Author Topic: Co2 Gives Life to our Planet - 550 ppm is Better for Plants  (Read 6034 times)

Offline JC Spencer

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
Response from Dr. Neil Frank, Respected Houston Weather Expert
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2010, 06:03:54 PM »
Dr. Neil Frank has been a highly respected weather expert for many years at both the national level and in Houston. 

His article clearly and accurately points out the blatant falsehoods in the arguments of those pushing Global Warming initiatives.     

Climategate: You should be steamed
HOUSTON CHRONICLE Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

If you have not heard, hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.

Climate alarmists would like you to believe the science has been settled and all respectable atmospheric scientists support their position. The believers also would like you to believe the skeptics are involved only because of the support of Big Oil and that they are few in number with minimal qualifications.

But who are the skeptics? A few examples reveal that they are numerous and well-qualified. Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March. They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.
Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to “strongly reconsider” her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

The revelation of Climate¬gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth's temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate.

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.

Offline JC Spencer

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
Co2 Gives Life to our Planet - 550 ppm is Better for Plants
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2009, 10:53:08 PM »
by J. C. Spencer

We have an intellectual problem about Carbon Dioxide.  Co2 is what makes plants grow, thrive, and produce simple and complex sugars so they can produce our essential oxygen and nutrition.  Most plants will stop growing when the Co2 level decreases below 150 ppm.  Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is evident.  Current Co2 is calculated at about 385 ppm which is about 0.03% of the atmosphere.  Oxygen (O2) is about 200,000 ppm or 20.95% of the earth’s atmosphere.  We need more oxygen and the way the planet gets it is from plants.  Plants grow better and produce greater crops at a Co2 count of 550 ppm.  University studies prove that we need MORE Co2 to produce better plants and nutrition.  Research has shown that in most cases the rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.  The games politicians are playing with Co2 remind me of the intellectual problem with energy.  We have oil in Texas but the dipsticks are in Washington, DC.  The other day my wife and I were in a Houston restaurant when a lady at a nearby table broke into laughter when she overheard me say, “If politicians were hemmed in by truth, they would soon become extinct.”  More information at

Now, today’s research article.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Carbon Dioxide (Co2) Enrichment - Air Fertilization

The Importance of Carbon Dioxide (Co2) for Healthy Plant Growth

Most of the applied research on greenhouse crops has dealt with effects of environmental conditions on plant growth. Factors such as water, light, temperature and nutrients are more easily controlled for optimum growth. It is now possible to also control and accurately measure Carbon Dioxide concentrations in greenhouse and Controlled Environment Garden (CEG) atmospheres.

Carbon Dioxide (Co2) contributes to plant growth as part of the miracle of nature known as photosynthesis. This enables plants to combine Carbon Dioxide and water with the aid of light energy to form sugar. Some of these sugars are converted into complex compounds that increase dry solid plant substances for continued growth to final maturity. However, when the supply of carbon dioxide is cut off, or reduced, the complex plant cell structure cannot utilize the sun's energy fully and growth or development is curtailed.

Although carbon dioxide is one of three main components which combine to produce the products necessary for plant growth, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is only 0.03% (250 to 330 parts per million). This compares to 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.97% trace gases in normal air. Numerous tests have proven that during the winter months carbon dioxide concentrations inside greenhouses is invariably much lower than in outside air. This same phenomenon has been shown in controlled environment gardens.


Research has shown that in most cases rate of plant growth under otherwise identical growing conditions is directly related to carbon dioxide concentration.

The amount of carbon dioxide a plant requires to grow may vary from plant to plant, but tests show that most plants will stop growing when the Co2 level decreases below 150 ppm. Even at 220 ppm, a slow-down in plant growth is significantly noticeable.

Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled Co2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher Co2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.


During the winter months, plants near the middle of greenhouse beds generally do not grow as rapidly as plants at the edge. Tests have shown Co2 concentration lower in the center of greenhouses than near the outer walls.  Outside air leaking in through small openings around windows carries enough carbon dioxide to satisfy requirements of plants at the edge of beds. The lack of adequate Co2 lowers the average plant yield quality and market value.

Costly methods of stimulating plant growth, in order to market them at optimum profit, are presently being used. One of these is extra heat (with open vents). This, however, increases operating costs and decreases profit.  On the other hand, growers using Co2 are cutting their heating costs as much as 50% while realizing extra profit from increased crop production.



By adding Co2 to the atmosphere around the plant, a 40% crop increase was achieved. Whereas previous crops averaged 22 heads per basket, lettuce grown in the increased Co2 atmosphere (550 ppm) averaged 16 heads of better quality per basket.


Co2 levels to 550 ppm produced an obvious increase in yield (over 30%), but the greatest benefits were earlier flowering (up to 2 weeks) with an increased percentage of dry matter.


The addition of controlled carbon dioxide provided a remarkable improvement in blossom quality, number and yield. Plants consistently produced many more flowers with 24 to 30 inch stems. Average yield was increased by 39.7%.


Work in experimental stations has shown that crop increases of as much as 29% have been obtained by increasing the Co2 concentration.  More desirable firmness and more uniform ripening are also observed.