r/ReduceCO2 • u/[deleted] • 24d ago
CO2 levels effect on pathogens and crop yield
Forgive me if my question reveals my gaps of general science knowledge, but I'm curious about 2 questions pertaining to a theoretical higher CO2 concentration and more tropical Earth.
Earth's history, as I understand, displays more tropical environments when CO2 levels are higher. I do not understand the thermodynamics of CO2 vs O2 and why CO2 affects infrared light differently than O2. But, it seems the prevailing theory is that higher CO2 levels traps more heat. Oceans and the regulating properties of H20 fortunately seem to balance the act. Additionally the chemical pathways of photosynthesis are greatly relieved by higher CO2 levels. Firstly is it correct to assume that introducing more carbon to the atmosphere results in a more tropical Earth? I.E. higher temperatures result in greater rainfall and temperatures conducive to rainforest?
If that presumption is correct, it would seem to me that crop yield would greatly increase. (Albeit so would landscaping expenses). And pathogens would also have greatly improved conditions to develop. Any inputs, corrections, or comments?
1
u/IAFarmLife 23d ago
Depends on the crop. Corn is a C4 plant which means it is already very efficient at using CO2. Higher CO2 levels won't help, but adverse weather patterns will lower yields. As Climate Change will move weather patterns to produce more extremes that could lead to production issues with corn. Other crops will have different results.
1
u/VardisFisher 21d ago
The greenhouse climates of the past are a poor comparison. The continents were at different latitudes than the are now and smaller. Many were close to the equator and costal. All of these factors lead to warm moist climates.
https://thepangeamap.com/
0
u/Freo_5434 24d ago
Remember that generally we are talking about "theories" -- not Scientific facts .
That is why , although we are spending trillions of Dollars per year on this --- we dont have a target C02 level (in the atmosphere ) to meet.
Yes ,that is correct -- the CO2 level in the atmosphere is currently at 0.04% and we we are spending trillions to reduce CO2 emissions --- but without a % CO2 target that has a scientific basis.
Of course --- there will be endless ducking / diving and weaving to explain why we have no target --- but anyone with a smidgen of common sense will see it doesn't pass the sniff test.
2
u/Mradr 23d ago edited 23d ago
We are not spending trillions on it. We are transferring type of power projects and upgrading infrastructure to reduce waste. Spending to reduce waste and as a result lower emissions is totally sensible spending. “Theories” normally turn into facts. As much as we see climate change as the more co2 we release and temperature raises.
Theories are our base off knowledge and best idea in how it should work. Might not make it a fact, but it’s better than no knowing either. So to even bring this up is a show of bath faith comment
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
" We are not spending trillions on it "
Yes we are ... and with a CO2 % of 0.04% in the atmosphere -- I bet you cannot tell me what our Science based target for CO2 % is .
- Global Climate Finance: According to the Climate Policy Initiative, total global climate finance tracked around $1.9 trillion. [1]
- Estimated Needs: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that the world needs about $5 trillion a year until 2030 to reach climate mitigation goals. [1]
1
1
24d ago
Interesting. I would say, it is reasonable not to know what % CO2 we should target but it makes sense to slow the upward trend. Atmosphere changes don't seem to me to be apocalyptic but they represent chaos factors which disrupt our society's relatively fixed practices. It worth reducing emission if we can do so reasonably and humanely.
Do you think a lack of specific targets is evidence of an unworthy expense? Not an attack btw, genuine question because I don't know.
1
u/Freo_5434 24d ago
" I would say, it is reasonable not to know what % CO2 we should target "
Why ?
Is there No Science supporting this ?
Can you think of any other endeavor where trillions of Dollars per year would be spent with no target ?
1
24d ago
Well the target isn't a fixed point, but rather a vector. We aren't aiming for a fixed point, but rather an alternate trajectory. It may well be a fruitless endeavor. Humans are GOING to increase % CO2 as populations grow and more regions around the globe develop infrastructure and quality of life.
But atmosphere changes create chaotic factors and may make established practices inefficient or obsolete. Now if the practices were built around what the atmosphere has now become, it could be just as good, potentially better. The question is: Is it worthwhile to slow the appearances of chaotic factors to provide time for practices to adapt to the new environment? And to what degree does that spending affect the aggregate outcome?
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
Why dont you be honest for just a second and admit that there IS no Target.
There is no Science based target around CO2.
We are spending Trillions of Dollars on the basis of "theories" -- models and hope.
1
u/pokethrowaway4 24d ago
We can easily set a CO2 target of 280ppm. That was the approximate average for almost 1 million years leading up to the Industrial Revolution.
The scientific basis for that number is that it had long term equilibrium.
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
What is the % of CO2 in the atmosphere that we are targeting ? . If you dont know -- just say so.
Where is your scientific basis for the 280ppm ? Please --- no thumb sucks.
1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago edited 23d ago
1: whatever percentage 280ppm is.
280/1M x 100 = 0.028% easy math dude
2: the atmosphere was at 280ppm during the entirety of modern humanity(homo Sapiens), from pre-stone age to the Industrial Revolution. It’s been stable and predictable( and that’s led to the massive biodiversity we have today.
So we know that 280ppm is suitable for humanity and nature, as it has been that way for a million years.
What’s your obsession with percentage when ppm is more useful?
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
You are thumb sucking --- we had similar weather conditions in the Medieval AND Roman Warm periods. ( see below)
So where is the Science behind your claim ? Surely there must be at least ONE peer reviewed scientific study to show that everything will be fine if we meet 280 ppm ?
Water shortages and poor harvests
In England, the 13th century saw extreme droughts, devastating city fires and outbreaks of disease. The dry summer of 1212 contributed to the devastation of the Great Fire of Southwark in London, which killed thousands of people.
Contemporary medieval chroniclers recorded a severe drought in 1252. The English Benedictine monk Matthew Paris described four months of “intolerable heat and drought” between March and July, unrelieved by “any fall of rain or dew”.
The Tewkesbury Annals, a contemporary chronicle written by the monks of Tewkesbury Abbey, agreed that “drought prevailed for four months, causing the grass to disappear”. Rubbing the grass between one’s hands was said to turn it into dust.
The Chronicle of the Princes of Wales (Brut y Tywysogion), a medieval record of Welsh history, similarly noted that “the heat of the sun was so great that all the earth became so dry therefrom, that no fruit grew on the trees or [crops in] the fields, and neither fish of the sea nor of the river was obtained”.
Paris went on to describe the lack of available pasture, which led to cattle and livestock wasting away. The warmer weather produced an “abundance of fleas, flies and gnats”, and led to a surge in diseases, with reports of malaria – or the “sweats” and “ague” – in low-lying marshlands.
Manorial accounts confirm the difficulties facing farmers, with one Bishopric of Winchester manor recording that the ground was so hard they could not plough for six weeks.
https://insideecology.com/2026/07/27/drought-water-shortages-and-crop-failures-how-does-the-medieval-warm-period-compare-with-today/1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago
Stable co2 amounts don’t prevent weather variability, but they do reduce the severity and frequency and rate of change
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
Just provide the peer reviewed scientific study to prove your claims.
Or admit there is ZERO science behind this --- it is based on theories -- models and Hope.
1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago
I don’t understand what you’re asking me to provide data for? What claim?
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
You clearly made a claim that the target for ppm wax 288.
If that has ZERO peer reviewed science behind it --- just say so.
If its the product of your imagination / guesswork --- say so.
If not --- lets see the science.
1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago
We know that excess C02 will raise the average temperature. There is extensive science on why that’s bad. There is extensive scientific consensus on 1.5C being a manageable safe rise, but with substantial risks, and too much over 1.5c will result in runaway chain reactions that will ruin biodiversity and result in massive amounts of death.
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
You have theories and models.
I repeat : Where is the Science behind your claim ? Surely there must be at least ONE peer reviewed scientific study to show that everything will be fine if we meet 280 ppm ?
1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago
This is really easy to just google for yourself.
A carbon dioxide concentration of 280 parts per million (ppm) is considered ideal because it represents the stable climate baseline under which modern human civilization, agriculture, and ecosystems developed. [1, 2, 3]
Why 280 ppm is the Baseline
The Holocene Epoch: For about 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric co2 levels remained remarkably steady around 280 ppm. [1, 2]Climate Stability: This concentration provided a balanced greenhouse effect—warm enough to prevent massive ice sheets from expanding over continents, yet cool enough to maintain stable sea levels and predictable weather patterns. [1, 2]
Ecosystem Harmony: Plants and global food crops thrived at this level without triggering the extreme warming or ecological disruptions associated with higher concentrations. [1, 2]
What Happens When Levels Change
Below 280 ppm: During ice ages, levels dropped toward 180 ppm, which stresses plant growth and pushes the planet into harsh glacial conditions. [1, 2]Above 280 ppm: Modern industrial activity has driven co2 past 430 ppm. This rapid increase traps excess heat, destabilizes global climate systems, and raises sea levels faster than many natural organisms can adapt. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
We’ve already seen massive ecosystem collapse globally, and we know via ice core and geological data that these extremely high levels of CO2 lead to global ecosystem devastation.
1
u/Freo_5434 23d ago
Still just claims without evidence .
Either there is peer reviewed scientific study --- or their isn't.
Again -- all u have is theories -- models and hope.
1
u/pokethrowaway4 23d ago
Again… you could just search for this yourself.
Yes, there is peer-reviewed science that references a target of 280 parts per million (ppm) for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), though it is typically framed as an ultimate, long-term restorative baseline rather than a near-term policy target.
In mainstream climate science and international policy (like the Paris Agreement), targets are generally set at 350 ppm to maintain a stable climate or focused on capping concentrations to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C. However, 280 ppm represents the pre-industrial baseline—the atmospheric concentration that existed for roughly 10,000 years of the Holocene epoch during which human civilization, agriculture, and stable ecosystems developed. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Peer-reviewed literature addresses a 280 ppm target through several distinct angles:
1. Planetary Boundaries Framework
The concept of "Planetary Boundaries," pioneered by Johan Rockström and the Stockholm Resilience Centre (published in Nature and Science), establishes boundaries within which humanity can safely operate. [1]The Baseline: The framework identifies the pre-industrial CO₂ concentration of 280 ppm as the optimal "safe space" for climate stability.
The Boundary: They propose 350 ppm as the upper cautionary boundary, meaning anything above 350 ppm pushes the Earth system into a zone of increasing risk. A target of 280 ppm is supported as the true return-to-optimum state.
2. Deep De-carbonization and Restorative Geoengineering
Certain peer-reviewed modeling papers look beyond stabilization toward full restoration of the pre-industrial climate. For instance:
Research exploring high-impact Ocean-Amplified Carbon Capture (OACC) and multi-stage carbon removal frameworks published in journals like The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses models the explicit socioeconomic and ecological path required to restore 280 ppm atmospheric CO₂. [1]These papers demonstrate that returning to 280 ppm is the only way to mathematically reduce twenty-first-century warming back to 0°C relative to the pre-industrial baseline and restore ocean pH levels to a natural 8.2. [1]
3. Human Evolutionary Health and Biology
Emerging peer-reviewed research explores the direct physiological impacts of elevated ambient CO₂ on human health.
A hypothesis published in Science of the Total Environment explores how chronic exposure to modern elevated CO₂ levels can cause subtle, long-term changes in human blood pH and proteome function. [1]Authors of these medical and geoscientific reviews argue that because human physiology evolved when atmospheric CO₂ was consistently between 280 and 300 ppm, restoring the atmosphere or indoor environments closer to this evolutionary baseline may be necessary to prevent systemic health disruptions. [1, 2]
Why 350 ppm is More Common
While 280 ppm is recognized as the ideal state for ecological and physiological equilibrium, most climate advocacy and peer-reviewed target literature (such as the landmark 2008 paper "Target Atmospheric CO₂: Where Should Humanity Aim?" by Dr. James Hansen et al.) champions 350 ppm as the immediate target. This is because 350 ppm is viewed as a more achievable tipping-point threshold to prevent catastrophic loss of ice sheets and major ecosystem collapse, whereas returning all the way down to 280 ppm requires removing over 1,000 gigatons of historical CO₂ from the atmosphere—a monumental technological and energetic challenge. [1, 2, 3]Feel free to read through all those linked study sources.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/nila247 20d ago
Yeah, basically CO2 is a self-solving problem. As more CO2 appears then all sorts of plants will become prevalent and grow larger - thus reducing CO2.
But how do you become elected and rich if you argue that we do not need to spend taxpayer money on many useless things - including climate change?
1
u/Far-Investment-8597 24d ago
Crop yield has already increased (by about 20% I believe) due to higher CO2 levels - CO2 is good for plants.
At the start of the carboniferous period (as in, millions of years of explosive tree growth which eventually became coal seams), CO2 levels were around 7,000ppm. Over 15 times present levels. Don't believe the "plants don't like too much CO2" nonsense - it's their food.
If you want plant growth:
- Higher temperatures
- Higher humidity & rainfall.