Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 12:56pm

Time Lapse Evidence Shows an Increase in Carbon Dioxide Does Not Harm Vegetation

[Updates at the bottom of this post.]

Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant.

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.  And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.  And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.  And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:  And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

–Book of Genesis 1:26-30

Et ait:  Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram:  et praesit piscibus maris, et volatilibus caeli, et bestiis universaeque terrae omnique reptili quod movetur in terra.  Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem:  suam ad imaginem Dei creavit illum masculum et feminam creavit eos.  Benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram.  Dixitque Deus ecce dedi vobis:  omnem herbam adferentem semen super terram, et universa ligna quae habent in semet ipsis sementem generis sui, ut sint vobis in escam: Et cunctis animantibus terrae, omnique volucri caeli, et universis quae moventur in terra, et in quibus est anima, vivens ut habeant ad vescendum.  Et factum est ita.

–Book of Genesis 1:26-30

(Biretta tip: CO2Science, Gilbert, Arizona)

_._

Update I: Another reason why I don’t trust liberals/progressives and their Catholic enablers with propaganda such as this:

…and this:

(Biretta tip: Mark Shea)

Update II: Just to clear any confusion, I am mocking the climate change/global warming movement.  And if I need to explain it then I didn’t do a good job of translating the message correctly in this post.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Todd
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:11pm

Um, Tito … plants breathe carbon dioxide. They release oxygen into the atmosphere as a byproduct of photosynthesis.

Some plants also love phosphates, and when Dow or some other company dumps them into a pond or a swamp, some species will love it. And crowd everything else off.

The biblical command to dominion is a two-way street, and involves, unlike our corporate masters, a reciprocity of care and stewardship.

Agreed the penguin and bear photos are silly. But I wasn’t aware you were a priest who wore a biretta. Who knew?

John Henry
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:14pm

Not sure I understand the post. The AGW argument, right or wrong, is that increased quantities of CO2 will heat up the Earth’s atmosphere. What does the effect of CO2 (which plants absorb and process) on plants have to do with this?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:15pm

Todd,

Thanks for the 3rd grade science refresher.

So tell me how a rise in CO2 levels will kill plants again?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:16pm

John Henry,

Your straw man is unproductive here JH.

John Henry
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:25pm

Tito,

Don’t think there was a straw man. I just don’t see what this post proves. What do you think the study proves?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:31pm

John Henry,

I’ll play along this one time only.

Al Gore disciples are promoting Global Warming/Climate Change as a catastrophe of immense proportions, ie, destroying our environment.

So this video disproves one of the many whacky theories that Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists are bandying about in order to increase the role of government in our lives.

Which of course violates our free will.

If you want to continue down this train of thought, then go ahead and post your own column and stop distracting from my post.

John Henry
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 5:38pm

So this video disproves one of the many wacky theories that Global Warming/Climate Change alarmists are bandying about

I’d never heard about this particular theory, I guess. The main line of argument is that CO2 emissions cause the atmosphere to heat up, which, over time, will raise sea levels and damage low-lying areas. And the concern is that this is a one-way ratchet; something we can’t undo. That all may be wrong, but that’s the argument I’d heard, rather than the claim that CO2 damages plants. As you’ve requested I stop commenting on this thread, I won’t comment any further.

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 6:02pm

Tito,

I’m a little confused as to what the video is getting at.

It’s certainly true that CO2 is great for plants, and that higher CO2 levels would mean more plant growth. In this sense, greater CO2 emission would be great for “the planet”. There have been periods when, for natural reasons, the planet has had much higher CO2 levels than we have now, and plants (among other things) were just fine. The claim of global warming advocates (or at least, those who don’t think that The Day After Tomorrow was a documentary), however, is not so much that “the planet” would be destroyed by more CO2, but that it would become very inconvenient for us, with oceans rising, weather patterns changing, etc. Since it’s hard to move large populations from where they are without a lot of suffering and death, it is pretty clearly true that if they are right in their predictions about the climate (which I think is open to question) the results would be bad for civilization, even though plans would very happily grow over the abandoned cities.

I do share a certain annoyance with calling CO2 a “pollutant”, since it’s a perfectly natural gas which appears as part of our atmosphere. But then, “a weed” is simply a plant growing where you don’t want it to.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 6:29pm

John Henry and Darwin,

I’m at a loss of words of where you two are coming from.

So you’re both telling me that global warming alarmists have never said that a rise in CO2 levels will destroy the environment?

This whole time that rising ocean levels, plants dyeing, changing weather patterns, etc. is not what they’ve been saying?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 6:45pm

John Henry and Darwin,

I will admit that I failed to explain the sarcastic elements of my post, for that I’ll take the blame.

By mocking them I sowed more confusion.

And when I have to explain a post then I’ll be the first one to admit that the message wasn’t conveyed properly.

With that thanks for being patient in explaining to me your confusion.

Tito

Tom
Tom
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 7:06pm

My recollection certainly is that the global warmist claim is that among the ill effects of increased CO2 concentration is deforestation and crop loss. (Gore famously Photoshopped a NASA photo of Earth to suggest this in one of his books.) The truth is, as the video demonstrates, increased CO2 levels enhance plant growth.

But to me, the real lesson of the video should be the role of planetary vegetation in the dynamic control of O2 and CO2 levels, which global warmists totally ignore. As CO2 levels rise (and O2 proportionately declines), plants consume more CO2 and produce more O2, helping to restore balance.

And not just any balance, but one perfectly suited to the need of humanity. Many of our global warmist friends think that’s just an accident.

Todd
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 8:09pm

“So you’re both telling me that global warming alarmists have never said that a rise in CO2 levels will destroy the environment?”

Got it.

I confess: I never read Al Gore’s book. I had a 200-level college course in climatology, and I follow the science on the issue, less the politics.

More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases heat retention near the surface. Most climatologists are less worried today about rising sea levels–and that’s enough of a problem for obvious reasons–than the planet hitting a tipping point where climate will change rather quickly. The scenarios include a shift in the monsoon climates of South Asia, the Gulf Stream redirecting toward Africa because of increased freshwater melt in the North Atlantic.

The environment will survive most anything we can throw at it. The survival question would be rioting hundreds of millions in India, SE Asia, and Indonesia. Or Europe getting Canada-style winters. Plant and animal life can and will adapt to change. Since you’re very concerned about the economics of it all, let me remind you that in the long haul, western economics and politics are very, very fragile compared to the long-term survival of the planet.

By the way, I don’t know of any environmentalist that took those polar bear and penguin images any more seriously than as an icon. Sorry if others thought they were any more than that.

trackback
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 8:49pm

[…] A Symbol? Posted by catholicsensibility under Politics, Science Leave a Comment  I see the attempt to mock climatologists has had something of a reverse effect. Mark, too, has been taken in by the cute picture of a polar […]

Foxfier
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 9:43pm

I am also familiar with the CO2 will destroy the environment and kill plants. Vaguely remember writing several replies about it four-five years ago.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, May 12, AD 2010 10:31pm

Tom, Foxfier, et al.,

Thanks, I’m sure I’m not the only one that read it that way as well!

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 6:51am

Symbol,

Fake but accurate?

Tito Edwards
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 9:39am

Phillip,

LOL!

It’s amazing how we are accused of believing in myths, yet progressives and their Catholic enablers continue to propagate falsehoods.

Foxfier
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 9:55am

Symbols to elicit an emotional connection?

Of course they were; same way PETA use to put out those stupid comics like “Daddy tortures fish to death” and “mommy boils bunnies” or whatever.

It’s admitted openly, now?

(In defense of the lay folks that believed CO2 was killing plants, I do know that up by Mammoth Lake that’s happening– trees don’t like volcanic gas hitting their roots.)

I personally really, really hope we’re causing global warming, since the reconstructed pattern of ice ages says we should be hitting one about now. Talk about a difficult change to adapt to!

Todd
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 10:34am

“It’s amazing how we are accused of believing in myths, yet progressives and their Catholic enablers continue to propagate falsehoods.”

It’s one thing to literally believe in a myth, and another to utilize mythology properly as either moral teaching or cultural rooting.

The polar bear/penguin on an ice raft isn’t too much different from the Stupak poster Donald puts up now and then. It’s meant to elicit an emotional reaction from the base. It’s political PR. No more, no less.

Some climate change deniers refuse to be swayed by either logic or emotion. They cling to their own views of and desire for a static world, in which nothing ever changes, and one’s environment never changes.

Well, the universe doesn’t work that way. The planet’s climate is changing. Once that was denied. But even today we see that carbon dioxide levels are rising faster than plants can absorb it.

If you’re interested in the serious science on climate change, there are places to go. If you want to keep it political, you’re also free to do that. But don’t complain that you’ve been left behind in the serious debate.

Last word, gents: all yours.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 10:38am

Todd,
You are wrong. The Stupak poster is obvious propaganda. The bear/penguin photos and videos are contrived to be deliberately misleading. Most people assume they are true and actual events captured on camera or video, and that is exactly what is intended. That is not comparable to the Stupak poster.

Foxfier
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 10:45am

To be fair, the polar bear was actually captured, as I remember…it’s just usually used as evidence that polar bears are dying off, and they’re…um… not.

Some climate change deniers refuse to be swayed by either logic or emotion. They cling to their own views of and desire for a static world, in which nothing ever changes, and one’s environment never changes.

Now this is ironic, given that the folks who claim climate change is going on assume a static world is good (without evidence) and that the evidence for real climate change is somewhat shaky.

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 10:50am

Todd,

Here’s some pretty hard science with this conclusion:

“Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth’s overall temperature, the IPCC’s predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media. The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.”

Full link here:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Now people can and do discuss the merits of this article. Bottom line though, reasonable people do disagree.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 11:03am

“The polar bear/penguin on an ice raft isn’t too much different from the Stupak poster Donald puts up now and then. It’s meant to elicit an emotional reaction from the base. It’s political PR. No more, no less.”

Actually Todd it’s giving Stupak the benefit of the doubt, by assuming that he actually believed that the meaningless executive order that he got from Obama meant anything. I could put up a poster of Stupak saying “Liar”, but I never like going beyond the evidence before me.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 11:51am

Todd and everyone else,

The polar bears are actually having a population boom that they are now moving into areas that have never seen polar bears in centuries and interbreeding with grizzly bears.

As one polar bear biologist was quoted as saying, “There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html

Phillip
Phillip
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 12:52pm

Stupid bears! They don’t know they’re supposed to be dying.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 1:22pm

“polar bears in centuries and interbreeding with grizzly bears”

Time for a mind scrub to erase that particular image!

Paul Cortese
Paul Cortese
Thursday, May 13, AD 2010 10:55pm

Echo Phillip

More CO2 means more heat potentially (not that mankind is doing all that much), means more evaporation/transpiration (which reduces the heat energy of the ocean/land/plant by kcal/g water and reduces the water level but we get more rainfall and snowfall which returns water to the lands and oceans and ice to the poles), means better plant growth which converts CO2 into Carbon compounds (wood, stem, leaf, fruit, nuts, food, wheat, corn) which reduces CO2 in atmosphere and increases O2. So we’re going to get woozy from all the higher O2! And need more kids to eat all this food!

Entropy is positive – AHHHHH!

So God had a plan – and earth’s ecosystem isn’t so man-dependent as our narcissistics want to believe. Do you really think He would trust earth to our free will? We’re weak idiots. I have dominion over my children and wife – as long as I concur with practically everything they do! And Thank God for the 4th Commandment to help me with that family dominion think too. As God Designed.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top