It's already happening but to get a new crop cultivar to market, like a new wheat or a new apple, takes >20 years.
Several aspects re climate change will neccessitate making plants grow better (nutritious, pest resistant etc) despite the high CO2 - CO2 was only beneficial to humans when it was below 300ppm.
The article admitted that there has been a worldwide greening effect from increased co2 levels.
The vast majority of plants grow bigger and faster when co2 is between 600 and 1500 ppm.
Above 600 increasingly toxic to us us, and above 300 mineral and protein falls off for most plants. Some plants also become > flammable. Have peer papers if interested.
I would love to see those papers.
I am sure that any drop off would be insignificant compared to the additional vegetation at higher co2 levels.
The people in the Biosphere experiment were living in an environment with co2 over 5000 ppm but it was not good for them.
Most unventilated homes are between 700 and 900 ppm.
For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious.
> For example, Tomato growers keep co2 levels greater than 1500 ppm in their greenhouses and their tomatoes are very nutricious.
I would expect because the greenhouse environment (and scale) lets them have much better control over the plant's intake requirements (also likely better oversight). That would not be an easy thing to manage in fields.
It's like comparing a small group of professional athletes with an entire crew managing their nutrition versus a single nutritionist serving an entire city.
A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not.
It would be like giving a city as much food as they want irrespective of individual need.
> A plant in the field can only take advantage of the extra co2 if there is adequate inputs but it does not do the plant harm if not.
Sure, but the nutritional issue with plants is generally with macronutrients the plant itself doesn't need, or at least not at the concentrations we'd prefer.
Furthermore your assertion is not true, like pretty much everything else that lives plants will absolutely gorge themselves as long as they don't otherwise have limits on their ability to do so, even if it harms them. It's very rare for organisms to have evolutionary limits on that as they'll either be constrained (either by the food source or by an external threat of some sort) or living under boom-and-bust cycles (whether naturally or because humans have removed the external threat, very common in game animals and rodents).
Photosynthesis is limited by the availability of light, water and co2.
They can't gorge without sufficient amounts if all three.
At what point did they remove photosynthesis from the curriculum?
> without the warmth you guys are so scared of there would be no life
You don't seem to realise that heating things up is pretty easy, even in a preindustrial society, while cooling things is extremely difficult and there is a hard and quite low limit to how hot we can remain for long periods of time.
At 35 WBT we're done for, literally can't cool down, die in a few hours even with no activity whatsoever, in the shade, with wind or a fan.
As we go above 1.5, the tropics will become literally unlivable as they will regularly exceed 35 WBT.
You have this precisely the opposite. The huge propaganda machine of industrial interests has been leading an effort to bury this very real threat to humanity for 50 years, in the name of corporate profits.
Sorry, but when you claim that global warming is not a big problem because "we need warmth", there is no way of taking you seriously, so I could only joke.
hi bobbytit, here's some of them, these are the most meaningful papers from my collection
There is a knowledge/research gap between now ~415ppm and 600ppm - and very little research below ~900ppm. A few studies start at 600ppm, most start approx 900ppm
I don't know what it is about eCO2 and human health but almost anything I've found looks sketchy/amateurish or is hosted somewhere odd, or when I go to a site it's been hacked.
There are indications that ambient eCO2 results in high blood CO2 altho afaict this has only been derived stoichiometrically
Human health and cognition
Seppänen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ. 1999. Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2-Concentrations with Health and other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Indoor Air 9: 226-252. Discusses where sick building syndrome effects fell sharply <800ppm
Irakli Loladze - a lot of people have tried to defund and otherwise harass this brilliant mathematical biologist as he not a plant physiologist. He has highlighted one of the most critical effects of eCO2.
Rising CO2 affects human nutrition: systemic depletion of essential minerals in crop and wild plants
https://sites.google.com/site/loladze/elevated-CO2-alterns-c...
Ziska 2021 Climate Change, Carbon Dioxide, and Public Health: The Plant Biology Perspective.
Global Climate Change and Human Health, 2021 - John Wiley & Sons
Wildfire, by lowering plant lignin content
Blank White Ziska 2006 Combustion properties of Bromus tectorum L.: influence of ecotype and growth under four CO2 concentrations. Ziska is a very active researcher in the eCO2 space.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf05055
Flooding
and resulting in flooding by making many plants more water efficient
Fowler et al 2019 The effect of plant physiological responses to rising CO2 on global streamflow.
https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10193353
Things which are flammable can get a more (or less) flammable depending on composition (or environment).
For instance furniture is flammable, but if you remove the flame retardants they become a lot more flammable, either the threshold for inflaming is lower, or they burn up a lot faster and / or hotter.
> It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals?
"Falls off" means they decrease not that they disappear, and the lowering nutritiousness of foodstuff is regularly spotlighted.
Admittedly not the most readable construct, but the ">" in the OP's sentence is saying that the plants become more flammable. To the OP, I had not heard that before, would be interested to see those peer reviewed papers if you can share.
> It’s already above 400, so most plants no longer have protein or minerals?
OP said it falls off, not that it goes away completely.
