Recent searches
Search options
The "CO2 is plant food" myth keeps coming up. Why is it wrong? My latest on The Climate Brink
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food-why-are-we-still
@andrewdessler awesome post!What i think it is missing though is at first: CO2 is has a nonlinear and also limited influence on photosynthesis (C3 vs C4, Rubisco, ...) and second: there is a large mismatch between atmospheric CO2-level and forest climate CO2-level (especially below canopy). So the limit, where the positive influence of CO2 approaches 0, is reached earlier than expected.
@tillmanreuter @andrewdessler I finally found out who this was sub-substacking and I already forgot his name but I don't think he knows about C3 and C4. Or rubisco. But the two of us can agree that CO2 levels are going to be completely irrelevant for C4 plants, right? I'm not a plant molecular biologist. So at most it might be a small competitive advantage for C3 plants against C4 plants.
@tillmanreuter @andrewdessler And isn't learning ability among students negatively impacted by even a small increase in CO2?
Plants can only absorb CO2 if it’s cool enough for them to open their stomata.
600 million years ago, the CO2 levels were around 7000 ppm. Average temperatures were too high to support plant life that we rely on the leaves would overheat and fry. We could only have megaphils once temperature levels had dropped low enough.
Then the negative consequences of higher temperatures are manifold.
@andrewdessler The plants aren't *that* damn hungry