An illustration that CO2 won't roast the Earth in a runaway tipping point…

Anthrop-obscene!!!!! For a little spot of humour on this curious bit of nomenclatural redundancy, I invite you all to visit my blog post on this subject at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2011/10/anthrop-obscene.html
Browse around to some of the other comments on Earth-related intellectual buffoonery.

This time scale is a big picture of plant evolution. As latitude and Rud Istvan mention, photosynthesis has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for at lest 2 billion years.
Plants have been living on the land surface for about the same time scale in the graphic, about 600 million years. The decline in CO2 exactly matches the evolution of plants to compete for CO2 in the carbon cycle. Plants never stop evolving. The cenozoic has produced more sophisticated plant structures and chemistry to survive against disease, predation and drying climates. As CO2 declines, plants evolved more complex leaf structures to enhance CO2 exchange while minimizing loss of water, eg tropical succulents, etc. Mostly in tropical grasses, the C4 pathway is a major and expensive evolutionary development to permit those plants to survive when C3 plants died.
This occurred in the last 10 to 20 million years. Thats about the same time as the middle Miocene climate transition about 17 million years ago.
It’s not surpising that CO2 keeps dropping and the major glaciations started to kill off the C3 northern forests, releasing CO2 by decomposition. The tropical C4 plants survive.
The atmosphere is absolutely in a biological crisis of extrememly low CO2.

While correlation cannot conclusively demonstrate causal relationships, a lack thereof, on the other hand…
Mark

As a geologist who is NOT being funded by the Globalwarmists, I can say that I know of no geologists who take the term “anthropocene” seriously. The changes we’ve made to Earth’s climate and lithosphere pale compared to natural processes.
However, the apparently rapid extinction rate most certainly can be blamed largely on human activity ranging from over-fishing, over-hunting, habitat destruction, and pollution from toxins and radionuclides. While the Globalwarmists love to scream how global warming is causing rapid extinctions, the reality is more complex, yet could be more controllable, since we are unlikely to ever be able to control atmospheric CO2. After they spend trillions to ‘stop global warming’, the extinction rate is likely to accelerate, because the issues causing extinction are being ignored.

Arninetyes says:
August 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm
…
However, the apparently rapid extinction rate most certainly can be blamed largely on human activity
=======================================
Care to name 2 or
three species that have gone extinct in the last 100 years.

Let’s not blame plants for the historical demise of CO2. They have a role, but there is far more CO2 tied up in limestones and dolomites, limey sediments, coral reefs and other lime-rich deposits, than there is in coal, oil and gas deposits. As I have said before, earth has a propensity to consume and store away, mostly permanently, its CO2 heritage. This is a dangerous trend for us animals, because we breath oxygen made for us by creatures that breathe CO2.

From Arninetyes on August 8, 2013 at 8:19 pm:

However, the apparently rapid extinction rate most certainly can be blamed largely on human activity ranging from over-fishing, over-hunting, habitat destruction, and pollution from toxins and radionuclides. (…) After they spend trillions to ‘stop global warming’, the extinction rate is likely to accelerate, because the issues causing extinction are being ignored.

Not even for those reasons. For birds and mammals on land, the extinctions are overwhelmingly due to Island Species Sensitivity, as they overwhelmingly occur on islands.
See here for a recent paper by Loehle and Eschenbach that explains it. From article at link (where link to paper is):

Results: Only six continental birds and three continental mammals were recorded in standard databases as going extinct since 1500 compared to 123 bird species and 58 mammal species on islands. Of the extinctions, 95% were on islands. (…) Island extinction rates are much higher than continental rates largely due to introductions of alien predators (including man) and diseases.

On the plus side, as virtually all of the world’s islands are now un-isolated, the extinctions are practically over, the extinction rate will go WAY down.
Unless you’re a (C)AGW-pusher using numbers from your preferred models that show thousands of never-seen species will now never be seen because (C)AGW killed them off before anyone could ever see them. The model projections say they had to have been there, somewhere. Then the projected extinction rates of the theoretically-existing species will keep going up, and up, and up. You want proof? You’ll never see ANY of those extinct species, that’s the proof!

You might want to add this graph too:
Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
This graph should be shown by the MSM after any AGW scarestory. End of scare guaranteed.

At 2500 ppm,170 Myears ago, there was in the atmosphere approx 2×1016 Kg CO2. This is 15 times the total quantity emitted by human activity between 1750 (beginning of industrial age) an 2011 (source CDIAC), of which about one third remained in the atmosphere to reach a concentration of 390 ppm.
This carbon had to be fixed in the form of hydrocarbons (which we now burn) or of carbonate sediments. And life has gone on.

Margaret Hardman says:
August 8, 2013 at 11:04 pm
“Poor old trilobites, having their world destroyed by rising sea levels and increasing temperatures as a result of all that CO2. No, hang on a minute. It is humans that have adapted our world, cities, agriculture, etc, to the low CO2 world and it is that world which is likely to be changed by rising CO2 levels.”
Small correction. Long before humans, the world adapted itself to low CO2 levels by bringing forth C4 plants. The C3 plants still hang around though. So no problem there.

So how does this all lead the overwhelmingly dominant senior author on these sources; Dana Royer of Wesleyan University, to the absurd conclusion that climate sensitivity ”for every doubling of CO2″ is “is probably closer to 6°C”; rather than the maximum of 2°C that can be derived for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 (*). And that 2°C can only be achieved if every bit of warming since 1880 is the result of an enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic CO2. Something we know to be false. What could possibly lead Dr. Royer to continually torture the data until it says what he wants it to say? Maybe it has something to do with him being an environmental activist:
http://wesleyanargus.com/2008/01/29/ask-a-professor-dana-royer-earth-and-environmental-science/