|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-26 16:34:12
Everybody knows that CO2 is necessary for plant life - but did you know that the CO2 proportion is fixed in the air, and because of human causes (destroying forests, and increasing CO2 emissions by fossil fuels among others), the proportion of CO2 is increasing... And this is not good for us humans and will cause global warming! Unless you want us to become plants, or we all grow plants everywhere and leave all our cities to plant life... We must reduce our CO2 emissions.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: roheline
Date: 2003-04-27 00:27:07
Hi there Codc01, and all other readers:
Yes, as a matter of fact the PROPORTION of CO2 in air at sea level is pretty well fixed at the extremely low amount of 0.033% worldwide, on average, as indicated in my original, introductory remarks. The fact that the proportion of air, at sea level, contains such a scant amount of CO2, and is adequately maintained at this LOW percentage by natural processes such as photosynthesis, and also by natural chemical equilibrium reactions, means that there is no need for human beings to implement or enact accords (Kyoto) to lower CO2 concentrations. All regulatory efforts would be futile.
Moreover, because CO2 is ecologically essential, and NOT a pollutant, Foreign Affairs should not encourage nor facilitate the buying of the totally unneeded "green, or carbon, credits" from countries such as Russia, or certain African, Central and South American and Asian nations. Canada simply does not need to purchase such credits. We are "green" enough, and there is nothing wrong with the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
Besides, the plants of Earth don't care whether or not they "eat" anthropogenic CO2 (generated by human beings), or whether the CO2 comes from other parts of the carbon cycle, again, as indicated originally. CO2 is CO2 and they love it all.
The tiny proportion of air, the 0.033% CO2 gas, at sea level, is certainly not enough to cause global warming, nor any other form of global climate change. Please do read my entire essay on the issue at http://PlantsEatCO2.blogspot.com . Human beings, and all other forms of life, are truly fortunate that there is still enough plant life on Earth, ranging from phytoplanktonic species, algae, and higher aquatic plants in oceans, lakes, streams and ponds, to all of the many terrestrial species. All of these help to keep the CO2 content of air LOW year in and year out.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 17:04:57
"The fact that the proportion of air, at sea level, contains such a scant amount of CO2, and is adequately maintained at this LOW percentage by natural processes such as photosynthesis, and also by natural chemical equilibrium reactions, means that there is no need for human beings to implement or enact accords (Kyoto) to lower CO2 concentrations"
My environmental science is a bit hazy in my memory, but why are you always comparing your values at sea level? What about higher up in the atmosphere?
You're trying to tell me that that we can pump up as many tons of CO2 as we wish, and the proportion of CO2 will stay the same (in the atmosphere - not at sea level)? I'm sorry, but i simply don't believe you for a second... I need hard evidence - and the evidence points to the contrary.
Kyoto is a good deal, but preserving ur forest is also very important.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-27 02:04:58
I believe you are right codco. We are increasing CO2 unnecessarily and reducing forests and plants which need the CO2. There is a growing unbalance. We must not only reduce emissions but quit removing so many forests. Not only is too much CO2 leading to possible global warming: I am sure it is not good for our lungs. I notice many more people with allergies today than before. All these emissions can not be good for our health. I do think it is even more important to retain our forests and plants as they are what produce oxygen for us
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-27 17:07:07
Exactly, nature is a delicate balance, and humans are the prime reason of most environmental disbalances (spelling?)...
We must always watch out to keep the balance (increasing plant life, while decreasing CO2 emissions)...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: roheline
Date: 2003-04-27 23:11:36
Hi again codc01, and Hello fatmomma:
My answer to your questions was just gobbled up and lost in cyberspace. I don't know why. So, instead of retyping the whole thing again, please read an essay of mine on this serious issue at http://PlantsEatCO2.blogspot.com ~ I would also like to respond to two specific things you've raised, codc01: 1. Since you are an engineer, I will just say, "at sea level" must be specified because molecules of different substances have different densities. (The molar mass of CO2 is 44 g/mol, but its concentration is only 0.033% ON AVERAGE at sea level, while nitrogen gas, N2, is at 28 g/mol, but is the most plentiful gas at 78% at sea level, and oxygen gas, O2, with 32 g/mol, accounts for 21% of the air at sea level.) Of course, as one goes to higher elevations, the percentage concentration of each one of these gases decreases.
2. In your initial response to my opening remarks, you said something interesting and contradictory -- that the amount of CO2 in air is "fixed" (almost true), but then, a little further on, added that the proportions vary. Well, which is it? It can't be both. The proportion of CO2 in air, at sea level, right across the world is still, even after the industrial revolution, only 0.033%, ON AVERAGE, which of course means 0.033 mL of CO2 per 100 mL of air, or to put it another way, that would be 33 L of CO2 / 100 000 L of air, which is also equal to 330 ppm (parts per million); a very, very low amount even in our modern times where human beings do contribute to CO2 in air. (But like any CO2, plants love the CO2 generated by human factories, vehicles, furnaces, burps and farts just as much as any other CO2. At the molecular level, CO2 is pure clean, ecologically essential CO2, and plants love and absorb it all.
Do read the essay. I do know what I am talking about, in this area. My working life has been spent in the plant sciences, and biology and chemistry. I am also an environmentalist and naturalist of long standing, and because of their stand on Kyoto Protocol, I feel betrayed by the current environmental movement, and by the Federal Ministry of the Environment.
P.S. Besides the "Essay", also read the answers of participant # 1616. That's me, too; "roheline".
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-28 14:30:14
"The proportion of CO2 in air, at sea level, right across the world is still, even after the industrial revolution, only 0.033%,"
At SEA LEVEL, its true i'm sure because of all the photosynthesis effect of planktons (I read your essay rapidly)... Otherwise, its FALSE. You have to take your analysis at a macroscopic level, and not at a microscopic level.
To help you out, a professor with the same view as you admits that CO2 levels are increasing (please also note the URL address):
Rising Carbon Dioxide Is Great for Plants (http://www.oilsurvey.com/php/link.php3?CoId=6365&path=co2ok.html&PHPSESSID=75cba8945db9b2d0080945d11bd30e4f)
Increasing CO2 levels:
"Since pre-industrial times, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent. Over the same period, atmospheric methane has risen by 151 percent, mostly from agricultural activities like growing rice and raising cattle."
Sources:
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/05.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498
http://www.fnh.org/francais/faq/effet_serre/anthropique.htm
http://www.effet-de-serre.gouv.fr/main.cfm?page=fr/savoir/savoir.htm
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: roheline
Date: 2003-04-29 18:12:08
Thanks for the sites. Be sure to read the info given about "uncertainties" at the 1st website you suggested, the EPA site. EPA admits to huge uncertainties, but then confidently urges readers to buy into the notion of global warming. As far as microscopic vs. macroscopic CO2 goes. If I say that the "worldwide" concetration of CO2 in air 0.033% then it should be clear that this is a universal, macroscopic, average CO2 concentration. Turn to a recent edition of any good biolgy text. This number is still in use.
Plants have been around for 4 billion years; much longer than any animal. It has been, and still is, the plantlife of Earth, along with a dynamic chemical equilibrium, which has, and continues, to keep the amount of CO2 in air low; not the edicts and accords of man. Please read: http://PlantsEatCO2.blogspot.com
Reply to this message
|
|
