Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«86 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Inaction Jackson
Feb 28, 2009


superjew posted:

Have there been any botanical studies on plants growing in atmospheres of different gas compositions that show anything significant? That article reads like somebody who forgot all their biology classes from decades ago just picked up a book and saw that plants use CO2 to make sugars and had an epiphany.
Craig and Sherwood Idso are the ones who have done studies pimping out the benefits of increased CO2 on plant growth and ability to grow in hotter climates. There is some merit to the idea, but other studies have found two main problems that I know of (in addition to the possibility of weeds benefiting more than food crops, which was mentioned):

1. It can result in plants becoming less nutrient dense. All that CO2 may result in big grains of rice with extra carbs, but all of the extra carbohydrates are just diluting out all of the other nutrients in the food. So you have more food, but you have to eat more to get the same nutritional value.
2. When studies have been done growing plants in the presence of lots of CO2 and elevated levels of the other pollutants we are pumping into the atmosphere, the benefit pretty much goes away. This is a good example of why I hate when clean technologies only lower GHG emissions, instead of their other air quality benefits.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«86 »