My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Cedars

The study linked to did not show plants intake less CO2.

Since you quoted my post originally, I can only presume you are referring to the study I shared. If that is truly the case, then your comment above does not seem accurate. However, if you can cite a few sources to support your position, sources which counter the claims made in the article I've shared, then I remain willing to ammend my position.

Until then, please see below.


PNAS Article cited above by InfiniteNow


From the abstract (emphasis mine):

Furthermore, low/high [CO2] transitions modulated the cytosolic Ca2+ transient pattern in Arabidopsis guard cells (Landsberg erecta). Inhibition of cytosolic Ca2+ transients, achieved by loading guard cells with the calcium chelator 1,2-bis(2-aminophenoxy)ethane-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic acid and not adding external Ca2+, attenuated both high CO2-induced stomatal closing and low CO2-induced stomatal opening, and also revealed a Ca2+-independent phase of the CO2 response. Furthermore, the mutant, growth controlled by abscisic acid (gca2) shows impairment in [CO2] modulation of the cytosolic Ca2+ transient rate and strong impairment in high CO2-induced stomatal closing.

Stomatal pores in aerial parts of plants close in response to high carbon dioxide concentrations and open at low [CO2].

Reports show that a doubling of atmospheric [CO2] causes significant stomatal closure by 20–40% in diverse plant species.

From the Results section:

Thus in guard cells, the rate of [Ca2+]cyt transient production decreased after the switch from low CO2 buffer to high CO2 and increased after the switch back to low CO2 buffer (Fig. 1A), showing that the [Ca2+]cyt transient rate is modulated by CO2 concentration changes.

control experiments with 50 µM Ca2+ added to the bath solution, shifts from ambient [CO2] to low [CO2] caused stomatal opening and shifts from ambient [CO2] to high [CO2] caused stomatal closing.

However, if you were not responding the study I shared, then I apologize, and suggest the above be used simply as further evidence of the position I shared.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Since you quoted my post originally, I can only presume you are referring to the study I shared. If that is truly the case, then your comment above does not seem accurate. However, if you can cite a few sources to support your position, sources which counter the claims made in the article I've shared, then I remain willing to ammend my position.
Until then, please see below.
PNAS Article cited above by InfiniteNow
From the abstract (emphasis mine):
From the Results section:
However, if you were not responding the study I shared, then I apologize, and suggest the above be used simply as further evidence of the position I shared.

Read the study again (not the press release).

No where does it make any claim about plant growth. The study does not say CO2 intake is reduced. It says stomata close at a higher rate (It does not say ALL STOMATA CLOSE). The study makes NO CLAIM regarding plant growth or amount of CO2 intake. It only claims stomata open or close in a different proportion than when CO2 levels are 'normal'.

No where in the study does it indicate plant growth is altered by the reaction of this type of plant to Higher or Lower CO2,

Post all the snippets you want from the study. None of them reflect plant growth or CO2 intake by this particular plant. Its no different than seeing someone squinting their eyes on a bright sunny day and concluding they must be blind.

What I am saying is that study provides no evidence either way on the effect on the growth of that particular type of plant in Higher or Lower CO2 environmental levels.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Cedars

No where in the study does it indicate plant growth is altered by the reaction of this type of plant to Higher or Lower CO2,

Is there a larger point you're trying to make here, or are you just content to find some fallacy in INow's references?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Cedars

No where does it make any claim about plant growth.

This would, in fact, be a strawman of my position, so your point is moot. My position referred only to the plants ability to absorb CO₂, and how that ability is lessened as atmospheric CO₂ increases.

Originally Posted by Cedars

The study does not say CO2 intake is reduced.

Are you suggesting that the closure of stomata has no impact on the plants ability to intake CO₂? I am just trying to get you to clarify your position, as I'm sincerely unsure what that is.

Originally Posted by Cedars

It says stomata close at a higher rate (It does not say ALL STOMATA CLOSE).

This would be another strawman, as I never suggested that either. To put this out there, and make sure we're all clear on some of the things I DIDN'T say... I also didn't say that the plants were completely unable to absorb CO₂ as atmospheric concentrations rise.

I'll stop there, as it's going to be quite impossible for me to remind you of all of the things which I DIDN'T say.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Post all the snippets you want from the study. None of them reflect plant growth or CO2 intake by this particular plant. Its no different than seeing someone squinting their eyes on a bright sunny day and concluding they must be blind.

What I am saying is that study provides no evidence either way on the effect on the growth of that particular type of plant in Higher or Lower CO2 environmental levels.

Please see my comment above regarding your complete misrepresentation of my position.

Originally Posted by REASON

Is there a larger point you're trying to make here, or are you just content find some fallacy in INow's references?

If my previous experiences with Cedars are to serve as any indication, then it's more than likely the problem she has is with the person who shared the reference, and not the reference itself. If she were truly just a scientific hawk watching out for the welfare of accuracy and truth with no personal agenda, she'd have also come out and attacked Turtle for sharing his heavily biased data source and treating those quotes as valid and accurate representations... Which, she did not.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

This would, in fact, be a strawman of my position, so your point is moot. My position referred only to the plants ability to absorb CO₂, and how that ability is lessened as atmospheric CO₂ increases.

Are you suggesting that the closure of stomata has no impact on the plants ability to intake CO₂? I am just trying to get you to clarify your position, as I'm sincerely unsure what that is.

Its you who claims this and I only point out the study you refer to makes no such claim and this is your assumption.

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

I'll stop there, as it's going to be quite impossible for me to remind you of all of the things which I DIDN'T say.

Its good you stop there. Here is exactly what you said.
From the original post:

Originally Posted by InNow

I would like to call to your attention the results of a UCSD study conducted in May of 2006. Specifically, this
quote which speaks to the issue of plant intake of CO2:

Cedars snips Press Release

Originally Posted by InNow

You see, the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually causing the plants to intake less.

This is not claimed anywhere in the study.

Originally Posted by InNow

This seems to inform the questions above as to why the plants don't seem to be keeping up / up keeping with all of the human inputs.

Again, nowhere in the study is this implied nor can one conclude the above to be true. This is not to say research into the answer to the question of whether plant CO2 intake is reduced in higher Co2 situations are not out there, but this study provides none of these conclusions.

Its not Cedars who introduced strawmen into this portion of the thread.

[InfiniteNow]

Okay, Cedars. Quality response that was. [/sarcasm]


All I can say to you is to follow the references in the article I shared, and drill-down into the references of those. My argument holds true.


I don't care how much you dislike me personally, I'm not usually wrong, and when I am, I admit it.

[CraigD]

Allegations of strawmen, personal animosity, plant stomata and Young et al.’s PNAS paper aside, the paper I linked to in post #40 shows clearly that common red seaweed actually decreases it rate of uptake of carbon when aqueous concentration exceeds about 2 times normal and concentration is normal. It also shows that higher than normal carbon uptake occurs at greater concentrations when concentration is also increased, but not to as great a rate as found at the “sweet spot” of about 2 times normal and normal .

Kubler et al don’t discuss possible biomechanical reasons for this, only their measurements and experimental technique, but a reasonable assumption that can be drawn from this and Young et al’s research is that, like animals and simpler chemical reactions, plants may metabolize more efficiently when subjected to unusual concentrations of and , but that the range of concentrations is limited. Plants being complex, highly evolved organisms, optimized to the conditions of their environments, this doesn’t surprise me.

I worry that this thread has focused so much on plant carbon uptake that we’re losing sight of the big picture of atmospheric carbon and carbon sequestration. As previous posts have noted, simply containing carbon in biomass doesn’t guarantee its long-term removal from the atmosphere – some mechanism must be present to physically isolate it from the atmosphere long-term. For example, terrestrial and shallow-water aquatic biomass can be compressed into sediments, and over a geological time scale, buried in deep fossil deposits that are (barring extraction and burning by a particularly ingenious species of ape) effectively eternal. Carbon in seawater can be absorbed by diatoms, then sink to the ocean floor to be sedimented into the ocean floor, subducted into the mantle, or frozen in methane ice. So simply increasing greenspace and/or plant metabolism doesn’t guarantee carbon sequestration.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I worry that this thread has focused so much on plant carbon uptake that we’re losing sight of the big picture of atmospheric carbon and carbon sequestration. As previous posts have noted, simply containing carbon in biomass doesn’t guarantee its long-term removal from the atmosphere – some mechanism must be present to physically isolate it from the atmosphere long-term. For example, terrestrial and shallow-water aquatic biomass can be compressed into sediments, and over a geological time scale, buried in deep fossil deposits that are (barring extraction and burning by a particularly ingenious species of ape) effectively eternal. Carbon in seawater can be absorbed by diatoms, then sink to the ocean floor to be sedimented into the ocean floor, subducted into the mantle, or frozen in methane ice. So simply increasing greenspace and/or plant metabolism doesn’t guarantee carbon sequestration.

Exactly!

The decaying trees are part of the forest just as much as the live ones. Release and uptake, again and again.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Allegations of strawmen, personal animosity, plant stomata and Young et al.’s PNAS paper aside, the paper I linked to in post #40 shows clearly that common red seaweed actually decreases it rate of uptake of carbon when aqueous concentration exceeds about 2 times normal and concentration is normal. It also shows that higher than normal carbon uptake occurs at greater concentrations when concentration is also increased, but not to as great a rate as found at the “sweet spot” of about 2 times normal and normal .

Kubler et al don’t discuss possible biomechanical reasons for this, only their measurements and experimental technique, but a reasonable assumption that can be drawn from this and Young et al’s research is that, like animals and simpler chemical reactions, plants may metabolize more efficiently when subjected to unusual concentrations of and , but that the range of concentrations is limited. Plants being complex, highly evolved organisms, optimized to the conditions of their environments, this doesn’t surprise me.

But you also have to keep in mind this particular type of seaweed is not known for using CO2 in its environment and the hypothesis was by increasing CO2 the plant would utilize this more (roughly translated). See the introduction for more.

Additionally, the plant growth itself was increased at all phases of increased CO2 with the best response being at a double from now CO2 level and even though this decreased with the 5x it was still 23% higher than what its growth rate is at 'normal' CO2 levels.

While the dry weight seems to show the plant doesnt store C13 in proportion to its growth rate, that only indicates more study should be done to see what the plant is doing with the carbon. One thing I didnt pick up on in the article was whether they increased other components used by the plant to grow or is the plant converting the extra CO2 into other energies to compensate for a different nutrient need. They list what they put in, but I do not know how that compares to their natural environment.

As someone who grows plants in an aquarium setting, adding CO to the water is a must for any medium and especially high light plants. Now for my low light plants? Those bad boys practically grow in the dark and you dont have to add CO2 to keep them growing well. As I understand this particular seaweed, its maybe a medium light plant, but its not a high light plant. I see they kept the ph pretty steady which indicates they kept the CO2 levels pretty stable.

Basic information for Lomentaria articulata (A red seaweed)

I remember reading some info on greenhouse tomatoes and they knew an average of how many mg or grams of CO2 an average tomato plant uses in a day, some even detailed for various parts of plant development.

So while there might be some plants which should not be considered for their carbon sequestering potential, this does not equal a higher CO2 environment negatively affecting their growth, nor does it indicate they stop consuming CO2 because more of its in their environment.

[REASON]

I think it would be reasonable to say that different plants are going to react differently to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. While I would agree that understanding this process is important, what appears to be more important, as Craig mentioned above, is the larger picture here.

What is clear is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are continuing to rapidly increase at a rate which natural CO2 sequestration processes apparently are not able to keep up with. Even though there are other natural contributing factors to CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it seems foolish to deny the strong correlation between the increase in the consumption of fossil fuels, the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the increase in the mean global temerature.

With this in mind, we should be making preparations to try and stabilize the conditions before they reach the dreaded "tipping point" at which it will be beyond our ability to control. These preparations should include, but not be limited to, the development of artificial CO2 sequestration methods, and the promotion of government policies that encourage, if not require, increased fuel economy standards, alternate sources of clean energy, recycling, and green development practices.

It simply makes sense to do these things anyway if we are to be good stewards of the only environment we have to live. The technology is available. Is it worth avoiding doing these things just so we don't have to be burdened with change, or so the fossil fuel industry doesn't have to sacrifice future profits? I don't think so, because if we don't change now, I believe we will be forced to change later, but the changes will be in the form of adaptation to a much more extreme environment.