In the super long run, what would happen if people didn't burn fossil fuels? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15028378
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The answer is one kilo.

No it isn't. You are just wrong. Plant matter consists almost entirely of water and cellulose. The proportions depend on how watery the plant is. Because the majority of the dry mass of a plant is CARBON, which is not obtained from water or soil nutrients, increasing the available CO2 will increase the plant's growth, especially because of the water-sparing effect on leaf pores. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentration means the plant will lose less water to transpiration per molecule of CO2 obtained from the air.
See my previous link about Liebig’s law.

It is irrelevant. See above. I'm objectively right, you're objectively wrong.
No, read @Julian658‘s link.

Please quote the text that you incorrectly believe supports your claim.
#15028417
SolarCross wrote:We should all bear in mind that POD is a totalitarian. His only interest in the environment is as an excuse to put chains on humanity and reduce us all to the sad slaves of communism. Consequently no amount reasoning will have any purchase on him unless it serves his totalitarian agenda.



It is also important to acknowledge that for those on the far feel it is justified to assume incorrect erroneous positions as long as it helps the cause. That explains POD's lack of logic.
Last edited by Julian658 on 21 Aug 2019 23:39, edited 1 time in total.
#15028421
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. You are just wrong. Plant matter consists almost entirely of water and cellulose. The proportions depend on how watery the plant is. Because the majority of the dry mass of a plant is CARBON, which is not obtained from water or soil nutrients, increasing the available CO2 will increase the plant's growth, especially because of the water-sparing effect on leaf pores. Higher atmospheric CO2 concentration means the plant will lose less water to transpiration per molecule of CO2 obtained from the air.

It is irrelevant. See above. I'm objectively right, you're objectively wrong.

Please quote the text that you incorrectly believe supports your claim.


Let me know when you have read the links.

You can start by giving me an explanation as to how Liebig’s law affects the question as to whether or not CO2 will always increase plant mass.

After you have shown that you can read links and relate them to the discussion, we can have one.

I see @Julian658 and @SolarCross have given up.
#15028423
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let me know when you have read the links.

You can start by giving me an explanation as to how Liebig’s law affects the question as to whether or not CO2 will always increase plant mass.

After you have shown that you can read links and relate them to the discussion, we can have one.

I see @Julian658 and @SolarCross have given up.

Are you able to provide an explanation using your own words?
#15028489
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already made my point about how this affects your claim.

Try writing it in your own words, and I will tell you if you got it right.

I am no expert in the subject. I never heard of the law before.

This concept was originally applied to plant or crop growth, where it was found that increasing the amount of plentiful nutrients did not increase plant growth. Only by increasing the amount of the limiting nutrient (the one most scarce in relation to "need") was the growth of a plant or crop improved. WIKI

Obviously the planets is greener due to CO2-------I think you miss the point. Even though CO2 is rising it may still be the limiting nutrient.
#15028519
So, your use of the word “may” in the last sentence is an implied concession to my point:

While co2 may be the limiting factor for some plants, it is not the limiting factor for all plants, and may not be the most significant over all.

And according to your source, the increase in plant coverage was due to reforestation and agriculture, in general.
#15028572
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, your use of the word “may” in the last sentence is an implied concession to my point:

While co2 may be the limiting factor for some plants, it is not the limiting factor for all plants, and may not be the most significant over all.

And according to your source, the increase in plant coverage was due to reforestation and agriculture, in general.


It seems that it is very important for you not to be wrong or to always win an argument. That is why you often sound like a BOT.
#15028619
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let me know when you have read the links.

I have read them. Please quote the text that you incorrectly believe supports your claim.
You can start by giving me an explanation as to how Liebig’s law affects the question as to whether or not CO2 will always increase plant mass.

CO2 will increase plant growth when EITHER water or CO2 is a limiting factor, because of its water-sparing effect. The only time it won't increase plant growth (within plausible limits of water, CO2, nutrients, temperature, sunlight, wind, gravity, etc.) is when both CO2 and water are abundant, and soil nutrients are the limiting factor.
After you have shown that you can read links and relate them to the discussion, we can have one.

<yawn>
Last edited by Truth To Power on 22 Aug 2019 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
#15028713
Truth To Power wrote:<yawn> You falsely accused me of not having an argument. Not only do you not have an argument, you actually think I am responsible for providing one for you. Irony much?


I think you are responsible for catching yourself up before making any pronouncements on what has already been discussed.

You are not yet at a position where you can make an argument or address mine since you are still catching up.
#15028878
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you are responsible for catching yourself up before making any pronouncements on what has already been discussed.

That's rich, coming from you. I have already proved I am far ahead of you.
You are not yet at a position where you can make an argument or address mine since you are still catching up.

<yawn> Do such transparent evasions really allow you to avoid knowing the fact that you have been demolished and humiliated? Really??

Here's an opportunity for you to catch up: describe, in your own words, the water-sparing effect of increased CO2. An accurate explanation will indicate that you are at least minimally qualified to participate in this discussion.
EU-BREXIT

Vice President of the National Front from 2012 to[…]

September 17, Tuesday The legislature of Maryla[…]

The Popular Vote...

CNN(AKA Fake News):"The road to abolish the E[…]

So what? USA provided tons of military hardware t[…]