|Carbon dioxide does not affect temperature but it does make muscles ache30-04-2019 06:07|
|Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
|So why is it not a good idea to reduce carbon dioxide to 100 ppm?|
|Plants would starve at much higher ppm than 100 ppm.
Edited on 30-04-2019 16:26
Think you meant lower, not higher. Plants in greenhouse, with 1200-2000 ppm, do incredibly well. Think this point alone, is a 'Climate Change' deal breaker. More warm and CO2 would benefit plant greatly, which produce more food for the planet. The obvious though, is that reduce the CO2 is going reduce the available food, more than the potential of the average global temperature rising a few degrees. There are a lot of warmer climates around the world, and people survive just fine.
|Thus, we can say that, as a rough estimate, the value (where plants die) lies between 50ppm and 170ppm (probably closer to 170ppm than to 50ppm).|
I don't know if anyone has ever tested where they actually die, but according to the studies they have done, the graph shows it to die somewhere between 50 and 170. Every sign says its closer to the 170. Since that range is 120 ppm half way would be 110 (50+1/2 of 120). Since all the study say its most likely to be above the 110 ppm, no, its not likely to below 100 ppm.
What I meant is that if co2 ever hits 100 ppm, its likely all life on earth will have died.
Edited on 30-04-2019 23:55
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Photosynthesis ceases at 180 ppm. Plants cannot absorb enough CO2 to live at that level.
|Here Is Precisely How To Measure Global Average Temperature||7||14-02-2020 01:33|
|Carbon-tax comes to the Northeast, some states reluctant...||3||28-01-2020 04:00|
|Global Warming, Planet Temperature Rising Is Like Road Traffic Congestion||1||20-01-2020 06:32|
|Forget New Green Deal, Let's make BIS(Basic Infrastructure And Service) Free.||12||15-01-2020 20:30|
|Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC||3||14-01-2020 21:44|