Posted By kormsen on 14 Dec 2009 06:19 AM
Posted By lownote on 14 Dec 2009 05:35 AM
After all, it's only our children's future we have to consider--no need to take that seriously.
because i consider my childrens future, i would like some more CO² in the air and the climate a bit warmer.
having worked in ranching, agri- and silviculture most of my life, i came to understand that plants thrive on CO².
(one can damage plants in a greenhouse severly, if one does not allow new - CO² carrying - air into it.)
as to warmth - in warmer years the plants (other factors not changing) grow stronger, can take up more minerals from earth, and more CO² from the air, than in colder years.
(i. e. they produce more without more chemical fertilizer)
you being a scholar, you should know about the medeival climate optimum (around of our LOrd's year 1000). that must have been 8 to 10 degrees celsius warmer than today. (judgeing by the plant distribution)
when we will see wine plantations in newfoundland, trees in greenland, and so on, then we get to the (known) optimum.
maybe, that above that some problems might occur. - but if that will be the case, i doubt, that we can foresee these problems now (we can't even foresee the local weather for more than a week)
if humanity is a relevant factor to climate-change, i allways ask myself, what did the crusaders and vikings do, to cause such high temperatures?
GENERAL ARTICLE
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 90, NO. 12, 25 JUNE 2006 1609
Be careful what you wish for.....The effects
of carbon dioxide are a reduction in the pH value of
blood serum leading to acidosis4. The minimum effects of
acidosis are restlessness and mild hypertension. As the
degree of acidosis increases, somnolence and confusion
follow. One of the effects of these changes is a reduced
desire to indulge in physical activity. Other metabolic effects
of acidosis have been reviewed and shown to be extensive6.
Embryonic or foetal abnormalities are also possible
as the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide affects maternal
metabolisms in succeeding generations.
I really do not think you want more CO2 in the air:
Primate susceptibility to high levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere is supported by the geological–palaeontological
record. During the Eocene epoch, the temperature
of the earth was much higher than at present, while
the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was
about the same as that at present. The fossil record shows
that during the Lutetian and Bartonian ages of the Eocene
epoch, primates were abundant on the Eurasian continent.
The geological record shows that by the Priabonian age
of the Eocene epoch (27 million years BP), the carbon dioxide
content of the atmosphere had risen to three times
that of the present day4. The fossil record then shows that
virtually all the primates of the Eurasian continent had
disappeared. Although it is accepted that these events
predate the existence of humans, some primates alive today
can be shown to be direct linear descendants of those
involved, such as the lemurs. It is a reasonable conclusion
from these observations that primates can survive in hot
climates, but are unable to endure high levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere.
Reference article
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf
The "art" of science might not be perfect but it is better than the "witch hunts" and certainly more reliable than the Medieval reference. In closing, though we all romanticize the "industrial age" and in particular our hobby of trains I am not sure we would enjoy the atmosphere that surrounded the daily lives. The effectiveness of workers would probably mirror the above articles reference to work output:
The health effects of low-level carbon dioxide poisoning are likely to
be first observed in the results of athletic events, where maintenance of present performance records becomes difficult and the establishment of improved performance records never occur. It is possible that the performance of some athletes in the 2003 World Games already shows
the predicted effects.
