Posted by: graemebird | September 11, 2006

CO2

Last I looked this hadn’t gotten through. I suspect this one will get through on Prodeo. I was going to combine it with an iTunes reccomendation. But the combo iTunes reccomendation will have to wait.

We are very far (I would say at least five centuries) from having to worry about an out-of-control heating. But naturally I’m guessing. Nonetheless I don’t reject this prospect entirely out of hand for all time. But the fact is that since we are in an ice age A PRIORI the major risk ought to be considered to be a new glaciation.

In any case CO2 comes with so many positive benefits. You will have to go to Prodeo and see just how hard leftists will work to derail the public understanding of this rather prosaic fact. Its worth reading this because you may think its just me being silly. Or you may begin to see the way, that once a movement gets an enourmous amount of momentum,…. you might seee how it ropes in everyone in a sort of organic way…. The momentum seems to draw to itself what it needs to keep itself going just like a fire drawing in oxygen.

Read the whole thread. Then after reading my post below you might retrospectively think of just what lengths the others went to deny a small and obvious point.

Here is the link:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/09/07/meltdown-in-siberia/#comment-144195

And here is the SCIENCE to stop you from falling for their leftist JIVE.

This is a post which as I speak these left-wingers are holding over:

“…. basically that in real-world ecosystems, the effect of increased CO2 on plant growth can’t be considered in isolation from other variables such as changes in precipitation, temperature (both averages and extremes), and availability of soil nutrients”

Yes it can. On the AVERAGE it can. And the contention I’m making that at least for the next several centuries extra CO2 is a massive positive net benefit. So we are talking about global averages here. Albeit that we might have to have a plan afoot to rein things in down the track.

And the other contention I’m making is that for the time being my HEDGEHOG-STRATEGY is quite sufficient. And the one big reaction a la le HEDGEHOG ought to be for us to be trying to slowly extend nature corridors everywhere. So that over many decades…. perhaps two centuries…

So that perhaps after two centuries few homo-sapiens will be very far from a massive contiguous unfenced curved path of trees that allows the critters to migrate…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now….. CO2 is the growth-limiting step barring massive artificial nitrogen depletion and some sort of mega-starvation of the normal spectrum of trace elements and minerals. And CO2 furthermore INCREASES precipitation and INCREASES the plant productivity of water because it reduces transpiration……

So the water side of things is taken care of if we are talking global-net-positive benefits-on-the-average. And I’m ONLY talking about global-net-positive benefits-on-the-average.

So what do we have here? The factors are water, CO2, Nitrogen and trace elements….

And we have taken care so far of water and CO2…. What about the Nitrogen? Perhaps CO2 depletes soil nitrogen?…

Well as we have SEEN…. and as my link SHOWS (third link in group of four above) CO2 INCREASES the amount of nitrogen in the soil.

But we have via links to this very thread a group of science workers, simply assuming that this is the opposite of the case? Why don’t we go with them when we have this perceived conflict of information?

Well my guy tested it out. And the other fellows (in one study at least) simply ASSUMED the opposite of my guys findings.

But I can read your minds and hear you thinking…. “But this cannot be right. How could we be so fortunate as for the CO2 to not only speed up the plant growth but enrich the soil with Nitrogen while its doing it?”

Well the FACT of the matter is that we ARE so fortunate, and there is a very simple reason for this if you consider a plant to be like a factory………..

Whereas currently the plants can only GET-AT CO2 by picking the CO2 molecules out of AIR which has only 387 parts per million of CO2 and 999613 parts per million of……………OTHER STUFF.

(in most recently published books its 380, but since its growing at .4% per year I’ll go with the 387 figure I saw somewhere or other)

It must be pretty tricky to pick up those CO2 molecules.. out of the air… when the air is only 387 parts CO2 and 999613 parts other stuff.

Whereas this sparseness of the target molecule is the case with CO2………

But with NITROGEN matters are somewhat different…

For one thing most plants are not constituted by as much NITROGEN in their WHOLE being as they are by HYDROGEN, OXYGEN AND CARBON…. And they can get more then enough OXYGEN from water and CO2. So much so that they end up crapping/exhaling much of THAT oxygen.

By weight the NITROGEN component of your average plant would be somewhat miniscule.

And yet as we said that vital CO2 only constitutes 387 parts per million of the AIR the plant has to work with whereas (water vapour aside) NITROGEN constitutes 780,080 parts per million of THAT self-same air.

NITROGEN CONSISTS OF SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND AND EIGHTY PARTS PER MILLION OF THE AIR THAT PLANTS WORK WITH IN PRODUCTION.

So it is no MYSTERY then, when MY scientist finds out that given enough CO2 the plants actually have Nitrogen TO BURN, so to speak, and start depositing the extra NITROGEN in the soil and thus ENRICH, rather then deplete the soil with nitrogen.

And this seems to be so much the case that MUNN’s science workers had to artificially deplete the soil of Nitrogen in order to get their negative results. And actually they probably bullshitted where that is concerned anyway. Because leftists are liars.

Now to the FINAL element……………..

We have dealt with the Water the CO2 and the Nitrogen. And we have found that extra CO2 ought to help with ALL OF THESE, and that my scientist ought to be believed on all counts…… And that this is very much relevant to the theses that I’m trying to put over here.

But the last element was TRACE ELEMENTS…… We haven’t dealt with the trace elements. And if CO2 depletes the trace elements then this is a VERY serious matter indeed.

How many billion years have plants been around?

I’m not looking it up. But lets go with the last 500 million years only. Now if growing a lot of stuff exhausted the soil we’d all be pretty messed up already wouldn’t we?

YES WE WOULD. AFTER 500 BLOODY MILLION YEARS WE WOULD.

We’d be in trouble if 500 million years of growing stuff exhausted the soil.

We surely would and there can be no denying this.

So whats happened? Well on average the trace elements never LEAVE the situation…. for Petes sakes. You have leaves falling… THEY ROT with the help of bacteria… you have animals dying THEY ROT TOO… the animals eat stuff…. AND THEY EXCRETE ALL THAT STUFF…… there are EARTH-WORMS…. and so forth…..

And so its bollocks to think that there will be this NET depletion of trace elements and we know this is not the case because things have been growing for all the time of our sample period…….. Our sample period being 500 million years.

So there is just no sense or reason to believe that CO2 is going to tire out nature in the way so far suggested on this thread?

Makes no sense at all.

It makes no sense to think that CO2 will act like a ONE-OFF-SHOT of speed, or cocaine………….. and that then nature will get tired.

“THEY SAID THAT CO2 WAS ‘NATURES COCAINE’. THEY SAID THAT CO2 WAS THE ‘SPEED-OF-GASSES’. THEY TELL US THAT CO2 IS THE AMPHETAMINE OF GASSES, IN THAT CO2, WILL MAKE MOTHER NATURE WORK TOO TOO HARD…………. AND THEN CO2 WILL WEAR THE OLD BITCH DOWN.”

You see the above is what you guys were trying to put over and its just not plausible.

It’s just SILLY. We have accounted for water, CO2 and Nitrogen. The trace elements are recycled endlessly in any natural system.

But in the hydroponic world…

That is to say OUTSIDE the world of nature…..

In the world of commercial crops for example….

OF COURSE you are going to have to REPLACE these TRACE ELEMENTS that will be depleted.

Thats no problem and will be cheaper with all this ambient CO2 taking care of the big three (water, nitrogen, CO2)……….ON AVERAGE.

So if some science workers allege they’ve done a study where CO2 TIRES out the soil and by inference suggest that it will tire out NATURE ITSELF……

If some bogus tax-eating science-workers in cahoots with some dopey journalists try and tell you that CO2 will LEAVE MOTHER NATURE JADED AND DEPLETED and set us up for a MUNN-LIKE-MEGA-DISASTER….

….Then you will know whats going on won’t you?

You see what these bloody science workers will have done is that they will have grown some stuff… cut it out…. taken it away….. grown some other stuff…. cut THAT out… and they will have taken THAT away….. And so forth until the TRACE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN DEPLETED…

And then the dumb leftist bastards will make a lying leftist inference to THE NATURAL WORLD.

And I ask you?

Is THAT any way to conduct a scientific experiment on the public tit?

I…………don’t………THINKso!!!!!!!!!

Advertisements

Responses

  1. weathergirl has dedicated a post to you – see the latest Prodeo

  2. Yes, that’s right Birdy.

    Keep listening to the voices in your head.

    The voices always know best.

    Just keep listenin’.

  3. What’s your scientific argument Munn. You are always a bit short on scientific arguments.

    Of course cheap food and water mean nothing to smug bastards like yourself. But bubbleboy one ought to be able to get beyond this ME ME ME outlook and one ought to be able to see that FEW THINGS could be more evil then imposing costs on people on the one hand and depriving them of lower food prices and more fresh water on the other.

  4. bssfmwfghu

    ezfjwjznj ifiwfhcijb mdwmmurpas zklbwzuxag

  5. Carbon dioxide is needed in a hydroponic garden to guarantee continued plant growth because it is required for photosynthesis. Many gardeners do not realize that the larger their hydroponic garden is, the more their plants need carbon dioxide for respiration. Plants that are grown in a small greenhouse are especially susceptible to growth problems due to lack of sufficient carbon dioxide.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: