This one is for Ian Shlaski. CO2 use in agriculture and in home production.
-
Dutch project using ‘waste’ heat and CO2 to increase greenhouse yields[^] Dutch aubergine grower pipes carbon dioxide into greenhouses<[^] The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) for Healthy Plant Growth [^] The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years[^] Even dope heads like it[^] And here is an industrilal manufacturer of the same kind of kit: The ambient level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is generally between 300 and 600 ppm. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, at this time, plant growth is practically stopped. Supplemental CO2 added during this period can substantially increase plant and flower production and improve plant quality<[^] All these links have nothing to do with AGW./ They are unpartisan, unbiassed. Their only reason is plant yield. Now, to go back to the article you sent me about tropical plants developing massive starch deposits in their leaves. These scientists have produced a lot of reports about CO2 being bad for plants. One would almost say they are intentionally targeting this issues. However, in respect of the particular report yo sent me there are somne inconsistencies. They stated that there was
-
Dutch project using ‘waste’ heat and CO2 to increase greenhouse yields[^] Dutch aubergine grower pipes carbon dioxide into greenhouses<[^] The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) for Healthy Plant Growth [^] The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years[^] Even dope heads like it[^] And here is an industrilal manufacturer of the same kind of kit: The ambient level of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere is generally between 300 and 600 ppm. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, at this time, plant growth is practically stopped. Supplemental CO2 added during this period can substantially increase plant and flower production and improve plant quality<[^] All these links have nothing to do with AGW./ They are unpartisan, unbiassed. Their only reason is plant yield. Now, to go back to the article you sent me about tropical plants developing massive starch deposits in their leaves. These scientists have produced a lot of reports about CO2 being bad for plants. One would almost say they are intentionally targeting this issues. However, in respect of the particular report yo sent me there are somne inconsistencies. They stated that there was
You know, the least you could do is spell my name correctly. It's right there next to every one of my posts.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
You know, the least you could do is spell my name correctly. It's right there next to every one of my posts.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, then I'll respond to the initial post. * Slightly elevated CO2 levels can aid in plant growth. We've discussed this already. * Greatly elevated CO2 levels can damage plants. See the fourth link you posted, specifically the "Plant Damage As A Result Of Co2 Supplementation" section. It warns you not to exceed recommended levels for various reasons. Also, it has a nice little graph in an earlier section, showing that photosynthesis gain is logarithmic, so levels won't go much above 120% of normal.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, then I'll respond to the initial post. * Slightly elevated CO2 levels can aid in plant growth. We've discussed this already. * Greatly elevated CO2 levels can damage plants. See the fourth link you posted, specifically the "Plant Damage As A Result Of Co2 Supplementation" section. It warns you not to exceed recommended levels for various reasons. Also, it has a nice little graph in an earlier section, showing that photosynthesis gain is logarithmic, so levels won't go much above 120% of normal.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Yes, what was the level for plant damage, about 1500PPM wasnt it? Brittle leaves was the problem if I recall correctly. It seems that 1300 is the recomended level though. Quite safe for humans too.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
They called it "necrosis"... Wonder how that affects the food quality...
fat_boy wrote:
Quite safe for humans too.
From Wikipedia: Carbon Dioxide[^]... These figures are valid for pure carbon dioxide. In indoor spaces occupied by people the carbon dioxide concentration will reach higher levels than in pure outdoor air. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality. So it affects respiration and perspiration, indirectly causing increasing discomfort... Not life-threatening in the short term. Of course, when you get into the 5000 and higher range, it starts to pose a significant health risk.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
They called it "necrosis"... Wonder how that affects the food quality...
fat_boy wrote:
Quite safe for humans too.
From Wikipedia: Carbon Dioxide[^]... These figures are valid for pure carbon dioxide. In indoor spaces occupied by people the carbon dioxide concentration will reach higher levels than in pure outdoor air. Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration. The discomfort will be caused by various gases coming from human respiration and perspiration, and not by CO2 itself. At 2,000 ppm the majority of occupants will feel a significant degree of discomfort, and many will develop nausea and headaches. The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality. So it affects respiration and perspiration, indirectly causing increasing discomfort... Not life-threatening in the short term. Of course, when you get into the 5000 and higher range, it starts to pose a significant health risk.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Ian Shlasko wrote:
The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality.
Ah, so fresh air is inferior quality?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants
How much higher? 20 times higher?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The CO2 concentration between 300 and 2,500 ppm is used as an indicator of indoor air quality.
Ah, so fresh air is inferior quality?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Concentrations higher than 1,000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants
How much higher? 20 times higher?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ah, so fresh air is inferior quality?
It says it's an indicator of quality. It doesn't say that entire range is good quality.
fat_boy wrote:
How much higher? 20 times higher?
Oh, come on... Now you're just grasping at straws. When you hit 1000, some people start to experience discomfort. When you hit 2000, you start getting headaches and nausea. 5000, you've breached OSHA guidelines for safety, 10000 (1%) also starts to cause drowsiness, 20000 (2%) it starts to affect blood pressure, 50000 (5%) you have trouble breathing and have panic attacks, 80000 (8%) you pass out. Obviously, we're not talking about concentrations in those later ranges, but just painting a full picture here. Hanging out in 1300 won't kill you, but calling it "quite safe" doesn't seem appropriate. Based on this information, I'd say anything below 1000 is "quite safe" from a health standpoint, and 1000-2000 is "mostly safe." I'm not saying it's dangerous to humans at the levels you stated. Just wouldn't call it as safe as fresh air.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Ok, then I'll respond to the initial post. * Slightly elevated CO2 levels can aid in plant growth. We've discussed this already. * Greatly elevated CO2 levels can damage plants. See the fourth link you posted, specifically the "Plant Damage As A Result Of Co2 Supplementation" section. It warns you not to exceed recommended levels for various reasons. Also, it has a nice little graph in an earlier section, showing that photosynthesis gain is logarithmic, so levels won't go much above 120% of normal.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)You're providing nuance now. fat_boy doesn't really DO nuance, in my experience.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You're providing nuance now. fat_boy doesn't really DO nuance, in my experience.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Still, he's better than CSS...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel) -
Still, he's better than CSS...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Hell yes he is, a thousand times better.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Ah, so fresh air is inferior quality?
It says it's an indicator of quality. It doesn't say that entire range is good quality.
fat_boy wrote:
How much higher? 20 times higher?
Oh, come on... Now you're just grasping at straws. When you hit 1000, some people start to experience discomfort. When you hit 2000, you start getting headaches and nausea. 5000, you've breached OSHA guidelines for safety, 10000 (1%) also starts to cause drowsiness, 20000 (2%) it starts to affect blood pressure, 50000 (5%) you have trouble breathing and have panic attacks, 80000 (8%) you pass out. Obviously, we're not talking about concentrations in those later ranges, but just painting a full picture here. Hanging out in 1300 won't kill you, but calling it "quite safe" doesn't seem appropriate. Based on this information, I'd say anything below 1000 is "quite safe" from a health standpoint, and 1000-2000 is "mostly safe." I'm not saying it's dangerous to humans at the levels you stated. Just wouldn't call it as safe as fresh air.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)Its safe enough for agricultural workers according to the canadian government. 1000 is no worse than a meeting room after an hour. A pub or night club could be way more than that. Never bothered me In any case, I dont think there is enough oil to get to 1000. If we are at peak oil, and weve only added 100 ppm, then 600 ppm is the most we are going to get to. And thats a walk in the park. Even for an asthmatic pensioner.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription