3 ms·

If you reject the fact that the vast majority of plants are currently starving for CO2, you reject science. Here is one of many scientific papers on the subjec

by mkempe 9y ago

If you reject the fact that the vast majority of plants are currently starving for CO2, you reject science. Here is one of many scientific papers on the subject: "Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution" [1] [1] http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/159 http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/159

24gttghh 9y ago
I don't think you are reading the studies you are sharing. >Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. That's a 3 million year period, ending 5ma. You say CO2 starvation is down to 150ppm, but atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180-200 (ice ages) to 300ppm (warm periods) for the past half million years or so.[1] Meanwhile C3 plants (those supposedly which suffered during your linked expansion of C4 biomass) are around 95% of plant biomass currently. Doesn't seem like plants on the whole are starving for CO2 at this time. [1]https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
- mkempe 9y ago
  > I don't think you are reading the studies you are sharing. I'm impressed by your method of argumentation.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    What I mean to say is there is more to the data than any single paper, and with a bigger picture in mind there seems to be no shortage of CO2 for 95% of plants on earth(C3 carbon fixation, evolved earlier), and for the other 5% (C4 carbon fixation, evolved more recently) they can be fine in a much greater range of CO2 concentrations.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      It's pretty simple and there is ample scientific evidence and writing on the topic: at current CO2 levels, plants are starving. There is even satellite-based measurements of vegetation by NASA that demonstrate a global greening of the planet in tune with atmospheric CO2 increases over the recent decades. You are denying scientific facts.
      - 24gttghh 9y ago
        K. Go gaslight someone else bud.

by mkempe 9y ago

24gttghh 9y ago

I don't think you are reading the studies you are sharing. >Global expansion of C4 biomass is recorded in the diets of mammals from Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the interval from about 8 to 5 Ma. That's a 3 million year period, ending 5ma. You say CO2 starvation is down to 150ppm, but atmospheric CO2 levels have fluctuated between 180-200 (ice ages) to 300ppm (warm periods) for the past half million years or so.[1] Meanwhile C3 plants (those supposedly which suffered during your linked expansion of C4 biomass) are around 95% of plant biomass currently. Doesn't seem like plants on the whole are starving for CO2 at this time. [1]https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

mkempe 9y ago
> I don't think you are reading the studies you are sharing. I'm impressed by your method of argumentation.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  What I mean to say is there is more to the data than any single paper, and with a bigger picture in mind there seems to be no shortage of CO2 for 95% of plants on earth(C3 carbon fixation, evolved earlier), and for the other 5% (C4 carbon fixation, evolved more recently) they can be fine in a much greater range of CO2 concentrations.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    It's pretty simple and there is ample scientific evidence and writing on the topic: at current CO2 levels, plants are starving. There is even satellite-based measurements of vegetation by NASA that demonstrate a global greening of the planet in tune with atmospheric CO2 increases over the recent decades. You are denying scientific facts.
    - 24gttghh 9y ago
      K. Go gaslight someone else bud.