Recently in Nothing Would Be Green Without CO2 Category

The Photosynthesis Effect

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

By Elmer Beauregard


In my quest to find out what CO2 levels actually are in Minnesota I purchased my own CO2 meter and I have been having fun with it ever since. The good people at said you should let it run all day and see what happens. I did and much to my surprise I noticed that CO2 levels vary greatly in just one day.

During the day CO2 levels drop at a pretty steady rate, as plants grow during the day they consume CO2 and in turn emit oxygen for us to breath. This is called Photosynthesis and is the engine that drives life on this planet. It is a symbiotic relationship between animals and plants which I believe is God designed. How could something this complicated and well designed happen by chance?

What I think is interesting about this chart however is the dramatic spike in CO2 levels around sunset. CO2 levels go from a low of 378 ppm at 7 PM to a high of 462 ppm just after 9 PM. (sunset was at 7:51 PM). This is a 84 PPM or 18% increase in just 2 hours.

There are no man made influences shown on this chart. It was a very nice day here in Minnesota, we weren't running any air conditioners or furnaces, there were no fires no grilling this is just nature doing its thing. Plus, I have noticed this spike every night when taking measurements.

I'm sure all of you climate scientist reading this know all about the Photosynthesis Effect and have many arguments on why natural daily variations are meaningless. But when I see how much natural variability in CO2 levels there are in one day, I don't think there is a need to panic over a 1 PPM increase in CO2 every year at Mauna Loa.

By Elmer Beauregard

Yesterday I blogged on how the atmoshperic CO2 levels in Minnesota are higher than Mouna Loa Hawaii, but I should have waited a day.

I started measuring yesterday morning and the CO2 was about 430 ppm but it kept dropping as the day progressed. The good people at CO2 warned me this would happen but I had no idea it would be this dramatic. The CO2 levels yesterday went from 430 ppm at 8 AM in the morning to 381 at 5:30 PM the height of the Photosynthesis Effect. That is an 11% shift in one day.

Currently Mauna Loa is at 392 PPM so Minne Loa is 11 PPM lower than Mauna Loa.

I have no idea what this means but it was an interesting exercise.

Here is the chart from 12PM to 7Pm from yesterday.


By Elmer Beauregard

About a month ago I put up a post called Will Minnesota be lower than Mauna Loa? because I had a theory that Minnesota might have less atmospheric CO2 than Mauna Loa Hawaii, but I was dead wrong.

I looked all over the internet to try and find what atmospheric CO2 levels are in Minnesota but I found nothing. So I figured I would just start my own CO2 level reading station here at the Minnesotans For Global Warming World Headquarters. So I purchased the USB CO2 Probe Data Logger K-30 model from the good folks at


I got the CO2 meter right away so why did I take so long to post the results?

First, being a mac guy I had to find a PC laptop to run the software. After doing that I messed with the calibration settings on the CO2 probe which I shouldn't have done.

Turns out there are 2 ways to calibrate the K-30 one way is to bring it outside and zero it out to whatever the atmospheric CO2 levels are. It assumes the CO2 level is around 400ppm then it measures all CO2 levels relative to that such as inside a building.

This is what I originally did but that was wrong because I wanted to measure the outside CO2 level and I don't want to assume it is 400ppm.

The other way to calibrate it is in a 100% Nitrogen environment which is how it came shipped but I didn't know that. So I tried creating a 100% Nitrogen environment to recalibrate it but that, turns out, is hard to do. I went to a welding supply store who sells 99.9% Nitrogen gas but the other .1% was probably air which was enough to throw off the calibration. Remember we are taking about .03% of the atmosphere. So I sent it back to the good folks at and they recalibrated it in a 100% Nitrogen environment.

I got it back yesterday and I plugged it in this morning and took the first measurement which I feel is pretty accurate and to my surprise CO2 levels in Minnesota are higher than I thought.

Drum roll please.......

By Ayesha Rascoe,

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday upheld the first-ever U.S. proposed rules governing heat-trapping greenhouse gases, clearing a path for sweeping regulations affecting vehicles, coal-burning power plants and other industrial facilities.

Handing a setback to industry and a victory to the Obama administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that carbon dioxide is a public danger and the decision to set limits for emissions from cars and light trucks were "neither arbitrary nor capricious."

The ruling, which addresses four separate lawsuits, upholds the underpinnings of the Obama administration's push to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and is a rebuke to a major push by heavy industries including electric utilities, coal miners and states like Texas to block the EPA's path.

In the 82-page ruling, the three-judge panel also found that the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide regulations is "unambiguously correct."

Read the rest of the article here.

The Carbon-Cycle-Cycle

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

It seems like scientists keep rediscovering something that was discovered over 230 years ago


By Elmer Beauregard

Since I've been doing this blog I keep posting study after study about the effects of CO2 on plants. Another study just came out today put out by the University of Michigan. Last week there was this study about how plants gobble up more CO2 than thought. I think these are good studies and I agree with them because they show that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a trace gas without which there would be no life on this planet. But didn't Joseph Priestley and others prove that in the late 18th century?

I remember learning about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle in 8th grade science and I thought it was the coolest thing. To me it showed that our planet was designed with very intricate and symbiotic systems that could produce and sustain life, surely these systems couldn't have happened by accident. But why after all this time does science seem to be questioning the integrity of these systems?

It could be they are just doing it for the money, they know that politicians are gullible and are easily scared into forking over big dollars to "save" the planet. But after talking to a few true believers at the AGS Convention, I think there may be another reason.

Plant trees, not carbon laws

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


U-M ecologist: Future forests may soak up more carbon dioxide than previously believed

An aerial view of the 38-acre experimental forest in Wisconsin where U-M researchers and their colleagues continuously exposed birch, aspen and maple trees to elevated levels of carbon dioxide and ozone gas from 1997 through 2008. Credit: David Karnosky, Michigan Technological University

ANN ARBOR, Mich.--North American forests appear to have a greater capacity to soak up heat-trapping carbon dioxide gas than researchers had previously anticipated.

As a result, they could help slow the pace of human-caused climate warming more than most scientists had thought, a U-M ecologist and his colleagues have concluded.

The results of a 12-year study at an experimental forest in northeastern Wisconsin challenge several long-held assumptions about how future forests will respond to the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide blamed for human-caused climate change, said University of Michigan microbial ecologist Donald Zak, lead author of a paper published online this week in Ecology Letters.

"Some of the initial assumptions about ecosystem response are not correct and will have to be revised," said Zak, a professor at the U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology in the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

Earth Day Smurf Day

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

By Elmer Beauregard

I am a child of the 70's and was into Earth Day when it first started.

Originally "Earth Day" was about stopping pollution and conservation which I am all for. Then for the last decade or so it was all about 'Global Warming" now if you go to they are hiding the global warming stuff. They do have a footprint calculator but its not a "Carbon" footprint calculator. I took the quiz to see what my footprint is and unfortunately it will take 10.9 planets to sustain my lifestyle. Evidently because I eat meat, have running water, use electricity, drive an SUV, have a house in the suburbs and a bunch of kids I am destroying the planet, but at least "Global Warming" wasn't part of it.

But after you click a little deeper it's still there, did you now that this is also Clmateweek? And they now have the Carbon War Room.

So to counteract all of's anti-green, and anti-earth and anti-people agenda. I just want to remind everybody that Nothing Would Be Green Without CO2.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where's The Dioxide?


Deep Thoughts By Elmer Beauregard


It sounds like the Cap and Trade bill is in trouble once again, which I am glad about, so "Carbon" taxes and "Carbon" offsets are in the news again. The problem is they don't want to tax "Carbon" they want to tax "Carbon Dioxide"!

My question is: Isn't calling Carbon Dioxide "Carbon" like calling water "Hydrogen"? Actually its worse then that, water is 2/3 Hydrogen, CO2 is only 1/3 Carbon. What Happened to the Oxygen molecules? Where's the "Dioxide"?

It must be a marketing thing, because Carbon is black and really messy stuff but Carbon Dioxide is a clear and odorless gas and is plant food! Nothing would be Green without CO2!

They want put a tax on Carbon Dioxide, so it will drive up the price of electricity so we will hopefully use less of it just because we can't afford it, I get that part.

My question is: When we give all those billions of tax dollars to Al Gore and Goldman Sachs how are they then going to save the planet? Are they all going to buy more energy efficient yachts?

Here's another thing. Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano is dumping tons of Sulfur Dioxide into the atmosphere, but according to the local news this might be a good thing. Turns out scientists want to spray the skies with Sulfur Dioxide to stop global warming.

My question is: Why is it a bad thing when power companies emit Sulfur Dioxide, but its a good thing when nature or scientists do? If Carbon Dioxide causes Global Warming but Sulfur Dioxide prevents it, instead of restricting Carbon Dioxide maybe we should allow more Sulfur Dioxide emissions.

Breaking News: Trees Love CO2!



Forests could be growing faster now than they were 225 years ago as a result of global warming, a study has revealed.

Swiss Forests_monster_397x224.JPGForests could be growing faster now than they were 225 years ago as a result of global warming, a study has revealed.

The study, published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found evidence that trees in the eastern United States were growing at an accelerated rate due to the rising levels of atmospheric CO2, higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.

Scientists in Maryland, VA documented changes to the growth of 55 plots of mixed hardwood forest over 22 years, and concluded the younger trees were growing much quicker than the eldest trees in the study, which were 225-years-old, a Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) blog reported Monday.

Breaking News: Plants Love Greenhouse Gas


by Elmer Beaureguard

In a recent study at the University of Illinois they just discovered something that I learned in 6th grade, that plants love CO2. In fact they can't get enough of it, they need it to survive and grow. The more CO2 there is the more they convert it into Oxygen for us to breath. It's a beautiful symbiotic relationship between man and plants called Photosynthesis.


The study, from researchers at the University of Illinois and the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The enhanced respiration is likely to support greater transport of
sugars from leaves to other growing parts of the plant, including the

In 2003 in a similar study scientists set out to prove the effect of greenhouse gasses on trees. They planted trees in New York City and trees way out in the woods. To their surprise, the trees planted in the city grew twice as rapidly as the ones in the country.
link to article.

by Elmer Beauregard
A Recent Study Shows That Trees Thrive on CO2.

They can't get enough of it, in fact they need it to survive and grow. The more CO2 there is the more they convert it into Oxygen for us to breath. It's a beautiful symbiotic relationship between man and plants called Photosynthesis.

In 2003 scientist set out to prove the effect of greenhouse gasses on trees. They planted trees in New York City and trees way out in the woods. To their surprise, the trees planted in the city grew twice as rapidly as the ones in the country.
link to article.

September 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Powered by Movable Type 5.12

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Nothing Would Be Green Without CO2 category.

News is the previous category.

Opinion is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.