Re: A relevation about trees is messing with climate calculations

Oct 03, 2023 Last reply: 3 years ago 5 Replies

Rate this thread:

John Larkin 3 years ago

>> > A revelation about trees is messing with climate calculations

>> >
formatting link

>> > Scientists are learning more about sesquiterpenes," vapors made from trees.
>> They've always known about sequiterpenes - my organic chemistry courses from the early 1960's were excessively informative about the subject, which is why I can still remember the name.
>>
>>
formatting link

>>
>> There wasn't any suggestion at the time that they were particularly good nucleation centres for atmospheric moisture - the cloud seeding trials of the period relied on the rather more expensive silver iodide for that.
>>
>> As usual, Jan Panteltje doesn't know what he is talking about. >
>There is such a thing as actually reading the research report. The sesquiterpenes oxidize and contribute to the formation of ULVOCs which are 'highly efficient nucleators'- and very efficient at NPF, with which the clouds are seeded, The sesquiterpenes have 50X the proficiency of the better studied '-penes'.
>
>
formatting link
>
>Problem is all the forests are dying due to drought and heat, a one-two punch that is looking less and less survivable in the long term.

Sorry to disappoint your chronic disappointment:

formatting link

Vote

Anthony William Sloman 3 years ago

Maybe they do, but they aren't sequiterpenes after they have been oxidised.

There are trees for every environment. The last 2.6 million years have been on the cold side, but some of the warm climate trees that had to retreat to the tropics will move away from the equator when the planet gets a bit warmer.

Don't be silly. There are lots of different trees and quite a few of them generate sequiterpenes

Biologically active molecules show up all over the place, doing lots of different stuff. There's probably one that specialises in giving pompous twits cancer.,

Vote

Anthony William Sloman 3 years ago

So they aren't sesquiterpenes when the do the nucleating job. Fred does capture all the important details ...

That really is aimed at dimwits.

"“The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

Nitrogen in the air - N2 - is useless to plants. It has to be "fixed" - oxidised to a nitrogen oxides or converted to ammonia or urea to be any use to plants, and .legumes rely on symbiotic nitrogen fixing bacteria to do the jobs for them. Thunderstorms (or rather lightning flashes) do oxidise some nitrogen, but not nearly enough.

Good enough to pacify John Larkin, and the rest of the pig-ignorant target audience.

Vote

Anthony William Sloman 3 years ago

formatting link

we had this kind of warming some 55.5 million years ago, and it didn't kill off all the forests. It probably changed the trees you found in any given forest, but there's a lot of genetic diversity around and you still had forests, even if they looked a bit different.

The problem with anthropogenic global warming is not that it is going to kill off everything, but rather that the crops we've been growing for most of this interglacial aren't going to grow as well in the places we have got used to growing them. We are going to have to find other crops, and grow them in different places. but nature is just going to adapt - as it always has.

We are just going to have to negotiate our way between the Scylla of John Larkin's "nothing is happening" and the and Charybdis of your "everything is going to get totally wrecked". You are both wrong, and both of you are totally unhelpful. A pair of Trumps.

Vote

John Larkin 3 years ago

Even more CO2 and even more greening.

Keep hoping for the worst.

Vote

whit3rd 3 years ago

The comment was about conclusions, not hopes. Observation of forests leads to conclusions. Those are solid and fact-based, which are important distinctive properties that don't apply to 'hopes'.

Learn the difference; it is important.

Vote