Tresor said, "100 sqm of grass absorbs more CO2 during one day than 100 sqm of rain forrest!"
I think it's reasonable to refer to all grasses since it covers 1/3 of earth's land surface.
http://www.pbs.org/journeytoplanetearth/about/seasofgrass.html
NASA: Al Gore, It's The Sun Stupid!
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Tresor said, "100 sqm of grass absorbs more CO2 during one day than 100 sqm of rain forrest!"
I think it's reasonable to refer to all grasses since it covers 1/3 of earth's land surface.
http://www.pbs.org/journeytoplanetearth/about/seasofgrass.html
I don't have a degree in Biology, but common sense tells me that if both grass and trees leaves perform photosynthesis at the same rate per sq. in. of leaf, than what this comes down to is which one lets more unproductive sun light escape to the ground.
It seems to me that grass would let less sunlight hit the dirt.
It seems to me that grass would let less sunlight hit the dirt.
Could be? It is a scientific fact that younger organism consume more food (CO2 in case of plants) in order to grow in line with DNA coded growth potential, and ripe organisms consume less. This is the very basic principle you have been trying not to acknowledge.
But also wouldn't matter?! If you want CO2 levels not to increase you should advocate deforestation of old plant substance and replace it with younger plants!!!
Grass as well as trees follow the same pattern of metabolism. But they have shorter life span.
Any plant, a tree or grass has to die eventually, and eventually releases CO2, through e.g rottening. Trees keep CO2 longer than grass.
This is a double thinking of the so called the environmentalists. They do not want to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere through eliminating old plants:
(i) they moan when trees are cut and sold to furniture producers;
(ii) they moan when cows eat green grass.
They are saving the planet
Instead they are happy when you are taxed
That doesn't even make sense but was an excellent Chewbacca defense.
Actually Tresor originally referred to replanting forests with cabbage, and no I'm not kidding.
Additionally it would depend on whether you're discussing temperate or tropical grasses and forests, as the data varies.
Actually I haven't taken a position on it either way -- although if I had to bet I would have bet that you were wrong just given your pretty consistent record so far and that it's fairly opposite to what one would expect common-sense wise.
So I looked it up.
Guess what?
Quote from Tresor:
Let me correct my last post.
Environmentalists have split personality. On one hand they want the planet to be greener and greener. On the other hand they want to tax food for plants
Sheer morons
Whether they are or aren't, there is no escape from the scientific fact that CO2 levels are increasing and the global average temperature is increasing.
I was not accused of anything.
Tresor might have very well referred to replacing forest with rubber trees, banana trees, x-mass trees or tomato plantation. The kind of the plant mattered NOT.
Tresor's claim (and scientific fact) would still remain true that new plants have advantage over old plants as far as CO2 capture goes.
Your sticking to cabbage is of course not a ... Chewbacca defense
Since you apparently don't understand what a Chewbacca defense is, it's when you use an argument which has nothing to do with the case. Here's an example:
T: The same land area of grass and cabbage absorb more CO2 than the same area of rainforest!
B: Ummm... sounds unlikely, why?
T: Duh! When you stand in a rainforest do you see much light?
B: Ummm... all things being equal, the light hitting both is the same even though you're standing in the shade.
T: I wasn't talking about grass in different weather conditions, like in Scandinavia!
B: (Forehead slap.)
Well no, it actually isn't, it's a quote from you actually.
And given that I looked it up, you're also wrong, or at least wrong about cabbages and tomatoes, probably incorrect about rubber trees and banana trees, hard to say about x-mas trees, and absolutely 100% wrong about cabbages.
Overall you're not quite correct, that new plants have an advantage over old plants as far as CO2 capture goes -- in fact, this has been studied by the Department of Energy which analysed carbon sequestration among carbon in undisturbed vegetation, carbon in recovered vegetation, carbon in crops, and time for vegetation to return from disturbed to recovered state.
In fact, it takes at least 15 years for new plantings, such as reforestation efforts, to return to their normal, recovered state and crops don't even compare.
They were kind enough to release the raw data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp050/ndp050appC.html
Not that this has any impact on, well, anything -- since atmospheric CO2 is increasing, temperature is increasing, and CO2 absorbs IR (as we've covered). There's just no escaping this fact.