AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (7) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Crop improve with C02 Alarmist losing debate
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Crop TalkMessage format
 
John from S. MN
Posted 12/12/2009 08:52 (#962086 - in reply to #961510)
Subject: Re: Crop improve with C02 Alarmist losing debate


This is exactly the problem with Al Gore. He is targeting CO2 which is beneficial to all living creatures on this planet. We know with absolute certainty that increasing CO2 increases plant growth up to a certain point. That point is around 4 times higher than the current level. When plants grow better and crop yields are higher, animals have more to eat.



For the concentration to be unhealthy to breathe, the concentration would need to be 20 times the current atmospheric level. CO2 is necessary to plant and animal life on Earth. Unfortunately, the positive effects of CO2 in our atmosphere have not been given proper consideration within the legislative, judicial, and regulatory proceedings. Plant photosynthesis processes use CO2 for growth and create oxygen. More CO2 in the atmosphere will increase plant growth as thousands of controlled greenhouse research records prove. These same studies prove that most plants do not grow at CO2 concentration of less than 150 ppm. They further demonstrate that a rise in CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 385 ppm has increased average plant growth and required less water consumption to accomplish that growth.We breathe in 385 parts per million and then exhale 40,000 parts per million with no ill effects. We breathe the 40,000 ppm into victims needing CPR and it does not cause them to die! The monitoring systems in U.S. submarines do not provide an alert until CO2 levels reach 8,000 ppm which is higher that natural CO2 levels have been on Earth in the last 540 million years. CO2 is a great airborne fertilizer which, as its concentrations rise, causes additional plant growth and causes plants to need less water. Without CO2 there would be no life (food) on Earth. The 100 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an average increase in worldwide plant growth of 12 percent and of 18 percent for trees.



While Al Gore focuses attention on CO2, wasting many billions (trillions on cap and trade) on a beneficial gas, it takes away that much money which could be spend on reducing these real air pollutants:

carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrogen oxides produced by industry and motor vehicles. Photochemical ozone and smog are created as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons react to sunlight. Particulate matter.

Water pollution:the release of waste products and contaminants into surface runoff into river drainage systems, leaching into groundwater, liquid spills, wastewater discharges, eutrophication and littering.



Soil contamination: when chemicals are released by spill or underground leakage. Among the most significant soil contaminants are hydrocarbons, heavy metals, MTBE,[7] herbicides, pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Have you even heard Al Gore mention these other real pollutants? Most are very toxic. The reason he goes after the CO2 is because it's the only one that can make him billions.



If you think it's because CO2 causes global warming then think again. CO2 has gone up every year but temps were up from around 1900 to 1940 then decreased from 1940 to the late 70's. They went up in the 80's and 90's then peaked in 1998. If CO2 was causing the warming then temps would not be having such lengthy periods of cooling or not going up.


The temp fluctuations do not correlate well with CO2 because natural cycles are the culprit.

Check out this one, the PDO ( http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ ). Notice the graph of it which correlates almost perfectly with the temperature ups and downs since 1900. The sunspots cycle is another natural cycle with a likely connection to our climate changes.


CO2 and the unproven theory of man made global warming has very little empirical data to support it.
In fact, much of the data disproves it.....at least the non manipulated data or graphing techniques not using "tricks" as our climate gate friends did.

Remember too that the Medieval warm period 1,000 years ago, by almost all accounts was warmer than any time during the last 100 years. Our climate gate friends conveniently made that disappear. Like Mann's "Hockey Stick" that was Al Gores Center Piece and raised the concern for many Global Warmists'............John....

Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)