Plants, CO2 and temperature

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Aug 8, 2021.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    No, it hasn't. The current changes have no precedent. They are much faster than past changes of this kind (warmings).
    They don't like the rate of climate change we are imposing. It will kill many of them, and cripple most of the rest - they have no way to escape.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    It's complicated wegs.

    Take this thread as an example.
    I wanted a simple discussion about the presented pix and link.
    But alas.........................................
    The thing is that many seem to have adopted an untenable position on agw and climate change, and in even coming close to that, most likely, indefensible position gives them discomfort.
    and
    There is an old maxim---"the more untenable the position the more violent the defense".
    so
    maybe we could discuss this in another thread
    but
    discussions on the subject invariable lead to ad hominem attacks
    (the more untenable the position, the more vicious the defense?)
    so
    why bother?

    A mind is like a parachute ---it only works if it is open
    .............................................................................................................................
    anecdote
    This reminds me of my science teacher son trying to teach evolution to christian fundamentalists.
    ...........
    as/re
    We do not know that.
    What we should focus on is our symbiotic relationships in this biome/on this planet.
    We're all in this together and none of us can escape
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,570
    No agenda then? You just felt the sudden urge to post a random factoid about certain plants?

    I mean, your opening gambit was a picture accompanied by two words: "your thoughts?"

    What are we supposed to say? "Nice graph, sculptor. Pretty colours!" Or what?

    If you want to steer the discussion in a particular direction, maybe you put a bit more effort into composing your opening post. Don't you think? "Your thoughts?" invites people to, well, tell you their thoughts.

    It's true that you seem to have an untenable position on agw and climate change. Did you want to discuss that? Apparently not, according to your post above.

    So, what shall we talk about?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    James R
    It wasn't just a picture, there was a link
    the link was/is important
    (that is why I posted it-------the pix was just a headline)

    What I wanted was your thoughts on the linked material............
    (sigh)

    OOPS ... mea culpa
    alf a mo
    The link doesn't seem to be there(gee darn)
    Here it is
    https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
  8. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    Why are people here expecting answers from sculppy ?
    Only has time to tell stories and talk about how people don't ''discuss'' things with him post#22.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2021
  9. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,068
    ''If everyone followed my lead, that shouldn't be much of a problem.''
    So says a guy on the web.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,478
    Absolutely.

    This poster's position seems to be, by turns, that:
    - the warming we observe is just part of natural change and not necessarily man-made (cf. Cretaceous sea levels etc),
    - that there is abnormal cooling in places, so the notion of global warming is ridiculous,
    - that the abnormal cooling is due to low solar activity, not rising CO2 levels,
    - that the abnormal cooling is not, after all, due to low solar activity,
    - oh and if climate change is real, he personally is virtuous because he's got land on which to plant trees to offset his high-carbon lifestyle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    . But you composed - and directly referred to - the title of the OP, which is not supported by the link you failed to include (the discussion in the link is likewise a bit confused, repeatedly referring as it does to "plants" in general when the data presented is only good for greenhouse grown and annually harvested commercial crops of particular kinds - i.e. C3 annuals).
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    psst
    most trees are C3s
     
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,819
    psst
    Trees are perennials, not annuals.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sculptor likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Hemp is a twice p/yr cash crop and 1 acre of Hemp will scrub and sequester as much CO2 as 20 acres of trees.

    For Young Farmers, Hemp Is a ‘Gateway Crop’

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    January 20, 2021 update:The USDA has finalized the rule for growing hemp in the U.S. Effective March 22, 2021, the new rules will extend the timeline until hemp growers must get their crops’ THC levels tested in Drug Enforcement Agency-approved labs, increase the allowance of THC in hemp, and give farmers additional options for disposing of hemp that exceeds federal THC limits.

    https://civileats.com/2019/10/21/for-young-farmers-hemp-is-a-gateway-crop/
     
    sculptor likes this.
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,570
    Which parts, specifically? Do you have a question you want answered?

    Or do you just want my opinion on how much I liked the article, or something?
     
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    as/re agw
    we are increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere while warming the planet
    and the C3 plants(including trees) are m0re efficient at warmer temperatures

    how nice
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,570
    Why is it nice?

    If you have some kind of argument to make, why don't you just make it, rather than running around it like you are?

    What's your response to exchemist's post #27, for example?
     
    sculptor likes this.
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    It's the combination for the trees
    they get both---more food, and the warmth

    We are the solution-------------------not the problem========believe that
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,570
    What are we the solution to?

    You keep talking around what you have to say, rather than saying it. What problem are you referring to, which needs a solution?
     
  20. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    It is simple really
    it is symbiosis

    we suppose ourselves to be the intelligent species
    the burden then accrues to us
    understand the symbiosis
    and act accordingly

    ignore the hyperbolic rhetoric of those who are so full of self loathing that they need to express that as due to all of humanity
    these people are not well
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    How full of shit.

    How many times do you have to be told it's the rate of change, not the far future of supposedly better circumstances, that is disastrous? Schmelzer of course had a political agenda and a childishly naive upbringing - are you claiming the same excuse?

    Too late to walk it back, and impossible in ignorance - you posted the Republican wingnut propaganda meme, and you have posted similarly on this forum dozens of times. The response has been the same for years of your bs now: It's the rate that matters, the variance that kills. AGW is predicted to cause ruin, globally, for centuries to come. It's not going to be "nice" until a couple of hundred years after the CO2 boost has leveled off and the new climate has stabilized - which will take centuries in itself (the relaxation time of the Pacific Ocean, at a minimum).
    According to research: No, they are not. Efficiency depends on the rate, the variance, the timing, etc.

    C3 plants - including trees - do not remain more "efficient" (at what?) under the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations humans are imposing unless irrigated and fertilized and protected from the side effects. C4 plants often do not benefit even in the preliminary stages of a climate shift, before crossing the wrong tipping point wipes them out of a given locale - essentially nothing is known to benefit reliably in the middle run of the current rapidly drastic global climate change.

    Not even crops, outside of greenhouses, reliably benefit - most of them (especially rice and corn) in most circumstances of the incoming AGW (temperate zone rainfall agriculture) are injured by such rapid and drastic changes.
    Among the people you insist on slandering and lying about,
    while hiding behind nasty (or merely idiotic) innuendo and carefully maintained specific "ignorance" (like this latest link of yours, which we are apparently supposed to to pretend you simply failed to understand)

    it's not loathing of self.

    All studied wild or natural plant communities are eventually injured by the rate of warming and the ecological or biochemical effects of CO2 accumulation at this rate. Trees are especially vulnerable, dependent as they are on symbiotic fungi and mutualistic pollinators etc, vulnerable as they are to evapotranspirative deficit as well as sharp changes in temperature and great variance in weather conditions (windspeed, timing and severity of variance in precipitation, timing and severity of variance in temperature changes and weather regimes, etc.)

    Once again, for the slow and willfully obtuse: AGW is almost certainly disastrous because of the rate and pattern of change it imposes. It's not the extra CO2, but the rate of accumulation, that is the problem. It's not the newly warm weather but the rate and pattern of warming that is ruinous in so many ways.
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The luckier trees of some species, a few hundred years from now, in the luckier places on the globe, maybe. Everybody alive today, and their children, is going to be dealing with AGW (including its effects on trees).
     
  23. Benson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Did you know, the earth produces and absorbs 780 trillion tonnes of co2 per year, it's in equilibrium. Apparently, mankind (or gender neutral kind to keep the freaks happy) produces 30 trillion tonnes per year. This is why tree huggers are concerned. But it's utterly impossible to live carbon neutral. An EV car will cut your travel co2 footprint by 25% to %50, but it still means you're producing co2.

    So can we conclude that the tree huggers arguement is, "We are all pending doom, but any chance of slowing it down a couple of hundred years?". Or do you "honestly" believe you are going to save the planet (in whatever form that is)?
     

Share This Page