If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Old and busted: Carbon dioxide will destroy the Amazon. New hotness: Carbon dioxide will make tropical forests grow   (blogs.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 87
    More: Spiffy, carbon dioxide, Amazon, savannas, limiting factor, atmospheric carbon dioxide, grasslands, forests, climate change  
•       •       •

1635 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jul 2012 at 12:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-10 12:37:24 AM
This just in: trees breath carbon dioxide. Film at 11.
 
2012-07-10 12:38:28 AM
It's almost as if trees like CO2.
 
M-G
2012-07-10 12:42:40 AM
Of course, they're busy slashing and burning those forests....
 
2012-07-10 12:50:14 AM
Still no cure for ocean acidification...
 
2012-07-10 12:52:34 AM

SN1987a goes boom: This just in: trees breath carbon dioxide. Film at 11.


ArcadianRefugee: It's almost as if trees like CO2.


I see my work is done here...
 
2012-07-10 12:53:17 AM
When exactly did anyone think that CO2 caused deforestation?

It was always the other way around...
 
2012-07-10 12:53:42 AM
The paper that this guy is referencing (apparently third hand) is here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11238.h t ml

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't quite say what this fellow thinks it does.
 
2012-07-10 12:59:28 AM
Old and busted: Earthworms eat the roots of plants to kill them. New hotness: Earthworms aerate the soil to help plants grow
 
2012-07-10 01:14:32 AM
FTFA:
Experimental studies have generally shown that plants do not show a large response to CO2 fertilization. "However, most of these studies were conducted in northern ecosystems or on commercially important species" explains Steven Higgins, lead author of the study from the Biodiodversity and Climate Reseach Centre and Goethe-University. "In fact, only one experimental study has investigated how savanna plants will respond to changing CO2 concentrations and this study showed that savanna trees were essentially CO2 starved under pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, and that their growth really starts taking off at the CO2 concentrations we are currently experiencing."

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Anything that can be categorized in any way, shape or form as being even remotely related to climate change is BAD, even EVIL! It is ALL bad, and there is absolutely no good at all that comes from it. All 100.0% bad. Absolutely not even a single iota of good at all.

This guy obviously didn't get the memo.
 
2012-07-10 01:18:31 AM
It's true. It's why Amazon will eventually kick Apple's ass. Apple is strictly a temperate crop. Amazon will feast on global warming.
 
2012-07-10 01:29:24 AM
Sadly, all that extra CO2 isn't going to help the Amazon rainforest grow once it has been chopped down / burned and have soybeans growing on it.
 
2012-07-10 01:36:53 AM
Who the hell said CO2 is bad for trees?
 
2012-07-10 01:41:00 AM
FTA:

Actually, an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to lead to the growth of huge, new, tropical forests.

Um....where exactly? Forests are being slashed and burned to make farmland on a massive scale.

I specificly remember reading an article claiming Gengis Khan did more for carbon sequestering by slaughtering 2 million people than anyone else in ancient times because farmland was abandoned and new forests grew in their place.

So what, we need a Gengis Khan type to kill hundreds of millions of people and MAYBE humanity will let the Amazon grow back? Maybe?

/eyeroll.

People are idiots.
 
2012-07-10 01:51:34 AM

madgonad: Sadly, all that extra CO2 isn't going to help the Amazon rainforest grow once it has been chopped down / burned and have soybeans growing on it.


Came here to say this. I can leave satisfied.
 
2012-07-10 02:15:09 AM
wouldn't there be a sort of stablization feedback loop. If things warm and the various melting occurs then wouldn't there also be more atmospheric moisture thereby leading to more global rain and subsequently causing more green things. So ok deforestation...got it. But if the tree line moves north for instance in Siberia isn't that also like increasing the size of the rainforest? Wouldn't also deserts shrink and become green? And if this is all the case then wouldn't they consume more CO2 and thus there'd be a negative feedback there causing a stabilization effect? Maybe not completely cancelling it out but the effect would be there. Why not discuss these things too?
 
2012-07-10 02:20:39 AM
When ferns were the size of houses, and lush vegetation covered most of the planet, CO2 was over twice as abundant as it is now. So was oxygen. Wonder if the declines in both are in any way related to the decline in foliage (or vice versa).
 
2012-07-10 03:05:02 AM

madgonad: Sadly, all that extra CO2 isn't going to help the Amazon rainforest grow once it has been chopped down / burned and have soybeans growing on it.


The Inca, Aztec and other peoples cleared enormous swaths of jungle. It may take time to recover, but after we've died off from some global plague or nuked ourselves, life will recover without us.
 
2012-07-10 03:11:14 AM
"We're told, endlessly, that climate change will mean the end of the Amazon, of the tropical forests, and the Earth will lose its lungs."

I don't recall anyone saying increased CO2 leads to deforestation. It does seem to increase straw output, though.
 
2012-07-10 03:34:24 AM
It took them this long?
 
2012-07-10 03:51:42 AM
Well good thing we've got all that extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere to help the rainforest grow cause maybe it'll keep up with ALL THE FREAKIN CHAINSAWS CUTTING IT DOWN. Which is the problem. You know, the problem everyone has been talking about for decades now. As opposed to the one the article writer MADE UP ENTIRELY IN HIS OWN HEAD.
 
2012-07-10 04:18:27 AM
... if humans didn't keep cutting them down faster than they grow, that is.
 
2012-07-10 04:19:12 AM
If only it were that simple...

www.smidgeindustriesltd.com


Also:

Rambino: When exactly did anyone think that CO2 caused deforestation?


cretinbob: Who the hell said CO2 is bad for trees?


^ These...
=Smidge=
 
2012-07-10 04:25:07 AM
Yeah, it could be a trolly headline but in this case it's a good example of how ignorant climate change deniers are. They can't hope to keep the science straight in their head so they decry it as faulty and contradictory when really it's just you, you're an idiot.
 
2012-07-10 06:33:06 AM
CO2: it's what plants crave.
 
2012-07-10 06:56:51 AM

cretinbob: Who the hell said CO2 is bad for trees?


You'd be surprised.
 
2012-07-10 07:00:11 AM

Rambino: When exactly did anyone think that CO2 caused deforestation?

It was always the other way around...


People cutting down trees is what causes deforestation.

The problem with modern environmentalism is they like to focus on numbers when the earth is being damaged by very real, and very preventable, actions. If you can put a curb on the slash and burn, over fishing, poorly planned agriculture and dumping of chemicals, you could fix most of the planets problems without hurting anyones way of life.

Screaming about carbon credits does Jack all to help when what folks need is basic training in sustainable farming and a few grants to kickstart it.
 
2012-07-10 07:26:34 AM
You can have CO2 coming out your ears and climate change may still destroy rain forests if the weather pattern changes.
 
2012-07-10 07:34:21 AM

Smidge204: If only it were that simple...




Also:

Rambino: When exactly did anyone think that CO2 caused deforestation?

cretinbob: Who the hell said CO2 is bad for trees?

^ These...
=Smidge=


Except that graph is actually a climate change graph, predicting effects of other factors that are influenced by CO2, not the CO2 itself, which they agree would increase plant growth.

So it doesnt mean that 'CO2 is bad for plants', it means that in a particular zone it could be outweighed by other effects of climate change.

I would think that would obvious, in general After all, plants are adapted to their environment and climate just as animals are. A different question would whether there are places where plant growth in general, different species, would increase because of elevated CO2. Seems like it might, if you allow for new species rather than considering only existing.
 
2012-07-10 07:45:28 AM

way south: If you can put a curb on the slash and burn, over fishing, poorly planned agriculture and dumping of chemicals, you could fix most of the planets problems without hurting anyones way of life.


Except for farmers, fishermen, and everyone that uses or profits from products that create waste during production. Without actual enforcement with guns behind it, or a massive spending program from the government to compensate these people, this would be no small task. Plus you can't police the planet for things like this.

Screaming about carbon credits does Jack all to help when what folks need is basic training in sustainable farming and a few grants to kickstart it.

Gonna go with "no" on that.
 
2012-07-10 08:01:16 AM

Ivo Shandor: Still no cure for ocean acidification...


Do your part...quit exhaling.

VivianVivisect: It took them this long?


Indeed. After all, indoor pot growers have known for decades that plants love extra CO2.
 
2012-07-10 08:23:15 AM

Ivo Shandor: Still no cure for ocean acidification...


And when the algae is all gone, so are we.

/zombies
 
2012-07-10 08:23:37 AM
Here all you guys are praising trees when they are the #1 cause of death in the world. They produce the deadly poison Dioxide which has been linked to 100% of all deaths in humans. This poison has been proven to be created by trees as a by product of photosynthesis. Trees also use the deadly liquid Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Trees must be destroyed.
 
2012-07-10 08:40:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Except for farmers, fishermen, and everyone that uses or profits from products that create waste during production.


Much of that waste can be repurposed to make a profit, like we've been learning to do in the US. Which leads back to the poor planning issue.

HotWingConspiracy: Without actual enforcement with guns behind it, or a massive spending program from the government to compensate these people, this would be no small task. Plus you can't police the planet for things like this.


"We" shouldn't have to police the planet. Other nations should be taking responsibility for enforcing their own waste management and fishing limits.
Its not ridiculously expensive to hire inspectors and levy fines on offenders.
If they still need guns they can call the ATF for free samples.

HotWingConspiracy: Gonna go with "no" on that.


You'd be surprised.
People are more than receptive to any practice that increases their profits while protecting their business. They don't want their fields to dry out or their rivers to go barren.

Spread the know-how and start lend-leasing the means. I bet you'll find that improving the environment while making farms more productive is not an impossible combination.

/The local AES program has been doing it here for years.
/Their total budget wouldn't pay the Governors gas bill, and they accomplish a great deal for it.
 
2012-07-10 08:41:51 AM
We're told, endlessly, that climate change will mean the end of the Amazon, of the tropical forests, and the Earth will lose its lungs.

He sure beat the hell out of that straw man.
 
2012-07-10 08:43:06 AM
Somehow I get the impression that the subby believes in "chemtrails"...
 
2012-07-10 09:01:50 AM

Rambino: When exactly did anyone think that CO2 caused deforestation?

It was always the other way around...


Only if it makes it too hot for the trees to grow.

This is just a different take on the usual distractions.

brandent: wouldn't there be a sort of stablization feedback loop. If things warm and the various melting occurs then wouldn't there also be more atmospheric moisture thereby leading to more global rain and subsequently causing more green things. So ok deforestation...got it. But if the tree line moves north for instance in Siberia isn't that also like increasing the size of the rainforest? Wouldn't also deserts shrink and become green? And if this is all the case then wouldn't they consume more CO2 and thus there'd be a negative feedback there causing a stabilization effect? Maybe not completely cancelling it out but the effect would be there. Why not discuss these things too?


That sort of thing is already taken into account.
 
2012-07-10 09:14:51 AM
New hotness is hot.
 
2012-07-10 09:30:38 AM

Damnhippyfreak: The paper that this guy is referencing (apparently third hand) is here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11238.h t ml

Unsurprisingly, it doesn't quite say what this fellow thinks it does.


No shiat.

The paper this horrible FA is in reference to explicitly talks about why their results (shifts from C4 to C3 dominant vegetation) don't agree with projections of Amazonian dieback - they assume (quite unphysically but understandably for the simple experiment they were running) that precipitation will remain constant.

This is in contradiction to real world observational evidence, vegetation/carbon cycle modeling, and general circulation modeling.
 
2012-07-10 09:33:58 AM

skodabunny: Yeah, it could be a trolly headline but in this case it's a good example of how ignorant climate change deniers are. They can't hope to keep the science straight in their head so they decry it as faulty and contradictory when really it's just you, you're an idiot.


I came to say something like this.

If there is a plant whose limiting gowth factor is CO2 then that plant will have better growth, and others will not. Weeds take over basically. The idea of a new rainforest expansion is ridiculous. I mean the very basics of soil science. I can't begin to refute the stupid.
 
2012-07-10 09:35:48 AM

that bosnian sniper: CO2: it's what plants crave.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-10 09:38:52 AM
That's uh monoculture there. We're talking about ecosystems. Ecosystems that are balanced so that one fast growing species doesn't overtake the slower growing ones.
 
2012-07-10 09:45:57 AM
Damn it you stupid climate change deniers. Nobody has ever said climate change would kill rainforests. We are already killing rainforests ourselves, and it is helping to contribute to climate change and more co2.
 
2012-07-10 09:48:10 AM
Yes, CO2 is good for plants.

No, the climate pattern changes that come with the resulting global warming may not be.

Bad argument.
 
2012-07-10 09:52:03 AM
Step 1: Attribute argument to opponents that they never made.
Step 2: Point out how wrong it is.
Step 3: Declare victory.

img1.fark.net Old and busted: global warming will result in everyone getting the HIV. New hotness: global warming will give NO ONE the HIV.
 
2012-07-10 10:09:14 AM
I wonder if in the deeps of the Amazon forest if the ents gather for a meeting to discuss the effects of too much O2 in the atmosphere.
 
2012-07-10 10:15:49 AM

Ambivalence: So what, we need a Gengis Khan type to kill hundreds of millions of people and MAYBE humanity will let the Amazon grow back? Maybe?


So you are against the dependent child tax break, amirite? People should be PUNISHED for having children by use of an extra tax on them, amidonitrite?
 
2012-07-10 11:06:09 AM

Moosecakes: Damn it you stupid climate change deniers. Nobody has ever said climate change would kill rainforests. We are already killing rainforests ourselves, and it is helping to contribute to climate change and more co2.


Calm down, Shirley. Everything is fine.
 
2012-07-10 11:26:20 AM

nigeman: skodabunny: Yeah, it could be a trolly headline but in this case it's a good example of how ignorant climate change deniers are. They can't hope to keep the science straight in their head so they decry it as faulty and contradictory when really it's just you, you're an idiot.

I came to say something like this.

If there is a plant whose limiting gowth factor is CO2 then that plant will have better growth, and others will not. Weeds take over basically. The idea of a new rainforest expansion is ridiculous. I mean the very basics of soil science. I can't begin to refute the stupid.


Approves of THIS statement
i1244.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-10 11:27:21 AM

SVenus: [i.imgur.com image 625x389]


Except, in the real world, CO2 is rarely the limiting factor in plant growth. The effect of "fertilizing" plants with enhanced atmospheric CO2 has been routinely overestimated compared to real world, long-term experiments even setting aside heat and water stress associated with GHG-induced climatic change.

Climate change over the past several decades has already been significant enough to offset whatever small gains elevated CO2 would have provided to crops.

Why are you such a shameless, embarrassing hack when it comes to this issue? You're one of the people who give geologists a bad name when it comes to climate issues.

Learn more. Suck less.
 
2012-07-10 11:42:49 AM

way south: If you can put a curb on the slash and burn, over fishing, poorly planned agriculture and dumping of chemicals, you could fix most of the planets problems without hurting anyones way of life.


Without hurting _your_ way of life you mean, you selfish shiate.The guy who has to choose between subsistence gathering in the Amazon vs. having a soybean crop would see some difference.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report