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

To: RMF who wrote (788003)	6/6/2014 10:48:36 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

All of the anti-carbon SI members are anti-nuclear as well. I'd say that 99+% of people who fear global warming are anti-nuke as well ..... the anti-nuke, anti-fracking, anti-carbon movements all pull from the same demographic. The more CO2 in your atmosphere the more heat will be trapped. First, CO2 doesn't actually trap heat. It absorbs heat radiated back from the earth and in turn radiates some of that heat back toward the earth and some toward space. But yes, CO2 is a weak, insignificant "greenhouse" gas. That's the point. It's a trace gas, one essential to life. Geological processes have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere and tying it up in things like limestone, coral, fossil fuels, etc for hundreds of millions of years and during the last ice age plants were experiencing carbon starvation: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California Pertenece a: PubMed Central (PMC) PubMed Central (PMC3 - NLM DTD) Descripción: The Rancho La Brea tar pit fossil collection includes Juniperus (C3) wood specimens that 14C date between 7.7 and 55 thousand years (kyr) B.P., providing a constrained record of plant response for southern California during the last glacial period. Atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) ranged between 180 and 220 ppm during glacial periods, rose to ?280 ppm before the industrial period, and is currently approaching 380 ppmin the modern atmosphere. Here we report on ?13C of Juniperus wood cellulose, and show that glacial and modern trees were operating at similar leaf-intercellular [CO2](ci)/atmospheric [CO2](ca) values. As a result, glacial trees were operating at ci values much closer to the CO2-compensation point for C3 photosynthesis than modern trees, indicating that glacial trees were undergoing carbon starvation. In addition, we modeled relative humidity by using ?18O of cellulose from the same Juniperus specimens and found that glacial humidity was ?10% higher than that in modern times, indicating that differences in vapor-pressure deficits did not impose additional constrictions on ci/ca in the past. By scaling ancient ci values to plant growth by using modern relationships, we found evidence that C3 primary productivity was greatly diminished in southern California during the last glacial period. http://biblioteca.universia.net/html_bura/ficha/params/title/carbon-starvation-in-glacial-trees-recovered-from-the-brea-tar/id/912067.html For the sake of life on earth, it's a good thing humans came along and started releasing fossil carbon. The biggest impact of humans releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere is likely to be enhanced plant growth. Warming isn't a worry. There are much bigger climate influences than carbon and we can't do anything about them. In fact, we can't even do anything about carbon. Even if liberals prevail on the US to shut down our industry and impoverish our country, other countries won't follow us. They'll just laugh. China already is the biggest emitter of CO2. North America has been a carbon sink for decades due to increasing forestation.