- Re: Does anyone know if this thesis of Patrick Moore's has been effectively rebutted? - Archived Message
Posted by mack
on February 25, 2020, 9:21 pm, in reply to "Does anyone know if this thesis of Patrick Moore's has been effectively rebutted? -"
|
My tuppence: In just this brief clip, I see three specific errors and have severe doubt about his simplistic approach. 1) He says that wetter climate comes from heating (yes), and more clouds = cooling, thus mitigating what warming comes our way. That's a crock. Cloud cover during the day will increase albedo, but clouds at night trap earth's infra red heat. Far more complex than he's trying to say. 2) He uses the specific example of plant and tree growers using co2 to improve growth - that's true - but this is commercial growing in controlled environments. Applying the idea in a seriously complex system that we don't really understand (no matter what anyone tells you), is not the same thing at all. What could (COULD) happen, it's not so hard to imagine, is that some plant species will benefit from more co2 more than others, leading to loss of species due to being out-competed, and possibly leading to large areas of monocultures where certain species (or even phenotypes) dominate, while others are exterminated forever. Again - it's complex and these kind of simplistic arguments are the kind of thing that lead to serious issues. Also his claim that 'trees grow 3-4 times faster' with additional co2 is just bollocks. 3) 'C02 is the limiting factor' to plant growth ('if there's enough water and nutrients'!!) IF?. Hard to know where to start with this as, again, it's MUCH more complex than that. Try growing pretty much anything to eat in a soil rich in nutrients, water and with a PH of 4, when al3+ cation is available for uptake and so on...it's just bullshit. The idea of his that plants can reduce the number of stomata they need (the way he says it is just like they can say to themselves: Oh, right, I don't need all these holes now...) to prevent water loss is cobblers because that would be an evolutionary adjustment that doesn't happen overnight. Anyway, that probably amounts to more than three, so obviously I can't count, but hopefully I'm not as full of shite as this guy seems to be at first glance. These are systems so complex, they are beyond our reach of full understanding; this kind of simplistic willy waving is a bit unhinged imo, and possibly dangerous. |