7 ms·

Leading to a new equilibrium. That equilibrium will not necessarily be one favorable to human life. In the same way that eating an extra 5 donuts a day might le

Leading to a new equilibrium. That equilibrium will not necessarily be one favorable to human life. In the same way that eating an extra 5 donuts a day might lead to a new equilibrium of your weight, but that doesn't necessarily imply one is healthy.

michael9423 2y ago
The global greening does show that from the perspective of a healthy, fully greened planet, the CO2 concentrations are actually too low still. Plants favor a CO2 concentration of at least 1000 ppm. That's why in agriculture, extra CO2 is used to stimulate plant growth. I think this should be noted, since the slogan by alarmists is usually "save the planet".
- dralley 2y ago
  >a healthy, fully greened planet You're making a lot of very strong assumptions, notably * That a healthy planet is a "fully green" one * That a "fully green" planet is healthy to the organisms that currently live on that planet, particularly humans The Jurassic Era, for example, was much more "green". Humans wouldn't have fared very well in the Jurassic Era.
  - jaggederest 2y ago
    Average temperatures in the Jurassic were only about +2.5C over current averages. We're shooting north of the Carboniferous (+3C) and headed towards the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse period, where average temps were +5C to +8C over where they are now. Probably not survivable for humanity as we know it now. We're already seeing wet bulb temperatures over the survivable maximum in some parts of the world, imagine stacking another 3-5C on top of that. Large parts of equatorial land would be fatally warm to humanity, and the temperate band for growing crops would shift at least a thousand miles north.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Humans are not vegetables, despite what some may think. 1000 ppm is at the level where us apes have measurable reduction in reaction time and other cognitive impairments.
  - michael9423 2y ago
    > 1000 ppm is at the level where us apes have measurable reduction in reaction time and other cognitive impairments. The experiments that showed this were confusing correlation with causation. High CO2 in rooms is a marker of reduced O2, and a lack of fresh air. If you add 1000ppm CO2 to fresh air, it actually boosts cognition due to the Bohr effect.
    - Hugsun 2y ago
      > The experiments that showed this were confusing correlation with causation. What nonsense. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1 From the paper: "All studies measured the effects of exposure to artificially raised (pure) CO2" Some studies showed no effects (for the given task) while others showed a reduction in performance.
      - michael9423 2y ago
        Thank you for that paper. It shows that the proposed negative effects of CO2 do not exist. Let's take the study by Rodeheffer. Even 15,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere did not change the results of a thorough 90-minute test. If this is not indicative of the benignancy of CO2, I don't know what is. Let's take the another study by Allen that showed "SMS performance was 15% lower for 945 ppm and 50% lower for 1,400 ppm relative to 550 ppm" This was not a controlled study, but just an association study in different buildings. All the studies that use a good setup do not report marked lowering of cognitive function. Then you can look at the paper by Herczeg and the mental performance is not really much different between 600 and 4000 ppm - merely 5% difference in errors found in the test. With only few participants, this is not significant. Since this is a short-term study, adaption to higher CO2 levels needs to be considered.
- margalabargala 2y ago
  You are correct that there will be plenty of life on the much warmer, greener planet we are heading towards. Well, probably. There won't be many humans around to verify. When people say "Save the planet" they generally mean "save the planet as it currently exists", since taking 100 years to make environmental changes that usually take 3000 will have negative effects that outweigh the increase in plant life from a human perspective.

michael9423 2y ago

The global greening does show that from the perspective of a healthy, fully greened planet, the CO2 concentrations are actually too low still. Plants favor a CO2 concentration of at least 1000 ppm. That's why in agriculture, extra CO2 is used to stimulate plant growth. I think this should be noted, since the slogan by alarmists is usually "save the planet".

dralley 2y ago
>a healthy, fully greened planet You're making a lot of very strong assumptions, notably * That a healthy planet is a "fully green" one * That a "fully green" planet is healthy to the organisms that currently live on that planet, particularly humans The Jurassic Era, for example, was much more "green". Humans wouldn't have fared very well in the Jurassic Era.
- jaggederest 2y ago
  Average temperatures in the Jurassic were only about +2.5C over current averages. We're shooting north of the Carboniferous (+3C) and headed towards the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse period, where average temps were +5C to +8C over where they are now. Probably not survivable for humanity as we know it now. We're already seeing wet bulb temperatures over the survivable maximum in some parts of the world, imagine stacking another 3-5C on top of that. Large parts of equatorial land would be fatally warm to humanity, and the temperate band for growing crops would shift at least a thousand miles north.
ben_w 2y ago
Humans are not vegetables, despite what some may think. 1000 ppm is at the level where us apes have measurable reduction in reaction time and other cognitive impairments.
- michael9423 2y ago
  > 1000 ppm is at the level where us apes have measurable reduction in reaction time and other cognitive impairments. The experiments that showed this were confusing correlation with causation. High CO2 in rooms is a marker of reduced O2, and a lack of fresh air. If you add 1000ppm CO2 to fresh air, it actually boosts cognition due to the Bohr effect.
  - Hugsun 2y ago
    > The experiments that showed this were confusing correlation with causation. What nonsense. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1 From the paper: "All studies measured the effects of exposure to artificially raised (pure) CO2" Some studies showed no effects (for the given task) while others showed a reduction in performance.
    - michael9423 2y ago
      Thank you for that paper. It shows that the proposed negative effects of CO2 do not exist. Let's take the study by Rodeheffer. Even 15,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere did not change the results of a thorough 90-minute test. If this is not indicative of the benignancy of CO2, I don't know what is. Let's take the another study by Allen that showed "SMS performance was 15% lower for 945 ppm and 50% lower for 1,400 ppm relative to 550 ppm" This was not a controlled study, but just an association study in different buildings. All the studies that use a good setup do not report marked lowering of cognitive function. Then you can look at the paper by Herczeg and the mental performance is not really much different between 600 and 4000 ppm - merely 5% difference in errors found in the test. With only few participants, this is not significant. Since this is a short-term study, adaption to higher CO2 levels needs to be considered.
margalabargala 2y ago
You are correct that there will be plenty of life on the much warmer, greener planet we are heading towards. Well, probably. There won't be many humans around to verify. When people say "Save the planet" they generally mean "save the planet as it currently exists", since taking 100 years to make environmental changes that usually take 3000 will have negative effects that outweigh the increase in plant life from a human perspective.