Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think it said At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted. No mention about survival. But if you want to believe they don't survive, what about the seeds in the ground that haven't germinated yet?Your source says that we've had CO2 below 100 ppm for many tens of thousands of years, and Standford University says that plants can't survive below a minimum of 150 ppm:
View attachment 860052
How about we agree that the issue is controversial and that there are many very knowledgeable people who disagree w/ each other on this topic.
We can all believe what we have decided to believe no matter what.I think it said At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. At this low level the plant will no longer be able to obtain CO2 from the atmosphere and photosynthesis is restricted. No mention about survival. But if you want to believe they don't survive, what about the seeds in the ground that haven't germinated yet?
Every winter plants covered in snow survive, right? How do you think that happens? Ever been to the North Slope? I have. In winter and summer.
You would be surprised how long seeds can remain dormant without germination. But if you want to believe all plant life should have been wiped out despite your knowing all plant life wasn't wiped out, go for it. I think you are just being argumentative.We can all believe what we have decided to believe no matter what.
Meanwhile, my choice is to see the Standford quote as asserting that plants die when CO2 is below 150ppm. Where I get that is the wording "...plants, which require 150ppm to survive". My interpretation is that they're alleging that plants will not survive (iow, die) if CO2 falls below 150ppm.
We can agree that plants survive for part of the year when they're covered w/ snow for several months. Let's also agree that plants will not survive if they're covered w/ snow for tens of thousands of years. This is what we see at Greenland and Antarctica.
They areF
Fraud.
I would prefer to see the datasets they use. Funny, they don’t seem to existWe can all believe what we have decided to believe no matter what.
Meanwhile, my choice is to see the Standford quote as asserting that plants die when CO2 is below 150ppm. Where I get that is the wording "...plants, which require 150ppm to survive". My interpretation is that they're alleging that plants will not survive (iow, die) if CO2 falls below 150ppm.
We can agree that plants survive for part of the year when they're covered w/ snow for several months. Let's also agree that plants will not survive if they're covered w/ snow for tens of thousands of years. This is what we see at Greenland and Antarctica.
You're absolutely right, there've been wheat seeds found in Egyptian tombs that were able to germinate after many thousands of years. At the same time we should also agree that there's no viable plant life under the thousands of feet of pack ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Sure, there are a lot of plants on the coasts of Antactica and Greenland but our focus is whether plants can survive on less than 100ppm CO2 for many tens of thousands of years.You would be surprised how long seeds can remain dormant without germination.
My experience is that when we ask for supporting data we either find the subject changing or we get the suggestion that somehow you and I are supposed to trust their favored learned scientists and ignore our own.I would prefer to see the datasets they use. Funny, they don’t seem to exist
And argues for the OPPOSITE conclusionThe immediate physical response is 1C increase in atmospheric temperature for every doubling of CO2 concentration. It's actually pretty weak.
I agree there's an apparent conflict. But we know plant life wasn't extinguished for good because it came back. I have no doubt that plant life as well as most life struggles during a glacial period but there aren't glacial conditions everywhere. So while in theory plant life is threatened with extinction during glacial periods, in practice it did not happen.You're absolutely right, there've been wheat seeds found in Egyptian tombs that were able to germinate after many thousands of years. At the same time we should also agree that there's no viable plant life under the thousands of feet of pack ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Sure, there are a lot of plants on the coasts of Antactica and Greenland but our focus is whether plants can survive on less than 100ppm CO2 for many tens of thousands of years.
There are some very knowledgeable people who say that plants can not survive at less than 150ppm CO2, and there are some other very knowledgeable people who say the entire earth went below 100ppm CO2 for many tens of thousands of years. I consider these views to be in conflict and you seem to not be willing to consider such a conflict exists.
To me this kind of phenomenon is fascinating.
That will never fly hereMy experience is that when we ask for supporting data we either find the subject changing or we get the suggestion that somehow you and I are supposed to trust their favored learned scientists and ignore our own.
As for the observations we can do individually, those just aren't allowed on the table.
Wow, your opinion makes them experts ?There are some very knowledgeable people
But your opinions are? HahahaWow, your opinion makes them experts ?
Yup.But your opinions are? Hahaha
We knew you thought so! HahahaYup.
Well, you think your 0-1000, so it was a stretch thinking I’m brighter than you.We knew you thought so! Hahaha
It wasWell, you think your 0-1000, so it was a stretch thinking I’m brighter than you.
Right, the data we're getting is not consistent. It might be the CO2 numbers that are wrong or are localized. The "150ppm survival" number may be wrong or for just a special case. For now my take is that any conclusions we make from any of this data will have to be labeled "conjecture".I agree there's an apparent conflict. But we know plant life wasn't extinguished for good because it came back. I have no doubt that plant life as well as most life struggles during a glacial period but there aren't glacial conditions everywhere. So while in theory plant life is threatened with extinction during glacial periods, in practice it did not happen.
Life, this issue, and this forum are all complex and we got a lot of different folks w/ different approaches. Sure there some people here who are difficult and close minded, and those guys end up being "ignored". That still leaves many others w/ whom we can interact.That will never fly here
You and I just aren't connecting here, how about we set this aside for now and maybe we can come back to this or some other topic later.Wow, your opinion makes them experts ?
I'm not there. Life is more resilient than we think. We know (i.e. not conjecture) that there were thousands of feet of ice covering large portions of NA, Europe and Asia. We know (i.e. not conjecture) those areas are covered in plant life today. Besides the 150 ppm threshold doesn't actually say plants can't survive.Right, the data we're getting is not consistent. It might be the CO2 numbers that are wrong or are localized. The "150ppm survival" number may be wrong or for just a special case. For now my take is that any conclusions we make from any of this data will have to be labeled "conjecture".
