Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
yep we know CO2 never was a pollutant. Millions of years ago the CO2 levels were much higher and most of the planet was a lush forest, until it got to the point there were so many plants farting out O2 that animals were thriving more than the plants.
That was useful. A tall glass of water is nice too on a hot day. But I don’t want to be at the bottom of the ocean. Can we move the conversation along with relevant info?
not “pollutant,” but ‘greenhouse gas.’
too much of any good thing un-balances the planet and the conditions on it that we need in order to thrive.
Comments I’ve heard about CO2 in the Right Wing Media have to be some of the dumbest science I’ve ever heard,
“Al Gore is going to outlaw breathing!” and other dumb-as-dirt comments.
It’s all about balance.
If conservatives don’t understand this, I suggest they put a plastic bag over their head and breath normally.
I guess the point is, plants breathe carbon dioxide so if they get more carbon dioxide the do better. As Homer Simpson would say “DOOH”.
Who cares what happens to all the oxygen breathing lifeforms as long as the plants are happy.
Gee, cmcqueen, what do plants exhale?
DOOH!!
One way to kill bugs in a greenhouse is to raise the carbon dioxide level for 1-2 days….
Global Warming
What is the RIGHT temperature?
According to monthly CO2 averages for July 2007 through June 2008 taken from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory (web site: http://esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends) the real world average is only 384 ppm.
That is even less than the little sapling on the left side of the video.
#6 it depends what time of day you’re talking about you stupid ignorant fool.
During daylight hours they transpire oxygen, however as any semi-retarded 7th grader is taught, during the night they do the reverse and intake O2 and ‘exhale’ CO2, just like we do.
The larger the plant and its growth rate the more of each it will provide and the more will be released back into the environment when said plant is harvested and broken down by whatever consumes it.
The vast majority of the O2 on our planet is produced from the oceans, NOT leafy plants.
Atmospheric CO2 certainly ISN’T a pollutant, but as curmudgeon said it is classified as a greenhouse gas.
Whether you believe in AGW or not makes no difference when some jerk with a hidden agenda is trying to get people to believe that greenhouse gas = pollutant.
Can’t believe someone took the time to make this video. Either this person never took a 6th grade science course, or they are deliberately trying to manipulate people with misdirection. Or it’s Bristol Palin’s “science” project.
Is this supposed to be a justification for offshore drilling or buying more oil from the Middle East or killing the search renewable energy? I don’t get it.
This has no relevance to warming/climate-change. It might provide some evidence that a globe uninhabitable by higher-form mammals would be survivable for plants. Good job!
Let me know when you feel comfortable with the idea that two plus two generally equals four.
#10 why isn’t it possible to have a discussion about global warming without calling each other childish names?
you are clearly worse than hitler.
I laugh as always, but still offering my contracts for anyone wanting to find out for themselves if CO2 can do damage. Quick and easy.
I gotta say, this is some Fox News shit.
“YOU decide.”
Well depending how it plays out, it could be good and it could be bad.
The Jurassic saw CO2 levels around 5 times greater than the present between 1800 and 2000 ppm (present is around 380-400).
BUT and it is a big one, there was also more pressure and higher concentrations of O2. This of course could be because of all the additional and rapidly growing plant life, or could be from some other force at work here. Scientists have not nailed down source for sure.
So IF the atmosphere jumps to 1000ppm and that spurs on plants to add more O2 we should be fine for breathing. Just not so good for fires. But if there is no significant increase in O2 levels, we will become extinct. Also higher pressure will probably cause extinction as well.
How long all this will take is also up for grabs. If it takes as long as many era’s in the past did we might well be extinct from other factors like war, disease or lack of resources to continue to live.
Hey we are all just animals and sometimes species go the wayside to make room for others. Hope the cockroaches and Cher enjoy that fruitcake.
Cursor_
“The most important number on the planet is 350”
Overstates it I think but a short review is here:
http://350.org/about/science
Related and of interest is that while plants grow bigger and faster with more co2, that is offset by other changes too that affect—I forget what. Reproduction or fruit formation? I’ll look that up and post back.
Meanwhile, the good news is that co2 becomes toxic to humans way up at 40%, so I doubt we’ll ever get that far===seeing as how the ocean acidifies and dissolves coral reefs at 450 parts per million.
Yep, as Hannity crows: plants love it, no reason to worry.
I get bored too easily so I stopped here:
http://newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
Of interest, global warming by just 2-3 degrees does more than melt all the ice thereby raising ocean levels. Seems it also requires an entirely different approach to growing foods. IOW==the same temp increase that displaces millions of people from the shore lines will also cause limited food production.
I saw Monty Python has a show on last night called “War, Death, Disease, Violence, Blood” or something like that. They could have shortened it to “Global Warming.”
But the photo’s of Polar Bears on ice flows were Photoshopped so obviously all the science is wrong.
Amusing some people are so critical of dumb ass (ie–Scientifically Illiterate) bible thumpers and then turn around and evidence all the same attributes on other areas of science===not to say AGW is as established as evolution==but it gets closer all the time?
#10 zybch
Plants do not “exhale” CO2 ever.
No insults. That is all.
CO2 is a pollutant if oxygen is also!
“Plants do not “exhale” CO2 ever.”
But I had an idea while considering this transpiration day/night photosynthesis/metabolism issue: could it be ancient roots of why animals have to sleep? something that got mis-designed as we moved from plant to animal? A genetic bad design that makes sense in plants, but not in animals moving up to we humans?
Then I thought, well, animals didn’t evolve from plants. RATS. such a good idea with nothing but faulty science to back it up.
Ahhh, what the heck. Think I’ll go post this idea on some religious webblog and see if it sticks. Ha, ha.
Actually, I won’t. But third time–I wonder if the need to sleep goes all the way back to one cell entities and some process like this. It makes sense that the earliest life would be taking clues and stimulus/response from day/night cycles.
The mysteries of life are beguiling, if I could only stay awake long enough to focus on them.
http://co2now.org/
392.39ppm
is NOW..
do you want to see 1270ppm??
So, does this mean that we should Run pipes threw the farm areas and Force the CO2 into the plants??
“CO2 is a pollutant if oxygen is also!” /// by what analogy?
CO2 is indeed a waste product of metabolism in animals.
Oxygen is a waste product of metabolism in plants.
Alcohol is a waste product of metabolism in yeast.
And on and on. Its all CONTEXT.
Pollution: Waste matter that contaminates the water, air or soil.
Being anthropocentric, I don’t consider oxygen to be a waste product, but my daffodils have a different opinion.
Long before the CO2 = pollution crowd came along they were actually adding CO2 to some greenhouses because it does make some types of plants grow much faster. It can cause some plants to be less nutritious per pound. You have to add a lot of CO2 or force all the free O2 out to kill bugs with it.
As others have noted you aren’t at all likely to hit that level in the wild.
The larger plant produces more Oxygen and more food for us. Climate scientists are scrambling to detract from those facts. There are papers now claiming that the plants of higher than ambient concentrations produce inferior food. The whores will do anything for grant money it seems. Meanwhile all the greenhouses that feed us will continue to add CO2 to 1200 ppm levels so that we can eat the biggest, healthiest and most productive use out of limited space.
“In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.”
Greenhouse farming using CO2 and sufficient nutrients and water produce 20-30 times more product per acre than conventional field production.
We are made from CO2. Everything we consume to live comes from CO2. The optimum concentration for plants is about 1200 -1500 ppm for health, yield and quality. Humans are quite capable of adapting to those levels over time. Ever have a nice walk in the woods? CO2 concentrations are usually 600-900 ppm at 0-15 ft. Do you feel sick afterward? Are all the little furry animals dropping dead?
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm…. which is the generally accepted cut-off point for people.
Bobbo, from your link…
“However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.
These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.”
……..
Only 13% gee that’s a bad result. I’d prefer 0%, wouldn’t you? And if you really read the article, the only reason that it’s not more than 13% is because the larger healthier plants wanted more water and nitrogen, and the researchers didn’t provide it. So why did they title the article “Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production”? Because they are AGW Climate whores, thats why!
I think i just burst an artery.
The problem?
CO2 is created by us,
USED by plants
that release OXYGEN
That we Breathe
Start at the top..
Problem..
we are CHOPPING UP more of the plants that do the BEST job of taking CO2 out of the air.
THINK of the earth without HUMANS, just for a second..
EUROPE would be mostly FOREST.
East coast of the USA WAS mostly forest and glades and swamps.
I wont mention CHINA and arable lands.
The areas we LOVE to crate towns and cities are the SAME places LARGE forest like ALSO..
NEAR rivers.. And Arable lands..
The only place a tree is SAFE, in on a HILL over looking a TOWN.
NOW we are spreading out and other AREAS are enlarging MORE.
Brazil NEEDS FOOD, FOOD plants need LAND, CHOP up more trees.
Africa has had TONS of set backs, and there isnt much left as the desert will slowly take over MORE LAND.
Skeptic–keep your humor.
Does the notion of the artificiality of “life in a greenhouse” raise any skepticism on your part?
Your conscious mind may conclude its all whores on the march, but your basic innate human repressed intelligence at least forces a joke.
Listen to your body, its about more than hard- ons.
Gosh, it sounds like we should be growing all our food on Venus; tons of CO2 and plenty of sunshine (a little cloudy though).
Completely uninhabitable, of course.
I hear that the whole “enhanced carbon dioxide ” regimen produces some kick-ass weed too. Too bad I don’t smoke.
What the article fails to point out was brought to light in a recent ABC (Australia) program ‘Catalyst” Yes the CO2 really helps the plants grow well. IN FACT it allows plants to put much more energy into everything ESPECIALLY DEFENCE. Plants grown in high CO2 turn out to have much higher levels of toxins and lower nutrition levels.
“Does the notion of the artificiality of “life in a greenhouse” raise any skepticism on your part?”
Absolutely not. Unlike CO2 climate science, the test can be redone over and over and verified… which it has been for 50 years.
The “normal” level of CO2 for life is between 250 and 1500 ppm. Anything below 200ppm and plants die. 300-390 ppm is actually a lot closer to our extinction than 1000 ppm is. So no, I don’t regard the added CO2 as a problem. It’s human intelligence at its best. The atmosphere has been there done that, the pendulum has swung dangerously one way, and now it’s swing away from dangerously low levels.
As this happens, the addition of CO2 in greenhouses can be lowered as fields become more productive. Why doesn’t that make sense to you?
And why did New Scientist title the article “Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production”? Hmmmm?