5 ms·

The article admitted that there has been a worldwide greening effect from increased co2 levels. The vast majority of plants grow bigger and faster when co2 is b

The article admitted that there has been a worldwide greening effect from increased co2 levels. The vast majority of plants grow bigger and faster when co2 is between 600 and 1500 ppm.

unearth3d 5y ago
Above 600 increasingly toxic to us us, and above 300 mineral and protein falls off for most plants. Some plants also become > flammable. Have peer papers if interested.
- dubcanada 5y ago
  Falls off? Plants are already flammable… It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals?
  - martinpw 5y ago
    > Plants are already flammable… Admittedly not the most readable construct, but the ">" in the OP's sentence is saying that the plants become more flammable. To the OP, I had not heard that before, would be interested to see those peer reviewed papers if you can share. > It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals? OP said it falls off, not that it goes away completely.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Falls off? Plants are already flammable… Things which are flammable can get a more (or less) flammable depending on composition (or environment). For instance furniture is flammable, but if you remove the flame retardants they become a lot more flammable, either the threshold for inflaming is lower, or they burn up a lot faster and / or hotter. > It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals? "Falls off" means they decrease not that they disappear, and the lowering nutritiousness of foodstuff is regularly spotlighted.
- bobbytit 5y ago
  I would love to see those papers. I am sure that any drop off would be insignificant compared to the additional vegetation at higher co2 levels. The people in the Biosphere experiment were living in an environment with co2 over 5000 ppm but it was not good for them. Most unventilated homes are between 700 and 900 ppm. For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious. I would expect because the greenhouse environment (and scale) lets them have much better control over the plant's intake requirements (also likely better oversight). That would not be an easy thing to manage in fields. It's like comparing a small group of professional athletes with an entire crew managing their nutrition versus a single nutritionist serving an entire city.
    - bobbytit 5y ago
      A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not. It would be like giving a city as much food as they want irrespective of individual need.
      - masklinn 5y ago
        > A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not. Sure, but the nutritional issue with plants is generally with macronutrients the plant itself doesn't need, or at least not at the concentrations we'd prefer. Furthermore your assertion is not true, like pretty much everything else that lives plants will absolutely gorge themselves as long as they don't otherwise have limits on their ability to do so, even if it harms them. It's very rare for organisms to have evolutionary limits on that as they'll either be constrained (either by the food source or by an external threat of some sort) or living under boom-and-bust cycles (whether naturally or because humans have removed the external threat, very common in game animals and rodents).

The article admitted that there has been a worldwide greening effect from increased co2 levels. The vast majority of plants grow bigger and faster when co2 is between 600 and 1500 ppm.

unearth3d 5y ago

Above 600 increasingly toxic to us us, and above 300 mineral and protein falls off for most plants. Some plants also become > flammable. Have peer papers if interested.

dubcanada 5y ago
Falls off? Plants are already flammable… It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals?
- martinpw 5y ago
  > Plants are already flammable… Admittedly not the most readable construct, but the ">" in the OP's sentence is saying that the plants become more flammable. To the OP, I had not heard that before, would be interested to see those peer reviewed papers if you can share. > It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals? OP said it falls off, not that it goes away completely.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Falls off? Plants are already flammable… Things which are flammable can get a more (or less) flammable depending on composition (or environment). For instance furniture is flammable, but if you remove the flame retardants they become a lot more flammable, either the threshold for inflaming is lower, or they burn up a lot faster and / or hotter. > It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals? "Falls off" means they decrease not that they disappear, and the lowering nutritiousness of foodstuff is regularly spotlighted.
bobbytit 5y ago
I would love to see those papers. I am sure that any drop off would be insignificant compared to the additional vegetation at higher co2 levels. The people in the Biosphere experiment were living in an environment with co2 over 5000 ppm but it was not good for them. Most unventilated homes are between 700 and 900 ppm. For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious. I would expect because the greenhouse environment (and scale) lets them have much better control over the plant's intake requirements (also likely better oversight). That would not be an easy thing to manage in fields. It's like comparing a small group of professional athletes with an entire crew managing their nutrition versus a single nutritionist serving an entire city.
  - bobbytit 5y ago
    A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not. It would be like giving a city as much food as they want irrespective of individual need.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not. Sure, but the nutritional issue with plants is generally with macronutrients the plant itself doesn't need, or at least not at the concentrations we'd prefer. Furthermore your assertion is not true, like pretty much everything else that lives plants will absolutely gorge themselves as long as they don't otherwise have limits on their ability to do so, even if it harms them. It's very rare for organisms to have evolutionary limits on that as they'll either be constrained (either by the food source or by an external threat of some sort) or living under boom-and-bust cycles (whether naturally or because humans have removed the external threat, very common in game animals and rodents).