1000 PPM

[Jack Frost]

 

My new goal.  

Everyone knows that CO2 is essential to life on earth.  We breath in oxygen and exhale CO2.  Plants in turn absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.  Quite convenient.

There is a problem, however.  Plants thrive when CO2 levels average around 1000 ppm.  That's the level used in actual greenhouses. But the current atmospheric component of CO2 is only 400 ppm, give or take.

Houston, we have a problem.  What to do?

Fortunately, there is plenty that we can do.

I, for one, am taking this head on as a personal challenge.  First off, I'm driving a circa 1979 Suburban...loaded with free weights.  Don't know if this has achieved holy grail "gallons per mile" status, but it's a start.  You're thinking that's nothing compared to Al Gore's Gulfstream, and you're right.  But I'm doing what I can.

And since summer is around the corner, here's a thought.  Crank the AC as low as it can go and, to compensate, burn wood in your fireplaces 24/7.  Now that's what I call a "two-fer"!

For those of you who think the above is ridicuous and actually want to reduce CO2 concentrations, you can do your part.  First, move to regions of the planet that require no heating or cooling to survive.  That would not include Vermont.  Solar and wind power not allowed.  That equipment is all produced in factories that, ironically, are powered by fossil fuels.  Second, walk or ride a bicycle to get there.  Third, stop releasing carbon by using electricity to go on-line and read forums like this one.  And while you're at it, form an army to go to war with countries that emit CO2 on a massive scale.  And, of course, when all else fails, just stop breathing.

Not me though.  I'm on the road to 1000.....

 

[WidreMann]

Water is also necessary for life, very necessary. We are 70% water. But a tidal wave will kill you. A drink from a glass of water in the wrong way will kill you. You can't assign good and bad to a substance without taking into account all of the ways it can relate to us. CO2 is used for plant biology and our own respiration, yes, but when there is CO2 in the troposphere, it blocks outgoing radiation which results in a small, but non-neglibible increase in the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a complex system that can be sensitive to small changes in energy balance and water balance. When this is modified, the climate responds with modifications in patterns and temperatures. Compared to the wide range of climate states the atmosphere *could* be in, the changes with AGW are still small. But if those small changes result in cities on the coast being inundated and formerly arable land turning to desert, that has a huge impact on human activities. We are small and fragile compared to the size of the planet. The plants may do fine (indeed, life will go on regardless), but I do rather like human civilization and I'd prefer it not to collapse because we didn't want to listen to some scientists.

[Jack Frost]

7 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Water is also necessary for life, very necessary. We are 70% water. But a tidal wave will kill you. A drink from a glass of water in the wrong way will kill you. You can't assign good and bad to a substance without taking into account all of the ways it can relate to us. CO2 is used for plant biology and our own respiration, yes, but when there is CO2 in the troposphere, it blocks outgoing radiation which results in a small, but non-neglibible increase in the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a complex system that can be sensitive to small changes in energy balance and water balance. When this is modified, the climate responds with modifications in patterns and temperatures. Compared to the wide range of climate states the atmosphere *could* be in, the changes with AGW are still small. But if those small changes result in cities on the coast being inundated and formerly arable land turning to desert, that has a huge impact on human activities. We are small and fragile compared to the size of the planet. The plants may do fine (indeed, life will go on regardless), but I do rather like human civilization and I'd prefer it not to collapse because we didn't want to listen to some scientists.

 

You just contributed to your "problem" by viewing this forum (electricity) and breathing.  If you seriously believe there is a problem, get with the program and start helping.

Me, I'm on the road to 1000....no problem.

[hazwoper]

2 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

 

You just contributed to your "problem" by viewing this forum (electricity) and breathing.  If you seriously believe there is a problem, get with the program and start helping.

Me, I'm on the road to 1000....no problem.

You're a tool.

BTW, Solar and Wind energy has added more capacity to the grid over the past several years compared to any fossil fuel generation...

[Jack Frost]

29 minutes ago, hazwoper said:

You're a tool.

BTW, Solar and Wind energy has added more capacity to the grid over the past several years compared to any fossil fuel generation...

And you are hazardous waste.

There, now that we're done with the name calling, let's get back on the road...to 1000.

[so_whats_happening]

Hahaha this is too funny

[skierinvermont]

Juvenile

[Jack Frost]

3 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Juvenile

Awesome scientific analysis skiboy.  Based upon the totality of the evidence, it is more than apparent that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Since when does name calling qualify as a replacement for the scientific method?  Oh right, never....

Are the other 23 as lame as ya'all?

[Jack Frost]

21 hours ago, WidreMann said:

Water is also necessary for life, very necessary. We are 70% water. But a tidal wave will kill you. A drink from a glass of water in the wrong way will kill you. You can't assign good and bad to a substance without taking into account all of the ways it can relate to us. CO2 is used for plant biology and our own respiration, yes, but when there is CO2 in the troposphere, it blocks outgoing radiation which results in a small, but non-neglibible increase in the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a complex system that can be sensitive to small changes in energy balance and water balance. When this is modified, the climate responds with modifications in patterns and temperatures. Compared to the wide range of climate states the atmosphere *could* be in, the changes with AGW are still small. But if those small changes result in cities on the coast being inundated and formerly arable land turning to desert, that has a huge impact on human activities. We are small and fragile compared to the size of the planet. The plants may do fine (indeed, life will go on regardless), but I do rather like human civilization and I'd prefer it not to collapse because we didn't want to listen to some scientists.

 

The analogy to water is quite interesting.  May we presume that you advocate that water be classified as a pollutant by the EPA just as the breath you exhale (CO2) was so classified?

[WidreMann]

1 hour ago, Jack Frost said:

 

The analogy to water is quite interesting.  May we presume that you advocate that water be classified as a pollutant by the EPA just as the breath you exhale (CO2) was so classified?

Water is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, but it has a shorter lifecycle and is involved in other processes that change how much it would ultimately contribute to AGW. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm

It's like weeds. What is a weed? It's a plant that grows too much in an area we don't want it to grow in. There's nothing intrinsically bad about weeds, and there's nothing intrinsically bad about CO2. But too much CO2 in the atmosphere (or rather, more than we've had for a long time), results in a warmer plant, more acidic oceans, and potentially negative affects to human physiology. Is a more acidic ocean bad? Some life will die, probably a lot, but some will do better. The net balance, in the short term, is a worsening of a lot of ecosystems that humans depend on for food and oxygen in the atmosphere. So, yeah, I guess it's a problem. Whether or not we actually call it a pollutant is just not that important. Look at the effects and whether those are beneficial or harmful to humans and the environment they live in.

Too much water is bad, and we call it a flood. Doesn't necessarily mean water is bad or a pollutant, or that classifying it as such would make a damn bit of difference.

[skierinvermont]

21 hours ago, Jack Frost said:

Awesome scientific analysis skiboy.  Based upon the totality of the evidence, it is more than apparent that you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.  Quite the opposite in fact.  Since when does name calling qualify as a replacement for the scientific method?  Oh right, never....

Are the other 23 as lame as ya'all?

There is no substance to respond to.

[Msalgado]

This is a troll thread.  There's no place for this in a science forum.

[SN_Lover]

On 4/16/2017 at 8:36 AM, Jack Frost said:

 

My new goal.  

Everyone knows that CO2 is essential to life on earth.  We breath in oxygen and exhale CO2.  Plants in turn absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.  Quite convenient.

There is a problem, however.  Plants thrive when CO2 levels average around 1000 ppm.  That's the level used in actual greenhouses. But the current atmospheric component of CO2 is only 400 ppm, give or take.

Houston, we have a problem.  What to do?

Fortunately, there is plenty that we can do.

I, for one, am taking this head on as a personal challenge.  First off, I'm driving a circa 1979 Suburban...loaded with free weights.  Don't know if this has achieved holy grail "gallons per mile" status, but it's a start.  You're thinking that's nothing compared to Al Gore's Gulfstream, and you're right.  But I'm doing what I can.

And since summer is around the corner, here's a thought.  Crank the AC as low as it can go and, to compensate, burn wood in your fireplaces 24/7.  Now that's what I call a "two-fer"!

For those of you who think the above is ridicuous and actually want to reduce CO2 concentrations, you can do your part.  First, move to regions of the planet that require no heating or cooling to survive.  That would not include Vermont.  Solar and wind power not allowed.  That equipment is all produced in factories that, ironically, are powered by fossil fuels.  Second, walk or ride a bicycle to get there.  Third, stop releasing carbon by using electricity to go on-line and read forums like this one.  And while you're at it, form an army to go to war with countries that emit CO2 on a massive scale.  And, of course, when all else fails, just stop breathing.

Not me though.  I'm on the road to 1000.....

 

This might work if every other factor is ignored and science was wrong. You think by oversimplifying something is going to fool people. It's more complicated than "plants need more carbon, let me drive my car to help them grow". 

[Jack Frost]

15 hours ago, Msalgado said:

This is a troll thread.  There's no place for this in a science forum safespace

More name calling.  Boring....

Let me try to groupspeak so you will not be offended.

The air that we exhale is a pollutant that will destroy the planet by 2016.

Wait, that's Al Gore's line.

Sorry, guess I'm just not meant to be part of the "in" crowd.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[skierinvermont]

I've reported this thread, others should do the same. Trolling has no place in the CC forum.

[Jack Frost]

54 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

I've reported this thread, others should do the same. Trolling has no place in the CC forum.

Quite interesting.

Does AWXF support diversity of thought?

Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the skimiester has revealed himself.  LOLOLOLOLOLOL 

Still waiting for the well reasoned scientific response to Dr. Berry's paper.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  The PhD in Atmospheric Science is a troll as well.

In fact, everyone who doesn't ski in Vermont is a troll.

I've reported skierinvermont.  Others should do the same.  LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

 

 

 

[Jack Frost]

On April 18, 2017 at 6:40 PM, skierinvermont said:

There is no substance to respond to.

 

Very bad grammar to end a sentence with a preposition.  Let's try "There is no substance to which to respond".  Grammatically correct, but still substantively wrong.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.