A little truth for a change.

[DrPhill]

increased CO2 has stopped us starving to death in the near future as plants can’t survive down at 0.02% CO2 which is where we were heading pre industrialisation.

Are you saying that pre-industrial levels of CO2 are insufficient to support plant life?
Really?

 

[RobinBHM]

@RobinBHM thanks for posting, your views are always insightful, helpful and courteous and really add to the debate and discussion.

I’m never sure how much to post, too much and we lose people as it really is boring apart from those enthusiastic about the subject, too little and it’s open correctly to suggestions that it’s a superficial and none objective observation.
1. I was responding to the comment that the higher up the CO2 in the atmosphere, the worse it is. When CO2 reaches the stratosphere it causes the stratosphere to lose temoerature more efficiently and causes it to cool. The atmosphere has layers, and what happens in one layer doesn’t necessarily affect it the lower layer, so although CO2 in the stratosphere causes it to cool, below that it causes the lower layers to warm.
2. I fully agree that human activity has caused the temperature to increase far more rapidly 1.5 degrees or there abouts since the Industrial Revolution, I think everyone (well at least anyone who has read around the subject) agrees. However, very simplistically and using an analogy when you pop a blanket over something it causes a certain amount of heat to be trapped, it raises the temperature until a new equilibrium is reached. My point is that up to around circa 30% CO2 will raise the equilibrium temperature by around 1.6 degrees; which is roughly where we are today; so any further warming is being driven by something else. If we fail to act on what that is, we fail to stop the rise and the unknown consequences it brings. We can’t stop the world exiting the present ice age, and although it will take normally a time span we don’t need to worry too much about it is going to happen.
3. I agree, however deforestation has lowered water vapour concentrations, which has occurred say in the UK since around the 1400’s. We were really busy at it when the Spanish got a bit irritable with Elizabeth. So, some of our actions have caused the global temperature to cool, we have seen periods of unusual and extremely low temperatures since the Industrial Revolution, but this gets no air time. Ie we are seeing large swings in annual average temperature.
4. I have, if memory serves in previous threads on this subject, which were ridiculed as quackery. It’s only a matter of time before the divergence in temperature increase and CO2 levels becomes so apparent that it can no longer be ignored.

thats very interesting, many thanks

I will absorb and respond later once Ive had time

 

[deema]

Are you saying that pre-industrial levels of CO2 are insufficient to support plant life?
Really?

The levels of CO2 were decreasing, and had been for thousands of years. The world was at its greenest when CO2 levels were circa 3~4% which is the optimum level for plant growth (lots of forced cultivation under glass pump in CO2 to increase plant development)
If the trend in decreasing CO2 had continued heading south and we a smidge above the catastrophic minimum level, plants would not have been able to survive and we would have starved. So, industrialisation saved us all by increasing CO2 levels.

 

[Jacob]

The levels of CO2 were decreasing, and had been for thousands of years. The world was at its greenest when CO2 levels were circa 3~4% which is the optimum level for plant growth (lots of forced cultivation under glass pump in CO2 to increase plant development)
If the trend in decreasing CO2 had continued heading south and we a smidge above the catastrophic minimum level, plants would not have been able to survive and we would have starved. So, industrialisation saved us all by increasing CO2 levels.

Nice bit of science fiction!
Your figures are way out by about 100 times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
What is your source for all this misinformation?

 

[deema]

Nice bit of science fiction!
Your figures are way out by about 100 times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
What is your source for all this misinformation?

Try looking at around 150 million years ago for 3000ppm. Think Jurassic park (film) to get an idea of the when.
Good old Wiki suggests optimum CO2 levels are 1200ppm, or 1.2% not where we are right now, which is 0.04% and has increased from c0.03% by circa by 0.01% since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Jacob]

Try looking at around 150 million years ago for 3000ppm. Think Jurassic park (film) to get an idea of the when.
Good old Wiki suggests optimum CO2 levels are 1200ppm, or 1.2% not where we are right now, which is 0.04% and has increased from c0.03% by circa by 0.01% since the Industrial Revolution.

Nope your figures are still all wrong. Simple maths.

 

[Ed Weber]

I find the thread title ironic, maybe it should be "A little Confusion"

I won't argue about climate change because I'm not a climate scientist. I can say the weather patterns are different than what they were when I was younger.
The one thing I can say is that all the crap us humans dump into the air, sea and ground are having a negative effect on the planet.

 

[RobinBHM]

So you support the ideals socialism as long as they are not implemented?

They can’t be implemented, nobody can make it work.

I support fair wealth distribution and state ownership of utilities.

But above all else I support the art of the possible…..which in this febrile political landscape is not a lot.

 

[Jake]

Roads, medicine, fertiliser to feed the world, extended life expectation, clothing, insulation for our homes, the list is endless.

Burning such a useful thing is a bit stupid isn't it.

 

[RobinBHM]

Burning such a useful thing is a bit stupid isn't it.

despite the idealistic fervour surrounding banning oil, the reality is the world simply cant end the reliance on oil as a base chemical for so many industries anytime soon. probably 50+ years

we should convert to renewables for energy and keep the oil for other stuff

 

[Jacob]

They can’t be implemented, nobody can make it work.

Seems to work fairly well until you get a tory govt.
Public spending is currently about 45% of GDP and went up to 53% during covid. So around 50% socialist but very badly run by the current mob. In this day and age that is a low ratio anyway; taxes should be higher in total with much more from the top end - top rates are historically low. Plus much lower indirect taxation and much more intelligent management - proactive and not so dog in the manger.

I support fair wealth distribution and state ownership of utilities.

Ooh you socialist you!

But above all else I support the art of the possible…..which in this febrile political landscape is not a lot.

 

[Jacob]

despite the idealistic fervour surrounding banning oil, the reality is the world simply cant end the reliance on oil as a base chemical for so many industries anytime soon. probably 50+ years

we should convert to renewables for energy and keep the oil for other stuff

Problem is we have to reduce current levels of CO2 so any future usage also has to be well exceeded by sequestration.
Carbon capture looks like a dead end so that only leaves re-forestation, peat development etc. That's quite an interesting idea for woodworkers as building with wood locks in carbon and also increase demand for reforestation and sustainable supplies - a double win - we could save the world!
https://unece.org/forests/carbon-sinks-and-sequestration
https://www.nature.scot/doc/peatlan...ts-connection-between-peat-and-carbon-storage
Re-wilding is another https://www.biology.ox.ac.uk/articl...o-tree-plantations-with-a-wealth-of-biodivers

 

[DrPhill]

when CO2 levels were circa 3~4% which is the optimum level for plant growth

Certainly not all plants and like none of them. An example of one limit is this paper studying grasses:
https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-018-1243-3
"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
.......
Beyond the optimum, further elevating the ambient CO2 concentration significantly reduced the growth of perennial grasses, indicating the adverse impacts of high CO2 concentration on the grass species.
"
So above ~0.1% CO2 these tough grasses grow more slowly. Seems like 4% is not really desirable. Of course you may be referring to other species of plant, and I would welcome peer-review scientific articles supporting your point. Though it should be noted that "Grasslands are one of the most representative vegetation types accounting for about 20% of the global land area" (ibid)

The lowest tested CO2 level was 400ppm (0.4%) And admittedly it is not optimum, but it is by no means impossible for plants to grow. For reference
"The current global average concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is 421 ppm as of May 2022 (0.04%)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Edit: oops, typo - 400ppm is 0.04% not 0.4%

 

[artie]

.

 

[John Brown]

Interesting. You focus on flourishing vegetation, I'm more concerned about extreme weather events.
You say tomatoes, I say tornados.

 

[John Brown]

.

Come on! Even Phil and Deema know that 2+2=4.

 

[DrPhill]

Come on! Even Phil and Deema know that 2+2=4.

Is that 'Phil' referring to me?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

No, he saves the insults for me. I wear them as a badge of honour.

Here's another one to pick the bones out of -
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/11/Kelly-1.pdf

 

[deema]

Come on! Even Phil and Deema know that 2+2=4.

According to George Orwell 2+2=5 in his novel 1984.

 

[DrPhill]

According to George Orwell 2+2=5 in his novel 1984.

Leads to interesting maths, I must admit.
What is 5 - 2?
What is (5 - 2) - 2?

Or is this only a truth for gammas?