Remember me
▼ Content

Co2 ice samples


Co2 ice samples26-05-2022 22:09
Rjbob
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Can anyone tell me how we know the co2 levels found in ice samples have been checked to ensure that are a direct reflection of atmospheric co2 levels?

Does any have the co2 ice level of recent years.?

I presume ice was formed from snow, rain or sleet. I presume that any snow falling today will have a reading of 418 ppm.

The co2 graphs I'm reading all change from ice reading to atmospheric co2 in recent times.

Thanks
26-05-2022 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19799)
Rjbob wrote:
Can anyone tell me how we know the co2 levels found in ice samples have been checked to ensure that are a direct reflection of atmospheric co2 levels?

You can't.
Rjbob wrote:
Does any have the co2 ice level of recent years.?

No.
Rjbob wrote:
I presume ice was formed from snow, rain or sleet. I presume that any snow falling today will have a reading of 418 ppm.

Why?
Rjbob wrote:
The co2 graphs I'm reading all change from ice reading to atmospheric co2 in recent times.

Thanks

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is no uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-05-2022 23:24
Rjbob
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?
27-05-2022 01:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19799)
Rjbob wrote:
What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-05-2022 03:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12988)
Rjbob wrote:What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?

We can set the bar at the same level that we would declare nitrogen to be "too high."
27-05-2022 04:35
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4440)
Rjbob wrote:
What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?


There is no time machine, or written record to know how past inter-glacial periods progressed. This is our first time, so it's entirely guessing, speculation, greed, power and control. We don't know anything, until it actually happens.

Plants do their best at around 800 ppm... Check into CO2 augmentation in commercial greenhouses. It's been a standard practice for decades. Plants grow faster, healthier, and produce a better product. Augmenting CO2 is cheap and easy, greatly increasing profits.

Plants are crucial food for all life on the planet. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon directly from the environment. All life is carbon-based molecules.
27-05-2022 07:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12988)
HarveyH55 wrote:Plants do their best at around 800 ppm

Harvey, you are on the right track, but 800 ppm is simply a point at which plants really start to show a positive response. I think you'll find that plants "do best" at CO2 levels of around 1200-1400 ppm. Similarly, once you get beyond 1800 ppm the benefits begin to diminish and the risk of damaging the plants begins to grow.

Otherwise, you are spot on. Great point.
.
27-05-2022 15:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2728)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Plants do their best at around 800 ppm

Harvey, you are on the right track, but 800 ppm is simply a point at which plants really start to show a positive response. I think you'll find that plants "do best" at CO2 levels of around 1200-1400 ppm. Similarly, once you get beyond 1800 ppm the benefits begin to diminish and the risk of damaging the plants begins to grow.

Otherwise, you are spot on. Great point.
.


Total make believe, but that is your specialty.

PS. Are you a plant? If so please cover yourself in cow manure because plants love that
Edited on 27-05-2022 15:49
01-06-2022 06:05
James_
★★★★☆
(1140)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rjbob wrote:
What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?


There is no time machine, or written record to know how past inter-glacial periods progressed. This is our first time, so it's entirely guessing, speculation, greed, power and control. We don't know anything, until it actually happens.

Plants do their best at around 800 ppm... Check into CO2 augmentation in commercial greenhouses. It's been a standard practice for decades. Plants grow faster, healthier, and produce a better product. Augmenting CO2 is cheap and easy, greatly increasing profits.

Plants are crucial food for all life on the planet. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon directly from the environment. All life is carbon-based molecules.




Okaaayyyy, yyooouuu'rreeee oonnn dddiiiaalll uuuppp.
Are we on Stranger Things and we're back on dial up?
This is so cool!!! Who's gonna die and how? Can I plan my death?
01-06-2022 07:59
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4440)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Plants do their best at around 800 ppm

Harvey, you are on the right track, but 800 ppm is simply a point at which plants really start to show a positive response. I think you'll find that plants "do best" at CO2 levels of around 1200-1400 ppm. Similarly, once you get beyond 1800 ppm the benefits begin to diminish and the risk of damaging the plants begins to grow.

Otherwise, you are spot on. Great point.
.


Nope... From what I read, the benefit peaked at 700-800 ppm. Never saw mention of an upper limit. The 1200 ppm is for a safe, unrestricted workplace, while still making sure the plants get at least 800 ppm continuously, since doors open and close, ventilation for temperature control. Been a few years since I looked into it, but seemed like pretty consistent results.
01-06-2022 08:07
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4440)
James_ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rjbob wrote:
What base point do we use to say 418 ppm co2 is to high.?


There is no time machine, or written record to know how past inter-glacial periods progressed. This is our first time, so it's entirely guessing, speculation, greed, power and control. We don't know anything, until it actually happens.

Plants do their best at around 800 ppm... Check into CO2 augmentation in commercial greenhouses. It's been a standard practice for decades. Plants grow faster, healthier, and produce a better product. Augmenting CO2 is cheap and easy, greatly increasing profits.

Plants are crucial food for all life on the planet. Plants are the only thing that can take carbon directly from the environment. All life is carbon-based molecules.




Okaaayyyy, yyooouuu'rreeee oonnn dddiiiaalll uuuppp.
Are we on Stranger Things and we're back on dial up?
This is so cool!!! Who's gonna die and how? Can I plan my death?


Is 'Stranger Things' a bootleg brand of Kentucky corn whiskey? Ease up a little, you might complete one of your projects, so you can have a life. No need to plan, the way you are going, you'll find at the bottom of a jug...
02-06-2022 22:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12988)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Plants do their best at around 800 ppm

Harvey, you are on the right track, but 800 ppm is simply a point at which plants really start to show a positive response. I think you'll find that plants "do best" at CO2 levels of around 1200-1400 ppm. Similarly, once you get beyond 1800 ppm the benefits begin to diminish and the risk of damaging the plants begins to grow.

Otherwise, you are spot on. Great point.
.


Nope... From what I read, the benefit peaked at 700-800 ppm. Never saw mention of an upper limit. The 1200 ppm is for a safe, unrestricted workplace, while still making sure the plants get at least 800 ppm continuously, since doors open and close, ventilation for temperature control. Been a few years since I looked into it, but seemed like pretty consistent results.

Harvey, I realize you read something somewhere that listed an "800 ppm" figure and you are clinging to that ... but all other authoritative sources that I can find seem to disagree with you in the sense that 800 ppm is by no means any sort of optimum but rather a bottom point by which plants start to show a substantive positive response.

I looked up what pot growers have to say because they have a vested economic interest in getting it right and this is what you'll find within that body of knowledge:

studies show CO2 levels can continually increase plant growth as ppm reach upwards of 10,000. Note that once CO2 is above 3,000 ppm it starts to become dangerous for humans to breathe, and at 5,000 ppm it is considered lethal.

Most gardeners have found that when you are producing high-quality light in your garden, a CO2 level of 1,200 to 2,000 ppm will increase the growth of your plant significantly. Additionally, when using CO2 your plants can handle a higher average temperature – around 85-90 degrees Fahrenheit. Be aware that if your CO2 levels are too high for the amount of light or heat generated in the garden, you will see your plants become damaged from excess CO2.


Envirotech (sellers of specialized CO2 agrosystems) has this to say:

In greenhouses, the growth rate and development of all plants can be improved by controlling CO2 concentrations at levels of around 800 ppm. This is approximately twice as much as the natural concentration of CO2 in natural ambient air. Higher CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm have been used in greenhouses and hydroponics, but each incremental increase in CO2 levels above 700 ppm has diminishing benefit to the plants. Despite these diminishing returns, some operators control the CO2 levels at 1000 or 1200 ppm to fully exploit the potential of CO2 addition.


I found this graphic out on the internet ... so it must be true:



This graphic was accompanied by the following:

Plants show a positive response up to 700 to need of 1,800 parts per million, but higher levels of CO2 may cause plant damage (Figure 1).


All I am saying is that you are totally correct regarding the benefits of higher levels of CO2, it's just that there is a lot of practical information out there painting a different picture as to the optimum CO2 levels for plants, i.e. at least in the 1,200 ppm range ... and I happen to think it's a bit higher at the 1,600 - 1,800 range, if the other environmental factors are controlled to take advantage of those levels of CO2. There are, of course, agro specialists who leverage CO2 levels above 3,000 ppm.

800 ppm seems to be recognized as the point at which plants begin to respond positively in a visibly discernible manner.

Cheers.

.




Join the debate Co2 ice samples:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..32923-09-2022 20:57
CO2 Is Helping the Ozone Layer to Recover113-08-2022 05:54
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat27201-07-2022 06:42
Arctic sea ice cover1909-04-2022 08:29
New Ice age by 203014004-04-2022 16:10
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact