<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Two-Minute Carbon Cycle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/?src=earthmatters-rss</link>
	<description>Earth is an amazing planet, and the one that matters most to us. Let’s have a conversation about it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 01:19:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Horwood</title>
		<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/#comment-3201</link>
		<dc:creator>William Horwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/?p=142#comment-3201</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Great presentation BUT...

The assumption is that banana Carbon Gas (CG) is &#039;better&#039; than coal CG because there is much more of it. That may be, but (and I really, really don&#039;t want to sound ridiculous) can we show that the amount of CG emitted from banana eating is significantly less than that from coal burning? Assuming we can, should we not also argue that all the other forms of eating that emit CG ought to be included in the equation AND  added up to make comparable totals. Then we might argue that eating should be reduced  (whether or not we cut coal burning) by a factor that would reduce the world obese population back to acceptable levels of individual weight. What we than have is a genuine comparison between coal and &#039;bananas&#039; (a.k.a. food).  My personal view is that obesity not only means huge quantities of food are consumed unneccessarily (with consequential CG  emission) but there&#039;s a massive cost of social and medical services arising from obesity which should be factored in to this simplistic (but reasonable) argument. The presentation would look very different, and possibly be as effective, if Peter had in his right hand a lump of coal and in his left a massively obese human being. We already get his message load and clear but, as he topples leftward and is (regrettably) crushed by the fellow human being he is using in his presenation, we would get another one as well.... In short, bananas are fine but the comparison with coal in his argument is a fallacious one.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great presentation BUT&#8230;</p>
<p>The assumption is that banana Carbon Gas (CG) is &#8216;better&#8217; than coal CG because there is much more of it. That may be, but (and I really, really don&#8217;t want to sound ridiculous) can we show that the amount of CG emitted from banana eating is significantly less than that from coal burning? Assuming we can, should we not also argue that all the other forms of eating that emit CG ought to be included in the equation AND  added up to make comparable totals. Then we might argue that eating should be reduced  (whether or not we cut coal burning) by a factor that would reduce the world obese population back to acceptable levels of individual weight. What we than have is a genuine comparison between coal and &#8216;bananas&#8217; (a.k.a. food).  My personal view is that obesity not only means huge quantities of food are consumed unneccessarily (with consequential CG  emission) but there&#8217;s a massive cost of social and medical services arising from obesity which should be factored in to this simplistic (but reasonable) argument. The presentation would look very different, and possibly be as effective, if Peter had in his right hand a lump of coal and in his left a massively obese human being. We already get his message load and clear but, as he topples leftward and is (regrettably) crushed by the fellow human being he is using in his presenation, we would get another one as well&#8230;. In short, bananas are fine but the comparison with coal in his argument is a fallacious one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J Vanier</title>
		<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/#comment-3190</link>
		<dc:creator>J Vanier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 03:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/?p=142#comment-3190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, if the plants that were made into coal millions of years ago were all eaten as rapidly as bananas today, there would be no coal today and that would be &quot;natural&quot;, yes?  Releasing the carbon in the coal returns the carbon dioxide to today&#039;s plants so that they can thrive like the coal forests of yesteryear giving us more bananas.  I get it!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, if the plants that were made into coal millions of years ago were all eaten as rapidly as bananas today, there would be no coal today and that would be &#8220;natural&#8221;, yes?  Releasing the carbon in the coal returns the carbon dioxide to today&#8217;s plants so that they can thrive like the coal forests of yesteryear giving us more bananas.  I get it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharloch</title>
		<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/#comment-2778</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharloch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:23:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/?p=142#comment-2778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[so equatorial expanded deserts will green the planet? thats news to me]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so equatorial expanded deserts will green the planet? thats news to me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don BASSETT</title>
		<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/#comment-2766</link>
		<dc:creator>Don BASSETT</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 00:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/?p=142#comment-2766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A very simple explanation of a very complex system congratulations.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very simple explanation of a very complex system congratulations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Erl Happ</title>
		<link>http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/2011/06/24/the-two-minute-carbon-cycle/#comment-2763</link>
		<dc:creator>Erl Happ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/?p=142#comment-2763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice talk. Liked the concept of fast and slow carbon.

However, too simplistic. Think of fast plants thriving in arid climates because they can absorb carbon better without transpiring water vapour. Think of greening the Earth as the scarcest atmospheric resource, the building block for all life becomes more readily available.

And if one is to concern oneself as to why global temperature changes,  and what it means for humanity and other species, the first thing that one should to do is to establish whether that is a good or a bad thing. And a warming globe is good, a very good thing because the bulk of the planet is much too cool to support the growth of plants at anywhere near optimal levels.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice talk. Liked the concept of fast and slow carbon.</p>
<p>However, too simplistic. Think of fast plants thriving in arid climates because they can absorb carbon better without transpiring water vapour. Think of greening the Earth as the scarcest atmospheric resource, the building block for all life becomes more readily available.</p>
<p>And if one is to concern oneself as to why global temperature changes,  and what it means for humanity and other species, the first thing that one should to do is to establish whether that is a good or a bad thing. And a warming globe is good, a very good thing because the bulk of the planet is much too cool to support the growth of plants at anywhere near optimal levels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>