Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you read it I think you may have misunderstood and misinterpreted both that article and its title (titled Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle).
It is not about CO2, it's about carbon. Carbon is not the same thing as CO2. The article is about terrestrial carbon (that is natural carbon in the ground) and its interaction with the natural water cycle, and it's about the uptake and utilization of terrestrial carbon and water out of the ground by plants.
Clearcutting is still a thing here, especially on private land. Although it's true that the clearcuts are smaller and better managed than they were 40 years ago. Most of the unprotected old growth is now gone.
Those are managed clear cuts-- usually done to prepare the site to allow the planting of a more valuable crop of trees, to help in prevention of fires or to improve the land in general.
In the past the clear cuts were mammoth. In fact, WI is the dairy state today because the clear cuts devastated so much hilly land not suitable for row cropping and the foresters did not look to the future and plant new seedlings like they do now.
If you read it I think you may have misunderstood and misinterpreted both that article and its title (titled Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle).
It is not about CO2, it's about carbon. Carbon is not the same thing as CO2. The article is about terrestrial carbon (that is natural carbon in the ground) and its interaction with the natural water cycle, and it's about the uptake and utilization of terrestrial carbon and water out of the ground by plants.
.
Au contraire: from the paper-- " Theory of leaf WUE, defined as leaf photosynthetic carbon uptake per unit of water loss via transpiration, is relatively...."
I agree the use of the term terrestrial co2 uptake" is clumsy. They should have just called it photosynthetic uptake.
Plants do not take in carbon via their roots, but as gas thru the stomata on the underside of the leaves. It can get confusing because gardeners often suggest soil can be improved by increasing "carbon content." they're really referring to the benefits of plant fiber amendments, ie- manure or compost. The undigested plant fibers provide surface area for water & air content in the soil.
Au contraire: from the paper-- " Theory of leaf WUE, defined as leaf photosynthetic carbon uptake per unit of water loss via transpiration, is relatively...."
I agree the use of the term terrestrial co2 uptake" is clumsy. They should have just called it photosynthetic uptake.
Plants do not take in carbon via their roots, but as gas thru the stomata on the underside of the leaves. It can get confusing because gardeners often suggest soil can be improved by increasing "carbon content." they're really referring to the benefits of plant fiber amendments, ie- manure or compost. The undigested plant fibers provide surface area for water & air content in the soil.
You just did it again. You are still confusing carbon with carbon dioxide.
Not only is it clumsy, it is non-existent since there is no mention of terrestrial CO2 uptake. There is mention of C uptake, that is terrestrial carbon uptake. Carbon and carbon dioxide are not the same thing. Just like carbon monoxide (CO) is not the same thing as carbon (C) or carbon dioxide (CO2).
I know you are not a horticulturist so please don't try to fool an old horticulturist like me, okay? Plants do not take in carbon through the leaves, they take in carbon dioxide through the leaves. They take in carbon and water from the soil through their roots and that carbon uptake from the soil is what the article you posted is about. NOT carbon dioxide.
Perhaps this article will help you to understand better https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/gar...-in-plants.htm but I think you need to study up a bit on how many forms and bondings of carbon there are and what their roles are in their interactions with all other things in nature.
Your article is summarized by me in my last post: the carbon used by the plant in synthesizing glucose, which is then turned into cellulose, lignin, etc comes from co2 from the atmosphere. It is absorbed thru the stoma on the leaf.
When a gardener talks about "carbon in the soil,' they are exercising the figure of speech known a synecdoche-- the part for the whole, as in "a hired hand" You really hire the whole guy, not just his hand and the "carbon" is really the cellulose/lignin fibers from dead plant material, which improves soil compaction. As you would know, that improves soil drainage and soil aeration.
Elemental carbon essentially doesn't exist in nature. It is too reactive. It exists in the soil as inorganic salts (Calcium carbonate, etc) or as decomposing organic material (hydrocarbons- carbohydrates, proteins, etc). Those are hydrophobic- they don't dissolve in water-- therefore, they aren't absorbed thru the plant roots to any great extent.
Essentially all carbon in plants got there from absorbed atmospheric co2.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 08-01-2017 at 05:24 AM..
Is reducing CO2 emissions from the electricity sector by 20-30% enough to prevent global warming, or do we need more aggressive reductions in CO2?
We can't prevent anthropogenic warming, it's already here. The electrical sector produces about 1/3 of our CO2 emissions and the sources are large. It's the low hanging fruit. Every bit we save will help.
Big Motor (Post #15) - You are incorrect concerning the emissions from the large coal fired power plant in the picture. If you look just downwind of the white part of the emissions from the stacks you can see the soot in the air. In this case the white part of the emissions are water droplets condensing from the water (in the form of steam) released in the combustion process. The darker parts of the plume are from the unburned coal and slag from burning the fuel.
This type of plant does not have the immense cooling towers associated with installations that do not have a river or lake to use to condense the steam used in the power generating part of the plant. This plant uses the river or lake for condensing the operating fluid (water) used in driving the turbines.
Those are smokestacks, not cooling towers, so you're right, there is soot as well as water vapor pouring out---BUT- the photo is still used disingenuously because the dark appearing portion of the cloud is back-lit and not really black, but in the shadows. White smoke does not suddenly become black as the propagandists who use the photo would want the sheep to believe.
I say that using coal as the back-up auxiliary source is a great improvement over having it be the main source.
A great deal of what you pay for electric from those plants is capital costs. Thus the cost per kWh of electric from those plants necessarily rises.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
