Ask a question

Explain Why Increasing Carbon Dioxide Concentration Above 600 Arbitrary Units Does Not Increase The

Plant material is, essentially, locked-in carbon dioxide. When a plant grows it takes in carbon dioxide and water and reacts them together to give carbohydrates (like cellulose, starch and glucose) and oxygen - which is released to the atmosphere.When plants die the reverse happens, their carbohydrates are reacted with oxygen to give carbon dioxide and water.In most ecosystems the amount of plant material is pretty stable, the increase due to plant growth is matched by the decrease due to plant death.But when an expcosystem changes to desert almost all the plants die, releasing carbon dioxide and there is very little plant growth to compensate.So the overall amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.

It is increasing.This was established by direct measurement in the 1950s, 60s and 70s at discrete locations such as Mauna Loa, the South Pole Observatory and the Pacific Northwest (see Pales and Keeling (1965), Brown and Keeling (1965), Keeling (1960), Broecker et al. (1979), Price and Pales (1963), Keeling (1958) etc.).In the late 1970s and 1980s, more comprehensive global surveys were taken (Komhyr et al, 1985; Bolin and Bischof, 1970; Conway et al, 1988) and also more regional surveys such as Canada (Wong et al., 1984), Australia (Pearman and Beardsmore, 1984), and Japan (Tanaka et al, 1984).Wigley (1983) gives a good review of many of the earlier sources for CO2 measurements prior to 1950. Most of them were not as rigorous and it was not until Mauna Loa and the South Pole Observatory were set up in the 1950s that we had good continuous readings to map year-on-year changes. For example, the estimates by Callendar (1958) used some unreliable readings which he tried to take into account. His estimates ended up being quite good considering what sources he had.

Carbon dioxide acts like a fertilizer to most plants, but in order for there to be much greater growth, all the other necessary factors must also be met, so the total effect on growth is usually minor. Sort of like greatly increasing a necessary nutrient, like phosphorous or potassium, but not all the others. Like using a different brand of fertilizer. Little effect.One potential mechanism that may be slightly more helpful, and also worrisome to the climate is that plants open their stomata or pores to breath in CO2, but once they have all they need, they tend to close them, to prevent unneccesary water loss(transpiration). Thus with higher CO2 they may need slightly less water, and the water in the soil may last them longer. This could change the hydrological cycle, make some low areas wetter, and reduce the amount of water vapor put into the atmosphere, which produces clouds which cool things off. Complex and poorly understood interaction that could extend to global levels, and certainly beyond the plants themselves.

An increase in the amount of CO2 well increase the rate of photosynthesis, Carbon dioxide concentration will directly affect the rate of photosynthesis as it is used in the photosynthesis reaction.Increased amount of CO2 will increase the rate of photosynthesis to a certain limit, after which a further increase in its amount will no longer increase the rate any further. This is when the other factors necessary for photosynthesis, such as light, become "limiting reactants"; that is, those other factors also need to increase to bring about a further increase in the rate.  six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen   An increase in the amount of water leads to the increase in the amount of photosynthesis   The amount of water available to the plant will affect the rate of photosynthesis. If the plant does not have enough water, the plant's stomata will shut and the plant will be deprived of CO², and thus lower photosynthesis rate.   An increase in the amount of light well increase the amount of photosynthesis, if the light intensity increases the rate of the reaction will increase at a proportional rate until a certain level is reached, the rate of increases will then go down.   Other factors affecting the rate of photosynthesis :   1. Temperature  2. The availability of nutrients

Is the supposed scientific evidence for global warming hardcore proof that it is occurring?

http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser...

1. Select 'Group by Molecule' if it is not already selected.
2. Select the following in 'Spectral Range': Units - wavenumber, Lower limit - 400cm^-1, Upper limit - 1400cm^-1 (This is the approximate area for the black body radiation curve of the Earth)
3. Select the following in 'Options': 'scale by atmospheric abundance', Atmosphere - standard, Scale - linear, Symbols - sticks
4. From the select menu under 'Species' select the following gasses: H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O (These are the five most prominent greenhouse gasses.)

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4....

Figure 4-5 shows what an increase of CO2 would do to this band. The center of the band is saturated at 10ppm. As CO2 increase the band gets wider not deeper.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...

Page 3987: Graphs depicting measurements of outbound radiation at specific wavelengths. The left side of the graph shows the measurements that are attributed to one half of the band associated with CO2 absorption.

Page 3990. Graphs depicting changes in outbound radiation between the three data sets and their statistical significance.

If you are claiming that warming due to CO2 is exaggerated or not occurring how do you explain the CO2 absorption band at 667cm^-1? How do you explain that greenhouse gas absorption frequencies are increasing in the troposphere? How do you explain the fact that the poles are warming faster than the equator, night is warming faster than day and winter is warming faster than summer? I don't even care about politics. I care about science.What do you base your skepticism on? Do you get your information from blogs and news articles or science journals? No 'skeptic' in here has responded to my questions regarding what else could cause the increase at the frequencies spoken about above. Can you? Explain.

The carbon dioxide and oxygen cycle is critical to life on Earth. Humans, and most other organisms, need oxygen to survive. When we inhale, oxygen moves from our lungs into our blood. Oxygen travels through the blood to all the cells in the body. The cells use oxygen to complete important jobs. For example, you are using oxygen right now as you read this sentence. The muscles that control your eyes use oxygen. Without oxygen, you could not \use any of your muscles. In fact, our cells die quickly if they do not receive oxygen. That is why it is so important to help someone who cannot breathe by providing them with oxygen.Plants and other organisms that perform photosynthesis rely on animals for carbon dioxide.That is why it is so important to help someone who cannot breathe by providing them with oxygen.

Are the "Warmers really this loony? CO2 is increasing so rapidly, blah blah blah ...?

Since I'm the guy who posted the above quote I guess I'm on the hot seat to defend my thesis. The current stated parts per million of CO2 come from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The Goddard Institute of Space Studies and NASA, and further confirmed by dozens of other scientific organizations...I didn't make it up. I suspect that any laboratory with the right equipment could do the same study and get the same answer. As I understand it NOAA, up on Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has direct readings on CO2 saturation going back to 1955...at that time 310ppm of CO2. Ice core samples going back to 10,000 years ago, the beginning of human civilization give us readings of 280ppm...pretty much a steady state until the beginning of the industrial age in the early 1800 when coal replaced wood...at that point CO2 stood at 284ppm an increase of 4ppm since human beings discovered agriculture. In the early late 1800s 'rock' oil totally replaced whale oil and in the early 1900 the horse began to lose ground to the automobile and we we're on on way. That's the Cliff Notes version of CO2 history. In the early 1800 the 'greenhouse effect' was discovered and the physics of that phenomena has never been refuted. X amount of greenhouse gas will equal X amount of heat retention. The amount of CO2 may be small in relation to the overall atmosphere, but that doesn't invalidate the result. The math involved actually does indicate that at 400ppm heat retention WILL have a major effect on climate. In another post, I cleverly suggested that a 450 grain bullet will bring down an elephant..(7000 grains to the pound...what do elephants weigh? Someone do the math). Likewise atmospheric physics suggests that 450ppm of CO2 will instigate runaway global warming. Obviously in these cases size doesn't matter. The addition of 12 to 15ppm of CO2 every decade means we'll be at the 450ppm point by mid century...then we'll know for sure. Volcanoes emit .3 billion tons of CO2 yearly on average, while industry emits 29 billion tons annually....obviously while volcanoes play a roll, human endeavors play the major roll. Then there's methane and all that other stuff.....it's a head scratcher alright!

This is also known as the Bohr effect. The presence of carbon dioxide causes decreased levels of oxygen.Increase in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide causes increase in levels of carbonic acid via carbonic anhydrase. This causes increase in hydrogen ions in blood. This means the pH of the blood decreases.CO2 + H2O ----> H2CO3 <-------> [H] + [CO3]Decrease in pH of the blood causes decrease the affinity of oxygen to hemoglobin. This causes increased unloading of oxygen from hemoglobin which ultimately means lower saturation readings.The above image shows the shift in O2 dissociation curve to the right with decreased pH.

What gas causes volcanoes to erupt?

That is a very interesting question and it is one that most people don't know and wish they didn't know after they find out. In a volcanic explosion there is a tremendous build up of carbon dioxide which is released during the eruption. Most people who are parishioners of the "church of man made global warming" which is led by Pope Algore the first wish that no one would ever find out that at least 75% of the so called greenhouse gases that are released into the atmosphere are from natural sources such as volcanoes and not from man made industrialization. Did you know that during the 1300's that the globe was so warm that the natives of Greenland were farmers. No industrialization back then.

How many of these denialist statements can you debunk?

1) Obviously true.

2) Your terms "lies" and "huge scandals" are exaggerations. I would say there have been several significant scientific mistakes instead of "lies" and there have been examples of band wagon circling or tribalism instead of "huge scandals".

3) "full of bald faced lies" is again an exaggeration. Gore's movie had several clear errors in the science and several instances of clear exaggeration and alarmism like his graphic of Florida being underwater. It simply not fully objective.

4) Essentially true although I don't usually use as strong a wording as you did.

5) That's debatable and can be shown to go either way with careful cherry picking.

6) I don't think you can compare what is happening on other planets to help explain the Earth's climate.

7) I don't put much stock into Jones' statement on that.

8) It is true that Gore and other "celebrities" like James Cameron avoid public debate. And so they should they are not climate scientists. Climate scientists also avoid public debate and claim the debate takes place in peer reviewed literature. Part time scientists like Monckton have debated publicly and as far as I know, the audience position has changed towards the skeptic side in each case. None of this matters anyhow.

9) Correlation is a statistical function and I believe that at least for most of the past century temperature and CO2 are correlated although to what significance I am unsure. Over the past 15 years, this correlation has become weaker. This however has nothing to do with causation which is not a statistical function.