Interview with Bjorn Lomborg

Besoeker · 07-11-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Sure didn't. As you know, I believe the co2 levels on this planet are too low and need to be much higher.

Fine.
Care to say how much higher - an actual figure - and how you arrived at that figure?

mkpdavies · 07-11-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Fine.
Care to say how much higher - an actual figure - and how you arrived at that figure?

Effectively Implementing CO2

Quote:

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

I reckon about there would be good. A nice optimum lelve of 1500, so we get optimum crop growth. A few thousand more, or a few hundred less would probably be fine too though.

For Humans

http://en.scientificcommons.org/18306498

Quote:

Seven normal volunteers were exposed to an environment of 21 mm. Hg CO2 (3%) for a 5-day experimental period bracketed by two 5-day control periods. Measurements included daily serum and urine electrolytes, blood gas studies, and net acid excretion studies. Also included were detailed investigations of respiratory physiology, exercise response, and psychomotor performance. All subjects tolerated the experimental atmosphere with no undue problems. Arterial and alveolar PCO2's increased 3 to 4 mm. Hg with a mild reduction in arterial pH from 7.40 to 7.37. Arterial pH values returned to near control values by the fourth day. No increases were noted in net acid excretion. Exercise was tolerated remarkably well. (Author)

No probs at 3% CO2 (compared to 0.035% in atmosphere now).

So I think to be safe we'll say it's best for humans (and this is just my opinion), it being below 1% is a nice conservative level.

As I don't think we will change it much either way, without doing something very drastic (such as nuke the planet), its irrelevant really. As nature may decide to wipe us out one day. Though, I might start getting concerned when levels are about 50 times what they are now.

Wolfie Smith · 07-11-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Effectively Implementing CO2

I reckon about there would be good. A nice optimum lelve of 1500, so we get optimum crop growth. A few thousand more, or a few hundred less would probably be fine too though.

For Humans

http://en.scientificcommons.org/18306498

No probs at 3% CO2 (compared to 0.035% in atmosphere now).

So I think to be safe we'll say it's best for humans (and this is just my opinion), it being below 1% is a nice conservative level.

As I don't think we will change it much either way, without doing something very drastic (such as nuke the planet), its irrelevant really. As nature may decide to wipe us out one day. Though, I might start getting concerned when levels are about 50 times what they are now.

You, my friend, are barking.

Ian C · 07-11-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

You, my friend, are barking

We know !!
just keeping him amused really ......

Besoeker · 08-11-2007, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Effectively Implementing CO2
Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.

[/quote]
Which, of course, implies that anything above 0.15% is sub-optimal for plant growth.

mkpdavies · 08-11-2007, 09:43 AM

I'd need to see research on that rather taking the implied. As we need to tripple co2 levels from todays co2 starved atmosphere, to get to the optimum level, I would guess we could overshoot that level by the same sort of factor without major issues.

You do have a point though. How would plants react to much more co2 than just the 3* levels we are talking now. I might have to lower my levels of being concerned at in the light of new studies in that area.

Not that there is anything significant we can do about it either way.

Anthony Smithee · 08-11-2007, 12:59 PM

That should be your research. It very strongly implies such a thing:

Quote:

optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2.

Is it ppmv or ppmw, by the way?

Also, we have already taken it up by ~100 ppmv above the previous high in the past 800,000 years. That hardly suggests that we can't do anything significant; it is about 35% above the previous high, an amount I would feel is quite significant.

I'm not of the opinion that it causes global warming, but altering the composition of our atmosphere is hardly the wisest thing to do. Humans are not exactly famed for getting things right.

mkpdavies · 08-11-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

we have already

Have we? Show me your evidence this isn't natural variation.

Anthony Smithee · 08-11-2007, 04:57 PM

CO2 in the atmosphere naturally has a different isotopic composition of carbon compared to that emitted by man; it has a lower ratio of C-13 to C-12.
Around the time that fossil fuels began to be burnt the ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere increased, as we would expect if the increased CO2 were due to industrial emissions.

mkpdavies · 09-11-2007, 09:40 AM

That's interesting. Got a link to some good research on that. I am amazed they were keeping track of such things back then. Or is that based on icecore data?

08-11-2007, 09:43 AM	#16 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,806	I'd need to see research on that rather taking the implied. As we need to tripple co2 levels from todays co2 starved atmosphere, to get to the optimum level, I would guess we could overshoot that level by the same sort of factor without major issues. You do have a point though. How would plants react to much more co2 than just the 3* levels we are talking now. I might have to lower my levels of being concerned at in the light of new studies in that area. Not that there is anything significant we can do about it either way. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

09-11-2007, 09:40 AM	#20 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,806	That's interesting. Got a link to some good research on that. I am amazed they were keeping track of such things back then. Or is that based on icecore data? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/43615-interview-bjorn-lomborg.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
British Democracy Forum (& UKIP)	This thread	Refback	07-11-2007 12:55 PM

08-11-2007, 04:57 PM	#19 (permalink)
Anthony Smithee Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Portsmouth, Hampshire Posts: 73	CO2 in the atmosphere naturally has a different isotopic composition of carbon compared to that emitted by man; it has a lower ratio of C-13 to C-12. Around the time that fossil fuels began to be burnt the ratio of C-13 to C-12 in the atmosphere increased, as we would expect if the increased CO2 were due to industrial emissions.