[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There is no way of knowing anything absolutely. There are feedbacks, but who knows what they are.

And that's all I wanted you to say, so thanks.

Me, I've seen all sorts of numbers and calculations.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There is no way of knowing anything absolutely. There are feedbacks, but who knows what they are.

And that's all I wanted you to say, so thanks.

Me, I've seen all sorts of numbers and calculations.

I try to keep it simple. Ignore the feedbacks. I've been pretty successful with that approach so far, at least over the long term.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

As for sequestration, the flaw in N_F's argument that the earth's atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past is that the plants that existed then and had adapted to those conditions are now extinct. I would have thought that obvious, given he posted it on a chart superimposed on of all the extinction events . . .

Relies on supposition, and in any case is not factual.

http://www.exploringlifesmysteries.com/ ... od-plants/

[sandorski]

If I ever find myself being a Tropical Plant, I'll be pleased.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Some areas of the rainforest are unique, and cannot be replanted no matter how we try. Saving little bits here and there isn't an answer either, although it's better than nothing.

Which areas, and why can't they grow back to how they are now?

For saving little bits, it's a patch work of cutting some areas then letting the plants grow back. You leave surrounding areas as they are to support the plant and animal life. It's not setting aside one part to not be logged it's logging trees in rotation.

The rainforest is not homogenous. There are valleys etc. where a species of plant or animal or insect are unique to that space. Log the space, kill the inhabitants and you can't replant or reintroduce them because they are extinct.

Many ecosystems also depend on others not close by. Perhaps some minerals in a stream or similar thing, that systems downstream depend on. They might wipe out areas they didn't intend. Is it not better just to take what's needed, and leave everything else?

Xort Xort:

$1:

As for sequestration, the flaw in N_F's argument that the earth's atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past is that the plants that existed then and had adapted to those conditions are now extinct. I would have thought that obvious, given he posted it on a chart superimposed on of all the extinction events . . .

So your statement is that current plants will die from high CO2 amounts and that past plant life was specially adapted to it and that's why they didn't die?

How do we know that current plants will die from higher CO2? The links from the last time this came up didn't deal with the topic and didn't make any statements in support for your CO2 kills plants idea.

I wasn't using them as my information source, I was using one of the thousands of other things I've read as the source. Those did say however:

$1:

In the Cedar Creek Ecosystem Science Reserve in Minnesota, scientists have set up 296 experimental grassland plots to test the effects of different combinations of plants, carbon dioxide levels and nitrogen levels on plant growth rates. The experiment has been running since 1992, and throughout that time researchers have found that the effect of heightened carbon dioxide levels on plants can go through a couple of different phases.

For the first couple years, scientists found that the grasslands followed along with the idea of the “carbon fertilization effect.” Since plants use carbon dioxide to drive photosynthesis and to grow, more carbon dioxide means more plant growth. This little uptick in carbon consumption didn’t last for long, however.

After two years, plant growth became limited by the availability of nitrogen in the soil. Standard plant food you’d pick up at the store is rich in nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous, each a necessary fuel for plant growth. So even with a bursting supply of carbon dioxide, no nitrogen means no growth.

In the new study, scientists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie looked back on the extensive 13-year set of observations from the experimental plots. What they found was that in the grass plots that didn’t have extra nitrogen being added, plant growth was only half as much as for plots with lots of nitrogen, even when both had extra carbon dioxide. Though this idea of nitrogen-limited growth has been around for quite some time, there have not been many long-term in-the-field studies to show it.

I recall that something I read or saw (Cosmos?) said that plants, now extinct, from pre-flowering plant eras could not exist now because they would not be able to get enough carbon dioxide into their systems to produce glucose through photosynthesis because CO2 levels now are so much lower than they were when the plant was thriving.

Xort Xort:

$1:

There were huge insects and dragonflies at one point in history, because the concentration of Oxygen was also higher and could support the larger bodies. They could not adapt, they died.

Are you sure that those insects were not just filling the biological roll of modern birds, and after an extinction event were replaced by modern birds?

$1:

Plants we have now adapted to the conditions we have now, over millions of years. As Andy and Zip point out; if we keep emitting carbon dioxide, we will reach a point that they have not adapted to sooner than they can adapt for it and that will affect global temperatures.

What is that point, and how was the number reached? You said that tree and plants will grow so fast they will become unable to support their continued life and die off, and that has been proved by tests. What tests proved that high CO2 kills plants? No the ones linked, because they don't show that.

Number??

And the Smithsonian article did state, the same as I did:

$1:

In the new study, scientists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie looked back on the extensive 13-year set of observations from the experimental plots. What they found was that in the grass plots that didn’t have extra nitrogen being added, plant growth was only half as much as for plots with lots of nitrogen, even when both had extra carbon dioxide. Though this idea of nitrogen-limited growth has been around for quite some time, there have not been many long-term in-the-field studies to show it.

Xort Xort:

$1:

A project I was reading about in the US, uses 18th century technology (things they can reproduce themselves onsite) to teach South American craftsmen to turn the local resources into marketable products, without all the environmental damage. I just with I could remember the name, or I'd post a link.

Sound like some hippy shit to me, based on overly optimistic sales projections and a healthy distain for reality. Then again I could be wrong.

What makes you think Brazil can't make modern equipment? They manufacture modern jets and the supporting industry for that.

The poor guy working with stone age tools is the one who can't. That's the guy that needs to make products for sale to higher paying markets, the one who is chopping down the forest to sell for materials. If he could make his own tools, and make his own products with those tools and local materials, then he'd have a shot at improving his own outlook. Some call it it Hippie Shit, some call it capitalism and environmentalism meet at the bank teller.

Selling wood is quick and cheap. Selling fine furniture is better.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

$1:

As for sequestration, the flaw in N_F's argument that the earth's atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past is that the plants that existed then and had adapted to those conditions are now extinct. I would have thought that obvious, given he posted it on a chart superimposed on of all the extinction events . . .

Relies on supposition, and in any case is not factual.

http://www.exploringlifesmysteries.com/ ... od-plants/

So you thought you'd provide a link saying much the same thing, and nothing in contrast?

$1:

There are a number of differences between the plant life found in the Jurassic period and the variety of plant life found today. Land plants were indeed plentiful during this historic era however, they were not the plants that you and I commonly recognize today, they were mostly non-flowering plants. If one word were to be used to describe the plants of the Jurassic era it would most commonly be the word “ferns” since many of the plants from this time were similar in appearance to the ferns of today. One of the reasons that plant life in the Jurassic era was all adapted to a particular type of environment is due to the overall higher latitudes and the humid and warm climates that they created. The tropical environment created during the Jurassic period was particularly conducive to this type of non-flowering plant. So hardy were a number of the plants that began life in the Jurassic period that they managed to thrive for millions of years and can still be found today.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The rainforest is not homogenous. There are valleys etc. where a species of plant or animal or insect are unique to that space. Log the space, kill the inhabitants and you can't replant or reintroduce them because they are extinct.

A patch work harvest isn't going to clean out a whole valley in one go. The chunks are small but wide spread.

$1:

Many ecosystems also depend on others not close by. Perhaps some minerals in a stream or similar thing, that systems downstream depend on. They might wipe out areas they didn't intend. Is it not better just to take what's needed, and leave everything else?

Good thing I suggested many small spots.

$1:

For the first couple years, scientists found that the grasslands followed along with the idea of the “carbon fertilization effect.” Since plants use carbon dioxide to drive photosynthesis and to grow, more carbon dioxide means more plant growth. This little uptick in carbon consumption didn’t last for long, however.

In the new study, scientists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie looked back on the extensive 13-year set of observations from the experimental plots. What they found was that in the grass plots that didn’t have extra nitrogen being added, plant growth was only half as much as for plots with lots of nitrogen, even when both had extra carbon dioxide. Though this idea of nitrogen-limited growth has been around for quite some time, there have not been many long-term in-the-field studies to show it.

So when you look at a closed system, a plot with both lots of nitrogen and CO2 grows faster than one with only lots of CO2. The question not answered is if the lots of CO2 grows faster than normal areas with normal CO2 and N.

Another thing that doesn't actually back up your statement in this thread that plants with too much CO2 will grow to fast and then die off releasing even more CO2. (with the unsaid implication of in a swift manner)

$1:

Plants we have now adapted to the conditions we have now, over millions of years.

The last maximum extent of glaciation was 22,000 years ago, which ice sheets stretching past Canada's southern boarder and well into Europe. The plant life we see in those prior ice covered areas did come from warmer zones but to say they adapted to their current conditions over millions of years is false. Their current conditions are maybe 15,000 years old.

The plants that grew back are child generations from plants that were adapted to a lower CO2 environment and survived the last ice age, but that doesn't for sure imply that higher amounts of CO2 will be harmful, or the adaption to effectively use higher CO2 was lost.

$1:

As Andy and Zip point out; if we keep emitting carbon dioxide, we will reach a point that they have not adapted to sooner than they can adapt for it and that will affect global temperatures.

That's possible but unknown if true. Both in that some dramatic change will happen at higher CO2 levels and if that change will have a meaningful impact on the temperature.

$1:

And the Smithsonian article did state, the same as I did:

$1:

In the new study, scientists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie looked back on the extensive 13-year set of observations from the experimental plots. What they found was that in the grass plots that didn’t have extra nitrogen being added, plant growth was only half as much as for plots with lots of nitrogen, even when both had extra carbon dioxide. Though this idea of nitrogen-limited growth has been around for quite some time, there have not been many long-term in-the-field studies to show it.

That doesn't state a number for PPM of CO2 to cause a plant die off. It doesn't even say that plants with more CO2 don't grow faster than normal grass with normal CO2 and N. (as I said above). It just says that you can super charge the growth of grass by giving it both CO2 and N.

$1:

The poor guy working with stone age tools is the one who can't.

That's not Brazil. They can manufacture modern things. Or rather that's not everyone in Brazil. Sure if I wanted to make steel I would use old methods, but Canada can produce modern steel on an industrial scale. Someone in SA has access to all the modern equipment and if organized they even have the capital to buy it.

$1:

That's the guy that needs to make products for sale to higher paying markets, the one who is chopping down the forest to sell for materials. If he could make his own tools, and make his own products with those tools and local materials, then he'd have a shot at improving his own outlook. Some call it it Hippie Shit, some call it capitalism and environmentalism meet at the bank teller.

Their is no point to bootstrap everything. Just buy the tools from German, Japan or the US. It's likely cheaper and gives a better cheaper to produce product in the end. That's a capital investment, but it's not like Brazil or other SA nations don't have trade with the industrial leaders. If someone thought making products in that location was cheaper and better than selling the raw material people would be doing it.

$1:

Selling wood is quick and cheap. Selling fine furniture is better.

Maybe, but not if it's more expensive, lower quality and doesn't sell. The only cost savings is in transport which is rather low all things put in.

[andyt]

Obviously as CO2 levels rise plants will adapt. C4 plants such as corn will do poorly, ie be out competed, since they do not respond with faster growth to an increase in CO2. Likely, as is usually the case with environmental disturbance, the plants we label weeds will do better, vs the plants we value.

The question is how fast this increase in CO2 is happening. I've read that the rate of increase now is much faster than it has been when CO2 levels were higher in the past - that means a period where plants and animals will do less well than now. I've also read that at the much higher temps associated with the much higher CO2 levels in the past, sea level was up to 100 feet higher than now -that's going disrupt a lot of people.

Let Fiddle Dick go off on how CO2 is not poisonous as if that were the question. The question is how well can we and the other species on the planet adapt to the changes caused by this rapid increase in atmospheric carbon? If we can't, well I guess that will take care of the over population problem, and our continuing to spew carbon as well. If you want to take the naturalistic view, it's not really a problem, because life on the planet will go on. It's just how much human life goes on that's the question, human life and the species we depend on.

A serious die back of humans is not a problem as far as nature is concerned, just cause and effect. But the rightie tighties like to say it's the greenies that hate humans. Well, if the rightie tighties prevail and we conntinue to spew carbon and it does result in a serious die back of human kind, who's the hater then. Maybe it's better to stop spewing so much so we don't find out. But then, as I say, I'm sure the die back is coming for one reason or another. Delayed karma gonna get us.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Maybe it's better to stop spewing so much so we don't find out. But then, as I say, I'm sure the die back is coming for one reason or another. Delayed karma gonna get us.

So write to your MP and demand Canadian investment in new nuclear technology.

[Jabberwalker]

Let's form a new crown corporation and call it ... I don't know .. let's try "Atomic Energy of Canada Limited" and finally get serious abut this "nukular energy" thing. It's about time that we got started on this new technology.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

$1:

As Andy and Zip point out; if we keep emitting carbon dioxide, we will reach a point that they have not adapted to sooner than they can adapt for it and that will affect global temperatures.

That's possible but unknown if true. Both in that some dramatic change will happen at higher CO2 levels and if that change will have a meaningful impact on the temperature.

That's the whole problem with chaotic systems, there is no way to tell without experiments, and the only meaningful experiment involves the whole planet. Quite risky!

Xort Xort:

$1:

And the Smithsonian article did state, the same as I did:

$1:

In the new study, scientists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie looked back on the extensive 13-year set of observations from the experimental plots. What they found was that in the grass plots that didn’t have extra nitrogen being added, plant growth was only half as much as for plots with lots of nitrogen, even when both had extra carbon dioxide. Though this idea of nitrogen-limited growth has been around for quite some time, there have not been many long-term in-the-field studies to show it.

That doesn't state a number for PPM of CO2 to cause a plant die off. It doesn't even say that plants with more CO2 don't grow faster than normal grass with normal CO2 and N. (as I said above). It just says that you can super charge the growth of grass by giving it both CO2 and N.

And that was all I said.

$1:

Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay.

The numbers however, are your own requirement.

Xort Xort:

$1:

The poor guy working with stone age tools is the one who can't.

That's not Brazil. They can manufacture modern things. Or rather that's not everyone in Brazil. Sure if I wanted to make steel I would use old methods, but Canada can produce modern steel on an industrial scale. Someone in SA has access to all the modern equipment and if organized they even have the capital to buy it.

That's the trap the indigenous tribes throughout South America are in. They have no capital, besides their land. They have no industry. Basically, they are conquering Western America in the 1800s. So why not give them the same advantages, the same technologies to make them self sustaining?

Xort Xort:

$1:

That's the guy that needs to make products for sale to higher paying markets, the one who is chopping down the forest to sell for materials. If he could make his own tools, and make his own products with those tools and local materials, then he'd have a shot at improving his own outlook. Some call it it Hippie Shit, some call it capitalism and environmentalism meet at the bank teller.

Their is no point to bootstrap everything. Just buy the tools from German, Japan or the US. It's likely cheaper and gives a better cheaper to produce product in the end. That's a capital investment, but it's not like Brazil or other SA nations don't have trade with the industrial leaders. If someone thought making products in that location was cheaper and better than selling the raw material people would be doing it.

A wonderful idea. For someone with money and a method to get German or Japanese tools into the rainforest. People are logging the hardwoods and shipping them overseas because that's where the demand and the money are. And the money is there, because they had the cheap labour. Why not use the cheap local labour and ship the finished product instead?

Xort Xort:

$1:

Selling wood is quick and cheap. Selling fine furniture is better.

Maybe, but not if it's more expensive, lower quality and doesn't sell. The only cost savings is in transport which is rather low all things put in.

No, the cost saving is in having trees still in the rainforest doing their job, instead of having to deal with potential storm damage and the relocation of millions if not billions of people. And poor tribesmen get a trade and to participate in world markets as a bonus.

[N_Fiddledog]

andyt andyt:

Let Fiddle Dick go off on how CO2 is not poisonous as if that were the question. The question is how well can we and the other species on the planet adapt to the changes caused by this rapid increase in atmospheric carbon?

Listen moron. You want to make it personal. Fine, let's make it personal. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's not about CO2 being poisonous, you say? Fine exactly what is it about then? It's not about the warming thing for you. You haven't mentioned it.

CO2 is going to kill all your corn is it? You know that because you read it somewhere, did you? You're a joke. I read somewhere CO2 killed the Loch ness monster. Are you going to slip that one up your butt for the next time you need to pull something out of it?

It's evil "atmospheric carbon", is it? Carbon is a solid, numbskull. Carbon dioxide is an odorless invisible gas that is non-toxic in any levels man might be put into the atmosphere, and the only thing we know for sure about biomass in these times of increased carbon dioxide is there is more of it and the apocalypse of starvation expected by the guys who preceded your little crisis cult of CO2 phobes is the apocalypse never came. Why? There's more tasty stuff than there was, or they believed there would be, that's why.

So don't be telling me what I think or what I know, you dimwit. It's just another in the steadily lengthening list of things you haven't a clue about.

[sandorski]

shit just got serious.....or something

[andyt]

I"m the one who made it personal? Very funny.

I need to mention global warming in relation to increased atmospheric CO2? Give me a break. I did mention AGW a few times, as I recall - surely you are up on the acronyms?

Yes, I did read about C4 plants. I read it when I was in uni, and I re-read up on it during this discussion.

$1:

It turns out that the important difference between C3 and C4 species for rising CO2 levels is that C3 species continue to increase photosynthesis with rising CO2 , while C4 species do not. So, C3 plants that can respond readily to higher CO2 levels, and C4 plants can make only limited responses.

http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/co2/c3_c4_plants.aspx

$1:

The C4 photosynthesis is an adaptation of the C3 pathway that overcomes the limitation of the photorespiration, improving photosynthetic efficiency and minimizing the water loss in hot, dry environments (Edwards & Walker, 1983). Generally, C4 species originate from warmer climates than C3 species (Sage & Monson, 1999). Most C4 plants are native to the tropics and warm temperate zones with high light intensity and high temperature. Under these conditions, C4 plants exhibit higher photosynthetic and growth rates due to gains in the water, carbon and nitrogen efficiency uses. Indeed, the highest known productivity in natural vegetation is for a C4 perennial grass in the central Amazon, which achieves a net production of 100 t (dry matter) ha-1 year-1

http://www.intechopen.com/books/abiotic ... vironments

[N_Fiddledog]

As I recall your last post was shrieking about some "serious human die-back", as a result of "spewing atmospheric carbon".

If I understand that as meaning some sort of crisis or catastrophe, nothing in your links above say anything like that is going to happen.

I think all he's talking about is the ability of plants like corn to store higher concentrations of CO2 in Sheath cells.

http://www2.mcdaniel.edu/Biology/botf99 ... ark/c4.htm

It's nothing to worry about. Corn is doing fine in this time of elevated CO2.

$1:

The scientists gathered global production statistics for four leading crops--corn, wheat, rice and soybeans--that together represent about 64 percent of all calories consumed worldwide.

They found that production of these crops in the Northern Hemisphere has more than doubled since 1961

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142211.htm

I'll tell you what though, if you're really worried the demon CO2 is going to kill your future corn, talk Barrack Obama into halting Al Gore's idiotic policy of turning corn into fuel. You'll have more corn than you know what to do with. And when you get him on the line ask him why I have to pay extra to have that ethanol crap taken out of my gas at the pump.

In the meantime...