[Gasification] Energy Research Habitat

[kenn johnsen]

Roger.

Plants are choking on CO2, well, never heard that before, it would be  
like saying that humans would choke on an increased oxygen..? my first  
reaction is that - that is bogus. All the information that I have seen  
is that an increased CO2 clearly benefit the plant grow, plants thrive  
on CO2, and for the moment I stick with that, the idea that plant die  
out because of increased CO2...... to me that is crap.

Kenn
onsdag 7. feb 2007 kl. 21:44 skrev Roger Samson:

> Kenn
>
> Read the Weathermakers by Tim Flannery it discusses your example of
> historical climate warming events. It helped me better understand the
> dynamics of historical climate change (as occurs when the sun is not
> constant in its release of energy and the dynamics of the earths  
> rotation
> relative to the sun). What I found disconcerting as a plant scientist
> reading Tim Flannery's book is the rising co2 impacts on reduced plant
> respiration (as explained by reduced opening periods of plant stomates  
> to
> acquire their c02 for photosynthesis). Plant respiration is the major  
> driver
> of rainfall in tropical rainforest such as the Amazon. Flannery thinks  
> we
> may largely lose the Amazon because of rising co2 levels impacts on
> rainfall.
>
> Do you think rising co2 has no impact on plant respiration, runoff and
> rainfall? Do you think that could affect the planets climate at least
> regionally?
>
> Roger Samson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of kenn  
> johnsen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: gasification at listserv.repp.org
> Subject: Re: [Gasification] Energy Research Habitat
>
> What you are saying is about the climate change situation we have to
> day, but what does that have to do with what causing the situation, we
> have just come out off the little ice age, and before that we had 4 -
> 500 years - the viking time - with 4 degree F warmer climate than to
> day, and before that, the same up and down 10 degree F for the last
> 10,000 years. An island in the Indian ocean have gone under water, so
> what...? what caused that, are you saying that just because an island
> goes under water proves that the sea is rising, do you call that
> science, that got to be for six pack Joe. Actually the measuring of sea
> level shows rather a fall in sea level than a raise. So it can hardly
> have anything to do with that island in the Indian Ocean, can it....no
> it is a well promoted hoax.
>
> Kenn
> onsdag 7. feb 2007 kl. 20:22 skrev MMBTUPR at aol.com:
>
>>           from  Lewis L Smith
>>
>> I am neither a natural scientist nor an engineer, but do have some
>> scientific knowledge, having have worked with scientifically trained
>> people since 1959 ! 
>>
>> I first became conscious of Global Warming because of the simple
>> things which I mentioned previously and because of the following
>> little known fact  --- 
>>
>> •          A decade or so ago, a conference in Germany set off the
>> present concern for this issue. Among its sponsors were not only
>> scientists, but a number of casualty/property insurance companies.
>> They saw clearly before many scientists did, the potential for Global
>> Warming to produce more extreme climate conditions, such as Hurricane
>> Andrew. And since they are not in business for their health, they were
>> worried. [And still are.]
>>
>> In other words, it is not only a matter of higher and increasing
>> average temperatures over the long run, but greater variance in
>> temperature and other parameters. And it is this increased variance
>> which does more damage in the short run and is perhaps even more
>> clearly measurable than the already palpable temperature increase,
>> what people in the northern tier of US states are now calling " crazy
>> weather ".
>>
>> Another phenomenon which deserves more attention than it gets, is that
>> Global Warming will acerbate regional differences. For example, grain
>> production will go down from Texas to Iowa, but up from South Dakota
>> through the Canadian provinces. On balance, there will be a net
>> reduction for North America. Since we are dealing with increasing
>> spreads here, this phenomenon should also be more easily measurable
>> than small annual increases in temperature.
>>
>> Oh, I forgot to add. An island in the Indian Ocean which once harbored
>> 10,000 people, is now completely under water. Little by little the
>> people had to move away, until there was nobody left.
>>
>> So something bad is happening, and prudence dictates that we try to "
>> head it off at the pass ". Or as Benjamin Franklin would say, " Take
>> thought for the 'morrow ".
>>
>> Sincerely. End of message.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Gasification mailing list
> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> gasification_listserv.repp.org
> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>
>
>