…is an evil beer which people drink to cool down but makes the climate hotter from CO2, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a thought on “Caribou Barbie”
THE AUTHOR
PAGES
Recent Comments
- Elwood P Dowd on If All You See…: “Mr Dana approves of violence against America and the police, at least as long as the assaulter is an aggrieved…” Dec 18, 22:10
- Dana on If All You See…: “The incredulous Mr Dowd wrote: Evans pleaded guilty to a felony count of obstructing or impeding officers during a civil…” Dec 18, 20:03
- drowningpuppies on If All You See…: “It’s a shit bill that Mikey shouldn’t be trying to ram through at the last minute. And Rimjob you know…” Dec 18, 18:52
- Elwood P Dowd on If All You See…: “Trump and Elon (aka Trumpelon) are both now advocating that Congressional GOPhers shut down government until Trumpelon is sworn in.…” Dec 18, 18:42
- drowningpuppies on Tennessee Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Ship Illegals/Migrants To Sanctuary Cities: “Why are you so upset, Rimjob? Is the truth that painful.” Dec 18, 18:06
If Teh Climate Disruption causes the seas to rise 40 feet, won’t that be really great for sportfishing? Can you imagine trolling a set of Zukers through the saltwater canyons of lower East Side? And when you are done, docking at drive-up martini bars on Wall St. while the help filets your catch? The Good Life!
Or will that lead to another class warfare conflict? Where the rich get richer and drive around the seas fishing with hot girls on their sterns, taking all of the riches of the seas for themselves while the underpriveledged scratch for barnacles on the 2nd floor ceilings of there HUD towers in Queens. What’s the latest science on this from the experts at the EPA?
Fermentation of barley is carbon-neutral.
Oh go blow yourselves Zachriel. That comment doesn’t even make sense.
JG, I was going to suggest much of the same. Having your own money allows you to enjoy the joys of the good life.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: That comment doesn’t even make sense.
Beer is made from the fermentation of malted grains, such as barley. The CO2 that makes up the fizz in beer is a result of the fermentation process. The CO2 was fixed from the atmosphere by the grains that make up the beer, so the process is carbon neutral.
So you may drink your beer without undue concern about the climate.
Here we go again.
Tell us Zach, as the intake of energy is in the growing of the barley, if the barley is used in an endeavor where no CO2 is produced how can you have two results – one where no CO2 is generated and one where CO2 is produced – both being “carbon neutral?”
gitarcarver: as the intake of energy is in the growing of the barley, if the barley is used in an endeavor where no CO2 is produced how can you have two results
When the grain grows it absorbs water, CO2, and the Sun’s energy to produce sugars. When the barley is consumed by an organism, the energy in the sugars is released, along with the CO2 and water.
If the barley is never consumed, then the process would be carbon negative, but that seems very unlikely. Either rats or insects or microorganisms will eventually consume the barley. What endeavor do you envision that does not result in the release of CO2?
“….and the sun’s energy to produce sugars….”
I want to thank you for a great laugh.
Thank you for once again proving that you have no idea what you are talking about.
gitarcarver: Thank you
Handwaving. You made a claim which you can’t or won’t support.
There is nothing to discuss with a pseudo-intellect who believes barley contains CO2, or that the “sun’s energy produces sugar.”
It is not up to me to prove there are no unicorns or that the earth is not flat either.
We have been down this path before with your assertion that a car is carbon neutral or that adding a animal to a closed system does not increase the CO2 within the system.
You just don’t know what you are talking about.
And with that, once again, I am done. There is no reason for me to waste time on someone who is ingorant of science and desires to cling to that ignorance.
Zachriel, you have to understand that I’m not pulling stuff like this out of thin air, these are all based on Warmist complaints. In this case they say beer is bad because it contains CO2
gitarcarver: There is nothing to discuss with a pseudo-intellect who believes barley contains CO2, or that the “sun’s energy produces sugar.
Barley absorbs CO2, water and sunlight, to produce sugars. As most of our readers are aware, the process is called photosynthesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
6CO2 + 6H2O + photons -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
William Teach: you have to understand that I’m not pulling stuff like this out of thin air, these are all based on Warmist complaints. In this case they say beer is bad because it contains CO2
If so, your snark is well-placed. We’d be happy to follow up if you provide a link.
I think GC can support that he was thanking you. It may not be empirical, but there is substantial evidence that it existed. For a time anyway.
Let’s go back to Plants 101.
First, plants do not store CO2. That would be impossible. and IS impossible. They store Carbon which they remove from the CO2 molecule. The excess O2 is then released. The carbon along with other minerals and molecules are used to create the sugars that build up the plant.
It is through DIGESTION that the sugars are released and the energy used to help feed and power beings. The waste energy is then reduced to Carbon, among other bits, and the the Carbon (gained through breathing as well) is then expelled through various bodily orifices along with other molecules that contain carbon.
Beer, uses FERMENTATION to help extract the sugars in the plant matter, which as a byproduct is alcohols and carbon dioxide. The release of the carbon and alcohols from the sugars generates alot of heat.
WOuld you say that the plants are heat-neutral? Did the plants ABSORB the sun heat only to release it during fermentation too?
WOW. You guys haven’t been around very long have you? The anti-beer people have been around for decades claiming the harms of fermentation on our environment.
Let me guess, you also have not heard of the attack on farmers and their manure ponds. Do you know why settling ponds were phased out? Yep, they were all claimed to be unhealthy to the environment. Yet, they were all copies of what the environment does to handle waste conversion\disposal.
For such a non-smart fellow, you aren’t all that bright either.
FFF,
Not only that, but it is the malting process – the addition of heat and water – that converts the starches in barley to make sugar which is later digested by yeast, causing “yeast farts” which is the CO2.
Thete is no CO2 stored in the barley as our clueless commenter asserts.
Maybe he’s thinking ONLY of the floating seaweed that uses float-bulbs in order to rise up to the surface of the water in order to get more sunshine?
Would make some nasty beer. But I also don’t think that kind of plant resides across the face of our dry earth.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: First, plants do not store CO2.
Nor did we say they did. We said plants absorb CO2, which they do, to produce sugars, which they do.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: The carbon along with other minerals and molecules are used to create the sugars that build up the plant.
That’s correct. Those sugars are then used for energy, or stored as more complex molecules, such as starch.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: It is through DIGESTION that the sugars are released and the energy used to help feed and power beings.
Digestion just breaks down starches and other complex compounds into smaller molecules. It is cellular respiration that extracts the energy from sugars.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: WOuld you say that the plants are heat-neutral? Did the plants ABSORB the sun heat only to release it during fermentation too?
Heat isn’t necessarily conserved, but energy is lost in every chemical process.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Not only that, but it is the malting process – the addition of heat and water – that converts the starches in barley to make sugar
Some external heat is usually used during commercial malting, but the sugars are produced by natural enzymes during germination before the heating, which is used merely to dry to green malt. This would add some greenhouse gases to the environment, as would the bottling factory, the electronics used for the advertising that sells it, the trucks that deliver it, and the refrigerator that chills it. However, the fizz is the same carbon that was extracted from the atmosphere by the barley.
The last comment should have been attributed to gitarcarver.
Do you lie to your mother with that same lying mouth?
but then…
So, you lied. Again.
Wow. You actually make our resident troll John look smart, reasoned, and an intelligent debater.
Thanks for proving that there are just some people who are too stupid to justify.
FFF,
You are so right. While you focused on his lie(s), he also now believes that germination can take without any moisture or heat, and has declared the physics law of conservation of energy to be null and void.
(And don’t even get me started on endothermic chemical reactions as it is way above his head.)
Yeah, I caught that, but I thought I’d keep it simple for everyone to easily figure out who these people are pretending to know science.
Filthy_Filner_Friday:
Zachriel: The CO2 was fixed from the atmosphere by the grains that make up the beer
The carbon is fixed in the form of sugars, as explained above. We even provided the standard chemical transformation.
6CO2 + 6H2O + photons -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Filthy_Filner_Friday: First, plants do not store CO2.
No, plants absorb CO2 and produce sugars and other carbohydrates.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Wow.
Are you saying the malting process is not due to germination of the grain?
gitarcarver: he also now believes that germination can take without any moisture or heat
Germination takes place in a cool environment, usually at about 18°C.
Hey FFF…
Now’s he’s doing the same thing he did in another discussion – denying what he himself said previously.
In essence, he is the typical warmist -lacking in real scientific knowledge and lacking moral character or maturity to admit when he is wrong.
Well, don’t know if they are he, she, it, they, or those. But we do know that he is psychotic, suffers from schizophrenia, and dissociative disorder.
When you get to the point where you debate that which you previously stated, and claim either you didn’t state it or that another person did, I think they clearly have a mental condition.
gitarcarver: Now’s he’s doing the same thing
Not an argument.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Well, don’t know if they are he, she, it, they, or those.
Also, not an argument.
You seem to be hung up on the term “CO2 fixation”. The usage should have been clear from context, and any reasonable reader would understand the intent. While “carbon fixation” is more common, “CO2 fixation” is also used as photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation#Net_vs_gross_CO2_fixation
Barley removes carbon from the atmosphere, which is returned during the fermentation process. The net result is no increase in atmospheric carbon.
Yet, if you are using “carbon” as a stand-in for CO2, you’re using imprecise scientific terminology. But, then, what Warmists are pushing is not science, it is politics.
William Teach: Yet, if you are using “carbon†as a stand-in for CO2, you’re using imprecise scientific terminology.
It’s standard scientific terminology.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22co2+fixation%22+plants
Not sure arguing semantics changes the basic thrust of our comments, that fermentation of beer is carbon neutral. Quaff your beer in good conscience!
Oh my goodness he’s crossed into john territory now.
Not only does he not address the point raised by Teach, he sends readers off to a search that when one reads the accessable cites, show him to be totally wrong.
If it weren’t so sad it would be funny.
gitarcarver: Not only does he not address the point raised by Teach,
Thought we did. William Teach said, “Yet, if you are using “carbon†as a stand-in for CO2, you’re using imprecise scientific terminology.” Carbon, in this case, refers to atomic carbon. In the atmosphere, it’s found as CO2. We can talk about fixing carbon, or fixing carbon dioxide. The latter phrase is more commonly used in biochemistry and botany. Really don’t see why this is contentious.
And yet, you are wrong again Zachriel.
True scientists, not ones that profess belief in cults, speak in scientific terms. They do not use fuzzy sounding, low-meaning phrases like “fixing carbon dioxide”. That doesn’t have any definitive meaning. The correct phrase for what we are referring to here is “carbon fixation”.
Also, plants can also get Carbon from soil or prey.
And it is contentious because you keep pushing wrong terminology, wrong ideas, and incorrect processes. You also lie and suffer from dissociative disorder.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: True scientists, not ones that profess belief in cults, speak in scientific terms. They do not use fuzzy sounding, low-meaning phrases like “fixing carbon dioxideâ€.
So, all those scientists publishing in Plant Physiology, Archives of Microbiology, and the Annals of Botany are no True Scotsmenâ„¢
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
In any case, none of this challenges the claim that barley removes carbon from the atmosphere, which is returned during the fermentation process, the net result of which is no increase in atmospheric carbon.
Actually dude, that claim was destroyed long ago. You just didn’t come to the funeral.
Pssssst! Elvis is dead too.
Exactly GC. Now Zachriel wants to claim that this is what he meant all along.
yet, he still gets it wrong. First off Zachriel, are you suggesting that beer-makers utilize the whole plant when making beer?
And you never answered questions re: your suggestion that the plant alone is responsible for producing the CO2 during the fermentation process.
Does none of the other ingredients added during the fermentation and brewing process add carbon?
Also, can you point out where brewers ADD heat to fermenting beer like you suggested? Or do they chill the beer in order to control the heat generation, in order to control the fermentation process and time frame?
Yeah, amongst people who are not interested in science, but politics. Carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide. It’d be like referring to H2O as hydrogen. Now, if you want to come up with a term for CO2, like H2O is called water, fine. Perhaps we can refer to it as “plant food”.
And using Wikipedia as your main source for science is rather silly.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: First off Zachriel, are you suggesting that beer-makers utilize the whole plant when making beer?
Not at all.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Also, can you point out where brewers ADD heat to fermenting beer like you suggested?
As we said, Heat is added to green malt to stop the germination process. In a small operation, this can be done by sun-drying.
Not sure your point. If you think that the process is not carbon neutral, you might explain your reasons.
William Teach: Yeah, amongst people who are not interested in science, but politics.
We’ve provided citations to published science, including papers published decades ago.
William Teach: Carbon is not the same as carbon dioxide. It’d be like referring to H2O as hydrogen.
Not it’s not, nor did we say so. However, when plants utilized CO2 in photosynthesis, this can be called carbon fixation or CO2 fixation, depending on the level of analysis.
William Teach: And using Wikipedia as your main source for science is rather silly.
Here’s a few citations concerning CO2 fixation, from different periods, different researchers, different journals, none having to do with climate science.
Woodrow & Berry, Enzymatic Regulation of Photosynthetic CO2 Fixation in C3 Plants,
Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 1988.
Krall & Edwards, Relationship between photosystem II activity and CO2 fixation in leaves, Physiologia Plantarum 2006.
Hatch & Slack, Photosynthetic CO2-fixation pathways, Annual review of plant physiology 1970.
Osmund et al., Functional significance of different pathways of CO2 fixation in photosynthesis, Physiological plant ecology 1982.
If it would help, where you see “CO2 fixation”, please substitute “carbon fixation”. In any case, none of this challenges the claim that barley removes carbon from the atmosphere, which is returned during the fermentation process, the net result of which is no increase in atmospheric carbon.
There is nothing like discussing things with a person who thinks they know the subject but doesn’t. What makes it worse is when that same person doesn’t know what they are saying, contradict themselves, deny saying something, or actually argue against the very points they tried to make previously.
gitarcarver: What makes it worse is when that same person doesn’t know what they are saying, contradict themselves, deny saying something, or actually argue against the very points they tried to make previously.
Our position has been consistent throughout.
The many inconsistancies you have said have been pointed out including in this post:
Comment by Filthy_Filner_Friday 2013-08-25 17:06:43
You never addressed them and try to make it seem that they don’t exist.
You are as consistent as any warmist when faced with facts that show the folly of your position.
gitarcarver: The many inconsistancies you have said have been pointed out including in this post: Comment by Filthy_Filner_Friday 2013-08-25 17:06:43 You never addressed them and try to make it seem that they don’t exist.
Sorry, but we don’t see any inconsistencies. Taking each of the statements in turn:
CO2 is fixed by plants.
CO2 is absorbed by plants.
CO2 is released during fermentation.
CO2 is not stored by plants.
The malting process is due to natural germination of the grain.
All of these statements are correct and consistent. CO2 is absorbed and fixed, not stored as CO2. Fixation means chemical conversion from a volatile to a non-volatile form, in this case, 6CO2 + 6H2O + photons -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Again, if this causes you heartburn, just substitute carbon fixation where you read CO2 fixation. The nomenclature won’t change whether fermentation of barley is carbon neutral or not.
I know you don’t see any inconsistancies.
That’s the point.
gitarcarver: I know you don’t see any inconsistancies.
We’ve responded in detail. Provided citations. If there are inconsistencies, then you should be able to be specific. We agreed, for the sake of furthering the discussion, to replace previous phrasings. In any case, your handwaving doesn’t constitute an argument.
“Details” they say. ROFLMAO!!
For one thing, the intent of the blog post is about beer and the CO2 that is released. You go on to claim that the CO2 that is released during the fermentation process comes from the hops\barley\wheat that is used. you claim that all of the Carbon that the plant fixes is then released as part of this fermentation process. You then claim that you were talking about “germination”, yet, this whole topic has been about “fermentation”.
Changing the discussion to suit your point of view, changing terminologies, stating you didn’t say something when in fact you did, claiming the process you mentioned is not the process you mentioned, is a complete and sure sign of dementia or a severe mental break from reality.
Please, don’t try this at home. Ever. Ever Again.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: For one thing, the intent of the blog post is about beer and the CO2 that is released. You go on to claim that the CO2 that is released during the fermentation process comes from the hops\barley\wheat that is used.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: you claim that all of the Carbon that the plant fixes is then released as part of this fermentation process.
Rather, the carbon released as fizz was fixed by the plant. Some of the carbon is retained in the beer, of course.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: You then claim that you were talking about “germinationâ€, yet, this whole topic has been about “fermentationâ€.
Beer is made from the fermentation of malted barley. We were responding to a comment by gitarcarver about the malting process, which is due to the natural germination of the grain which breaks down the complex carbohydrates into sugars.
The citations and references you supplied are not on point. You don’t see that.
So instead of proving your point, all you have done is the opposite, trying to obfuscate your insecurity and lack of understanding.
But let’s end this with a similar example to one which you failed to understand before.
Let’s start with two tons of barley.
(For our purposes, we are going to ignore addition work which may affect the carbon footprint.)
The first ton we use in the process of making beer. By your own admission the barley “releases” CO2. You have never argued differently.
Now the second ton of barley we grind into wheat. No sane person would argue the barley “releases” CO2 in the form of flour.
So how does any rational person argue that the production of CO2 (beer) is not higher than the zero baseline of CO2 established by the barley flour?
I know what your next couple of steps will be. First, you will try to redefine the system or acknowledge its critical function in this example. Secondly, you’ll stomp your feet and repeat the same points you have failed to make claiming we are the ones that don’t understand.
Doing that will only highlight your ignorance, but I know you’ll try it nonetheless.
Nah, GC. They will claim that since the barley flour is eaten, and we breathe out CO2, then we are expelling a 1:1 Carbon from flour:back to atmosphere.
gitarcarver: The first ton we use in the process of making beer. By your own admission the barley “releases†CO2. You have never argued differently.
That’s correct.
gitarcarver: Now the second ton of barley we grind into wheat. No sane person would argue the barley “releases†CO2 in the form of flour.
The flour is made into bread, which people eat, which releases the CO2 into the atmosphere.
gitarcarver: So how does any rational person argue that the production of CO2 (beer) is not higher than the zero baseline of CO2 established by the barley flour?
Because all of the carbon in the barley came from the atmosphere.
Barley grows, negative atmospheric carbon
Barley consumed, positive atmospheric carbon
The positive and negatives balance out; hence, there is no net change in atmospheric carbon, which is the concern of the “warmists”. So quaff your beer (responsibly)!
See. Told ya.
Wait a minute, GC. I think we’ve been handling this all wrong. This Zachriel possession is OK. He’s only countering the nutjobs on the left who claim there is more carbon now than at any other time.
According to Zachriel group, Carbon is carbon-neutral. There is always a level of Carbon, either in the atmosphere or out. It’s like a cycle or something.
So, each new plant, or being, removes a portion of Carbon from the atmosphere and then later returns it. Thus, humanity is carbon-neutral because the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is neutral. The amount is static, really. It is neither added to or taken away from. As the Zachriel personality puts it, it is “balance(d) out”.
The Zach people just can’t quite state it clearly, scientifically, or coherently. But, his thoughts are, it would seem, that all life is carbon-neutral since matter can neither be created or destroyed, only transferred.
So, what’s all the big fuss about then, eh?
Zach, you expanded the defined system just as I predicted you would.
The flour isn’t made into bread. It is just sitiing there.
Because the hypothetical is so absolutely devestating to your belief, you have to alter the reality.
You then did the next thing I predicted which was to restate your discredited idea.
You’re predicatable in your ignorance.
Filner –
You may be right. After all, when logic and science fails to give the desired results, it is much better to live in a land of rainbows and unicorns.
Filthy_Filner_Friday: It’s like a cycle or something.
The Carbon Cycle
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/
Filthy_Filner_Friday: Thus, humanity is carbon-neutral because the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is neutral.
Humans are not carbon neutral because their use of fossil fuels is releasing carbon into the atmosphere which has been sequestered for millions of years. The effect is to increase the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
gitarcarver: The flour isn’t made into bread. It is just sitiing there.
If you were to find a way to protect the flour from rodents, insects, mold, etc., then it would act as a carbon sink, and the net effect would be to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
And by what process is the flour removing carbon from the atmosphere? (ie acting as a “carbon sink”)