See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: CO2 is NOT BAD it's GOOD
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 28, 2009
Author: author
Post Date: 2009-06-28 17:07:00 by Disgusted
Keywords: None
Views: 101
Comments: 2
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….
Every scientist knows this,
but it doesn’t pay to say so…
Global warming, as a political vehicle,”-
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...
==
NASA
the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.
When scientists talk about productivity they are specifically talking about how much carbon ends up stored in the living biomass—roots, trunks, and leaves of plants—after they tally up carbon gains through photosynthesis and carbon losses through respiration. This tally of gains minus losses is called “net primary production.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Glo...
Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.
The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the CO2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.
http://homeharvest.com/carbondioxideenrichmen...
Scores of laboratory and field studies show that higher CO2 concentrations help most plants grow faster, stronger, and more profusely, utilize water more efficiently, and resist pollution and other environmental stresses.[102]
Needless to say, all animals directly or indirectly depend on plants as a food source.
Based on numerous empirical studies, the 100ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 content over the past 150 years has increased mean crop yields by the following amounts:
wheat, 60 percent;
other C3 cereals, 70 percent;
C4 cereals, 28 percent;
fruits and melons, 33 percent;
legumes, 62 percent;
root and tuber crops, 67 percent;
and vegetables, 51 percent.[103]
Were it not for the extra CO2 put into the atmosphere by fossil fuel combustion, either many people now living would not exist, or many forests now standing would have been cleared and turned into farmland—or both.
CO2 emissions are literally greening the planet, enhancing biodiversity and global food availability. Continuing CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere will be necessary to feed a global population expected to increase by 3.3 billion over the next 50 years—and limit pressures to convert forests and wetlands into cropland.[
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Disgusted (#0)
We're back into global cooling, which is fine with me. Maybe it'll slow populatin growth. I don't see why the West should use its technology and know-how to feed the ungrateful savages of Africa, Asia and South America,
end of story, bump
#2. To: Disgusted (#0)
There's no place better thanTurtle Island.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
