[N_Fiddledog]

The word "fast" already implies "faster" than normal. It's a nit you'd only want to pick if you wanted to divert from a larger point.

CO2 helps plants grow faster. Faster is fast when you're comparing it to what you consider the normal speed.

So if as I copied from the title above - and you're now pretending you noticed, but we both know you didn't - "Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rainforests grow fast" it implies human produced emissions of CO2 can actually be a helpful thing with little downside as far as the carbon cycle of plants go.

Just as hothouse growers of tomatoes add "emissions" of CO2 to assist in the growth of their tomatoes, added "emissions" to the forest are helping plant life grow.

There is no dispute that man is adding some CO2 into the atmosphere. There is some dispute as to what portion of the measured level of added CO2 is a result of human activity.

I wish I knew what your actual point was though.

CO2 helps plants grow. Are you saying it doesn't? Or are you saying it doesn't matter, because you don't believe forests are taking in more they are emitting.

If it's the latter, that's fine. Believe whatever you like, just don't pretend you have superior scientific support for it. You don't. It's always been argued back and forth with studies and counter studies.

For example here's a study that contradicts a claim you made earlier concerning temperate forests...

$1:

In summing up their findings and the significance of those findings, Keenan et al. write that "our analysis of the temperature-phenology-carbon coupling suggests a current and possible future enhancement of forest carbon uptake due to changes in phenology," which phenomenon, as they state in the concluding sentence of their paper, "constitutes a negative feedback to climate change, serving to reduce the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 and slow future warming."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/nov/a10.php

This current NASA study referenced in the OP is another little piece of the puzzle. They now believe tropical rainforests are taking in more CO2 than they they thought. This should please you if proposed CO2 enhanced warming is a thing frightens you.

[andyt]

As I've said before, it's irrelevant. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been increasing at an ever increasing rate, as we spew CO2 into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. You can find all the carbon sinks you want, it doesn't change that picture. It's not as if discovering them turns on an on switch - they've been absorbing carbon all along. As we've seen, there's a limit to how much carbon can be absorbed by plants before another limiting factor stops further increase in growth rate/carbon take up (if you want to argue against that, please provide proof - your green houses make sure the plants are getting all the water and nutrients they can use with the increased CO2 - unlike in the real world). So finding that some forests are actually absorbing carbon is actually a cause for concern, since at some point those sinks will overflow. And nobody is stopping cutting down Rainforests, or Boreal Forests fro that matter.

The carbon we are spewing into the air was locked up in the ground. We are releasing it at an ever faster rate. So, for the foreseeable future, the sinks are not not able to keep up with the amount released. At some point we'll run out of carbon fuels - but since we keep discovering new sources, that seems some time down the road. So we will continue to increase atmospheric CO2, and the sinks won't be able to keep up, as they can't now. It's not as if increased plant growth is some new phenomenon that just started yesterday. IT's been happening ever since atmospheric CO2 has been increasing. The fact atmospheric CO2 is increasing proves that the sinks aren't able to keep up. There is no delay factor here - increase CO@ today and the plants will increase their growth rates today - within the limiting factors of water, nutrients, reduced plant respiration.

So the study really proves nothing except we shouldn't cut down more Rainforest. Good luck telling the rainforest people that when we've cut down so much of our forests. But even if we don't cut down another tree, we've already seen the proof that the rainforest can't abosorb all the CO@ released into the atmosphere, as atmospherice carbon has increased . If this was a sink for all emitted carbon, there would be no increase in atmospheric carbon while the forest would be growing at a phenomenal rate.

It's estimated that the tropical forests will be gone by centuries end from clear cutting. Meanwhile we have at least 500 years of coal left, seem to have lots of oil and natural gas - so that sink will be gone. It it already wasn't able to keep up with our output anyway.

You're making it sound as if we can keep spewing merrily along, because at some future date the forests will save us. Delusional.

But I don't even know why you care, since you maintain there is no AGW anyway and higher atmospheric CO2 is good for us. So then who cares about the rainforest?

[N_Fiddledog]

Boy you got the Carbonophobia bad, don't ya.

Here, I'll give you a few facts that might help you sleep better.

Boned animals existed and thrived in a world with about five times the CO2 we have in the atmosphere today. They were not human, but if you think humans couldn't survive, relax.

The current level of CO2 is 400ppm.

$1:

Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975].

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

There is no possible way the Koch brothers or some other dastardly evil deed doer is going to emit enough CO2 into the global atmosphere to so much as give you a headache. So relax. It's not something you need to continue to wet the bed over.

But as I told you dinosaurs and other plant life were scampering around in 4 times the CO2 of today. There were no humans, but there's no reason to think it would be the CO2 that would kill you if you could find a time machine and go back there to live under those levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Here's something else for you to think about. CO2 has been much higher than even the dinosaurs knew. Where did it go? The CO2 left, came back, then left again. This has happened over and over again over 600 million years. It's happened at levels of 3000 ppm and at levels of 200 ppm. How's that happening? It's safe to say 600 million years pre-dates the Kochs, so we can't be blaming them. Where's all that CO2 going to, and coming from?

[andyt]

the danger is the rate that CO2 is increasing and how well we can adapt to the changes that brings.

Personally I think we're fucked one way or another, because of all the fucking. High rates of CO2 emission are just one symptom of all those nocturnal emissions. What it will be that comes to bite us in the ass, only time will ell.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Boy you got the Carbonophobia bad, don't ya.

Here, I'll give you a few facts that might help you sleep better.

Boned animals existed and thrived in a world with about five times the CO2 we have in the atmosphere today. They were not human, but if you think humans couldn't survive, relax.

The current level of CO2 is 400ppm.

$1:

Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975].

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

There is no possible way the Koch brothers or some other dastardly evil deed doer is going to emit enough CO2 into the global atmosphere to so much as give you a headache. So relax. It's not something you need to continue to wet the bed over.

But as I told you dinosaurs and other plant life were scampering around in 4 times the CO2 of today. There were no humans, but there's no reason to think it would be the CO2 that would kill you if you could find a time machine and go back there to live under those levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Here's something else for you to think about. CO2 has been much higher than even the dinosaurs knew. Where did it go? The CO2 left, came back, then left again. This has happened over and over again over 600 million years. It's happened at levels of 3000 ppm and at levels of 200 ppm. How's that happening? It's safe to say 600 million years pre-dates the Kochs, so we can't be blaming them. Where's all that CO2 going to, and coming from?

I don't think the issue is the toxicity of CO2, but it's property of abpsorbing and emitting photons in the infrared spectrum, thereby amplifying the Greenhouse Effect.

The response of the ecosystem to high CO2 is by no means known. What we do know, as Andy pointed out, is that CO2 is continuing to accumulate as a result of anthropogenic emissions, so if the tropics are absorbing more CO2, they aren't doing it quickly enough to be useful, and as a result we have global warming.

2014 is looking to be among the warmest on record. The PDO is nearing the end of its negative phase so we'll see the end of the so-called global warming pause.

[Thanos]

Probably be better absorption occurring if so much equatorial forest wasn't being clear-cut over the same period of time. Another delightful bit of corporate decision-making with their 'what, me worry?' and 'what could possibly go wrong?' attitude.

[andyt]

Thanos Thanos:

Probably be better absorption occurring if so much equatorial forest wasn't being clear-cut over the same period of time. Another delightful bit of corporate decision-making with their 'what, me worry?' and 'what could possibly go wrong?' attitude.

Why should they preserve their forest when we cut ours down to fund our lifestyle? If the rain forest is really a very important carbon sink, then let the whole world buy it up and preserve it. That way the locals are recompensed. Personally I don't think the forests amount to a hill of beans compared to the oceans, and who knows how long they can continue to absorb carbon, especially since we'e busy screwing them up too. That's the problem with sinks, they have a way of overflowing.

The only real carbon sink would be carbon sequestration on a truly massive scale. Or we could just leave the carbon in the ground in the first place. I doubt the former is feasible on a scale enough to make a diff, the latter, we're never going to give up that addiction. Watch demand rise with the lower oil prices. Yahoo, it's Hummer time.

[BartSimpson]

I'd posed the question a long time ago and I'll pose it again:

Say the UN ordered the tropical countries to cease cutting down their rainforests in order to 'save the planet'. And say those countries blithely ignored every measure the UN tried to use to make them comply.

Would anyone be willing to go to war over an environmental issue?

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd posed the question a long time ago and I'll pose it again:

Say the UN ordered the tropical countries to cease cutting down their rainforests in order to 'save the planet'. And say those countries blithely ignored every measure the UN tried to use to make them comply.

Would anyone be willing to go to war over an environmental issue?

Why go to war when you can buy them off more cheaply? And let the Americans occupy Brazil and other rain forest countries, you don't think good ole 'Mericun business would be down there cutting it down. That's as funny as America going to Iraq to stop oil production. Good one.

[PluggyRug]

I doubt anyone would go to war over something that is not perceived by everyone.

[Thanos]

andyt andyt:

Thanos Thanos:

Probably be better absorption occurring if so much equatorial forest wasn't being clear-cut over the same period of time. Another delightful bit of corporate decision-making with their 'what, me worry?' and 'what could possibly go wrong?' attitude.

Why should they preserve their forest when we cut ours down to fund our lifestyle? If the rain forest is really a very important carbon sink, then let the whole world buy it up and preserve it. That way the locals are recompensed. Personally I don't think the forests amount to a hill of beans compared to the oceans, and who knows how long they can continue to absorb carbon, especially since we'e busy screwing them up too. That's the problem with sinks, they have a way of overflowing.

The only real carbon sink would be carbon sequestration on a truly massive scale. Or we could just leave the carbon in the ground in the first place. I doubt the former is feasible on a scale enough to make a diff, the latter, we're never going to give up that addiction. Watch demand rise with the lower oil prices. Yahoo, it's Hummer time.

This is why I want to write more of my shitty little stories about the human disease. Brains large enough to be dangerous to the point of self-destruction with all the clever things that get thought up in order to make more money, common sense or a recognition for the need of some limitations on certain destructive behaviours completely lacking almost everywhere with practically everyone.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I was going to leave this alone, but if we're going to get all cocky about how something like this...

$1:

Tests I've seen show that plants will grow faster with increases in Co2 as you'd expect, but will soon use up all the fertilizers in the ground that occur with natural decay. Then they rapidly die and decompose, releasing all the carbon they stored to begin with and making more atmospheric Co2 than before.

cannot be challenged, what the Hell, I'll play.

Show us those tests.

Again?

What's the point in posting things if you never read them?

current-events-f59/in-u-s-most-do-not-see-global-warming-as-serious-threat-t107990-60.html#p2044461

Oh, wait! You did read it, you just chose to ignore it.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd posed the question a long time ago and I'll pose it again:

Say the UN ordered the tropical countries to cease cutting down their rainforests in order to 'save the planet'. And say those countries blithely ignored every measure the UN tried to use to make them comply.

Would anyone be willing to go to war over an environmental issue?

Yes, but there are other paths first. The best one I've heard of is; rather than chopping down the forests to ship the wood to china to build things, teach the locals to build the things instead. Keep the vast hardwood forests where they are, selectively log the best timber and let the rest age and give homes to the local animals.

Create sustainable trade and jobs first. War later, preferably never.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't think the issue is the toxicity of CO2, but it's property of abpsorbing and emitting photons in the infrared spectrum, thereby amplifying the Greenhouse Effect.

Agreed, but Andy seems to be suffering from a more general fear. I'm not sure he knows why, but he seems to believe in a kind of amorphous danger. Ever see that movie "The Blob"?

That's what Andy seems to be seeing in the CO2 scare. This growing, unstoppable thing that has to inevitably eat up the world. He sees it as something the world has never seen before. He sees every little corner and claim of every little no-name study calling for a fright as the beginning and end of all knowledge. He doesn't seem to understand yet, that for every little piece of nonsense like that there are 10 studies from both sides saying something else.

Now on the contribution of man to the collection of CO2 you're not helping him with his neurosis. Yes man contributes. There is debate on how much. You know this. Why are you letting the poor little fellow continue to run screaming through the streets like "It's coming! It's coming!" when you know the totality of his fear is not based on known fact? You know CO2 has been at much higher levels than anything the most radical, politically driven, enviro-wacko would ever propose as possible from a contribution by man. You know about ocean up-welling. You know much higher levels of CO2 have come and gone without any contribution of man.

Why are you panicking the neurotics? Tut tut. Shame shame.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Again?

What's the point in posting things if you never read them?

current-events-f59/in-u-s-most-do-not-see-global-warming-as-serious-threat-t107990-60.html#p2044461

Oh, wait! You did read it, you just chose to ignore it.

No. Not as you say, "again". This time you claimed to have inarguable proof. There is nothing like that on that link and I did respond to it. I gave it more attention than it was worth then, and I have corroborated my claim made there by posting two links offering multiple examples of conflicting studies on this thread.