In praise of CO2

I love you man.......

 

You should invest in property on Hudson Bay.

Tom

 

Wow, if that isn't spin I don't know what is. They even managed to tie all of the typical "global warming is good or isn't happening" spin into one article. Congrats on finding garbage!

 

F8L, see my post in the "why hybrids are bad for the earth" thread. According to the actual NASA research on this topic, a) photosynthesis in the oceans is down about 6% over this period (attributed to lower upwelling of nutrients from cold waters due to higher surface temperatures), b) the increased photosynthesis on land is largely attributed to longer growing seasons (more warmth and light in the right places, and more water), c) the direct effect of C02 fertilization in natural ecosystems is small, as C02 is typically not the rate limiting factor in plant growth. But this fellow is an anti-nuke who lionized global warming deniers in his book. So he couldn't just cite the actual research findings, which would have said, in essence, for now, the positive effect of global warming on land-based photosynthesis more than offset the negative effect on ocean-based photosynthesis. Instead this was spun into an incorrect story that the direct fertilization effect of C02 is the reason for the growth.

 

Nothing in this week's news about the wonders of DDT? Or the beauty of real estate in Love Canal?

 

Ah, man, don't even get me started on DDT. It's like global warming in a nutshell. Denialists with articles up on the Fox News Website, cherrypicked research, grand conspiracy, impact on raptor eggs was a myth, misleading gummint namby-pambies who can't let the marketplace decide the risks (ignoring the fact that it was a Republican administration that banned it.), scientific fraud, conspiracy by the peer-reviewed journals. The whole nine yards. Plus, of course, we had good ol' Congressman (and former exterminator) Tom Delay say DDT was not harmful and wanting to have the ban lifted. I mean, we haven't used it here since '72, haven't produced it here since '85, we still eat it every day from the residues still in our soil, ... and the ban still generates hate mail. Might have been that the benefits outweighed the risks but there's no way to tell from what gets put out by the DDT denialists.

 

Do you know where it IS produced? Apparently it's still in use in many parts of the world. Friends in Africa say it's used in the hospitals there, sprayed like a fog in every room, occupied or not.

 

Well, actually, dusting it inside homes is not such a bad concept, or so I am told, from a public health standpoint. Not that I'd ever try it but I think there is some kind of a case for that in areas where insect-borne diseases are prevalent. It was spreading a bazillion pounds of it on cropland that wasn't so smart.

Ah, my information may be somewhat dated. WHO's came out against it in 2007. Wikipedia seems to have a pretty thoughtful discussion of the subject (using DDT for malaria control in the 3rd world.) Ah, yes, I'd forgotten the quote about environmentalists causing more deaths than Hitler -- that's in there. Always nice to see people who can discuss a topic with reasoned argument and never have to resort to hyperbole to get a point across.

I didn't find out where it's being made.

DDT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

i thought this was going to be a thread about a new beer tapper

 

I'll check out your post. Generally speaking fixed nitrogen is usually the limiting factor in plant growth. It's funny how they didn't mention any other limiting factors or how long it takes to form rich soils. People who believe in this garbage generally have no understanding of biology and assume that a bunch of CO2 in the air will = the carboniferous period.

 

I say lets all chip in for glass dome for Kow's home, and feed him nothing but CO2, he loves it so much, lets not deprive him of it.

 

Of course I do (see below for link). That was not my argument though. CO2 levels obviously effect plant growth as they require the gas for part of the Calvin Cycle. What is not mentioned in that article is that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially if added too quickly which does not allow ecosystems and plant biology to adapt. On a geologic timescale this is not a problem but on a human timescale this can be catestrophic. CO2 does more than just supply plants with one part of a host of chemicals required for proper growth, it weathers rocks when subject to ultraviolet radiation and combined with water (carbonic acid), it damages forests and crops when in it alters chemstry of water (streams, lakes, oceans, aquifers, and rain) with a subsequent change of pH as well as in soils. While not as destructive as acid rain formed by nitrogen or sulfur compounds, CO2 derived acids can be quite potent in heavy concentrations. One must also consider that CO2 is not the only gas or pollutant emmited during industrial processes.........

So what you say? We can just continue to add nitrogen and other chemicals via our industrial processes to make up for any other deficiencies? Read on..

~ Fixing Nitrogen Levels

So where do we draw the line at our fiddling with complex systems???


For information on the effects of the addition of too much nitrogen via pollution see below:

Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition and Habitat Alteration in Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems in Southern California: Implications for Threatened and Endangered Species1

THE IMPACT OF ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN DEPOSITION ON LONG ISLAND SOUND

Nitrogen pollution boosts plant growth in tropics by 20 percent - UC Irvine

Same article as above but from Science Daily

​