We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

When did the human species live in a planet with a 2000 ppm CO2 concentration?

No one is claiming that 400 ppm (or 410) will hurt the Earth. The Earth will be just fine. What that mark does indicate is harm for the currently existing plants and animals, of which humans are one.

 

I have no horse in this fight, just wondering what you mean when you talk about wealth redistribution schemes in the name of AGW. What is that exactly?

 

Your comments are full of distractions. But let me try to engage you in a new manner regarding the CO2 information.

I will set aside your disbelief in the measurement and focus instead on the relevance. The CO2 concentration mark is currently 400-410 ppm. What is the highest CO2 concentration that the modern human species experience? Let's go with 10,000 years.

 

So since may of last year until April of this year Trump is to blame for the record! Hopefully you see the stupidity in even trying to link him to the event

 

Did Trump's Earth Message discuss Climate Change? Has Trump repeatedly threatened to damage any effort to combat climate change?

 

Energy consumption and C02 emissions are not equally calculated.

 

LMAO, the point is, this anomaly is clearly credited to Obarry not Trump! You Libby's are a total trip, in one post your teasing "Trump" is a do nothing President and in another you have him credited for a year of ill effects he had nothing to do with..

Get a puppy and think before you speak

 

no but humans are looking at 60,000ppm as the point of human extinction so i think we have a ways to go..
http://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/

and for plants they love co2.. plant growth goes through the roof with elevated co2 levels.. they have known this forever with pumping co2 into greenhouses..



seems that past 800ppm you start to see diminishing returns on increased plant growth.. the plant growth stays about the same until around 1900ppm and then starts to drop off. have to go past ~2300ppm to get us back to our current plant growth

again long way to go before that becomes an issue considering burning all known fossil fuels will only raise the co2 level up to around 670ppm or so..

 

We need to simultaneously MOAB a bunch of volcanoes.

 

So... bumper crops?

 

Neither do the current land/ocean records because there are not enough stations world wide but that is what you hang your hat on, so you are now a denialist.

 

You appear to be operating under the assumption that CO2 in the atmosphere is a closed system where the only variable is CO2 and the only effect is CO2 intake. CO2 also impacts temperature and temperature, in turn, impacts a great deal more around the planet and leads to significantly more threats than CO2 toxicity.

Similarly, you appear to be forgetting that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is not at all the CO2 concentrations at ground level (i.e. the space where humans and plants breathe). That's part of the reason why relying upon CO2 data from Greenhouses are practically useless.

 

I'd like to see real documented science that allows people to deny that our climate is changing, and if you can't provide that, the science that says it's ok not to worry about our climate changing, if possible.

 

Diverting from your own thread. Too funny. The again, who would blame you?

 

www.climatedepot.com

"" Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine” and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.
Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”"

Theres some interesting links and peer to peer studies on that site with unbiased scientists chewing to shreds the very much loved by the MSM Climate Change and C02 activists and scientists.

Some good reading there if anyone is interested in some calm, factual explanations on this subject. Laymen posting graphs and twisting them for political agendas is boring albeit kinda cute

 

Another anti-intellectual statement. The only constant in climate is change. Everyone knows this except for a select few.

 

you made the statement that humans and plants cant live in high concentration of co2.. i just corrected you on your misunderstanding.

i used greenhouse data because it is a controlled environment..

But if you want real world data..

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

 

Nonsense. Complete bullcrap chemically and biologically.

 

Hmm...this NASA source puts the timeline at 3-5 million years ago. What is your source for the 12,750 years?

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7/

Edit: I found the source, reviewing now.

 

No, I never said that humans and plants could not live in high concentrations of CO2. I said that many of the currently living plants and animals have not lived in a planet where concentrations were this high.

The last time that CO2 concentrations were this was roughly 3-5 million years ago.

 

Solid logic there, Lou.

 

It's all about your money, and your pathological death-grip on your wallet, isn't it? Screw your children's future, right? As long as you have yours, now, anything else doesn't matter.

 

Why not? Christians do it all the time.

 

you said harm and i corrected you..

 

I did say harm. Presenting me evidence that the plants and animals won't die from CO2 toxicity doesn't correct my statement if the CO2 results in temperature increases that lead to droughts, floods, severe storms, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and increased instances of disease.