Minimum Atmospheric CO2 percentage for plant life!

[isaac3d2]

When I was at school, (admittedly, quite a while ago, though definitley after the Jurassic Period), I recall being taught that the level of CO2 was around 330 ppm. Now its 420+ ppm. That's quite a hike in one human (at least, I claim so) lifetime. That the levels of CO2 (and methane, for that matter) have been much higher in the distant past, perhaps as high as 4000ppm, is not an excuse for us to keep releasing ever more fossil CO2 in to the atmosphere. Whilst 4000ppm CO2 may be good for some organisms it would not be good for all and it would certainly wipe out human "civilisation". I doubt the planet will go the way of venus and become a cooking pot planet as we are too far from the sun. However, the life that survives if we continue to burn fossil fuels willy nilly will be different from the world we have today. Perhaps, a long time after the human race has made itself extinct (along with a good proportion of currently existing species), CO2 might return to a level of between 300 and 400 ppm and all will be rosie again (assuming roses are one of the species which do survive). Most likely some species of insects will survive. Bacteria will, of course, survive. And so, if we are not careful over the next few decades, the meek will most certainly inherit the earth but our great great great etc.. grandchildren will not!
The real question of today is not how do we keep inflation to 2% per annum, but how do we provide a future for all those little darlings who don't yet exist?

 

[Trainee neophyte]

Back on track, it is referred to as "greening", but the climate catastrophe crowd try not to talk about it, because it is actually a good thing in terms of carbon sink, balancing the atmosphere etc, so on and so forth. It's almost as though systems had evolved to take advantage of change.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

"A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Obviously, despite this good news, we are all going to die of cataclysmic anthropogenic climate change catastrophe, but at least we wont be hungry. Much.

 

[Jacob]

Back on track, it is referred to as "greening", but the climate catastrophe crowd try not to talk about it,

They talk about it all the time! Maybe you didn't notice but your link is to a Nasa page - one of the main media sources for information on the climate crisis.

because it is actually a good thing in terms of carbon sink, balancing the atmosphere etc, so on and so forth. It's almost as though systems had evolved to take advantage of change.

Well spotted! It's known popularly as the Gaia Hypothesis
In fact it is central to the whole subject of Ecology

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

"A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Obviously, despite this good news, we are all going to die of cataclysmic anthropogenic climate change catastrophe, but at least we wont be hungry. Much.

Interesting seeing an apparently desperate sceptic slowly coming to terms with the science. Keep it up!

 

[Croolis]

Back on track, it is referred to as "greening", but the climate catastrophe crowd try not to talk about it, because it is actually a good thing in terms of carbon sink, balancing the atmosphere etc, so on and so forth. It's almost as though systems had evolved to take advantage of change.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

"A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

Obviously, despite this good news, we are all going to die of cataclysmic anthropogenic climate change catastrophe, but at least we wont be hungry. Much.

If you cherry pick one effect and say it's good, while ignoring all others just to try and put a positive spin on things, your approach is wrong. Running global climate experiments is a bad idea.

Also systems don't "evolve". What sort of nonsense is that as a statement. Dynamism occurs, no more, no less. Action, reaction. Things in nature don't "balance out", as people like to erroneously state. There is no balance in earth sciences, only dynamism. States occur, then go away.

 

[Jacob]

If you cherry pick one effect and say it's good, while ignoring all others just to try and put a positive spin on things, your approach is wrong. Running global climate experiments is a bad idea.

Also systems don't "evolve". What sort of nonsense is that as a statement. Dynamism occurs, no more, no less. Action, reaction. Things in nature don't "balance out", as people like to erroneously state. There is no balance in earth sciences, only dynamism. States occur, then go away.

Environments do evolve/adapt/change. Extremely quickly where life is involved, more slowly where not. There are no changes on the face of Mars over long periods, but Earth changes rapidly, in our lifetimes even.