OT: "The Amazing Randi", of all people, has swallowed the GW dogma:

ge

of

or any

een

Someone has already tried a thing like that. It only works well for some plants. Others never produce fruit/seeds in that sort of environment.

Many years ago there was an experimental "farm" in the far north. It was an early experiment in making a closed loop system to produce meat and other food. The pumps to pump the water into the green house and other power plants were run from "bio-gas". The exhaust was directed directly into the green house to heat it and add CO2. With the long day light hours of the north, the extra CO2 and heat and the humid air, some plants grew "like wild fire".

More than 600-1000ppm of CO2 (

You might want to if you can't prevent hulking creatures from periodically crashing through the collector fields smashing panels, or swarms of flying beasties munching on the panels. You'd certainly want to be able to isolate failed (shorted) panels without losing too much area.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

The air we exhale is 3-5% CO2, about a kilogram per day. People begin to notice CO2 at roughly the 1% level, from what I've read. 10% is dangerous.

I'd imagine that an office or bedroom without active ventilation could have a considerable CO2 level. How about a parked car? How about a yurt with a cooking fire inside? Or a modern kitchen with a gas stove, with the oven and all four burners going, and 8 people at the table?

John

hmm.... al gore, jim hansen, and james randi, vs. bush, inhofe, and pat michaels; gee, it's so hard to know whom to believe.

e:

lot of engineers are curmudgeons, EE types included.

te:

ve

because they are rate limited by the nutrients they can take up via the roots. that's why they sell fertilizer. and why trees have more leaves.

often, by invading third world countries who have only a tenuous connection with whatever it is that they're coping with.

Photosynthesis seems to have developed quite early on (perhaps only a billion years or so after the first life), and today's plants are still using the technologies developed by bacteria a couple of billion years ago- quite possibly the wavelengths used represent the best light available back then. Those bacteria have long been coopted by eukaryotes as chloroplasts. There probably hasn't been an available route for a significant improvement in the process for the last couple of billion years- mitochondria haven't changed radically either.

Or it could be that the Intelligent Designer was having a bad halo day when he designed chloropasts. Teach the controversy, that's what I say.

JS

You are welcome.

I came across it in the last week and found it to be very informative... lots of details on the topic I had not gotten from any news source in two decades.

The ASHRAE essentially sperheaded the antismokerist movement - the ozonists and the warmingists have adopted their tactics of, essentially, the Big Lie:

Cheers! Rich

"While levels below 5,000 ppm are considered to pose no serious health impacts, experience indicates that individuals in schools and offices with elevated CO2 concentrations tend to report drowsiness, lethargy, and a general sense of stale air. Researchers are looking for linkages between elevated CO2 concentrations and reduced productivity and achievement." .. "Using CO2 as an indicator of ventilation, ASHRAE has recommended indoor CO2 concentrations be maintained at?or below?1,000 ppm in schools and 800 ppm in offices."

Of course if you don't mind getting sluggish and stupid, then maybe

Excuse me, I should have said "gloomy/leftist/incoherent people."

John

With no definition of "elevated."

Researchers are looking for linkages

"As an indicator of ventilation" makes it, well, just an indicator.

Maybe 2K PPM is fine. I'm exhaling 50,000 PPM, and inhaling that same air a second later, and I can't imagine the level in my lungs ever gets anywhere near as low as 2000. Do you ever sleep under the covers, or sit in a parked car, or in a still room? I'd suspect that we, the only creature that regularly cooks its food, are pretty well adapted to CO2.

Maybe those schools and offices are boring for other reasons.

John

The really frustrating thing about gloomy pessimists is how much more often they are right about the future than their cheerful optimistic friend are.

Have you, by any chance, read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb?

Things the "little gang" seem to have in common:

Most actually design electronics.

Most are self-employed.

Most are helpful to people who post questions.

Most have a sense of humor.

Most like each other.

Most are fairly conservative, in the libertarian sense of "leave me alone and I'll take care of myself"

Most are (I think) parents.

Most (I think) are not driven much by fear, in designing electronics or in living life.

That's interesting to me, how one's perceptions of fact and risk are so driven by personality.

It's also interesting that "denialist" has replaced "skeptic" or even "researcher" in climatology, the most fuzzy of "sciences." What the hell happened to phlogiston theory and crystal spheres and body humors?

John

About their own futures? Absolutely.

No. I'm now reading "The Return of History and the End of Dreams", which is gloomy enough for most anybody's needs.

John

You can't build a nuclear warhead either, so what's your point? Nowhere in the US Constitution or Bill Of Rights are we guaranteed the right to do either.

the

to

Peyote just grows by itself throughout its range. In fact, a good portion of its range is public land. Go arrest yourself.