[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 310 KB, 1280x800, 1467785597512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8186982 No.8186982 [Reply] [Original]

CO2 levels below 300 are incredibly dangerous.

Plants are barely able to survive at that level. The planet could slip into total desertification at any time.

400 is good. We have made a lot of progress. But optimal would be 600+


Hopefully we will burn enough fossil fuels to get there.
And if we make it it will bloom and green like you have never seen before.


So step on the gas. The planet depends on us.

>> No.8187005

plants benefit from CO2 even if you add 600ppm to current levels to reach 1000ppm:

http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

as you can see from the tables, very few plants don't like CO2 above 1000ppm

>> No.8187419
File: 124 KB, 612x556, plant-growth-co2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8187419

4 out of 10000 is ok for C4 and barely enough for C3 plants

>> No.8187429

>>8186982
That graph is so fucking stupid to look at.

Can you at least find one that's scaled correctly?

>> No.8187436
File: 35 KB, 1227x846, 180px_IGC_Chart_7437f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8187436

>>8186982
Nice graph

>> No.8187457

>>8186982
Optimal is finding a good balance between the various species alive today, and then changing that balance very, very slowly.

>>8187436
This still triggers me.

>> No.8187510

Reducing CO2 below 300ppm will bring famine in Africa and Asia with 700 millions deaths at least: is this a bad thing?