Practically Speaking

"Did you see Our Mr. Sun when you were in school?"

Ah no, but I did see lots of Mr. Grinchman, the vice principal. That in turn led to seeing lots of Ms. Ratchet, the ninth hour custodian. By the time they let me out of school for the day, Mr. Moon was high in the sky.

It wasn't till I entered the military and got a huge dose of Sgt. Demento that my self control kicked in enough to complete high school and later college too.

The military has a wonderful photosynthesis programme! :=)
 

Hi Kyle,

I did not see Mr. Sun in school unfortunately, it looks like a good and memorable lesson.

Do we agree now that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are on the increase?

I don't think anyone or any research contradicts that fact, so that makes it a good starting point, even if we wouldn't agree on the main causes for the increase in CO2.

There has been alot of talk about planting more trees from my experience. I remember (back to my high school and university days) of much talk of burning the rainforests and how the increased CO2 production in the burning process (along with gas/oil production and other human activities) and how the decrease in tree numbers would remove an important CO2 sink from our earth. Yes, this is before Global Warming became a common catch phrase (I am old enough for that really, you sort of chastized me one time inferring that I was too young to know much). I have seen a few reports over the past few years that indicate that CO2 increases could have the benefit of increasing production of many food crops. Unfortunately this is tempered by the fact that climate change is bound to cause other changes in weather patterns, something that the EPA has acknowledged officially today (even if it was kept under wraps as long as possible).

www.msnbc.msn.com/.../25680628

Hopefully things will tip back into our favor over the next decades and  the climate doesn't keep heading in the direction it is currently.

You mentioned how animals respire oxygen and produce CO2, while plants do the opposite, something that science has more or less proven. As a Christian who believes in evolution myself, I was surprised to see you relate this to evolution (though 'lucky' evolution, and then take it back instantly). I don't know of any evolutionists who would say that this was a 'lucky' bit of evolution. Most would say it is a result of billions of years of symbiotic growth and evolution, also analogous to host/virus relations. Either way, whether one believes this relationship was the result of billions of years of symbiotic evolution between plants and microbes and animals (either on its own or set in gear from an original design by God), or was an amazing design concieved by God in an instant, I don't think either side would call this a 'lucky' coincidence, especially on the side of evolutionists, but more like an Amazingly intricate and beautiful interplay of life. To do any less would be to lessen the power of God, evolution, or both depending on ones beliefs.

You also mention that CO2 is not a pollutant to you, but a good thing.  Well, of course we all know that too much of a good thing can be bad. Just because plants would be happy with a little more CO2 doesn't sell me on desiring an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere for some reason. Too much CO2 would cause humans/animals difficulties in respiration and as a greenhouse gas would increase global temperatures. The ocean and plants have been a constant sink for CO2, but their capacity to absorb the additional CO2 is and will become more compromised over time and the biggest question mark in modeling how the earth responds to atmospheric changes is figuring out those 'tipping points'. Hopefully we won't reach obvious tipping points and the earth will recover from the current trend eventually.

Kyle's reply: Lots here, I will hit a few of the highlights.

Since we have only been keeping records for such a short time in comparison to the age of the earth, it is hard to say what the exact levels were. Volcanoes, for example, spew lots of CO2. There could have been eras with high levels. (Yes, there are probably some indicators of that.)

My reference to the trees was not about the 1970s or even 80s when there was great concern about the disappearing rain forest. Back then, the environmentalists were pushing planting trees (a good thing.) I seem to remember they thought we would run low on O2?

But somehow in the global warming discussion lately, I don't hear much about planting trees. Carbon credits, cap and trade, and alternative fuels are what's touted. Since I think we can all agree that trees are good, why isn't there a greater push for tree planting?

My reference to the lucky coincidence was pure tongue in cheek. I do not believe in luck. I do believe in Providence (God's provision.) You are right, the system is very intricate and amazing and I am sure we have only scratched the surface.

CO2 being a good thing was really in contrast to Global Warmingists acting like it was a pollutant. True, too much of a necessity can be bad--like salt. We need salt to live but too much can kill us. CO2 is a necessity of life. I don't know that we really know how much is too much.

Since you mention you are a Christian, I would encourage you to look into Creation Science with an open mind and heart. Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis is one good source of information as is the Creation Museum in Kentucky. 

Hi Kyle,

We do agree on many things, and i agree with your reply. I agree that the 'plant more trees' mantra has not been pressed lately. About the only time the benefit of trees is mentioned it is associated with environmental groups trying to preserve large tracts of forest, which account for a large portion of earth's positive CO2 sink (ie, Canada recently preserving the largest forest in earth in the boreal forests).

CO2 is a good thing, but the atmospheric concentrations currently are higher than they have been in human history, and if we want the earth to maintain in approximately the same environmental state that God gave it to us in, we should look to limit the massive influx of CO2 that human energy needs are causing in a reasonable manner. I don't think anyone could say how much CO2 is too much, just that as it keeps increasing, the effects ramp up as the earth's buffering system becomes saturated. It is a function of both CO2 concentrations and time.

Of course, we need a certain amount of salt too, and most (Americans at least) consume too much.  Thankfully, both salt and CO2 have a buffering system to help counter excess, up to a point.

We do have hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 and atmospheric gases and particulates data (or we have data dating back to creation depending on beliefs of age of the earth) based on ice core samples.

I have read a quite a few things on the case for creationism outside of the bible, though i am not an expert in those matters by any stretch. Every time when they call it science and then fall back and say it is true because the bible says it in this verse, I get discouraged because true or not, at that point it is faith and not science. The reason i get discouraged is not because I think i have texts of clear facts and mounds of fossils and phyical geology that prove them wrong (though that doesn't help), it is just because they call it science while basically saying science is evil or a lie. I feel there is a problem with calling  much of the geological and evolutionary science bogus while believing most other things science has provided (disease cures, understanding of plant functioning, the cement that holds all concrete together, etc.), are great and respectible and will place faith in the doctors, engineers, water scientists, to keep us safe and really place our lives in their hands on so many levels.

Kyle's reply: Can't reply to everything...busy day here. But... I don't know what you are reading. I have never seen or heard Creationists say that science is evil or bad! In fact, Creationist and Intelligent Design believers ask that we just look at the scientific evidence and leave it at that. The Creation Museum in Kentucky presents things that way--Here is the scientific evidence: Evolutionists interpret it that way--Creationists interpret it this way.