Danger of Low Atmospheric CO2 – Rising Because of That?

Are from MasterSource

Via Craig D. Idso – November 1, 2022

Therefore, CO₂ literally “food” for the basic sustenance of all plants (and herbivores, including humans) on the Earth’s surface. And when that food supply is reduced, nature begins to decrease.

in my last post I have shared the results of research findings that demonstrate an increase in atmospheric CO₂ levels do not represent a current direct threat to human health and/or cognitive performance and decision making. Furthermore, I explained that they presented unrealistically Future both threats; for CO₂ the level will need to increase some 36 times higher than present concentrations before they begin to cause a mild health concern.

That value (i.e. 15,000 ppm) will never happen, as it is a factor of 10 on a atmospheric CO level of approximately 1500 ppm₂ limits that scientists think is possible if society uses all of currently known fossil fuel reserves on the planet.

But what about Short CO₂ concentration? Can they pose a threat to humanity? In short, yes. The lower the CO₂ concentration, the greater the risk. This certainly applies to net PPM reductions, but it also applies to reduce CO₂ from government climate policies against market incentives for mineral energy, natural gas, coal, and oil. More CO₂ In other words, the better.

Explanation

Carbon dioxide is nature’s building block. It is the main material used by plants during photosynthesis to build and construct their tissues. Therefore, CO₂ literally “food” for the basic sustenance of all plants (and herbivores, including humans) on the Earth’s surface. And when that food supply is reduced, nature begins to decrease.

For example, consider the work of Faltein et al. (2020), who examined the effects of low CO levels₂ (compared to current, surrounding CO₂ air) on African sorrel wood (Oxakis pes-caprae). O. pes-caprae were an important source of carbohydrates for humans during the Middle Pleistocene, frequently harvested by foragers for edible underground storage organs (USOs).

Given that CO in the atmosphere₂ as a substrate for photosynthesis and growth, Faltein et al. curious to find out how much the tuber biomass of African sorrel would decrease (compared to present) during the Middle Pleistocene and how such a reduction would impact efforts to harvest enough biomass to achieve daily calorific requirements.

To complete their design, four South African researchers grew specimens of O. pes-caprae for three months in mini open chambers with medium CO₂ concentrations of 227, 285, 320 and 390 ppm. All plants receive enough water and nutrients. Not surprisingly, Faltein et al. reported that at the end of the experiment, plants under reduced CO₂ showed “significant reduction in plant biomass and tuber yield” (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Bulb biomass of Oxalis pes-caprae grown under sub-ambient CO conditions₂ concentrations for three weeks. Letters indicate significant differences between treatments at P < 0.05. Adapted from Faltein et al. (In 2020).

For example, scientists say that under the lowest CO₂ levels, “bulb biomass is reduced by up to 80% from current environmental concentrations, while total plant biomass is reduced by two times.” Such a reduction in growth is, of course, attributed to the “fundamental effects of [CO₂]. “

For Mankind impact of such a reduction in growth rate due to low CO₂Faltein et al. note that the CO is lower₂ concentration “affects both the value of USO as a source of carbohydrates and the effort required to harvest enough biomass to meet daily calorific requirements.” And regarding the second problem, they calculated that “the time required to harvest 2000 calories more than doubled when [CO₂] fell from 400 to 180 ppm. “

Inference

The above findings (and others discussed here) demonstrates that humanity benefits from higher levels of CO in the atmosphere₂, which increases plant production and enhances the available supply of carbohydrates. On the other hand, reducing the amount of CO present₂ the concentration of the atmosphere, which has become the basis of so many politicians and activists, has opposite effect. And bigger reduction of CO in the atmosphere₂more than devastated effects will occur, as research shows that plants begin to died at CO₂ concentrations lower than 120 or 130 ppm.

Therefore, not at all reduce CO₂ The content of the atmosphere will negatively impact the natural state, not only reducing plant growth, but also other benefits brought by higher CO₂ concentration, including efficient use of water and better tolerance to environmental stresses such as drought, pandemic, high soil salinity, low light intensity, ozone pollution, heat wave, UV-B radiationetc. Reducing these benefits will certainly reduce the global food supplypotentially lead to unrest and civil strife if the reduction is substantial enough.

So yes, there are consequences for reducing CO in the air₂ content not at all amount. Claiming otherwise or ignoring this science-based fact demonstrates the ignorance (and arrogance) of those who want to reduce CO.₂ concentration of the atmosphere.

References

Faltein, Z., Esler, KJ, Midgley, GF and Ripley, BS 2020. Atmospheric CO.₂ concentration that inhibits the growth of Oxalis pes-caprae light bulb used by humans in the Paleo-Agulhas Plain during the Pleistocene Ice Age. Quaternary Science Review 235: 105731.