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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (29291)	6/16/2010 4:33:21 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

"The fact of the matter is that global warming alters weather patterns" for the better

To: Land Shark who wrote (29291)	6/16/2010 5:08:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Respond to of 36917

Kant, so you think that reducing CO2 to 280 parts per million would increase plant growth. It's currently 380 parts per million. It's amazing that I was able to sell fuels to plant growers to put in their glass houses to make their plants grow faster. They would also put fertilizer in the soil. Not to mention water too. For some strange reason, they thought CO2 is good for plants. <A good degree of cooling comes from water arising from evapotranspiration. Less evapotranspiration means more warming (about 1/4 of global warming is attributed to it). I can site studies from qualified scientists backing this information up.> Go on then re-site the studies to SI. The word is cite, not site. Understanding that paragraph is difficult. It seems you think that leaves evaporating water out their breathing holes cools the plant and therefore the air due to the latent heat of evaporation, hence reducing global warming. You are not thinking through the heat transfer process to its end state. Perhaps if you cite the studies you are trying to report on, it would be intelligible. Why do you think the carboniferous period was called that? <How simplistic to assume high CO2 levels mean better plant growth.. > Here's a hint: en.wikipedia.org How many parts per million of carbon dioxide were in the air at the beginning of that period? Mqurice

To: Land Shark who wrote (29291)	6/18/2010 8:52:42 AM
From: Hawkmoon	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

I can site studies from qualified scientists backing this information up. Can you? I can model anything if I exclude important data points, or include irrelevancies. Look what Mann accomplished with the "Hockey Stick". Look what the Rating Agencies did with modeling the valuation of RMBS? None of stood up to extreme scrutiny. Therefore, can you "cite" any of these studies which are based upon actual observation, and not just another "AAA sub-prime" rated computer model.. newscientist.com buythetruth.wordpress.com Every plant is different as they have adapted to it's natural environment. Some ocean Kelp grow a foot a day in 55 degree water temperatures, whereas many tropical plants thrive in extremely hot temperatures. We can also look at the paleo-climatic record during time periods where floral growth thrived in a CO2 rich atmosphere, where much higher temperatures were the norm. I suspect that those plant species which thrive in higher CO2 environments will be the ones that will increase their population. The rest will adapt, or die off. Hawk