U.s. co2 emissions rise as nuclear power plants close page 5 politicalforum.com – forum for us and intl politics gas mask art

########

Click to expand…This isn’t correct. If your argument is that 0.04% of something can’t have an effect then surely by extension you would agree that 0.00% would have no effect either. Yet, this trivial difference defines whether Earth has photosynthetic biomass or not. It is essential in determining whether electricity flow direction the Earth is covered in ice or not. It is essential in maintaining the alkalinity of the oceans. But let’s move on to your second point that even if changes in CO2 really do matter then an increase can only be beneficial. Sure, it is beneficial to some processes like the C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis, but it’s not that beneficial to C4 carbon fixation photosynthesis. And there are secondary effects that CO2 causes like climate change that effects both C3 and C4 carbon fixation. So while more CO2 may enhance C3 carbon fixation it also results in changes in soil chemistry, moisture, temperature, direct sunlight, etc. all of which are also essential in photosynthesis. So you can’t make a blanket statement that an increase in CO2 is always beneficial because it isn’t.

You are the only person on here dynamic electricity examples that has proposed that CO2 is a poison. You’ve done this to build up a strawman that is easy to tear down. And I agree. It is an easy strawman to tear down because CO2 is, in fact, biologically harmless to humans in typical concentrations. But, just remember that this is your strawman. Don’t try to pretend like we’re the ones that built it.

This isn’t correct. If your argument is that 0.04% of something can’t have an effect then surely by extension you would agree that 0.00% would physical science electricity review worksheet have no effect either. Yet, this trivial difference defines whether Earth has photosynthetic biomass or not. It is essential in determining whether the Earth is covered in ice or not. It is essential in maintaining the alkalinity of the oceans. But let’s move on to your second point that even if changes in CO2 really do matter then an increase can only be beneficial. Sure, it is beneficial to some processes like the C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis, but it’s not that beneficial to C4 carbon fixation photosynthesis. And there are secondary effects that CO2 causes like climate change that effects both C3 and C4 carbon fixation. So while more CO2 may enhance C3 carbon fixation it also results in changes in soil chemistry, moisture, temperature, direct gasbuddy trip sunlight, etc. all of which are also essential in photosynthesis. So you can’t make a blanket statement that CO2 is always beneficial because it isn’t.

You are the only person on here that has proposed that CO2 is a poison. You’ve done this to build up a strawman that is easy to tear down. And I agree. It is an easy strawman to tear down because CO2 is, in fact, biologically harmless to humans in typical concentrations. But, just remember that this is your strawman. Do try to pretend like we’re the ones that built gas engine tom it.

This isn’t correct. If your argument is that 0.04% of something can’t have an effect then surely by extension you would agree that 0.00% would have no effect either. Yet, this trivial difference defines whether Earth has photosynthetic biomass or not. It is essential in determining whether the Earth is covered in ice or not. It is essential in maintaining the alkalinity of the oceans. But let’s move on to your second point that even if changes in CO2 really do matter then an increase can only be beneficial. Sure, it is beneficial to some processes like the C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis, but it’s not that beneficial to C4 carbon fixation photosynthesis. And there are secondary effects that CO2 causes like climate change that effects both C3 and C4 carbon fixation. So while more CO2 may enhance C3 carbon fixation it also results in changes in soil chemistry, moisture, temperature, direct sunlight, etc. all of which are also essential in photosynthesis. So you can’t make a blanket statement that an increase in CO2 is always beneficial because it isn’t.

You are the only person on here that has proposed that CO2 is a poison. You’ve done this to build up a strawman that is easy to tear down. And I agree. It is an easy strawman to tear down because CO2 is, in fact, biologically harmless to humans in typical gas buddy concentrations. But, just remember that this is your strawman. Don’t try to pretend like we’re the ones that built it.