I love your Python humour. It is funny that your quoting wikipedia is okay, but when other quote same source it miraclously turns unreliable. I already explained '000 error in previous post. Read it very carefully, whatever Nature says it cannot contradict metabolism rules. And the rule as far as photosynthesis goes is: mature forrests absorb less CO2 than young forrest Look at your intellectual dishonesty / stupidity: Either you are a moron and you: (i) did not notice the phrase ''are usually positive'' - word usaully is far from being scientific; it simply means nothing; (ii) did not notice ridululous range of 15 to 800 years - any forest of this range will be ''usually'' positive; but this will not necessarily be the case with a forest of range 100 - 800 years. or you are simply dishonest. As the thread continues your stupidity / dishonesty will become more evident. Warm regards
Wikipedia isn't a source. It's an online encyclopedia which allows everyone to edit. You might be able to link to primary sources via Wikipedia, but it's not a primary source itself.
Nature like wikipedia had many faux pas in history. The passage you quoted is from a letter to Nature by a group of scientists. Their findings were based on quote searched literature and databases for forest carbon-flux estimates. Their finding contradict empirical studies which shawn that older plants (when in catabolic phase) absorb less CO2 than younger plants (when in anabolic phase). Their finding also contradict basic biology knwowledge. This letter was laughed at and widely criticised. You can paste here or attach their entire study / letter here. Conspiracy? Anthropogenic global warming is not a consiracy. It is idiocy! Maybe a few guys will get richer and a few get more popular. My question is: what gave YOU such an emotional attitude that you are willing to accept concepts that contradict sheer logic?
Yes... and if you check any of the estimates you'll also find the same thing -- that carbon sequestration has been roughly decreasing with deforestation. "The global total flux averaged 1.5 Pg C yr-1 during the 1980s and 1.56 Pg C yr-1 during the 1990s." http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/landuse/houghton/houghton.html It just makes sense, Tresor. Fewer trees, more carbon in the atmosphere. Okay, who criticized it and what peer-reviewed studies? I pray you're not trying to make the point that the field of cabbage you mentioned would absorb anywhere near what a forest would absorb, and that those darn scientists who calculate carbon sequestration can't calculate the difference between a lawn and a forest. Yeah, climatologists are all about ego. That's why they went into climatology -- for the public admiration and teenaged groupies. It seems pretty clear to me that fewer trees mean more atmospheric carbon, and I've linked to a few science sites now to back it up. Plus it's common knowledge that trees absorb CO2, so nothing contradicts sheer logic. What you're suggesting, that tiny blades of grass perform more photosynthesis than an entire forest with ground cover not only goes again logic, it also goes directly against photosynthesis, and also doesn't explain why atmospheric carbon has been increasing. So no, logic is absolutely on my side on this one. Plus, let's drill down to the crux of the matter: carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, of that there can be no debate.
It is also a common knowledge that not only trees absorb CO2. What you seem to miss is that old trees (say 200 years old) absorb far less than young trees (say 50 years old). No logic and scientific facts are on your side. Quote me in full, what I knew and wrote (not just suggested) was: grass on 100 sqm performs more photosynthesis than rain forest on 100 sqm (which is a scientific fact; a crucial component of photosynthesis is light). Ever been in a rain forest? Did you see much light there?
Could be. But also wouldn't matter. Atmospheric carbon is increasing and your cabbages aren't saving us. There's as much light on a rainforest as there is on a lawn, by definition, whether it hits a canopy of trees or the blades of grass. Just because you're standing in shade doesn't mean the light doesn't exist. At night or in the shade the sun doesn't actually cease to exist. Allow me to summarize: "Giant ball fire in sky. Giant ball fire make light. Big ball no turn off." The fact that I have to write that just astounds me.
I don't know about the rep of this website or magazine, but I thought I'd toss it in: "THE TROPICAL grasslands have as much to do with stable global climate as do the rainforests, according to a study that has just been completed by the United Nations Environment Programme. The study looked at grasslands on five continents. Its results show that tropical grasslands turn far more carbon dioxide into carbohydrates than anyone suspected, equalling - or even exceeding - the productivity of tropical rainforests. " http://www.newscientist.com/article...lands-have-been-almost-totally-ignored--.html
Interesting; plants below canopy receive as much light as the grass with no canopy above. That explains much of what you wrote in this thread, bigdave Ok, I get it know. You believe that photosynthesis performs equally in sunny and in shady conditions... Do all environmentalists share your beliefs on biology?
You're thrashing about pretty wildly here. If the sun hits the canopy, then photosynthesis occurs in the canopy. If it hits grass, photosynthesis occurs in the blades of grass. There is no less light in a rainforest just because you stand in the shade. Ummm... what do you think a rain forest canopy is made of, if not photosynthesizing plant material? And why is atmospheric CO2 increasing, do you suppose?