Your entire diatribe here is not really responding to me, it's just more monologuing. Frankly, what you're pushing here is the next talking point after climate denial, which is sowing messages of futility. Anything to avoid doing something about the problem. Anything to protect the existing industries from change. Just sinking into comfortable fatalism. And you're using common denier-turned-fatalist talking points like talking about plant food, and little "appeal to the common man" bits like talking about high school math repeatedly. It sounds like PR talk. You obviously have not researched this thoroughly. Vertical farms are not cost effective compared to many, many other options. Plants are less nutritious under high CO2 conditions, becoming more empty carbohydrates by mass[1]. Plants also have an ideal range they're adapted to, and any CO2 fertilization effects tend to drop off rapidly past that threshold[2]. This is very easy information to find if you're actually tuned into the climate science, even casually. You are either reading bad sources and need to find better ones, or you're posting this kind of nonsense in bad faith.
As my wife is fond of saying "Your google search is not a substitute for my medical degree".
I really don't know where to go with your comment. You misrepresent everything I said and make claims that could only have come from a superficial google search and equally superficial reading.
Prime example, the second paper you link states, quoting:
"Most plants generally benefit from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration through the “CO2 fertilization effect”, which boosts growth and yield [19, 23, 46, 52]. However, this positive CO2 fertilization effect strongly depends on the plant functional groups and species [7, 22, 53,54,55,56]. Even within the same species of winter wheat, the results from previous studies are inconsistent [22, 50, 57,58,59,60]. These contradictory results suggest that different plants and/or species may have different optimal CO2 concentrations for their growth.
Our results showed that the optimal CO2 concentrations occurred at 945, 915, and 1151 ppm for the aboveground biomass and at 915, 1178, and 1386 ppm for the total biomass of tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and Kentucky bluegrass (Fig. 1), suggesting that a strong CO2 fertilization effect occurred at different optimal CO2 concentrations for these three perennial grasses."
They found optimal CO2 concentrations that are easily twice our current average atmospheric CO2 concentration. Your own link.
This is why massive indoor farms use CO2 injection.
> Vertical farms are not cost effective compared to many, many other options.
You clearly are not informed. Among other things, I have been developing technology for indoor farming, or more accurately, CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture). I have many friends who own and run various kinds of CEA facilities. No, not everyone is growing weed. For example, one of my good friends runs one of the most successful indoor farm operations in Asia. We also have relationships in the Middle East, where certain geographies are absolutely hostile to growing food and indoor farming is the only path to food independence. During the pandemic countries like Singapore quickly discovered their dependence on the outside world for food was extreme, they quickly set national objectives to use technologies such as CEA to become far more independent.
1. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/vanishing-...
2. https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s128...