/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16123798
If CO2 is bad then why are professional commercial greenhouses allowed to use it?

>>15877008
>Yes, CO2 will impact positively crops in terms of size, but their nutritional value will decrease, since plants also require different nutrients
plants in CO2 enriched environments also root more quickly and deeper, thus they have access to all of the soil based nutrients they need. people who have no experience growing plants tend to have a lot of weird and wrong ideas about how plants grow and what they need to succeed. micronutrients in the soil is of vanishingly small importance compared to sunlight, moisture, warmth, root growth area and co2. the existence of a massive industry selling snake oil nutrient glop to is largely responsible for that misunderstanding. side by side comparisons of plant growth in unamended soil and plants grown with nutrient glop shows how useless the nutrient products really are.
not so for plants grown in co2 enhanced environments

>>15786019

>>15418948
Its been well known for a long time that adding CO2 improves the environment

>>15443511
which greenhouse is more productive?

CO2 is based

>>15359819
oil drilling helps the environment by adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
managing forests helps the environment by controlling wildfire risk

Lets get these CO2 levels up

423ppm is rookie numbers

>>15321410
>but you also learn that eventually the effect of these factors diminishes
you just pulled that out of your ass in defense of your retarded mad-for-television global warming narrative. in the real world, when money is on the line, professional agricultural operation use CO2 enriched atmospheres in their greenhouse operations.
1500-2000 PPM is the normal aim point for such operations