How CO2 affects plant growth.

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820
    I was surfing through Youtube and found this which I found very compelling.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE]YouTube - Seeing is Believing[/ame]
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    [​IMG]

    Gee, Wally....

    You mean that increased CO2 would lead to more rapid growth of fauna --because CO2 is plant food-- which might lead to more rapid absorption of CO2, thereby probably-cum-more-than-likely mitigating any relatively trivial amount of industrial CO2 that man might contribute to the planet's total?

    Well, that's not what Eddie Haskell has been saying.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,584
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,677
    Trivial amoounts?!?! We put out more in days than all the volcanoes on earth put out in a year. Perhaps plants would grow faster, but there might be more drought, also. You can't hang your hat on one factor and one line of outcomes. Climate is more complex than than and the major reason the deniers have anything to talk about at all.
     
  4. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    5% is a trivial amount, your hysterics nonwithstanding.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820



    Nice to see you finally admit that the climate engine is so powerful there konrad...you're beginning your journey to the dark side. It is in fact so complex that you just may agree that stating the "science" of GW settled was perhaps placing the cart before the horse?
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,628
    Thanks Received:
    5,430
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,421
    It is not 5% Dooodeee..... The increase is over 100 ppm, from 280 ppm to 387 ppm. That is close to 40%.
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    41,047
    Thanks Received:
    7,993
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,820



    Yeah and look at the damned plant grow you blind cultist! That sucker loves CO2!
     
  8. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    And man's contribution to that total has been about 5%.

    Wiki (hardly the epicenter of the skeptic information dispersal) says 6%, other sources I've heard peg the number at about 4%, so I'll be charitable and split the difference.

    Too bad for the Malthusian doom-and-gloomers.
     

Share This Page