Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Drank thee deep and long of the woke pablum. It appears you do not understand photosynthesis.This is a literal line from the article:
On the flip side, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow, and the more they suck from the atmosphere. That’s a negative feedback system, and it tends to moderate changes.
This person is a ****ing buffoon.
This is a literal line from the article:
On the flip side, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow, and the more they suck from the atmosphere. That’s a negative feedback system, and it tends to moderate changes.
This person is a ****ing buffoon.
Drank thee deep and long of the woke pablum. It appears you do not understand photosynthesis.
Managing Carbon Dioxide in Your Grow Space
February 25, 2014 by fifthseason 53 Comments
If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!
CO2 levels in greenhouses
I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.Why? please explain what is wrong. Thanks in advance.
Go to the embedded link that this airhead woman herself cites in your article. It says the polar opposite of what she states in her goofy manifest. Here is the summary, verbatim:I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.yaleclimateconnections.org
I'd explain it to you but it requires understanding science beyond a third-grader's comprehension.
More CO2 in the atmosphere hurts key plants and crops more than it helps » Yale Climate Connections
The familiar adage - too much of a good thing is a bad thing - applies to atmospheric carbon dioxide: In higher concentrations, it is a damaging pollutant.yaleclimateconnections.org
This is a literal line from the article:
On the flip side, the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants grow, and the more they suck from the atmosphere. That’s a negative feedback system, and it tends to moderate changes.
This person is a ****ing buffoon.
Was in Chicago this week and froze my ass off. I thought the climate was getting warmer?
Sweet argument.
Are you one of those doomsdayers who believes it's all over in 30 years?
Screw that. I'm gonna live it up. I'm gonna drive my SUV (actually, we have 2) spend time on my boat, fly to great vacations. I'm not worried about it.Nope. I dont know when doomsday might be. Very complicated system with all kinds of feedback loops all over. Since we don’t know when a runaway feedback loop will doom us maybe it is wise to be cautious.
Screw that. I'm gonna live it up. I'm gonna drive my SUV (actually, we have 2) spend time on my boat, fly to great vacations. I'm not worried about it.
Sure, I'll put out the recycling bin, but unless you're riding a bike to work, don't preach to me.
That's called a ten-year-old's understanding of science. Is putting infinite gas in a car going to make it go faster?This is called science. They literally pump CO2 into greenhouses.
Sweet. You are really sticking it to the libs. Not at all curious about what are actions are doing to future generations?
Ask, I don’t believe individuals reducing their usage will do much for climate change anyway. Need policy and technology.
Your analogy makes no sense at all.That's called a ten-year-old's understanding of science. Is putting infinite gas in a car going to make it go faster?
Yes, that's the point. Saying "More CO2 in the air = healthier plants" is the same type of stupid.Your analogy makes no sense at all.
Actually no it isn't. We KNOW that most plants evolved at a much higher C02 concentration in the atmosphere (well over 1000 ppm). We have also proven that with higher C02 levels plants grow much faster and better. Even NASA has shown that the Earth is greening as C02 levels have risen.Yes, that's the point. Saying "More CO2 in the air = healthier plants" is the same type of stupid.
Climate change is very complex. There are many variables at play. Pointing to one likely results in a conclusion that is far too simplistic and inaccurate. At 1500ppm, the human race will be extinct and the planet will look like Venus. Greenhouses will not matter.Drank thee deep and long of the woke pablum. It appears you do not understand photosynthesis.
Managing Carbon Dioxide in Your Grow Space
February 25, 2014 by fifthseason 53 Comments
If you are green to gardening you might not know that carbon dioxide, the gas we all exhale, is critical to plant growth and development. Photosynthesis, the process through which plants use light to create food, requires carbon dioxide. CO2 concentration in ambient air ranges from 300-500 parts per million (ppm), with a global atmospheric average of about 400 ppm. If you are growing in a greenhouse or indoors, the CO2 levels will be reduced as the plants use it up during photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 levels in these environments is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%!
CO2 levels in greenhouses
Yeah, most of that "greening" is coming from the Arctic you idiot.Actually no it isn't. We KNOW that most plants evolved at a much higher C02 concentration in the atmosphere (well over 1000 ppm). We have also proven that with higher C02 levels plants grow much faster and better. Even NASA has shown that the Earth is greening as C02 levels have risen.
And that is already well underway . . .Yeah, most of that "greening" is coming from the Arctic
So, you don't ride a bike to work.
That makes you a hypocrite.
Well that's good. Now I won't feel so guilty.Nope. I just said I don’t think individuals cutting back won’t do much.
This has to be one of the dumbest takes ever considering the planet had ~7000 ppm when the greatest explosion of life occurred 54 million years ago.Climate change is very complex. There are many variables at play. Pointing to one likely results in a conclusion that is far too simplistic and inaccurate. At 1500ppm, the human race will be extinct and the planet will look like Venus. Greenhouses will not matter.
That's called a ten-year-old's understanding of science. Is putting infinite gas in a car going to make it go faster?
It depends on the infinite gas octane rating!That's called a ten-year-old's understanding of science. Is putting infinite gas in a car going to make it go faster?
This is all bullshit unless countries like China, Russia, and India buy into the same things as Europe and maybe the US do. Right now they are not on-board because they know it will have serious implications to their plans for world hegemony. Let the stupid Europeans and Americans self-immolate while we continue business as usual………?????Sweet. You are really sticking it to the libs. Not at all curious about what are actions are doing to future generations?
Ask, I don’t believe individuals reducing their usage will do much for climate change anyway. Need policy and technology.
This is all bullshit unless countries like China, Russia, and India buy into the same things as Europe and maybe the US do. Right now they are not on-board because they know it will have serious implications to their plans for world hegemony. Let the stupid Europeans and Americans self-immolate while we continue business as usual………?????
It is not possible to reverse global warming by unilaterally reducing carbon emissions. We know for a certainty that most of Asia, Africa, the Mideast and Latin America are not going to stop burning fossil fuels. It is also well known that China and India are planning to build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants during the next decade. Russia is building a natural gas pipeline to Germany. Brazilian farmers continue to burn down the rain forests in the Amazon River Basin.Or we can be leaders and develop the technology and infrastructure. Are we all to just go off a cliff blaming each other while doing nothing to stop it?
This is fallacious thinking. If China, Russia, and India don’t buy into the US and Europe thinking, it won’t matter what the US and Europe do. Why is this so hard to understand? China and India are the world’s largest carbon emissions generators by a fair margin.Or we can be leaders and develop the technology and infrastructure. Are we all to just go off a cliff blaming each other while doing nothing to stop it?
It is not possible to reverse global warming by unilaterally reducing carbon emissions. We know for a certainty that most of Asia, Africa, the Mideast and Latin America are not going to stop burning fossil fuels. It is also well known that China and India are planning to build hundreds of new coal-fired power plants during the next decade. Russia is building a natural gas pipeline to Germany. Brazilian farmers continue to burn down the rain forests in the Amazon River Basin.
The only way to reduce greenhouse gases to pre-industrial levels is to sequester carbon. Plant a trillion trees. Fertilize the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton growth. Switch from gasoline to flexfuel like Brazil has done but also incorporating the new technology of fermenting cellulosic ethanol.
These endeavors can be done by the US and our allies without the cooperation of China or Iran or Russia. Sequestering carbon is our only realistic hope of reversing global warming.
This is fallacious thinking. If China, Russia, and India don’t buy into the US and Europe thinking, it won’t matter what the US and Europe do. Why is this so hard to understand? China and India are the world’s largest carbon emissions generators by a fair margin.
You just keep dancing around the issue. They’ll likely just keep on polluting like they have been. What are going to do? Start WW III because China and Russia don’t care about the environment as passionately as you do?I’d you are a leader I. Developing the technology perhaps those other countries will adopt when the technology is mature. We’ve already let China out to a huge lead in solar panel production. Why shouldn’t that have been us leading the world?
FIFYDeveloping the technology perhaps those other countries will steal when the technology is mature.