Comment by highcountess 4 days ago
That’s correct, but there is also something else, NASA has argued that their satellite imagery has shown an increase in the planet’s plant coverage as CO2 has increased, since to plants, CO2 is what not just oxygen is to us, but also in many ways like nourishment by absorbing the carbon from the air, which they use to grow.
This is a bunch of nonsense. Of course reduction in C02 can limit growth. You even make that very point by mentioning the use of CO2 generators in commercial greenhouse operations. The argument NASA makes is basically the same that CO2 increases have resulted in expected increases of plant growth, as is observable by satellite.
I do not subscribe to the insane CO2 Bad religion that you appear to subscribe to because it is yet another dumb religion to harness the naive and gullible peasants, but you go right ahead. How about you stop being horrible to other people about it though and stop traveling and using technology that all produces CO2.
Plants are generally not CO2 limited. General water is the limit - thus deserts are not very green despite having as much CO2. Even in wet climate a few weeks without rain and the plants are going dormant.
In the ocean the limit is often other nutrients like iron. Attempts have been made to add iron to the ocean and those areas suddenly turned green (though it is not clear how sustainable this practice would be, nor if there might be other unknown negatives).
That isn't to say CO2 is never the limit. Large greenhouses often are CO2 limited (often burning fossil fuels indoors to provide the CO2 without opening windows and thus letting something else undesired in). There are no doubt areas where CO2 is the limit and so NASA can see more green that is attributed to more CO2 - but still CO2 is rarely the limiting factor.