End Credits said:
I do not believe that the empirical evidence supports this.
fsb
Tiptup said:
At which point we have even more carbon dioxide and even stronger plant growth to offset the destruction of forests and the like.
End Credits said:
Ahm... not quite. Carbon dioxide concentration does have a direct relation with rate of photosythesis; however, too high a concentration can inhibit the light-independent reactions (though certain plants have evolved around this inhibition). Anyway, any increases in rates of photosynthesis are most likely negated by clearing trees and other plant life (lowering the amount of carbon dioxide that gets converted to oxygen) while continuing to burn more fossil fuel (increasing carbon dioxide concentration).
fsb
Ahm... not quite. Carbon dioxide concentration does have a direct relation with rate of photosythesis; however, too high a concentration can inhibit the light-independent reactions (though certain plants have evolved around this inhibition). Anyway, any increases in rates of photosynthesis are most likely negated by clearing trees and other plant life (lowering the amount of carbon dioxide that gets converted to oxygen) while continuing to burn more fossil fuel (increasing carbon dioxide concentration).
fsb
At which point we have even more carbon dioxide and even stronger plant growth to offset the destruction of forests and the like.
I do not believe that the empirical evidence supports this.
fsb
The empirical evidence supporting what? That carbon dioxide promotes plant growth? Or that wild vegetation will retake land when that land is left alone? Both are heavily supported by the empirical evidence that I'm aware of.