I’ve meen monotoring this graph regularly. It looks like you may soon need to add more historical data to keep it relevant!

Thanks, barbee

No.

You are entitled to hypothesise. Until you provide evidence it remains a hypothesis.

Your claim that the most crucial component of the carbon cycle upon which all life on our planet depends is dangerous at levels above where we currently are (this has not killed us but has increased the biomass of the planet by over 6% since measurements began) and “non reversible” (though its concentration in the atmosphere has been up to 10 times higher in the past) is beginning to appear political to me.

I suggest that you do some research and you counter with your opinion. Again.

No one need prove that levels of CO2 many times higher than those of the present, regardless of origin, may kill any form of life on Earth as those levels have been achieved many times and sustained for geological epochs. The varied fauna and flora that surround us are testament to its efficacy, vitality and utter necessity. We are still here and able to reap its benefits.

My hypothesis is the exact opposite of that which you fear. I believe CO2 may be at an extremely dangerous low level and as temperatures continue to drop there may be a further loss which may endanger humanity through its impact on foodstuffs. I do not ask for proof of this conjecture from any entity.

Fear is the little death.

No

it’s up to those changing my environment in a non reversible way global to prove that this won’t harm me.

I’d be making the same point is someone was suggesting hte price of nuclear power was small regualr increase in background radiation.

The onus of evidential expression of your hypothesis lies with you. It is your hypothesis. Claim it with research and proclaim your findings by publishing.

Unfortunately you are just plain wrong when you assert there is no correspondence between CO2 and temperature. There is definitely some sort of correspondence between CO2 levels and temperature (and has been for many millions of years ) – however I believe the ‘sceptics’ agument is that this is a lagging indicator. Just because it doesn’t jump to your immediate requirement that everything has to happen in your immediate time frame this doesn’t mean much.

1/2 of one degree ain’t much of a temperature increase – again you are just plain wrong here . A small number don’t sound much unless put in context of the enormity of the change. Please lift Mount Everest by an half an inch …

I highlighted earlier the ‘use of language’ on this forum – your arguments follows the same pattern of trying to ‘win by denegration’ . Simply add some of the usual ‘bullet words’ like propoganda ,poverty , ‘ignore benefits’ and this makes appends sound like credible information or that there is a logically connected argument. For someone so quick to expose MMGW propoganda I’m suprised you are not aware of your own contribution.

I’m simply asking a stright forward question – who can show me why having more CO2 in the atmosphere for the whole world is not something to worry about . (Backed up by good long term research and data – not by arguments about world poverty, no global warming , collapsing economy , IPCC conspiracy, sunspots, and Elvis-Presley-isnt-dead… )

You are ASSUMING somehow CO2 will continuing to increase for hundreds and hundreds of years: It is now going up at about 1% per year – from what we were TOLD was a pre-industrial average of 280 ppm(volume) to today’s 370 ppmv. But actual pre-industrial revolution CO2 measurements were all over the graph (from 150 ppm to over 380 ppm), and it was the AGW (or MMGW) propagandists were decided that 280 was the right value.

So, how many years will it take for CO2 to increase to problematic level?

Well,
you are assuming today’s CO2 increase is almost entirely man-made.
You are assuming that today’s fossil-driven energy systems will stay the same for hundreds of years into the future.
You are assuming that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing increase in temperatures.
You are blindly assuming that an increase in CO2 is “bad” – ignoring the 17% – 27% INCREASE in plant growth (food, fodder, fuel, furniture, framing, and paper) caused by today’s higher CO2 levels.
You are deathly afraid of some “poisonous” effect in higher CO2 levels that has NOT been found in ANY cases where actual CO2 levels have been lived in for for long periods of time.
You are ignoring the KNOWN deadly effects of colder weather, less fuel, less clothes, poorer economies, poorer food, and less energy on PEOPLE’S LIVES. (Do you want thousands of REAL PEOPLE to DIE in order that CO2 levels be artificially reduced by politicians – for no scientific reason?

How many people should be immediately killed to reduce your groundless fears?

A few hundred? A few thousand? How many million do you want to die in the cold and dark, seeing their children starving to death needlessly because you fear CO2 for no reason? Is 6 million enough? 16 million? 160 million? 1600 million?

Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 27 years (1908-1935) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1935-1945) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 2/5 of ONE degree in 27 years (1945-1972) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures increased roughly 1/2 of ONE degree in 24 years (1974-1998) – while CO2 increased steadily.
Temperatures decreased roughly 1/5 of ONE degree in 10 years (1998-2008) – while CO2 increased steadily.

That ain’t much of a correspondence between CO2 increases and temperature. And 1/2 of ONE degree ain’t much of a temperature increase.

Technical progress:
By the way, if in 1908, you told me to build a runway for an airplane, I would have told you it was stupid: Airplanes could just barely turn in a controlled circle, could only fly for 20 minutes, could land in any 200 foot straight spot on any farmer’s grassy pasture anywhere in the country, and could carry (at best!) one passenger. And that one passenger was himself killed a few weeks later in a crash.

But 45 years later, I needed a 12,000 foot runway, with an 8 foot thick reinforced concrete foundation 300 feet wide, graded and grooved absolutely flat just so a 300,000 pound bomber capable of flying non-stop around the world at close to the spped of sound could land.

But you ASSUME that we will still need fossil fuels 400 years from now, and you FEAR highly exaggerated effects from continuously burning fossil fuels based on computer predictions so wrong that their results are invalid two, ten, and twelve years in the future – but are somehow magically correct 400 years in the future, and you IGNORE all benefits from higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

Thank you – these answers are helpful in the context of my question about where have we seen long term exposure to raised CO2 levels.
I now have some ‘pointers’ for where I can search for further real information.

Although , Caleb, I would point out that global warming has occured over the past decades . It’s the cause that is the issue of the debate on this forum .

It is my understanding that there is a lot of chemical data which shows CO2 levels were above current levels in the 1940′s. However this data was thrown out, because it was collected too close to urban areas.

This suggests to me that people in urban areas have been living their lives breathing air with 450 ppm CO2 for several generations.

The question then becomes: Have such people suffered any sort of brain damage?

Let us begin by examining who they vote for, and whether they believe in Global Warming…

less so-

PeteMAgain (02:51:01) :

“We’re going to permanently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurably different concentration of CO2 .”

If we burn all the easy and all the hard to get fossil fuel we will approach 0.09% concentration in the atmosphere in around 250 years from date at current progress if there is no increase in uptake by the oceans, which will then be a minuscule amount less alkaline than at present, or other sinks such as increased biomass and increased biomass extent. Contrary to what gore and hansen would like to have you think the air and oceans have both been there before.

If we don’t crush our economies and fail to research our next “fuels” in the line reading; sticks/dung, coal/oil, oil/nuclear…..

The above figures are rough due to government burying of data, estimated fuel usage, projected time to new energy technology and my general mean streak.

We would prefer these guys to be awake, unimpiared and aware:

“Data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003)”

The article show that for a maximum of 23 days at .7% and 1.2% (in the experimental constraints) there appeared to be no immediate problems – I’m not sure if there was any longer term post experiment monitoring .

But … this isn’t the experiment we’re going to run .
We’re going to permamently expose all life on this planet to an atmosphere containing a measurabley different concentration of CO2 .
What are the long term effects ? (Smoking doesn’t seem verey harmful until you continue for many years )

“Even if it got that high , we’d most likely have adapted by then”
If we go as high as .7% (assuming 2 ppm added to the atmoshpere) and starting at about 390ppm then we’re talking about 150 years . I doubt that humans evolve that rapidly (the space of 4 to 5 generations) without some significant factor that forcibly removes certain genes from the n pool.