know how much oxygen there is in the air you breathe out? 19%. It's the reason why the kiss of life works.

I'm not sure how you do things in Brazil but over here it's more like 21% and 16%.

So you're only off by about 500%.

I don't even know why you're talking about this but at least try to get it right.

You'd be surprised by how much of that non-stress energy is used for reasons other than active transport. It only shows that you know little about it.

Right, stating a fact about it means I am ignorant of all other facts about it. wtf are you even talking about now. What did I say that was wrong? Nothing. What did I say which even showed ignorance? Nothing. Stop being so ridiculous.

Yes, holding your breath doesn't inhibit your body's carbon emission (not in the long term), but it does reduce your metabolism, especially if you pass out

You can always kill yourself to cut your carbon emission. Yes, bacteria will continue to emit what you didn't, but then no-one can say it's your fault.

Okay this is beyond ridiculous now, firstly as we both know tommo wasn't suggesting restricting your breathing until you pass out or flat out kill yourself, can you please just acknowledge you were wrong instead of trying to change the argument into something it patently wasn't, and secondly nobody was discussing whether we should file a lawsuit against bacteria either, it was about if there is an effect or not. These constant attempts at conflating things away are just bloody tiring, nobody falls for them.

Once again, my initial argument was about the significance of carbon emissions, not their veracity.

I never even disagreed with your initial argument, we haven't ever been talking about your 'initial argument', I just pointed out that whilst it might be a striking metaphor breathing actually doesn't actually cause global warming, without realising you'd have an issue with that.

You're the one who attacked me and my uni lol

I forget which uni you're at but I don't think calling it a 'decent medical school' can seriously be called an 'attack' Kromoh.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I wonder how many more people would support an invasion of Iran if they learned that it would substantially reduce global warming.

<insert 'when hell freezes over' joke here>

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I wonder how many more people would support an invasion of Iran if they learned that it would substantially reduce global warming.

A shit ton, but you won't see them volunteering to enlist to prevent global warming.

The funny/sad thing is, the Government could actually convince people that it would work.