never heard of it. commercial tv, dinks, can be useful sometimes.
http://www.uws.edu.au/hie/facilities/EucFACE
from the link
EucFACE is designed to predict the effects of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on Australia’s unique native forests. This innovative experiment aims to predict decades in advance the effects of exposure to rising CO2 levels on native forests, animals, soils and grasses.
EucFACE is a massive experiment that exposes large areas of native Cumberland Plain forest to elevated CO2 at around 550ppm which is what we expect to reach by 2050. In 2014, the level of CO2 in the air is around 400ppm.
Native forests cover around 160million hectares of the Australian landmass, so understanding how increasing levels of CO2 will actually affect the function of our forests is a vital question. Based on similar experiments in plantations and crops around the world, there is a reasonable understanding of how different managed ecosystems react to elevated CO2 but what is missing is good insight into how our unique, native Eucalyptus-dominated ecosystems react.
more…
JudgeMental said:
never heard of it. commercial tv, dinks, can be useful sometimes.http://www.uws.edu.au/hie/facilities/EucFACE
Been on ABC or SBS TV also. They had something like a 15-20 minute doco on it.
CrazyNeutrino said:
from the linkEucFACE is designed to predict the effects of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on Australia’s unique native forests. This innovative experiment aims to predict decades in advance the effects of exposure to rising CO2 levels on native forests, animals, soils and grasses.
EucFACE is a massive experiment that exposes large areas of native Cumberland Plain forest to elevated CO2 at around 550ppm which is what we expect to reach by 2050. In 2014, the level of CO2 in the air is around 400ppm.
Native forests cover around 160million hectares of the Australian landmass, so understanding how increasing levels of CO2 will actually affect the function of our forests is a vital question. Based on similar experiments in plantations and crops around the world, there is a reasonable understanding of how different managed ecosystems react to elevated CO2 but what is missing is good insight into how our unique, native Eucalyptus-dominated ecosystems react.
more…
They are way behind the 8 ball. They know the trees are dying and how fast they are dying.
that isn’t what this experiment is about.
JudgeMental said:
that isn’t what this experiment is about.
The point was that the forests will mostly not be here by then. The rate of regeneration isn’t good enough.
why do anything then?
Who is they? Not the illuminati again?
JudgeMental said:
why do anything then?
forest regen should have been ongoing and researched. Long ago. A thousand yeas to replace what was a thousand years old should have been entraiin. The remnants that are left aren’t capable of recovering without our help.
i’ll ask again, why do anything then? seeing it is too late.
AwesomeO said:
Who is they? Not the illuminati again?
Take off their masks and let’s see.
Oh no, there’s you and there’s me.
JudgeMental said:
i’ll ask again, why do anything then? seeing it is too late.
The point is, the money would be better spent on making forests than wondering how they’ll fare without trees..
so the scientists are stupid again?
JudgeMental said:
so the scientists are stupid again?
Not the scientists. They have to be able to butter their bread.
The scientists already know that the trees won’t be here. They know why. Somebody is putting up the money to find out what will happen to what is left, when if they were asked where the money would be better spent they could give that answer and only have to figure out how to explain that it is already too late and still get to pay off their mortgage..
don’t you think that it might be a good idea to know how trees, and the ecosystem, react to higher CO2 levels? even if it is just to see which survive better. that way you might plant the right one that will handle the rise in CO2 levels. or shall we do it your way and just plant whatever and risk seeing it die?
They have to be able to butter their bread.
you ignorant fool. how rude.
JudgeMental said:
don’t you think that it might be a good idea to know how trees, and the ecosystem, react to higher CO2 levels? even if it is just to see which survive better. that way you might plant the right one that will handle the rise in CO2 levels. or shall we do it your way and just plant whatever and risk seeing it die?
Not saying it is bad science. Just saying that it is far more important to be planting trees than figuring out what to do when we don’t have them.
Your argument is lacking in so much forthought, I’m glad you are only a printer.
JudgeMental said:
They have to be able to butter their bread.you ignorant fool. how rude.
Pot/ketlle.
hahahaha.
na. you have been talking to scientists for many years on these forums. and this is what you think of them that they do it just for the money. you have learnt nothing.
JudgeMental said:
na. you have been talking to scientists for many years on these forums. and this is what you think of them that they do it just for the money. you have learnt nothing.
No. You simply do not comprehend that I’ve seen the science done, the scientests paid, Nobody acts. It isn’t the scientist’s fault. However we all still need to pay the bills. So science takes the new work. The results are still out there, Nobody is acting.
this is one of a kind experiment. so you haven’t seen this science done.
you haven’t even read anything about it have you?
JudgeMental said:
this is one of a kind experiment. so you haven’t seen this science done.
It isn’t new, today.
JudgeMental said:
you haven’t even read anything about it have you?
yes. Before the link was posted here.
The world’s only Free Air CO2 Enrichment experiment in native forest
the headline on the page.
:-)
bullshit.
JudgeMental said:
you haven’t even read anything about it have you?
You have also said that you have opinions about what I have had to say without giving me any credit by reading what i have to say. You have no idea about how long I’ve been involved in the science of forests.
JudgeMental said:
The world’s only Free Air CO2 Enrichment experiment in native forestthe headline on the page.
:-)
So..
roughbarked said:
JudgeMental said:
you haven’t even read anything about it have you?
You have also said that you have opinions about what I have had to say without giving me any credit by reading what i have to say. You have no idea about how long I’ve been involved in the science of forests.
Well you poopooed his post because he is “only” a printmaker so I guess it is fair that you describe your qualifications.
JudgeMental said:
bullshit.
So uninformed.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
JudgeMental said:
you haven’t even read anything about it have you?
You have also said that you have opinions about what I have had to say without giving me any credit by reading what i have to say. You have no idea about how long I’ve been involved in the science of forests.
Well you poopooed his post because he is “only” a printmaker so I guess it is fair that you describe your qualifications.
Six milliion trees. Told you years ago.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:You have also said that you have opinions about what I have had to say without giving me any credit by reading what i have to say. You have no idea about how long I’ve been involved in the science of forests.
Well you poopooed his post because he is “only” a printmaker so I guess it is fair that you describe your qualifications.
Six milliion trees. Told you years ago.
riggghtttttt, was that before or after morning tea, in line with your usual incredible numerical claims.
And I don’t see any qualification or why I should weight your opinion.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:Well you poopooed his post because he is “only” a printmaker so I guess it is fair that you describe your qualifications.
Six milliion trees. Told you years ago.
riggghtttttt, was that before or after morning tea, in line with your usual incredible numerical claims.
And I don’t see any qualification or why I should weight your opinion.
Well then You’ll never comprehend then. Doesn’t matter, we will both be dead before then.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:Six milliion trees. Told you years ago.
riggghtttttt, was that before or after morning tea, in line with your usual incredible numerical claims.
And I don’t see any qualification or why I should weight your opinion.
Well then You’ll never comprehend then. Doesn’t matter, we will both be dead before then.
Comprehend what? Try and avoid your guru gibberish and obfuscation. All I asked was your qualifications to comment after you poopooed someone else’s comment as being from just a printmaker.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:riggghtttttt, was that before or after morning tea, in line with your usual incredible numerical claims.
And I don’t see any qualification or why I should weight your opinion.
Well then You’ll never comprehend then. Doesn’t matter, we will both be dead before then.
Comprehend what? Try and avoid your guru gibberish and obfuscation. All I asked was your qualifications to comment after you poopooed someone else’s comment as being from just a printmaker.
If only there ewas a God to swear at.
You are an argumentative dick. Who argues without reading. There is not a speck of gibberish about the science already done about Eucalypts.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:Well then You’ll never comprehend then. Doesn’t matter, we will both be dead before then.
Comprehend what? Try and avoid your guru gibberish and obfuscation. All I asked was your qualifications to comment after you poopooed someone else’s comment as being from just a printmaker.
If only there ewas a God to swear at.
You are an argumentative dick. Who argues without reading. There is not a speck of gibberish about the science already done about Eucalypts.
I was wondering why your opinion was superior to just a printmakers. I think your qualification of planting six million trees is both unfeasable and irrelevant.
Not me dissing the scientists and other posters, that would be you, and your only qualification is an incredible claim.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:Comprehend what? Try and avoid your guru gibberish and obfuscation. All I asked was your qualifications to comment after you poopooed someone else’s comment as being from just a printmaker.
If only there ewas a God to swear at.
You are an argumentative dick. Who argues without reading. There is not a speck of gibberish about the science already done about Eucalypts.
I was wondering why your opinion was superior to just a printmakers. I think your qualification of planting six million trees is both unfeasable and irrelevant.
Not me dissing the scientists and other posters, that would be you, and your only qualification is an incredible claim.
You are still a dipshit. You have no idea what was going on yet you always want to jump in and disparage.
Thre is nothing incrediuble about my claim or claims. You have not had a life if you think so.
Boris may well be a nuclear physicist in his spare time but he’s reporting something as new science that he got it from a commercial TV station.. Go figure.
how much time does it take you on average to plant one tree?
Boris may well be a nuclear physicist in his spare time but he’s reporting something as new science that he got it from a commercial TV station.. Go figure.
and the university website and from the people actually doing the experiment. can’t get much closer to the primary source than that.
so i say your argument is a strawman.
Is this a script from Neighbours between the minor character antagonists arguing in the local coffee shop about trees
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
Ian said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
Ian said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
saving on toilet breaks?
stumpy_seahorse said:
Ian said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
saving on toilet breaks?
Piss off (or on)
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
wookiemeister said:
in some instances, yes. Note, some.
Ian said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
I think it’s just a spade opening up the soil and you pop the sapling in
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
how long does it take you to plant one of these saplings?
Ian said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
Ian said:I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
saving on toilet breaks?
Piss off (or on)
Wankers. In the main, I’ve been responsible for more than 250,000 trees per year over a period of more than 40 years. You do the maths. I’m easily underestimating and that’s not only because I’ve been planing trees for more like 55 years though these are extras to the above, they weren’t as intensive.
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:in some instances, yes. Note, some.
Ian said:I reckon that’s a big DEPENDS.
I think it’s just a spade opening up the soil and you pop the sapling in
in one persons life time it’s possible for someone to plant great numbers of trees if it’s just a spade and drop approach
roughbarked said:
Ian said:
stumpy_seahorse said:saving on toilet breaks?
Piss off (or on)
Wankers. In the main, I’ve been responsible for more than 250,000 trees per year over a period of more than 40 years. You do the maths. I’m easily underestimating and that’s not only because I’ve been planing trees for more like 55 years though these are extras to the above, they weren’t as intensive.
pfft. soft…
that’s only 2 per minute 24/7 every day of the year…
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
when you plant trees it’s with something that’s been grown from seed, you don’t put seeds in the ground, as I’m sure you awarehow long does it take you to plant one of these saplings?
Why don’t you put seeds in the ground? Probably usually because most of them naturally fall on the ground.
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:in some instances, yes. Note, some.I think it’s just a spade opening up the soil and you pop the sapling in
one thing to note is that I’m not having a go at youin one persons life time it’s possible for someone to plant great numbers of trees if it’s just a spade and drop approach
It is also possible to teach others that simplicity works.
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:
Ian said:Piss off (or on)
Wankers. In the main, I’ve been responsible for more than 250,000 trees per year over a period of more than 40 years. You do the maths. I’m easily underestimating and that’s not only because I’ve been planing trees for more like 55 years though these are extras to the above, they weren’t as intensive.
pfft. soft…
that’s only 2 per minute 24/7 every day of the year…
With say a wide range of native seeds, one can pick up thousnds in a pinch of the fingers.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
Which is less than half of my time on earth.
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
roughbarked said:How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
when you plant trees it’s with something that’s been grown from seed, you don’t put seeds in the ground, as I’m sure you awarehow long does it take you to plant one of these saplings?
Why don’t you put seeds in the ground? Probably usually because most of them naturally fall on the ground.
You qualification, which you used to poopoo someone else’s comment now seems to be based not on planting six million trees at all ( which was not in itself anyway reason enough for you to disparage someone as just a printmaker and not qualified as yourself to comment) , but throwing some bags of seeds on the ground.
That’s one long bow you drew for yourself.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:
no reply from rough barked about how long it physically takes to plant a tree
How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
I worked off the 250,000/year claim…
250000/365.25 = 684.46/day
684.46/24 = 28.519 per hour
684.46/60= 0.475/minute
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
wookiemeister said:when you plant trees it’s with something that’s been grown from seed, you don’t put seeds in the ground, as I’m sure you aware
how long does it take you to plant one of these saplings?
Why don’t you put seeds in the ground? Probably usually because most of them naturally fall on the ground.
You qualification, which you used to poopoo someone else’s comment now seems to be based not on planting six million trees at all ( which was not in itself anyway reason enough for you to disparage someone as just a printmaker and not qualified as yourself to comment) , but throwing some bags of seeds on the ground.
That’s one long bow you drew for yourself.
Will you ever get off the outrage bus? It doesn’t help logic.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
Which is less than half of my time on earth.
24 hours a day for 30 years?
stumpy_seahorse said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:How long does it take you to drop a seed? There is a lot about planting trees that a lot of people have about as much idea about as fixing their watch.
Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
I worked off the 250,000/year claim…
250000/365.25 = 684.46/day
684.46/24 = 28.519 per hour
684.46/60= 0.475/minute
and?
What do you think this has achieved for you?
Do you think planting trees is like someone I overheard claiming that gardening was akin to moving household drudgery outdoors?
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
AwesomeO said:Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
I worked off the 250,000/year claim…
250000/365.25 = 684.46/day
684.46/24 = 28.519 per hour
684.46/60= 0.475/minute
and?
What do you think this has achieved for you?
Do you think planting trees is like someone I overheard claiming that gardening was akin to moving household drudgery outdoors?
I think most are commenting on the unlikely logistics of what you claim to have done, or the way your qualification is being downgraded by yourself from planting six million trees to chucking around seeds.
I have thrown around a few kilos of grass seeds in my time, though I didn’t bother to count them. I wouldn’t call it a qualification though, or use it as a basis for insisting my opinion carried more weight than someone elses.
>> *I think most are commenting on the unlikely logistics of what you claim to have done, or the way your qualification is being downgraded by yourself from planting six million trees to chucking around seeds.
I have thrown around a few kilos of grass seeds in my time, though I didn’t bother to count them. I wouldn’t call it a qualification though, or use it as a basis for insisting my opinion carried more weight than someone elses.*
it’s a bit like selling coloured pencils and claiming you create artwork…
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:Well I was being generous, and my figures should be checked but I got, for actually planting, if you do 2 and a bit every minute 24 hours a day for 30 years you will plant six million trees which was your qualification.
Which is less than half of my time on earth.
24 hours a day for 30 years?
Yeah.
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:I worked off the 250,000/year claim…
250000/365.25 = 684.46/day
684.46/24 = 28.519 per hour
684.46/60= 0.475/minute
and?
What do you think this has achieved for you?
Do you think planting trees is like someone I overheard claiming that gardening was akin to moving household drudgery outdoors?
I think most are commenting on the unlikely logistics of what you claim to have done, or the way your qualification is being downgraded by yourself from planting six million trees to chucking around seeds.
I have thrown around a few kilos of grass seeds in my time, though I didn’t bother to count them. I wouldn’t call it a qualification though, or use it as a basis for insisting my opinion carried more weight than someone elses.
Ah but you didn’t even contemplate transplanting every single germinated seed.
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:
roughbarked said:Which is less than half of my time on earth.
24 hours a day for 30 years?
Yeah.
was this while youwere working 2 part time jobs and shooting snakes? or after?
stumpy_seahorse said:
>>it’s a bit like selling coloured pencils and claiming you create artwork…
I’ve never attempted to criticise your renovation skills and abilities.
It is all chalk and cheese. I know heaps of people who have tried to plant any number of seeds and have never germinated one.
Plantem quick
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
>>it’s a bit like selling coloured pencils and claiming you create artwork…
I’ve never attempted to criticise your renovation skills and abilities.
It is all chalk and cheese. I know heaps of people who have tried to plant any number of seeds and have never germinated one.
>>
I’ve never attempted to criticise your renovation skills and abilities.
go for your life…
the thread is trashed already…
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:
AwesomeO said:24 hours a day for 30 years?
Yeah.
was this while youwere working 2 part time jobs and shooting snakes? or after?
Actually, some of it did include that. Yes.
I mean fer christ’s sake If you haven’t had my life, how could you ever possibly envisage it? I don’t even know what you did in the army but I’ll wager that most people wouldn’t have a clue even if you told them.
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
>>it’s a bit like selling coloured pencils and claiming you create artwork…
I’ve never attempted to criticise your renovation skills and abilities.
It is all chalk and cheese. I know heaps of people who have tried to plant any number of seeds and have never germinated one.
>>
I’ve never attempted to criticise your renovation skills and abilities.go for your life…
the thread is trashed already…
It was posted as new news. It wasn’t.
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:Yeah.
was this while youwere working 2 part time jobs and shooting snakes? or after?
Actually, some of it did include that. Yes.
I mean fer christ’s sake If you haven’t had my life, how could you ever possibly envisage it? I don’t even know what you did in the army but I’ll wager that most people wouldn’t have a clue even if you told them.
IDGI..
were you planting trees for the army?
does that have anything to do with this conversation? or is it another example of how improbable your claims are?
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:was this while youwere working 2 part time jobs and shooting snakes? or after?
Actually, some of it did include that. Yes.
I mean fer christ’s sake If you haven’t had my life, how could you ever possibly envisage it? I don’t even know what you did in the army but I’ll wager that most people wouldn’t have a clue even if you told them.
IDGI..
were you planting trees for the army?
does that have anything to do with this conversation? or is it another example of how improbable your claims are?
Simply, no. It is an example to simply point out that trashing me, is trashing yourselves. It is a useless argument.
There is nothing improbable about what I’ve said. There is something apart from knowledge of the subject apparent in those attempting to crap on it.
Not this still surely
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:Actually, some of it did include that. Yes.
I mean fer christ’s sake If you haven’t had my life, how could you ever possibly envisage it? I don’t even know what you did in the army but I’ll wager that most people wouldn’t have a clue even if you told them.
IDGI..
were you planting trees for the army?
does that have anything to do with this conversation? or is it another example of how improbable your claims are?
Simply, no. It is an example to simply point out that trashing me, is trashing yourselves. It is a useless argument.
There is nothing improbable about what I’ve said. There is something apart from knowledge of the subject apparent in those attempting to crap on it.
ok..
how long were you in the army for?
dv said:
Not this still surely
That is the same question mark I’ve got to add. ?
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:IDGI..
were you planting trees for the army?
does that have anything to do with this conversation? or is it another example of how improbable your claims are?
Simply, no. It is an example to simply point out that trashing me, is trashing yourselves. It is a useless argument.
There is nothing improbable about what I’ve said. There is something apart from knowledge of the subject apparent in those attempting to crap on it.
ok..
how long were you in the army for?
I refused their invitation. I’ve told you that several times too.
What kind of trees?
Getting back to the subject. Our trees are dying.
dv said:
What kind of trees?
Well, quite a variety. I’m committed to regenerating natives and I’ve donated more trees than I’ve accepted financial loss on the sales of. I’ve earned my income by working for the dark side. I’m not proud of planting weeds or plants that change the environment too significantly but it is true that I’ve produced much of what you see as street trees and landscaping trees and garden ornamentalia. I’ve also been responsible for a big chunk of what ends up on the fruit stalls in Woolworths.
The subject…
EucFACE is designed to predict the effects of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on Australia’s unique native forests. This innovative experiment aims to predict decades in advance the effects of exposure to rising CO2 levels on native forests, animals, soils and grasses.
EucFACE is a massive experiment that exposes large areas of native Cumberland Plain forest to elevated CO2 at around 550ppm which is what we expect to reach by 2050. In 2014, the level of CO2 in the air is around 400ppm.
Native forests cover around 160million hectares of the Australian landmass, so understanding how increasing levels of CO2 will actually affect the function of our forests is a vital question. Based on similar experiments in plantations and crops around the world, there is a reasonable understanding of how different managed ecosystems react to elevated CO2 but what is missing is good insight into how our unique, native Eucalyptus-dominated ecosystems react.
Ian said:
The subject…EucFACE is designed to predict the effects of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on Australia’s unique native forests. This innovative experiment aims to predict decades in advance the effects of exposure to rising CO2 levels on native forests, animals, soils and grasses.
EucFACE is a massive experiment that exposes large areas of native Cumberland Plain forest to elevated CO2 at around 550ppm which is what we expect to reach by 2050. In 2014, the level of CO2 in the air is around 400ppm.
Native forests cover around 160million hectares of the Australian landmass, so understanding how increasing levels of CO2 will actually affect the function of our forests is a vital question. Based on similar experiments in plantations and crops around the world, there is a reasonable understanding of how different managed ecosystems react to elevated CO2 but what is missing is good insight into how our unique, native Eucalyptus-dominated ecosystems react.
Yes. There is a lot missing and not only the knowledge about CO2 levels. This isn’t new news. It is also only a small part of the comprehension.
roughbarked said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
from the linkEucFACE is designed to predict the effects of rapidly rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on Australia’s unique native forests. This innovative experiment aims to predict decades in advance the effects of exposure to rising CO2 levels on native forests, animals, soils and grasses.
EucFACE is a massive experiment that exposes large areas of native Cumberland Plain forest to elevated CO2 at around 550ppm which is what we expect to reach by 2050. In 2014, the level of CO2 in the air is around 400ppm.
Native forests cover around 160million hectares of the Australian landmass, so understanding how increasing levels of CO2 will actually affect the function of our forests is a vital question. Based on similar experiments in plantations and crops around the world, there is a reasonable understanding of how different managed ecosystems react to elevated CO2 but what is missing is good insight into how our unique, native Eucalyptus-dominated ecosystems react.
more…
They are way behind the 8 ball. They know the trees are dying and how fast they are dying.
My original post.
Now If you want to know what I’ve learned and what I can add. I’m willing and capable of providing it to those who want to know who are capable of putting it into practice.
I’m only going to say this once. Which means I’m not going to answer any questions on it.
My mother taught me more about terraforming or comprehension of how the environment works than all of the money spent on the science since 1956. Which means, I asked the questions and she had the answers. My FiL taught me more about the forestry industry than is comprehended today. It is simple science. We can reverse the problems we are causing. We already know how and why.
roughbarked said:
stumpy_seahorse said:
roughbarked said:Yeah.
was this while youwere working 2 part time jobs and shooting snakes? or after?
Actually, some of it did include that. Yes.
I mean fer christ’s sake If you haven’t had my life, how could you ever possibly envisage it? I don’t even know what you did in the army but I’ll wager that most people wouldn’t have a clue even if you told them.
wookiemeister said:
51st foot and mouth regiment of the fluffy feather
Speaking for yourself again?
JudgeMental said:
i’ll ask again, why do anything then? seeing it is too late.
It is not about why. You already know this answer.
If you really want to be scientific about it you could try asking something that you don’t know.
rhetorical.
JudgeMental said:
rhetorical.
jesuswept.
You constantly accuse me of trying to rip off science or somesuch.
I’ve never knocked work done. I may allude to things considered irrelevant that I may see as major factors.