Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[kokonut]

High CO2 concentrations see crop yield improve by 30%.

ScienceDirect - Biosystems Engineering : Landfill Biogas for heating Greenhouses and providing Carbon Dioxide Supplement for Plant Growth



Comparison between the cumulative crop yields in the tunnel enriched with 2000-2500 ppm CO2 (circles) and in the control tunnel (triangles) during the first period.
ScienceDirect - Full Size Image


Compared comparison between the cumulative crop yields in the tunnel enriched with 1500-2000 ppm CO2 (circles) and in the control tunnel (triangles) during the second test period.
ScienceDirect - Full Size Image


Comparison between the cumulative crop yields in the tunnel enriched with 800-1200 ppm CO2 (circles) and in the control tunnel (triangles) during the third test period
ScienceDirect - Full Size Image

As you can see, the 2000 to 2500 CO2 ppm concentration yielded the best results in this crop study.

Yeah, some plants do hate higher CO2 concentration.

 

[kokonut]

What really is the problem, then?

There is no proof that increasing CO2 concentration is the primary/main/sole driver of global warming. Thousands of peer-reviewed papers have shown that to be the case. This is all about political expediency and control in order to justify the increased taxation cause. Well, now. That's a thought. Increasing CO2 correlates very well with increasing taxation so we won't drown under rising waters.

 

[Hwy99]

Koko - Our sun is a star. Our star is called the sun. They're the same thing.

Um so?

Koko - Uh, it grows in size by 10 percent every 1,000,000,000 (billion) years. So, every 100 years the sun expand by .00000001 percent in size. From a historical perspective speaking sun's size hasn't changed nor expanded from our perspective. It's on a geological time scale to notice those changes.

Every 100 years in human's period, let's calcuate this:

6000 years divide by 100 years equal to 60 times that Sun had grown in our period. Sun does change. In the fact, it will always change. Sun become flat yellow ball to firely orange with solar flares and return to flat yellow ball every 11 years.

If you compare the size of Sun and the Earth, you will see what I am talking about.

Koko - There is no hole, just a thinning of the ozone layer in the stratosphere. The word "hole" is a misnomer.

How can you explain to me about the ozone in Antarctica?

This picture comes from the NASA website, respectfully.

http://ipy.nasa.gov/multimedia/m000000/m000000/m000001/160657main_OZONE_large.jpg

 

[Jiro]

Piyo - the ozone layer does not EVENLY and COMPLETELY envelope Earth. That picture is by no means saying that MAN created that ozone hole. Like wind - the ozone layer is fluidic and it moves around.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taTzqRHNIEc[/ame]

 

[Hwy99]

Jiro, why does the hole grows in the years?

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, why does the hole grows in the years?

the hole is not growing as the result of mankind's abuse. it is naturally fluctuating in response to change in environment.

 

[sequoias]

the hole is not growing as the result of mankind's abuse. it is naturally fluctuating in response to change in environment.

You really sure about that, Jiro? Have you been reading newspapers a lot on the subways daily? lol

 

[Jiro]

You really sure about that, Jiro? Have you been reading newspapers a lot on the subways daily? lol

I don't ride subway anymore. I'm commuting by motobike. I guess I'm contributing to global warming and enlargement of ozone hole

 

[sequoias]

I don't ride subway anymore. I'm commuting by motobike. I guess I'm contributing to global warming and enlargement of ozone hole

Been researching too much about it, eh? Maybe u read it on the motorcycle in heavy traffic? Just kidding.

 

[Hwy99]

the hole is not growing as the result of mankind's abuse. it is naturally fluctuating in response to change in environment.

Why are you implying that I assumed that the men cause the damage to the Earth? I have been saying the Sun is heating the Earth up. I would include CO2 that cause the global warming, but I also list the evolution of Sun and the heatwaves as well.

 

[Jiro]

Been researching too much about it, eh? Maybe u read it on the motorcycle in heavy traffic? Just kidding.

nah - if you recall from while ago, I have a degree in geography. Although my field was more focused on cartography and GIS, it covers Earth science as part of requirement.

 

[sequoias]

nah - if you recall from while ago, I have a degree in geography. Although my field was more focused on cartography and GIS, it covers Earth science as part of requirement.

Ohhhh, yeah I remmy now. I forgot about that, lol. No wonder why you know lot about that stuff.

 

[Jiro]

Ohhhh, yeah I remmy now. I forgot about that, lol. No wonder why you know lot about that stuff.

lol no not at all. I don't know a lot of stuff but I know enough to debunk the myths and misconceptions which I believed in very much before I was educated on it. Upon receiving a degree in it, it really opened my eyes and I saw how wrong I was and how horrendously misleading Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was.

 

[sequoias]

lol no not at all. I don't know a lot of stuff but I know enough to debunk the myths and misconceptions which I believed in very much before I was educated on it. Upon receiving a degree in it, it really opened my eyes and I saw how wrong I was and how horrendously misleading Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth was.

Yea, I don't think CO2 is causing global warming or something. It's probably we are witnessing a climate change but one thing I'm wondering about the pollution... I know for sure pollution is killing the forests, hurting people, etc.

 

[Jiro]

Yea, I don't think CO2 is causing global warming or something. It's probably we are witnessing a climate change but one thing I'm wondering about the pollution... I know for sure pollution is killing the forests, hurting people, etc.

well - global warming is real. Earth is certainly getting hotter than before. It's just that this subject tends to get very confusing and it's easy for people to lose direction in this hot debate (no pun intended ).

Let me be clear -
1. Global Warming is a wrong subject to talk about. The whole CO2 Cap-and-Trade is grossly and disgustingly misguided & misunderstood. Global Pollution should be discussed. It's a serious problem that's IMMEDIATELY affecting the humanity. It IS the direct result of mankind's abuse on Earth. The money should be spent on fixing our global pollution, not global warming. It's like pouring in billions of dollars to stop the hurricane from hitting Florida. Again - Global Warming is NOT caused by men but the Global Pollution is.

2. Did men cause global warming? nope!

3. Did men cause global pollution? YUP!

3. So what is this global warming? what's going on?? are we dying?? Simple - it's a natural phenomenon. Earth is correcting itself to balance its atmosphere, environment, and eco-system to accommodate the growing living things' demand. we are not dying but we are flourishing and living on land that were once inhospitable and inaccessible.

 

[sequoias]

I get the picture now. Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Yea, I can see that we are trying to get cleaner burning cars, transit, factories, etc to reduce pollution in the air as well as the water, earth, etc.

 

[kokonut]

I see you still are lost somewhere out there in space, even after 200 posts in this thread. - Ad hominem attacks = insecurity.

It's silly to compare oxygen with CO2. Oxygen kills at 100 percent. CO2 kill at 5 percent and less. Koko - 100 percent oxygen kills at 100 percent, eventually; 100 percent CO2 kills instantly. Big difference. It's becomes unhealthy and dangerous at .5 percent, no matter what you claim. Koko - Again, show me a report that people have died or gone to hospitals for exposures to 5000 ppm. Most people in the world belive what the universities and the industry tell us, not what you want some AD'ers to belive for some strange reasons. You asking for an episode where a person died from 5000 ppm of CO2 is beyond silly. People die from CO2 toxicity all the time, and you really expect people to jump in with a CO2 measurer once they find their friend dead from CO2? Koko - Um, yes in order to establish the cause of death and source/amount of CO2 concentration involved. No one is gonna give you an example of this, it would be too morbid. Koko - Ok. So, you admit it.

Greenhouses only have about 1000 ppm of CO2. Way below the 5000 ppm limit. Some greenhouses have even lower ppm, as not all plants like 1000 ppm of CO2 in the air. Koko - It's been shown in studies that plants thrive and do better in higher CO2 concentrations. (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/icdc7/proceedings/abstracts/kudeyarovHI396.pdf and here - http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...eaks-1877-cold-temp-record-8.html#post1381626). In fact, it has been shown that algae (a plant) can thrive on 100% CO2. It's not just to pour it into the air like you claim according to the greenhouse industry and everyone is happy. Some plants performs worse at 1000 ppm of CO2, compared to 500 ppm. Plants as in those that use photosynthesis? Performs worse? Which ones?

But what truly show us your completely lacking of knowledge on CO2 in this reply, is when you claim
"Correct, again, CO2 is not that potent since it just takes up the volume space of air with increasing concentration. Put a block of dry ice in a large walk in freezer and you'll be dead before long in that confined space. Asphyxiation."

First, CO2 is not just a simple asphyxiant like you claim here, limited to reducing space where it should be oxygen, but has acute systemic effects and it's in most cases, the toxic properties of CO2 that is fatal.
Koko - I didn't say that nor implied that as a rule that CO2 is only an asphyxiant. In this case I was referring to what was reported that dry ice sublimed quickly into gaseous CO2 in such small and confined space which quickly caused an asphxiation result because the ventiation fan wasn't working at the time. This was a case of a displacement of breathable oxygen by CO2 which produced asphyxiation. Nothing more. For those who don't know what dry ice is it is solid CO2 at a temperature of -109 F. Putting it in a walk in refridgerator (at 35 degrees) is a bad idea since that's 144 degrees warmer for that dry ice and that means quick sublimnation of CO2 solid into CO2 gas.

How did you really get your degrees? I actually should be asking you this question but from the looks of things you seem to be lacking it.What's your degree, if any?

Here's the report:

An investigation of the fatality revealed that the dry ice underwent sublimation, producing peak levels of CO2 that reached 27.6%, and causing O2 levels to drop as low as 13.6%. The cause of death was listed as “inhalation of a high concentration of carbon dioxide [intoxication] and reduced oxygen [asphyxiation].

ScienceDirect - Journal of Chemical Health and Safety : Occupational hazards of carbon dioxide exposure

27.6% CO2!!! = asphyxiation. Death would be almost immediate.
Bottom line folks, it's about concentration amount, exposure time, and the body's ability to absorb and release CO2. Some are more prone or sensitive to CO2 concentrations than others.

The most significant danger of carbon dioxide is acute exposure; however, some chronic effects have been seen in certain studies. Many long-term studies of CO2 are based on unique situations involving a period of several days with continuous exposure and relate more to work environments such as submarines and spacecraft. This makes it difficult to apply these results to any normal occupational setting. Several studies reported by NIOSH have shown that acclimation tends to occur at low levels of carbon dioxide exposure. In addition, these acute effects, such as headaches, tend to dissipate in chronic exposures up to 3% (Koko - 30,000 ppm). A report from NIOSH states that, “The available evidence indicates that even a prolonged continuous exposure to 3% carbon dioxide presents no apparent problem during normal activity in specially conditioned and physically fit subjects.”3 Some individuals, without apparent harm, have even encountered concentrations of 100,000 ppm for durations of up to one hour.

Yet I wouldn't recommend testing your limits at 100,000 ppm.

Some more here.

Most of the then available data considered was based on submarine exposure over prolonged periods. This data showed that levels as high as 30,000 ppm had little effect on submariners as long as sufficient oxygen was available. The same reports indicated that levels of 20,000 ppm produced headaches during mild exertion. Additional data, from a report identified as “Operation Hideout”, became available later from experiments conducted on a submarine. As a result of these published results along with previously mentioned studies, ACGIH sought to raise their TLV (Threshold Limit Value) to 15,000 ppm for healthy people engaged in certain activities, but this level was never incorporated into the TLV guidelines. Therefore, when OSHA adopted its PEL based on the TLV, the agency adopted a level of 5,000 ppm. (Koko - the lower limit for exposure although by no means dangerous...it's just a minimum threshold criteria.). It is worth noting that in 1976, NIOSH published a report entitled, Criteria for a Recommended Standard… Occupational Exposure to Carbon Dioxide, that recommended changing the occupational exposure limits to a 10-hour TWA of 10,000 ppm in a 40-hour workweek and a 10-min ceiling limit to 30,000 ppm. In the 1980's, OSHA raised the PEL to an 8-hour TWA of 10,000 ppm and the 15-min STEL to 30,000 ppm based primarily on the NIOSH report and testimony from the brewing industry. However, in 1989, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this standard and limits are not enforced.[3] and [14] Germany and Austria have regulations in place that requires direct reading monitoring for CO2 in confined space entries.

 

[kokonut]

Um so?
Every 100 years in human's period, let's calcuate this:

6000 years divide by 100 years equal to 60 times that Sun had grown in our period. Sun does change. In the fact, it will always change. Sun become flat yellow ball to firely orange with solar flares and return to flat yellow ball every 11 years. Koko - Your math is totally incorrect, and what you said is totally incorrect. When you say 60 times it means a 6000 percent change. In the link you gave it said that the sun expands approximately 10% for every 1 billion years. That's the equivalent of a change of .00000001 percent every year (10 percent/1,000,000,000 years). The sun expands only 0.00000001 percent each year. In 6000 years it has expanded only by 0.00006 percent. Quite insignificant considering the amount of time needed just to expand approximately 10 percent in 1 billion years.

If you compare the size of Sun and the Earth, you will see what I am talking about. Koko- a non sequitur. Doesn't follow nor make any sense in terms of the rate of sun expanding approximately 10 percent every 1 billion years and the sheer size and enormity of the sun. Expanding only .00006 percent in size in 6000 years is not a lot when you consider the sun's size. In our life time, the sun has essentially not change at all.

How can you explain to me about the ozone in Antarctica? Koko- I just gave you a link earlier. Read it, please.

My response in red.

 

[kokonut]

well - global warming is real. Earth is certainly getting hotter than before. It's just that this subject tends to get very confusing and it's easy for people to lose direction in this hot debate (no pun intended ). Koko - It was much warmer during the Medieval Period starting 1200 years ago (from 800 AD to 1200 AD) than it is today. Though certainly we cannot use CO2 as a scapegoat for the cause on man made global warming can we?

Let me be clear -
1. Global Warming is a wrong subject to talk about. The whole CO2 Cap-and-Trade is grossly and disgustingly misguided & misunderstood. Global Pollution should be discussed. It's a serious problem that's IMMEDIATELY affecting the humanity. It IS the direct result of mankind's abuse on Earth. The money should be spent on fixing our global pollution, not global warming. It's like pouring in billions of dollars to stop the hurricane from hitting Florida. Again - Global Warming is NOT caused by men but the Global Pollution is.

2. Did men cause global warming? nope!

3. Did men cause global pollution? YUP!

3. So what is this global warming? what's going on?? are we dying?? Simple - it's a natural phenomenon. Earth is correcting itself to balance its atmosphere, environment, and eco-system to accommodate the growing living things' demand. we are not dying but we are flourishing and living on land that were once inhospitable and inaccessible.

As a last note, Earth does not "correct" herself but undergoes a series of dynamic changes and fluxuation going from a warmer period to a much more colder period continuously over the last several hundreds of millions of years (or longer). Earth is an active and dynamic planet that continues to change as a result of various inputs.

 

[Jiro]

As a last note, Earth does not "correct" herself but undergoes a series of dynamic changes and fluxuation going from a warmer period to a much more colder period for several hundreds of millions of years. Earth is an active and dynamic planet that continues to change.

you say it's undergoing thru natural fluctuation and dynamic changes. I say it's correcting itself. I suppose that's subject to argument