Facts on CO2

[jazz]

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.

[blackpowder]

By restricting first world economies we support emerging and third world ones.
That is the only way to stop the forces of nature that have been in control for 4.5 billion years. Naive people-kind need guidance from above. Haven't you accepted that yet?

[tweety]

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.

Lowest?

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

[fjlip]

"Peoplekind,(corrected for you), are basically voting for their own death by restricting food supply."

I guess YOU PEOPLE think the MAJORITY of us will die quicker from 1.5C increase in some cooked up WORLD AVERAGE TEMPERATURE, than going without FOOD/PLANTS. Can't fix stupid, unless....use your imagination guys.

[bobofthenorth]

I love these official looking graphs and charts. They give the warmists an aura of science that they clearly don't deserve.

No thinking person is arguing that the planet is NOT warming. All we have to do is look out our window, not see a glacier and conclude that - over geological time which is what we're supposed to be concerned with - the planet is warming.

The science on CO2 is less clear but again its likely going up.

The problem is the amateur scientists that look at the correlation and assume causality.

There's also a correlation between the number of churches in any particular urban geography and the number of *****s.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Tweety, 800,000 years sounds like a long time. And it is 0.018% of the age of the earth.
Perspective is everything.

[tweety]

Hey, Jazz said CO2 is in one of the lowest in history. And you flame the guy posting the extremely obvious fact that it isn't?

BobOfTheNorth, they look official because, well, they are.

[jazz]

Hey, Jazz said CO2 is in one of the lowest in history. And you flame the guy posting the extremely obvious fact that it isn't?

tweety, its not.

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

[Taiga]

tweety, its not.

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

[ATTACH]5282[/ATTACH]

Ha ha ha that’s awesome!

[tweety]

tweety, its not.

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

[ATTACH]5282[/ATTACH]

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

[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.