SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RetiredNow who wrote (752158)11/10/2013 11:03:03 PM
From: d[-_-]b  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576600
 
I would think an increase in CO2 is great in the short run for food production, because we'd get a lot of extra plant growth.

I've read several reports they also use less water. On the downside some crops tended to become more woody and less flavorful - so it's not all good news. Greenhouse operators have pumped CO2 into their tents for some crops for years as they know it works. Around 1000ppm is considered optimal.

omafra.gov.on.ca

snippet-

Introduction The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm ( Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

---- end of snippet

An interesting question for all believers in evolution/science - why would 1000ppm be the optimal level of CO2 for plant growth?



To: RetiredNow who wrote (752158)11/11/2013 11:43:18 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1576600
 
See: Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming: ‘The 97% figure represented just 75 individuals’ – – Another study’s ‘results add up to little more than ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas’ and ‘mankind affects the climate.’

Related Links:

Analysis: 97% of warmists cite a 97% that’s false

Contrary to reports, global warming studies don’t show 97% of scientists fear global warming: ‘The 97% figure represented just 75 individuals’ – – Another study’s ‘results add up to little more than ‘carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas’ and ‘mankind affects the climate.’

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

CONSENSUS? WHAT 97% CONSENSUS? — ‘The consensus revealed by the paper by Cook et al. is so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate skeptics’

Warmist Mike Hulme: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed…it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it”

Climate Depot Round Up on 97% ‘consensus’ study

Media/Climate Activists ‘Hype False Claims’ About Typhoon Haiyan As Scientists Reject Climate Link – Claim of ‘strongest storm ever’ refuted – Climate Depot Special Report