Re: Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
More linkies: TL;DR: most plant species studied appear to have optimal growth characteristics with CO2 at well above current levels, in particular at from 743ppm (measured) to 2700ppm (estimate of combination of CO2 and water usage optimization). That is, plant life on this planet appears optimized for atmospheric concentration levels of around 1200ppm. Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations At 400 PPM Are Still Dangerously Low For Life On Earth http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/ Over the Earth's history, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ranged from 180 ppm to 7000 ppm, see Figure 1 below. On that scale we are in fact today barely above the Earth's record lows. Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentration is just barely above the life-sustaining levels of 150 ppm. … It’s a fact that biologists have shown that once the atmospheric CO2 level falls below the 500 ppm level, plants really begin to suffer. Many of us have seen the video showing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE how plants grow faster under higher CO2 concentrations. The following charts show the growth curves of some plants as a function of CO2 concentration: Study: why CO2 levels are lower during global cold periods https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/15/study-why-co2-levels-are-lower-during-global-cold-periods/ As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm, low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation. CO2 myth busted: Why we need more carbon dioxide to grow food and forests https://www.naturalnews.com/039720_carbon_dioxide_myths_plant_nutrition.html … as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Plant Growth and Carbon Dioxide for Maximum Yield http://www.jasons-indoor-guide-to-organic-and-hydroponics-gardening.com/plant-growth-and-carbon-dioxide.html Plant growth requires a tremendous amount of Carbon Dioxide (also known as CO2). At the center of every plant cell is an atom of Carbon, which the plant has absorbed from the surrounding air. When all other growing conditions are kept ideal, Carbon Dioxide becomes the growth limiting factor. This means, as you increase the CO2 in your garden area, you will also increase the plant growth ratesand your yields. The ideal level of CO2 supplementation to maximize plant growth in a well maintained garden is generally 1500 ppm. In one final twist of irony, as you begin to increase plant growth and Carbon Dioxide levels you will reach a point where temperature becomes the limiting factor. In order to benefit from the highest levels of CO2 supplementation (1500-2000 ppm), you actually need to run your garden area warmer than normal (80-85 degrees). On average, plants will also require an extra 30 watts of light/sq.ft. (70-80 watts/sq.ft.). Plants will use extra water and nutrients under these conditions, so make sure they are available! This has one implication which may offer you (the indoor gardener) a very nice solution to one of your most difficult problems. If all other factors are perfect in your garden EXCEPT your temperature runs a little high, you may be able to maximize plant growth AND solve your heat problem at the same time with the addition of CO2. The optimal CO2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3 Here, we examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration effect on CO2 fertilization and further on the growth of three perennial grasses in growth chambers with the CO2 concentration at 400, 600, 800, 1000, and 1200 ppm, respectively. … the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis… … Elevated CO2 effects on plant biomass We found very strong CO2 fertilization effects on the aboveground and total biomass of the three species. The optimal CO2 levels for the aboveground biomass were 945, 915, and 1151 ppm, and for the total biomass were 915, 1178, and 1386 ppm for tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively (Fig. 1). However, an optimal CO2 of 895 ppm for
Re: Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
On 24/03/19 10:25, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 05:40:33AM +, Peter Fairbrother wrote: On 21/03/19 09:21, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Q1. What % of the air is CO2? … CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27 th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036% - 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc) i.e. the measured concentration changes if the air flow is from an industrialized region So even according to you mankind's contribution is measurable. Local delta's are measurable "at coordinate", which can be fed into any number of computer models to estimate aggregates per area or per globe. So the global "man-made" CO2 contribution delta is estimatable, even though the global aggregate % change is not measurable, due to margins of error and the limits and errors of measuring equipment. eh? The measuring equipment works fine. The overall measured - not estimated, measured - change is from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. That is easily measurable, and measured. The global aggregate %ge change is 46.8% increase over 170 years. Nearly half as much again. The margins of error of the %ge change are around 1 part in 1,000. So it's pretty accurate - not 45%, not 47%, but 46.odd%. Estimates for more recent periods are accurate to about 1 part in 10,000. Pretty darn accurate. There is no accuracy problem. Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before. Greenhouse theory, is anything but concensus. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. Greenhouse theory is simply the prediction that glass, increased CO2 etc levels etc increase the reflection of long-wave IR back to the ground, so decreasing heat lost into space. And guess what, it both works and is directly measurable. One lesser-known prediction of greenhouse theory is that the present average temperature of the earth should be around 15 C - if there was no global warming, the average temperature would be -18 C. And yes, greenhouse theory itself is consensus. Some details of what is happening now are a little fuzzy, and extrapolation quickly gets lost because the earth is so complex and politics, but overall we are slowly getting there. Some scientific theory has it that CO2 is a product primarily of the quanta of plant life, plus the temperature of the oceans (and thus oceanic absorption vis a vis release, of CO2). Other scientific theory has it that almost everything is entirely driven by the Sun. There is no concensus that atmospheric CO2 is the cause, and not the consequence of, "global warming" or rather, "global heat levels due to solar, and tectonic, activity". You are a bit out of date there. Consensus pretty much exists amongst non-conflicted scientists. Both those theories have some truth in them, but the first is irrelevant in view of the measured increase in CO2 levels, the second is misstated - agreed the sun has a major long-term influence, yes, but not the recent short term influence seen in practice. --- Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce? … Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. You are looking at it the wrong way. Though I personally doubt it, it may be that humans only produce 3% as much CO2 as per year as nature does. But an increase of 3% per year, "increase per year" is vastly different to "total over all modern time, i.e. industrial revolution" - someone would need to look at the source for this 3% number so that we can talk about it without wildly It's your number .. and irrelevant anyway. Fact: CO2 levels have increased, measurably, from 280 to 411 ppm, in the modern era. Fact: This happened too fast to have happened naturally without signs we would have clearly seen, so it must be man-made. flapping in the wind about compound exponential fear mongering ... No evil exponentials need get involved. Suppose there is 400 tons in the atmosphere, nature produces 100 tons per year, nature removes 100 tons per year. Now if man adds 3 tons per year for a hundred years, without any increase in the removal by nature there will be 300 extra tons in the atmosphere. In reality nature will take up some of the slack, so lets say the increase is only 150 tons. Or, to put it in real numbers; in 1850 there were 1,480 Gt of CO2 in the atmosphere. Today there is 2,166 Gt, an increase of 686 Gt. Estimated human CO2 release in that period, based on the amount of coal, gas and oil burnt, is about 1,340 Gt. So nature has absorbed an extra 654 Gt. The rate at which nature recycled CO2 isn't immediately relevant, but it is estimated at about 350 Gt/y. if not compensated for, is 30% in ten years,
Re: Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 05:40:33AM +, Peter Fairbrother wrote: > On 21/03/19 09:21, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > > >Q1. What % of the air is CO2? > > > >… CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is > >0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27 th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 > >vary from one source to another from 0.036% - 0.039% due to the > >difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in > >wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized > >region or a volcanic emission etc) > > i.e. the measured concentration changes if the air flow is from an > industrialized region > > So even according to you mankind's contribution is measurable. Local delta's are measurable "at coordinate", which can be fed into any number of computer models to estimate aggregates per area or per globe. So the global "man-made" CO2 contribution delta is estimatable, even though the global aggregate % change is not measurable, due to margins of error and the limits and errors of measuring equipment. The measurability is not a contentious point, so little use in making this a contention. Seek truth in the presentations of each, and we find truth in one another. This is perhaps the useful place to start. > Getting real, NOAA measure global average CO2 to about five figures of > accuracy - presently it is 411.75 ppm. People who use different methods > sometimes argue about the last figure, so let's say it is routinely measured > accurate to maybe 4.5 digits. > > Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered around > 220 ppm, and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years the level has > gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. Which is absolutely fantastic for life on this planet, since at 180ppm and below, most plants die, along with their "high up" food chains... Rumour has it we should now be good for at least a few thousand years from now, even if man goes "fully electric, man, fully electric" overnight. > Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse > theory says it will. And it always has before. Greenhouse theory, is anything but concensus. To imply otherwise is disingenuous. Some scientific theory has it that CO2 is a product primarily of the quanta of plant life, plus the temperature of the oceans (and thus oceanic absorption vis a vis release, of CO2). Other scientific theory has it that almost everything is entirely driven by the Sun. There is no concensus that atmospheric CO2 is the cause, and not the consequence of, "global warming" or rather, "global heat levels due to solar, and tectonic, activity". > >--- > >Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce? > > > >… Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. > > You are looking at it the wrong way. > > Though I personally doubt it, it may be that humans only produce 3% as much > CO2 as per year as nature does. But an increase of 3% per year, "increase per year" is vastly different to "total over all modern time, i.e. industrial revolution" - someone would need to look at the source for this 3% number so that we can talk about it without wildly flapping in the wind about compound exponential fear mongering ... > if not > compensated for, is 30% in ten years, or 300% in 100 years. > > People may argue up and down about that, but the simple fact is that CO2 > levels rose from 280 pm to 411 ppm over the last few 100 years. This is a > man-made increase. There is no natural CO2 regulation process (other than > major volcanism or fires, which did not happen) which could work that fast. > > Which means that human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the > atmosphere by 32% over the last few 100 years. Possibly, or possibly we're in a particularly "good for life" solar and tectonic "warming" cycle. You and I both are likely just parroting assumptions based on preferred viewpoitns, rather than science. And on that basis, I prefer my viewpoints over yours as "more grounded in science" > >• It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen > > and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb > > anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. > > Greenhouse theory has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere getting hot. > > The basic mechanism controlling the Earth's temperature is: the sun shines > light and shortwave infrared on the ground. The ground absorbs them and gets > warm. At night the heat from the warm ground is radiated into space as long > wave infra-red. > > CO2 interferes with this process because it reflects the outgoing long wave > infra-red back towards the ground (it does not reflect the incoming short wave > infrared.) > > > This may sound strange - how can only 400 ppm of CO2 reflect long wave IR? But > if you think about it, 400 ppm of the 50 km tall atmosphere is roughly > equivalent to a pound
Re: Carbon Dioxide: Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 so small it's not measurable - [MINISTRY]
On 21/03/19 09:21, Zenaan Harkness wrote: Q1. What % of the air is CO2? … CO2 is less than a mere four 100ths of 1%! As a decimal it is 0.038%. As a fraction it is 1/27 th of 1%. (Measurements for CO2 vary from one source to another from 0.036% - 0.039% due to the difficulty in measuring such a small quantity and due to changes in wind direction e.g. whether the air flow is from an industrialized region or a volcanic emission etc) i.e. the measured concentration changes if the air flow is from an industrialized region So even according to you mankind's contribution is measurable. Getting real, NOAA measure global average CO2 to about five figures of accuracy - presently it is 411.75 ppm. People who use different methods sometimes argue about the last figure, so let's say it is routinely measured accurate to maybe 4.5 digits. Over the million years before 1900 CO2 global average levels hovered around 220 ppm, and never exceeded 300 ppm. In the last few 100 years the level has gone from 280 ppm to 411 ppm. Will increases in CO2 of this magnitude cause global warming? Well, greenhouse theory says it will. And it always has before. --- Q3. What % of CO2 do humans produce? … Nature produces nearly all of it. Humans produce only 3%. You are looking at it the wrong way. Though I personally doubt it, it may be that humans only produce 3% as much CO2 as per year as nature does. But an increase of 3% per year, if not compensated for, is 30% in ten years, or 300% in 100 years. People may argue up and down about that, but the simple fact is that CO2 levels rose from 280 pm to 411 ppm over the last few 100 years. This is a man-made increase. There is no natural CO2 regulation process (other than major volcanism or fires, which did not happen) which could work that fast. Which means that human activities have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 32% over the last few 100 years. • It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb anymore heat than there is available to the other gases. Greenhouse theory has nothing to do with CO2 in the atmosphere getting hot. The basic mechanism controlling the Earth's temperature is: the sun shines light and shortwave infrared on the ground. The ground absorbs them and gets warm. At night the heat from the warm ground is radiated into space as long wave infra-red. CO2 interferes with this process because it reflects the outgoing long wave infra-red back towards the ground (it does not reflect the incoming short wave infrared.) This may sound strange - how can only 400 ppm of CO2 reflect long wave IR? But if you think about it, 400 ppm of the 50 km tall atmosphere is roughly equivalent to a pound per square foot of the earth's surface - or travelling through 10 feet of CO2 at normal atmospheric pressure - enough for the beginnings of a mirror. -- Peter Fairbrother ppm = parts per million, by weight
