Quote:
Originally Posted by engineerdude
I think you folks are making this way way too complicated.
|
The system being studied is very complex. It's not "us" that are making it complicated. It's our understanding and analysis that becomes more complex with each new bit that we learn scientifically. Any study of worldwide phenomena is inherently complicated.
Quote:
|
Look at it this way - if every bit of animal life disappeared, and the plants remained, we would still scrub about the same amount of CO2 from the air.
|
Can you elaborate? A legitimate, scientific source stating this would be acceptable.
Quote:
|
With no animal life, the carbon from the dead plants would just sit in the soil once the plant decayed, and become coal or petroleum or whatever.
|
Do you include bacteria in "animals"?
Quote:
|
My point is that over 97% of all plant life is in the oceans, not on the land - and that the Amazon forest makes up a small percentage of that even smaller percentage of land plant life. Thus, variances in thickness of the Amazon would have a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.
|
I understand your logic, but when you post a specific number (97%), you need to back this up somehow. A quick search provided a legitimate source that claims a number very different from yours.
Quote:
|
Approximately half of the photosynthesis on Earth occurs in the oceans, and the remainder on land.
|
NASA Study Solves Ocean Plant Mystery
If you can find other legitimate sources that come up with a different number, I'd love to see them. Otherwise, I'm more inclined to go with NASA'a quote of 50/50.
