Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wooglin
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    Sorry should have specified that the comment related specifically to land plants. As I recall each genus or species ability to recover CO2 depends in part on the specific type of carbon pathway they have evolved to use. CAM , C3 or C4 are the main ones I think. (I think C4 is more efficient at fixing CO2 than C3 for instance.)

    So some plants are more efficient at turning carbon into sugers and plant mass than others. Anyway my comment was meant to point out that yes, plants get a boost from increases CO2 but it is not linear. There's an upper limit to how much CO2 they can absorb depending on type.

    Lastly, yes plant growth does trap CO2 which is why new growth forests are effective carbon traps. However mature forests trap much less because they're hit the balance point between new plant growth and the death of old plant material. And part of that old trapped CO2 always gets released during the decay cycle, not all but part.
    So when you say "to a point" you're referring to differences in plant types and absorption, yes? Regardless, wouldn't it be fair to say that overall more co2 = more plant growth = more net co2 sink?

    I think of greenhouse growers who keep co2 levels at an optimum of about 1500ppm. How does that reconcile with what you're explaining?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Okay I'll bite: where's the "certain point"?
    Sorry should have specified that the comment related specifically to land plants. As I recall each genus or species ability to recover CO2 depends in part on the specific type of carbon pathway they have evolved to use. CAM , C3 or C4 are the main ones I think. (I think C4 is more efficient at fixing CO2 than C3 for instance.)

    So some plants are more efficient at turning carbon into sugers and plant mass than others. Anyway my comment was meant to point out that yes, plants get a boost from increases CO2 but it is not linear. There's an upper limit to how much CO2 they can absorb depending on type.

    Lastly, yes plant growth does trap CO2 which is why new growth forests are effective carbon traps. However mature forests trap much less because they're hit the balance point between new plant growth and the death of old plant material. And part of that old trapped CO2 always gets released during the decay cycle, not all but part.
    Last edited by Monash; 16 May 17,, 06:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Monash View Post
    Up to a point. Experiments have pretty much confirmed the range of CO2 concentration levels over which rising levels are beneficial for plant growth. Above a certain point the positive effects of rising CO2 levels plateau out so that any 'positive' impact on plant growth is transitory. Its a really complex topic because a large part (not all) of the extra carbon stored in leaves, stems and trunks etc gets recycled every year back into the atmosphere due to natural decay processes. Over really long time frames increased plant growth rates will trap carbon but not in the short term.
    Okay I'll bite: where's the "certain point"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monash
    replied
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    hey look, the plants sure are happy

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth
    Up to a point. Experiments have pretty much confirmed the range of CO2 concentration levels over which rising levels are beneficial for plant growth. Above a certain point the positive effects of rising CO2 levels plateau out so that any 'positive' impact on plant growth is transitory. Its a really complex topic because a large part (not all) of the extra carbon stored in leaves, stems and trunks etc gets recycled every year back into the atmosphere due to natural decay processes. Over really long time frames increased plant growth rates will trap carbon but not in the short term.

    Leave a comment:


  • zraver
    replied
    hey look, the plants sure are happy

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by dalem View Post
    I don't miss so much of this "debate".

    (Hi Pari!!!)

    So are we warmer or cooler? Is the Sun cooler or warmer?

    Dumbasses.

    -dale
    Hey Dale, ya been good?

    Leave a comment:


  • dalem
    replied
    I don't miss so much of this "debate".

    (Hi Pari!!!)

    So are we warmer or cooler? Is the Sun cooler or warmer?

    Dumbasses.

    -dale

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.
    Actually you said "when nearing 4%", which of course it's not. Have to wonder what the point of the comment was when 4% is 100 times current levels and nowhere near anyone's climate reality, and the fact that even at 4000ppm exposure it is harmful to nobody. In fact, it's the average level on many subs.

    So I have to wonder, since you were "being scientific", what was your point exactly?

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.
    Then my apologies.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    Given you believed that CO2 was at 4% of the the atmosphere I'm sceptical you have any background in meteorology or climatology?
    Did I say that? I suggest you read again. When it nears 4% I'd rather not be breathing it but I never said that was the current level today. Could have phrased it better before you jumped to a conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Well, in your personal non-scientific opinion you are entitled to that. Being heavily science oriented I don't see it that way.
    Actually in my scientific opinion I am entitled to that. Given you believed that CO2 was at 4% of the the atmosphere I'm sceptical you have any background in meteorology or climatology?
    Last edited by Parihaka; 09 May 17,, 07:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • tbm3fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
    The cult of global warming. It's faith based, therefore religious.
    Well, in your personal non-scientific opinion you are entitled to that. Being heavily science oriented I don't see it that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    wooglin,



    yes, the board that advises the EPA's prime scientific arm.

    bottom-line, this is a move that is meant to make the EPA more industry-friendly. my original statement still stands.
    As in considering impact and cost before enacting regulation that destroys businesses and makes energy more expensive. Good. You say it like that's a bad thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    wooglin,

    Except we're talking about an advisory board.
    yes, the board that advises the EPA's prime scientific arm.

    bottom-line, this is a move that is meant to make the EPA more industry-friendly. my original statement still stands.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wooglin
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    no, because the ACA wasn't meant to be solely regulatory. it was also meant to expand insurance availability.

    the function of the EPA is different. again, my use of the 'tobacco lobbyist being the Surgeon General' is very appropo because that is essentially what this is. or, if you like, Goldman Sachs lobbyists running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
    Except we're talking about an advisory board. One of many, that will still include academics.... or did vox not mention that part?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X