Originally posted by AcemasterThere you go.
Throw some evidence at me... I'd be glad to try and kill it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6218333.stm
Also perhaps you'd like to explain why the atmospheric CO2 concentration is nearly 100ppm higher than it's been in the last 600,000 years.
Originally posted by AcemasterNot really. Most plants grown under high CO2 conditions are N, water or light limited, and not significantly bigger than those grown under current ambient conditions. Stitt & Krapp 1999 is an excellent review on the physiology of plants grown at elevated CO2.
Higher CO2 levels mean better plant life.
Originally posted by MerkDepends where the trees are. Tropical trees are typically good sinks for C, temperate ones less good. Of course, if the wood is burned then that releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Does that answer your question?
I was hoping someone here can answer a question for me.
What effect does deforestation have on Co2 levels?
Crop yields do not depend on tempature alone. More Co2 would help plants cope with the toxins in the air. Co2 will not raise the temperature much, if at all, and will not hurt.
As for methane, since gases rise it will take Co2 out of the air. Of course, if there aren't enough cow farts to for you to smell it when you pass by, then there isn't enough to hurt the enviroment.
Originally posted by scottishinnzBecause the earth isn't that old. Now we are entering into the theory of evolution which is another topic that I don't mind debating.
Also perhaps you'd like to explain why the atmospheric CO2 concentration is nearly 100ppm higher than it's been in the last 600,000 years.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot true, my friend. A farmer in California put a cherry tomato plant under a large glass dome and increased Co2 levels under the dome. The plant grew to be 20 feet tall, and the tomatos were about the size of a computer mouse.
Not really. Most plants grown under high CO2 conditions are N, water or light limited, and not significantly bigger than those grown under current ambient conditions. Stitt & Krapp 1999 is an excellent review on the physiology of plants grown at elevated CO2.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNoone knows what the concentration was 200 years ago,let alone 600,000.
There you go.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6218333.stm
Also perhaps you'd like to explain why the atmospheric CO2 concentration is nearly 100ppm higher than it's been in the last 600,000 years.
Well, I don't know much about global warming, but would someone please
explain to me why in the hell it's still raining here in Stockholm on the first
of January? I should be digging through snow just to locate my car for
crying out loud! ðŸ˜
The only upside to this is that I don't have to shovel any snow this year.
Funny though, how some things in life are appreciated only after they're
no longer necessary. 😞
Originally posted by stockenGo through the weather records and you will come across this happening before .Its nothing new.
Well, I don't know much about global warming, but would someone please
explain to me why in the hell it's still raining here in Stockholm on the first
of January? I should be digging through snow just to locate my car for
crying out loud! ðŸ˜
The only upside to this is that I don't have to shovel any snow this year.
Funny though, how some things in life are appreciated only after they're
no longer necessary. 😞
Ok, I've read a little about it now. Let's see if I got this right. The global
warming, greenhouse effect, is not really in question. All scientists are in
agreement that this is happening. The question seems to be weather
(pun intended) or not we humans are affecting the natural balance,
temperatures rising and falling, by releasing too much carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere, causing more extreme changes in
temperature that will in turn lead to ferocious weather conditions and
natural disasters. Right?
Wouldn't a little common sense be enough to settle this? So, we know
that carbon dioxide is affecting the climate over a certain timespan. We
also know that certain events of nature (such as hurricanes) are directly
dependant on the temperature differences between the atmosphere and
land (sea). And now we're asking ourselves if releasing lots of CO2 into
the atmosphere will affect not only the climate but the weather conditions
in the long run? Well, duh, doesn't that sort of give itself? Or am I
missing something here? 😕
Seems to me that we're sitting on a branch, cutting it between us and the
stem, while confidently saying: "Even though, logically, this action should
have a declining effect on our general health, I see no reason why the
branch wouldn't eventually break by natural causes, so we might as well
keep going".