Electric Car Drivel

I dont think you are dim. I think that final point should read "thus they have a lower carbon 14:12 ratio" a typo I think rather than a flawed point (or you being dim- it doesn't make any sense to me as it's written)
That was my initial thought but, if it's a typo, there are an awful lot of typos, since the rest of that paragraph and all of the next paragraph are talking about carbon 12-13 ratios. Whatever, it doesn't look as if whoever wrote it read what they had written very carefully before publishing it!

Kind Regards, John
 
Sponsored Links
That was my initial thought but, if it's a typo, there are an awful lot of typos, since the rest of that paragraph and all of the next paragraph are talking about carbon 12-13 ratios. Whatever, it doesn't look as if whoever wrote it read what they had written very carefully before publishing it!

Kind Regards, John
John, it reads: re, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios.

It should be (carbon 12 vs 13) not "and". Makes more sense now...
 
I think they are making a different argument, as they talk about a release, not a change.
I think that's rather quibbling, since they are obviously talking about 'a release' as a possible cause of the change (over time).
There is no evidence for a dramatic reduction in photosynthetic activity
I'm not sure what sort of evidence you'd be looking for, but even if none is known, that doesn't mean that it's not happening. It's certainly one of the 'unknown unknowns' I was considering.

At least three things can cause a rise in atmospheric CO2 with a corresponding fall in atmospheric O2 - decreased photosynthesis, increased respiration (animals and plants) and burning carbon-based materials (like fossil fuels). In all cases the CO2 and O2 changes will be in the same 'one-to-one' molecular ratio, so there is no way that one can distinguish between the three on the basis of the pattern of changes in atmospheric CO2 and O2 levels.

Kind Regards, John
 
If you can't learn to be poite BAS, please don't bother posting.
Polite?

Polite?

You come here and imply that we are so stupid that we will believe the mad rubbish you post, and you ask others to be polite?
 
Sponsored Links
OK, explain the real difference between those two statements ? By saying there is no debate to be had, and only loonies believe there is - you ARE trying to shut down debate.
Not at all.

I'm not the one trying to declare the end of debate - that has already happened, and it was done by a huge number of experts.
 
decreased photosynthesis, increased respiration (animals and plants) and burning carbon-based materials (like fossil fuels)
But the analysis of the isotope information shows only one of these is happening.

In fact the increase in co2 has been hypothesised to increase photosynthesis, not have been caused by your completely unproven decrease in photosynthesis or increase in respiration

In fact the 3 main factors limiting photosynthesis is temperature (which is trending upwards) co2 (trending upwards) and light intensity (no evidence of any significant decrease)
 
ou come here and imply that we are so stupid that we will believe the mad rubbish you post, and you ask others to be polite?

Hey, it's not my fault that you believe the rubbish written by others. It's you that's been calling me stupid; this is a discusion forum, and I'm amazed that you feel you have the right to be nothing better than a troll. If the mods were better on this site, you'd have been reprimanded by now. Everyone on here is discussing this politely (even Mikeey with only a slight hiccup), so what makes you think you can be rude and abusive. I've learnt a lot from this thread, but absolutely nothing whatsoever from you.
 
John, it reads: re, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. It should be (carbon 12 vs 13) not "and". Makes more sense now...
Yes, that would make more sense, but it still doesn't say much for their proof-reading!

Kind Regards, John
 
But the analysis of the isotope information shows only one of these is happening.
They are attempting to present several independent pieces of evidence to support their conclusion - but you are now using one of them to support another.
In fact the increase in co2 has been hypothesised to increase photosynthesis ...
I think it's more than a hypothesis. As far as I am aware, that was demonstrated experimentally decades ago - and is, indeed, is assumed to be one of the ways in which the biological part of the carbon cycle strives to regulate atmospheric CO2 levels.
.... not have been caused by your completely unproven decrease in photosynthesis or increase in respiration.
I thought we were talking about possible 'unknown unknowns' which, by definition, are 'unproven'.
In fact the 3 main factors limiting photosynthesis is temperature (which is trending upwards) co2 (trending upwards) and light intensity (no evidence of any significant decrease)
Three of the known factors, but there are plenty. Rainfall is another major factor in relation to land-based photosynthesis. Nutritional factors and toxins, both potentially pollution-related are another. ... and that, of course, is before we start talking about 'chopping down trees'!

Kind Regards, John
 
As I've just written that would make more sense to me. If plants prefer 12C over 13C, then the 13C:12C ratio would, indeed, be lower in plants than in the atmosphere.

Kind Regards, John
Indeed. Like your post earlier, I was confused by their reference to C-14.

Interesting to read your comments about reduced photosynthesis. I remember reading many years ago (1960s?) in an American academic journal, an article stating that climate change was likely in the (then) future, as a result of deforestation, particularly in the Amazon basin.
 
And reflected in the balance of isotopes in the atmosphere, proving that co2 is coming from fossil fuels
I wish you would stop using the word "proving" - "supporting", "suggesting" (or maybe even "strongly suggesting") would be more honest, and more scientific!

Kind Regards, John
 
Interesting to read your comments about reduced photosynthesis. I remember reading many years ago (1960s?) in an American academic journal, an article stating that climate change was likely in the (then) future, as a result of deforestation, particularly in the Amazon basin.
I think less emphasis is put on that now, since those were the days before it was realised/discovered that, in terms of the big picture of photosynthesis, the rain forests are much less important than that which floats about on our oceans.

Kind Regards, John
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top