Ill be back tomorrow. Im interested to see where this goes while I'm gone
This makes sense?
Stimulation of terrestrial plant production by rising CO2 concentration is projected to reduce the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Coupled climate–carbon cycle models are sensitive to this negative feedback on atmospheric CO2, but model projections are uncertain because of the expectation that feedbacks through the nitrogen (N) cycle will reduce this so-called CO2 fertilization effect. We assessed whether N limitation caused a reduced stimulation of net primary productivity (NPP) by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration over 11 y in a free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment in a deciduous Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) forest stand in Tennessee. During the first 6 y of the experiment, NPP was significantly enhanced in forest plots exposed to 550 ppm CO2 compared with NPP in plots in current ambient CO2, and this was a consistent and sustained response. However, the enhancement of NPP under elevated CO2 declined from 24% in 2001–2003 to 9% in 2008. Global analyses that assume a sustained CO2 fertilization effect are no longer supported by this FACE experiment. N budget analysis supports the premise that N availability was limiting to tree growth and declining over time -an expected consequence of stand development, which was exacerbated by elevated CO2. Leaf- and stand-level observations provide mechanistic evidence that declining N availability constrained the tree response to elevated CO2; these observations are consistent with stand-level model projections. This FACE experiment provides strong rationale and process understanding for incorporating N limitation and N feedback effects in ecosystem and global models used in climate change assessments.
Sorry about that last link. Meant to post this one:
http://wwwdata.forestry.oregonstate.edu/larse/pubs/running_bioscience.pdf
Still, for someone who this is supposedly "their field", I can't believe I'm having to post links to articles about CO2 fertilization and the greening of the planet that has occurred as a result.
So Doc. J, I've been meaning to ask this (unrelated) question. What are you a doctor of? Does it start with an M or a P (or J or E perhaps)? This is the only quick google search I did but I'm guessing this isn't you?
http://www.callingdoctorjj.com/
http://www.callingdoctorjj.com/
Yep I said suspected. Oklahoma earthquakes? Proven. We execute criminals for less"circumstantial" evidence (circumstantial like, I saw this dude drilling an oil well and three weeks later we had an earthquake). Greenhouse? I'm suspected. I'm indifferent to which ever side I end up on. I'm having trouble understanding the mechanics of it because it requires a lot of things to work very rightly in an unstable environment. Not saying it isn't happening, I just don't know and am looking to find understanding from which I can draw a conclusion to base my opinions on.
I don't think the Ok earthquakes have been proven. Its suspected.
As I stated before, there are disposal wells all over Okla, Tx, NM, Ar, Ks, SD, MT, yet the conclusion is drawn from a dozen disposal wells in the OK area of some shakes.
That is not a definitive conclusion of fact. Nor is it scientific analysis of the available data to prove one way or the other. Its just that those wells happened to be in the area of a seismic event.
That would be like charging everybody around a death a murderer before you knew it was a natural death or a murder. I know that's a red herring, but it is what it is.
As I stated before, there are disposal wells all over Okla, Tx, NM, Ar, Ks, SD, MT, yet the conclusion is drawn from a dozen disposal wells in the OK area of some shakes.
That is not a definitive conclusion of fact. Nor is it scientific analysis of the available data to prove one way or the other. Its just that those wells happened to be in the area of a seismic event.
That would be like charging everybody around a death a murderer before you knew it was a natural death or a murder. I know that's a red herring, but it is what it is.
I say it's proven. It's not just that they happen to be in the area when the earthquake happened and that earthquake would have happened whether they were there or not. No I don't believe that. The earthquake didn't and never happened before they got there, and when they got there, those folks started having earthquakes. Call it what you will. The facts are laid out. Believe them or not, that's up to you as a free man. The fact is the average joe, like me, has taken notice, done some reseach and is pissed enough about it to become an activist against the industry. And public opinion is moving away from the industry and they know this. They are going to have a tougher time getting their guy elected next time around because people, like me, are tired of oil companies forcing their way onto people's land, causing earthquakes, and shyting where they eat (pollution). All it takes is for enough people like me to get tired enough of the BS to get the word out and enough people will start demanding fracking ends, etc etc. And it's no one but the oil industry's fault. They could have taken care of their neighbors. Not sued people out of the land they own, and been good corporate citizens but they didn't They turned a big ship and they might not find themselves as welcome here unless they clean up their act and quickly.
Ok, enough, punchy tired and rambling.
I haven't read this entire thread, but I know a little about waste water injection wells. The company I worked for before I got laid off has injection wells in Oklahoma. They are all in the area north and east of Hennessey. Those injection wells never ran at a pressure of greater than 1,000 psi. Usually two of them were on constant vacuums. So my question would be this: if the average pressure of those injection wells is, let's say for argument's sake, 500 psi, is that enough pressure to cause the earth to move? I sure wouldn't think so, and I would hope not.
Similar threads
