Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eagle Eye" data-source="post: 2738813" data-attributes="member: 34489"><p>What an expert you are! This manuscript is advertising a method of measuring NPP and GPP (do you know the difference?) </p><p>Go to page 559. read second to last sentence. </p><p>They did not conduct a controlled study in which they comapred non C fertilized growth with C fertilized growth. Therefore they cannot conclude that C02 alone is responsible for any increase in NPP or GPP. The absence of knowledge about scientific controls again validates my claim that you not of the things you speak. </p><p>The manuscript I posted has the adequate controls i speak of and they found that Co2 first increases productivity but in the long term there is no difference and actually can decrease productivity in the long term. </p><p></p><p>Do you understand how Co2 is even fixed? Do you know what rubisco is? If you did, you might know about Co2 saturation, which occurs when the amount of Co2 no longer affects the rate of C fixation, because it is not the limiting factor. </p><p></p><p>Unfortunately it seems that we are doing the same thing, you and I. Posting links to articles that support our view points. The difference is that i am actually decently well read in this field whereas i have my doubts that you know the difference between NPP and GPP, or respiration and photorespiration.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eagle Eye, post: 2738813, member: 34489"] What an expert you are! This manuscript is advertising a method of measuring NPP and GPP (do you know the difference?) Go to page 559. read second to last sentence. They did not conduct a controlled study in which they comapred non C fertilized growth with C fertilized growth. Therefore they cannot conclude that C02 alone is responsible for any increase in NPP or GPP. The absence of knowledge about scientific controls again validates my claim that you not of the things you speak. The manuscript I posted has the adequate controls i speak of and they found that Co2 first increases productivity but in the long term there is no difference and actually can decrease productivity in the long term. Do you understand how Co2 is even fixed? Do you know what rubisco is? If you did, you might know about Co2 saturation, which occurs when the amount of Co2 no longer affects the rate of C fixation, because it is not the limiting factor. Unfortunately it seems that we are doing the same thing, you and I. Posting links to articles that support our view points. The difference is that i am actually decently well read in this field whereas i have my doubts that you know the difference between NPP and GPP, or respiration and photorespiration. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Oil Earthquakes confirmed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom