Carbon linked to hayfever, scary!
Discussion
That carbon is nasty stuff.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1301...
A link has been found between CO2 levels and the amount of pollen produced by trees......freaky.
Also, the increases in Pollen is linked to CO2, but not temperature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1301...
A link has been found between CO2 levels and the amount of pollen produced by trees......freaky.
Also, the increases in Pollen is linked to CO2, but not temperature.
Researchers from 13 EU nations analysed pollen levels for more than 20 species of tree and plant.
Thats the scary thing, how much wasted money to find out plants grow more the more CO2 there is, this is basic GCSE stuff yet people are doing research and I presume getting paid to do it. What a waste of brain power.
Thats the scary thing, how much wasted money to find out plants grow more the more CO2 there is, this is basic GCSE stuff yet people are doing research and I presume getting paid to do it. What a waste of brain power.
Liokault said:
Oakey said:
So the real story here should be "CO2 rise leads to increased plant and tree activity"?
Interesting, so, plants and tress.....eat C02? Liokault said:
Digga said:
Maybe we should plant forests to offset CO2 then?
Funny that. I was reading the other day that China is planting trees faster than they are being lost in the Amazon. China can plant all the trees it wants, but they wont absorb the heavy particualtes and smog their indusrty - unhindered by European equivalent safety and environmental controls - belch into the atmosphere.
I find it sad that it has become basically standard practice to mock the results of obvious-sounding scientific research.
Do you all believe that scientists should never check things which are generally accepted? That if you learnt it in school - that's it, science is closed on the matter?
Then there's the point that in this specific case there may have been other plausible triggers for pollen increase, and some species showed a decline in pollen production; therefore the study has merit.
Do you all believe that scientists should never check things which are generally accepted? That if you learnt it in school - that's it, science is closed on the matter?
Then there's the point that in this specific case there may have been other plausible triggers for pollen increase, and some species showed a decline in pollen production; therefore the study has merit.
rhinochopig said:
But the real story is that long term exposure kills them eventually. So CO2 is highly toxic and can kill smaller plants in a matter of months and some of the bigger trees in a few hundred years. Nasty stuff.
Are you f
king serious?Long term exposure of plants and trees to Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to them?
V88Dicky said:
rhinochopig said:
But the real story is that long term exposure kills them eventually. So CO2 is highly toxic and can kill smaller plants in a matter of months and some of the bigger trees in a few hundred years. Nasty stuff.
Are you fking serious?Long term exposure of plants and trees to Carbon Dioxide is poisonous to them?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff