# Global warming, population control, & CO2



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

How much faster will pressurized CO2 make terrestrial plants grow?

Has anyone tried growing terrestrials with CO2?

For example, how much faster will a guava tree (or any other shrub/tree) grow with CO2?

Are the growth rate increases the same as aquatic plants that have no wood?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



Zapins said:


> How much faster will pressurized CO2 make terrestrial plants grow?
> 
> Has anyone tried growing terrestrials with CO2?
> 
> ...


Try here for some help.

http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/sgc/Indoor Garden Supply/CO2 Systems

They say 1500 ppm will increase plant growth rate 20 - 100%


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

Hey ray, thanks for the website! That was really helpful


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

After reading that I was curious. Do all those warnings about global warming include estimates for the increase in plant growth that will result from an increase in CO2.

I was also thinking, if the level of CO2 dropped by 1/3 all plant growth would stop!

Now that sounds like a lot of bio-feedback. Albeit slow but still buffering a lot of change in the atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Reginald2 (Feb 8, 2009)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

I saw some special on PBS where some school was studying the effects of carbon dioxide on terrestrial plants. They had a little green house set up. They were reporting all sorts of inconsistencies in the plant growth.

Some plants increased growth, some increased pollen. I think this From the USDA is from that study.

I didn't get to watch the whole thing, but I seem to remember people just saying they weren't sure what would happen.

The special was talking about MUCH less CO2 than the USDA report mentions. The little greenhouse they had set up was only like a 5% increase.

I'm off to googling


----------



## clearleaf (Oct 4, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> After reading that I was curious. Do all those warnings about global warming include estimates for the increase in plant growth that will result from an increase in CO2.
> 
> I was also thinking, if the level of CO2 dropped by 1/3 all plant growth would stop!
> 
> Now that sounds like a lot of bio-feedback. Albeit slow but still buffering a lot of change in the atmospheric CO2.


We also have many people in the hobby showing anecdotal evidence that seems to suggest that if you were to say, go from 1 bubble per second to 15 bubbles per second in your planted aquarium, you wouldn't really see much increase in growth rates. The plants simply don't use the excess CO2.

There are many many studies of global warming, some of them designed poorly and some of them designed well and accounting for such confounding factors as biomass increase I'm sure. I can't claim to know the answer to your question, though, only assume that there are some studies out there that have accounted for it. And some that haven't. But no matter what I think the world needs to be more environmentally conscious.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

It could also be that water only holds so much CO2 in carbonic acid form, so if you try add much more, it doesn't stay in solution and leaves the water. The pH won't drop below 5.5 with CO2 no matter how much you add.


----------



## jmhart (Nov 13, 2007)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> After reading that I was curious. Do all those warnings about global warming include estimates for the increase in plant growth that will result from an increase in CO2.
> 
> I was also thinking, if the level of CO2 dropped by 1/3 all plant growth would stop!
> 
> Now that sounds like a lot of bio-feedback. Albeit slow but still buffering a lot of change in the atmospheric CO2.


Ray,

I'm not climatologist or paleobotanist, but I have watched my fair share of PBS, Discovery, TLC, and History programs...

It is very interesting that every increase in CO2 is directly followed by a tremendous increase in co2 consuming biomass. Two things come to my mind that are thought provoking:

1)Left to it's own devices, the ecosystem would certainly increase plant load to utilize the increase in co2, resulting in(millions of years later) a decrease in CO2 and a significant increase in O2....as would be expected, this significantly effects evolution. However, we as humans tend to control where and when we allow plants to grow....do you think we effect the planet enough to prevent the spread of plantlift to the point that it can't utilize increased co2 levels?

2)Ultimately, Earth will ensure it's own survival....this whole CO2 greenhouse gas mess only effects us. Earth will survive, it just might leave us in the fossil record.


----------



## jargonchipmunk (Oct 25, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

a lot of greenhouses have Co2 injection set up to increase growth rates. It's not abnormal, and has been proven to work.


----------



## Reginald2 (Feb 8, 2009)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



clearleaf said:


> We also have many people in the hobby showing anecdotal evidence that seems to suggest that if you were to say, go from 1 bubble per second to 15 bubbles per second in your planted aquarium, you wouldn't really see much increase in growth rates. The plants simply don't use the excess CO2.


I fished around a little on google and found quite a few articles referring to the stoma (which seems to involve co2 uptake). There seems to be some evidence that these stomata just get smaller in co2 rich environments. I also found several references to this article Via ScienceDaily.com which shows growth rates increased in soybeans. I don't really know that they measured the resulting o2 levels.

I wonder if some of our co2 injection is just maintaining the same kind of equilibrium around the plants that they would have in a quick moving stream. They may be more co2 limited than a high surface area body of water, especially one that is in constant motion. It may be a little easier for us to experiment with our tiny tanks, or with green houses, however neither one of these are really natural environments. I worry a little bit about taking our experiment on a global scale. I worry a little more that we have so little information, a lot of which seems to be inconclusive and contradictory.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



jmhart said:


> Ray,
> 
> 1)Left to it's own devices, the ecosystem would certainly increase plant load to utilize the increase in co2, resulting in(millions of years later) a decrease in CO2 and a significant increase in O2....as would be expected, this significantly effects evolution. However, we as humans tend to control where and when we allow plants to grow....do you think we effect the planet enough to prevent the spread of plantlift to the point that it can't utilize increased co2 levels?
> 
> 2)Ultimately, Earth will ensure it's own survival....this whole CO2 greenhouse gas mess only effects us. Earth will survive, it just might leave us in the fossil record.


Ok here is a thought!

The CO2 increase causes a dramatic increase in plant biomass. Plants dramatically increase CO2 use, converting it to O2. Increase O2 has no real effect on animal life; so, animal reproduction stays the same. Eventually plants use up all the available CO2 and crash. There is no more O2 production. This takes down the animals.

Could be what happened to the dinosaurs? It doesn't need to take millions of years.

BTW: This is really the truth:
<<Ultimately, Earth will ensure it's own survival....this whole CO2 greenhouse gas mess only effects us. Earth will survive, it just might leave us in the fossil record. >>


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

I read a study once that tested what would happen if CO2 levels were dramatically increased on a plot of land. What they did was essentially just close off a large plot of land with all kinds of plants inside it (like a green house) and then raised the CO2 levels. What happened was the plants grew very well for some time, but then they ended up depleting the soil of nutrients and they eventually starved to death. Though the study didn't last for an exceptionally long period of time (only a few years), at the end of it only grasses and small plants seemed to survive.

This kind of thing would significantly change the ecosystem since it would cause plants to deplete the soil of vital nutrients. All is not lost though, since in the amazon rain forest soil is extremely poor in nutrients and the environment flourishes. Basically the amazon rain forest relies on a very quick turn over rate. So a tree dies and fungus decays it at a very fast rate, then the nutrients from that tree are taken up by new plants. Instead of taking decades to decay a log, it might take only a few weeks or months.

Of course, not every environment has enough rainfall to make such a quick turnover possible (fungus needs lots of moisture), so what would probably happen is a bit of a mix of both scenarios. Some plant species would go extinct since they can't deal with the conditions, and other species would move in to take their place, or would evolve quickly to fill an empty niche.

Evolution can take place very quickly in some cases, especially when the competition for space, light, and resources is essentially 0 (due to old species dying off in an area as CO2 rises), you are going to have some pretty good selection pressures to take advantage of the new area and free resources (since old areas still have competition).


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

While you are right my feeling is that the whole direction of "green house gas emission" is completely going the wrong way.

The real problem is that there are more humans on the planet the can be stably supported by the ecosystem and there are plenty more on the way. If there were 200 million people on the planet instead of 2 billion, all the environmental issues we have would go away.

Just the thought of an outcast!


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

I think we are up to nearly 6.8 billion people now  not 2 billion, we have been busy little guppies!


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

That doesn't make me feel better about the fate of you kid's?

You really need to cut back!


----------



## Supercoley1 (May 28, 2007)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



ray-the-pilot said:


> The real problem is that there are more humans on the planet the can be stably supported by the ecosystem


This is true in one way in that the more humans there are the more cars, industry, electricity etc we need.

The planet could stably support many more times the amount of humans there are on the planet were it not for our 'need' to pollute.

I think the world will run out of gas, oil and the like well before global warming really makes people suffer for their recklessness 

AC


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



Supercoley1 said:


> I think the world will run out of gas, oil and the like well before global warming really makes people suffer for their recklessness AC


Good call, I think this too.

Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that says global warming is actually not human caused, but in fact due to natural sun cycles (the sun has become brighter in recent years). If you think about it, all life, weather, and the planet itself are dependent upon the sun to run. Wouldn't it make more sense that the most powerful thing in our solar system is to blame, after all even a tiny increase in solar output still equates to the earth receiving vast amount of energy more than it did before the increase.

I think in recent years it has become a powerful political and economic tool to blame global warming on human produced CO2. Whole industries have popped up around the idea of reducing pollution (lots of jobs), not to mention the new policy mandates really help fund technology that enables first world countries to become energy self sufficient, and therefore more stable as global markets fluctuate due to conflicts (take the Middle East as an example).

Overall, I don't think humans contribute that much to global warming, in fact I would go so far as to say that people's contribution is probably fractional at best, and natural processes are responsible for the rest. However, I don't really mind the current mindset, because I agree with becoming energy independent and having cleaner burning fuels - they reduce smog and other pollutants like sulfur and lead that can damage the environment in other ways (acid rain, ecosystem damage, etc...).

This thread seems to have changed from its original question, but I think what is being discussed here is really interesting. Perhaps one of the moderators could move this thread to the waterbucket and change the title to "Global warming? Your thoughts?"?


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



Supercoley1 said:


> This is true in one way in that the more humans there are the more cars, industry, electricity etc we need.
> 
> The planet could stably support many more times the amount of humans there are on the planet were it not for our 'need' to pollute.
> 
> ...


Actually people don't need to pollute, they have to pollute! It is part of the natural biofeedback that prevents over population. In fact, humans are exceptionally good at not polluting!

Other animals have problems with waste build up that cause disease and death when too many of them are in the same place. You know what happens when you have too many fish in a smallish aquarium. Humans get around this with sanitation, which dramatically reduces the pollution produced by the individuals collectively. Humans are incredibly good at reducing the pollution that they produce by increasing efficiency! The problem is that there are two other factors that negate the effect of improved efficiency: more people and a higher standard of living.

Typically environmentalist say, "improve efficiency" (recycle) or "reduce your standard of living" (lower your thermostat). These do reduce pollution but if the population increases by 2x; pollution increases by 2x, no matter what you do.

From Zapins:

<<Also, there is quite a bit of evidence that says global warming is actually not human caused, but in fact due to natural sun cycles (the sun has become brighter in recent years). If you think about it, all life, weather, and the planet itself are dependent upon the sun to run. Wouldn't it make more sense that the most powerful thing in our solar system is to blame, after all even a tiny increase in solar output still equates to the earth receiving vast amount of energy more than it did before the increase. >>

Well, as little as 20,000 years ago much of where we live today was covered in ice. Before humans became civilized (say 2000BC) it was all gone. I'd call that a lot of global warming that had nothing to do with humans.

This is a really interesting topic but way off the subject and controversial; so, I expect they may shut this thread down!


----------



## Supercoley1 (May 28, 2007)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



> Actually people don't need to pollute, they have to pollute! It is part of the natural biofeedback that prevents over population. In fact, humans are exceptionally good at not polluting!


Organic wastes are part of the evolutionary cycle where like you say too much in one place shape the area in a 'natural' way which has happened since the start of 'time'.

Much like natural forest fires are a natural occurrence and a vital part of some habitats that rely on the forest 'recycling' itself.

The pollution I mean is the 'unnecessary' (artificial) caused as a waste product of things that humans have developed but I am not suggesting we all move to the perfect areas temperature wise of the earth and therefore not need heating or air conditioning.

Just meaning that without these sort of pollutions (from paper to write the idea on to manufacturing the items through to using the items and finally running/maintaining the items) this is the real factor in how many humans the planet could 'support'. These factors are 'perceived' human needs and without them the amount of humans that could live naturally would be many many times higher  possibly with no effect on environment other than the need for 'space'.

I myself do not drive and never have. I have never seen the 'need'. If I want to travel distance I use trains or buses. If I need to travel under 20 miles I travel by bicycle wherever possible. I recycle everything I can. I compost all my organic waste. However I have a PC, TV and lighting that use a lot of electricity.

I even have a fish tank that I put 60 fresh litres of water a week into, has pressurised CO2 added to, uses electricity for filters, lighting and heating. So if I were to become a true environmentalist I would also be stopping this hobby unless it were in a stagnant pond in my garden 

I don't think this thread will close down. It is a discussion and well mannered  Its good to discuss such matters without it descending into the mindless violence we see in London today or the people who threaten national security to prove a point 

AC


----------



## BryceM (Nov 6, 2005)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

Back to the original question, the guys from Tropica gave a talk a couple of years ago at the NEC meeting. If I recall correctly, they use propane burners in their greenhouses specifically to increase CO2. The raise anubias, crypts, and other emersed species this way.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



Supercoley1 said:


> Organic wastes are part of the evolutionary cycle where like you say too much in one place shape the area in a 'natural' way which has happened since the start of 'time'.
> 
> Much like natural forest fires are a natural occurrence and a vital part of some habitats that rely on the forest 'recycling' itself.
> 
> ...


From my perspective, riding a bicycle and taking a train are "standard of living" choices. It is certainly true that by having a lower standard of living you have less impact on the environment. I believe environmentalists call this your footprint. Standard of living is a relative thing. Although you may make choices that reduce your footprint compared to your neighbors, from the perspective of people in China, India and a large part of the world you are rather wasteful of resources and have a very big footprint. 
Actually, there is nothing wrong with wanting a better standard of living. It is certainly what all those people in China and India aspire too.

Now me and my wife have only one child. We have made a permanent 50% reduction in the amount of resources that will be used and the amount of pollution that will be produced. If everyone did that all our children could enjoy a 20% bigger footprint and still result in 30% less usage of resources and 30% less pollution. If this was coupled with increases in efficiency, everyone would be way better off. The way it is now, we have to increase efficiency and lower our standard of living just so we can squeeze more people in on the planet.

This is very contovercial and I'm sure a lot of people don't like the idea of having to make choices like having fewer/ no children.. It is much easier to say it is someone else's problem.


----------



## Zapins (Jul 28, 2004)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*

I think it is interesting to look to the statistics to get an idea of where the new population and subsequent pollution is coming from. For example, most US families don't have more than 2 kids per family (if I remember correctly the current national average is 2.1 children per family). This is simply replacement rate. Every woman has 2 kids, one to replace herself and one to replace her husband equaling a net of 0 more people in the US.

Countries like India and third-world countries in Africa do not have the same belief systems as the US. Traditionally having 6-10 children (to ensure 2 live to adulthood) is a way of life. Now with better health-care all those children are surviving to adulthood to produce another 6-10 kids per family etc... That is why the planet's population is truly increasing.

I think if you look at all things considered, sure the US consumes a lot more than other countries per person, but that consumption level is constant and has been for decades. In fact, I would even make the case that the US pollution rates have steadily been falling since the industrial revolution due to recent environmental movements. Therefore US is not the source of new global pollution.

Though this is a touchy subject I don't see why the US should have to tighten its belt at only about 375 million people to counteract the rest of the 6.4 billion people's footprints, especially when the new pollution isn't really coming from the US. However, changing age-old belief systems, many of which are tied in with religion and social customs, is a major challenge that will have to be overcome in some way. Then again, taking responsibility for our contribution to the global pollution (because some of it is definitely ours!) is probably a good idea anyway lol, it is just more fun to point the finger at other countries .


----------



## SueNH (Jan 17, 2005)

Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet countries are in a negative population growth.


----------



## SueNH (Jan 17, 2005)

I guess that's not population growth when it's negative.


----------



## TAB (Feb 7, 2009)

Something to think about, 30 years ago, those in the "know" thought we were going into a ice age cuased by our emissions.

Humen only account for 3% of the CO2 in the air...


So truth be told we really don't know whats going to happen.

I'd also like to point out that many of things people do to "save the planet" actually do more damage too it. hybrid cars and most recycling come to mind.


----------



## ray-the-pilot (May 14, 2008)

*Re: CO2 with terrestrial plants?*



Zapins said:


> I think if you look at all things considered, sure the US consumes a lot more than other countries per person, but that consumption level is constant and has been for decades. In fact, I would even make the case that the US pollution rates have steadily been falling since the industrial revolution due to recent environmental movements. Therefore US is not the source of new global pollution.
> 
> Though this is a touchy subject I don't see why the US should have to tighten its belt at only about 375 million people to counteract the rest of the 6.4 billion people's footprints, especially when the new pollution isn't really coming from the US. However, changing age-old belief systems, many of which are tied in with religion and social customs, is a major challenge that will have to be overcome in some way. Then again, taking responsibility for our contribution to the global pollution (because some of it is definitely ours!) is probably a good idea anyway lol, it is just more fun to point the finger at other countries .


One estimate of the size of your footprint is the per capita GDP or the average amount of goods and services each person consumes. Using this measure each America consumes 10x what each Chinese person consumes. That means that 375 million American consume as much as 3.75 billion Chinese.

This is interesting. The Chinese have instituted a one child per family economic plan, which is reducing the rate of growth in their population. I believe that India has or will soon pass China as the most populous country. The Chinese goal is to eventually have a reduction in population but it may take 20 -30 years.

The down side of this (from a Chinese friend of mine) is that a whole generation of people will grow up with no uncles or aunts!


----------



## intothenew (Aug 1, 2008)

*Confessions of a ****​*
Sapien that is.

I am a member of a global community, populated by my species as well as many more, populated by species that I am not aware of. I inhabit a big blue marble in a vast universe that is certainly a rarity, and quite possibly unique.

Change is a constant, I know that intuitively from my few trips around the sun. I can only hope to not upset the rate of change. I command the intellectual tools, and the industrial means that could allow me to forever alter a system that has grown slowly for millennia. I command fire, which sets me apart from my neighbors.

I also, and more importantly, command fire of unknown origin. I am in the infant stages of manipulating the ionic bonds of molecules and the nuclear bonds of atoms. In this study, I have come to realize the immense power, and the tiny fractions of time that this fire can spread. Although I live in a buffered system, this capability does allow me to irreversibly change or destroy the ecosystem that I inhabit.

I must stay mindful of my ability to affect rate of change.


----------



## Reginald2 (Feb 8, 2009)

It is interesting that the thought of having fewer children is more acceptable than reducing our "footprints" (feetprint?!). We really aren't a "warm and fuzzy" people are we?

I like to think of myself as being the top of the food chain. The United States is kind of a good example of how quickly the top-of-the-food-chain can alter its environment and even the food chain itself. Relatively small numbers of Westerners dramatically altered the American landscape to better suit themselves. There are also much less flattering examples of this around the world.

The environment seems to share a lot of similarities with the theory of evolution. Trying to prove something that is not easily replicated is: troublesome to say the least. This is compounded when that _proof_ would cause some sort of crisis of faith about our place, or importance, in our surroundings.

I think that we have known, for a long time, that we require more than our neighbors. The question is not: does that matter, but does that matter to us? It is far easier to debate the existence of a problem than it is our responsibility in the problem. Once these arguments start breaking down, we have to start asking very difficult questions.


----------

