There have been many well-funded experiments on the effects of increased carbon dioxide on plants. They show that plants increase in size, thus locking up that extra CO2 in the form of extra cellulose (fuel/energy). They also produce more oxygen, provide more shade, use less water, and in general grow more efficiently. This is a natural balancing act on the part of Mother Earth, which keeps the quantity of carbon dioxide in check so it cannot cook the planet.
If there is a bit too much CO2, the trillions of plants and their quintillions of leaves will simple lock it up and store it away whilst enriching the oxygen percentage of the atmosphere. The global warming myth was busted long ago and multiple times. See the San Jose State University article below:
Thank you, Edmund.
Three years later, and it looks as though politicians and the media have been more loyal to global warming, than even the grant-dependent scientific community.
And the public is losing interest! Which is almost as good as trying to be informed, I guess :)
I confess that I looked at the link you provided, and right about here, my eyes glazed over:
I used to post discussions with little more than a link to an interesting article, but those never seemed to get any bites! I have found that writing a discussion like a short essay makes it more likely to end up on that "check out this discussion" emailing. And you clearly seem to be more comfortable reading biology stuff than the average bear, so please don't give up!
Thanks for the response Lizzie. That's really sad. The formula above simply says what plants do: They take in 6 chunks of CO2 (carbon dioxide, our exhalations) and 6 chunks of H2O (water), using the energy of the sun (that little "v") in the presence of chlorophyll (the green color in plants, and it is only an unaltered catalyst that promotes the process). Then the plants convert those two simple ingredients into one chunk of sugar (C6H12O6) and 6 chunks of PURE Oxygen.
Now repeat quickly: 6 carbon dioxides plus 6 waters plus solar energy yields one sugar and 6 Oxygens. The sugar is stored energy; it might or might not be converted by the plant later to the form of a cellulose such as wood . But it is still stored solar energy.
Nothing could be nicer. It was God's plan. Plants need what we exhale and they exhale what we need, along with a bonus---FOOD! And all done with solar energy. Plants love CO2 so much that they grow bigger and faster when there is more of it. Notice that the CO2 is gone after the transformation---it is now locked up in the fuel that was produced. So, plants actually scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere. It is self-balancing.
If fewer folks were scared of such chemistry equations as this miracle above, then this whole "green" agenda of control could never have happened.
Only evil beings could possibly lie to deny the facts above, and only fools could believe those lies. I remember the Jim Jones Kool-Aid massacre...
Well, thank you for the explanation! So that's a sugar molecule.
I still wonder how the scientific community could bounce from "the coming Ice Age" to the "Gaia theory" to the "Earth will lose all of its ozone" to "Global warming"... without pausing to take each new prediction with a grain of salt?
How is it, that some scientists have the happy gift of being able to challenge the conventional wisdom, without being literally shunned? We've seen a steady trickle of reports to the effect that there is ample evidence that the methods of the pro-warming scientists are sloppy, and in some cases, dishonest. Yet, their theories are above reproach. Perhaps they just understand how the game is played.
I came across Stephen Jay Gould saying this is his favorite quote, from Darwin:
"How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!"
Well then, service to whom? Who benefits from all of the financial shenanigans in "fighting climate change"? Apparently, the people who will stop at nothing to prevent the unpopular kids from asking too many questions.
But I'm more interested in having more of the science explained. Can you debunk global warming theory, as a sort of Mr. Wizard for grownups? Make a blog out of it?
Or do you have any opinions about the Bill Nye/ Ken Ham showdown, which you could present here?
I'm just asking, because I really enjoy having people discuss the current issues from an informed perspective... as long as they speak to the layman! :)
Do I have opinions of the Bill Nye interview? Oh yes! He showed his loyalty to his messiah right away. The scientific community has always looked a bit wishy-washy from the outside, but there is a reason for that appearance. The way science works is to observe something first, and ask why. Then think of possible reasons (using the known laws of nature) for what you observed. Pick the best one and form a theory. Argue about it with others. Refine the theory. Test the theory with experiments. Publish it. Argue some more. Get closer to the truth. Fudging data and lying are not allowed.
It might not look neat and simple, but it eventually works. Consider Newton's Laws about falling objects. His (and other's) data were not accurate enough to account for air resistance. Maybe that was a good thing! After all, that resistance varies with the shape of the falling object, the altitude, the humidity, the surface of the object, etc. If Newton had been forced to reconcile all of that, all at once, he might not have arrived at the very simple equation for falling bodies (which is precise without air or other interferences).
In the case of the Global Warming Myth, both of the latter (above) occurred simply because some scientists are actually "progressives." They fudged the data and they lied. You must surely realize that the communist manifesto says that the ends justify the means---in plainer words: Do whatever you must do to get your desired result.
The other problem with the Climate Change Myth is the computer models they used to calculate their "theories." Their time spacing and data are too short and too small. The models are too sensitive and extrapolate too far. Currently, it is junk science in my opinion, plus the messiah-pleasing problem...
Everyone knows that our star (the sun) is our main source of heat. It is a nuclear explosion about 300,000 times the mass of the Earth, and it is continuously ongoing. The amount of power striking the dirt at noon in the summer averages about one Kilowatt per square meter or 840 Watts per square yard. That's nearly the amount of an electric heater. Measure your front yard. Or your roof.
The sun also has cycles about 11 years long. It varies in intensity a bit and it has gigantihumongous storms that blow Godawful amounts of energy outward, some toward us. The Earth's temperature is affected much more by this than it is by forest fires, volcanoes, or cow farts.
There's a lot more CO2 in our atmosphere than ever before though, increasing at a pace not seen before. People don't debate that Climate Change is occurring; we just don't have 100% certainty that HUMANS are the cause.
As for plants absorbing CO2, what do you think happens when we cut trees down? They decompose and release the CO2. So our sprawling urbanization and deforestation doesn't exactly help the so-called "self-balancing."
I may be a Conservative, but I'm not going to be ignorant to the immense potential that there is a solvable problem here. The worst thing that we could possibly do is create a cleaner, more advanced infrastructure for no reason.
No. Just no. You are a FU**ING idiot. Do you hold a PhD in any form of science? Are you a scientist?
Plants absorb CO2. They produce Oxygen. Then end.
The Democrats invented the myth that trees STORE CO2 to perpetuate the Global Warming story.
And again, no, the worst thing we can do is not "Create a cleaner world." That too is bullsh*t. If we start throwing all of our money at solar energy and windmills, we will bankrupt our country faster than Obama is working to do. Do you want ugly windmills in every empty field and disgusting solar panels on top of every house?
The oil and gas industry gave us highways, roads, and bridges. They gave us incredible cars and a booming industry with literally millions of jobs. Just think where the fracking industry will take us. In the next ten years, I expect them to take us to even newer heights as long as they aren't regulated heavily.
A little common respect is in order for your comments. Profanity is a violation of the TPN terms of service. Think twice. Regards, Norman
Bill, you need to do thorough research to find out what the truth is. (Looks pretty cyclical to me.)
Bill, I'm going to try to be respectful. First, please tell us when you measured the levels of CO2 and with what accuracy and how far apart in time you took those measurements.
Oh, I see! You say you didn't yourself, but read about it? Maybe heard it from the mouths of white-coated people with stethoscopes in Obama's Rose Garden who claimed to be doctors in favor of Obamacare? Does Obama lie every time he speaks? Those are the same people who write all of those polls about how 3% who are atheists somehow vote 47% against religious symbols at Christmas.
In short, there are a great number of people who have swallowed the "Progressive's" (read that as Communists) Kool-Aid. Some of them are scientists. And they lie for their messiah!
Now your statements about trees. absorbing CO2 and being cut down and sprawling deforestation and not being self-balancing--- You simply implied strongly that everything I wrote was untrue. I find that very offensive. Ask yourself how much total Carbon there is on Earth. That's the main ingredient of CO2. Has more Carbon arrived from space? Has any departed? No, neither, but even if more arrived, then each one of the quintillion-trillions of green leaves in the world would respond with the tiniest increase in area and soak it up.
You last paragraph is hilarious and at the same time, also quite offensive. The truth is that particulates pollution (fine dust in the air) was solved and resolved long ago. Smog (remember Los Angeles?) was caused by combustion gases other than CO2, and is mostly resolved. CO2 is not a pollutant, nor a danger for us.
So it seems that you have either swallowed some of their Kool-Aid or you are a troll working for your messiah.
Global warming is a scam perpetrated and perpetuated by those who make large amounts of money from it. There are many different ways to make money within the scam. Subsidized Green Energy is one. Carbon banking is one. Green research and education is one. There are many more. Suffice it to say, we are the ones paying for it all. And, there are very few of our electeds who are willing to invest the time to learn and take appropriate action to put a stop to it. Shame on us for tolerating it.
The global warming scam is only one of many ways our governments take advantage of an uninformed and lazy populace.
Global warming , climate change is all about convincing the public to allow peacefully centralizing power and control over resources taking it away from free enterprise and fundamental transform the consumer driven market into a totalitarian system to save earth from World Overpopulation . All policies we see are designed to bring this about worldwide . Solution out of crisis , crisis they create , so they can say they don't want to let a good crisis go to waste !