Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST

Do you believe in Global Warming?

Print  
  Page 4 of 5     1     2     3     4     5  
Posted By Message

Pookie

Remember Paul Herrera

Pookie Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:9,606
Career:1,916-1,066
Joined:Apr 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,787

Posted by Mitchell740


Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Mitchell740


I could be 100% wrong on this, but what bad happens from this?



more harmful rays get through and i get skin cancer

it has already begun. you get sunburn fast er than you would in say the 1920's. the sun's rays are more harmful then they previously were. whether that be from Global warming or just a natural process it is a fact.



Yeah, hopefully someday they will invent a lotion you can put on your skin to prevent this from happening.



Most sun-tan lotions have been proven to be counter-productive to the stop of skin cancer.

_______________________________________
BJ Penn beat Frankie Edgar more times than Benson Henderson beat Frankie Edgar.

Post #46   9/5/08 2:54:09PM   

The_Ho_Bag

MMA Sensei

The_Ho_Bag Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,250
Career:661-454
Joined:Oct 2007
Chips:
123
you know what me and JJ freak say to global warming and al gore?

F*** it =)

personally i dont believe it

Post #47   9/5/08 3:04:13PM   

jiujitsufreak74

,,[],, *******,,[],,

jiujitsufreak74 Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,256
Career:1,056-572
Joined:Sep 2007
Chips:
1,150

Posted by The_Ho_Bag

you know what me and JJ freak say to global warming and al gore?

F*** it =)

personally i dont believe it



lmao...that's when we throw trash out of the car...

Post #48   9/5/08 3:16:46PM   

NeaRMisS

MMA Regular

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:226
Career:69-53
Joined:Jul 2007
Chips:
27
Thank you all for making this a damn good thread. People staying on topic and no flaming = good times!

I tried to prop more then half of you guys but it said I had to spread the love T_T. Curse that idea!

Post #49   9/5/08 3:17:37PM   

telnights

MODesty

telnights Avatar
14
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:2,940
Career:1,418-775
Joined:Jun 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
555
I think the main problem is the word global warming. It doesn't even come close to explaining the hole of the issue. The issue isn't just rising temps but mans affect on the planet. You would have to be blind to think we are not affecting the planet in a negative way. Now as far as the earths climate changes being a normal part of the earths cycle is true. However, today's climate change is happening far too fast to be the same as other climate swings. Now as far as people saying we only add 3% on the emissions in the earth. Well look at it like this. If you have a glass of water that's full and you add 3% more to it what happens. It spills over.....But like AchillesHeel I encourage everyone to learn as much as they can and not just thinking its not an issue without looking at all the facts.

_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights

Post #50   9/5/08 6:05:00PM   

Kracker_Jap

BANNED

Kracker_Jap Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,792
Career:359-223
Joined:Dec 2007
Chips:
352

Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by SmileR


Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by jiujitsufreak74

i don't put sunblock on everyday when i go to school, but i have gotten sunburn from standing out on my stop for too long. it will to the point where people need to put on sunblock at all times...and tell em that's a world you want to live in.



Its funny to me how smart you are for only being 16yr old..... But by making this statment it proves to me and others you are far from wise......

What makes you think your bus stop is any different from mine when I was a kid or better yet some one who is 90yrs old??? I got burnt and so did the person who is 90.... This is the world we live in warm earth or cool earth you better make the best of it



I think he means due to the thinning ozone layer if the same person was to stand in the same conditions now for a hour they would end up a lot more burnt than if they were to stand in the same conditions say 50 years ago.

I agree with you though man! Got to make the best of what we've got!



this is exactly what i meant. it takes a shorter amount of time to get sun burnt then it did say 20 years ago. this is beause the ozone layer is thinning. now i am not saying what i causing it to thin, but it is definitely thinning and as a by-product of that more harmful rays can get through which makes skin cancer more proficient.




Both of guys apparently don't get it , and have drank the warm Koolaid

The point is this people got sunburned before, science is very new on this front and can only measure back so many years.....

Do you think the dinosaurs walked around and acted like little bitches blaming each other when the ice age came J/K but I hope you get my point

Last edited 9/5/08 11:15PM server time by Kracker_Jap
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #51   9/5/08 11:14:56PM   

jiujitsufreak74

,,[],, *******,,[],,

jiujitsufreak74 Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,256
Career:1,056-572
Joined:Sep 2007
Chips:
1,150

Posted by Kracker_Jap

Both of guys apparently don't get it , and have drank the warm Koolaid

The point is this people got sunburned before, science is very new on this front and can only measure back so many years.....

Do you think the dinosaurs walked around and acted like little bitches blaming each other when the ice age came J/K but I hope you get my point



the fact is more harmful rays are getting through to the earth and it is going to become a problem. are skin has not adapted to the rays that are now coming in and i have learned about this in my AP and college classes. it isn't some made up science...it is real.

Post #52   9/5/08 11:39:27PM   

Kracker_Jap

BANNED

Kracker_Jap Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,792
Career:359-223
Joined:Dec 2007
Chips:
352

Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Kracker_Jap

Both of guys apparently don't get it , and have drank the warm Koolaid

The point is this people got sunburned before, science is very new on this front and can only measure back so many years.....

Do you think the dinosaurs walked around and acted like little bitches blaming each other when the ice age came J/K but I hope you get my point



the fact is more harmful rays are getting through to the earth and it is going to become a problem. are skin has not adapted to the rays that are now coming in and i have learned about this in my AP and college classes. it isn't some made up science...it is real.



Being smart is not only about getting good grades its also about being able to think things out for yourself....

If you pay attention in history you know that not everything taught in school ends up being true..... (the world is not flat)

But then again this refers back to the differance between being smart and wise

Last edited 9/6/08 12:06AM server time by Kracker_Jap
Edit note/reason: n/a

Post #53   9/6/08 12:05:09AM   

jiujitsufreak74

,,[],, *******,,[],,

jiujitsufreak74 Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,256
Career:1,056-572
Joined:Sep 2007
Chips:
1,150

Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Kracker_Jap

Both of guys apparently don't get it , and have drank the warm Koolaid

The point is this people got sunburned before, science is very new on this front and can only measure back so many years.....

Do you think the dinosaurs walked around and acted like little bitches blaming each other when the ice age came J/K but I hope you get my point



the fact is more harmful rays are getting through to the earth and it is going to become a problem. are skin has not adapted to the rays that are now coming in and i have learned about this in my AP and college classes. it isn't some made up science...it is real.



Being smart is not only about getting good grades its also about being able to think things out for yourself....

If you pay attention in history you know that not everything taught in school ends up being true..... (the world is not flat)

But then again this refers back to the differance between being smart and wise



well i learned the material and the data is true. i'm not just blindly accepting it as fact, it is apparent in real world scenarios that it is true. rays from the sun that have not been able to penetrate the ozone layer in the past are now getting through which is harmful to human beings. why do you think the number of people with skin cancer has gone up exponentially within the past 20 years? i have gotten sunburn on cloudy days because of the harmful rays that get through.

Post #54   9/6/08 12:50:16AM   

Ben_Hutch

Banned

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,118
Career:282-168
Joined:Nov 2007
Chips:
169

Posted by Kracker_Jap


Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Kracker_Jap

Both of guys apparently don't get it , and have drank the warm Koolaid

The point is this people got sunburned before, science is very new on this front and can only measure back so many years.....

Do you think the dinosaurs walked around and acted like little bitches blaming each other when the ice age came J/K but I hope you get my point



the fact is more harmful rays are getting through to the earth and it is going to become a problem. are skin has not adapted to the rays that are now coming in and i have learned about this in my AP and college classes. it isn't some made up science...it is real.



Being smart is not only about getting good grades its also about being able to think things out for yourself....

If you pay attention in history you know that not everything taught in school ends up being true..... (the world is not flat)

But then again this refers back to the differance between being smart and wise



To be honest, (not taking anything away from JJFreak here), what he said wasn't "smart" but common sense, anyone who pays attention to the news would know it.

Post #55   9/6/08 12:54:17AM   

Svartorm

Hammer of the Gods

Svartorm Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:4,199
Career:2,077-1,253
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
863
A lot has been said, so I'll just throw a couple facts out there.

1. The world started as molten rock.

2. Then it was completely frozen

3. Then it was horrifyingly hot again and the dinosaurs died.

4. Then it was completely frozen again.

So, saying the world is getting too warm, has never been like this, rapid changes, blah blah blah doesn't hold water here.

As for humans causing it, I don't buy it in the least, for two reasons.

1. Compared to the Industrial revolution, we barely pollute anymore, so the world suddenly picking up tempeture doesn't seem to make sense, considering we've cut back on ******* up the world.

2. I don't remember the exact number for this, but in 1816 when Mount Tambora blew and caused The Year Without a Summer, it was estimated that volcano put up 5 MILLION TIMES the pollution mankind had put into the atmosphere at that point. In a year and half, everything was back to normal. The Earth clearly has the capacity to clean itself up fairly well if it took out 5 millions times the pollution the human race had caused in 8000 years, in a little over 18 months.

As for doing something about it, if this is a cycle that happens every tens out thousands of years, I very much doubt we can do anything to fix it, and I well imagine anything we try would probably make the situation worse. I think going green is a decent idea, but I don't like the idea of investing staggering portions of the worlds economy into the effort, when it can go to making our lives easier in the here and now, and not in ten thousand years when the Earth gets to be unbearably hot again.

_______________________________________
All brave men with hearts of war, ride the path of mighty Thor.

DREAM 1 - 2nd in Pts
Cage Rage 23 - 6th in Pts
Secondary League Season 3 - 12th in Pts
Secondary League Season 7 - 16th in Wagers
Primary League Season 7 - 26th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 6 - 30th in Pts
Secondary League Season 1 - 31st in Pts
Primary League Season 6 - 39th in Wagers
Secondary League Season 7 - 41st in Pts

Post #56   9/6/08 2:30:00AM   

Rush

Laying down the beats

Rush Avatar
4



 
 
 


 
 
Posts:6,291
Career:759-539
Joined:Jan 2007
Chips:
835

Posted by Svartorm

1. Compared to the Industrial revolution, we barely pollute anymore, so the world suddenly picking up tempeture doesn't seem to make sense, considering we've cut back on ******* up the world.




Whoa, where do you get that? Sure the industrial revolution polluted the air, but what was the population of the Earth back then? How many coal plants did they have back then compared to now? How many cars were there back then compared to now? Finally, how many trees (carbon sinks) where there back then compared to now?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attached pic is a little chemistry illustrating how ozone (O3) is created and destroyed.

Now, ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, because it filters out UV light. The creation and depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is shown on the left side. Contrary to what people think, CFCs are not gone, but are only being slowly phased out over the next 12 to 22 years.

but

ozone created in the lower atmosphere (by reactions with certain chemicals) interferes with photosynthesis, which hinders plant growth. Plants just happen to be a carbon sink. The side reactions in the pic illustrate how the cycle ends. These reactions are shown on the right side


**excuse my writing. My penmanship is horrible.

Also, I did a quick pubmed search on effects of ozone and plant development. sifted through (quickly) and got a couple reviews. Now, for any skeptics I am happy to look at the actual papers and find out who funds these studies. For anyone interested, just read the articles. I can email any paper to those that are interested as well.


1: Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep;30(9):1150-62.
To what extent do current and projected increases in surface ozone affect photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of trees? A meta-analytic review of the last 3 decades of experiments.
Wittig VE, Ainsworth EA, Long SP.
Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 190 ERML, 1201 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

The surface concentration of ozone ([O(3)]) has risen from less than 10 ppb prior to the industrial revolution to a day-time mean concentration of approximately 40 ppb over much of the northern temperate zone. If current global emission trends continue, surface [O(3)] is projected to rise a further 50% over this century, with larger increases in many locations including Northern Hemisphere forests. This review uses statistical meta-analysis to determine mean effects, and their confidence limits, of both the current and projected elevations of [O(3)] on light-saturated photosynthetic CO(2) uptake (A(sat)) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) in trees. In total, 348 measurements of A(sat) from 61 studies and 266 measures of g(s) from 55 studies were reviewed. Results suggested that the elevation of [O(3)] that has occurred since the industrial revolution is depressing A(sat) and g(s) by 11% (CI 9-13%) and 13% (CI 11-15%), respectively, where CI is the 95% confidence interval. In contrast to angiosperms, gymnosperms were not significantly affected. Both drought and elevated [CO(2)] significantly decreased the effect of ambient [O(3)]. Younger trees (<4 years) were affected less than older trees. Elevation of [O(3)] above current levels caused progressively larger losses of A(sat) and g(s), including gymnosperms. Results are consistent with the expectation that damage to photosynthesis depends on the cumulative uptake of ozone (O(3)) into the leaf. Thus, factors that lower g(s) lessen damage. Where both g(s) and [O(3)] were recorded, an overall decline in A(sat) of 0.21% per mmol m(-2) of estimated cumulative O(3) uptake was calculated. These findings suggest that rising [O(3)], an often overlooked aspect of global atmospheric change, is progressively depressing the ability of temperate and boreal forests to assimilate carbon and transfer water vapour to the atmosphere, with significant potential effects on terrestrial carbon sinks and regional hydrologies.


The below article is more about how increased "sun" doesn't help plants grow. A very naive statement made earlier on in the discussion.


2: Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2007 Mar;6(3):252-66. Epub 2007 Feb 1.
Terrestrial ecosystems, increased solar ultraviolet radiation, and interactions with other climate change factors.

Caldwell MM, Bornman JF, Ballaré CL, Flint SD, Kulandaivelu G.
Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA.

There have been significant advances in our understanding of the effects of UV-B radiation on terrestrial ecosystems, especially in the description of mechanisms of plant response. A further area of highly interesting research emphasizes the importance of indirect UV radiation effects on plants, pathogens, herbivores, soil microbes and ecosystem processes below the surface. Although photosynthesis of higher plants and mosses is seldom affected by enhanced or reduced UV-B radiation in most field studies, effects on growth and morphology (form) of higher plants and mosses are often manifested. This can lead to small reductions in shoot production and changes in the competitive balance of different species. Fungi and bacteria are generally more sensitive to damage by UV-B radiation than are higher plants. However, the species differ in their UV-B radiation sensitivity to damage, some being affected while others may be very tolerant. This can lead to changes in species composition of microbial communities with subsequent influences on processes such as litter decomposition. Changes in plant chemical composition are commonly reported due to UV-B manipulations (either enhancement or attenuation of UV-B in sunlight) and may lead to substantial reductions in consumption of plant tissues by insects. Although sunlight does not penetrate significantly into soils, the biomass and morphology of plant root systems of plants can be modified to a much greater degree than plant shoots. Root mass can exhibit sizeable declines with more UV-B. Also, UV-B-induced changes in soil microbial communities and biomass, as well as altered populations of small invertebrates have been reported and these changes have important implications for mineral nutrient cycling in the soil. Many new developments in understanding the underlying mechanisms mediating plant response to UV-B radiation have emerged. This new information is helpful in understanding common responses of plants to UV-B radiation, such as diminished growth, acclimation responses of plants to UV-B radiation and interactions of plants with consumer organisms such as insects and plant pathogens. The response to UV-B radiation involves both the initial stimulus by solar radiation and transmission of signals within the plants. Resulting changes in gene expression induced by these signals may have elements in common with those elicited by other environmental factors, and generate overlapping functional (including acclimation) responses. Concurrent responses of terrestrial systems to the combination of enhanced UV-B radiation and other global change factors (increased temperature, CO2, available nitrogen and altered precipitation) are less well understood. Studies of individual plant responses to combinations of factors indicate that plant growth can be augmented by higher CO2 levels, yet many of the effects of UV-B radiation are usually not ameliorated by the elevated CO2. UV-B radiation often increases both plant frost tolerance and survival under extreme high temperature conditions. Conversely, extreme temperatures sometimes influence the UV-B radiation sensitivity of plants directly. Plants that endure water deficit stress effectively are also likely to be tolerant of high UV-B flux. Biologically available nitrogen is exceeding historical levels in many regions due to human activities. Studies show that plants well supplied with nitrogen are generally more sensitive to UV-B radiation. Technical issues concerning the use of biological spectral weighting functions (BSWFs) have been further elucidated. The BSWFs, which are multiplication factors assigned to different wavelengths giving an indication of their relative biological effectiveness, are critical to the proper conduct and interpretation of experiments in which organisms are exposed to UV radiation, both in the field and in controlled environment facilities. The characteristics of BSWFs vary considerably among different plant processes, such as growth, DNA damage, oxidative damage and induction of changes in secondary chemicals. Thus, use of a single BSWF for plant or ecosystem response is not appropriate. This brief review emphasizes progress since the previous report toward the understanding of solar ultraviolet radiation effects on terrestrial systems as it relates to ozone column reduction and the interaction of climate change factors.

Image Attachment(s):

Photo Attachment 1

Last edited 9/6/08 10:32AM server time by Rush
Edit note/reason: n/a
2 total post edits

Post #57   9/6/08 10:30:15AM   

Mitchell740

MMA Regular

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:148
Career:97-64
Joined:Sep 2007
Camp: The drunken brawlers
Chips:
18

Posted by Ben_Hutch


Posted by AchillesHeel


Posted by Jackelope

Also, on the flip side of my own argument (So as to be impartial) it can be viewed like this-

We are building more and more things on the earth. Especially metal things. If you analyze the earth like a processor you see the more things you add to it, the more heat it generates. Therefore you need a more advanced cooling system. The Earth obviously hasn't developed a more advanced cooling system and we're only adding more things to absorb heat.

So in that simple sense (without getting into greenhouse gas effects) one could make an argument for global warming being fact.


I've never heard this "metal things are heating up the planet" theory, but not getting into greenhouse gas effects seems to be deliberately avoiding the crux of the topic you opened, because it's greenhouse gas emissions that are (or are not, depending on your view) contributing to global warming.

We humans manipulate our environment. It's what we do.

- Forests in parts of the United States don't have any young trees because the ground cover is too thick; the ground cover is too thick because there haven't been any big forest fires for the last 50+ years; there haven't been any forest fires because we've adopted a policy of putting them out instead of letting them burn.

- The city of New Orleans is getting hit with hurricanes because the Mississippi delta wetlands are shrinking; the wetlands are shrinking because the river is no longer carrying enough silt to rebuild them; the river isn't carrying enough silt because we've built so many concrete embankments along its length.

- The Mississippi River valley is flooding worse and worse every year; part of the reason is because the land along its banks isn't absorbing enough rainfall; the land along its banks isn't absorbing enough rain because we've replaced the grasses that used to grow there with concrete and food crops that don't use water as efficiently as the grass did.

- Plants absorb water and sunlight to produce energy in a process called photosynthesis; the sunlight is used to process the water and carbon dioxide into sugar, expelling leftover oxygen, which we animals then breathe and turn back into carbon dioxide. The Amazon rain forest, the largest concentration of plant life on the planet, has been described as "the lungs of the world." By some estimates, we've destroyed as much as 20% of the Amazon rain forest.

That's just four examples, off the top of my head (sorry, I don't have any links handy), of the massive impact that people have on the Earth. Even if there was no evidence of a human role in global warming, I think it would only be logical to assume that we have one, and then put the burden on science to prove that we aren't at least partly responsible.



I find it very hard to believe a lot of that.



Alot of this you will find to be true if you look it up. The united startes has one of the highest forrestation rates. Not letting forrest fires burn is slowly killing off our own wild preservations.

Decidious forrest need to be destroyed, if not cancers and growths build up on the tress slowly killling them. It's not a problem that trees will die off from old age, but if they are not burned they will drain all the nutrients out of the soil and what used to be replaced from burned forrest won't be there so nothing can grow back.

I also live in the bull run battlefield area (First battle of the civil war.) It is now impossible to see between Signal hill (where the confederates spotted union soldiers) and the site of the battle (where they were spotted) due to over planting. There are three times the amount of trees there used to be in the area.

The truth of the matter is whether global warming is real or not, we won't be able to prevent it.

Chinia is one of the leading (if not the leading) pollution producers. This is due to their massive production industry and slowly but steadily incresing standard of living.

Globally, we rarely get China to agree with anything, let alone them sacraficing the pollution producing luxuries we enjoy today for the sake of the enviorment or re-adjusting their money making industry.

Post #58   9/6/08 11:33:36AM   

Mitchell740

MMA Regular

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:148
Career:97-64
Joined:Sep 2007
Camp: The drunken brawlers
Chips:
18

Posted by Rush


Posted by Svartorm

1. Compared to the Industrial revolution, we barely pollute anymore, so the world suddenly picking up tempeture doesn't seem to make sense, considering we've cut back on ******* up the world.




Whoa, where do you get that? Sure the industrial revolution polluted the air, but what was the population of the Earth back then? How many coal plants did they have back then compared to now? How many cars were there back then compared to now? Finally, how many trees (carbon sinks) where there back then compared to now?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attached pic is a little chemistry illustrating how ozone (O3) is created and destroyed.

Now, ozone in the upper atmosphere is good, because it filters out UV light. The creation and depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is shown on the left side. Contrary to what people think, CFCs are not gone, but are only being slowly phased out over the next 12 to 22 years.

but

ozone created in the lower atmosphere (by reactions with certain chemicals) interferes with photosynthesis, which hinders plant growth. Plants just happen to be a carbon sink. The side reactions in the pic illustrate how the cycle ends. These reactions are shown on the right side


**excuse my writing. My penmanship is horrible.

Also, I did a quick pubmed search on effects of ozone and plant development. sifted through (quickly) and got a couple reviews. Now, for any skeptics I am happy to look at the actual papers and find out who funds these studies. For anyone interested, just read the articles. I can email any paper to those that are interested as well.


1: Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Sep;30(9):1150-62.
To what extent do current and projected increases in surface ozone affect photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of trees? A meta-analytic review of the last 3 decades of experiments.
Wittig VE, Ainsworth EA, Long SP.
Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 190 ERML, 1201 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.

The surface concentration of ozone ([O(3)]) has risen from less than 10 ppb prior to the industrial revolution to a day-time mean concentration of approximately 40 ppb over much of the northern temperate zone. If current global emission trends continue, surface [O(3)] is projected to rise a further 50% over this century, with larger increases in many locations including Northern Hemisphere forests. This review uses statistical meta-analysis to determine mean effects, and their confidence limits, of both the current and projected elevations of [O(3)] on light-saturated photosynthetic CO(2) uptake (A(sat)) and stomatal conductance (g(s)) in trees. In total, 348 measurements of A(sat) from 61 studies and 266 measures of g(s) from 55 studies were reviewed. Results suggested that the elevation of [O(3)] that has occurred since the industrial revolution is depressing A(sat) and g(s) by 11% (CI 9-13%) and 13% (CI 11-15%), respectively, where CI is the 95% confidence interval. In contrast to angiosperms, gymnosperms were not significantly affected. Both drought and elevated [CO(2)] significantly decreased the effect of ambient [O(3)]. Younger trees (<4 years) were affected less than older trees. Elevation of [O(3)] above current levels caused progressively larger losses of A(sat) and g(s), including gymnosperms. Results are consistent with the expectation that damage to photosynthesis depends on the cumulative uptake of ozone (O(3)) into the leaf. Thus, factors that lower g(s) lessen damage. Where both g(s) and [O(3)] were recorded, an overall decline in A(sat) of 0.21% per mmol m(-2) of estimated cumulative O(3) uptake was calculated. These findings suggest that rising [O(3)], an often overlooked aspect of global atmospheric change, is progressively depressing the ability of temperate and boreal forests to assimilate carbon and transfer water vapour to the atmosphere, with significant potential effects on terrestrial carbon sinks and regional hydrologies.


The below article is more about how increased "sun" doesn't help plants grow. A very naive statement made earlier on in the discussion.


2: Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2007 Mar;6(3):252-66. Epub 2007 Feb 1.
Terrestrial ecosystems, increased solar ultraviolet radiation, and interactions with other climate change factors.

Caldwell MM, Bornman JF, Ballaré CL, Flint SD, Kulandaivelu G.
Division of Environmental Biology, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA.

There have been significant advances in our understanding of the effects of UV-B radiation on terrestrial ecosystems, especially in the description of mechanisms of plant response. A further area of highly interesting research emphasizes the importance of indirect UV radiation effects on plants, pathogens, herbivores, soil microbes and ecosystem processes below the surface. Although photosynthesis of higher plants and mosses is seldom affected by enhanced or reduced UV-B radiation in most field studies, effects on growth and morphology (form) of higher plants and mosses are often manifested. This can lead to small reductions in shoot production and changes in the competitive balance of different species. Fungi and bacteria are generally more sensitive to damage by UV-B radiation than are higher plants. However, the species differ in their UV-B radiation sensitivity to damage, some being affected while others may be very tolerant. This can lead to changes in species composition of microbial communities with subsequent influences on processes such as litter decomposition. Changes in plant chemical composition are commonly reported due to UV-B manipulations (either enhancement or attenuation of UV-B in sunlight) and may lead to substantial reductions in consumption of plant tissues by insects. Although sunlight does not penetrate significantly into soils, the biomass and morphology of plant root systems of plants can be modified to a much greater degree than plant shoots. Root mass can exhibit sizeable declines with more UV-B. Also, UV-B-induced changes in soil microbial communities and biomass, as well as altered populations of small invertebrates have been reported and these changes have important implications for mineral nutrient cycling in the soil. Many new developments in understanding the underlying mechanisms mediating plant response to UV-B radiation have emerged. This new information is helpful in understanding common responses of plants to UV-B radiation, such as diminished growth, acclimation responses of plants to UV-B radiation and interactions of plants with consumer organisms such as insects and plant pathogens. The response to UV-B radiation involves both the initial stimulus by solar radiation and transmission of signals within the plants. Resulting changes in gene expression induced by these signals may have elements in common with those elicited by other environmental factors, and generate overlapping functional (including acclimation) responses. Concurrent responses of terrestrial systems to the combination of enhanced UV-B radiation and other global change factors (increased temperature, CO2, available nitrogen and altered precipitation) are less well understood. Studies of individual plant responses to combinations of factors indicate that plant growth can be augmented by higher CO2 levels, yet many of the effects of UV-B radiation are usually not ameliorated by the elevated CO2. UV-B radiation often increases both plant frost tolerance and survival under extreme high temperature conditions. Conversely, extreme temperatures sometimes influence the UV-B radiation sensitivity of plants directly. Plants that endure water deficit stress effectively are also likely to be tolerant of high UV-B flux. Biologically available nitrogen is exceeding historical levels in many regions due to human activities. Studies show that plants well supplied with nitrogen are generally more sensitive to UV-B radiation. Technical issues concerning the use of biological spectral weighting functions (BSWFs) have been further elucidated. The BSWFs, which are multiplication factors assigned to different wavelengths giving an indication of their relative biological effectiveness, are critical to the proper conduct and interpretation of experiments in which organisms are exposed to UV radiation, both in the field and in controlled environment facilities. The characteristics of BSWFs vary considerably among different plant processes, such as growth, DNA damage, oxidative damage and induction of changes in secondary chemicals. Thus, use of a single BSWF for plant or ecosystem response is not appropriate. This brief review emphasizes progress since the previous report toward the understanding of solar ultraviolet radiation effects on terrestrial systems as it relates to ozone column reduction and the interaction of climate change factors.






I got into the chemical process of it a little bit, but I wasn't trying to get that deep. I also wasn't trying to say that the sun helps plant growth, I was saying that with hotter climates (like at equatorial region) as long as there is still at least a fair amount of precipitation there is more plant life.

Post #59   9/6/08 11:40:38AM   

Ben_Hutch

Banned

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,118
Career:282-168
Joined:Nov 2007
Chips:
169
I like this thread

Post #60   9/6/08 12:39:33PM   
 
  Page 4 of 5     1     2     3     4     5