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. They can't resist! 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.
In the end everything stops, due to entropy.

 

[SammyQ]

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.

Croolis, you are being very rigid in your use of English. My uni.prof was a prominent, respected Ecologist and he certainly would, without hesitating, have said "ecosystems evolve". He was referring to them changing during their passage from bare terrain to climax community, and their changing species lists as they became disrupted by earth forces, or manipulated by Man.
"Evolution" is not a term limited to Animalia or Plantae.
Secondly, things in Nature emphatically do " balance out". Regard a climax community: its numbers of any species is variable, even oscillate cyclically, but largely remain the same. You can see this very clearly from the work of Charlie Krebs and others forward to the present day. Do your research properly.
If, as you stridently opinionate: "States occur, then go away" how the hell do you explain dinosaurs lasting 150 million years and more? How do you account for thick coal seams? That much vegetation, now compressed and earth- heated into coal, needed eons of STABILITY to accumulate. The cliffs of Dover? That many skeletons of marine fauna, again compressed and heated into limestone, now millions of tonnes, it didn't happen "dynamically" (implication: quickly/in a few months or years). No way José.
Sweeping generalisms distort, even change the meaning of, good empirical science. Please leave such pap and nonsense to the Big Orange Baby and the likes of Niggle Fartage.

 

[Jacob]

............How do you account for thick coal seams? That much vegetation, now compressed and earth- heated into coal, needed eons of STABILITY to accumulate. The cliffs of Dover? That many skeletons of marine fauna, again compressed and heated into limestone, now millions of tonnes, .......

Or the limestone around me in Derbyshire - 100s of feet thick where exposed, http://www.emgs.org.uk/archivedEMGS/files/publications/hightor.htm
even more of it underground, and coal measures, oil deposites.
Life itself forming the whole landscape on a massive geological scale.