0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I recently had one guy try to jam an icepick-looking instrument through my cheekbone while pulling a tooth! 
Pff, let's all forget adaptation will we?If there's less CO2 in the atmosphere, we won't see the end of trees, we'd see the end of existing trees and the emergence of new ones.
Then you'll see that trees suffocate at normal temperatures with less than atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which leads to the same conclusion that in this period of history, trees are not close to suffocation.
All plants live "on the edge". But the edge is not always CO2. Sometimes the edge is water, sometimes the edge is some mineral, sometime the edge is some nutrient or other. Plants will always grow as much as they can up to whatever limiting factor is in their environment. It is doubtful that CO2 is the limiting factor for the majority of plants.
"how much less". If it's a small amount, say 5%, then arguably they are close to suffocation. If it's 20% they are not close to suffocation. I'm interested to know what the amount actually is.
Looking at the slope of the lines in that article you posted, I'd say it's pretty steep, so it'll be closer to 20% than 5% imo.Some plants live on the edge, far from all plants..Their size however is always at the edge. If there would be more available of the limiting factor, the tree would be bigger.Note: If everything in the environment is plentiful, the limiting factor would be the tree's genetics