Facts on CO2

[dmlfarmer]

tweety, its not.

Humans have a problem with ego and timescale. At the Precambrian life explosion, CO2 was 100 times higher.

[ATTACH]5282[/ATTACH]

But what Jazz does not mention is that the first human ancestors only appeared about 6 million years ago when CO2 levels were in the range we are seeing today. Could humans lived or developed when CO2 levels were 100 times higher as jazz implies. Well we know at 1000 ppm (2.5 x current levels) there are health issues and brain damage and death occurs at 40;000ppm which is the 100 x level

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Your own chart shows it isn't the lowest today. Not sure what your point is.

Not sure why this is worth arguing about, but the original and unedited post says:

We are in one of the lowest cycles of CO2 in this planets history

Cycles being the key word. Unfortunately, the earth doesn't contain enough recoverable hydrocarbons to keep the CO2 level above 300 ppm for long enough to even register as a blip on the 800,000 year graph of this cycle, the average of the "anthropocene" will still not be visible above the noise at that resolution.

The ~ 70 years since CO2 went above the 300 ppm indicated on the graph, equates to 0.00875% of the 800,000 year chart. If you are viewing the chart on an 11" computer screen, that 70 year time period would be 0.00096 inches wide. Imperceptible. Adding it to the graph ( albeit with a dotted line) is dishonest at best. It wouldn't even be visible at that resolution.

And the 800,000 year chart which represents the cycle referred to above, would be 0.00195 inches wide on your 11" computer screen on a chart of the history of the world. That is half of a human hair, Again, nearly imperceptible.

[tweety]

Not sure why this is worth arguing about, but the original and unedited post says:

Cycles being the key word. Unfortunately, the earth doesn't contain enough recoverable hydrocarbons to keep the CO2 level above 300 ppm for long enough to even register as a blip on the 800,000 year graph of this cycle, the average of the "anthropocene" will still not be visible above the noise at that resolution.

The ~ 70 years since CO2 went above the 300 ppm indicated on the graph, equates to 0.00875% of the 800,000 year chart. If you are viewing the chart on an 11" computer screen, that 70 year time period would be 0.00096 inches wide. Imperceptible. Adding it to the graph ( albeit with a dotted line) is dishonest at best. It wouldn't even be visible at that resolution.

And the 800,000 year chart which represents the cycle referred to above, would be 0.00195 inches wide on your 11" computer screen on a chart of the history of the world. That is half of a human hair, Again, nearly imperceptible.

But measurable today, and today is all that matters. And today there is lots of CO2 for plants. And today, it isn't the lowest in history.

[macdon02]

There's also at minimum 12 visible "tops" in a chart spanning 800 000 years, but this time, IT'S DIFFERENT. To expect a trend to continue in any direction is simply ignorance. Wanna buy some pot stocks?

[tweety]

All that said, the 400 of today isn't a problem, 1000 is kind of ideal for plant growth. So run that Escalade hard.

[dmlfarmer]

Not sure why this is worth arguing about, but the original and unedited post says:

...And the 800,000 year chart which represents the cycle referred to above, would be 0.00195 inches wide on your 11" computer screen on a chart of the history of the world. That is half of a human hair, Again, nearly imperceptible.

agreed seeing as the time on the chart in which human life has been present, based on 6 million years and your calculation of the length on a computer screen would only be about 3 human hair widths or .014625 inches. Doubt if that would be perceptible either.

[Horse]

No wonder the world is so f---ed up all the geniuses with all the answers to the worlds problems are in sask farming and dont seem to be able to fix any of the problems in agri,kind of makes one wonder if they are right afterall.

[tweety]

All that said, the 400 of today isn't a problem, 1000 is kind of ideal for plant growth. So run that Escalade hard.

I should be more specific, run the wife's farm plated Escalade hard while burning subsidized marked fuel taking the kids to soccer.

[dmlfarmer]

We are in one of the lowest cycles of CO2 in this planets history.

At 250ppm plants will stop actively growing. That means O2 release by plants starts to decline as well.

At 180 ppm they will start to die.

If we want to feed 11B people we should be raising our CO2 footprint not lowering it.

People are basically voting for their own death by restricting food supply.

Jazz, since in your books CO2 is all good, even at prehistoric levels before man, maybe you can talk to your pal Trump and get him to remove the CO2 scrubbers on all submarines, space craft and the ISS. He could save on the cost of building and operating without scrubbers and promote plant growth at the same time! It is the type of policy Trump would endorse.

[furrowtickler]

//youtu.be/1zrejG-WI3U

chuck please watch, you seem to have lots of time on your hands.