Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4826)	2/5/2009 6:26:20 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 86356

I've often wondered the same thing. Won't plants grow much more under a high CO2 atmospheric content? Stop questioning! temperatures would rise so high that it would suck all the moisture out of the air. But it would seem an intermediate phase would be the increase in swamp like conditions in many places with tropical humidity, then maybe in the latter stages of temperature increases, the moisture would dry up. Where would the moisture go when it is "sucked out of the air" by higher temperatures? The only way to get water vapor out of air is to precipitate it, turn it from a gas to a liquid .... that means more rain or snow .... that would mean less desertification not more.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4826)	2/5/2009 10:02:48 PM
From: enginer	Respond to of 86356

There have been some very interesting studies of desertification where the dividing line between advancing desert and native grasslands has been fenced off to prevent cattle grazing, and the march of the desert has been reversed. When I was in Hubei in China in the 90's, I used to see peasants carrying bundles of sticks out of the hills for firewood. Even then it was against the law. (Remember what this did to largely forested England) Now you see panhandlers pulling (by hand, naturally)carts of coal briquettes (somewhat similar to this detail.en.china.cn )which are made by hand with a starch binder and used for family and small commercial cooking and heating, much like we would use propane. Of course, propane is getting somewhat more popular, but the briquettes won, hands down, in smokey Wuhan two years ago. But the early deforestation is largely the cause of the heavy erosion and topsoil loss in the upper reaches of the Yantze River.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (4826)	2/6/2009 2:05:13 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Good question. I've often wondered the same thing. Won't plants grow much more under a high CO2 atmospheric content? Proof positive that you're incapable of understanding what I've written on this matter. I took the time to write a number of posts related to the depletion of Phytoplankton in the oceans, and how that logically contradicts what should be occurring when CO2 levels increase. Again.. In general, Flora require water, CO2, nutrients, sunlight, and favorable temperatures to grow. If any of those elements are missing, flora will not grow. Thus, if CO2 levels are increasing and phytoplankton are decreasing it must mean that one of those other elements is missing. Could it be water? No.. plenty of water in the oceans. Could it be sunlight? No... Still plenty of that too.. Could it be favorable temperatures? Probably not unless it's below freezing since higher temperatures equate to faster rates of transpiration. So maybe, just maybe, it could be the lack of nutrients fertilizing the ocean that is causing phytoplankton levels to decline by 30% over the past 20 years. And if phytoplankton levels are decreasing, then the ability of global flora to absorb and convert that CO2 into sugars (which the plants uses for energy) would result in higher CO2 levels. But add/augment oceanic nutrients (primarily iron and silica) and you provide that missing element that will allow oceanic flora to absorb excess CO2, make sugar, grow, and increase the base of the ENTIRE MARINE FOOD CHAIN. Do you understand now? Hawk