Bloomberg Carbon Clock

There is so much BS in there. CO2 is not pollution, man made CO2 in large quantities that measurably upset the CO2 level in the Earth's atmosphere is pollution. Does that clarify the matter?

--

Rick

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:46:39 -0800, John Larkin Gave us:

So what? Are you going to observe from space?

Anything introduced in quantities harmful to the environment is defined as pollution. There is even noise pollution. Thanks for the juvenile comedy though.

True, but there's another mechanism. Plants balance their growth and energy consumption against reproduction (i.e. flowers). If you want to grow bushy, large, leafy plants, you feed them, water them, and increase the CO2 levels. However, if you want your plants to produce fruits and flowers, the best strategy is to try and almost kill them. By making the plant think that it's about to die, it puts all its energy into reproducing. So, as you indicate, higher CO2 concentrations promote the growth part of the equation, causing the plant to produce fewer stomata and less reproduction.

I couldn't find any at the supermarket. Also, fossilized leaves don't grow ever well and taste rather ossified in a salad.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com 
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

So quit breathing. That would be even funnier.

How do you get around? Have a car? Ever fly on airplanes? Do you eat raw food? Stumble around in the dark at night?

All funny.

Burn them all down.

My electricity is nuclear.

I /might/ average 5 gallons/month gasoline consumption.

Of course its dumb. But then the whole "plants do/don't consume CO2, depending on political expediency" argument has degenerated into complete comedy anyway. So I'm just posting a few more punchlines.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
How do I set a laser printer to stun?

Which means plants exposed to higheer CO2 levels will be viable in areas with marginal water availability. Given that this planet has an abundance of arid environments available, the increase in plant growth will provide a negative gain to the atmospheric CO2 balance.

Time to stop the mad dash to write legislation and go back to the drawing board to revise the models yet again.

--
Paul Hovnanian     mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
My password is my dog's name. My dog is named %8Nk=14hD

Every cow fart counts!

-- Paul Hovnanian mailto: snipped-for-privacy@Hovnanian.com

------------------------------------------------------------------ It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word. -- Andrew Jackson

Anecdotal evidence. Correlation is not causation.

joe

That's why we need *more* CO2, to feed the population when it has reached its peak of 11 billion. ;)

joe

See? That's why I always maintain that you can't trust models outside their region of calibration.

joe

That 'measurable upset' is also BS.

joe

Everything in science is correlation.

--

Rick

John Larkin isn't an ironist.

You snipped my point about that

"Probably not. Most things are poisonous in large enough doses - ignorance comes to mind."

What's innocuous in low concentrations becomes dangerous pollution if there's too much of it.

Water vapour levels don't get high enough to threaten life. Enough water can drown you, and live steam can give you lethal burns (scalds) - so it really can be dangerous - but both situations are outside the EPA's remit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Actually, it's not, but Joey Hey has a very unreliable BS detector. He fail s to recognise denialist and anti-vaccination BS, and accepts it as gospel, but rejects climate science as BS. Since he clearly can't tell shit from s hinola his shoes probably don't smell nice either.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

als

e e

Don't give up the day job.

There is a non-dumb approach to the "plants capture CO2" theme - they basic ally turn CO2 into carbohydrate. and if you get carbohydrates hot enough yo u can drive off the water, and leave charcoal, which is inert. This has bee n touted as a potentially effective mechanism for carbon capture, though no t a particularly cheap one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It's very basic physics:

It does not refer to the CO2 levels in a greenhouse as one blithering individual surmised.