Posted on 11/15/2021 12:21:46 PM PST by Heartlander
The C4 plants that the world’s food web is based on for human consumption start to exhibit stress at 150 ppm of C02 and below. Every one of the C4 grasses that the vast majority of the world’s population depends on for food (Corn,Rice,wheat,barley,oats,sorghum) all evolved during the last period of low.C02 following an ice age period. They all experience increased yields up to about 800 to 1200 ppm. More C02 is good for them. Ask yourself why greenhouse hydroponics set ups and C02 to the gas mix to 800+ppm it double or triple yields under intensive lighting techniques. The last time earth’s C02 dropped to 150 ppm was during the depths of the most recent ice age and the world suffered massive shortfalls of biomass during that period. With the capacity of the oceans and the current 400 ppm levels it will take centuries to get back down to 180 or less even if humans stopped burning fossil fuels we are in no danger of C02 starvation due to the outgassing of Ocean bound C02 largely keeping the atmosphere Ocean carbon sinks in equilibrium via the carbonate,bicarbonate cycles.
Ayn Rand, the woman who could not write on an adult level according to the geniuses who are wetting their panties over “global warming”, warned us many decades ago that, if I can recall correctly, “FREE scientific inquiry is redundant and GOVERNMENTAL scientific inquiry is a contradiction in terms.
The system is well buffered.
More CO2, more plants.
More plants, less CO2.
Great title but it should read “HER” feet.
I was about 50 when I learned...from my dad...that cows didn't give milk until they had a calf. I was truly stunned that I didn't know that.
Peruse later.
That graph may be accurate for somewhere but the fact is the late 20th century and first part of the 21st century are about 2 deg warmer than the Little Ice Age climate which is not what the graph shows. Otherwise I think it is generally accurate. Not saying that is some refutation of the skeptical position but facts can’t be altered too casually to suit a political spin.
I think there is probably a limit beyond which excess carbon dioxide becomes more of a problem than a benefit. We are probably not there yet. The main weakness of the IPCC science seems to be that they have an unbalanced view of the interactions of the AGW signal and the cycles of natural variability. If we have a strong warming period in the middle of this coming century, once the Sun gets more active again, we can’t limit the net warming to the 1.5 C target of the IPCC even if we commit mass suicide. So there’s probably no point in trying. What we need instead is a set of planned responses to sea level rises. If they happen, we do this, this and this ... if they don’t, we didn’t spend much money other than hiring a guy to type a report and copy it a few times.
Trying to cool down the earth by wrecking the economy is not only unrealistic and stupid, it will create far worse problems than they are trying to solve. It is rather like putting out a fire in a warehouse by calling in the air force and dropping the MOAB on the place.
No; it’s plant AIR.
Moab is already overrun by expat Californians - jacking the prices up everywhere!
Oooooh!...Global lukewarming....I like it!
(pssst....there virtually isn’t any CO2 in the atmosphere)
At 4/100ths of a percent? No so much.
I think you're right. After all, it is a natural component of our air.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.