7 ms·

Wouldn't an increase in co2 in the atmosphere spur a massive plant growth, both on land and in the oceans? I have no qualifications nor merit in this field as w

by ethor 3y ago

Wouldn't an increase in co2 in the atmosphere spur a massive plant growth, both on land and in the oceans? I have no qualifications nor merit in this field as well, so anyone please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

icegreentea2 3y ago
Yes, we expect increased some degree of photosynthesis. However, we hardly expect to see an proportionate increase of photosynthesis (or plant mass?) - if nothing else, we'd expect there to still be a bottleneck from nitrogen.
csomar 3y ago
Logically, yes. The energy will be transformed by nature if humans don't do it. However, this might not happen in a timely fashion for us to survive as a specie. Remember, earth timelines are wildly different than human ones.
- nomel 3y ago
  > for us to survive as a species An incredibly strong feedback mechanism exists (see article above). Societal problems, yes. Extinction to the human species? I think that’s extreme hyperbole. What would the mechanism even be, to eradicate all humans, across the globe? Climate change is real, things will be bad, etc, but the possible end of the species is an incredible claim, that doesn’t follow logic.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    Okay so it won't make us go extinct. What if it makes life full of significant suffering. I find this kind of argument quite annoying. It's the same thing was happened with COVID19. Sure, I'm not going to die from it. That doesn't mean I want to live a life without my taste or smell. I enjoy those things. Likewise I want to live on a good Earth and leave that to the people after me.
    - nomel 3y ago
      > I find this kind of argument quite annoying. What is "this kind of argument"? Something ridiculous was stated, and I pointed out an apparently annoying reality. The argument that you seem to want to have is unrelated to what was said and my response to it. I don't think hyperbole has a place on meaningful discussions. Relevant points should be made without theatrics.
    - pfannkuchen 3y ago
      No one justified lockdowns based on people losing taste or smell though. If the justification turned out to be incorrect, it is reasonable to be mad about that. While you personally may be fine with lockdowns based on whatever percent of people lose taste or smell permanently, if that was the justification provided for lockdowns instead of risk of death I think a majority would have been opposed, don’t you?
ajnin 3y ago
It probably would, but if you're implying this would absorb a lot of CO2, I don't think so, plants die and when they do they decompose and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The conditions are not really met for a new carboniferous era right now and it took millions of years.
- dalbasal 3y ago
  ... ideally, during a carboniferous epoch, you have lots of bogs and places where plants can decompose into oil for future civilizations to enjoy... And re-release I to the atmosphere.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    From what I've read that can't really happen again. In the prehistoric past, plants could die and would build up into massive layers. Over time those wound up in various geologic processes that caused them to become oil. Nowadays the Earth has plenty of microbes that will quickly decompose the plants into something that is not oil and that's the end of the process.
    - didgeoridoo 3y ago
      Until fungi discovered ligninase enzymes, when a tree fell in the forest, it just… sat there. For eons. Got covered up. Got smushed. Became coal. Now we got these fungi chewing things all up. Thanks a lot, fungi.
- revelio 3y ago
  No because plant levels settle at a higher equilibrium. Plants may decompose but there are more plants growing at the same time, so it still ends up being more. Higher CO2 levels are said to have led to a "global greening", in which crop yields have gone up a lot. This is especially true in Africa, so that reduces global hunger and increases wealth. The idea that more CO2 = less life is not as simple as it's made out to be. Climate doomers ignores this type of thing because they are convinced society can't handle complexity, so have to insist that CO2 is always bad even when it's not. https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-greener/ https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-green...
m0llusk 3y ago
Yes, but in the worst way. Giving large amounts of CO2 to plants is kind of like giving huge doses of steroids to athletes. They grow abnormally and become unhealthy and short lived.
- JudasGoat 3y ago
  My cannabis plants flower with 15 to 20% yield improvement and no abnormalities at 1500ppm CO2. Edit One of the side effects of CO2 infusion ironically, is tolerance of higher temperatures.
  - m0llusk 3y ago
    This is not about your cannabis yields. In high concentrations CO2 is a pollutant: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-a...
danielheath 3y ago
Depends whether that's a bottleneck; hard to imagine much improvement in a plant that's short of nitrogen.
swader999 3y ago
Yes it already has. Earth has greened considerably, agriculture, forests have all been boosted the last forty years. Here chat 4: Piao, S., Liu, Z., Wang, Y. et al. (2020). Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges. Global Change Biology, 26, 1928–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 This review paper discusses the impact of global climate change on plant phenology, which includes effects of elevated CO2 levels. Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., ... & Zeng, N. (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 This article provides evidence for the 'greening' of the Earth over a period of 33 years, attributing roughly 70% of this greening to increased atmospheric CO2. Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., ... & Popp, A. (2016). Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 1008-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 This article discusses the effects of global change pressures on soils, including the impacts of increasing CO2.
- q87b 3y ago
  Just to makes sure no one things that this means that extra CO2 is good because of this: Elevated CO2 levels drastically change the climate and will make Earth inhabitable for humans at some point if not reduced. It's good for some plants in some places but their growth does not fix the underlying and future issues with CO2 in our atmosphere.
  - askin4it 3y ago
    Please stop "making sure" when it comes to MY thinking. Also on behalf of everyone who doesn't like being told what or how to think, please stop "making sure". If you really need to "make" something "sure" please pick something real and not a political football. In the early 70's alarmists were "making sure" everyone was panicking about an ice age. See..no ice... Wait a while....I predict the alarmists will change to something else when people no longer buy the current looming disaster. Please stop participating in the most recent fashionable doomsday fantasy.
Mizza 3y ago
Some, but most plant growth is nitrogen limited, not CO2 limited.
sharemywin 3y ago
wouldn't the models already take that into account? I thought we were having problems with deforestation also.

by ethor 3y ago

icegreentea2 3y ago

Yes, we expect increased some degree of photosynthesis. However, we hardly expect to see an proportionate increase of photosynthesis (or plant mass?) - if nothing else, we'd expect there to still be a bottleneck from nitrogen.

csomar 3y ago

Logically, yes. The energy will be transformed by nature if humans don't do it. However, this might not happen in a timely fashion for us to survive as a specie. Remember, earth timelines are wildly different than human ones.

nomel 3y ago
> for us to survive as a species An incredibly strong feedback mechanism exists (see article above). Societal problems, yes. Extinction to the human species? I think that’s extreme hyperbole. What would the mechanism even be, to eradicate all humans, across the globe? Climate change is real, things will be bad, etc, but the possible end of the species is an incredible claim, that doesn’t follow logic.
- earthling8118 3y ago
  Okay so it won't make us go extinct. What if it makes life full of significant suffering. I find this kind of argument quite annoying. It's the same thing was happened with COVID19. Sure, I'm not going to die from it. That doesn't mean I want to live a life without my taste or smell. I enjoy those things. Likewise I want to live on a good Earth and leave that to the people after me.
  - nomel 3y ago
    > I find this kind of argument quite annoying. What is "this kind of argument"? Something ridiculous was stated, and I pointed out an apparently annoying reality. The argument that you seem to want to have is unrelated to what was said and my response to it. I don't think hyperbole has a place on meaningful discussions. Relevant points should be made without theatrics.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    No one justified lockdowns based on people losing taste or smell though. If the justification turned out to be incorrect, it is reasonable to be mad about that. While you personally may be fine with lockdowns based on whatever percent of people lose taste or smell permanently, if that was the justification provided for lockdowns instead of risk of death I think a majority would have been opposed, don’t you?

ajnin 3y ago

It probably would, but if you're implying this would absorb a lot of CO2, I don't think so, plants die and when they do they decompose and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The conditions are not really met for a new carboniferous era right now and it took millions of years.

dalbasal 3y ago
... ideally, during a carboniferous epoch, you have lots of bogs and places where plants can decompose into oil for future civilizations to enjoy... And re-release I to the atmosphere.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  From what I've read that can't really happen again. In the prehistoric past, plants could die and would build up into massive layers. Over time those wound up in various geologic processes that caused them to become oil. Nowadays the Earth has plenty of microbes that will quickly decompose the plants into something that is not oil and that's the end of the process.
  - didgeoridoo 3y ago
    Until fungi discovered ligninase enzymes, when a tree fell in the forest, it just… sat there. For eons. Got covered up. Got smushed. Became coal. Now we got these fungi chewing things all up. Thanks a lot, fungi.
revelio 3y ago
No because plant levels settle at a higher equilibrium. Plants may decompose but there are more plants growing at the same time, so it still ends up being more. Higher CO2 levels are said to have led to a "global greening", in which crop yields have gone up a lot. This is especially true in Africa, so that reduces global hunger and increases wealth. The idea that more CO2 = less life is not as simple as it's made out to be. Climate doomers ignores this type of thing because they are convinced society can't handle complexity, so have to insist that CO2 is always bad even when it's not. https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-greener/ https://fee.org/articles/rejoice-the-earth-is-becoming-green...

m0llusk 3y ago

Yes, but in the worst way. Giving large amounts of CO2 to plants is kind of like giving huge doses of steroids to athletes. They grow abnormally and become unhealthy and short lived.

JudasGoat 3y ago
My cannabis plants flower with 15 to 20% yield improvement and no abnormalities at 1500ppm CO2. Edit One of the side effects of CO2 infusion ironically, is tolerance of higher temperatures.
- m0llusk 3y ago
  This is not about your cannabis yields. In high concentrations CO2 is a pollutant: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-atmosphere-hurts-key-plants-and-crops-more-than-it-helps/ https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/12/more-co2-in-the-a...

danielheath 3y ago

Depends whether that's a bottleneck; hard to imagine much improvement in a plant that's short of nitrogen.

swader999 3y ago

Yes it already has. Earth has greened considerably, agriculture, forests have all been boosted the last forty years. Here chat 4: Piao, S., Liu, Z., Wang, Y. et al. (2020). Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges. Global Change Biology, 26, 1928–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 This review paper discusses the impact of global climate change on plant phenology, which includes effects of elevated CO2 levels. Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., ... & Zeng, N. (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 This article provides evidence for the 'greening' of the Earth over a period of 33 years, attributing roughly 70% of this greening to increased atmospheric CO2. Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., ... & Popp, A. (2016). Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 1008-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 This article discusses the effects of global change pressures on soils, including the impacts of increasing CO2.

q87b 3y ago
Just to makes sure no one things that this means that extra CO2 is good because of this: Elevated CO2 levels drastically change the climate and will make Earth inhabitable for humans at some point if not reduced. It's good for some plants in some places but their growth does not fix the underlying and future issues with CO2 in our atmosphere.
- askin4it 3y ago
  Please stop "making sure" when it comes to MY thinking. Also on behalf of everyone who doesn't like being told what or how to think, please stop "making sure". If you really need to "make" something "sure" please pick something real and not a political football. In the early 70's alarmists were "making sure" everyone was panicking about an ice age. See..no ice... Wait a while....I predict the alarmists will change to something else when people no longer buy the current looming disaster. Please stop participating in the most recent fashionable doomsday fantasy.

Mizza 3y ago

Some, but most plant growth is nitrogen limited, not CO2 limited.

sharemywin 3y ago

wouldn't the models already take that into account? I thought we were having problems with deforestation also.