• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

        • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well your tiny little feeble brain can’t dwindle anymore than it already has, but that was never any type of real resource anyway.

      • general_kitten@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        “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?

    • pjwestin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The trees in the background are burning, and an increase in wildfires is definitely a part of climate change.

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.)