• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

More dismantling of protections

What does this have to do with "His Flatulence"?

The EPA invited this person to sit on the board. Trump was not involved.
 
Gun Nut said:
What does this have to do with "His Flatulence"?

The EPA invited this person to sit on the board. Trump was not involved.
Click to expand...
The EPA officials who invited this dumbass to apply and who accepted him are appointed by Trump because they, like that dumbass, are toeing the Trump stance about climate change.
 
Gun Nut said:
What does this have to do with "His Flatulence"?

The EPA invited this person to sit on the board. Trump was not involved.
Click to expand...

Is not involved?! They're doing what he wants!

And as for "His Flatulence"--do you not know what "trump" means in British?
 
Gun Nut said:
What does this have to do with "His Flatulence"?

The EPA invited this person to sit on the board. Trump was not involved.
Click to expand...

EPA is an executive agency. Trump appointed the leader. Crazy thing is that we've got Trump supporters here in Florida screaming about "Fox Guarding the Hen House" because our game department has an Invasive Plant Management section that uses herbicide to keep invasive plants from smothering our grossly overfertilized waterways and they think that the University of Florida researchers that provide guidance and all the game dept. employees are taking kick backs from MONSANTO! Yet they don't even blink when Trump puts Zinke at Interior, Ross over Commerce, Wheeler/Pruitt over EPA, etc.... They never think twice about the Governor's role in directing our DEP or the failure of EPA to censure DEP for failing to adequately develop and enforce TMDLs for nitrogen and phosphorus; the stuff that caused algae blooms and overgrowth of invasive plants in the first place.
 
John Christy is one of those people that likes to make the "More CO2 means faster plant growth so it is a net benefit to increase atmospheric CO2". I've read him claim that growers pumping extra CO2 into closed grow houses is evidence that more overall atmospheric CO2 means better crop yields.

Does he know that little about both ecology and horticulture or is he deliberately obfuscating?

In the grow house you control water and nutrient supply as well as weeds. What about in nature? CO2 enhances plant growth if other factors are in place. Not all plants utilize extra CO2. Some are efficient and reach a limit for how much they can assimilate. Some weed species really capitalize on CO2 and become more invasive. More CO2 is not an automatic benefit for crop yields if weed management is problematic or if water or other nutrients are limiting.

I have an example with nitrogen enrichment. Nitrogen is plant food. You put a bunch of extra nitrogen into a sawgrass marsh and it converts to cattails. You put too much nitrogen in the lake or lagoon and you can completely flip the ecosystem. We've got a bunch of waterbodies around here that were clear water, macrophyte dominated, fishing paradise. They've flipped to an altered stable state of cyanobacteria dominated poo holes with nothing in them but "rough fish".

Just pumping more "plant food" into the system isn't an automatic "net benefit" as John Christy likes to claim.
 
scombrid said:
John Christy is one of those people that likes to make the "More CO2 means faster plant growth so it is a net benefit to increase atmospheric CO2". I've read him claim that growers pumping extra CO2 into closed grow houses is evidence that more overall atmospheric CO2 means better crop yields.

Does he know that little about both ecology and horticulture or is he deliberately obfuscating?

In the grow house you control water and nutrient supply as well as weeds. What about in nature? CO2 enhances plant growth if other factors are in place. Not all plants utilize extra CO2. Some are efficient and reach a limit for how much they can assimilate. Some weed species really capitalize on CO2 and become more invasive. More CO2 is not an automatic benefit for crop yields if weed management is problematic or if water or other nutrients are limiting.

I have an example with nitrogen enrichment. Nitrogen is plant food. You put a bunch of extra nitrogen into a sawgrass marsh and it converts to cattails. You put too much nitrogen in the lake or lagoon and you can completely flip the ecosystem. We've got a bunch of waterbodies around here that were clear water, macrophyte dominated, fishing paradise. They've flipped to an altered stable state of cyanobacteria dominated poo holes with nothing in them but "rough fish".

Just pumping more "plant food" into the system isn't an automatic "net benefit" as John Christy likes to claim.
Click to expand...

It's already been shown that increased CO2 doesn't help with tree growth.

Increased CO2 only helps growth if there are no other limiting factors.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
scombrid said:
John Christy is one of those people that likes to make the "More CO2 means faster plant growth so it is a net benefit to increase atmospheric CO2". I've read him claim that growers pumping extra CO2 into closed grow houses is evidence that more overall atmospheric CO2 means better crop yields.

Does he know that little about both ecology and horticulture or is he deliberately obfuscating?

In the grow house you control water and nutrient supply as well as weeds. What about in nature? CO2 enhances plant growth if other factors are in place. Not all plants utilize extra CO2. Some are efficient and reach a limit for how much they can assimilate. Some weed species really capitalize on CO2 and become more invasive. More CO2 is not an automatic benefit for crop yields if weed management is problematic or if water or other nutrients are limiting.

I have an example with nitrogen enrichment. Nitrogen is plant food. You put a bunch of extra nitrogen into a sawgrass marsh and it converts to cattails. You put too much nitrogen in the lake or lagoon and you can completely flip the ecosystem. We've got a bunch of waterbodies around here that were clear water, macrophyte dominated, fishing paradise. They've flipped to an altered stable state of cyanobacteria dominated poo holes with nothing in them but "rough fish".

Just pumping more "plant food" into the system isn't an automatic "net benefit" as John Christy likes to claim.
Click to expand...

It's already been shown that increased CO2 doesn't help with tree growth.

Increased CO2 only helps growth if there are no other limiting factors.
Click to expand...

CO2 does a body good.
 
Gun Nut said:
Loren Pechtel said:
scombrid said:
John Christy is one of those people that likes to make the "More CO2 means faster plant growth so it is a net benefit to increase atmospheric CO2". I've read him claim that growers pumping extra CO2 into closed grow houses is evidence that more overall atmospheric CO2 means better crop yields.

Does he know that little about both ecology and horticulture or is he deliberately obfuscating?

In the grow house you control water and nutrient supply as well as weeds. What about in nature? CO2 enhances plant growth if other factors are in place. Not all plants utilize extra CO2. Some are efficient and reach a limit for how much they can assimilate. Some weed species really capitalize on CO2 and become more invasive. More CO2 is not an automatic benefit for crop yields if weed management is problematic or if water or other nutrients are limiting.

I have an example with nitrogen enrichment. Nitrogen is plant food. You put a bunch of extra nitrogen into a sawgrass marsh and it converts to cattails. You put too much nitrogen in the lake or lagoon and you can completely flip the ecosystem. We've got a bunch of waterbodies around here that were clear water, macrophyte dominated, fishing paradise. They've flipped to an altered stable state of cyanobacteria dominated poo holes with nothing in them but "rough fish".

Just pumping more "plant food" into the system isn't an automatic "net benefit" as John Christy likes to claim.
Click to expand...

It's already been shown that increased CO2 doesn't help with tree growth.

Increased CO2 only helps growth if there are no other limiting factors.
Click to expand...

CO2 does a body good.
Click to expand...

Do you know what CO2 is?
 
Toni said:
Gun Nut said:
CO2 does a body good.
Click to expand...

Do you know what CO2 is?
Click to expand...

It produces a LOT of bodies sometimes...

On 21 August 1986, a limnic eruption at Lake Nyos in northwestern Cameroon killed 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock. The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6m tons, according to some sources) of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom