- Local time
- Today, 11:20
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 47,298
Is that a deep fake? Why is this man only saying this now? He is speaking actual science. OMG. But the craziness has been going on for years.
NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing - (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rx_
- Start date
- Local time
- Today, 10:20
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,317
What really frosts my cookies is all those "get rid of CO2" hacks that don't understand the role of CO2 in nature.
Simply put, if we were able to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, we would kill an equally massive lot of green-leaved plants, which would eventually kill an equally massive number of people.
This is because of the simple fact that chlorophyll (the green in the leaves) plus CO2 (taken in through stomata) plus H2O (taken in through roots) plus sunlight (absorbed by the leaves) produces glucose plus oxygen. This glucose is the basic nutrient that lets the plant build all sorts of plant proteins. These proteins are how the plant grows.
No CO2, no glucose. No glucose, no plant growth byproducts like lignin. No plant growth, no plants. And, of course, plants are at the base of the food chain that feeds US, so no plants? No people.
Fruits and vegetables are plants. If you are a beef-eater, that bovine ate plants first, before you ate it. It works below the surface of the ocean, too, in that seaweed uses chlorophyll and aquatic creatures eat seaweed and other plant products.
So these pecker-woods want to remove CO2 from the air on a planet that is INCREASING in its population of CO2 sources... namely people. They want less CO2 even though there has been a resurgence in plant life in many areas due to this CO2 growth, which means an increase in the natural rate of CO2 removal from the air. Nobody (and I do mean NOBODY) can tell the correct amount of CO2 that SHOULD be around us. It can't be calculated without essentially a COMPLETE census of all plants everywhere. (Hmmmm... wonder if I can get a government grant for that study?)
The uninitiated anti-carbon wonks bemoan the effect of forest fires as they put all that CO2 into the air. Forgetting that the burned plants grew by taking CO2 OUT OF the air, and there is a law of matter balance - in this case, carbon atom balance - that says "no plant can be burned to create more CO2 than it originally absorbed." In fact, if the burning is incomplete - which it usually is - then that fire put less CO2 in the air than the plant originally took out while growing and living. The only negative aspect is that the rate of CO2 release for burning is higher than the rate of its re-absorption for growing.
I know that the Greenpeace quote alludes to this, but I thought I would put up a more detailed reminder of exactly what is meant when he says that "CO2 is the building block of life on Earth."
Simply put, if we were able to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, we would kill an equally massive lot of green-leaved plants, which would eventually kill an equally massive number of people.
This is because of the simple fact that chlorophyll (the green in the leaves) plus CO2 (taken in through stomata) plus H2O (taken in through roots) plus sunlight (absorbed by the leaves) produces glucose plus oxygen. This glucose is the basic nutrient that lets the plant build all sorts of plant proteins. These proteins are how the plant grows.
No CO2, no glucose. No glucose, no plant growth byproducts like lignin. No plant growth, no plants. And, of course, plants are at the base of the food chain that feeds US, so no plants? No people.
Fruits and vegetables are plants. If you are a beef-eater, that bovine ate plants first, before you ate it. It works below the surface of the ocean, too, in that seaweed uses chlorophyll and aquatic creatures eat seaweed and other plant products.
So these pecker-woods want to remove CO2 from the air on a planet that is INCREASING in its population of CO2 sources... namely people. They want less CO2 even though there has been a resurgence in plant life in many areas due to this CO2 growth, which means an increase in the natural rate of CO2 removal from the air. Nobody (and I do mean NOBODY) can tell the correct amount of CO2 that SHOULD be around us. It can't be calculated without essentially a COMPLETE census of all plants everywhere. (Hmmmm... wonder if I can get a government grant for that study?)
The uninitiated anti-carbon wonks bemoan the effect of forest fires as they put all that CO2 into the air. Forgetting that the burned plants grew by taking CO2 OUT OF the air, and there is a law of matter balance - in this case, carbon atom balance - that says "no plant can be burned to create more CO2 than it originally absorbed." In fact, if the burning is incomplete - which it usually is - then that fire put less CO2 in the air than the plant originally took out while growing and living. The only negative aspect is that the rate of CO2 release for burning is higher than the rate of its re-absorption for growing.
I know that the Greenpeace quote alludes to this, but I thought I would put up a more detailed reminder of exactly what is meant when he says that "CO2 is the building block of life on Earth."
- Local time
- Today, 11:20
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 47,298
The Progressive philosophy of - "stupid people shouldn't breed" - always comes to mind when speaking about these crazies. Now if the Progressives would only apply their philosophies to themselves, the world would be better off.
Darrell
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 16:20
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2001
- Messages
- 328
Thanks Doc, this is now my new favourite saying!
AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 08:20
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,649
- Local time
- Today, 11:20
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Messages
- 47,298
I'm old enough to remember life before clothes dryers. From the time I was tall enough to reach the lines until I finally spread my wings at 20, I was the designated taker downer for the laundry. Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring. Winter was very bad. The clothes were usually frozen solid rather than dry and so I took them down and then hung them in the basement. Why my mother hung them outside in the winter always mystified me. I guess she was just an optimist as well as a creature of habit. But oh the smell of fresh laundry just off the line was wonderful. It made the tedious chore bearable. Even my younger brothers loved diving into the laundry basket as I was trying to fold
Last edited:
- Local time
- Today, 16:20
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2003
- Messages
- 17,471
I remember years ago draconian councils and I assume homeowners associations and the like started introducing laws and regulations so that people could not hang their washing out to dry ... at the time I saw how short cited people are....
