Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "'What Percent Of Our Atmosphere Is CO2?': Doug LaMalfa Stumps Entire Panel With Climate Questions" video.

@bigdogbill119 Instead of calling it "hogwash" I suggest that you actually look it up. Because the numbers are in, most plants in most of the world contain less nutrients then before. Domesticated and wild plants alike. A important factor that this effect is often attributed to is increased CO2 levels (as experiments in controlled conditions have shown that plants contain less nutrients when grown in a high CO2 environment with other factors being as close as possible to the same). But the whole world and its plants isn't a controlled experiment, so while we definitely know that CO2 can cause the effect I'm not sure if it has been proven that it's the main cause or only cause for that matter quite yet... But it's definitely the top suspect from what I can tell...
8
 @ethanwilliams4559 More growth yes, but actually less nutrients. Turn out that plants are becoming less and less nutritious.
5
@manmanman2000 H2O is also a important greenhouse gas, but the problem is more the combined effects of that and other gasses overcoming the mechanisms countering them.
5
@Puzzlesocks True, there's no one factor responsible alone. But this isn't just seen in domesticated plants, but also in wild ones. So yeah, CO2 is a important contributor in this regard even if it's definitely not alone.
3
@timothyblazer1749 You claim that plants grown with regenerative processes generate more nutrients then the monoculture plants, and I believe that. But do they produce as much as using the same techniques in the past? It matters what you are comparing with. Also, how do you explain the lower level of nutrients in wild plants? Or what about tests where the plants have the same conditions, same genes, same access to nutrients, same amount of light, but the plants with more CO2 has has nutrient density inside the plant? Regenerative farming practices are important, but they don't solve every problem. And plants just like all other lifeforms including us are fundamentally just chemical processes and changing the concentration of different chemicals in a process can change the outcome, not always for the better. Because plants are more then just one chemical reaction. There's more going on in a plant then just photosynthesis, and while photosynthesis might benefit from more CO2 those other processes are apparently a different matter given the observations.
3
Actually, no. Plants need CO2, yes, but lately the increase in CO2 has actually caused them to grow faster but also reduce their nutritional value worldwide. And CO2 was already changing our climate prior to humans existing, it's basically the majority of the difference between our climate and that of Mars. And that's done by such a small percentage, less then even. So just imagine how bad it would be if it reached a full percent?
2
@cynthiacook1646 0% CO2? Even during the Cambrian explosion the air only had about 4 000 parts pr million of CO2. It's now about 418 ppm, more then a doubling from the norm of the last 5 million years of between 180 and 280 ppm. Given that 400 is about 1/10th of 4 000 and 400 is what he described as 0,4% then presumably the levels of the Cambrian explosion, the highest level since multi-cellular life evolved must therefore be in the ballpark of 5% at the most if my quick and dirty head approximation is worth anything... Not 20% Now before multicellular life and before any organisms where using photosynthesis to make oxygen that's of course a different story. But the levels of that particular time definitely isn't relevant to us. Especially given that the sun only produced about 70% of the energy levels it does now back then... In other words, 20% CO2 wouldn't just be lethal to humans (we start entering coma at about 10% give or take although we can technically survive a bit more) but would have a far worse impact on our climate then it did on the climate back then. As for our plants... You really think that our plants that for the most part evolved relatively recently are prepared to survive Cambrian conditions? Seriously, are you aware that about 40% of all plant species in the world today are endangered or on the verge of extinction? CO2 is important for plants just like oxygen is for us. But both are lethal to both us and them in excess.
2
You all scorn them, but how often haven't you been unaware of a detail that you haven't prepared for and didn't expect before? Given that 0,4% of the atmosphere is capable of keeping our climate that much hotter then Mars (because without any climate gases we'd be a frozen ball of rock) then imagine how bad more CO2 would be...
1
@downtime86stars17 100% oxygen would kill us. Oxygen is a carcinogenic gas and while we've evolved to handle some oxygen and even to depend on it it's definitely not healthy in large amounts over long time. And some greenhouse gasses are needed to keep Earth from having the same climate as Mars. But there's a huge difference between that and what we currently have in the atmosphere. The majority of that carbon should still be bound up underground and only slowly be released into the atmosphere, not all at once like it is now. We've already dissolved many of the more important mechanisms that earth has of regulating the levels of CO2, like the calsium carbonate on the sea floor. Leaving us only with much slower processes like the withering of mountains and just biological mechanisms like forests and algaes etc.
1
 @glenw1740 Thank you... Just because this panel was caught of guard with a question that no one would normally expect doesn't change the fact that this is a urgent and real problem.
1
 @soakupthesunman Bs. We're nowhere near extinction levels of CO2. During the ice ages we where at 180 ppm, we're now at over 400. Most of our nature evolved to deal with about 200...
1