Main measure is what they call GPP:observation-based GPP products.
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due toclimate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:observation-based GPP products.
Main measure is what they call GPP:
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
The biosphere of earth is food limited.
Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
consumption.
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
more biomass to burn per year.
CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
level was getting critically low.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:observation-based GPP products.
Main measure is what they call GPP:
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
The biosphere of earth is food limited.
Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
consumption.
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
more biomass to burn per year.
CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
level was getting critically low.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:observation-based GPP products.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
Main measure is what they call GPP:
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
The biosphere of earth is food limited.
Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
consumption.
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
more biomass to burn per year.
CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
level was getting critically low.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
Quoting a source that is featured in Newsmax, Fox, and American Thinker
isn't actually a help.
Saying where the data to create that image and the theory might be of >interest.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric
windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:47df:b0:77b:de34:7b8 with SMTP id du31-20020a05620a47df00b0077bde3407b8mr130212qkb.10.1700414267433;
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:17:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a985:b0:1cc:37d1:905d with SMTP id
bh5-20020a170902a98500b001cc37d1905dmr1438465plb.11.1700414266972; Sun, 19
Nov 2023 09:17:46 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:17:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:5cc:4701:5250:d900:322e:cccd:fae7;
posting-account=iGtwSwoAAABNNwPORfvAs6OM4AR9GRHt
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:5cc:4701:5250:d900:322e:cccd:fae7
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com> <n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c554c367-d832-43d9-926f-095645a2ab27n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than
we thought
From: Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 17:17:47 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3561
Path: not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 15:52:22 +0000
From: John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than we thought
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 07:51:51 -0800
Organization: Highland Tech
Reply-To: xx@yy.com
Message-ID: <n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com>
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
X-Trace: sv3-03wQQkxJwhRVMuEj2obQ1oG7DYzyPY+x9xWPNsHxly/OYKS5yKu0Djys98gSlp6Kv9VJzWzwSGnpghJ!bcgNXKPND5fc+kbHVq+omDPXCTeuoscIIUDh3CVak2HD9uo2lheSEri0w1f+gXkgdX5/PAJzEN5R!spRy9A==
X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2736
X-Received-Bytes: 2874
Path: not-for-mail
From: John Robertson <jrr@flippers.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than
we thought
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <ujdfau$3soqn$1@dont-email.me>
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com>
<n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com>
Reply-To: spam@flippers.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 17:06:38 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e7cfdaa0e23857a679ea8da11e893fa7";
logging-data="4088663"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+QUeNyxx1/shjUjkQJsBYt2QWNfiFg5Lo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:roOwgF7yqvr20gUe385vlxzl0IA=
In-Reply-To: <n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US, en-CA
X-Received-Bytes: 3319
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:observation-based GPP products.
On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
Main measure is what they call GPP:
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.
Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of
land or sea. When food is available, critters pop up to consume it.
The biosphere of earth is food limited.
Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2
consumption.
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and
burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes
more biomass to burn per year.
CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The
level was getting critically low.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
Quoting a source that is featured in Newsmax, Fox, and American Thinker >isn't actually a help.Would you reject Ohm's Law if Infowars linked to it?
Go to Wikipedia, look at the CO2 articles, and then you can mock
Wikipedia for the rest of your life.
Saying where the data to create that image and the theory might be of >interest.Past concentrations of CO2 are available from many sources and are
very similar. In the most profilic periods of life and evolution, we
had numbers like 5000 PPM. It's experimentally demonstrable that
plants die at low CO2 levels.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."Apply that concept to life on Earth being destroyed this century by
500 PPM of CO2.
I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respectThe CO2 absorption lines are almost saturated now, so more CO2 won't
to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric >windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.
have much affect on temperature but will really feed plants. Besides,
warm is good for life.
Main measure is what they call GPP:observation-based GPP products.
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and...
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:observation-based GPP products.
Main measure is what they call GPP:
Gross primary productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Although as a key quantity of terrestrial ecosystems, there is a lack of high-spatial-and-temporal-resolution, real-time and
climate change. Most of the rest of the world 'could be' looking at 2X increase in GPP, assuming they're not destroyed by development, fires, or droughts.Looks like the northern latitude boreal forests, if they haven't burned down, 'could' increase their GPP by a full factor of 3X over pre-industrial levels. NASA's OCO has been observing this, and they attribute it to longer growing seasons due to
Unenthusiastic article here:
https://theconversation.com/plants-are-likely-to-absorb-more-co-in-a-changing-climate-than-we-thought-heres-why-217786
Why 20% more? Plants could evolve to absorb 100% more CO2 per acre of land or sea.
When food is available, critters pop up to consume it. The biosphere of earth is food limited.
Manmade intercontinental species migration also increases CO2 consumption.
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes more biomass to burn per year.
CO2 is good for the planet and its critters; it feeds us all. The level was getting critically low.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/CO2_5.jpg
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 09:06:38 -0800, John Robertson <j...@flippers.com> wrote:
On 2023/11/19 7:51 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 06:58:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Apply that concept to life on Earth being destroyed this century by 500 PPM of CO2.
I'm still working out the transmission rates of infra-red with respect
to various so-called greenhouse gases and looking at the atmospheric >windows that are left even when the density surpasses 100%.
The CO2 absorption lines are almost saturated now, so more CO2 won't have much affect on temperature but will really feed plants. Besides, warm is good for life.
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:52:40 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
In much of the world, the only exit path for trees is logging and burning. Putting out small fires just makes big fires. More CO2 makes more biomass to burn per year.
But most of it rots, rather than burns, and that is the usual exit path for trees, not getting consumed in forest fires.
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d784:0:b0:66d:8696:7216 with SMTP id z4-20020a0cd784000000b0066d86967216mr163481qvi.11.1700458375849;
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 21:32:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:48d:b0:1cc:4b3d:1a8c with SMTP id
jj13-20020a170903048d00b001cc4b3d1a8cmr2927187plb.4.1700458375471; Sun, 19
Nov 2023 21:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 21:32:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <udhkli5uqj9b2d3df0qgd9upseo2nepqq9@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=59.102.83.245; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 59.102.83.245
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com>
<n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com> <ujdfau$3soqn$1@dont-email.me> <udhkli5uqj9b2d3df0qgd9upseo2nepqq9@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c17289a9-f3b5-43eb-9f64-5b4e2055385cn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than
we thought
From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 05:32:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 3194
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:452c:0:b0:66c:eec1:4be4 with SMTP id l12-20020ad4452c000000b0066ceec14be4mr118066qvu.3.1700420606222;
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 11:03:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a63:b4f:0:b0:59c:fc70:1ca0 with SMTP id
a15-20020a630b4f000000b0059cfc701ca0mr1157542pgl.10.1700420605751; Sun, 19
Nov 2023 11:03:25 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 11:03:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <udhkli5uqj9b2d3df0qgd9upseo2nepqq9@4ax.com>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:5cc:4701:5250:d900:322e:cccd:fae7;
posting-account=iGtwSwoAAABNNwPORfvAs6OM4AR9GRHt
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:5cc:4701:5250:d900:322e:cccd:fae7
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com>
<n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com> <ujdfau$3soqn$1@dont-email.me> <udhkli5uqj9b2d3df0qgd9upseo2nepqq9@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <31abbb14-f6d6-4f6a-9f2b-187ee9e935ddn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than
we thought
From: Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 19:03:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 5258
X-Received: by 2002:ad4:4b32:0:b0:679:e0d5:a37 with SMTP id s18-20020ad44b32000000b00679e0d50a37mr26411qvw.4.1700480970236;
Mon, 20 Nov 2023 03:49:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a63:f90f:0:b0:5bd:bbe8:e393 with SMTP id
h15-20020a63f90f000000b005bdbbe8e393mr1388817pgi.11.1700480969256; Mon, 20
Nov 2023 03:49:29 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 03:49:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <67a7735a-02c4-4c00-9569-42a76b96a92an@googlegroups.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=84.50.190.130; posting-account=pysjKgkAAACLegAdYDFznkqjgx_7vlUK
NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.50.190.130
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com>
<n2bkli1n15eo8q2fkkj3jjpprdkk8k04aj@4ax.com> <67a7735a-02c4-4c00-9569-42a76b96a92an@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <a18a6ee2-19f2-4223-be00-7dd016fe1ec0n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Plants are likely to absorb more CO? in a changing climate than
we thought
From: =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee>
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:49:30 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2288
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:290d:b0:77b:c0ee:2d3e with SMTP id m13-20020a05620a290d00b0077bc0ee2d3emr192337qkp.10.1700444509560;
Sun, 19 Nov 2023 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7442:b0:1cc:3857:2516 with SMTP id
e2-20020a170902744200b001cc38572516mr1526063plt.7.1700444509232; Sun, 19 Nov
2023 17:41:49 -0800 (PST)
Path: not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2023 17:41:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <69e170bf-a4ec-479a-979b-e06d0573640an@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0adb7b96-059a-4358-8711-0b75e04abf51n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Plants_are_likely_to_absorb_more_CO=E2=82=82_in_a_chan?=
=?UTF-8?Q?ging_climate_than_we_thought?=
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 01:41:49 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2372
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 91:48:03 |
| Calls: | 6,717 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,358,953 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
