Your plants love it because it raises the temperature in your greenhouse. I don't think people WANT to believe that Global Warming is real and that colors their ability to perceive objective analysis. Perhaps including yourself.
That betrays you, shows you don't know what you're talking about here. Generating and adding in extra CO2 to a greenhouse has nothing whatsoever to do with temperature. CO2 is one of the two ingredients for photosynthesis.
I see. You conclude that if their are two obstacles in front of you, you will only see one. Very Texan of you. One big obstacle.
Actually they grow better because the take in CO2 and give off O2. CO2 is the same to plants as Oxygen is to animals.
But what the heck, the ppm concentration of CO2 has risen by 26.06% from 1960 to present. The average temperature has risen by 5.07%. Why exactly are they not rising by the same amount if one is the direct result of the other?
What are you taking about?
Global climate change people keep pointing to CO2 as the cause. If it was the sole cause, the the rise in one would directly correlate to the rise in the other. There would not be a 21% difference between the two. That 21% difference pretty much confirms that man-made CO2 is not the only factor, in fact, it pretty much proves that it may not even be the majority causal factor.
As to your greenhouse demonstration. It simply doesn't work that way. Because of the exchange between CO2 and O2 from the plants, you would have to, depending on the number of plants and their size, keep adding massive amounts of C02 to even keep a certain level of concentration because the plants would be continuously scrubbing CO2 from the air.
Further, you attempt to link the rise in CO2 to only corporate activities. Without consumer demand, the corporations wouldn't put out any CO2. Do corporations exist to make a profit, sure. They make that profit by providing products and services to the customers. No product, no consumers, no corporation. People drive cars, people heat their houses, people cook their food, hell, people breath in oxygen and breath out CO2, every animal on the planet does it. From 1960 to 2010, the worlds population has increased by 125.33%, that alone is going to cause some rise in CO2, just from them breathing, if of course we don't have a equal increase in CO2 use by plants.
A few potential reasons
The amount of energy that is being reflected back instead of escaping is not linear in nature regarding the effects of CO2 (I do not know if this is true)
The amount of particulate matter that has been introduced into the atmosphere has increased, reducing the amount of energy that is being transmitted into the earths atmosphere, causing the temperature to be lower. On a global level I do not know the answer but the particulate matter that China is producing is massive, NA and Europe have decreased the amount they produce, so I am unsure if the total level is higher or lower
The energy being emitted by the sun has decreased over that time frame.
If I am not mistaken no scientist denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that increased amounts of it will cause an increase in temperature. That of course is in relation to the other factors that could cause the temperature to increase or decrease
LOL - I really appreciated this gem from the article: "This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day."I appreciate the comments. Eyeball to eyeball with ostriches. A good optical acupuncturist might be able to cure that sand in the eye problem. I want to watch.
No one said it was the only factor.
To test Greenhouse gases, one would control conditions such as the number and size of plants to give the data validity. As I stated, this was done in the 1800s and is not a new phenomena.
If you had read the link, you would know that the last paragraph is explained in the narrative. Blame is distributed accordingly, not criminally, and the fact that what must be done to rectify the problem with a heavy impact on corporations is acknowledged. Consumerism is the problem, even if it is the current lifeblood of world economies at this time. It's just about the recognition of realities, like it or not.
LOL - I really appreciated this gem from the article: "This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day."
Frankly, this is what ought to happen with the planet's kooky anti-capitalists:
View attachment 67156540
"Optical acupuncturist?" :thinking
...on its way to wiping out life on earth as a matter of course in another mundane day of business.On an only slightly related note, I passed a semi-tanker which was apparently carrying liquid CO2 on the way to work today.
:funny: My money is on the bird unless the guy knows to lie down so the bird can't see him! :mrgreen:
Greetings, DaveFagan. :2wave:
Sand in the eye is a reference to the ostrich with its' head in the sand. Eyeball to eyeball with your head in the sand. Only way to commune with that ostrich. I have a phone link and it is slow to load photos, so I didn't load that photo. I should have. Read back a few posts and it will be more clear. #17
If as stated, perhaps so. I might go so far as to say we have evolved with capitalism, to the point we will have a seriously difficult time changing, if it's even possible.Does the problem seem insurmountable?
Not sure.Do you believe it?
Maybe.Can you help?
Not really. See above.Do you want to help?
Yes...kinda.Was this worth reading?
Long, tedious read, but necessary to form opinion to answer the OP question. Thank you.
Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans
Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans
Capitalism and the Destruction of Life on Earth: Six Theses on Saving the Humans
"In the early 1960s, CO2ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74ppm compared to last year -- "the biggest increase since benchmark monitoring stations high on the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Loa began taking measurements in 1958."[1] Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3 million and 5 million years ago, when global average temperatures were 3 degrees or 4 degrees Centigrade hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40 meters higher, jungles covered northern Canada and Florida was under water - along with coastal locations we now call New York City, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others.
Crossing this threshold has fueled fears that we are fast approaching "tipping points" - melting of the subarctic tundra or thawing and releasing the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom - that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it: "I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles, set up the first monitoring stations in 1958: "At this pace, we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades.""
"
1. CAPITALISM IS, OVERWHELMINGLY, THE MAIN DRIVER OF PLANETARY ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE
From climate change to resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is today a roaring, out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, drilling, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planet's last accessible resources to turn them all into "product" while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons.
Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 billion to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on.[3]
At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O Wilson says, "half the world's great forests have already been leveled, and half the world's plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century." Corporations aren't necessarily evil - although plenty are diabolically evil - but they can't help themselves. They're just doing what they're supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can't help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That's what shareholders demand.[4] BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can't resist mining Australia's abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19 percent of Australia's gross domestic product and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the worst driver of global warming. IKEA can't help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building its flimsy, disposable furniture (IKEA is the third-largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can't help it if the cost of extracting the "rare earths" it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo - violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. [5] Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds and small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world's food supply while drenching the planet with their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. [6] This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on Earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become.""
"SOLUTIONS TO THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ARE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO PREVENT ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE BECAUSE, SO LONG AS WE LIVE UNDER CAPITALISM, ECONOMIC GROWTH HAS TO TAKE PRIORITY OVER ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS OR THE ECONOMY WILL COLLAPSE AND MASS UNEMPLOYMENT WILL BE THE RESULT
We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop overconsuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the Earth, its waters and its atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can't be recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of other species to flourish. We don't need any new technological breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we're doing. But we can't stop because we're all locked into an economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs."
Does the problem seem insurmountable?
Do you believe it?
Can you help?
Do you want to help?
Was this worth reading?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?