How do climatefags respond to this?
With sage plant
What does this even show? Fucking niggerfaggots can't even write coherent posts.
I'm guessing 390 is our current level?
They can't. Common sense is too much for them.
They're working on banning all NPK currently. Because they're so smart about the environment. And because their masters told them too.
What the fuck am I looking at
not my problem, germany has no permafrost
c3 and c4 are both photosynthesis processes with c4 being much much much more efficient in low-water conditions, as seen here with watering level (mm/day???). studies of the ecological and botanological makeup of various regions is showing c4 species are increasing in number, whereas c3 species are declining. this is essentially used as a proof of "desertification" in places like north africa, southern europe, and the great plains. not sure what the post is trying to suggest though.
yes
The far right one is our current level of CO2 parts per million, and the rest are examples of plant growth at other ppm's. Indoor plant growers use supplemental CO2 to get double or triple the yield.
"I can't breathe" but for plants.
CO2 levels used to be much, much higher during most of Earth's history, and most plants (C3) calibrated their internal chemistry for those levels - and are thus kinda struggling with our current CO2-poor atmosphere.
The C4 line used to be a "bad-conditions" mutation with minor success, but nowadays said bad conditions are the norm - which is why the industry is trying to copy-paste the C4 mutation in literally fucking everything.
This is easy to debooonk, CO2 is only one part of the equation, what about temperature and precipitaion? Yeah, exactly.
CO2 scaremongering is so 2010s. All the cool globalists are jacking up fear about nitrogen.
now try this with 3 months of drought and 40°C direct sunlight
>easy to debooonk
Your mom tried yet here we are you fucking moron.
OPs pic shows what's known as CO2 fertilization. It's known since late 1800s and is used in commercially in green houses. Climate fags try their hardest to ignore it, feign ignorance or derail the discussion with bullshit whataboutism.
Fun fact: The trees are not dying at all. Since 1950s world biomass has increased almost 50%. World food production has increased about the same. All due to increased CO2 levels.
>comparing two different plants
based and brainlet science pilled
C3 benefits from higher CO2 concentrations. The photosynthesis process is more efficient when CO2 is higher.
C4 photosynthesis concentrates CO2 so higher atmospheric CO2 has less effect. C4 is like a turbosupercharger that concentrates thin air at high altitude. At low altitude (thick air) it does not have a benefit.
Immagine this not being a sympathetic, self regulating system.
limiting factors. More CO2 is no good if it causes drought, this plant death, thus faster soil erosion in turn causing a cascade effect of water stress or nutrient deficiencies. Plants grown in lab conditions such as your pic face no such shortages
CO2 is being tested as atmospheric PPM
Watering and soil are identical.
It's all about creating artificial food shortages. With low CO2 you need more fertilizers.
It's in their interest to keep CO2 down.
>C4 photosynthesis
Very interesting, didn't know that. But can you really say higher CO2 concentration has no benefit? OPs pic seems to show otherwise, the effect is smaller bit clearly visible. Unless they cheated with the pressure but why do that?.
When talking about climate change, it is worth taking a look at the ancient history of the earth. In the third century BC, Hannibal trotted across the Alps in sandals.
We humans have settled into the warm phase of a superordinate ice age (Holocene). Civilized man knows nothing else and seems unable to consider significant climate change as normal, let alone accept it. For example, the existence of glaciers is an extremely rare phenomenon in terms of geological history (some people lament the dwindling masses of ice as if they had a legally enforceable right to them). And there was something like the Cretaceous and most likely there will be again; an earth-spanning tropical house. In view of this, the debates about the "1.5 degree target" are an infantile circus that absolutely has to be called out as such. 8 billion people correspond to roughly the same biomass as existing ants on our planet. We overestimate us. The temperature development comes quite plausibly from the last little ice age & is a stroke of luck for us.
The "man-made" point is the politically important one, because it can be used to target people's behavior, to blame them, control them, and to fleece them financially. Personally I can't fully understand why the so-called climate change is first of all: really significant (that's crucial! I agree without a doubt that 8 billion people on earth have an impact, the only question is how much impact), because climate change has always existed in geological history. And second: if humans are at all capable of having a decisive influence on climate change by changing their behavior. In addition, there is the legitimate question from whether temperature increases are actually harmful. As a hobby gardener (about 2500 square meters of acreage), I am of the opinion from my own little experience that the lack of regular rain is noticeable here in central Europe and that drought and water shortage are a problem that can also worsen. Nothing works without water. In essence, it is about the question of what contribution do humans have and how can we respond to the resulting problems with any chance of success.
Guys like Kaczynski or Linkola probably took harvesting machines on their doorstep as a warning and then, according to their thoughts, lived somewhere in the bleak wilderness, but basically they never achieved anything, while people like Greta Thunberg read boring scientific studies but then also have a say in political decisions later in life.
What bothers me about the climate fascists is that they provide no possible, viable alternative to our current system. Those don't exist because human societies, "mankind" as a whole, cannot be persuaded to cut down on a large scale as long as they don't have to, but on the contrary are constantly looking for ways to improve their own current condition. Inevitable progress must therefore always be assumed, and a return to the Middle Ages is not an option. Many of the "solutions" addressed by the climate fascists have a sometimes very reactionary line that has to fail in the form it takes. This way the radicals will never get enough people onto the streets to take power or even to achieve influence in their interests. The "climate strikes" of 2019 were abruptly interrupted by the Xi Xi Virus and they ended up being arguably as much astroturfing as the theater of "Extinction Rebellion."
High technology, sensible technology, extensive dismantling and avoidance of superfluous and harmful production, plus strict population control in developing countries seem like more viable options.
they want to get rid of CO2 since it'll decrease greenery and eventually force people into eating bugs
Go look up C3 and C4 photosynthesis you dumb nigger.
C3 is "Standard photosynthesis" that most plants have. It is simpler and benefits from more water and more atmospheric CO2 pressure.
C4 is a low ppm CO2 adaptation as well as low water availability. It doesn't benefit as much from better conditions because C4 needs additional genes and cell structures that increase the basic cost of replication, also it is tuned for this lower level of CO2 and can't "go into overdrive" with better conditions.
C4 famously exists in corn and some grasses. It is uncommon.