Not possible. You can't get there by "updating" the fantasy described in post 82, and you can't extricate yourself from the sewer you have been defending as your worldview in a couple of days of careless screwing around on this forum. You are beginning from a fictional worldview built from your own assumptions, a ridiculous fantasy you allowed others to shit into your brain for years, and which you have maintained (for example) over dozens of exposures to my actual posts over years of forum posting. You would get nowhere by "updating" post 82 here, even if you tried - the nonsense you described as "oft stated" by me was oft stated by you, your fellow Tribe, and no one else, for starters; it has never been stated - not even once, let alone "oft"- by me. You would have to discard that and every similar falsehood completely, not "update" them, and you have yet to attempt anything like that. "Updating" is useless - you would have to start over, such as by realizing that I have never posted anything even remotely resembling your idiotic description in post 82. Never. There is nothing there to "update". You haven't realized even that yet, and it would be just the beginning. It's like emerging from a cult religion - not easy, not quick, not something most people can do on their own. Example: You posted a potential starting point for that basic and fundamental alteration of your world view, a way to approach the deconstruction of your adolescent fantasy and its replacement by reasoning from evidence, right here in this thread: and you didn't even notice. The fact that you posted it obliviously, not in recognition of its bizarrely and multiply counterfactual nature, not even acknowledging its repetition of what I had just denigrated and mocked and contradicted, without even a nod to the immediate prior observation that such parroting lacked the reasoning from evidence whose absence has been so destructive and debasing to you and your Tribe, essentially demonstrates the hopelessness of any self-rescue attempts by you or your Tribe. If you can't read your own posts with comprehension and recognition of implication, how can you hope to read anyone else's? Which brings us around once again to the thread topic, a near-unique feature of my posting here and in many such places: the current point on the table is that CO2 growth boosting and tree planting is unlikely to work the way the OP attempts to hint it will. The OP presents findings from short term experiments and research under controlled conditions; other research into plant response to AGW (including the CO2 fertilization effect) seems to show that the benefits are more often small and temporary and dependent on careful, sophisticated, costly husbandry not found in natural environments or even standard First World agricultural circumstances, while the costs are large and long term and self-maintaining without human intervention. The Cedar Creek (Minnesota) research station results, for example, seem to show that the initial tree growth spurt from CO2 boosting in temperate zone woodlands turns into a variety of growth and productivity reductions soon after the end of the time period covered by the research graphed in the OP - when I read the OP here my initial suspicion was that the research behind it had been set up, scaled, and cut off as it was on purpose, a common type of deception employed by AGW propagandists over the years (for deceiving people about satellite temperature records, atmospheric temperature and precipitation trends, sea level rise, ice melt, desertification, several matters involving El Ninos, etc). But a second look stayed that conclusion - it could be innocent or self-deceived, given its academic context. The great American tradition of land grant universities focused on agriculture has been corrupted, but by naivety (including funding cuts and policies) as much as by scheme imho.
It is not difficult. It depends on leaf surface area. Obviously the surface area of a healthy thousand year old tree is much greater than a healthy 20 year old tree . look at the picture. The branches of that tree are the size of trees in themselves.
Do you have any data to indicate that leaf surface area is linearly proportional to CO2 uptake? Sounds very unlikely. The leaves on the bottom of a tree are going to do less than the leaves on the top of a tree, since they are in shadow. Do you have any data to indicate that a 1000 year old tree has 10x the leaf surface area of a 100 year old tree? Again, sounds very unlikely, since mature trees often grow up, not out. These sound like guesses you made, honestly.
http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/turner/pdfs/turner_fem_2000.pdf. It's complicated. In general: The primary limiting factor on leaf area in trees is water supply (that's why shaded rain forest trees tend to have larger leaves, exposed desert "trees" tend to have leaves reduced to spines, etc. It's also why the link there focuses on sapwood - sapwood is the water transport structure). Trees lose water and gather light energy (and heat stress, wind stress, herbivore and disease vulnerability, etc) through the two dimensional surface area of their leaves, which scales by the square of any one dimensional "size" parameter (such as DBH, in the link) (the scaling factor varies by factors such as species, environmental circumstances, and choice of parameter, which is almost never "age"). Meanwhile the structures necessary to transport and resupply the water are three dimensional - the cost of them scales with the cube of the "size" parameter (again: according to species and circumstances). The expected net result would be something similar to what we see in land animals whose leg bones have to support their weight, solid animals who have to keep their internal temperatures lower or higher than some limit, etc - bone strength varies as the square of the "size", bone mass varies as the cube, and sooner or later for any given architecture (varies by species and circumstance) the animal has to quit growing (or at least slow way down); metabolic heat loss varies as the surface area (square), metabolic heat production varies as the cube, sooner or later for any given biochemistry the animal has to grow differently or more slowly or something. The organism approaches a limit, apparently asymptotically in the case of trees. In the case of those big California trees I would not be surprised to see some actual shrinkage of the total leaf area with height past a certain limit in some circumstances - the tree might sometimes gain more by getting a little bit taller than by producing more leaf area at such "high" cost but having it shaded or wind/heat stressed. Just a speculation. Nobody I know of has even attempted to use age to predict leaf area in individual trees. The relationship is far too complicated - trees don't base much of anything directly on their cumulative age - and routinely produces order of magnitude variations in the total size of any given part of most trees at any given age.
Not really, that's why branches grow in the Fibonacci configuration. It affords maximum surface for exposure to light. All one needs to do is look. The branches growing from that 2000 year old tree (in the picture) are the size of full-grown trees themselves. Count them! Seems to me that the evidence is in plain sight. I admit that 10 x was a guess, but obviously the pictured tree has a considerable larger leaf surface area than a 100 year old "mature" tree with a 24" diameter base. Look at the specs; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariposa_Grove Generally speaking, as long as a tree is growing it needs larger leaf transpiration to draw water from the ground. How do large trees, such as redwoods, get water from their roots to the leaves? ..... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a/
anecdote: Building my studio: I bought wood from a lumber company that had permission to harvest downed redwoods. One of which had its roots wrapped around a dead-long buried redwood So their permit included a 500+ year old tree and one that lived @1500-600 years ago and still--absent a few inches of the surface -good lumber some of which is in my building Imagine that some of the lumber in my home may be over 1500 years old wow
I am sure it does. Now - do you have any evidence that leaf surface is proportional to CO2 uptake? Because I have been in a lot of forests, and I am pretty sure that the leaves down low get a lot less light. Which is why trees often grow REALLY tall - to out-compete other trees for light. So it's just your "feeling" and you have no data. People "felt" for centuries that the Earth was flat, and the Sun rotated around the Earth. I mean, just look at it! The evidence is in plain sight.
Exactly, that kinda proves my point. A 1000 year old tree is usually a lot taller than a 100 year old tree. And that also means greater leaf surface exposure in order to accommodate greater water volume from suction. Well, I can barely put my arms around one of those 24" branches, but I doubt you get very far trying to put your arms around earth. Why do you come up with false equivalences to prove me wrong? If you are right, you can do better than that, and then I can actually learn something.
Photosynthesis is really cool Photo; Greek for « Light » Synthesis; Greek for « Putting together » Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Step 1; Plants absorb water and minerals through their roots to make sap. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Step 2; The sap travels through the tree to the leaves. The leaves absorb CO2 and light. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Step 3; The leaves use chlorophyll and the sun’s energy to convert CO2 & water into glucose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Step 4; Oxygen is released and the glucose nourishes the tree, transported by the sap. Purifying the air as it grows Amazingly, to grow by one cubic metre, a tree will purify nearly one million cubic metres of air of its CO2 (assuming 0.03 to 0.04% of air is CO2).1 Trees are the best. https://ecotree.green/en/how-much-co2-does-a-tree-absorb A Tall tree requires more water (including minerals) than a short tree. Therefore it needs to transpirate more water, to create sufficient suction. Apparently, Industrial Hemp is even more efficient in this process, because it grows much faster than trees and converts more CO2 into glucose, while staying close to the ground. Evapotranspiration and the Water Cycle Transpiration: The release of water from plant leaves Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The typical plant, including any found in a landscape, absorbs water from the soil through its roots. That water is then used for metabolic and physiologic functions. The water eventually is released to the atmosphere as vapor via the plant's stomata — tiny, closeable, pore-like structures on the surfaces of leaves. Overall, this uptake of water at the roots, transport of water through plant tissues, and release of vapor by leaves is known as transpiration. Water also evaporates directly into the atmosphere from soil in the vicinity of the plant. Any dew or droplets of water present on stems and leaves of the plant eventually evaporates as well. Scientists refer to the combination of evaporation and transpiration as evapotranspiration, abbreviated ET. Credit: Salinity Management Organization https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/...ce_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects
The leaf area has little to do with the force of the draw, and it's the greater leaf area that would require the larger water volume - not the other way around. To a first approximation a tree with ten leaves will require replenishment of ten leaves worth of water loss via transpiration through the stomata, regardless of how far they are from the ground. The first problem with height is the cost of the transport structure. The higher the tree grows the more expensive the water transport structure becomes - per leaf unit area. Leaves that are high off the ground are more expensive to feed and water. Adding more leaves higher up costs more than adding them lower down. Eventually they don't pay for themselves. The force involved is not "suction" - suction will lift water less than 35 feet even at sea level. Depends on the species, and the circumstances. Some tree species live longer in circumstances that slow their growth, especially their growth in height - in those species the average two hundred year old tree might well be shorter than the average one hundred year old tree. (In northern forests near the tree line one can find whole forests of trees about four inches in diameter and maybe twenty feet tall, that are more than 150 years old - the tree ring counters use microscopes. These are species that normally would not live 150 years if planted in your yard, although they would grow more than a foot thick and more than fifty feet tall. In those species a fifty foot tree might commonly be half the age of a twenty footer. )
Explained in post #108 That example is not quite applicable to trees. This is not a column of water being sucked up. First, there is a small push from either the gradient of the ground and the push from swollen capillaries in the roots which when filled exert a pressure upward. But the primary mechanism is suction, the draw from the evaporation of water from the leaves. How do large trees, such as redwoods, get water from their roots to the leaves? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a/#
Life at the top is hard whether for emergent or canopy leaves the sun tries to bake you the wind tries to shred you and the rain beats down on you mercilessly so most canopy leaves are small and waxy with their stomata on the underside. and All else being equal(and it never is); stomatal density is inversely proportional to atmospheric CO2 and determined when the leaf is in it's infancy ................................ stoma are amazing they open and/or close to take in more food(CO2) and/or control water loss very much like a muscle ................ and I prefer trees to hemp because I like the shade and birdsong and the way they control the micro-climate under them
"usually" "greater exposure" Sounds like you've got some good theories. Now test them and see if there is any validity to them! Doing my own research, I've discovered that many trees put most of their energy into leaf production early on (when, after a fire or other clearing/propagation event, there's a lot of sun) and later put most of their energy into building trunk (to get their leaves above their competitors.) Which would indicate that a 1000 year old tree would not have anywhere near 10x the leaves of a 100 year old tree. Something else to check out. I am not "proving you wrong." I am giving you examples of other people who assumed things because they seemed right. Now start doing your own research.
An Old Tree Doesn't Get Taller, But Bulks Up Like A Bodybuilder Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The world's biggest trees, such as this large Scots pine in Spain's Sierra de Baza range, are also the world's fastest-growing trees, according to an analysis of 403 tree species spanning six continents. https://www.npr.org/2014/01/16/262479807/old-trees-grow-faster-with-every-year And as Hemp grows to maturity in 3-4 months, it is one of the fastest growing plants and effective CO2 scrubber, due to their sheer numbers, they are tiny little trees, with lots of leaves. This is a nice animation of the process. http://www.ontrack-media.net/gateway/biology/g_bm4l4as2.html
Good comparison! And no one would claim that a 100 year old bodybuilder has 10 times the surface area (or even 10 times the weight) of a 10 year old bodybuilder. Also note that due to the square/cubed law, doubling the weight does NOT double the surface area.
But it does require a larger transpiration surface area to feed the tree from below. The small appearing canopies are relatively small, but compared to much younger trees they are still considerably larger. Appreciating the old growth trees 26 May 2018 Angham Daiyoub 1_Definitions : Ancient, veteran and other definitions ( Ancient trees forum) …. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! An ancient oak tree ( Quercus calliprinos aging 600 years old according to Kubaili et al ) located in Banias _Syria..Photo credit Angham Daiyoub https://www.forest-monitor.com/en/appreciating-the-old-growth-trees/ Compare with 10yr old birch: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! https://www.chewvalleytrees.co.uk/products/detail/betula-pendula Right Tree in the Right Place Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Basic Spacing Guide TREE SIZE............................................ SPACING PLANT....... SPACING FROM WALL........ SPACING FROM CORNER OF 1-STORY BUILDING Small trees (30' or less).......6-15'................8-10'........................6-8' Medium trees (30-70')........30-40'...............15'..........................12' Large trees (70' or more)....40-50'...............20'..........................15' The basic spacing guide from various distances and various tree heights https://www.arborday.org/trees/righttreeandplace/size.cfm
