1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    09 Jun '17 15:51
    From the link below:
    The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Why would the benefits of CO2 to plants diminish over time?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    09 Jun '17 17:57
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    From the link below:
    The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect dim ...[text shortened]... xide-fertilization-greening-earth

    Why would the benefits of CO2 to plants diminish over time?
    Why would the benefits of CO2 to plants diminish over time?

    Read the studies Ciais is referring to and find out.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    10 Jun '17 14:36
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]Why would the benefits of CO2 to plants diminish over time?

    Read the studies Ciais is referring to and find out.[/b]
    I tried to find that but cannot. I am skeptical of the claim. Doesn't make any sense to me. If plants can grow faster now why not later?
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    10 Jun '17 15:032 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    If plants can grow faster now why not later?
    What a completely completely stupid question.
    If all else was equal INCLUDING climate (so hypothetically no climate change), more CO2 would mean plants can grow faster now and later; which is irrelevant because all else is NOT equal; more CO2 causing climate change of the sort that results in greater frequency of severe whether events that damage and/or destroy crops and that damage more than offset the CO2 benefit by resulting in an overall DROP in average yield. Comprehend?
    If a crop is completely obliterated by a hurricane, any CO2 benefit to that crop would have account for nothing as the yield would be reduced to nothing. Comprehend?
    Doesn't make any sense to me.

    If that is true then you are unimaginably stupid as an average halfwit will be able to easily comprehend what I just said above which sums up what is basically said in the links. Exactly which part of that "Doesn't make any sense" to you and why?
  5. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    15 Jun '17 19:01
    Originally posted by humy
    What a completely completely stupid question.
    If all else was equal INCLUDING climate (so hypothetically no climate change), more CO2 would mean plants can grow faster now and later; which is irrelevant because all else is NOT equal; more CO2 causing climate change of the sort that results in greater frequency of severe whether events that damage and/or destro ...[text shortened]... basically said in the links. Exactly which part of that "Doesn't make any sense" to you and why?
    Aside from your insult you are very amusing.

    This is an excerpt from the link I posted in my OP:

    The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

    He said plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time. That has nothing to do with hurricanes.

    Your reading comprehension is inept.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jun '17 19:382 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain

    He said plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time. That has nothing to do with hurricanes.
    Nevertheless, more severe weather events caused by global warming are part of the reason why crop yields will fall and nothing he said there contradicts that. Apparently you cannot mentally cope with the extremely simple concept of there being more than one contributing causes for something. This shows your level of comprehension.
  7. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    15 Jun '17 19:49
    Originally posted by humy
    never the less, severe weather events are part of the reason and nothing he said there contradicts that. Apparently you cannot mentally cope with the simple concept that there may be more than one reason for something.
    So you just made the crap up?

    What part of " acclimatize, or adjust" is confusing you? Philippe Ciais just made it up just like you did your pathetic theory. He made no reference to hurricanes and it frustrates you that you cannot find anything to back up his false claim doesn't it? That is why you hurled an insult, because you know he is wrong too. His claim makes no sense at all. He just likes making up lies like you do.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jun '17 19:51
    Originally posted by Metal Brain


    What part of " acclimatize, or adjust" is confusing you?
    None.
    What part of that being irrelevant to there being multiple causes confuses you?
  9. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    15 Jun '17 19:55
    Originally posted by humy
    None.
    What part of that being irrelevant to there being multiple causes confuses you?
    This is about Philippe Ciais' blatant lie, not yours. If you can prove your claim I am willing to look at any references you can provide. You cannot though. Your theory is very weak at best.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Jun '17 20:125 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    This is about Philippe Ciais' blatant lie,
    It isn't a lie but an undisputed scientific fact. Plants to a limited extent can and do adjust to rising CO2 as this has already been observed. For example, plants respond to more CO2 by reducing their density of stomata;

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x/abstract

    "...
    A survey of 100 species and 122 observations has shown an average reduction in stomatal density of 14.3% (SE ±2.2 😵 with CO2 enrichment, with 74% of the cases exhibiting a reduction in stomatal density. A sign test demonstrated that stomatal density decreases, in response to CO2, significantly more often than expected by chance. Repeated observations on the same species indicated a significant repeatability in the direction of the stomatal response.
    ..."

    With all else being equal, less stomata means they absorb less CO2 thus this diminishes the fertilizing effect of CO2 over time.

    This below further explains that;
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mcelwain_03
  11. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    17 Jun '17 15:35
    Originally posted by humy
    It isn't a lie but an undisputed scientific fact. Plants to a limited extent can and do adjust to rising CO2 as this has already been observed. For example, plants respond to more CO2 by reducing their density of stomata;

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x/abstract

    "...
    A survey of 100 species and 122 observations has s ...[text shortened]...
    This below further explains that;
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mcelwain_03
    Irrelevant.
    The more co2 plants get the more they can use and the upper limit to this is about 4K ppm while earths historical upper limit is 7K ppm and some plants have circuits that kick in only after 2K ppm.
  12. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    17 Jun '17 17:512 edits
    Originally posted by Metal Brain

    The more co2 plants get the more they can use .
    not if they are severely damaged by severe whether event which is made more likely from more global CO2.
  13. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13418
    19 Jun '17 19:461 edit
    Originally posted by humy
    not if they are severely damaged by severe whether event which is made more likely from more global CO2.
    So you want to retreat back to that again?

    I can kill plants with my rototiller and it takes very little time before grass and other weeds grow back. Hurricanes cause even less damage to the plants than farmers do to their fields trying to kill as many weeds as possible. You really are foolish for clinging to such a weak theory.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/7/climate-change-models-wrong-predicting-rain-drough/

    There is no evidence that hurricanes will increase. That is mere scare mongering.
  14. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    20 Jun '17 05:591 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    . Hurricanes cause even less damage to the plants than farmers do to their fields trying to kill as many weeds as possible. .
    Farmers killing weeds isn't a problem.
    Hurricanes killing crops is.
    And so is your moronic irrelevancies..
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    20 Jun '17 06:57
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    There is no evidence that hurricanes will increase. That is mere scare mongering.
    Oh, then you don't know...
Back to Top