CO2 is green!

[JonThm]

Carbon dioxide is planned fluid. Oxygen is the waste they excrete. Animals evolved to metabolise oxygen and plant bulk, and excrete more plant food

[alldayubum]

Thanks for your responce

[alldayubum]

this guy sounds interesting... i just dont understand what hes saying

[JonThm]

@alldayubum plants taking in carbon and sulphur dioxides to grow.  The produce carbohydrates and excrete oxygen.

[JonThm]

Plants need water and carbon dioxide plus sunlight to grow. Carbon dioxide is a limit on their growth. So in 200 years plant growth has increased, but there is no more carbon dioxide left in the evening air.

[JonThm]

CO2 at the 0.0002% level has no effect oln the IR propeties of the air! Been atthat level fro 200 years, due to green plants. Harvard says GW just wrong!

[JonThm]

CO2 levels have remained static for 200 years - Harvard University. No possible effect on weather - no matter how stupid you are!

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2, and excrete O2

[JonThm]

How hard is is fro you to accept, plants take in CO2 to support all lfie on Earth: THey excrete O2 as a result. No CO2, and all life on Earth is dead

[JonThm]

Greem plants gto busy with CO2 at 40%. Today they peg it at a global level of 2 parts per million. More CO2=more life

[JonThm]

@22munky22 i have an M.Eng. from sheffeild University UK: This is O level pysics though! Yuo learned it age of 14

[JonThm]

Plants sink free CO2 in the air to 3.7 ppm. More CO2 emission just means more life on Earth. THe world has been cooling from 1998 incidentally.

[JonThm]

@mysticdark1 New Scietist 2004 printer 3.7 ppm. If the GLOBAL level was 300 ppm, plants would grow 100 times quicker! THings slow down when CO2 reaches 1%.

[mysticdark1]

agin you are saying that if there was more O2 then humans would grow bigger. it does not matter how much CO2 you have, photosynthesis still takes the same amount of time. So PLANTS WONT GROW BIGGER

[JonThm]

More CO2, more life on Earth!

[JonThm]

There is 3.7 parts per million CO2 in the world air, which has been cooling since 1998

[JonThm]

CO2 levels in the air have not risen in recorded histroy. They were higher in warm periods of histroy. The sea sinks more CO2 than tyhe land does. CO2 = life. Nuclear Power = death. Choose.

[JonThm]

Life turns CO2 into O2: So there si 25% O2, but onyl 0.000037% CO2 in the air: Whic hyour lfie depends on. More CIO2, more ;life on Earth, no more CO2 in the air.

[JonThm]

There are massive sinks in the water that stop the Ph of water moving from 7. COI2 is the gas of life, GW was nuclear PR

[ZED74]

I bellive the co2 will increase plant growth dramaticly , up to six time i hear .. As for the parts per million figure I think you are both close enough , its a very small amount .. Still I say we can never have enough trees and vegetation !

[JonThm]

If CO2 had gone up 100 fold to 0.00037%, grass would grow by 5 cm a night, not half a millimeter a week. Don't you think we all would ahve noticed?

[ZED74]

Lol yep ,, It would grow like mad ,, and we'd be gasping for air ...

[JonThm]

No, there would be 50% O2 in teh air, from all teh CO2 plants were getting. Cutting teh grass would be so non trivial though!

[mysticdark1]

you logic makes no sense

photosynthesis takes the same amount of time to occur, just because you have more of a reactant does not mean the reaction will go faster

[JonThm]

@mysticdark1 CO2 is fixed at 3.7 ppm out of town. More CO2 = more life on Earth. And towns are a tiny, tiny area. No faster reactiion, just more life. No more free CO2 in the air. THat is a lie from nuclear power and its paid stooges.

[JonThm]

All the CO2 in teh air comes from teh oxidation of carbohydrates: CO2 in the gas of lfie.

[JonThm]

Animals evolved to metabolise teh waste gas of plants, O2, and turn it back int otheir food CO2. Becasue plants hit a brick wall to their growth at teh end of teh Creatious. O2 = waste gas from plants.

[mysticdark1]

Uh, thats not how animals evolved

Are you aware that plants go through cellular respiration?????

they produce CO2 as well

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2, and excrete O2: Animals evolved to breath in O2, eat plants, and breathe out CO2.

[mysticdark1]

PLants also take in O2 and create CO2, plants have mitochondria to do cellular respiration. A ninth grade would know this from a simple biology class

[JonThm]

At night plants take in O2, during the day they release it! That is where mitochondria came from

[mysticdark1]

actually though they are called independent and dependent light reactions both happens at the presence of light, the independent one doesn't require light. Stop google-ing random facts about plants, its obvious you dont understand much about plants, then how could possibly comprehend the effects that CO2 has on our planet?

[JonThm]

@mysticdark1 Plants in the light turn CO2 into O2 and life - included yours! CO2=life. No Google required.

[mysticdark1]

water is necessary fro life too, but if you drink to much you will die

[JonThm]

@mysticdark1 But there is onyl 3.7 parts per million CO2 in the air, which is the limit t olife on Earth. More CO2 emissions, more life, not more CO2 in the air.

[heavendivine1]

your just an idiot

[JonThm]

No. I have an M.ERng, and teh above is high school biology. Did you ever get a neducation?

[runNannirun]

dude, we are sending out so much carbon dioxide into the air that it is effecting the ozone layer. There are not nearly enough plants in the world to filter all of our co2 emissions out of the air... we are at 387 ppms right now and the healthy level is 350... i wish plants were enough, but they just wont cut it. We need to change the way we live

[JonThm]

New Scientist published the data 3.7 ppm globally! THe world has been cooling sincec 2005: GW is PR from nuclear power - who pay you!

[flakingnapstich]

Actually, New Scientist published a global figure of 385 ppm.

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2, so figures higher than 0.00037% are ony lpossible in cities. Othwise plant groth would ahve gone up over 100 fold.

[flakingnapstich]

JT, New Scientist, the publication you keep claiming is your source, has never published the numbers you attribute to them. You're lying about these numbers, and making up excuses for the fact that New Scientist doesn't contain the numbers you claim.

[JonThm]

The Oct 2nd article has bee nconfired by other youtubers. Buy a Geiger counter, and take your own pulse: Data from BNFL.

[flakingnapstich]

The popularity of bad data doesn't magically turn bad data into good data. I find it amusing you're telling people to use a Geiger counter to measure Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The longer we talk, the more ignorant of science you show yourself to be.

[JonThm]

Geiger counters measure high frequency electromagnetic radaition. All life on Earth produces gammas, with no fisisonabl;e material about. Explain.

[flakingnapstich]

That's easy to explain.

You're wrong.

Life on Earth does NOT produce gamma radiation. I've repeatedly asked you for sources demonstrating your wild claims but you have repeatedly refused to provide any. Reasserting your wild claims, still without evidence, does not constitute proof.

[JonThm]

Growing baceria, green plants in the light, animal blodo systems, water falls, breaking waves, life in the deep all give out gamma rays. and produce He. FACT.

[JonThm]

Plants sink CO2 down to 0.00037%: It was at 40% before green plants evolved. And now the world has been cooling for 4 years!

[runMariNannirun]

Climate Change is very very real and we are going to have to face that is a reality. Its ignorant people like you that are the reason we are in this mess in the first place.

[JonThm]

'Climae Change' is PR from nuclear power. CO2 in the air follows the wax and wane of plants, it has never lead the climae - it follows solar cycles. WitH A 28 YEAR CYCLE.

[flakingnapstich]

With all the rain forest that's being burned and the algae die offs being caused by pollution, the planet's ability to process CO2 is drastically diminished.

[JonThm]

Grass sinks CO2 well, as do deep sea bacteria. Trees are nto so good! They sink it down to 3.7 parts per million today, though this goes up in an ice age.

[JonThm]

The world has been cooling from 2005 - so GW was wrong. What does climate change even say? That we have weather? Welcome to the Earth.

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2: More CO21=more life. More nuclear power =less life! GW is p[ut abot by their paid stooges, or the thick!

[JonThm]

Green plants evolved with CO2 at 40%, and peg it at 0.00037% today. More emissions just means more life on Earth!

[ihatebuzzwords]

One last point: You are incorrect in saying that the level of co2 in our atmosphere is around 0.00037% (a claim you've made several times)

In fact, the co2 levels are around 370 parts per million. Expressed as a percentage, that is 0.037%.

Are you sure you have studied this subject? Frankly, I doubt it, as not only are your figures wrong, but I'm afraid your poorly formed arguments display considerable ignorance in this area.

[JonThm]

New Scientist, global CO2 is at 3.7 parts per million. This was my PhD area in 2001. Ever passed a puiblic exam?

[ihatebuzzwords]

Jon, please don't try to flaunt your failed credentials when you are so obviously incorrect.

A simple search in google will show you that the current concentration of co2 in our atmosphere is approximately 387 ppm.

Furthermore, if you search the newscientist website for an article titled "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter" you will find they list the concentration of co2 as being 380ppm, or 0.038%.

I suggest you read the whole article. You might find it enlightening.

[JonThm]

New Scientists Oct 2nd 2008: CO2 globally is at 3.7 ppm. Plants take in CO2, and excrete O2 - we breath in the waste of plants! More CO2= more life on Earth. More nuclear power =less life on Earth! Choose.

[flakingnapstich]

Let me get this straight.

ihatebuzzwords shows that your claimed source actually had different numbers than the ones you're quoting and your reply is to just quote the same numbers again, ignoring the fact that your alleged source for those numbers disagrees with you.

You might was well have stuck your fingers in your ears and said "la la la! I can't hear you!"

[JonThm]

New scientist published teh figure of 3.7 parts per million, for globla CO2. I think that is 0.00037%, or 0.000037%. Higher numbers are onyl local figures, like in town!

[JonThm]

New Scie ntist published the figure of 3.7 ppm in 2008! It only goes up in an ice age! Down in a warm period. Otherwise, more CO2=more life.

[flakingnapstich]

You're a liar JT. I just searched the New Scientist web site and no such article can be found online. The closest I found was one from 2009 entitled "How to survive the coming century " which lists the global level at 385 ppm.

What was the title of the article that gave you your mythical 3.7 PPM figure?

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2, so if CO2 had risen from the post industrial 3.7 ppm, plant yields would ahve gone up. It was in NS in 2007. Can't be bothered to lie. Go measure how fast your grass is growing. 3 m a month, 3.7 ppm. 3 mters a month, get back to me!

[flakingnapstich]

JT, How, exactly, is the growth rate of the grass in my yard going to prove anything about the Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere? CO2 isn't fertilizer. Adding more doesn't make plants grow faster.

Where did you 3.7 ppm number come from? It didn't come from New Scientist. They listed 385 ppm.

[JonThm]

The extra output from plants since the industrial revolution follows the rise in CO2 from 2 ppm to 3.7 ppm. If CO2 had rise n100 fold, so would all plant growth. Like for grass in your back yard.

[flakingnapstich]

Actually, New Scientist reported the number at 385 ppm, and as I and others have pointed out adding more CO2 doesn't increase plant growth. Biology doesn't work that way, but then, science isn't exactly your string suit.

[JonThm]

The US military now have got cold fusion to work: Go argue with them! Google"cold fusion"+"military research"

[flakingnapstich]

It doesn't matter if the US Military has found a form of Cold Fusion that they say works. It has NOTHING to do with your claims of fusion in burning candles or flowing steam.

[JonThm]

The deep sea produces He, O and gamam waves. Go argue with nature! I was todl about candles in 1983.

[flakingnapstich]

JT packs a LOT of logical fallacies into this one. First he again relies upon the Proof by Assertion fallacy by repeating his claim but STILL providing no sources. The line "Go argue with nature!" adds an Appeal to Ridicule while adding the Bare Assertion fallacy where he assumes something is true simply because the claim is made. Finally he ends with an appeal to authority fallacy by once again referencing a mysterious class from 1983. Still no actual sources though.

[ihatebuzzwords]

Everyone knows that plants absorb co2 and release o2 - this is nothing new.

However, if plants can absorb all the co2 we can throw at them, why are the co2 levels increasing? The fact is that our co2 emissions, combined with deforestation, has lead to a situation where our society emits more co2 than the world's plant-life absorbs.

Furthermore, plants may thrive on co2 but they don't thrive on sudden changes to their ecosystem (non-seasonal drought). See the S.American rainforest, for example.

[JonThm]

There is 0.00037% CO2 in the globla air. Green plants evolved with 40% CO2! So more CO2 emissions, more life on Earth. Learn you boilogy.

[ihatebuzzwords]

I repeat, if the flora on our planet is able to absorb *all* our co2 emission, then why have co2 levels increased over the past century? Or do you not accept that the level of co2 in our atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years?

The statement "more co2 emissions, more life on Earth" is a gross oversimplification. Even gradual changes in our ecosystem in the have led to mass extinction events in the past, so what will happen with a rapid change?

Yes, life will go on, but in what form?

[JonThm]

Green plants evolved with CO2 at 40%, it is now at 0.00037% globally: It is only higher near an engine exhaust. THe wordl has bee ncooling, naturally since 2005.

[Mikeishere1st]

It's NOT 'nuclear power' advocates - it's AL GORE, all his carbon trading companies and companies like GE, (owns NBC, Sci-Fi, Discovery, etc). Gore's made over $200 million since he left office and keeps spewing the same lies that our CO2 must be limited, (even though termites emit more GHG than human activity). But NATURE is proving Gore and James Hansen WRONG - sat temps show cooling since 2002 while CO2 keeps going up. Zero correlation = Gore's a fraud.

[JonThm]

Ploants take in CO2 to support life on Earth. THey excrete O2, whioch aniamls EVOLVE to convert back to their food - CO2. GW was seized on by Nuclear Power, to get more plants of death - with the approval of the green movement.

[JonThm]

Plants sin kCO2 down to 0.00037% today: Emissions will not raise this number, onyl an ice age will! At this level, CO2 has no effect on the world's climate. That is a lie from nuclear power, via their stooges.

[creamdaddy07]

It goes down because there are more plants to absorb CO2 in warm periods, I take it?..

Are you also saying that more CO2 could mean we are in an ice age because there are less plants around to absorb it, thus leaving more in the atmosphere?

Also, do you know if some plants/trees absorb more CO2 than others, and do you think that 'deforestation' and chopping down of woodland etc affects the CO2 levels? or do the existing plants begin to absorb more CO2 to balance this?...

[JonThm]

Unless we have an ice age, CO2 is pegged at 0.00037%. More CO2, more life on Earth! The onyl time ti rises, is in an ice age. In warm periods, it goes down. Tell Al Gore.

[creamdaddy07]

I'll look into it....

Ha, Al Gores film was just pure propaganda. Reason and facts don't work in debate against those types of political figures....

Their arguments are built on disinformation..

[JonThm]

Plants take in CO2 and release O2: Whic his why there is only 0.00037% CO2 in the globla air. The late Cretaceous mass extinction was caused by too little CO2. Even today it is a trace gas, more CO2, more life!

[creamdaddy07]

I wouldn't disagree.

What I would say is that for anybody who doesn't have expertise in this area, it is hard to get unbiased information on the climate.

Then again, the governments have done a good job in lying to us all on what affects 'climate change'- I can tell that what they say is nonsense.... but can any of the sheeple?...

[JonThm]

The 0.00037% CO2 in the air follows the wax and wane of plants. More CO2 just means more life, or we are in an ice age! In warm periods, it goes down.

[JonThm]

plants take in CO2 and reelase O2: THe mass extinction in the Creatacious was caused by too much O2, and nto enough CO2 - that is why animals evolved. I have an M.Eng in this stuff.

[JonThm]

I had a bad car accident, but am trying to save your life. What are you doing?

[japanrussell]

also.. are you too much of a puss to show other people`s comments?? afraid other people`s comments will show what a f`tard you are? such a dick!

[JonThm]

Say something interesting and not abbusive, and I will post you.

[JonThm]

I delete abusive comments, like yours. I HAVE AN M.ENG IN SYSTEM'S ENGINEERING. yUO EVER PASSED A PUBLIC EXAM: aLBERT EINSTEIN NEVER DID.

[JonThm]

Plants convert CO2 and water into carbohydrates adn oxygen. The dee psea produces CH4 from CO2 and H2O. Steam engines make He and O from H2O. This si not even taugh tat university. Your kettle does nuclear fusion from water though. The eyes are the result of a bad car accident. Your brain though, what caused that?

[XanatharEye]

Dewd I can't find where Princeton did anything with nuclear fission.....

[JonThm]

Nobelfuse did the work at Princton, but they have ignored it! Much t ohis annoyance. Boil a kettle with a Giga counter handy, and you can do nuclear fusion.

[flakingnapstich]

"Nobelfuse"? OK, now you're just making people up. Is this whole thing an act? Are you pulling a Cornswalled on us?

[JonThm]

That is the YOUTUBE name of Dr Solman Azar, at Princeton University.

[flakingnapstich]

Wait, you mean Solomon Azar, the nutjob who insists he's the messiah, and whose results have never been successfully reproduced by anyone else? They guy who make his claim to the media and has never even TRIED to get his "research" published in a peer reviewed journal?

THAT'S your source????

[JonThm]

CO2 levels were at 2 parts per million before the industrial revolution. New Scientsit said they were at 3.7 ppm in 2003. Any higher figure, and we would have seen a prop[ortional increase in plant yields, which we have not. We should do molecular nucl;ear fusion, power with no CO2. Don't yuou aggree?

[JonThm]

80% of CO2 emissions on Earth is from animals breathing out! Plants take it in, and produce plant bulk! There si 0.00037% CO2 in the air: THough if we generate our power usnig moilcular nuclear fusion, 100% of CO2 will be from natural sources. Molbular nuc lear fusion has been confimed by Princeton. Suck on it!

[linuxluver]

The burning of fossil fuels by the billions of tons over two centuries by an exponentially expanding human population has freed a lot of CO2 that would otherwise not be freed. It is the cumulative effect over many decades of the growing imbalance between CO2 emissions and capture that has lead to this problem. A threshold has been reached and all your plants can't sequester ENOUGH carbon to restore the balance.

[JonThm]

There is onyl 0.00037% CO2 in the air now - it is limited by grass taking CO2 in. In the Jerasic ferns pegged it to 0.0004%, and there was 60% more life on Earth, and sea levels were 65 meters lower. CO2 levels can't climb above 0.00037%, there si just more life oput there. So the readings showing higher CO2 levels are showing local levels at diesel engine exhausts. Not global: Bad data.

[KamiKaziChicken]

Plants have PLENTY of CO2. A study was carried out where plants were subjected to higher levels of CO2, and there was no net increase in biomass.

The problem is, we're cutting down the trees, meaning CO2 is released.

Surely the most sustainable idea is to prevent deforestation?

[JonThm]

There is 0.00037% CO2 in the air. at the end of teh Jurassic, there was 0.004% CO2 in the air, and 60% more lfie on Earth!

THe CO2 levels being quoted should mean grass is growing 4 cm a nighrt in your garden!

[linuxluver]

You touch on a good point. An earth where the levels of carbon had been restored to those that existed hundreds of millions of years ago would be much warmer than today. The issue for humans and other life today is what the EFFECT of the VERY RAPID (in geological terms) change to that state would be on those alive. A smaller human population could just move to better places. But we are now so many that such an adaptation isn't possible. Those who lose out will die. Avoiding that would be good.

[JonThm]

CO2 emissions have climed slowly over 200 years. CO2 levels in the air have not changed, as more grass has grown! CO2 emissions just serve to increase life. Measuremeents of increasing CO2 levels are wrong, as grass sinks CO2 at 0.00037%. It can't rise above this!

[JonThm]

CO2 supports life on Earth. Nuclear power wants to kill it!

[JonThm]

I do not understand you! Sorry.

[JonThm]

No. THere is onyl 0.00037% CO2 in the air - which goes up in an ice age. Over 2% we ahve a problem. Not today!

[JonThm]

There is 0.00037% of it in the air! Below the natural level of 0.0004% in the late Jurassic: When tehre was 60% more life on Earth! Plants started taking in CO2 when tehre was 40% of it in the air. Plants want all the CO2 they can get, and therer si 1/20,000 of the maim um level tehy wanted! Roler on more life!

[GOPpersona]

Now this was something that many people would find hard to believe. Plants NEED CO2, and of course animals need plants. The amount of agricultural growth that has occurred over the last century for crop fertility (from CO2) has led to a 15% increase in the amount of crops a farmer can grow. So help the environment, release CO2.

[gramcin]

I guess I though O2 was required for life - though plants make that from CO2!

[Springs44]

Humans pretty much eat plants, right? Or something else that eats plants? I think I learned that BEFORE school.

[jimisback]

You are correct!!!!!!

[JonThm]

Tell the world!