4 ms·

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

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).
  - bobbytit 5y ago
    Photosynthesis is limited by the availability of light, water and co2. They can't gorge without sufficient amounts if all three. At what point did they remove photosynthesis from the curriculum?
  - bobbytit 5y ago
    and temperature.. without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      If you think bigger temperature implies more life, why don't you set fire to your own home to make it more livable?
      - bobbytit 5y ago
        Did you steal that sick burn from Greta?
        tsimionescu 5y ago
        Sorry, but when you claim that global warming is not a big problem because "we need warmth", there is no way of taking you seriously, so I could only joke.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life You don't seem to realise that heating things up is pretty easy, even in a preindustrial society, while cooling things is extremely difficult and there is a hard and quite low limit to how hot we can remain for long periods of time. At 35 WBT we're done for, literally can't cool down, die in a few hours even with no activity whatsoever, in the shade, with wind or a fan. As we go above 1.5, the tropics will become literally unlivable as they will regularly exceed 35 WBT.
      - bobbytit 5y ago
        Wet bulb temp is the latest wank in what has been the biggest propaganda exercise of all time. You have been misled. You are being deliberately turned against the human race.
        5y ago
unearth3d 5y ago
hi bobbytit, here's some of them, these are the most meaningful papers from my collection There is a knowledge/research gap between now ~415ppm and 600ppm - and very little research below ~900ppm. A few studies start at 600ppm, most start approx 900ppm I don't know what it is about eCO2 and human health but almost anything I've found looks sketchy/amateurish or is hosted somewhere odd, or when I go to a site it's been hacked. There are indications that ambient eCO2 results in high blood CO2 altho afaict this has only been derived stoichiometrically Human health and cognition Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ. 1999. Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2-Concentrations with Health and other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Indoor Air 9: 226-252. Discusses where sick building syndrome effects fell sharply <800ppm Bierwith - a preprint I think https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_major_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di... Irakli Loladze - a lot of people have tried to defund and otherwise harass this brilliant mathematical biologist as he not a plant physiologist. He has highlighted one of the most critical effects of eCO2. Rising CO2 affects human nutrition: systemic depletion of essential minerals in crop and wild plants https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-crop-and-plant-quality https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-c... Ziska 2021 Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide, and Public Health: The Plant Biology Perspective. Global Climate Change and Human Health, 2021 - John Wiley & Sons Wildfire, by lowering plant lignin content Blank White Ziska 2006 Combustion properties of Bromus tectorum L.: influence of ecotype and growth under four CO2 concentrations. Ziska is a very active researcher in the eCO2 space. https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055 https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055 Flooding and resulting in flooding by making many plants more water efficient Fowler et al 2019 The effect of plant physiological responses to rising CO2 on global streamflow. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353 https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353
- bobbytit 5y ago
  Thanks very much. I'll check these out.

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).
- bobbytit 5y ago
  Photosynthesis is limited by the availability of light, water and co2. They can't gorge without sufficient amounts if all three. At what point did they remove photosynthesis from the curriculum?
- bobbytit 5y ago
  and temperature.. without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    If you think bigger temperature implies more life, why don't you set fire to your own home to make it more livable?
    - bobbytit 5y ago
      Did you steal that sick burn from Greta?
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Sorry, but when you claim that global warming is not a big problem because "we need warmth", there is no way of taking you seriously, so I could only joke.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life You don't seem to realise that heating things up is pretty easy, even in a preindustrial society, while cooling things is extremely difficult and there is a hard and quite low limit to how hot we can remain for long periods of time. At 35 WBT we're done for, literally can't cool down, die in a few hours even with no activity whatsoever, in the shade, with wind or a fan. As we go above 1.5, the tropics will become literally unlivable as they will regularly exceed 35 WBT.
    - bobbytit 5y ago
      Wet bulb temp is the latest wank in what has been the biggest propaganda exercise of all time. You have been misled. You are being deliberately turned against the human race.
      - 5y ago

unearth3d 5y ago

hi bobbytit, here's some of them, these are the most meaningful papers from my collection There is a knowledge/research gap between now ~415ppm and 600ppm - and very little research below ~900ppm. A few studies start at 600ppm, most start approx 900ppm I don't know what it is about eCO2 and human health but almost anything I've found looks sketchy/amateurish or is hosted somewhere odd, or when I go to a site it's been hacked. There are indications that ambient eCO2 results in high blood CO2 altho afaict this has only been derived stoichiometrically Human health and cognition Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ. 1999. Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2-Concentrations with Health and other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Indoor Air 9: 226-252. Discusses where sick building syndrome effects fell sharply <800ppm Bierwith - a preprint I think https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_major_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di... Irakli Loladze - a lot of people have tried to defund and otherwise harass this brilliant mathematical biologist as he not a plant physiologist. He has highlighted one of the most critical effects of eCO2. Rising CO2 affects human nutrition: systemic depletion of essential minerals in crop and wild plants https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-crop-and-plant-quality https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-c... Ziska 2021 Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide, and Public Health: The Plant Biology Perspective. Global Climate Change and Human Health, 2021 - John Wiley & Sons Wildfire, by lowering plant lignin content Blank White Ziska 2006 Combustion properties of Bromus tectorum L.: influence of ecotype and growth under four CO2 concentrations. Ziska is a very active researcher in the eCO2 space. https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055 https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055 Flooding and resulting in flooding by making many plants more water efficient Fowler et al 2019 The effect of plant physiological responses to rising CO2 on global streamflow. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353 https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353

bobbytit 5y ago
Thanks very much. I'll check these out.