Food waste is responsible for 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions

image

This is what happens when you don’t understand carbon cycles.

The food that is wasted decomposes and releases CO2 is captured from the atmosphere weeks/ months earlier. It doesn’t add any net new carbon it sequesters carbon captured from the air that was already there.

In other words, when you toss a head of lettuce into the trash and it decomposes, it releases CO2 it captured from the air weeks/ months before when it was growing. It wouldn’t make any difference if you ate it, it would still release nearly all of its CO2 back into the atmosphere except a very small amount that which is captured and stored by your body, but even then, that CO2 is released in the days following (unless you are gaining weight).

As a side note, this is exactly why cows or any other living creature (plant or animal) for that matter do not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere, as a matter of fact, they remove it! Well, sort of.

ohforcryingoutloud.

Amiright or amiright?

I think the facepalm in your initial post says it all.

2 Likes

Why is this a concern?

Concern?

Yeah. The article says, “… when you toss a head of lettuce into the trash and it decomposes, it releases CO2 …” It appears to be trying to downplay some ill effect of releasing CO2. So there must be some concern that it’s trying to downplay. That just seems like a waste of energy and print space.

1 Like

and I don’t get why democrats want to reduce co2…all that will do is hasten the destruction of the environment. WE NEED CO2!!

1 Like

Please, I’m curious, how does a desire to maintain CO2 levels “hasten the destruction of the environment”? I’m genuinely curious.

It sounds like your position is that more CO2 is a good thing? How so?

See above.

I didn’t say anything about destroying the environment. Is that what you think CO2 will do? How?

Do you have enought technical understanding on how the “green house effect” is believed to warm the earth to entertain technical questions?


Oh, I didn’t see what Caroline had written. But I still have technical questions about the greenhouse effect.

CO2 feeds plants! The more CO2, the more and healthier plants, therefore the more food is produced for animals–including humans–who consume plants and, in our case, who consume other animals that consume plants. 1 + 2 = 3. Easy to understand and easy to illustrate. Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels 2, 3 or even 5% can’t HARM us as much as it can HELP us feed the populations of herbivores and omnivores that inhabit this planet. IF–and I really mean IF–rising CO2 levels cause 1, 2 or 3 degrees of temperature increases worldwide, SO WHAT? It merely means that growing cycles are longer, frozen cycles are shorter so more food can be produced to feed consumers of plants–both humans and other animals.

More than some, less than others. I find these sorts of debates get tiresome because of the conflicting information. I don’t like tossing links in peoples faces as a way to debate, but I’m going to make an acception for this. That said, I think this page nails it pretty well.

https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

This series addresses skeptics head on. Take your pick of the video’s you watch and tell me where he goes wrong.

This page explains why your intuitive explanation of “more CO2=Better” is wrong

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

I was pleased that your video confirmed something that I’ve been asking about for a couple years. It seemed to me there has to be positive feedback. If CO2 warms the air, eventually the oceans would warm, which would release more CO2, which would warm the air. Repeat. Positive feedback is inherently unstable. The guy in the video acknowledged that very thing to partly explain ice ages, but he seemed to dismiss the implication that a stable climate would seem to be impossible.

But that wasn’t what I was going to ask about. His explanation seemed to match my understanding of the argument. Except that he didn’t mention why greenhouses gasses absorb IR energy better than O2 and N2. Why do they?

The answer I’ve seen is that they absorb more because they have more chemical bonds. (More atoms per molecule, therefore more bonds.) If that’s true, would miles of O2 and N2 really not absorb the energy missed by a percent or two of heavier CO2 closer to the earth?

And once the air absorbs the energy, regardless of which molecules absorb it, what stops warm air from rising and radiating it into space?

Nothing.

This is exactly how it works, some energy is absorbed in the atmosphere and some is reflected. Increasing CO2 has caused the balance between what comes in and is reflected back to change. More heat is now stays in the atmosphere than is reflected back. We have satellites that show this.

It has to do with the frequency of light.

Smaller molecules of oxygen and nitrogen absorb very short wavelengths of solar radiation while the larger molecules of water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb primarily longer infrared radiant energy.

Absorption is the process by which radiant energy is transferred to matter. If the matter is a gas, radiation can effect it in a number of ways. The ways it can absorb energy depends on the size and complexity of the gas molecule. The gas molecule can be rotated and a variety of vibratory modes can be excited depending on the nature of the molecule. If the energy is strong enough the molecule can be broken apart. Each mode of energy absorption occurs at a specific narrow band of the solar spectrum. Gases, therefore, are not like black bodies that absorb equally and completely at all wavelengths. Rather, they absorb only at specific, often narrow ranges of wavelengths. Diatomic molecules such as nitrogen and oxygen (most of our atmosphere) can absorb energy by increasing the vibration of the bond between the two atoms. If the energy absorbed is great enough it may break the bond resulting in two free wheeling oxygen or nitrogen atoms traveling at high speeds.

O2 + ultraviolet light = O + O

This occurs in the uppermost regions of the atmosphere, above one hundred kilometers (refer to figure 8). The most energetic (shortest wavelength) part of the solar spectrum is involved in this process. Nitrogen absorbs only in the extreme ultraviolet of which there is very little in the Sun’s radiation. Oxygen absorbs more strongly than nitrogen and over a wider range of wavelengths in the ultraviolet. Oxygen molecules are therefore broken into oxygen atoms in the highest regions of the atmosphere. By an altitude of about 100 kilometers much of the radiation that is energetic enough to do this breaking of molecular bonds is used up and this process diminishes. Hence their is heating of the uppermost atmosphere (fast moving atoms of nitrogen and oxygen) and as the altitude decreases to about one hundred kilometers the atmosphere cools. For some distance above and below 80 kilometers there is little absorption of solar energy and consequently little heating of the atmosphere so the temperature reaches a minimum.

Descending below eighty kilometers the atmosphere is heated by another process. Here the atmosphere gets denser (thicker) with decreasing altitude; the molecules of oxygen and nitrogen are closer together. Now if the bond of an oxygen molecule is broken and the two atoms go flying off, there is a higher likelihood that one of these atoms will strike an oxygen molecule. If it does it may form an ozone molecule. Above 50 kilometers the heating is primarily due to the break up of oxygen molecules by ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths between .12 and .18 microns, while between 50 kilometers and 10 kilometers the heating is due to the absorption by ozone of ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths between .18 and .34 microns.

Source

The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back to space as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth’s surface by evaporation (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%). The remaining thermal infrared energy from the surface (12%) passes through the atmosphere and escapes to space. (NASA illustration by Robert Simmon. Astronaut photograph ISS017-E-13859.)

Source

Actually, most of the warming occurs in the ocean first, which is where most sea level increases today come from. The Ocean is like a heat sink. It can buffer a lot of energy, but at some point the ocean will reach a point of saturation and the air will heat more quickly.

Can you link where he says this so I can view it in context?

You seem to be forgetting (as does your “scientist” in your clip) that light and heat are NOT the same things. They aren’t even necessarily RELATED. You can have heat without light and you can have light without heat.

Since you didn’t say, I’m not sure how that disproves anything that’s been said.

That said, heat and light are related. Light has energy, whereas heat is a form of energy

Well, that depends. If radio waves, x-rays and gamma rays are “light” (light that cannot be seen) then yes they are related. The shorter the wavelength of light, the higher the energy.

If you are talking about light as in “visible light” then you aren’t using the term scientifically.

image

As far as light without heat, I would point you here.

Visible light yes, electromagnetic energy (light), no.

Photons are the only example of this I can think of. That said, photons have kinetic energy that is given off when they collide with matter as both heat and light which is why light isn’t visible until it hits something.

Edit - it occurs to me you might be referring to electro-chemical luminescence, like you might find in certain fish, butterflies and fireflies, I’m not sure that has ANYTHING to do with what we’re talking about. Those phenomena emit light in the ultraviolet spectrum which isn’t what we’re talking about. It’s worth noting that, technically, you get some heat, even from these sources. That is, they would not emit light at absolute zero because the reaction and the photons that carry the light have energy. Light in the ultra-violet spectrum carries very little energy so when it collides with matter it gives off very little heat.

All photons have kinetic energy from its travelling real mass and velocity (linear and rotational), per MC Physics in: “MC Physics- Model of a Real Photon with Structure and Mass”, a viXra High Energy Particle Physics category paper, http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0359v1.pdf