5efh456

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   Could be. But surely we have some which survived, or can manufacture using methods of the time to check. Also, physics was in a pretty good state at the time, at least regarding temperature/length measurement. Surely the scientists of
2. 2.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   The temperature also varies during the day by about 0.5 deg.
3. 3.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   Due to the way statistics work, you don't need to be able to measure hundredths of degree to detect a hundredth of degree average change. Because the error will distribute around the true value, thus even with sampling errors you can s
4. 4.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   True, but I'm willing to bet that N deficiency is pretty wild spread world-wide, including in natural soil. Probably the second dominant stunt factor on plants (after water), and way before CO2.
5. 5.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   > Not because the plants grow faster, because you can grow 3x as many of them. This is against current consensus. The consensus is that plants do grow faster when you put fertilizer in the soil and the yield increase is because of that
6. 6.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   If the main limit is CO2, why does adding fertilizer (nitrogen) to a field suddenly increases the yield 3 times?
7. 7.▲
   by 5efh456 7y ago

   Remember when people believed that 90% of DNA is junk? Or that the human appendix is totally useless? Now we know better. So when photosynthesis is "inefficient" after billions years of evolution, surely we would be more careful w