So what is the ideal percentage of co2 for Earths atmosphere?

Is it 0 ppm? Is it 10,000 ppm?
Genuinely curious what you think Veeky Forums?
Thank you.

Serious discussion only. Flat Earth people, start your own thread please.

Other urls found in this thread:

friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/ClimateChange-Ag
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1694.html
pnas.org/content/105/6/1960
youtu.be/CcmCBetoR18
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
researchgate.net/publication/278090686_High-precision_timeline_for_Earth's_most_severe_extinction_vol_111_pg_3316_2014
gfdl.noaa.gov/will-the-wet-get-wetter-and-the-dry-drier/
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=9A975B329EA97F22214EE2B1EE64C30F.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90
science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276
sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170119143331.htm
nature.com/articles/ncomms3918
ucanr.edu/sites/Jackson_Lab/files/205560.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=wcDUaBO8T34
scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/18/bernie-sanders-to-scott-pruitt-why-is-the-climate-changing/?
fortune.com/2017/01/19/trump-rick-perry-confirmation/
miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article1942384.html
co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/deserts.php
miaminewtimes.com/news/sorry-daily-caller-sea-level-rise-is-real-and-miami-isnt-just-sinking-because-of-too-many-condos-8594225
desmogblog.com/center-study-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change
sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund
desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Define ideal.

Why is 390 ppm out of order?

I personally thing somewhere between 800-1000 ppm co2 would be least harmful and most beneficial.

Good thing we don't have to justify reasoning in the post-truth age, this is so easy.

Why would it be in order?

Sorry. Ideal for least amount of possible negative effects, ice caps melting/sea level rising vs. food production and lusher forests.

It says ambient in the picture. Are you incapable of reading you stupid fucking dumbass nigger? End yourself. We don't need your fucked extra chromosome offspring.

The concentration it's at right now is ideal as that is what current life has adapted to. Any significant changes lead to mass extinctions which means lower fitness for all life due to low biodiversity. This would have the potential to completely eliminate life.

>justify
>reason

found the 20 yo rationalist

>Are you incapable of reading you stupid fucking dumbass nigger?
>chromosome

Can we please stay on topic?
Thanks

The ideal amount for Humanity would be the amount in the atmosphere before the Industrial revolution

Not true. The picture in my OP picture clearly shows that (C3) plant life is obviously stunted at the current level of co2 in the atmosphere.
It also seems to show that (C4) plant life isn't affected in any noticeable way with higher levels of co2.
Are there any long term animal studies of increased co2 levels? I'd be curious to see them.

When before the industrial revolution exactly? During the time of the dinosaurs it varied between 5000-7000 ppm co2.

It's not so much the percentage of CO2 that's the problem but the rapid change in that percentage that we're all worried about. Rapid climate disruptions will likely lead to mass extinctions and if that affects our food supply, then things are going to suck.

Also, pick related only applies if there is a consistent availability of water. If we keep getting severe droughts in the south, like we saw in 2016, then none of the plants are going to really benefit from the increased co2 levels.

friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf

So by your logic am I to assume this was also a result of man made climate change?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

An increase in CO2 increases temperature among other things which has devastating effects on plant life far more significant than CO2 concentration.
climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/ClimateChange-Ag
In your picture the plants are raised in a laboratory where all other needs are satisfied so as to not be limiting factors in growth. They do this to measure the effects of only CO2 concentration. Unfortunately CO2 is rarely a limiting factor for growth in today's climate.
This is actually a more accurate answer than mine about staying at today's concentration. Evolution for most species does not act as quickly as 150 years.

Ok so the current level is the baseline then? Wouldn't an increase increase in temperature worldwide also lead to a faster rate of evaporation and create more rain? That would be good for plants.
How would we ever hope to have ideal conditions worldwide at all times anyway? Topography plays a role too, no?

Would you say that c02 is a limiting factor for grwoth in today's indoor/laboratory env? What other limiting factors would you place in front of co2.

The dust bowl was a result of poor agricultural techniques, read the article you linked. Plants can die from many different things, just as humans can die from many different things.

That's why I told you to define ideal. If you want ideal for canada for example I would say drill baby drill to thaw the permafrost. For the states I would say stop all emissions since they're already seeing droughts and reduced crop yield. I'd say the only place to see a benefit from global warming with regards to only vegetation would be places nearing the poles since they are currently deserts.

Whatever is the most expensive for labs would be the limiting factor really. They're pretty much artificial biomes but they are far more expensive than exploiting natural processes.

Right , I'm not going to argue about the poor agricultural management, granted. I'll try again.
What caused the droughts that combined with poor agricultural management created the dustbowl? Was the drought portion of that caused by man made climate change?
Also yeah I read the article, thanks. Way to keep it friendly user hahaha. It was just one example of mankind having a history of droughts, hurricanes, floods ect. I think you could even find Bible references to those effects lol.
I have to hit you back though on current levels being ideal, and the drastic effects life will encounter with a change in the atmosphere in the .001 percentile.
How can you be sure of that?

Yeah I don't think it was an example of climate change at that point in time, weather is crazily unpredictable while climate deals with long term trends.
Any time some condition of an ecosystem changes there are usually wildly unpredictable results. Ecology is an incredibly complex field of study and to be honest we don't actually know the lomg term effects of adding or removing a species from an ecosystem, the best we can do is make theories and test them. What we do know however is the destruction of ecosystems we've already seen because of the changes in temperature compared with the few benefits we've seen. We can make inferences based on these observations and say that rapid changes lead to extinctions of species occuring faster than new speciation. When the changes normalize again, like say after we go extinct, there will be a boom in speciation that is adapted to that new environment. We've seen this happen 5 times now in the fossil records so we're fairly certain.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
The issue with this is that there is no guarantee for life to survive, those last 5 mass extinctions were lucky. If you're talking about only a few species surviving, and then an asteroid hits or something equally catastrophic? You can pretty much say bye to all life on earth. Shit's scary yo.

Sure, in the lab the plants will grow faster. Because in the lab, they have perfectly fertile soil and are always perfectly hydrated. In reality, enhanced growth will also need more water and more minerals from the soil. One of those things will bottleneck growth eventually. Also, plants grown at higher CO2 levels have been shown to be overall worse plants, weaker, more vulnerable.

So, no, simply putting more juice in will not magically make everything better. Just like amphetamines and cocaine won't make you a better worker, and just like increasing the voltage on your power supply won't make your computer faster. Life is very specific, it has slowly adapted to a certain environment and it would be naive to think that changing this environment will do anything but damage.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1694.html
pnas.org/content/105/6/1960

Just noticed you talked about CO2 concentration being tiny. Just because the amount feels small, doesn't mean it can't have huge effects. Our body only has 3-4 grams of iron, but change it by small amounts and you can get sick or die.
youtu.be/CcmCBetoR18
This video explains how CO2 affects us significantly far better than I can.

climate change is fake

> I think you could even find Bible references to those effects lol.
Oh, so you're one of those faggots that comes out every time there's a snowstorm and posts, "Look! Global warming!" Then, when the weather is in the 70s the next week, you shut up.

> How can you be sure of that?
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Download it quick. Trump goes to work in about 6 hours.

Proof?

Can you not be insulting? You're just forcing emotions to emerge and shutting down logic centers of the brain. He is right in saying that the bible mentions floods and droughts and those were presumably not the effects of climate change. Weather happens. The bible contains pieces of history. There is nothing wrong with connecting the dots that floods and drought occured in the past because of weather.

>percentage
you mean "percent"
inb4 they mean the same,
bcoz they don't fgt pls

>The ideal amount for Humanity would be the amount in the atmosphere before the Industrial revolution
how do you prove that this is ideal?

1,000,000

>between 800-1000 ppm

Sounds reasonable, the optimum is quite broad. According to the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture 1400 ppm during the day is optimal for C3 plants and more has little effect on growth. Somebody calculated that burning three times the known hydrocarbon reserves would lead to about 900 ppm in atmospheric concentration but I couldn't verify that number yet because I still don't know how carbon emissions quantitatively translate into concentration.

This may also be interesting: Humans are said to exhale about 1..2 kg of CO2 per day, depending on physical activity. The concentration in a normally ventilated indoor space has been found to be about 2000 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Poorly ventilated spaces can reach twice that number. The workplace safety regulations limit is 5000 ppm.

So if you feel dizzy, open the window, run around the block and all's well.

Citation needed. This is Veeky Forums, not /religion/.

wat if Veeky Forums is my religion
may deepbro deliver us from land dwelling, and harriet deliver us from aether, qualia

Maybe, at least some plants would benefit, but global climate shifts also cause plants to abandon growing in certain regions in which precipitation decreases, and migrate towards regions where it exists. This is all find and dandy when you're dealing with a slow-paced, geological timescale climate shift.

Secondly, plants need more than CO2 to thrive. These type of CO2 experiments are done under conditions in which plants have adequate nutrients and water, with CO2 being the limiting factor. Take away your stable water supply (drought), or nutrient content (drought, deforestation, aeolian erosion, etc.) and suddenly the plants cannot grow / die. CO2 can be beneficial in conditions in which plants are already capable of thriving, however climate change, especially rapid climate change that is occurring now, and will occur into the next few centuries, can provide an abundance of CO2 (more in the Northern hemisphere than southern), but also limit water by decreases in precipitation and soil quality in some climates, while increasing it in others.

So basically, there's no "ideal" CO2 ppm for the atmosphere. It has varied throughout Earth history, and in general when it has been very high you have had hothouse Earth conditions that may have provided benefits to plant life in some climates, while harming them in others.


Another point is that if mankind had not been emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, the climate system of the Earth has been projected to be quite stable, around 180-200ppm. The reason that climate change is dangerous is because of how relatively rapid it is, in a geological sense, compared to natural background climate changes. It can do more harm than good in the short term for plant life, though I no doubt the system will eventually stabilize after a few centuries / millenia. The main issue is not whether plants / animals can survive and adapt, worse things have happened in past Earth history, but whether or not human civilization can adapt.

Why do you believe higher temperatures would result in lower overall precipitation ? If anything it would cause more

Higher CO2 encourages plant growth most especially in places with limited water
It's not heat that produces deserts after all.

Not him, but yes what he says is correct. Many mass extinctions in the paleozoic / mesozoic are correlated with massive bouts of volcanism, which drastically changed the climate of Earth, such as the P/T or the T/J. The Permian/Triassic was the largest of all the mass extinction events, and it was due to a period of ~600,000 years of steady volcanism that placed a large amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, including massive quantities of CO2 which rose CO2 ppm to
researchgate.net/publication/278090686_High-precision_timeline_for_Earth's_most_severe_extinction_vol_111_pg_3316_2014

>The end-Permian mass extinction was the most severe loss of marine and terrestrial biota in the last 542 My.

>Onset of a major reorganization of the carbon cycle immediately precedes the initiation of extinction and is punctuated by a sharp (3‰), short-lived negative spike in the isotopic composition of carbonate carbon. Carbon cycle volatility persists for ∼500 ka before a return to near preextinction values.


Reading comprehension. I never said it would cause lower precipitation, I said it can cause climate shifts, causing certain climates to receive even less precipitation, and others more.

To highlight this, here is a projection of precipitation into the next century. Many terrestrial areas that are already drought-prone are projected to receive even less precipitation.

gfdl.noaa.gov/will-the-wet-get-wetter-and-the-dry-drier/

Precipitation overall is much more important for plants to flourish than CO2 ppm, which is why this is concerning, especially for agriculture in vulnerable regions.

Whatever the average CO2 levels were during our evolutionary period

>projection

You niggers need to stop making projections. Climate change is something that needs to be dealt with head-on but every time you make a projection and it turns out to be wrong (read: every time you make a projection) it discredits the whole concept.

Well, ice cores, some of the most reliable paleoclimate data (although keep in mind its only measuring arctic temperature, CO2, O2, etc.) shows that CO2 has been relatively stable over the past 420k years, cycling between ~280 maximum to 180 minimum cycles averaging ~100k years between cycles.

Hmm. I guess science can never make predictions right? I guess the entire purpose of science is to not make projections or predictions, right?

What is the definition of science?
>Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

First off, most projections about climate have been underestimated, not over-estimated:

SLR has been underestimated:
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035;jsessionid=9A975B329EA97F22214EE2B1EE64C30F.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Sea ice projections have been underestimated:
ccrc.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf

IPCC estimations in general have been mostly underestimated rather than overestimated.

youtube.com/watch?v=tPSIvu0gQ90

Here's another example of a very recent paper that studied SLR during the last interglaciation:
science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/276
>The global mean annual values were ∼0.5°C warmer than they were 150 years ago and indistinguishable from the 1995–2014 mean. This is a sobering point, because sea levels during the last interglacial period were 6 to 9 m higher than they are now.
>>The last interglaciation [LIG, 129 to 116 thousand years ago (ka)] was one of the warmest periods during the last 800,000 years (1), with an associated sea-level rise of 6 to 9 m above present levels (2). As such, the LIG provides an important target for validating global climate models used for climate-change projections (3, 4), as well as for understanding the sea-level response to a warm climate.

Article on the paper from Science Daily:
sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170119143331.htm

>Sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation period were like those of today, a new study reports. The trend is worrisome, as sea levels during the last interglacial period were between six and nine meters above their present height. The last interglaciation (LIG), which occurred 129,000 to 116,000 years ago, is thought to have been about as warm or a bit warmer than today, making it a useful reference to validate global climate models and understand sea-level response to a warming climate.

Need I go on? Please inform yourself, it's kinda embarrassing to be so ignorant.

we see the same thing with coral... coral produces an airborne agent which increases cloud cover in the general area - helping coral survive differing levels of seasonal cloud cover and rains. I am thinking about driving down to 1770 for a surf, it is meant to be ok?

do you know how science works? you can't just test 30 variables at a time and expect valid results

hi sockpuppet

So it begins:

Fuck you for contaminating this board with your Global Warming meme!

...

>Durr, fount the retart who neds evidence for belife
>Ownt

nature.com/articles/ncomms3918

higher CO2 allows more plant growth even if everything else stays the same

We have seen this all over the world

>Citation needed. This is Veeky Forums, not /religion/.
This is Veeky Forums, not wikipedia.

Wikipedia requires citations because it's a tertiary source by design. Everything in it is is supposed to be a confirmable echo of a reputable secondary source. It's not an ideal system (reputable secondary sources can be and often are riddled with errors), it's just a straightforward organizing principle: Wikipedia tries to be a reference as accurate as, but not more accurate than, the best secondary sources.

"Citation needed" is inappropriate pretty much anywhere else. You're just asking people to point at someone else who agrees with them.

This is an imageboard, for informal discussion or just pointing at interesting things. You're not entitled to assign people making claims the job of producing support in any particular form.

>higher CO2 allows more plant growth even if everything else stays the same
Cite your sources, otherwise this is conjecture.

>We have seen this all over the world
Again, cite your sources, more conjecture.

In reality, more of something does not always mean better results.

The evidence presented here
directly contradicts this claim.

For example, during the Paleocene-Eocene maximum, herbivores thrived and are thought to have done extensive damage to plant life worldwide according to fossil records:
pnas.org/content/105/6/1960

>Our study suggests that increased insect herbivory is likely to be a net long-term effect of anthropogenic pCO2 increase and warming temperatures.

In terms of agriculture, not all crops thrive under higher CO2 conditions, for example in wheat, a cereal crop that is crucial in feeding the world, CO2 inhibits nitrate assimilation:
ucanr.edu/sites/Jackson_Lab/files/205560.pdf
>This study establishes that CO2 enrichment inhibits shoot nitrate assimilation in a wide variety of C3 plants and that this phenomenon can have a profound effect on their growth. This indicates that shoot nitrate assimilation provides an important contribution to the nitrate assimilation of an entire C3 plant. Thus, rising CO2 and its effects on shoot nitrate assimilation may influence the distribution of C3 plant species.

Here's a long-term study that examined the effects of higher CO2 concentrations on plant growth in perennial grasslands:
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1694.html
>As nitrogen limitation to productivity is widespread, persistent nitrogen constraints on terrestrial responses to rising CO2 are probably pervasive.
Basically, Nitrogen is the limiting factor in this experiment.

youtube.com/watch?v=wcDUaBO8T34

I would save your response to use as pasta but i am far too lazy.

>Change is always bad
>Massive deserts exist in the world, but more rainfall is a bad thing

uh huh
read by a crazy cat lady with a moustache

Nice rebuttal. Notice how every single time I present evidence, you cannot contradict it, so you resort to ad hom attacks.

Did you know that human civilization is based on agriculture, and there has been much research into the agricultural impacts of climate change?

More rainfall is more certainly a bad thing, perhaps if you watched the video you would understand why. It washes away top soils and nutrients that are vital for plant growth and development, it washes away seeds. Have you ever heard of too much of a good thing being a bad thing?

>read by a crazy cat lady with a moustache
A professor of Chemistry at MTU, what are you, some anonymous shitposter on Veeky Forums that lacks any credible argument?

So what if GOP agrees Climate change is real; it doesn't mean that we'll die in the next decade! We'll be in fucking Space Colonies thanks to Trump.

>So what if GOP agrees Climate change is real
They do not, in fact every single decision Trump has made thus far has been anti-science and anti-environment, whether it's hiring Scott Pruitt, a climate change denier politician and EPA critic (who has sued the EPA in his home state of Oklahoma) to heat the EPA, or hiring Rick Perry, a man who didn't even know the function of the DoE to head that organization, despite his lack of scientific background, especially in physics and Nuclear engineering, aside from a C in an undergrad physics class in 1968 (by the way, Rick Perry's transcript is a complete joke, go look it up).

Or Betsy DeVos, a woman who is a creationist and critic of public school, who believes that teachers earn too much, who is now heading the Department of Education. Need I go on? Trump's administration is filled with these kind of shills.

Or Trump himself, who has "tweeted" on numerous occasions on his ignorance of climate change and science in general. This is what happens when you elect a retarded populist who has no clear understanding of how government functions to head the government.

Last time I checked, Tillerson, Pruitt, and Perry acknowledged the existence of climate change and the impact humanity have on it; it just that we should focus on the economy above all else.

You cannot say CHANGE will be universally bad
CHANGE IS CHANGE, it is both good and bad

There are huge areas of the world that would welcome a little flooding/heavy rains

Tillerson's organization indeed acknowledged the impacts, while still funding climate change denial. It means absolutely nothing what Exxon's stance on the matter is, especially with their history of funding organizations that spread misinformation and lies:
scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy

Tillerson can say one thing in public, and his organization still sees the benefits of spreading misinformation.

While Pruitt did indeed say this during his confirmation hearing, it has to be placed into context of the conversation:
washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/18/bernie-sanders-to-scott-pruitt-why-is-the-climate-changing/?

If you read the full transcript he still dodges the question on numerous occasions. I still have plenty of doubts over a man who was hyper-critical of the EPA heading the organization.

As for Rick Perry:
fortune.com/2017/01/19/trump-rick-perry-confirmation/
>I believe the climate is changing. I believe some of it is naturally occurring, but some of it is also caused by man-made activity. The question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn't compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy, or American jobs

So essentially the issue doesn't matter because economical growth is more important. I highly doubt we will see a renaissance in climate change policy during a Trump administration. My only hope is that Perry, Pruitt, etc. who will be forced to work with climate professionals in their jobs, will see the evidence and have a better understanding of the issue.

Climate change generally means already wet areas will get wetter, and already dry areas will get drier. North Africa for example, will likely become more arid. Indonesia, for example, will become wetter, and experience larger monsoons.

In general, the trends we are already witnessing will become more exaggerated if the conditions persist.

Again, I never stated that change was universally bad, I stated that changes CAN be bad, and that believing that climate change is "good for plants," or "CO2 is plant food!" are massive over-generalizations that do not take into account the complexities and variables for healthy plant growth.

Earth doesn't give a flying fuck about it at all. Plants and animals can continue on with or without humans mucking things up. Some things will go extinct sure but other things will just replace them.

The problem is that humans aren't sea birds or crabs that'll just migrate inland or toward the poles when conditions get hot or sea levels rise. Humans build cities and most of those are on shorelines. The problem with climate change is it'll be fucking EXPENSIVE to pick up and move our cities or build barriers to prevent flooding or move our agriculture en mass.

We'll have mass migrations and increased conflicts as a result of climate change. Any increase of CO2 is therefore bad for us particularly. Some animals and plants can't move, because they're already at the fringes. Expect those to die off too.

Any serious environmental change requires more maintenance and renovation costs to adapt to, at least with infrastructure.

I agree in general, the main impacts of climate change are on human civilization. Nearly 8 billion people and counting, and 70%+ of those people living in coastal areas, many of which are vulnerable to SLR.

For example, Bangladesh. 170 million people live here, and almost the entire country is based on low-lying floodplains and coastal wetlands that are incredibly vulnerable to increased tidal forces from SLR.

Some of the most important (economically speaking) cities in the world are vulnerable to SLR and in coastal regions. The most important ports in the world are threatened, which may hamper trade.

The mitigation and economic impacts of climate change are in the trillions.

That said, climate change is definitely a threat to the global ecosystem at the same time, not everything can adapt quick enough, especially with such rapid changes occurring (geologically speaking). Life won't die out on Earth, it has survived worse, but it is definitely threatened, especially human civilization. That is the crux of the issue, how does a civilization the size and population of ours, with so many divisions in culture and policy, deal with an issue with global ramifications?

? You don't
The unproductive hordes of non-whites will die off, and we will need a big wall + cold hearts to keep them out
Overall a big improvement

It's not hard.

Define productivity. All I see in these areas you call productive are a bunch of people consuming for the sake of consuming. Unimaginable amounts of waste for literally no reason at all. Meanwhile the non-whites that you call savages live more conservative, sustainable lives. You know why some Africans still live in mud huts? It's because that's all they need to survive. How do you consider wasting precious finite resources on building a mansion to house a small family anything but unproductive and inefficient?

>This thread

Sure, it'll cost money to adapt to changing circumstances. But that cost decades down the line will be a tiny fraction of the costs that global warming cultists want to inflict on our economies

Money spent now is always more valuable than money spent in the future.

lol, what is this noble savage garbage... did you learn it in college?

Are you saying you don't even have post secondary education but think you're qualified to make decisions about scientific fields?

blacks live in squalor because they are black
Replace the blacks with whites, and the whites would be building castles

So where do you think the material to make these castles came from? Where did the labor come from? How is living in a castle more productive than living in a mud hut?

from fucking peasants.

What's wrong? I asked three questions didn't I?

>But that cost decades down the line will be a tiny fraction of the costs that global warming cultists want to inflict on our economies
No, economists have calculated optimal carbon tax rates to maximize the amount of money saved from mitigating climate change. Simply having a tax disincentive would save billions of dollars. The revenue from the tax could be spent on further mitigation research and technology.

>Sure, it'll cost money to adapt to changing circumstances. But that cost decades down the line will be a tiny fraction of the costs that global warming cultists want to inflict on our economies

Multiply 206 million by every vulnerable city on the eastern seaboard....

miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article1942384.html

What kind of Earth do you want? A hot Venus? Then more co2 is needed. A cold Mars? Then less co2 will help.
If you are asking "why does 390 ppm present a problem for the planet?", the answer is "it doesn't: Earth will do fine with 390 ppm co2. Humanity on the other hand, may not."

Why ask "ideal" (value judgement) in a science board? Maybe you meant "optimal"? ANd optimal for what? Plants? Aquatic plant life? Humans? Domesticated animals? Non-domesticated animals?
See, it is complicated, isn't it?

versus literally spending TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in makework "carbon tax" garbage, that accomplish nothing at the end of the day.

Building dikes is a trivial cost compared to the huge castastrophe that "green" spending is, or carbon tax, or other restrictions on carbon

How can I take any of you seriously when you demonstrate such blatant economic ignorance

Miami has sunk like 15 feet, nothing to do with climate change.

Can someone answer me this, what if the Co2 levels suddenly dropped to pre-industrial levels?

Would it reserve would could be argued what is going on right now?

And trillions of dollars and countless job will be lost when you climate cultists shut down the fossil fuels industry.

Combating Climate change = Abolishing fossil fuels = return to the fucking stone age.

I'll laugh at you liberals at my home inside a fucking space colony built by Donald Trump.

high co2 concentration supposedly has harmful effects on human intelligence

They would conjure up a new fictitious enemy.

~1000 to 1200 ppm for maximum crop production

t. Agrologist

how many feet of rainfall is optimal?

Actually dry land plants retain water better and are more drought tolerant with higher levels of CO2

The basic responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment of the higher plants that inhabit deserts are much the same as those of most other higher plants: as the air's CO2 content rises, their photosynthetic rates typically increase and their rates of transpiration often decrease, thereby enhancing their water use efficiencies, as demonstrated by a number of different studies.

Graham and Nobel (1996) grew the CAM plant Agave deserti Engelm. in environmental chambers maintained at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 370 and 750 ppm for 17 months to study the effects of elevated CO2 on gas exchange and biomass production in this succulent Sonoran Desert species. The twice-ambient CO2 concentration increased plant net carbon uptake by nearly 50%, while reducing transpirational water loss by approximately 24%. Together, the two phenomena led to a 110% increase in plant water-use efficiency. At the same time, however, prolonged exposure to atmospheric CO2 enrichment induced measurable photosynthetic acclimation, as indicated by an 11% reduction in rubisco activity and a 34% reduction in the activity of PEP-carboxylase. Nevertheless, the plants grown in elevated CO2 produced 88% more biomass than the plants grown in ambient air.


co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/deserts.php

This is patently false, many studies also monitor nutrient and water uptake and induce drought like conditions. Plants in such conditions do far better than ones in ambient atmospheres.

give it to me straight, is (man-made) climate change an actual concern?

Can't tell if trolling or just an idiot who can't stop strawmanning.

You keep making shit up while economists have already calculated the costs and benefits of a carbon tax and shown that it is a net positive.

Wrong.

miaminewtimes.com/news/sorry-daily-caller-sea-level-rise-is-real-and-miami-isnt-just-sinking-because-of-too-many-condos-8594225

These are the people who will be out of a job now that Trump is in

That merely reduces drought stress, it doesn't eliminate the net increase from AGW.

>haw haw u loose cuz i fire u!
Great counterargument.

>feet

All of them

>Uh, CO2 is just plant food! It's good for plants! Checkmate cultists! u can't win an argument against this sound logic!
If this is the only argument that you have, you have no argument.

>non-ironically linking to co2science
Sadly, that's not a legitimate source of scientific information. Simply another front group for special interest to spread misinformation about climate change. Perhaps get your information from an actual, legitimate source next time? Perhaps examine some of the literature that was posted earlier in the thread as well? Is using a source that is directly funded by the fossil fuel industry not a massive conflict of interest?d They're also affiliated with Heartland and Science and Environmental Policy Project (notice how these front organizations always try to legitimize themselves with fancy sounding names).

Follow the money:
desmogblog.com/center-study-carbon-dioxide-and-global-change
sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
Of course, today companies like Exxon hide their donations by donating instead to organizations like Donor's Trust, or Donors Capital Fund, anti-regulatory organizations that allow their donations to be anonymous with no paper trail.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donors_Trust
desmogblog.com/donors-capital-fund
desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust

If you want to actually understand the scientific evidence, why not look at the actual, scientific literature, not front groups for special interest? Oh but wait, it's all a conspiracy, so the scientific literature is corrupt or whatever nonsense you tell yourself to keep your confirmation bias active.