Meanwhile actual science shows that increased carbon dioxide has resulted in more plant life. Which is exactly what you’d expect given the basic biochemistry of how CO2 works in nature.
So this comic, showing a treeless wasteland resulting from climate change, is unscientific in its depiction of the effects.
See, this is why art appreciation classes are not a waste of class time. It teaches you that artists use metaphor and symbology to refer to complicated ideas in simple images, and that political cartoons especially are rife with simplified symbology because of the limited space artists have and the complexity of many political ideas.
If you understood art and symbology, you’d recognize the treeless wasteland on the right represents the devastation of climate change, the lack of trees symbolizes environmental destruction, and nitpicking how many trees would actually be left is missing the point entirely.
But the average American has the reading comprehension of a fifth grader, so how can I expect them to comprehend a fucking artistic metaphor?
(Also: at about 116° f, leaves can no longer photosynthesize. So it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the air - if summers get hot enough that leaves can’t photosynthesize during the day, it’s going to kill forests, and we are pretty close to that point in a lot of places already. But that’s completely beside the point.)
The question is, can nature produce enough new plants to match the rate that we increasingly emit CO2 into the atmosphere? My money is on…no. At some point, a feedback loop will occur and render the soil infertile.
After some googling plants will benefit from increased co2 levels until about 1000ppm and bad effects start at about 1500ppm so they would be safe even in the worst case climate change. Even humans can in theory survive as high as 5000ppm indefinitely at least in theory but at that point some CO2 poisoning effects would be felt. So basically a lot of other things would cause life to die before the co2 levels
Meanwhile actual science shows that increased carbon dioxide has resulted in more plant life. Which is exactly what you’d expect given the basic biochemistry of how CO2 works in nature.
So this comic, showing a treeless wasteland resulting from climate change, is unscientific in its depiction of the effects.
See, this is why art appreciation classes are not a waste of class time. It teaches you that artists use metaphor and symbology to refer to complicated ideas in simple images, and that political cartoons especially are rife with simplified symbology because of the limited space artists have and the complexity of many political ideas.
If you understood art and symbology, you’d recognize the treeless wasteland on the right represents the devastation of climate change, the lack of trees symbolizes environmental destruction, and nitpicking how many trees would actually be left is missing the point entirely.
But the average American has the reading comprehension of a fifth grader, so how can I expect them to comprehend a fucking artistic metaphor?
(Also: at about 116° f, leaves can no longer photosynthesize. So it doesn’t matter how much CO2 is in the air - if summers get hot enough that leaves can’t photosynthesize during the day, it’s going to kill forests, and we are pretty close to that point in a lot of places already. But that’s completely beside the point.)
The treeless waste land was the result of the global wars that will be fought over dwindling resources.
Which resources do you expect to dwindle as a result of climate change?
Well your tiny little feeble brain can’t dwindle anymore than it already has, but that was never any type of real resource anyway.
Irregular weather means irritate food. I’m a farmer and am already feeling that.
Raising sea levels means docks will be too low and important trade slows down. Countries that rely on food imports will feel the squeeze.
Water, oil, arable land, people due to declining birth rates, good quality air to name a few.
The trees in the background are burning, and an increase in wildfires is definitely a part of climate change.
The question is, can nature produce enough new plants to match the rate that we increasingly emit CO2 into the atmosphere? My money is on…no. At some point, a feedback loop will occur and render the soil infertile.
After some googling plants will benefit from increased co2 levels until about 1000ppm and bad effects start at about 1500ppm so they would be safe even in the worst case climate change. Even humans can in theory survive as high as 5000ppm indefinitely at least in theory but at that point some CO2 poisoning effects would be felt. So basically a lot of other things would cause life to die before the co2 levels
“Enough” new plants for what? The new plants are a result of increased carbon dioxide levels. Carbon dioxide is basically an atmospheric fertilizer.
What do you mean by “enough” here?