There Was Once a Lot More CO2 In The air

[seedload]

It is actually documented. Which is why some greenhouses enhance the CO2 in their atmosphere to improve plant growth.

What is documented? That plants grow bigger with more CO2? So? What does that have to do with evolution? We grow bigger when pumped up with HGH and steroids. Does that mean we are evolved to 'crave' HGH and steroids? No. And besides, is more size universally good for survival in an evolutionary sense? Not necessarily. Is that giant pumpkin on the vine going to do so well out in nature? Who knows. I would venture probably not. But that is just my guess. Left up to nature, who the hell knows. I do know that big is NOT necessarily better.

Seems to me that plants have evolved to do just fine natural selection wise with the pre-industrial levels of CO2 rather than the pre-historic levels of CO2.

I was commenting on starved for CO2.

Plants weren't "starved" for CO2. That is so silly. Just because they can potentially grow more with more CO2 doesn't mean they were starved prior to having more CO2.

seedload commenting that plants stopped evolving was rather disingenuous (and yes, I checked the meaning of that word). The original text made no such implication.

OK, maybe inplies was the wrong word. Ignores may be a better word. The text ignores the fact that plants continued to evolve since then. <edit> I re-read my post. I said "assumes", not implies or ignores. I am not so dissatisfied with my phrasing now. I never said the text implied no continued evolution. I said the text assumed no continued evolution. But, ignores is still probably better. The text ignores that evolution continued. I used the word implies about the crazy 'crave' phrasing the text used.</edit.>

The text said that plants evolved when there was more CO2. But plants have continued to evolve as the levels of CO2 have gone down. The fact that plant species originated under high levels of CO2 doesn't seem to have anything to do with current plants because current plants have evolved to be ok with pre-industrial levels of CO2.

Lastly, I reiterate that I don't think this has much to do with AGW debate. Plants are not keeping up with CO2 being pumped into the air. If CO2 is a problem, then plants won't save us.

[taniwha]

The article isn't about the plants helping with AGW (assuming it even exists).

Rather, the article is about how plants are nowhere near as prosperous as they could be due to CO2 levels being too low, and that humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is good for the environment. Thus, it has plenty to do with the AGW debate, but not in the way you seem to be thinking: the article seems to imply that reducing carbon output might be the wrong thing to do.

As for the plants not keeping up with human's output of CO2, the reason is obvious: there aren't enough plants. However, they're doing an admirable job of trying: they're sucking up about 2/3 of our output (by my calculations posted in another thread).

Also, in my mind, there is ample proof that plants aren't getting enough CO2. That proof goes by names like "Gobi", "Sahara", "Simpson", "Gibson" etc. Humans may have created many (or even all) of the deserts, but that's because the plants couldn't grow fast enough to recover before the sands came in.

Given good conditions, plants can conquer sand (cf Fraser Island (at least, I think that's a good example)), so given more food (CO2) and a bit of rain, plants should one day be able to overcome the deserts.

Let's say AGW, or even GW, is real.

There is evidence indicating that the Earth will in all likelihood not overheat due to high CO2 levels. This means that the worst that will happen is the land ice on Antarctica and Greenland melts and the sea levels rise by up to 50m (my calculations based on 1.5km (A) and 2km (G) of ice).

Sea levels rising by 50m would be rather inconvenient, but hardly a major disaster for the human race, although for a great many individuals (those living in places that would get flooded), it will be a big problem.

However, should we reduce our CO2 output to pre-industrialization levels, by my calculations, atmospheric CO2 will drop faster than it is currently rising. At what point do our crops begin to fail? We need our plants to grow fast enough to mature within the growing season. Massive worldwide crop failures will be a major disaster for the human race. Far more so than losing a certain percentage of land to the sea.

If the choice comes down to "save our coastal cities" and "save the plants", I'll take "save the plants", thank you very much. I want my children, and their children, to be able to eat. I don't particularly care if they have to uproot.

Again, the article is not about "the plants will save us", but rather "we can save the plants".

[MSimon]

seedload,

At 200 ppm some plants stop working. At 90 ppm all plants stop working at CO2 levels from the lower threshold to 1,000 ppm the advantage is linear. Above that more CO2 is not as effective.

So let me see warmer = better for plants. More CO2 = better for plants.

As to evolution. It may not be working the way you think. Humans that grow up with insufficient nutrients are stunted. No genetic changes required.

[KitemanSA]

... the article is about how plants are nowhere near as prosperous as they could be due to CO2 levels being too low, and that humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is good for the environment. Thus, it has plenty to do with the AGW debate, but not in the way you seem to be thinking: the article seems to imply that reducing carbon output might be the wrong thing to do.

Given good conditions, plants can conquer sand (cf Fraser Island (at least, I think that's a good example)), so given more food (CO2) and a bit of rain, plants should one day be able to overcome the deserts.

I'd be cautious about trying to reclaim the desert. The desert may be the primary factor in keeping the Earth's temperature in balance (reflect sunlight, emit night-time IR). Until that function is understood, forcing the desert to bloom may be the wrong thing.

I've often thought that a simple system of plates placed in the deserts, white on one side & fipped up during the day and black on the other flipped up during the night, would cause H2O to condense and drop to the dirt and promote grow on its own. Thus the albedo would be maintained and the desert could bloom with everything in balance.

Save Gaia, burn carbon!

[seedload]

Again, the article is not about "the plants will save us", but rather "we can save the plants".

Save the plants from what? We don't need to save the plants. They are fine without the extra CO2.

Modern climate science has benefited from exaggerating fears about carbon dioxide, and the doom CO2 is supposed to bring to Earth's environment. But Earth's life evolved in atmospheres many times higher in CO2 than at present -- leaving modern plants and ocean life relatively carbon-starved.

It is time for climate science to step away from contrived and exaggerated claims of doom, and to return to a genuine science of observation and falsifiability. Politics has played far too large a part in this destructive carbon hysteria, and must be tamed before we all fall victim to the political excesses of carbon alarmists and carbon opportunists.

The article is about not paying attention to the AGW supporter's lines of BS because I have some BS of my own to feed you. Don't believe this silly CO2 causes it to get warm stuff. Believe me when I say that plants are "craving" CO2 because they are "starving". Save the plants.

Not all AGW counter arguments are created equal. Those that stink too bad obscure the equally bad AGW supporting science before anyone can get a good whiff.

BTW, are you confident attributing your 2/3rds figure entirely to biological sinks? I wouldn't be.

[seedload]

seedload,

At 200 ppm some plants stop working. At 90 ppm all plants stop working at CO2 levels from the lower threshold to 1,000 ppm the advantage is linear. Above that more CO2 is not as effective.

So let me see warmer = better for plants. More CO2 = better for plants.

As to evolution. It may not be working the way you think. Humans that grow up with insufficient nutrients are stunted. No genetic changes required.

Who the hell cares? Is there some danger of CO2 going under 200 that I don't know about. Or, as taniwha appears to be, are you in favor of teraforming the planet Earth?

Me, I would like to see us get prosperous by using the energy at our disposal. I believe our prosperity will eventually and necessarily lead to better energy solutions that have near zero footprint on our planet. I believe our prosperity will eventually lead to a declining population that will again reduce our footprint on the planet. At that point, the planet is free to resume with its scheduled programming.

[seedload]

As to evolution. It may not be working the way you think. Humans that grow up with insufficient nutrients are stunted. No genetic changes required.

You do realize the time scales that we are talking about here, right? How many hundreds of millions of years have these stunted, starving, craving plants been hanging around just waiting for someone like us to start pumping out some CO2 so they could get all nice and comfortable again? CO2 was less than a grand for at least 50 million years, probably more like a 100 and some claim as long as 300 or 400 million.

Look, I don't doubt that most plants will do better in nature with some more CO2. I just don't buy into the notion that they are starved, craving, stunted, or in need of saving without it. It makes no sense.

regards

[MSimon]

Or, as taniwha appears to be, are you in favor of teraforming the planet Earth?

Returning it to the good old days might be a better description.

[MSimon]

Look, I don't doubt that most plants will do better in nature with some more CO2. I just don't buy into the notion that they are starved, craving, stunted, or in need of saving without it.

You get more growth in a growing season with more CO2. Seems like a good idea to me. More plants = more animals.

[Josh Cryer]

Maui, look at this: http://i50.tinypic.com/oh8qbs.gif

[MirariNefas]

Look, I don't doubt that most plants will do better in nature with some more CO2. I just don't buy into the notion that they are starved, craving, stunted, or in need of saving without it.

You get more growth in a growing season with more CO2. Seems like a good idea to me. More plants = more animals.

=higher animal density=more disease=more extreme disease cycling/predator-prey cycling/etc

Ecosystems change. New balances can be found. But this blanket "more is better" is just bull. Nature doesn't have a value system. We impose it. Which aspects of this are "better" to us? Which are "worse"?

If you don't like different, and most conservationists don't, then there's a problem.

[MirariNefas]

seedload,

At 200 ppm some plants stop working. At 90 ppm all plants stop working at CO2 levels from the lower threshold to 1,000 ppm the advantage is linear. Above that more CO2 is not as effective.

Please reference. I don't doubt you have something saying this, but I want to examine exactly what plants they looked at, and under what conditions.

[taniwha]

Well, a bit of googling shows there seems to be some conflicting views:
CO2 bad for plants
CO2 good for plants

And for a bit of interesting language:

The biggest surprise from the study was the discovery that elevated carbon dioxide only stimulated plant growth when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels.

Gotta love most people's abuse of "only". If "only" is being used correctly, then the above sentence is saying that when other conditions are kept at normal levels, the only thing that CO2 does is to stimulate plant growth. If "only" is being used in most people's sloppy fashion, the sentence says that the only time CO2 stimulates plant growth is when other conditions are kept the same (for this meaning, the sentence should have been written as "...that elevated carbon dioxide stimulated plant growth only when nitrogen, water and temperature were kept at normal levels"). Almost completely opposite meanings just by changing the position of one word. Were the authors being sloppy, or is it a deliberate attempt to lie while telling the truth?

Also, judging by the photos in the "bad for plants" article, it looks like their experimental method might leave a lot to be desired, possibly producing bogus results.

I'm inclined to say that greenhouses make for much better experimental conditions (better control of the variables).

Back to "only": "only" is a very powerful word that is both adjective and adverb and can be used anywhere in a sentence, any number of times. And like any other power tool, misuse of "only" can cause you to lose a finger (or in this case, the meaning).

Only I only put only the only apple only in only the only fridge.

Taking any single "only" out of the sentence changes its meaning, even if only subtly.

[taniwha]

Here's another article. It seems to be on the "good for plants" side. (all the hits I've seen for "bad for plants" have so far been the same article).

[MirariNefas]

I can provide peer reviewed articles showing an increase in biomass resulting from CO2. That part is not in question. But I want to see where this blanket assertion (presumably for all plants in all conditions) of a linear relationship to 1000 ppm is coming from.

Almost nothing in biology is simply "good" or "bad". Someone used human growth hormone as an example up above. It's a good example.