Umm, thats been known since biosphere 2 days. They did several experiments that showed that, but also showed that plants, especially trees, grew taller but skinner, more knotted (bad for the logging industry!) and that other plants grew at weird rates as well, and that it generally caused havoc.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=30717 > > New research from Switzerland and the UK reveals that, somewhat > paradoxically, plants absorb more carbon dioxide (CO2) when the > atmosphere is polluted than they do under cleaner skies. > > OK that is the finding. Now for the spin. > > You can imagine that the word coming from the oil-patch (bush-patch?) is YES! > just what we have been saying all along, and furthermore, now that know that > CO2 is a good thing for nature and for increasing the growth of biomass, and > that the cleaner the skies, the less nature can use CO2 - then full speed > ahead with maximum carbon but without any emission controls. > > However, that is 'spin' not logic. > > But - LOL - the same scientists who found the link, are trying to put a > totally different spin on it. Writing in the journal 'Nature', the scientists > warn that as air pollution levels continue to decline, "even steeper > greenhouse gas emissions cuts will be needed to stabilize the climate." Huh? > > Whoa. You have to use your imagination to fathom how this double negative > makes sense, but their explanation is not so far-fetched and 'apologetic' as > it may at first seem: > > Plants rely on the sun to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Although > it seems counter-intuitive, plants actually absorb CO2 more efficiently > under hazy sunlight than they do under bright, direct sunlight. When > exposed to direct sunlight, the leaves at the top of the plant canopy > get more sunlight than they can use, and go into a defensive mode, while > leaves in the shade do not get enough. However, when clouds and minute > particles of pollution scatter the light, leaves lower down on the canopy get > comparatively more light than in the previous case. As a result, plants > absorb CO2 more effectively in diffuse light than in direct light. But the > ideal situation, from the biomass perspective is not necessarily to limit CO2 > > Doh, reducing carbon emissions reduces the CO2 that plants need. And the > 'greenhouse' effect can now be appreciated to be due almost exclusively to > the other problems - methane and especially halogens. BUT- 'global dimming' > due to particulates, has reduced the net greenhouse effect in the recent > past, and if we eliminate particulates, that will increase the net greenhouse > effect. > > Confused yet? The scientists seem to be saying that you either must release > dirty CO2 or none at all. Well, that is not quite true - but it highlights > the huge grey area we are dealing with in these discussions. > > If you are not confused yet, IMHO - then you are not "thinking responsibly". > Al Gore is NOT thinking responsibly, NOR are his critics. > > Now for the good spin - the free-spin of valid alternatives. > > The is one and only one course of action that makes sense.Both camps are > misguided - and any rush to judgment is foolish; and yet there is one window > of opportunity that gets us where we need to be in ten years. That is- aside > from the obvious: which is adding solar and wind to the extent that we can > afford to buy those very high-priced solutions. > > The only neglected solution IMHO is to take all of the billion$$ that we want > and intend to throw at so-called CO2 sequestration, carbon credits, carbon > taxes, etc - and shift that into R&D for LENR, hydrino tech, ZPE tech, > including magnetic energy and even anti-gravity. These fringe-facets are the > ugly stepchild of scince because often they combine more art, intuition, > trial-and error, and fringe theory than "real' science permits. But real > scicence has failed us. Give the fringe a chance, and my intuition tells me > that success will be forthcoming. > > We simply do NOT know enough now to say that CO2 is the real culprit, nor > that reducing it is the complete answer; but everyone agrees that new energy > technology which does not depend on CO2, but promises to be one-fourth to > half the cost per kWhr delivered compared to solar or wind - that is the way > to go with the billions allocated for CO2 reduction (which will not help > anyway). > > So why are we waiting? Political inertia. > > We still do NOT have a Director of ARPA-E ! nor has any of that all-important > seed money for risky R&D gone out to people who can use it. > > IOW -take the ARPA-E philosophy - which is a great idea on paper but still is > not realized, due to foot-dragging and multiply it by all of the dollars that > would be wasted in CO2 sequestration, carbon credits and other nonsense. > Forget carbon. Carbon is not the enemy, or at least has not been proved to be > anywhere near the problem that the Gore-crew contend it to be. > > The real problem is bureaucratic inertia. Give the alternative energy camp > the funds, and we will deliver. > > I will now cede the soapbox to the Algore Alliance. > > Jones > >
