/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16123798]

where did the lie that CO2 is bad for the planet come from?

[Anonymous No.16123807]

the data speaks for itself

[Anonymous No.16123822]

Who gives a fuck about "the planet", I care about humans and it's not good for them. It can lead to reduced intelligence, see >>16123798

[Anonymous No.16123892]

>>16123822
you're an urbanite, you choose to live in an area with the highest co2 levels on the planet. if what you're saying is true then you and the rest of the urbanites are the dumbest people alive.
are you concerned enough about the issue to own a co2 meter?

[Anonymous No.16123918]

>>16123892
you're replying too seriously to a joke post

[Anonymous No.16123926]

>>16123798
Progressive "environmentalists" hate it when you do things that are good for nature like make it easier for plants to breathe / eat.
Plants grow larger in higher CO2 environments. Larger plants have deeper roots. Deeper roots make plants more drought-resistant.
Higher CO2 also means plants lose less water in the first place when they breathe in CO2.
The carbon trapped in the world's coal beds used to be part of the carbon cycle of life. Plants around the world grew larger faster.
It may be disruptive to humanity to increase CO2 levels dramatically, but the benefits of 800-1000ppm would far outweigh the costs.

[Anonymous No.16123935]

>>16123892
>are you concerned enough about the issue to own a co2 meter?
NTA, but living in a suburban area, CO2 meter is a great way of being able to gauge how fresh the air in my house is.
Overnight in my bedroom (2 people sleeping), the CO2 level hits 1500-2000ppm if there is no ventilation. With window slightly open it gets to 1100-1500ppm.
When Im airing out the house, I know I'm done when I get below 500ppm.
Great devices, I recommend them to everyone.

[Anonymous No.16123943]

>>16123798
Of course plants love CO2, but we're so retarded we paved over many of the areas with the most greenery and created heat islands in their places, so the greenhouse effect is not as regulated. And since we put more CO2 into the air then we can take out, or even that plants can currently take out, we're going to have a problem. A slow gradual problem, but still a problem. But of course the real issue isn't even greenhouse gasses, it's all the seriously rank pollutants that we have put into our atmospheres and lands and waterways.

[Anonymous No.16123951]

>>16123892
>if what you're saying is true, then the rest of the urbanites are the dumbest people alive
... um.. not the same anon, but... by that logic, what he's saying must be true, since we already know that urbanites are the dumbest people alive.

[Anonymous No.16123955]

>>16123943
And since the plants of the temperate zones aren't currently enough to take out the CO2, the Algae is going to be able to absorb more of the CO2, and that can lead to nitration which is bad for fish populations, and what's bad for fish populations and waterways, and what is bad for fish populations and life in waterways is bad for everything that uses those things. Which is everything.

[Anonymous No.16123959]

>>16123955
Now Geoengineering and planting more, creating urban rooftop greenery and other such things, might be able to abate this all, but it's such a complex network of cause and effect that it will be almost impossible to truly fix things without causing other worse problems, since humans are stupid.

[Anonymous No.16123975]

>>16123955
>the Algae is going to be able to absorb more of the CO2, and that can lead to nitration which is bad for fish populations
Tell me more about this nitration

[Anonymous No.16123976]

>>16123892
Anon... consider that the problem might not be that I might breathe in a slightly elevated amount of CO2 but rather that my entire country might flood or be consumed by wildfires whilst I starve due to crop failure

[Anonymous No.16123977]

>>16123976
But at least the ruins of humanity will be nice and green real quick!

[Anonymous No.16123989]

>>16123976
>flood or be consumed by wildfires whilst I starve due to crop failure
There is a non-zero risk of these things happening no matter what the CO2 levels are.
No-one knows with any certainty if these things will all become more or less likely as a result of higher CO2 levels.
>>16123977
Yes.

[Anonymous No.16124016]

[Anonymous No.16124061]

>>16124016
Retard take

[Anonymous No.16124125]

>>16123935
Is this why I keep getting headaches and feel like shit when sleeping with the windows closed in my room (no vents) but otherwise feel fine when the windows are open all these years?

[Anonymous No.16124127]

>>16124061
once plants die off this planet will become an even more hellish version of venus due to extra co2 deposits

[Anonymous No.16124129]

>>16124125
Basically yes, but it's probably got more to do with the decreased oxygen rather than the increased CO2. Headaches, dizziness lethargy etc are known outcomes of hypoxia. Higher CO2 levels without the lowered O2 levels, as we would experience if ambient global CO2 levels were raised, shouldn't cause the same problems.

[Anonymous No.16124296]

>>16124061
Where are the plants on venus?

[Anonymous No.16124351]

>>16124296
What's the surface air pressure / atmospheric density on venus compared to earth?

[Anonymous No.16124403]

Nobody in this thread has ever grown a plant or passed a science class.

[Anonymous No.16124513]

>>16124403
nobody has attempted to answer OPs question, so on that basis, yeah, they would fail an exam

[Anonymous No.16124533]

>>16124513
The answer is that it came from where he got his quote, which he won't provide. You may as well be asking what number you are thinking.

[Anonymous No.16124536]

>>16124533
hmmm well how about the NASA, the nazi organisation

[Anonymous No.16124544]

>>16124536
That's true statement and not what you wrote in the OP though. Do you have dyslexia?

[Anonymous No.16124548]

>>16124544
You're acting so cute anon
So do you think that climate change, whether happening or not, is bad for the planet? Or good?

[Anonymous No.16124553]

>>16124548
Why not read the answer from OP's source?

[Anonymous No.16124573]

>>16123798
USSR/homegrown leftwingers

[Anonymous No.16124617]

>>16123822
this is the opinion the fake environmentalists that have gained dominance really hold. they think humans are so above other living things.

[Anonymous No.16124652]

>>16124617
Right, but only enlightened humans who hold the same opinions as them. Most of us are useless eaters who can be dispensed with once AI and robotics are sufficiently advanced.

[Anonymous No.16124718]

>>16123926
>Progressive "environmentalists" hate it when you do things that are good for nature like make it easier for plants to breathe / eat.
Exactly.
Iron salting oceans could grow vast amounts of seaweed fit for human consumption and animal feed, but this is deemed bad. Shirkey's principle in action, and many want to deindustrialize the West.

[Anonymous No.16124725]

>>16123976
you're low IQ because you choose to live in the highest possible CO2 environment, so your opinions and predictions are guaranteed to be stupid and poorly formed

[Anonymous No.16124898]

>>16123798
Thank fuck we're choping, burning and poisoning all that green shit before it gets out of hand! Not only that, all those C3 niggers and CAM fags will be genocided by the heat!

[Anonymous No.16125452]

>>16124129
I have sleep apnea so it might just very well be the oxygen rather than the CO2

[Anonymous No.16125469]

>>16124725
Oh, so CO2 is also directly harmful to humans, you say? This is supposed to be an argument in favour of CO2 how, exactly? And if I'm able to spot the glaring flaws in your argument, what must you be huffing that's worse than CO2? Fucking fart-sniffer innit

[Anonymous No.16125473]

It's not about the content of CO2, it's about the rate of emission causing extreme weather and runoff effects.

[Anonymous No.16125484]

>>16125473
there's people living on volcanoes and some wipe from time to time. thirdies don't really care. firsties are the most affected

[Anonymous No.16125508]

>>16123822
Maybe you shouldn't have decimated all the flora that sucks up the co2 and produces oxygen?
>oy vey, it's the consequences of my own jewish actions, how could it be?!?!?

[Anonymous No.16125540]

>>16125473
>the rate of emission causing extreme weather
that doesn't happen, there is no evidence that its happening anywhere outside of your hysterical schizo imagination

[Anonymous No.16125552]

>>16123822
Leftists are funny creatures, they "care" about a little CO2 in the air but not about mercury, aluminium and gene modifiers in vaccines.

[Anonymous No.16125555]

>>16123798
>water is good for plants therefore it's impossible to drown
You idiots.

[Anonymous No.16125630]

I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere. CO2 will not increase plant growth outside of highly controlled conditions.

The law of the minimum governs plant growth. It states that growth is limited by the most scarce factor. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.

https://www.cropnutrition.com/resource-library/the-law-of-the-minimum/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum

https://soilsfacstaff.cals.wisc.edu/facstaff/barak/soilscience326/lawofmin.htm

[Anonymous No.16125657]

>>16125630
translation: giving a plant more CO2 won't help it thrive if there are other things limiting it, such as not enough sunlight, water, or space

I agree with this
But you must break free from the lie that producing CO2 is evil

[Anonymous No.16125664]

>>16125657
You shouldn't keep shitting when the toilet is clogged

[Anonymous No.16125677]

>>16125664
I think you're being disingenuous, rude, and not just unproductive to this important argument, but disruptive
perhaps you don't really care about this issue, and care more about being seen as correct or intelligent
well we all suffer more because of people like you

[Anonymous No.16125693]

>>16125657
>>16125677
Exactly the opposite, you illiterate moron.you can't even parse the picture demonstrating the law of the minimum?

Nobody cares about your feelings.

[Anonymous No.16125700]

>>16125693
I understood your image, and I simplified it for the sake of everyone
But my point is that it's only tangential to the popular argument that CO2 is bad
If you really want to discuss your barrel, then okay fine, please tell me what you think the smallest planks are which are limiting plantlife right now

[Anonymous No.16125703]

>>16125677
The point
Your head

[Anonymous No.16125758]

CO2 where probably really bad for it, but it built up and the mother earth had to fold and catalyse it and now it's good for it.

[Anonymous No.16125762]

Consider the carboniferous period
Oxygen was around the same level as it was today, but CO2 was much higher
as a result, the surface of the planet was full of thick forests (and giant insects)

[Anonymous No.16125766]

>>16125700
Typically water, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the limiting factors to growth. Adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does nothing to help plant growth for the vast majority of plants on Earth.

[Anonymous No.16125777]

CO2 is bad for human civilization and its continued existence

[Anonymous No.16125780]

>>16125766
I thought most of our atmosphere was nitrogen? How can that be a limiting factor? Or is it nitrogen in a different form?

[Anonymous No.16125952]

>>16125780
Plants need it in a soluble form. That's why we use the Haber Bosch process to make nitrogen fertilizers from atmospheric nitrogen. Nitrogen fixing bacteria can provide a significant amount of nitrogen for a field provided that there are enough host plants, but that doesn't mean that any random patch of land will have an ideal amount of nitrogen.

[Anonymous No.16125970]

>>16125952
Ah yes
As I understand, one of the best sources of this is in fertilizer made from natural gas
sadly, natural gas is another thing deemed evil by the powers that be, and is slowly being phased out

[Anonymous No.16126048]

>>16124351
Where are the plants on venus?

[Anonymous No.16126087]

>>16123807
This is kind of saying you don't think there's an upper safe limit to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you just keep adding CO2 it just keeps getting better all the way up to 100% CO2 where everything is the best

[Anonymous No.16126091]

>>16125630
CO2 often IS the limiting factor, and when it's not CO2, it's usually water. Higher CO2 levels allow plants to use water more efficiently by not losing as much when they breathe, and they grow longer roots which allow them access to deeper water.

[Anonymous No.16126105]

>>16124351
I don't know, but earth is 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere now and Venus is 96.5% CO2 in its atmosphere. About 150 years ago earth was 0.02% CO2. Clearly we're a long way from 96.5%, but we don't need to get to 96.5%, the runaway greenhouse effect begins apparently at about 10x from where we are now. So we have a lot of time, I don't really know how long, but it's highly unlikely going to be this century

[Anonymous No.16126112]

>>16126091
that picture is like saying because having 2 drinks of alcohol one after the other makes me feel good, then having 1000 drinks of alcohol one after the other can only make me feel 1000x good

[Anonymous No.16126127]

>>16123798
Yes, C02 is plant food.
We must aim for a 100% C02 atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.16126129]

>>16126127
hmm but then the plants will try to convert it into oxygen
so we should destroy all plants first

[Anonymous No.16126171]

>>16126105
Even if our atmosphere was 100% CO2 we wouldn't reach the temperature of Venus because our atmosphere is 1/90th the density.
There's no proof that "runaway greenhouse effect" is even a thing that can happen on Earth.
>The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm!
Let's split the difference and say 6000ppm is the most Earth has ever had. That's much more than 10x current levels, and we didn't turn into Venus.

[Anonymous No.16126185]

>>16126087
aquariums normally have 2-4ppm of CO2 and you can push it to 30-35ppm for fish. if you don't have fish you can go even higher. but a 30ppm should be fine with fish. that's 10x increase in concentration.

[Anonymous No.16126198]

>>16125630
>I'm tired of seeing this stupid lie everywhere.
I am sure you are.
In real science, however, facts and measurements trump theories and hypotheses. If the hypothesis fails to explain observations (>>16123807) the theory is stone cold dead.
Climate stuff differs in that the warmeristas just complain about seeing stupid facts.

[Anonymous No.16126201]

>>16126112
>that picture is like saying
Typical low grade propaganda. Face realities, it is "like daying", measurements are measurements. And drop the whataboutisms.

[Anonymous No.16126284]

>>16126048
Where is the life on venus?

[Anonymous No.16126294]

>>16125780
The problem is that N2 is ridiculously hard to 'digest' and effectively an inert gas. That's why your own body isn't affected at all by 70% nitrogen. Despite being surrounded by it, plants can't use it. Water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

[Anonymous No.16126300]

>>16126087
>If you just keep adding CO2 it just keeps getting better all the way up to 100% CO2 where everything is the best
We couldn't do that even if we wanted.
1) fuels would become so scarce and expensive that the renewable shit would naturally become the preferred economic solution long before we reached the atmospheric optimum for plants
2) there is a negative feedback loop keeping the concentration from getting too high because plants will pull more CO2 out of the air as we get closer to their optimum

I would get worried only if our use of fuels wasn't decreasing by the time we reach the optimum for plants.

[Anonymous No.16126319]

>>16126171
the "runaway greenhouse effect" is just a meme, if it were real then it would've happened in the past when earth's atmospheric CO2 level were far, far higher than they are currently.

[Anonymous No.16126328]

>>16126284
Venus is almost ALL greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.16126386]

>>16126284
Why won't you just answer the question? Are you really that asshurt about the fact that CO2 chokes planets to death?

[Anonymous No.16126410]

>>16126386
Stop pretending that Venus is a hell scape because of CO2 and not because it's atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's.
>>16126328
Stop ignoring the density of Venus' atmosphere. It's like comparing steam to ice.

[Anonymous No.16126414]

>>16126386
>Are you really that asshurt about the fact that CO2 chokes planets to death?
Only planets that are dead to begin with.

[Anonymous No.16126433]

With the existence of life a Venus-type atmosphere for Earth is completely impossible. At absolute worst reckless pollution could raise the Earth's temperature in a few thousand years. To really fuck over Earth you need extinction of plankton, from highly acidic oceans. That means acid rain needs to stop. Acid rain is totally different from global warming. Solving it means we need to wipe Beijing off the face of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.16126441]

>>16126328
most of the co2 on venus is supercritical, its not a gas

[Anonymous No.16126472]

>>16126300
Carbon hydrates are generated abiotic by a big part. And I think solar (especially for chemical plants to produce Methan and fromse sugars) and nuclear are the way even if fuel becomes too expensive to pump.

[Anonymous No.16126523]

>>16126441
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

[Anonymous No.16126764]

>>16123976
Religious doomsday bullshit. Embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.16126768]

>>16126433
A Venus type atmosphere is completely possible and we're reaching the tipping point for it. Photosynthesis is impossible near the equator if global temperatures go above 10 degrees on average, and it only gets worse from there due to widespread fires that burn away all oxygen until everything suffocates.

[Anonymous No.16126778]

>>16123798
Blame Paul R. Ehrlich. That retarded moron first pushed for global cooling, later global warming, climate change, etc. Only idiots believe in that shit.

[Anonymous No.16126786]

>>16126778
>global cooling
>global warming
Nobody ever used these terms outside of the media. It's always been climate change.

[Anonymous No.16126802]

Isn't OP saying CO2 is good for plants, not necessarily for planet?

[Anonymous No.16126837]

>>16126091
No it isn't. Are you lying or just stupid?

[Anonymous No.16126840]

>>16126091
>>16126201
>Typical low grade propaganda

[Anonymous No.16126956]

>>16126802
I'm OP, and I'd say that what is good for planets is also good for the planet

[Anonymous No.16126991]

>>16126768
>A Venus type atmosphere is completely possible and we're reaching the tipping point for it
Source: I had a scawy dweam :(

[Anonymous No.16126992]

>>16126837
When reality conflicts with your hypothesis, it's time to change your hypothesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282867205_Winners_always_win_Growth_of_a_wide_range_of_plant_species_from_low_to_future_high_CO2

[Anonymous No.16127000]

>>16126992
I don't particularly like the guy you're arguing with, but these experiments aren't disproving what he is saying
as you can see from your own images, there's minimal difference between ambient CO2 and high CO2, suggesting that there's something else limiting further growth

[Anonymous No.16127008]

>>16127000
>minimal difference between ambient CO2 and high CO2
They also maxed out every plant on nutrients too, so nutrients weren't a limiting factor. Remember, these plants were harvested at only 3 weeks, and already there is a difference. This would only compound with time in real world scenario.
And observe how tiny the 160ppm plants are despite an abundance of every single other growing condition. The climate cultists want us to be closer to 160ppm than to modern ambient levels.

[Anonymous No.16127020]

>>16127008
nta and I agree today's values are far from catastrophic, but the real question is about the upper limit.
there is an upper limit, that much is certain. where exactly is that upper limit is a more nuanced conversation. why? well because it's not so clear. at some point there will be some extra effects vs today. how much can we deal with them? how much life starts to get wiped? can we live with that?
the issue with upper limit is that it becomes a resource. if there's a limit you want to get as close as possible to it (because energy is cheaper) but not fuck it up.
thinking people running shit will leave anything on the table is retarded, highschool commie flower power retarded. if it's a resource it will be abused as fuck. question is, how much can it be abused?
as it stands now, we're absolutely fine, but (((they))) know there is an upper limit, that energy requirements for their shit will skyrocket, and that there's no way around it. that's the real issue, actually, the fact that energy that increases carbon is cheaper.

[Anonymous No.16127049]

>>16127020
>nta and I agree today's values are far from catastrophic, but the real question is about the upper limit.
The catastrophic level for CO2 is anything below 200ppm, see the plants on the left >>16126992
>there is an upper limit, that much is certain
Is it? According to which theory or experiment?

[Anonymous No.16127052]

>>16127049
>Is it? According to which theory or experiment?
I mean bro, can you breathe 99% CO2? cmon

[Anonymous No.16127053]

>>16127049
>Is it? According to which theory or experiment?
https://www.2hraquarist.com/blogs/choosing-co2-why/co2-fine-tuning-3-techniques
just do it yourself in an aquarium. get fishes, plants, start pumping CO2 and watch fishes die. do it enough times and you get a good idea about the concentration where they start dying. plants grow larger but no more fish in there, they can't survive the conditions.
there is an upper limit, don't be a retard

[Anonymous No.16127054]

>>16127052
Please remain serious "bro". By what mechanism is it likely, or even possible, that CO2 is going to go from 450 parts per million to 999,000 parts per million?
Cmon, 200 years of human industry has barely added 100ppm.
You don't do your credibility any favours when you bring up ludicrous, nonsensical hypothetical like "99% CO2 atmosphere"

[Anonymous No.16127056]

>>16127054
read link from >>16127053 and stop being retarded anon. it's not cool.

[Anonymous No.16127058]

also notice the aquarium is a very small and limited environment, with few species. few types of fish snails and maybe some shrimps. you go past certain levels and they die.
the earth is a more complicated ecosystem, with way way more interactions and inertia and shit. I'm in the camp that earth can tolerate way higher levels than today, but there is a clear fucking limit, stop being idiots

[Anonymous No.16127059]

>>16127053
Your article recommends boosting plant aquariums to over 20,000 ppmv equivalent. 35ppmm CO2 in solution is around 20,000 ppmv. That's around 4 times higher than the highest level Earth's history and about 40 times higher than today.
Once again, a ludicrous argument with.no basis in reality.
Climate science has made lots of predictions, surely they have some credible estimates on future CO2 levels?

[Anonymous No.16127061]

>>16127058
>>16127056
The level recommended in that aquarium article is 35 ppmm. Please look up the gaseous equivalent of 35ppmm and then tell me if you think that's a credible level that CO2 might reach.

[Anonymous No.16127062]

>>16127059
water has 2-3ppm CO2 which is in equilibrium with what there's in atmosphere today. most water life tolerates 10x increase and starts dying.
how much CO2 in air translates to 10x increase in water CO2? simple as. that's the upper limit. once that limit is reached in air, water life starts dying. quit being a faggot. I was in "eco retards are gay" but the no limit retards such as yourself are also as gay as eco retards. fuck both of you

[Anonymous No.16127063]

>>16127061
the recommended level is the actual maximum fucking level you can have CO2 at before fish start fucking dying. it's the absolute top permissible limit if you want fucking life in your aquarium, different than plants. that increase, is 10x, from 3ppm which is normal for today's CO2 in atmophere, to 30ppm absolute max before life starts fucking dying, you fucking moron

[Anonymous No.16127069]

>>16127062
>but the no limit retards such as yourself are also as gay as eco retards. fuck both of you
If the upper limit is a ludicrous number like 20,000ppm then we don't need to worry.
1ppm of of global atmospheric CO2 is 7.8 gigatonnes, or 7,800 million tonnes. To add another 19550ppm, we would need to release over 150,000 gigatonnes of CO2.
At current rates of emission, it's going to take over 4000 years to reach 20,000ppm.
Thats assuming that we don't improve our energy technology/infrastructure in anyway to decarbonise it in the next 4 millennium.
It's just not credible.

[Anonymous No.16127074]

>>16127069
listen, I'm not stating the upper limit, I'm just saying it exists. which is a whole different mindset than thinking it doesn't.
also have no idea if water CO2 has linear relationship to air CO2 concentration. if it has, means we get 4000ppm in air and life starts dying, at least in water. don't know if it's 4000 ppm or 8000 or actually 30000 ppm before water life starts dying. but if it's possible life starts dying at 10x today's values, we have a big problem, with estimated energy use with all the AI bullshit and war games and everything else.

[Anonymous No.16127970]

>>16127063
>I use the f-word for emphasis because I'm an emotional basket case on the verge of a chimpout
sup reddit

[Anonymous No.16127992]

Reminder that during the highest period of biomass in Earth's known history, CO2 levels were over twice what the worst basedentist predictions say will end the world.

[Anonymous No.16127995]

>>16126105
>>16126171
>comparing a planet with no plate tectonics and an incredibly massive atmosphere to a remarkably thin-crusted and geologically-active planet with a relatively thin atmosphere for its mass

I don't care where you stand on climate change, trying to draw a parallel to Venus is just stupid and will make people assume you're lying about EVERYTHING you say. It's just a bad way to make your case.

[Anonymous No.16128300]

>>16127992
think all of today's life is still adapted to those levels? some life might still be ok, other will surely wipe

[Anonymous No.16128316]

>>16128300
>living creatures have been able to adapt to environmental changes for the past billion years but for some reason they're not able to do that anymore
lol do you actually believe that? your belief in evolution is conditional and you drop the belief when it doesn't your desire to claim impending global warming doom?

[Anonymous No.16128323]

>>16128316
think ALL life will adapt in 20-30 years to massive shift in CO2 concentration?

[Anonymous No.16128362]

>>16128323
How much do you think CO2 levels are going to change in 30 years? It took 200 years to go from 300ppm to 450.

[Anonymous No.16128373]

>>16128362
I clearly don't know, I'd just pull it out of my ass even if I were to guess. But ok I'll give you that I don't see how we could double it that fast.

[Anonymous No.16128387]

[Anonymous No.16129751]

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

[Anonymous No.16129756]

they call you by a different name now, "new denier", it's where they took all your arguments and said that's new denialism. any argument you can muster will be labeled racist or nudenier or something else bad

[Anonymous No.16129798]

>>16125473
It's not really extreme weather though. It's just weather. Problem is it might destroy infrastructure and cost a lot of money. That's all they give a fuck about.

[Anonymous No.16130754]

>>16128362
how many species have gone extinct as a result of that massive change?

[Anonymous No.16132096]

>>16130754
None whatsoever, CO2 benefits the environment by making plants grow faster and it has no downside at all.

[Anonymous No.16132099]

>>16132096
>it has no downside at all.
that's just retarded.

[Anonymous No.16132140]

>>16132099
NTA, the downside is that it might have a temporary destabilising effect on weather patterns, but no-one can prove if the apparent increased variability/extremes of weather are down to CO2 changes, land use changes, natural cycles, or, if its a combination of these factors, which ones have the strongest weighting.
When it comes to modelling traditional linear physical systems like rocket launches or the forces acting upon a bridge or a skyscraper, we can simulate and model those things precisely enough to know with 5 or 6 sigma certainty what will happen under X or Y conditions, and direct comparisons and tweaks off factors can be performed.
The global climate is too chaotic and complex for us to be able to simulate a counterfactual reality to ask the question: but how would things look if A had never happened or if we had done B instead. We only have hypotheses which are impossible to test about how responsible CO2 is for apparent variability instead of say land use changes.
It's naive to pretend that the continent-spanning ways in which humans have energy and matter modifying effects on the environment don't have a massive, fixed impact on the climate. Just consider albedo, water runoff, verticality.

[Anonymous No.16132142]

>>16132140
2
If you believe in determinism and that there is no such thing as free will, you just also believe all the arguments underpinning the fact that wind farms change the weather by absorbing kinetic energy from the atmosphere. Every single little microscopic level of how we change the world around us has a direct and fundamental and MACROSCOPIC effect on our immediate and long term environment. It's psychotic and delusional to think that plant food that has existed at 5x today's levels, that was on course to dip below extinction level the next few times that the glaciers advance, is somehow our problem, and not the polluted wild areas and invasive species and contaminated food supplies.
Everything else we ever do has such a bigger effect on everything on our carbon that it doesn't matter, and measures to combat climate change often end up worsening carbon footprints and impoverishing people, which directly lowers theirs proclivity to care for their immediate environment for aesthetic or holistic reasons.

[Anonymous No.16132151]

>>16132140
>>16132142
listen you fucking retard, I'm not reading your shit blog post. if you aren't able to understand there is an upper limit I'm not bothering engaging with you in any serious discussion.

[Anonymous No.16132195]

>>16132140
>the apparent increased variability/extremes of weather are down to CO2 changes
the apparent increased variability/extremes of weather are down to propaganda, there is no scientific data to back up the idea, the data says the opposite

[Anonymous No.16132206]

>>16132195
Statistically, somewhere in the world is going to go through SOME kind of "freak" weather or a divergence from long term trends just about all of the time. Permacrisis.
But it's always been that way

[Anonymous No.16132919]

>>16132206
If the local weather data set is 90 years old then you'll have record high temperatures 4 times a year

[Anonymous No.16132980]

>>16132919
How come meteorologists and "climate experts" don't mention statistical realities like this whenever record X is used as proof for why we need to reduce our carbon footprint by not having children ie laying down and rotting.

[Anonymous No.16133216]

>>16132195
>10^4 knots^2
What kind of energy is this??

[Anonymous No.16134141]

>>16133216
air mass movement

[Anonymous No.16134750]

>>16123798
>CO2 is bad for the planet
It's not, the planet keeps going, one mass extinction after another, this is just the 6th. Global warming will be, and is already being bad for us.

[Anonymous No.16135232]

>>16132980
Because they're paid to mislead people

[Anonymous No.16135649]

>>16134750
it's funny to me that the lie of "global warming" became so deep and widespread, that their attempt to change it to the more believable and ambiguous term "climate change" failed

[Anonymous No.16135655]

>>16135649
>"climate change"
that was a GW Bush administration implementation to avoid the term "global warming", you realize that, yes? It wasn't the scientific community who came up with that term.
(By the way, CO2 greenhouse global warming is not a lie.)

[Anonymous No.16135660]

>>16135655
I didn't know that, but I'm willing to believe that's true
so long as we're discussing conspiracies, which government was it that started seeding the atmosphere to block out the sun? nobody cares about man made climate change when they do it, right? it's just a tool to restrict citizens and change fuel prices

[Anonymous No.16135681]

>>16135660
>which government was it that started seeding the atmosphere to block out the sun?
Though there have been tests, as far as I know, no government has started such a program.

[Anonymous No.16136648]

>>16134750
CO2 doesn't cause mass extinctions, for most of the history of life on Earth, atmospheric CO2 fractions have been far, far higher than they currently are. If CO2 caused mass extinctions then all life would have long since perished

[Anonymous No.16136700]

>>16136648
>atmospheric CO2 fractions have been far, far higher than they currently are
CO2 in the atmosphere is not the only factor influencing the climate. The Sun also used to be weaker, biosphere used to be different, there were different aerosols etc. on geologic timescales.
Read a book on paleoclimate and evolutionary history of life before spewing such nonsense.

[Anonymous No.16136839]

>>16136700
Based

[Anonymous No.16136894]

>>16126091
does this even control for temperature

[Anonymous No.16136935]

>>16136700
Professional commercial greenhouses all run their atmospheres at 1500-2000ppm CO2 because thats the atmospheric CO2 fraction that plants do best at. They don't need to supplement any gasses other than CO2 to get the best effects.
Anyone who wants there to be less CO2 in the atmosphere than there currently is, is someone who hates plants and who hates nature

[Anonymous No.16137357]

>>16136935
>They don't need to supplement any gasses other than CO2 to get the best effects.
You are a retard who has no idea what affects plant growth.

[Anonymous No.16138282]

>>16136935
I work in a greenhouse agriculture research program and that is exactly correct. Its also worth pointing out that plants growing in CO2 enhanced atmospheres require less water than plants growing in unmodified atmospheres do.

>>16137357
You have never grown a plant

[Anonymous No.16138293]

>>16138282
You are a larper and both of you are morons. Plants only use oxygen and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Everything else comes from the soil. Why would you need to supplement a plant with a gas it doesn't interact with?

Moreover plants do not benefit from carbon dioxide unless all other limiting factors have been tended to which necessitates highly controlled conditions like a greenhouse.
>>16125630

[Anonymous No.16138297]

plants benefit from increased CO2 but other life doesn't. it kind of starts dying at higher concentrations of CO2.
what is this effect named? where there's one statement and in short time there's two extremes formed around that statement, both as idiotic, both completely missing the point? makes it hard to properly judge the subject, becomes way more expensive on all resources, material, attention, time. there has to be a name for this retarded phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.16138347]

>>16138297
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_industry_playbook

[Anonymous No.16138351]

>>16138347
but this place is practically dead as compared to reddit and other normie places. why tf would they care three nerds talking about random_subject on a mongolian basket weaving forum

[Anonymous No.16138374]

>>16138351
They don't. The propaganda is disseminated elsewhere and part of it is teaching useful idiots to spread that propaganda elsewhere. They convince people like OP that they need to challenge and expose the scientific conspiracy and people like OP figure that /sci/ is probably a good place to fight globalism and so he makes a thread. They rely on impassioning these people to spur them to action using slogans like "eat the bugs, live in the pod" and "you are the carbon they want to reduce" and so on.

[Anonymous No.16138415]

>>16123798
Jews wanting to profit from the air that we breathe.

[Anonymous No.16138450]

>>16138374
https://www.psycom.net/paranoid-schizophrenia

[Anonymous No.16138454]

>>16138297
>other life doesn't. it kind of starts dying at higher concentrations of CO2.
Right, thats why all of the animals on Earth died 30 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 was over 1500ppm.

[Anonymous No.16138494]

>>16138454
>Fast man-made transitions will go as well as slow natural decisions.
Trump that argument I'll be Biden my time here.

[Anonymous No.16138495]

>>16138494
>tips

[Anonymous No.16138579]

>>16138347
https://youtu.be/hqiCLuOtXts?t=8m10s

[Anonymous No.16138831]

>>16138450
>>16138454
>>16138579
Useful idiots right on que.

[Anonymous No.16139242]

>>16138494
Find me a single plant or animal that won't survive being artificially enclosed in a 2000ppm environment. If an individual can adapt to 5x current levels, then a population can adapt to 2x raise spread over 100 years.

[Anonymous No.16139252]

>>16123926
have you ever been in a green house? it sucks doesn't it? now that greenhouse is managed soo it had a balanced level O2 in it
imagine what happens if the greenhouse didn't have any checks or balances to stop it from being unbreathable
wouldn't that be fucked anon

[Anonymous No.16139266]

>>16139242
When plants grow faster they need more nutrients which depletes the soil which limits growth and limits how nutritious the plants are to eat which limits animals. Meanwhile rainfall becomes less evenly distributed throughout the year. Instead there will be long periods with a lot of rainfall followed by long periods with little to no rainfall. This requires a lot of adaptation.

[Anonymous No.16139269]

>>16139242
are you genuinely retarded or just pretending?

[Anonymous No.16139271]

The understanding that excessive carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions can have detrimental effects on the planet's climate and ecosystems is based on scientific research and evidence accumulated over many decades. The idea that CO2 is harmful to the environment is not a lie; rather, it is a well-established scientific consensus supported by a vast body of research.

Here's a brief overview of how this understanding developed:

1. **Greenhouse effect:** The greenhouse effect is a natural process whereby certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere, including CO2, trap heat from the sun, keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth would be much colder. However, human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas, have significantly increased the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced warming of the planet.

2. **Climate science:** Scientists have been studying the Earth's climate for centuries, but it wasn't until the mid-20th century that the link between CO2 emissions and global warming became more apparent. In the 1960s and 1970s, researchers began to recognize the potential impacts of human-induced climate change, and by the 1980s, scientific consensus was emerging that CO2 emissions from human activities were contributing to global warming.

3. **Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):** Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC assesses the scientific literature on climate change and provides comprehensive reports summarizing the current state of knowledge. These reports, based on the work of thousands of scientists from around the world, have consistently highlighted the role of CO2 emissions in driving climate change and the urgent need for mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Anonymous No.16139424]

>>16124127
Except plants grow more when there is more CO2.

[Anonymous No.16139481]

>>16139252
You don't need to change the O2 level of a greenhouse to be able to breathe in 2000ppm
>>16139266
Imagine trying to make faster, more productive plants into a bad thing. The planet is literally MADE of nutrients, look up rock weathering.

[Anonymous No.16139488]

>>16139481
>The planet is literally MADE of nutrients
Oh sure but that doesn't mean these nutrients automatically go where they are needed so that requires human intervention which requires money which means governments raising taxes to spend billions on climate change and that's not what you want. So are you going to take care of the faster growing plants for free?

[Anonymous No.16139496]

>>16139488
Less nutrient dense plants doesn't affect me because i filter all my plant food through ruminants, and then eat the ruminants instead.

[Anonymous No.16139518]

>>16139496
Obvious troll is obvious.

[Anonymous No.16139546]

>>16136648
I think you misinterpreted me, I wasn't implying that CO2 is causing the current mass extinction, but it will surely help

[Anonymous No.16140050]

>>16139518
>he disagrees with me about carbon and eating animals, he must be a troll!
Lmao

[Anonymous No.16140128]

>>16139496
>it doesnt affect me so fuck the entire planet
fascinating

[Anonymous No.16140448]

>>16123807
wow, do plants crave CO2?

[Anonymous No.16140477]

>>16140448
As much as they crave Brawndo

[Anonymous No.16140805]

>>16140128
It's a non issue for the rest of the planet too. If my potatoes grow to 80g of carb each instead of 50g of carb, but the micronutrients are simply more diluted, then my 80g potato is technically "less nutrient dense" if you're looking at vitamins and minerals, despite having more macronutrients than the smaller potato.
Which plants are you even worried about? They're perfectly sufficient to be eaten when grown artificially at higher CO2 ppm.

[Anonymous No.16141150]

>>16140805
>Hurr durr just eat twice as much food!
You truly are a moron.

[Anonymous No.16141183]

>>16141150
Nobody said that.
Which plants are you even worried about?

[Anonymous No.16141185]

Why should I care about global warming when the most powerful decisionmakers don't?

[Anonymous No.16141186]

>>16141185

[Anonymous No.16141711]

>>16140805
plants in grown in high CO2 environments are healthier than their control study counterparts. they root deeper and consequently have access to more nutrients than those in a CO2 starved atmosphere do. if plants in high CO2 environments were nutrient poor then all life on earth would have dropped dead of nutrient deficiency during the many millions of years in history when this planet had far, far higher atmospheric CO2 levels

[Anonymous No.16141776]

>>16123798
It came from liars

[Anonymous No.16141913]

>>16140805
what point are you even trying to make? multiple people in the thread showed how the entire eco system would collapse
already we are undergoing multiple mass extinction events
will life end? no but we will and i kind of like existing
>>16141185
because you will die along them regardless of who is the cause

[Anonymous No.16141983]

>the thread is just variations of look at my correlation and ignore everything else
Holy shit, to think these midwits vote and graduate uni

[Anonymous No.16141987]

>fire make some plant germinate
>therefore fire good for planet
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Anonymous No.16142059]

>>16141183
How do you think you're going to get enough micronutrients, retard?
>Hurr durr, food now has half the nutrients per calorie but that doesn't mean I need to eat more calories to get the same nutrition!

[Anonymous No.16142063]

>>16141711
Only when they're grown in highly controlled conditions.
>>16125630

[Anonymous No.16142939]

>>16142063
wrong

[Anonymous No.16142961]

Plants would grow more easily, but because of the higher temperature there would be less of the Earths surface that they could grow on. so less plants.

[Anonymous No.16143017]

>>16123798
it's not "bad for the plants" it's that plants are, in general, well adapted to current atmospheric CO2. extremely high or extremely low CO2 reduces fecundity. there's a small bump as it increases to about 320-450 ppm depending on the species. after that it crashes quickly.

humans do great when you increase O2 by about 5%, but much more than that and we struggle to function as normal. it's the same with plants and CO2.

a 1000ppm CO2 level wouldn't eradicate plants, but it would/will pretty severely impact our crops.

[Anonymous No.16143019]

>>16143017
i should add, that these things would most likely be temporary, until the plants most well adapted to high CO2 took over. that's a tens of thousands years long process though. if we starve before that we're SOL.

[Anonymous No.16143171]

>>16123798
They want a universal carbon tax to fund the NWO

[Anonymous No.16143814]

>>16142939
According to who?

[Anonymous No.16144108]

>>16125657
i wonder how do people like you function with brains this size
how do you even arrive at the retarded conclusion that bumping industrial amounts of CO2 is not only not deadly, but somehow good for the planet
how do you breathe daily without forgetting about it?

[Anonymous No.16144600]

>>16125657
so it's good unless some retards blocks the sun and cut off access to fresh water, but what are the odds of that happening!
oh wait, oh no...

[Anonymous No.16144619]

>>16123798
It baffles me how intentionally stupid a group of purported math and science enthusiasts are.

[Anonymous No.16144805]

>>16126328
Venus's atmosphere is mostly supercritical CO2, its not even a gas. If you want to compare Earth to a planet with an almost 100% CO2 gas atmosphere why choose Venus when Mars is available? Mars has a gaseous atmosphere that contains over 3000% more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth has
and Mars has no measurable greenhouse effect, this proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.16144815]

>>16144108
How do you even arrive at the retarded conclusion that bumping industrial amounts of CO2 is not only not good for the planet, but somehow deadly?

[Anonymous No.16144817]

I'm so smart - I'm endangered by upper beings that want to exploit my mind to find new things

[Anonymous No.16144828]

>>16144805
you can't have a greenhouse effect if there's no greenhouse

[Anonymous No.16145340]

>>16144828
The greenhouse in this metaphor then would be an atmosphere of sufficient density, ie Earth's.
We can agree that Venus is just as irrelevant a comparison as Mars, because Venus' atmosphere is 90x denser than Earth's.
Any high school physics student can tell you that, at some level, there isn't much difference when it comes to temperature and pressure when it comes to matter.
Just use your ideal gas law equations and assume that Venus' surface pressure is 92,000 mb and is 100% n2 by mass. What temperature would you expect at the surface, even with zero greenhouse effect from CO2's radiative forcing?
Remember, you still have dense clouds of sulphuric acid extending from 30 miles to 42 miles in the atmosphere. Twelve miles of thick cloud constantly covering and insulating the planet. Remember to use what we know about the surfacing warming potential of thick clouds on Earth.

[Anonymous No.16145357]

>>16144805
>>16144828
Both of you are completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.16145865]

[Anonymous No.16146211]

>>16145865
Nope. It's humans.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/

[Anonymous No.16146536]

>>16145340
The atmosphere of Venus isn't gas, most of the CO2 on Venus is supercritical, which means that the standard physics 101 equations you're familiar with don't apply

[Anonymous No.16146659]

>>16146211
That article just says its "mostly" humans. It doesn't deny that higher CO2 is contributing.

[Anonymous No.16146672]

>>16123798
Legitimate question. Trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen. Deforestation reduces trees. Less CO2 absorption. So more CO2 in the air.

How much of the increased CO2 is due to deforestation?

[Anonymous No.16146716]

>>16146659
Are you illiterate? Driving does not mean mostly. It's all humans driving the greening. It's mostly China and India putting in the work.

[Anonymous No.16146829]

>>16146716
>It's mostly China and India putting in the work.
The images in your NASA link show greening globally, lots of it in places with little or no people like siberia and Northern/Western Canada.
There's also the fact that the places in India and China being greened were almost completely arid and bare of vegetation before, so it doesn't take a lot of additional vegetation to create a large % change in leaf area.

[Anonymous No.16146835]

>>16146716
>>16146829
The paper that the NASA article is summarising doesn't discount CO2's contribution to greening, so I don't know what qualifies a /sci/ anon to say that its not contributing
>Cropland greening is mainly attributable to the direct driver [human land use changes] , without discounting the minor but opposing contributions of the indirect drivers (CO2 fertilization has been reported to increase crop production while climate change has been reported to increase or decrease in crop yields depending on location).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6376198/

[Anonymous No.16146874]

>>16123798
>What is the greenhouse effect

Why are right-wingers so ungodly retarded? What's wrong with their monkey brains?

[Anonymous No.16146899]

>>16123798
Not sure if shill...This is a complex question. It is called climate change for a reason. More CO2 causes more heat transfer and therefore more entropy in our ecosystems. This can cause some extreme weather patterns(drought) and storms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10742505/ Also, I recommend you learn more about the carbonate cycle and the effects of ocean acidification.

Though the main concern is the CO2 levels reaching a point were permafrost decomposition will rapidly heat the planet due to the methane production.

Anyways, it ain't a lie. CO2 is good for plants, but the potential runaway is not. Generally speaking, most shit humans do is much worse. Our agriculture and waste practices are much more harmful in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.16146925]

>>16146899
>Though the main concern is the CO2 levels reaching a point were permafrost decomposition will rapidly heat the planet due to the methane production.
Purely theoretical.

[Anonymous No.16147011]

>>16123798
oil companies made it up

[Anonymous No.16147017]

>>16146835
Let's get lunch and split the bill. I'll toss in a penny and yell at you if you complain that it's not enough.

[Anonymous No.16147020]

>>16146829
>lots of it in places with little or no people like siberia and Northern/Western Canada.
>There's also the fact that the places in India and China being greened were almost completely arid and bare of vegetation before, so it doesn't take a lot of additional vegetation to create a large % change in leaf area.
Would you like to reflect on those two statements for a moment?

[Anonymous No.16147030]

>>16146925
No, it's already happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions

https://www.space.com/methane-beneath-arctic-permafrost-climate-feedback-loop

https://earth.org/data_visualization/what-is-permafrost/

[Anonymous No.16147043]

>>16147030
>No, it's already happening
The rapid warming part isn't.

[Anonymous No.16147052]

>>16147020
>Would you like to reflect on those two statements for a moment?
No.

[Anonymous No.16147057]

>>16147030
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions
>These trends alarm climate scientists, with some suggesting that they represent a climate change feedback increasing natural methane emissions well beyond their preindustrial levels.[43] However, there is currently no evidence connecting the Arctic to this recent acceleration.[44] In fact, a 2021 study indicated that the role of the Arctic was typically overerestimated in global methane accounting, while the role of tropical regions was consistently underestimated.[45] The study suggested that tropical wetland methane emissions were the culprit behind the recent growth trend, and this hypothesis was reinforced by a 2022 paper connecting tropical terrestrial emissions to 80% of the global atmospheric methane trends between 2010 and 2019.[46]
>

[Anonymous No.16147109]

>>16147043
Yes it is. The climate has never warmed as fast as it is now.

[Anonymous No.16147113]

>>16147109
still kinda cold here

[Anonymous No.16147114]

>>16147057
Overestimated does not mean there's no methane emissions from permafrost. Do a little thought experiment: There's some methane escaping from permafrost now. If it's warmer in the future can we expect the permafrost to release less methane, the same methane, or more methane? Really think about that one. While you're at it why don't you repeat the thought experiment with tropical wetlands?

[Anonymous No.16147119]

>>16147113
That's called weather. Local climate is about long term trends and global climate is about long term trends in globally averaged phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.16147126]

>>16147119
So its weather adding up.

[Anonymous No.16147127]

>>16147114
>However, there is currently no evidence connecting the Arctic to this recent acceleration.[44] In fact, a 2021 study indicated that the role of the Arctic was typically overerestimated in global methane accounting, while the role of tropical regions was consistently underestimated.[45] The study suggested that tropical wetland methane emissions were the culprit behind the recent growth trend
I prefer real information not fake and gay thought experiments, literally "I am correct because I imagined it".

[Anonymous No.16147150]

>>16147126
Not quite, but close enough.

[Anonymous No.16147156]

>>16147127
>to this recent acceleration
>typically overerestimated
What does this mean to you? That there is no methane being released by permafrosts at all?

[Anonymous No.16147172]

>>16147109
>>16147119
>The climate has never warmed as fast as it is now.
*in some places

[Anonymous No.16147278]

>>16147156
>That there is no methane being released by permafrosts at all?
Much more comes from tropical wetlands and industry emissions. There has been no runaway feedback loop yet. Methane decays too quickly. It's much harder to accumulate a lot of and for it to have a sustained effect.

[Anonymous No.16147279]

>>16147119
People don't live in long term climate averages, they live in weather. And the weather and temperature both change much more between midnight and midday than the long term average you're worried about.

[Anonymous No.16148035]

>>16147109

[Anonymous No.16148485]

>>16148035
>Blatant cherry picking

[Anonymous No.16148488]

>>16147278
>There has been no runaway feedback loop yet
>yet
So you fully acknowledge that this will happen and it's only a matter of time.

>Methane decays too quickly. It's much harder to accumulate a lot of and for it to have a sustained effect.
You are legit a retard.

[Anonymous No.16148490]

>>16147279
You live in both, retard.

[Anonymous No.16148491]

>>16147172
Nope. Everywhere.

[Anonymous No.16148649]

>>16125630
>Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is like building a barrel with one stave taller then the rest and the "CO2 is plant food" crowd insists that it will make the barrel hold more water. It won't.

No it isn't dumbfuck, increasing co2 will increase plant growth despite other limiting factors
Not only that in the real world most plants are in an ideal enough environment where other factors don't cap the effects of increased co2

Not saying co2 is le good or le bad, simply stating what happens

[Anonymous No.16149076]

>>16148649
>other limiting factors
there are none.
plants with greater access to CO2 grow larger and faster than plants in otherwise identical conditions regardless what those conditions are.

[Anonymous No.16149077]

>>16125630
CO2 commonly is the limiting factor, both on land and in the ocean.

https://web.mnstate.edu/chastain/assets/chastain-research-big-picture.pdf

[Anonymous No.16150383]

>>16149076
>All soil everywhere is perfect
You are legit a retard.

[Anonymous No.16150387]

>>16148649
No it won't. You should try growing a plant once in your life. You'll find that if soil is deficient in a nutrient then your plants won't grow.

[Anonymous No.16150659]

>>16150383
plants that grow faster above ground also root deeper below ground, they have more access to soil micronutrients than they otherwise would in a low CO2 environment

[Anonymous No.16150710]

>>16150659
Into barren clay. What an improvement.

[Anonymous No.16151464]

>>16150710
Over time, the deeper roots are more deeply co-occupied with mycorrhizal filaments that help weathering from clay and rock. You don't see very much fungus on first generation roots into such deeper soil.

[Anonymous No.16151797]

>>16151464
>Over time
Which doesn't matter because the plant has already died from a copper deficiency. Cope harder, retard. CO2 isn't magic plant food that can magically compensate for the lack of other nutrients. Providing an excess of one nutrient will not magically compensate for the lack of another. You cannot replace iron with nitrogen. You cannot replace phosphorus with carbon dioxide. You should have learned this in chemistry.