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.

(Nature)   Ha ha global warming, trees actually love CO2....we think....ah, heck, we're gonna experiment   (nature.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, global warming, carbon dioxide, trees, fertilization, research program, northern hemispheres, biomes, phosphorus  
•       •       •

2589 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Apr 2013 at 10:36 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-24 10:41:24 AM
It's not like climate change won't lead to some positive effects.  I'm sure pollution will decrease in new desert regions abandoned by humans and Canada will probably become a new agricultural powerhouse.
 
2013-04-24 10:47:19 AM
This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.
 
2013-04-24 10:52:48 AM
Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.
 
2013-04-24 10:54:18 AM

LockeOak: Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.


But there are physical limits to how big plants can grow.
 
2013-04-24 10:55:38 AM

Mentat: LockeOak: Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.

But there are physical limits to how big plants can grow.


Sure. But they have nothing to do with CO2.
 
2013-04-24 10:58:04 AM
places like the texas panhandle and the russian steppes would become forests.
 
2013-04-24 10:58:52 AM
They already ran this before by pumping trees with co2 feed. I guess they still can't accept that they grow faster and stronger still negating increased co2.
 
2013-04-24 10:59:43 AM
Wait, conducting actual experiments? That doesn't sound like climate science.
 
2013-04-24 11:00:05 AM
One of the wild cards in climate change is the fate of the Amazon rainforest.

Um... maybe if you're stupid or extremely ill-informed.  Not only is CO2 not the limiter on plant growth, the majority of CO2 to O2 conversion occurs in the oceans, which we're very much actively poisoning at the moment while we quibble over atmospheric emissions like those are gonna matter once we finish murdering the oceanic part of the carbon cycle with runoff and outright dumping which is internationally almost completely unregulated.
 
2013-04-24 11:02:06 AM
Also, they've done this experiment before.  Growth increases, but not proportional to the increased CO2 concentration, so it doesn't cancel out at all.  I appreciate the need for peer review and repeatability as much as the next guy but the last study was fairly well-confirmed in its results.
 
2013-04-24 11:03:05 AM

LesserEvil: This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.


Thats because trace minerals haven't yet been leeched from the soil.

CSB time.
My parents had a small motorboat in their backyard for about 20 years. They didnt want to replace the engine, and didnt want to pay for it to be removed. Finally some charity agreed to haul it away for free. There were concerns that after 20 years of rain leeching off all the anti-fouling paint that nothing would grow there.

Apparently the paint was composed of 90% Brawndo, because it had what plants craved. Flowers grew faster in that soil than in the other places where they had been using standard NPK fertilizers for years.
 
2013-04-24 11:03:14 AM
www.smidgeindustriesltd.com
 
2013-04-24 11:09:50 AM

Jim_Callahan: Not only is CO2 not the limiter on plant growth, the majority of CO2 to O2 conversion occurs in the oceans


Yup. Satellites have shown that the Amazon consumes almost exactly as much O2 at night as it produces during the day. It is not a significant contributor to atmospheric oxygen concentrations.
 
2013-04-24 11:12:46 AM

Mentat: LockeOak: Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.

But there are physical limits to how big plants can grow.


Maybe I wasn't clear... by "CO2 is not generally limiting" I meant that "plants already have access to more than is required." There may be a few edge cases, like severely water-restricted CAM plants (cacti etc.) that have to constantly balance water loss vs. CO2 uptake, but generally CO2 levels are already more than high enough.

Jim_Callahan: One of the wild cards in climate change is the fate of the Amazon rainforest.

Um... maybe if you're stupid or extremely ill-informed.  Not only is CO2 not the limiter on plant growth, the majority of CO2 to O2 conversion occurs in the oceans, which we're very much actively poisoning at the moment while we quibble over atmospheric emissions like those are gonna matter once we finish murdering the oceanic part of the carbon cycle with runoff and outright dumping which is internationally almost completely unregulated.


Oceanic photosynthesis is usually cited as 40% of global photosynthesis. Can't remember the citation, though.

/studies effects of CO2 on algae/coral growth
//defends PhD dissertation tomorrow
///farking
 
2013-04-24 11:15:07 AM
"Because of the sheer volume of carbon cycling through the tropics, the fertilization effect has a massive impact on the amount of carbon that forests take up globally - and on how much remains in the atmosphere."

 This is from Nature? Last I heard, the soil depth of tropical rainforest (ok, I'm thinking just of the Amazon) was pretty minimal.  Have they traced it elsewhere (like down the Amazon or the reason Nile floodplains are so fertile)?  Unless that CO2 does something other than rots and get cycled into the nearest parrot, it can only have a temporary effect on the atmosphere.
 
2013-04-24 11:16:20 AM

Smidge204: [www.smidgeindustriesltd.com image 585x470]


So if I am reading that graph correctly, increasing the temperature and precipitation in CO2 rich environments (5th group of columns) actually reduces growth.
 
2013-04-24 11:18:33 AM
Meanwhile...

assets.worldwildlife.org
 
2013-04-24 11:21:18 AM
"We're losing 33.8 million acres of tropical forest per year - more than the total area of New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey and  Connecticut combined --
2.8 million acres lost per month...93,000 acres/day...3,800 acres/hour...64 acres/minute.3 "-  http://rainforesttreasure.com/TropicalRainforest.htm

So, obviously growing faster should clear up the problem as long as it grows faster than 64 acres/minute.

The argument is kind of like saying chameleons regenerate lets put one in a blender and see how fast it recovers from being pureed.
 
2013-04-24 11:31:24 AM
I worked on one of the projects at the FACE rings in North Carolina, measuring trees and dodging poison ivy. One of the post-docs published a really good paper showing that the CO2 didn't do much for the trees, but it did made the poison ivy much more toxic.
 
2013-04-24 11:35:20 AM
 Some plants do better with a little more CO2, and some do worse and it has no measurable effect on some. It is no different than giving plants more water, some like it and some don't. Kind of hard to predict what the long term effects will be though, especially on crops and when combined with temp increases and weather changes.
 
2013-04-24 11:41:47 AM

LockeOak: Mentat: LockeOak: Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.

But there are physical limits to how big plants can grow.

Maybe I wasn't clear... by "CO2 is not generally limiting" I meant that "plants already have access to more than is required." There may be a few edge cases, like severely water-restricted CAM plants (cacti etc.) that have to constantly balance water loss vs. CO2 uptake, but generally CO2 levels are already more than high enough.

Jim_Callahan: One of the wild cards in climate change is the fate of the Amazon rainforest.

Um... maybe if you're stupid or extremely ill-informed.  Not only is CO2 not the limiter on plant growth, the majority of CO2 to O2 conversion occurs in the oceans, which we're very much actively poisoning at the moment while we quibble over atmospheric emissions like those are gonna matter once we finish murdering the oceanic part of the carbon cycle with runoff and outright dumping which is internationally almost completely unregulated.

Oceanic photosynthesis is usually cited as 40% of global photosynthesis. Can't remember the citation, though.

/studies effects of CO2 on algae/coral growth
//defends PhD dissertation tomorrow
///farking


Good luck! Let us know how the defense goes, maybe in this thread.
 
2013-04-24 11:42:32 AM
This isn't new... I remember some nature program from the '80s where researchers were tenting small groves with giant dry-cleaner bags and testing different CO2 levels. The net result was "Yeah, plants can take more CO2, up to a point. But the point of diminishing returns comes quickly."

LesserEvil:

This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.

If that is the driving factor, then you'd think all the reforestation would be in a plume along the prevailing winds with much less on the opposite side. Has anyone done a study on this? (serious question)

There *are* known reasons why volcanoes green up so fast, mainly because they burp up well-areated, nutrient rich ash and there are no competitors for plants that get there early.
 
2013-04-24 11:51:15 AM

Cubicle Jockey: LesserEvil: This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.

Thats because trace minerals haven't yet been leeched from the soil.

CSB time.
My parents had a small motorboat in their backyard for about 20 years. They didnt want to replace the engine, and didnt want to pay for it to be removed. Finally some charity agreed to haul it away for free. There were concerns that after 20 years of rain leeching off all the anti-fouling paint that nothing would grow there.

Apparently the paint was composed of 90% Brawndo, because it had what plants craved. Flowers grew faster in that soil than in the other places where they had been using standard NPK fertilizers for years.


Isn't that caused be the nutrients in the soil not being used? Kind of like Corp cycling.
 
2013-04-24 11:51:55 AM
Meant crop cycling auto correct
 
2013-04-24 11:52:27 AM
 
2013-04-24 11:57:56 AM
i51.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-24 12:13:47 PM

Cubicle Jockey: So if I am reading that graph correctly, increasing the temperature and precipitation in CO2 rich environments (5th group of columns) actually reduces growth.


At least for the grasses they used for the experiment.

Luckily, the rainforest is not terribly hot or wet!
=Smidge=
 
2013-04-24 12:27:07 PM
Also... Best of luck, LockeOak! Hope you knock it out of the park.
 
2013-04-24 12:33:12 PM

LesserEvil: This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.


That's probably not CO2, that's probably the fact that volcanic ash is exceedingly fertile.
 
2013-04-24 12:50:00 PM
 
2013-04-24 12:54:20 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The media stupidity on the whole CO2 issue is astounding. Check out the PBS "Climate of Doubt" series. at one point a reporter interviewing a climate skeptic does a whole "eye roll" routine when the guy "claims" that plants use carbon dioxide.


Thank God you're here to provide plenty of eyerolling moments. Go on, post some more.
 
2013-04-24 01:56:42 PM

LesserEvil: This isn't rocket science. Areas around volcanoes often become rapidly re-forested thanks to massive amounts of CO2.


I thought that was due to oh I dunno heat and all that stuff called ash and stuff....
 
2013-04-24 01:59:32 PM

LockeOak: //defends PhD dissertation tomorrow


Best of luck. Sat through a 4 hour one just last week. One of the committee members couldn't make it and instead sent along a long, long list of pointy questions. After three years, now he's interested and engaged. It's cold comfort, I suppose, but it can always be worse. :D

/felt bad for the candidate, so stayed until the end
 
2013-04-24 04:58:09 PM

Jim_Callahan: Also, they've done this experiment before.  Growth increases, but not proportional to the increased CO2 concentration, so it doesn't cancel out at all.  I appreciate the need for peer review and repeatability as much as the next guy but the last study was fairly well-confirmed in its results.


Probably no process in the universe can be linearly extrapolated forever. Whoever it is that thinks plant growth can keep up with CO2 (I don't mean you) needs to have their brains checked.
 
2013-04-24 06:17:30 PM

LockeOak: Rubisco


Thanks. You now have my non-scientific brain thinking of a multi-flavored cracker that looks like a Rubik's Cube.
 
2013-04-24 09:42:50 PM

theorellior: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: The media stupidity on the whole CO2 issue is astounding. Check out the PBS "Climate of Doubt" series. at one point a reporter interviewing a climate skeptic does a whole "eye roll" routine when the guy "claims" that plants use carbon dioxide.

Thank God you're here to provide plenty of eyerolling moments. Go on, post some more.


One, in this case, is more than sufficient.

So: you're a Bob the Flower fanboi? Really? Informational leafblower, indeed.

/(You know where are leafblowers often used, right?
//And is there anything more useless than one (moving dirt/refuse from one place to another).
///Oh, God, it's too too easy. LOL!
 
2013-04-24 10:59:56 PM

torusXL: Whoever it is that thinks plant growth can keep up with CO2 (I don't mean you) needs to have their brains checked.



i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-24 11:37:31 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: /(You know where are leafblowers often used, right?
//And is there anything more useless than one (moving dirt/refuse from one place to another).
///Oh, God, it's too too easy. LOL!


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-25 02:45:02 AM

SVenus: torusXL: Whoever it is that thinks plant growth can keep up with CO2 (I don't mean you) needs to have their brains checked.


[i.imgur.com image 379x199]


So...you're implying that the rice will keep growing forever as ppm CO2 is increased forever?

Cute <3
 
2013-04-25 04:26:48 AM
 

Mentat: LockeOak: Plants are not generally limited by CO2. Nutrients and (in dense forests) light, but not CO2. Half-saturation constants for Rubisco are <100uM, usually <50uM.

But there are physical limits to how big plants can grow.


Well, yeah, with THAT attitude.  how much bigger could they get without you placing all this doubt in their minds?
 
2013-04-25 04:53:50 AM

Smidge204:

Cubicle Jockey: So if I am reading that graph correctly, increasing the temperature and precipitation in CO2 rich environments (5th group of columns) actually reduces growth.

At least for the grasses they used for the experiment.

Luckily, the rainforest is not terribly hot or wet!
=Smidge=

This makes sense.  Grasses evolved as a response to drastically lower carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.  They are MUCH better at harvesting from very low concentrations.  Other plants open more stomata to draw in more carbon dioxide, and thus make themselves susceptible to drought.
 
2013-04-25 04:57:21 AM
I call bullshiat.  Experiment?  What bonehead thought of THAT idea?  Isn't there a model they can run?
 
2013-04-25 05:01:03 AM

GeneralJim:

I call bullshiat.  Experiment?  What bonehead thought of THAT idea?  Isn't there a model they can run?
Never mind -- I just finished one.  I built in the assumption that plant growth is proportional to three times the rate of increase of carbon dioxide.  Output from the model proves that increased plant growth will completely absorb excess carbon dioxide.
 
2013-04-25 09:58:20 AM
Nitric acid in the rain resulted in some forests doing better during the bad old acid rain days, and some lakes have naturally acidic water due to geochemistry.
 
2013-04-25 11:13:25 AM

GeneralJim: GeneralJim: I call bullshiat.  Experiment?  What bonehead thought of THAT idea?  Isn't there a model they can run?Never mind -- I just finished one.  I built in the assumption that plant growth is proportional to three times the rate of increase of carbon dioxide.  Output from the model proves that increased plant growth will completely absorb excess carbon dioxide.


That uncertainty exists or that one is ignorant of the scientific basis does not somehow mean it does not exist.
 
2013-04-25 04:32:26 PM
Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: GeneralJim: I call bullshiat. Experiment? What bonehead thought of THAT idea? Isn't there a model they can run?Never mind -- I just finished one. I built in the assumption that plant growth is proportional to three times the rate of increase of carbon dioxide. Output from the model proves that increased plant growth will completely absorb excess carbon dioxide.

That uncertainty exists or that one is ignorant of the scientific basis does not somehow mean it does not exist.


You're trying to engage someone who has publicly proclaimed the Urantia Book proves that Jesus made the Shroud of Turin through becoming an ultraviolet laser, so... not exactly a font of scientific evidence or well-thought-out arguments.
But hey, the bright green text makes him stand out, so he must be serious.
 
2013-04-25 05:13:03 PM

jack21221: Good luck! Let us know how the defense goes, maybe in this thread.

Damnhippyfreak: LockeOak: //defends PhD dissertation tomorrow

Best of luck.


maxheck: Also... Best of luck, LockeOak! Hope you knock it out of the park.


ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Ph.D.

Thanks guys!
 
2013-04-25 05:18:35 PM

LockeOak: ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Ph.D.Thanks guys!


OMG are you Professor Oak??

Can I have a pikachu??? I would get so many BJs from the wife for bringing home a cute pikachu. Maybe some from her friends too if you could give me a few pikachus.

All in good humor. Nice work, man. It's a dull day around here for me but here you are nonchalantly posting on teh interwebz about achieving nearly the impossible.
 
2013-04-25 05:27:11 PM

torusXL: LockeOak: ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: Ph.D.Thanks guys!

OMG are you Professor Oak??

Can I have a pikachu??? I would get so many BJs from the wife for bringing home a cute pikachu. Maybe some from her friends too if you could give me a few pikachus.

All in good humor. Nice work, man. It's a dull day around here for me but here you are nonchalantly posting on teh interwebz about achieving nearly the impossible.


I would post something more involved, but I think I'm going to drink beer and pass out.

/wheeeeeee
 
2013-04-25 05:38:25 PM

maxheck:

You're trying to engage someone who has publicly proclaimed the Urantia Book proves that Jesus made the Shroud of Turin through becoming an ultraviolet laser, so... not exactly a font of scientific evidence or well-thought-out arguments.
But hey, the bright green text makes him stand out, so he must be serious.

Hey, look!   Another stupid, lying ass on Fark!  How exciting!


static.guim.co.uk
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report