Globe may be cooling on Global Warming

[HAL 9000 96]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

Show me how. Last I checked, excess food had its consequences.

Then again, you don't have to prove anything other than your typical one liners.

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

More CO2= more plant growth. More plant growth= greater uptake in CO2. The problem really isn't a problem.

Botany 101.

A plant can only take up so much CO2. In excess it becomes toxic. Plus, plants also need O2.

[Niels Bohr 72]

The plant gets O2 from hydolysis, breaking up the water molecule during photosynthesis.

CO2 + H2O --> C6H12O6 (alpha Glucose) + 6O2

Hmm....Where do plants need O2? Sorry, I don't mean to interfere. I need to refresh.

We're talking about light reaction plants, not dark reaction (chemosynthesis)

Edited May 3, 2008 by consolemaster

[Niels Bohr 72]

I forgot the coeeficient for CO2 and H2O, it should be 6 for each to balance the equation.

[GaryC 7]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

Show me how. Last I checked, excess food had its consequences.

Yeah, like more food to eat. Your right, reducing starvation is a bad thing.

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

More CO2= more plant growth. More plant growth= greater uptake in CO2. The problem really isn't a problem.

Botany 101.

A plant can only take up so much CO2. In excess it becomes toxic. Plus, plants also need O2.

You must have been asleep in Botany 101 class.

The presence of excess CO2 causes rapid growth and and increased reproduction. Sorry man, it's obvious your not a plant scientist. Plants are the main way the planet regulates the CO2 content of the atmosphere. A plant can live quite nicely in a pure CO2 environment BTW. In my Botany 230 class in college we did that very experiment to see how long the plant took to convert the CO2 to O2. In a sealed environment the plant thrived until it used up the CO2 and was left with only O2. At that point it died.

[HAL 9000 96]

The plant gets O2 from hydolysis, breaking up the water molecule during photosynthesis.

CO2 + H2O --> C6H12O6 (alpha Glucose) + 6O2

Hmm....Where do plants need O2? Sorry, I don't mean to interfere. I need to refresh.

We're talking about light reaction plants, not dark reaction (chemosynthesis)

Oh Joy Chem Day!

Plants need O2 to drive mitochondrial function (Oxidative phosphorylation) in the simultaneous production of ATP. Not all of it occurs in the stroma of the chloroplast. All eukaryotic organisms have mitochondria.

[HAL 9000 96]

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

Show me how. Last I checked, excess food had its consequences.

Yeah, like more food to eat. Your right, reducing starvation is a bad thing.

CO2 is plant food.

Too much food makes you fat. Fat like that is a leading cause of death. Same idea with the whole CO2 shebang.

worst analogy ever

More CO2= more plant growth. More plant growth= greater uptake in CO2. The problem really isn't a problem.

Botany 101.

A plant can only take up so much CO2. In excess it becomes toxic. Plus, plants also need O2.

You must have been asleep in Botany 101 class.

The presence of excess CO2 causes rapid growth and and increased reproduction. Sorry man, it's obvious your not a plant scientist. Plants are the main way the planet regulates the CO2 content of the atmosphere. A plant can live quite nicely in a pure CO2 environment BTW. In my Botany 230 class in college we did that very experiment to see how long the plant took to convert the CO2 to O2. In a sealed environment the plant thrived until it used up the CO2 and was left with only O2. At that point it died.

See above as for O2 physiology. There is redundancy in ATP production- one being primarily from CO2-driven photosynthesis and the other being from a consequence of O2-driven respiration at the mitochondrion.

Gary... Gary... Gary...

Do not put your foot in your mouth. What you are arguing is in a constant state where CO2 is diminishing while saying nothing about excess CO2. Of course, the plant dies from a lack of CO2; there isn't enough prime carbon to drive gluconeogenesis and the plant effectively "starves" to death.

The opposite, excess CO2, creates a condition that competes for part of the photosynthetic compounds responsible for photonic transfer and electron release in the stromal membranes inside the chloroplasts, with the net effect of cellular ATP being markedly reduced and voila, toxicity driving plant apoptosis (suicide). The mechanism is quite elegant and involves cooperation from the mitochondrion's release of its internal proteins that signal the rest of the cell's pro-apoptotic caspases to start chopping up DNA.

I recommend you "try" the same experiment you did in your Botany 230 class in the same closed environment but with 2-3 times the concentration of CO2 vs atmospheric CO2. Sure, you'll see a near logarithmic growth spurt at the beginning. But what about later on when cellular CO2 levels become cytotoxic? It seems that if you want to equate sleepiness to college courses you should perhaps have taken a couple more botany courses to be able to better formulate a scientific line of thought more in line with what we are actually discussing here.

[GaryC 7]

See above as for O2 physiology. There is redundancy in ATP production- one being primarily from CO2-driven photosynthesis and the other being from a consequence of O2-driven respiration at the mitochondrion.

Gary... Gary... Gary...

Do not put your foot in your mouth. What you are arguing is in a constant state where CO2 is diminishing while saying nothing about excess CO2. Of course, the plant dies from a lack of CO2; there isn't enough prime carbon to drive gluconeogenesis and the plant effectively "starves" to death.

The opposite, excess CO2, creates a condition that competes for part of the photosynthetic compounds responsible for photonic transfer and electron release in the stromal membranes inside the chloroplasts, with the net effect of cellular ATP being markedly reduced and voila, toxicity driving plant apoptosis (suicide). The mechanism is quite elegant and involves cooperation from the mitochondrion's release of its internal proteins that signal the rest of the cell's pro-apoptotic caspases to start chopping up DNA.

I recommend you "try" the same experiment you did in your Botany 230 class in the same closed environment but with 2-3 times the concentration of CO2 vs atmospheric CO2. Sure, you'll see a near logarithmic growth spurt at the beginning. But what about later on when cellular CO2 levels become cytotoxic? It seems that if you want to equate sleepiness to college courses you should perhaps have taken a couple more botany courses to be able to better formulate a scientific line of thought more in line with what we are actually discussing here.

So ok, to put this in the context of our discussion of atmospheric CO2, the levels of CO2 we are talking about will not cause the toxicity you speak of (at least while animal life can still survive) are we? The small rise in CO2 caused by our contribution will indeed benefit plant life and cause the rise of the amount of biomass that I speak of. That rise will indeed take up more CO2 and tend to regulate the levels in the air. If it ever gets to the point where it is toxic to plants we will all be long dead. Your arguing apples and hand grenades if you are saying that a rise in CO2 will hurt plant life.

To get back to the original post, if I grant you the idea that man made CO2 is causing global warming (just for the sake of argument) and the natural changes in our climate are now driving the temps down despite the elevated levels of CO2 then what would have happened if we didn't have the extra CO2 in our atmosphere? Would we now be facing a "mini ice-age"? Would we be facing world famine because of crop failure? Maybe we should be glad we have been putting CO2 into the air after all. Or is it like I have been saying all along, both the rise in temps in the 80's and 90's and the current falling of temps today are all natural and we have nothing to do with either of them.

Edited May 3, 2008 by GaryC

[HAL 9000 96]

See above as for O2 physiology. There is redundancy in ATP production- one being primarily from CO2-driven photosynthesis and the other being from a consequence of O2-driven respiration at the mitochondrion.

Gary... Gary... Gary...

Do not put your foot in your mouth. What you are arguing is in a constant state where CO2 is diminishing while saying nothing about excess CO2. Of course, the plant dies from a lack of CO2; there isn't enough prime carbon to drive gluconeogenesis and the plant effectively "starves" to death.

The opposite, excess CO2, creates a condition that competes for part of the photosynthetic compounds responsible for photonic transfer and electron release in the stromal membranes inside the chloroplasts, with the net effect of cellular ATP being markedly reduced and voila, toxicity driving plant apoptosis (suicide). The mechanism is quite elegant and involves cooperation from the mitochondrion's release of its internal proteins that signal the rest of the cell's pro-apoptotic caspases to start chopping up DNA.

I recommend you "try" the same experiment you did in your Botany 230 class in the same closed environment but with 2-3 times the concentration of CO2 vs atmospheric CO2. Sure, you'll see a near logarithmic growth spurt at the beginning. But what about later on when cellular CO2 levels become cytotoxic? It seems that if you want to equate sleepiness to college courses you should perhaps have taken a couple more botany courses to be able to better formulate a scientific line of thought more in line with what we are actually discussing here.

So ok, to put this in the context of our discussion of atmospheric CO2, the levels of CO2 we are talking about will not cause the toxicity you speak of (at least while animal life can still survive) are we? The small rise in CO2 caused by our contribution will indeed benefit plant life and cause the rise of the amount of biomass that I speak of. That rise will indeed take up more CO2 and tend to regulate the levels in the air. If it ever gets to the point where it is toxic to plants we will all be long dead. Your arguing apples and hand grenades if you are saying that a rise in CO2 will hurt plant life.

To get back to the original post, if I grant you the idea that man made CO2 is causing global warming (just for the sake of argument) and the natural changes in our climate are now driving the temps down despite the elevated levels of CO2 then what would have happened if we didn't have the extra CO2 in our atmosphere? Would we now be facing a "mini ice-age"? Would we be facing world famine because of crop failure? Maybe we should be glad we have been putting CO2 into the air after all. Or is it like I have been saying all along, both the rise in temps in the 80's and 90's and the current falling of temps today are all natural and we have nothing to do with either of them.

Yes, lets put it in actual numerical context-

Atmospheric CO2 is at about 300-400 PPM.

Plants can accelerate their growth at up to 1500 PPM.

Plant toxicity begins above 1500 PPM.

So giving it a contextual range, 1500 / 300 is 5 times the concentration, not exactly an order of magnitude greater than "normal" atmospheric levels.

This is of course, assuming conservation of green resources (currently NOT on many countries agendas) by human activity, no net effect pollution that is detrimental to plant growth and survival (acid rain, etc).

If you couple deforestation levels, pollution levels, and our artificial CO2 input into the entire balance, the equilibrium shifts gradually (not necessarily linearly) to phytotoxic levels. It is, however, hilarious how you are also negating the human population boom (and overconsuming on our part) in regards to the decreasing plant biomass as a result to just some of the previously mentioned factors. It is a lot more complicated than the grenades you are sitting on here.

As for natural factors that may be driving down temperatures (weather patterns, not climate), are you referring to the ocean's heat sink capacity?

Do remember that this is happening as a consequence of there being higher heat levels to sink out. Not as a cause, since a reduction of heat means less heat because it has reduced, not because it was never there! IF there is a link (and there most likely, IS) between rising CO2 levels and the consequential heat sinking in the oceans, then eventually you reach a sink capacity. And that means no more sink capacity. Under linear logic, that would mean that once saturated, the ocean could not hold any more heat and hence, the atmospheric heat levels would return by default to higher averages.

Not to mention, as well, the toxic levels of increasing CO2 diffusion in oceanic water, causing massive coral loss, acidification of ocean water, and yet another thorn in the side of your logic.

Of course, who's to say countries won't do something about this... before such capacity is reached.

[GaryC 7]

See above as for O2 physiology. There is redundancy in ATP production- one being primarily from CO2-driven photosynthesis and the other being from a consequence of O2-driven respiration at the mitochondrion.

Gary... Gary... Gary...

Do not put your foot in your mouth. What you are arguing is in a constant state where CO2 is diminishing while saying nothing about excess CO2. Of course, the plant dies from a lack of CO2; there isn't enough prime carbon to drive gluconeogenesis and the plant effectively "starves" to death.

The opposite, excess CO2, creates a condition that competes for part of the photosynthetic compounds responsible for photonic transfer and electron release in the stromal membranes inside the chloroplasts, with the net effect of cellular ATP being markedly reduced and voila, toxicity driving plant apoptosis (suicide). The mechanism is quite elegant and involves cooperation from the mitochondrion's release of its internal proteins that signal the rest of the cell's pro-apoptotic caspases to start chopping up DNA.

I recommend you "try" the same experiment you did in your Botany 230 class in the same closed environment but with 2-3 times the concentration of CO2 vs atmospheric CO2. Sure, you'll see a near logarithmic growth spurt at the beginning. But what about later on when cellular CO2 levels become cytotoxic? It seems that if you want to equate sleepiness to college courses you should perhaps have taken a couple more botany courses to be able to better formulate a scientific line of thought more in line with what we are actually discussing here.

So ok, to put this in the context of our discussion of atmospheric CO2, the levels of CO2 we are talking about will not cause the toxicity you speak of (at least while animal life can still survive) are we? The small rise in CO2 caused by our contribution will indeed benefit plant life and cause the rise of the amount of biomass that I speak of. That rise will indeed take up more CO2 and tend to regulate the levels in the air. If it ever gets to the point where it is toxic to plants we will all be long dead. Your arguing apples and hand grenades if you are saying that a rise in CO2 will hurt plant life.

To get back to the original post, if I grant you the idea that man made CO2 is causing global warming (just for the sake of argument) and the natural changes in our climate are now driving the temps down despite the elevated levels of CO2 then what would have happened if we didn't have the extra CO2 in our atmosphere? Would we now be facing a "mini ice-age"? Would we be facing world famine because of crop failure? Maybe we should be glad we have been putting CO2 into the air after all. Or is it like I have been saying all along, both the rise in temps in the 80's and 90's and the current falling of temps today are all natural and we have nothing to do with either of them.

Yes, lets put it in actual numerical context-

Atmospheric CO2 is at about 300-400 PPM.

Plants can accelerate their growth at up to 1500 PPM.

Plant toxicity begins above 1500 PPM.

So giving it a contextual range, 1500 / 300 is 5 times the concentration, not exactly an order of magnitude greater than "normal" atmospheric levels.

This is of course, assuming conservation of green resources (currently NOT on many countries agendas) by human activity, no net effect pollution that is detrimental to plant growth and survival (acid rain, etc).

If you couple deforestation levels, pollution levels, and our artificial CO2 input into the entire balance, the equilibrium shifts gradually (not necessarily linearly) to phytotoxic levels. It is, however, hilarious how you are also negating the human population boom (and overconsuming on our part) in regards to the decreasing plant biomass as a result to just some of the previously mentioned factors. It is a lot more complicated than the grenades you are sitting on here.

As for natural factors that may be driving down temperatures (weather patterns, not climate), are you referring to the ocean's heat sink capacity?

Do remember that this is happening as a consequence of there being higher heat levels to sink out. Not as a cause, since a reduction of heat means less heat because it has reduced, not because it was never there! IF there is a link (and there most likely, IS) between rising CO2 levels and the consequential heat sinking in the oceans, then eventually you reach a sink capacity. And that means no more sink capacity. Under linear logic, that would mean that once saturated, the ocean could not hold any more heat and hence, the atmospheric heat levels would return by default to higher averages.

Not to mention, as well, the toxic levels of increasing CO2 diffusion in oceanic water, causing massive coral loss, acidification of ocean water, and yet another thorn in the side of your logic.

Of course, who's to say countries won't do something about this... before such capacity is reached.

I am calling BS. First of all there is no way we will ever reach 1500ppm. That just isn't going to happen. Second, despite your assurances that it will not, plants will take up the excess CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere. They have been doing it for billions of years and it will continue. Plants on the land are not the only plants, sea algae in fact is the greatest biomass on the planet. They take out the majority of the excess CO2. That is how we get limestone after all, the greatest CO2 sink there is. Third, I strongly dispute your claim of CO2 toxicity. CO2 levels have never gotten to that level in the history of the planet. I think your just talking in technobabble in an attempt to make your point. The mechanisms that control CO2 are still at work just like they always have been. Our feeble contribution to the CO2 is nothing compared to a good volcano or two. You are sounding like Al Gore with a high school biology book. I feel your being dishonest here and I think this conversation is over.

[HAL 9000 96]

See above as for O2 physiology. There is redundancy in ATP production- one being primarily from CO2-driven photosynthesis and the other being from a consequence of O2-driven respiration at the mitochondrion.

Gary... Gary... Gary...

Do not put your foot in your mouth. What you are arguing is in a constant state where CO2 is diminishing while saying nothing about excess CO2. Of course, the plant dies from a lack of CO2; there isn't enough prime carbon to drive gluconeogenesis and the plant effectively "starves" to death.

The opposite, excess CO2, creates a condition that competes for part of the photosynthetic compounds responsible for photonic transfer and electron release in the stromal membranes inside the chloroplasts, with the net effect of cellular ATP being markedly reduced and voila, toxicity driving plant apoptosis (suicide). The mechanism is quite elegant and involves cooperation from the mitochondrion's release of its internal proteins that signal the rest of the cell's pro-apoptotic caspases to start chopping up DNA.

I recommend you "try" the same experiment you did in your Botany 230 class in the same closed environment but with 2-3 times the concentration of CO2 vs atmospheric CO2. Sure, you'll see a near logarithmic growth spurt at the beginning. But what about later on when cellular CO2 levels become cytotoxic? It seems that if you want to equate sleepiness to college courses you should perhaps have taken a couple more botany courses to be able to better formulate a scientific line of thought more in line with what we are actually discussing here.

So ok, to put this in the context of our discussion of atmospheric CO2, the levels of CO2 we are talking about will not cause the toxicity you speak of (at least while animal life can still survive) are we? The small rise in CO2 caused by our contribution will indeed benefit plant life and cause the rise of the amount of biomass that I speak of. That rise will indeed take up more CO2 and tend to regulate the levels in the air. If it ever gets to the point where it is toxic to plants we will all be long dead. Your arguing apples and hand grenades if you are saying that a rise in CO2 will hurt plant life.

To get back to the original post, if I grant you the idea that man made CO2 is causing global warming (just for the sake of argument) and the natural changes in our climate are now driving the temps down despite the elevated levels of CO2 then what would have happened if we didn't have the extra CO2 in our atmosphere? Would we now be facing a "mini ice-age"? Would we be facing world famine because of crop failure? Maybe we should be glad we have been putting CO2 into the air after all. Or is it like I have been saying all along, both the rise in temps in the 80's and 90's and the current falling of temps today are all natural and we have nothing to do with either of them.

Yes, lets put it in actual numerical context-

Atmospheric CO2 is at about 300-400 PPM.

Plants can accelerate their growth at up to 1500 PPM.

Plant toxicity begins above 1500 PPM.

So giving it a contextual range, 1500 / 300 is 5 times the concentration, not exactly an order of magnitude greater than "normal" atmospheric levels.

This is of course, assuming conservation of green resources (currently NOT on many countries agendas) by human activity, no net effect pollution that is detrimental to plant growth and survival (acid rain, etc).

If you couple deforestation levels, pollution levels, and our artificial CO2 input into the entire balance, the equilibrium shifts gradually (not necessarily linearly) to phytotoxic levels. It is, however, hilarious how you are also negating the human population boom (and overconsuming on our part) in regards to the decreasing plant biomass as a result to just some of the previously mentioned factors. It is a lot more complicated than the grenades you are sitting on here.

As for natural factors that may be driving down temperatures (weather patterns, not climate), are you referring to the ocean's heat sink capacity?

Do remember that this is happening as a consequence of there being higher heat levels to sink out. Not as a cause, since a reduction of heat means less heat because it has reduced, not because it was never there! IF there is a link (and there most likely, IS) between rising CO2 levels and the consequential heat sinking in the oceans, then eventually you reach a sink capacity. And that means no more sink capacity. Under linear logic, that would mean that once saturated, the ocean could not hold any more heat and hence, the atmospheric heat levels would return by default to higher averages.

Not to mention, as well, the toxic levels of increasing CO2 diffusion in oceanic water, causing massive coral loss, acidification of ocean water, and yet another thorn in the side of your logic.

Of course, who's to say countries won't do something about this... before such capacity is reached.

I am calling BS. First of all there is no way we will ever reach 1500ppm. That just isn't going to happen. Second, despite your assurances that it will not, plants will take up the excess CO2 and remove it from the atmosphere. They have been doing it for billions of years and it will continue. Plants on the land are not the only plants, sea algae in fact is the greatest biomass on the planet. They take out the majority of the excess CO2. That is how we get limestone after all, the greatest CO2 sink there is. Third, I strongly dispute your claim of CO2 toxicity. CO2 levels have never gotten to that level in the history of the planet. I think your just talking in technobabble in an attempt to make your point. The mechanisms that control CO2 are still at work just like they always have been. Our feeble contribution to the CO2 is nothing compared to a good volcano or two. You are sounding like Al Gore with a high school biology book. I feel your being dishonest here and I think this conversation is over.

OK Gary, have it your way.

I am a biologist. I guess that's all I have to say then.

That "technobabble" just happens to be standard scientific terminology- you, of all self-professed science readers, should know that.

Not having a sound, logical argument doesn't give you the excuse to insult my intelligence. You do have the right to question me, though. Come on over to the lab in Chicago, like I invited you a while back and I'll even show you how easy it is to disprove your illogical argument.

As for the possible reaching of 1500 PPM, of course we probably won't reach it as a whole atmosphere. Thank God there are nations out there willing to do something about their output as opposed to waving the cheapshot around with pseudoscience at our disposal.

[HAL 9000 96]

For those interested in reading:

www.pubmed.gov

search:

Carbon dioxide toxicity in plants

simple enough.

[cmartyn 0]

I keep finding stuff like this...

A visit to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

Yet I keep hearing that volcanoes are a much larger source of CO2 than manmade sources. Is there a link someplace where this is refuted or are these folks that keep making this argument just wrong?

Edited May 4, 2008 by cmartyn

[JeroenAndMichelle 28]

I don't know any of those CO2 thingies you guys went on about, never the less it was funny to read lol.

Anyways, what I wonder about is how people can say that the earth is cooling down while in almost every country the average temperature in a year gets broken year after year... you can calculate and test and say as much as you want but this is still a fact.

My country, for example, used to have very cold winters... temperatures of less than -4F (-20C) were no exception in winternights like 20 years ago, now we hardly even reach -4 in Celsius. Year after year, another warmth record is broken in my country... maybe not on a week or a month but in overall, yes. I live closer to the norhpole than to equator and they expect those musquitos and other bugs from tropic countries (like the malaria musquitos and others) to come our way in a couple of years (some actually have been seen already)... I don't know but that doesn't sounds healthy and like a cool environment to me.

I don't think the signs of snow in areas where there usually is no snow is not a sign of the earth actually cooling down but of the earth being messed up at the moment. Never thought about why there is more and more severe weather?

What I wonder about as well is why people say that humans don't have much to do with the rising CO2 levels. Studies did show they weren't that high not so long ago, no? Also, with my little knowledge about these issues and mambojambo you guys were discussing about, it is easy to understand for me that too much CO2 is just poison just like, and this has been said, too much food is also just poison.. too much of something is never good. Plants may take CO2 into their systems but they can only take so much and that what they can't take will remain in the air while more and more CO2 is being emitted. Another thing that may actually prove this (and you don't need a clean, sealed environment to find out about this) could be Kilauea on the Big Island of Hawaii. Recently it has been more active than usual and it spits out a lot of gasses... resulting in plant life being killed.. why? Well, according to what I have read, poison... they also stated plants usually live on these gasses like CO2 but the amount they got was too many for them and they got poisoned.

I know it all sounds a bit Al Gore like, and that is not my intention, but before I even saw or knew about Al Gore's movie (I actually saw it a couple of months ago and I don't have this since then) I already saw signs of shrinking glaciers, polar ice is melting... now I wonder how this is possible while the earth is cooling down according to you...

Ever thought of the possibility of the gas companies and other companies who make money out of stuff which produces CO2 could have set up these counter studies? I for one wouldn't be surprised after all as it wont be the first time they try and pull a stunt like that. And another thing, how is it that the US never signed the Kyoto treaty? Because of China not signing it? Hmmm.. last time I checked even the CIA factbook says the US is the biggest producer of CO2, they're a bigger producer of CO2 than China... and also, isn't it a bit childish to say 'if China doesn't sign, we won't sign anything either'? (that has actually been said by the US government recently)... Wait, could it be that they just make lots of money at the moment by letting it all happen and cannot handle the truth? I don't know, it all sounds to me as the whole Iraq war sounded to me when they started and still sounds to me and the same as the rights to carry arms sounds to me... 'guns dont kill people, people kill people'.. right, but they forget that people are carrying the guns and that it is much harder to kill someone with their bare hands or just a knife or something. A lot less murders would take place if guns were banned... BUT.. that is just a complete different topic

Oh well, I read enough of this topic to know that I will not be able to bring you on different thoughts, statements like "You are sounding like Al Gore with a high school biology book. I feel your being dishonest here and I think this conversation is over." actually proves this even more (and if I may add, in my opinion it is a little bit childish and it makes it look like you cannot handle it when someone doesn't agree with you).

Oh well, I just wanted to put my two cents in here.

[HAL 9000 96]

I realize that technical, scientific language can be "mambojambo" to you, but it is what it is based on what it is supposed to define. About half of it you can find in any high school science textbook.

It is very true what you are bringing up here. We need to realize that global weather patterns occur in geographical locations, not in planet-wide averages.

The planet will usually seek equilibrium one way or another- if its warmer than record somewhere, then the weather will be colder somewhere else. Climate change means that these patters are skewed in one particular direction over long, very long periods of time as a result of X,Y, and Z actions and factors.

Some folks like to argue that its X and Y while denying Z. Etcetera. One cannot be that closed minded.

As for the volcanoes... lol. I guess it can depend on when and where you sample atmospheric concentration of CO2?

Standing right next to the caldera I suppose you'll capture a pretty huge concentration of the gas (on top of a lot more!).

[JeroenAndMichelle 28]

I realize that technical, scientific language can be "mambojambo" to you, but it is what it is based on what it is supposed to define. About half of it you can find in any high school science textbook.

Hehe in US highschool text books yes, but over here in my country I never saw those books... I have no problem with technical stuff, I'm a php developer myself but its just that I only H2O O2 and CO2.. the rest of the names are like acacadabra to me haha

It's just that I think the view of the OP was wrong and that I wanted to share my 2 cents in this topic about the whole situation

It is very true what you are bringing up here. We need to realize that global weather patterns occur in geographical locations, not in planet-wide averages.

The planet will usually seek equilibrium one way or another- if its warmer than record somewhere, then the weather will be colder somewhere else. Climate change means that these patters are skewed in one particular direction over long, very long periods of time as a result of X,Y, and Z actions and factors.

Some folks like to argue that its X and Y while denying Z. Etcetera. One cannot be that closed minded.

As for the volcanoes... lol. I guess it can depend on when and where you sample atmospheric concentration of CO2?

Standing right next to the caldera I suppose you'll capture a pretty huge concentration of the gas (on top of a lot more!).

Hehe in US highschool text books yes, but over here in my country I never saw those books... I have no problem with technical stuff, I'm a php developer myself but its just that I only H2O O2 and CO2.. the rest of the names are like acacadabra to me haha

It's just that I think the view of the OP was wrong and that I wanted to share my 2 cents in this topic about the whole situation

About the vulcano, of course it depends where it is measured. It was merely a way for me to show that his views on plants and CO2 cannot be right, too much of anything is never good.