Global Warming ---> earthquakes?

[BasketCase]

The thing is, photosynthese and oceanic absorbsion are limitted.

Go look up the FACE studies on the Internet.

(Short description: an extensive series of outdoor tests which use gas aerators to spray increased levels of carbon dioxide over a wide area of test plants. Carbon dioxide levels, water absorption rates, and a host of other such factors are all monitored closely throughout)

Those studies have shown that (frequently, but not always) increased CO2 causes a plant to grow more mass--with the same amounts of water and trace minerals. The amount of sunlight obviously remains constant during the tests because they're outdoor tests.

The FACE studies aren't a sure thing, but they suggest that a plant can in fact increase its absorption of CO2 considerably within the same space.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Can plants increase it unlimitted Basket? Go look up limitted in a dictionary.

 

[brennan]

Ummm.....no, they're not. They're going up at about half that rate.

Yes, and you don't find it stunningly obvious why CO2 levels are going up? Wilful denial.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Notice the arrow with: "Increased uptake by plants"

 

[bigfatron]

Ummm.....no, they're not. They're going up at about half that rate.

Hate to worry you, but the buzz I hear in Cambridge from someone who works in this field is that latest results indicate the last two years have seen unprecedented growth in atmospheric CO2 levels - such that we are already approaching the levels (455 ppm) that were (only three years ago) predicted as not being reached until 2015-2020.

So yes, there is some planetary absorption of human CO2 (through ocean absorption and plant growth), but it looks like the planet's ability to absorb is being overwhelmed by ever greater emission levels.

We'll know more when the next set of updates come out on the UN Climate Panel predictions - rumour has it they are due on the next few weeks? There are enough real experts on here to put me straight on that, I'm sure!

BFR

 

[El_Machinae]

Can plants increase it unlimitted Basket? Go look up limitted in a dictionary.

It doesn't matter. The acceleration in plant growth must necessarily proceed after the acceleration in CO2 levels. This means that the plants will reduce the net CO2, if excess CO2 is being sprayed, but the plants will not reduce the CO2 to un-sprayed levels.

 

[BasketCase]

Can plants increase it unlimitted Basket? Go look up limitted in a dictionary.

Can humans produce unlimited? Same answer: no.

It doesn't matter. The acceleration in plant growth must necessarily proceed after the acceleration in CO2 levels. This means that the plants will reduce the net CO2, if excess CO2 is being sprayed, but the plants will not reduce the CO2 to un-sprayed levels.

Sure they will. Plants have been balancing out the planet's CO2 level for millions of years.

What's happening right now is not a matter of level; it's a matter of acceleration. Humans are producing CO2 at an accelerating rate. Plants are growing faster to catch up; they're simply lagging behind.


Which is still fodder for a potential doomsday scenario, because what sometimes happens in the wild is this: the consumer finally catches up to the producer--and then overshoots, causing a crash to near-zero levels. Happens with wolves and moose sometimes. The moose have a good year and increase in numbers, which causes the wolves to increase in numbers, the wolves eat too many moose, the moose population crashes, and the wolves starve.

How does that make a doomsday scenario? Simple: humans stop producing more CO2--but the surplus levels already produced are already there. Plants grow faster to take it up, then they keep eating CO2 at the increased rate, and the planet's CO2 level crashes to near-zero. Which would be disastrous.


Meantime, there's yet another problem I'm going to bring back to haunt you:
Oops, NASA Screwed Up
Don't try to escape this thread--I've got it bookmarked for all eternity. The inescapable possibility is that you people are reading the CO2 meter wrong.....

 

[El_Machinae]

I am speaking of second order change in CO2 concentration, acceleration.

Plants can accelerate their uptake, but they cannot bring the CO2 levels to "climate safe" levels if we continue putting sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. Their increase in growth velocity is a response to the increase in CO2 concentration

You'll note that you were talking about increased uptake in the presence of the same levels of minerals and vitamins. There is no way for the system to 'overconsume' CO2 with those restrictions.

 

[BasketCase]

You'll note that you were talking about increased uptake in the presence of the same levels of minerals and vitamins. There is no way for the system to 'overconsume' CO2 with those restrictions.

Then you have some explaining to do--because it has happened in the lab. The FACE studies verify it.


Humans are the same way. Increase the food intake without increasing water or oxygen intake. The result: weight gain.

Increase the water intake without increasing food or oxygen. The result: a cleaner-running, more efficient body.

Increase oxygen without increasing food or water. The result: the body burns its fuel more cleanly, getting more energy from the same amount of burned food.

 

[El_Machinae]

Right, so FACE showed a drop in ppm relative to normal after giving CO2 excess?

I'm pretty sure not.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It doesn't matter. The acceleration in plant growth must necessarily proceed after the acceleration in CO2 levels. This means that the plants will reduce the net CO2, if excess CO2 is being sprayed, but the plants will not reduce the CO2 to un-sprayed levels.

True as well.

Can humans produce unlimited? Same answer: no.

Here we go again.

The thing is, photosynthese and oceanic absorbsion are limitted.

The part you removed from my statement but which followed directly after it.

Rain isn't.

I pointed out the difference between CO2 and watervapour. You make it look like I´m making an argument that the one is limitted and the other isn´t. Which I am not. Since it did throw El Mac off guard, you succeded in ripping my statement out of context. Congratulations, well done. What a debater!

 

[BasketCase]

Finally I get some cred around here.


Let's work out what you did mean.

Is the planet's photosynthetic and oceanic absorption of CO2 limited? Yes or no?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Let's work out what you did mean.

Sure

Rain is unlimitted, CO2 absorbsion rates aren't.

Is the planet's photosynthetic and oceanic absorption of CO2 limited? Yes or no?

So that's a "yes".

Hey, look at this:

The thing is, photosynthese and oceanic absorbsion are limitted. Rain isn't. So an excess of watervapour is easy to get rid of, while an excess of CO2 isn't. First we'd have to be producing less CO2 than the surplus, or increase the absorbsion in any way.

I couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Ball Lightning]

Ahh... Another pointless debating thread about global warming. I guess we have to convince the stragglers.....


Anyway, lets have a look at the facts.

CO2 Levels have been shown to increase with temperature increase but to also increase the temperature further, causing quick changes to the climate around us.

There are regular patterns to CO2 and temperature changes over the last million years which we know from ice core data. Every change is different, but it all follows the same trend.

Humans are known to be producing large amounts of CO2, which we also know stays in the atmosphere for a long period of time.

We have an equal amount of resperation and of photosynthesis. Volcanoes produce a minute amount of CO2 and weathering takes a small amount out. Humans are putting in 36 ppm in the last 50 years, but the plants have increased there uptake, but no where near enough.

And now we are at the highest levels of CO2 in recorded history (Important: we know of many other time periods when temperature and CO2 where much higher), and the trend seems to not be stopping.

The prize to prove Global Warming should instead be used to prove that it is not a bad thing as that will be much harder to answer.

 

[azzaman333]

I don't trust anything that combines 2 different things in the 1 picture. Smells extremely manipulative and very similar to propaganda.

 

[lovett]

As relates to the original point, If I remember correctly global warming may have an affect on seismic activity insofar as it affects rainfall. Particularily concerning monsoon season in tropical areas, a fairly reasonable percantage increase in rainfall puts alot more weight on tectonic plates, which is dissipated in the form of seismic activities. Addtionally the added weight can help trigger volcanoes by effectively squeezing them. Think tube of toothpaste

This is what I remember from a New Scientist article, and as I can't be bothered to chase up a link the above might contain major flaws

 

[BasketCase]

Is the planet's photosynthetic and oceanic absorption of CO2 limited? Yes or no?

So that's a "yes".

See? Your words still meant the same thing when I took them out of context.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sure Basket.

 

[Ball Lightning]

As relates to the original point, If I remember correctly global warming may have an affect on seismic activity insofar as it affects rainfall. Particularily concerning monsoon season in tropical areas, a fairly reasonable percantage increase in rainfall puts alot more weight on tectonic plates, which is dissipated in the form of seismic activities. Addtionally the added weight can help trigger volcanoes by effectively squeezing them. Think tube of toothpaste

This is what I remember from a New Scientist article, and as I can't be bothered to chase up a link the above might contain major flaws

How does more rainfall increase the weight? The rain has to get into the atmosphere somehow, and that is from oceans, so you lose weight then you gain it back while losing more weight. So what do you mean?

I don't trust anything that combines 2 different things in the 1 picture. Smells extremely manipulative and very similar to propaganda.

I would agree, but that graph doesn't combine 2 different things, but all CO2 emmisions into the atmosphere and all the take up of CO2.

 

[azzaman333]

I would agree, but that graph doesn't combine 2 different things, but all CO2 emmisions into the atmosphere and all the take up of CO2.

It takes an unscaled graph and shoves it in with a picture with figures that don't add up to the total.

Yup, that's fishy.