Posted on 09/03/2007 1:27:41 PM PDT by kathsua
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
save
I think he got one of the arguments wrong, and in a strange way.
That is, it has been discovered that plants open their skin pores to inhale CO2. But when they do so, they lose water. If there is more CO2 in the air, they they don’t need to open their skin pores as widely, so don’t lose as much water.
Therefore, they don’t need to uptake as much water through their roots, and more water stays in the soil. In turn, this means that with more CO2 in the air, typically *dry* soil can support more plants on the same water. This means de-desertification, and more plant growth, and in turn, more CO2 consumption.
One last factor, the question of “Are plants made up of more soil, or more air?”, has been answered. Plants are mostly “air”, made up of mostly CO2 converted to sugar which feeds the growing plant. This means that with just a few trace minerals from the soil, and a *given* amount of water for each plant, the vast majority of the plant is made from CO2.
So a lot more plants means a lot more CO2 used. Not “flooding”, however, because more plants will grow in a dry soil until they have used the available water.
An actual greenhouse effect would be warming the upper atmosphere at a greater degree than it warms the ground level so this would mean less divergence of temperature which would mean weaker storms. Any goofball local TV weatherman would know this so why doesn't NASA?
Ping for later reading.
But notice the MSM STILL prints the other guy’s story: AND its inaccuracies and assumptions!
Thanks for the pings; I look forward to catching up!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.