Exhaled carbon emissions are different carbon emissions? WTF?

Mods, i don't know if i should've put this thread on a rant section..

I just can't believe this stupidity newspapers are instilling, or how i should call it?

It was slammed straight to my face like this: "Dear reader, you are stupid, read on!"

The finnish tabloid, (online and offline) says this:

Tutkimuksen tekijät huomauttavat, että laihdutuksen vuoksi ilmaan päästellyt hiilidioksidit eivät ole sellaisia hiilidioksidipäästöjä, jotka aiheuttavat kasvihuoneilmiöitä. Kasvihuonekaasujen lähde, joka nyt on ilmaston lämpiämisen vuoksi avattu, on toinen.

Which translates to:

Authors of the study makes a note that carbon emissions caused by losing weight are not the type of emissions which cause Greenhouse Effects. (really, in multiples) The source of greenhouse gasses, which has been opened because of global warming, is another one.

I want to repeat that in layman terms, just for myself... So, hummm.. the source of the greenhouse gas, which has now been opened, is another/different?

Umm, so they're saying; there seems to be two kinds of CO2. One that causes that pesky greenhouse gas?! And one thats just some sort of different CO2.. I'm out of words here.

---
Sources
Original article

Article was inspired by another article in other ridiculous source: (remember the Men are stupid -study?)
Your dose of daily, REAL SCIENCE

That rather stupid aggregator of those news was some journalist named Heljä Salonen and she should be very, very shamed of herself.
ONE SHOULD NOT WRITE ARTICLES OF SUBJECTS THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

I know i'm stupid but this is just beyond me..

They are all co2 but can be separated by different footprints, fossil fuel, deforestation, decay of biomass, volcanos, expelled by breath, and so on.

So it's right that co2 from your breath is not the one causing the global warming, though it is a part of the overall co2 level....

So you can divide it like this.

(Just a random picture from the internet.)

i always thought that we breathe out c02, but thats the kind trees like.

But bad c02 is extra heavy on the carbon, like fires and engines and things. like carbon dioxide with extra carbon.

I dont know the exacts but thats the way its portrayed, the actual different i guess im ignorant to. thats what i was taught. im no scientist!

a reply to: menneni

Yeah, put it in the rant section. We need more people ranting about things they have literally zero understanding of.

a reply to: Biigs

How can 1 atom carbon and 2 atoms oxygen be somehow heavier than 1 atom carbon and 2 atoms oxygen?

I still don't understand how CO2 from a forest fire is different than CO2 from breathing - maybe if it was C2O2 if that is possible. They must be talking about the volume of out put or maybe the presence of some other elements creating a CO2 compound of some kind.

It sounds like double talk, like some kind of a flim-flam spin for some agenda.

The second most frequently asked question is whether weight loss can cause global warming.

"This reveals troubling misconceptions about global warming which is caused by unlocking the ancient carbon atoms trapped underground in fossilised organisms. The carbon atoms human beings exhale are returning to the atmosphere after just a few months or years trapped in food that was made by a plant," says Mr Meerman…

Or something…

Nice pie graph :>) This lecture on CO2 is mostly above my math skills but the conclusions he makes seem to be well received among his peers . It is in english after the introductions a reply to: Mianeye

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Biigs
How can 1 atom carbon and 2 atoms oxygen be somehow heavier than 1 atom carbon and 2 atoms oxygen?

It can't.

I still don't understand how CO2 from a forest fire is different than CO2 from breathing - maybe if it was C2O2 if that is possible. They must be talking about the volume of out put or maybe the presence of some other elements creating a CO2 compound of some kind.

It sounds like double talk, like some kind of a flim-flam spin for some agenda.

It is double speak, hoping to lure in the unintelligent.

Now, there is validity to the comments that use of fossil fuels adds extra CO2 into the atmosphere that otherwise would not be present because it is trapped within the earth and not released, but a CO2 atom is a CO2 atom, regardless of the source. There may be individual signatures as to the source, but from the limited info I've read about that, I don't fully understand the process of determination, nor do I care to, as it seems a moot point to me and my views on climate change.

Yeah...

Just posting to show gratitude for new information i've been given by posters above.

And i've already said that i know i'm stupid. Still learning you know?

Sorry for all intelligents out there. Still, the finnish wording of the story is just out of this world. Finnish people do get what i'm ranting about here. My translation didn't cross over correctly.

Sorry for the stupid waste of space, i know i will refrain myself for making more rantish threads like this, threads where i'm the one who doesn't know what i'm talking about. Still the point remains, the author of the finnish article doesn't know either.

Thats a win for my battered ego.

C)2 can be bound to other elements and be slower to release or be too heavy to reach high levels in the atmosphere. What animals breath out in normal environment is part of nature and it is used by the plants. The CO2 released in big quantities which causes an excess is worse. Unbound CO2 goes high up in the sky. By making things too clean, the CO2 rises up.

Where the pollution goes is the issue. Also when we are burning fossil fuels or wasting even natural resources as fuel, we are upsetting the balance. We waste too much, especially at high levels of society. Consumerism causes much of the waste, so does locating offices and factories far from the area of consumption and also when workers have to drive for an hour to get to work. Jets release their CO2 and other pollutants way up in the sky, far away from trees.

As a natural response, the earth should soon create turbulent or wavelike air currents to make air travel more dangerous in the near future so there will be less air travel occurring to help correct the situation. Risk of problems will increase in the airline industry.