Originally posted by Crapspackle
Pretty picture of plants that do not exist. I actuall grow real plants for real in the real world.
In the real "real world" or in a climate controlled greenhouse? So far your posts have leaned heavily towards a greenhouse hypothesis.
How Much Carbon Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?
How Much Carbon
Dioxide Can Your Indoor Garden Use?
Experiments have shown that plants can handle up to 10,000 PPM of CO2 with no ill effects. At very high light densities, indoor plants
have a maximum CO2 uptake of just over 2,000 PPM.
Light intensity increases with closer distance, so the CO2 level around plants needs to be increased respectively:
Lights Distances CO2 Needed for
from Plants Sugar Production
HID Lamps 4ft (120 cm) * Ambient
3 ft (90 cm) 400 PPM
2ft (60 cm) 1,000 PPM
1 ft (30 cm) 2,000 PPM
This is with maintaining all plant resources at MAXIMUM and at a temperature NOT EXCEEDING 30°C (86°F).
* Ambient CO2 in the cities is between 400-500 PPM.
* Ambient CO2 in the country is about 300 PPM.
Note: Any time your indoor garden temperature goes above 30°C (86°F), start shutting down the CO2
Again, we seem to be dealing with controlled environments, but I do appreciate that you've at least finally taken a stand as to how much CO2 is "too
much". From what you've quoted, it appears you believe 10,000 ppm to be the threshold at which plants can "handler CO2 with no ill effects"
10,000 ppm. I further not that your source gives a current range of CO2 concentration of 400-500ppm (urban) to 300ppm (rural). NOAA gives the current
concentration, averaged out, as 393.69ppm as of June, 2011 ( source
), which is well
within the range you give, and in agreement with it.
10,000 ppm is more than 25 times the current concentrations, and is in fact greater than the concentration has ever been since the advent of life on
Earth. I seriously doubt we'll see that any time soon, or ever, making it a non-issue. A smoke screen.
During the Carboniferous period, which I brought up and you appear to take issue with, concentrations were around 1800 ppm, roughly 4.6 times current
concentration. A far cry from 25X.
Argumentum ad absurtium. A good phrase to familiarize oneself with.
In fact, the success of the rainforests of the time due to high CO2 levels also led to their eventual collapse and demise. They pulled out enough of
the atmospheric carbon (creating our coal beds) that CO2 levels dropped to current levels. leading to rain forest collapse and the desertification of
the Permian era.
I could make an argument for the dangers inherent in the current low CO2 levels, but I won't go there. Wouldn't want to send you into apoplexy.
When you pump too much CO2, you have to so completely over respond with drastic temperature and light shifts just to come to what turns out to have
been a vain attempt to grow a super plant now in the form of a shriveled and oddly stunted little dead end.
But see, we are here again talking about a greenhouse environment, in which the variables are independently controlled to create an unnatural state,
found nowhere in nature. The very fact that you even mention an ability to adjust light and temperature (humidity would probably factor in as well,
eh?) shows that. It has no bearing in a planetary context, unless you can also control all of the independent variable planet-wide and independently.
In biomes in nature, the variable tend to be rather more interdependent. For example, humidity tends to increase naturally with temperature and CO2,
aridity tends to increase with temperature and low CO2.
I do wish I had your 3D artistic talents though. Unless you just used VUE or something that is very impressive.
I used Terragen for the render. Most of the "art", if that's what it is, is dependent on manipulation of the 3d models, composition, and setting
the lighting and atmospheric variables. I've tried VUE, but it was overly complex without a concurrent increase in control of the scene.
Look, the only "scientists" that say plants can handle endless supplies of CO2 in the atmospher work for the energy company. None of them happen to
be farmers, botanists, or you know, people in the "plant" industry.
I would not trust any scientist who postulated that plants could endure endless anything. Plants need water, too, yet they can drown just as easily as
you or I - more so, since they are sedentary, and can't escape. Likewise, I wouldn't want to try to survive in a pure O2 atmosphere. The fact
remains that the tolerances aren't quite as tight as some would have us believe, and even then depend on other variables. When I look through the
science of it, I look for results, and how well the model fits observation, not the political leanings of the scientist, whichever way he may lean. It
seems that this debate is pretty polarizing, and it seems awfully hard for scientists to keep their politics out of the equation. It falls then to us
to look at the science, and make up our own minds based upon the findings, rather than the politics.
But then, political dabbling in science is what got us into this current discussion, isn't it?