Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
January 27, 2012
"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant."
"CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208By the illogic of this cockamamie WSJ hit-piece, there is now no dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico because all the nitrogenous run-off that feeds into the Mississippi was used to fertilize fields upstream.
Don't see the connection here. Need to be a bit more explicit. You are equivalencing something that is known to happen with something that cannot be shown to happen and is looking more and more unlikely.
I see that the concept of "separate but related" is eluding Bruce Hayden and Dante this morning.
Need a link here, and not just your ramblings. It is well known that plants grow better in a warmer environment and in a higher CO2 environment. Are you claiming the contrary? If you are, need the reference so that we can all see if you are telling the truth, or just passing along mythology cloaked as science.
And after all the Charlie Brown Teacher talk from the left and the AGW True Beleivers (wah-wawawahh). THe models are still Garbage In, Garbage Out and have predicted absolutely NOTHING that has come to pass. Including steady warming.
So, yea sure. Lets continue to make policy based on that.
Because nothing says "science" like ignoring actual data and hiding the faked data and lots of arm waving and calling skeptics names and trying to destroy their careers.
Meanwhile, the leftards continue to argue how many angels a CO2 molecule can kill.
Bruce, you seem to just not be getting the point. Especially with your latest comment, so I'll just leave that piece of work alone. As for your inability to countenance that the influence peddlers at WSJ are too scientifically illiterate to accept that science is not about "good" versus "evil", but about the quantities in which one substance contributes to one phenomenon over another, or that it can play a role in multiple phenomena, and that quantitative, rather than qualitative relationships are the issue, then I've got some mortgage-backed securities to sell you.
I can tell that complexity is just not your game here, today. Stick to the black and white. There are many moralizers here and "good" and "evil" is how they roll. No need for me to explain the workings of the natural, observable universe here when you've got an ideology whose supposed infallibility you need to convince yourself and persuade others of.
I said....
"If you go all out to limit global warming, its a lot of money. OTOH, if you ignore it, and the projections turn out to be right, it will be a lot of money (flooding many of the major cities will be expensive)."
Crimso said...
"Notice that the first sentence is "if." The second is "if...and." The first possibility is definitely expensive. The second is expensive contigent upon the models being correct. And the models appear to have problems."
------------------------
Which is the fundamental question, you have to decide now, before we can be 100% sure, and make our decision. (Debates over what is a pollutant and such not withstanding.) If just don't believe the model, then there is no reason to support action.
Now I think it was a mistake for advocates to paint the models as 100% sure and both sides have brought up scare tactics and dubious arguments. In the end, my opinion is that there there is just too much evidence of some warming caused by industry and the question isn't whether it is happening, but how accurate the models are in predicting how bad the problem is. It seems prudent to do the more cost effective things. But is seems, in our binary political climate, that the choice is always do nothing or do everything.
Kinda embarrassing Altouse. This is at the bottom of the barrel of the AGW skeptics arsenal of suck.
Anyway,
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
"... plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today."
And 99.99% of the development that makes "people" what we consider "people" (agriculture, collective living (i.e. cities), domestication of animals for food, complex language, writing, math, and all technology save fire and simple stone tools, have taken place in the last 12,000 years when CO2 levels and temperature have relatively stable.
I'd suggest it would be to our benefit to keep it that way.
One of our clients at the storage facility is a greenhouse architect and he was talking about the importance of CO2, contrary to popular belief that it is a pollutant. The conversation started when one of the young mothers asked him about it to help her daughter’s science project.
Post a Comment