Cold out

[Hamloc]

So A5 there is your answer from MIT for what is the ideal level of CO2.

Are you still going to tell us that it should be higher? Of course you know more than the scientists at MIT!

Now show us the scientific organizations and their reasoning that CO2 levels should be higher and that over 400 and rising is nothing to worry about.

We are waiting! Don't disappear or change the subject or call me a troll. Just provide the evidence.

Simple excepty we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Give up!

Chuck the little Ice Age extended roughly from 1300 to 1850’s. According to NASA(from Wikipedia) there were 3 particularly cold intervals. One began in 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all which were separated by intervals of slight warming. So you were prefer the little Ice Age that existed for over 500 years at an atmospheric C02 level of 280 ppm?

[chuckChuck]

It isn't going back to 280 anytime soon so you can stop worrying about freezing in the next little ice age hamloc. LOL

The MIT suggested a range in the mid 300s could be ideal.

So I take it you don't have any evidence that rising levels of CO2 above 400 ppm are nothing to worry about? Otherwise you and A5 would have posted them a long time ago. Right.

Give up!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So over 400 and rising is nothing to worry about?

It isn't going back to 280 anytime soon so you can stop worrying about freezing in the next little ice age hamloc. LOL

Unless of course CO2 doesn't drive temperature in any meaningful way, or even with any positive correlation.

Such as these 135 papers which indicate a very low climate sensitivity and even a negative correlation thorughout the entire phanerozoic era(for example):

https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/13/nearly-140-scientific-papers-detail-the-minuscule-effect-co2-has-on-earths-temperature/

[AlbertaFarmer5]

What is the ideal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for human life?

From the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life


May 18, 2021

According to NASA, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere was about 416 parts per million (ppm) in April 2021.1 This level has been rising for 200 years—a worrying sign for the planet, since CO2 is a powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Climate experts warn that humanity must drastically lower its CO2 emissions to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. But if we could choose a different level of CO2 in the air, what number would we pick?

The first thing to know is that our species arose in a world with much less CO2, says Noelle Selin, Associate Professor in the MIT Institute for Data, Systems and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. As humanity evolved over the past several hundred thousand years, atmospheric CO2 cycled between about 200 and 300 ppm. The preindustrial level of CO2—the amount in the air a few centuries ago, before humans began to burn CO2-producing fuels like coal and oil at an industrial scale—was about 280 ppm. Selin says a good argument could be made that 280 is the ideal level of CO2 for human life, since it creates temperature ranges that are comfortable for the human body and allowed civilization to grow. “The changes that we've seen since then just haven't happened on the timescale that you could evolve changes in humans.”

Another good argument could be made for trying to stabilize CO2 parts per million in the low 300s, Selin says. Consider our cities and infrastructure: Much of the built world we live in arose during the “great acceleration,” a period beginning around 1950 when economic development sped up dramatically around the world. At this time, CO2 levels were just rising above 300 ppm, and the first effects of climate change could barely be seen. Societies built things like city flood defenses based on 20th-century assumptions about how high and how common floods would be. As a result, those defenses may be ill-equipped for today’s world, when higher CO2 levels lead to rising seas, stronger storms, and bigger floods.

The same could be said for our food system, which assumes that farmlands will get about 20th-century levels of rain and heat. Knowing this, Selin says, one could make the case that 20th-century levels of CO2 are ideal, and that humanity ought to aim for the atmospheric levels of a few decades ago, somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm.

Unfortunately, Selin says, we cannot simply go “backward” like this. While the planet has natural carbon “sinks” like oceans, forests, and soils that remove some CO2 from the atmosphere, that process is very slow. Researchers like MIT’s John Sterman have called this the “bathtub effect.” Think of a tub full of water with a painfully slow drain: Even if you turned off the faucet, it would take a long time for the water already in the tub to drain out. In the case of the atmosphere, this means that even if humanity immediately halted CO2 emissions, the extra carbon we’ve already put in the atmosphere would continue to change our climate as it slowly drains out—and that “drain” might take centuries or millennia to finish its work. Meanwhile, technology that removes CO2 from the air exists now in prototype form, but is a long way from the level of sophistication that could bring down the atmospheric level of CO2. “Climate change is essentially irreversible on human timescales,” Selin says.

What is clearly not ideal is the constantly rising level of CO2 we have today, which pushes the climate further away from the best conditions for us, our cities, and our societies. In 2016, a worldwide body of climate scientists2 said that a CO2 level of 430 ppm would push the world past its target for avoiding dangerous climate change. The sooner humankind dramatically cuts its CO2 emissions, the less we will have to adapt to a warmer climate.

Thanks for replying Chuck. It only took you 5 days of research to find a cut and paste that doesn't in any way answer my question. But at least you put in some effort.

Interestingly, your article brings up human evolution and CO2 levels. Considering that humans don't perform photosynthesis, the levels of CO2 were completely irrelevant to our evolution. Are you aware that OSHA allows humans to work in levels up to 5000 ppm for 8 hour shifts. Or that at levels up to 10,000 ppm they say typically no side effects, except possible drowsiness, and that you need to go all the way up to 40,000 ppm (4.0%) to be Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH). That is 100 times higher than modern times, do you really think we have enough fossil fuel reserves to accomplish those levels?

I asked you specifically about the balance between CO2 as a GHG, and CO2 as a necessity for photosynthesis, your article didn't even mention the ideal level for photosythesis. And completely ignores the fact that CO2 as a GHG is almost completely impotent at levels above 300 ppm, and only a very minor GHG compared to water vapour at levels below 300 ppm. As I was saying in my original question, the law of diminishing returns applies, the relationship is not linear. See the list of papers I posted in the previous thread if you want to do more research on this topic.

But one of the most interesting items in your cut and paste is the accusation that CO2 levels have varied between 200 and 300 ppm during the pre industrial period of human evolution. 300 being 50% higher than 200. What do you suppose could have caused that fluctation naturally? And from 300 to todays level is only a 39% increase. Less than the natural fluctuations which evidently weren't fatal to human kind. Not surprisingly, considering that we don't and didn't perform photosynthesis.

So lets try again. We need to find out the ideal level of CO2 for photosythetic life, the base of all food chains, and maximizing that will also minimize the energy inputs required to feed humanity.

Then we need to consider the finite supplies of easily released CO2 from fossil fuels, and balance the two to get the most benefit for the longest period. Accepting that reducing CO2 levels to below a certain level will have slightly detrimental effects on our planets temperature by cooling. But increasing beyond todays levels will have almost no further beneficial warming effects, so would be a waste of valuable CO2 in that aspect.

[shtferbrains]

Chuck will be back next week.
Help not available on the weekend.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So A5 there is your answer from MIT for what is the ideal level of CO2.

Are you still going to tell us that it should be higher? Of course you know more than the scientists at MIT!

Now show us the scientific organizations and their reasoning that CO2 levels should be higher and that over 400 and rising is nothing to worry about.

We are waiting! Don't disappear or change the subject or call me a troll. Just provide the evidence.

Simple except we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Give up!

So Chuck, does being a scientist from MIT make a person infallible? Is that the only qualification required for you to blindly believe everything they say? No need to fact check?
Because I see on the covid forum there is an MIT scientist named Dr Seneff who has some opinions about Covid. Should I trust everything she says, even if it contradicts what you have been preaching, just because she is an MIT scientist?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Another interesting quote from Chuck's article.
Selin says a good argument could be made that 280 is the ideal level of CO2 for human life, since it creates temperature ranges that are comfortable for the human body and allowed civilization to grow
Doesn't this contradict all reality? Prior to the industrial revolution, world population was nearly stagnant with almost constant major setbacks from weather and disease. Progress quality of life, affluence, health, life spans, education levels, urbanization, infant mortality were negligible.
During the industrial revolution, along with the accompanying rising CO2 levels, population has exploded, along with exponential improvements in every facet of life mentioned above.
Could I be forgiven for drawing the opposite conclusion as the MIT author? Correlation may not imply causation, but the results are incontestable.

[furrowtickler]

Could means absolute...... lol

[furrowtickler]

So A5 there is your answer from MIT for what is the ideal level of CO2.

Are you still going to tell us that it should be higher? Of course you know more than the scientists at MIT!

Now show us the scientific organizations and their reasoning that CO2 levels should be higher and that over 400 and rising is nothing to worry about.

We are waiting! Don't disappear or change the subject or call me a troll. Just provide the evidence.

Simple except we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Give up!

I am sure that MIT has years of practical experience actually growing crops
Scientists that guess at what could be best for CO2 levels , then stated as proof lol

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Implement massive carbon tax to “save” the planet but let’s legalize pot, our dictator is such a hypocrite.

“ Studying more than 1,000 locations across the United States, researchers from Colorado State University calculated the median emissions of growing one kilogram of cannabis to be about 3,600 kilograms of CO2 equivalent emissions. The amount varies from roughly 2,300 to 5,200 kilograms of emissions per kilogram grown depending on location. To put that in perspective, a kilogram of tomatoes grown in a British Columbia greenhouse heated with natural gas emits roughly two kilograms.”

https://www.motherjones.com/environm...rgy-intensive/

So many actions that completely contradict the climate emergency narrative. Could there be an easier source of CO2 to eliminate than this example? Or bitcoin mining.

The industrial scale cannabis operation in Olds has giant tanks of CO2 in the yard.

Can you imagine anything more preposterous than building massive climate controlled buildings, pumping in water and CO2 and nutrients and artificial sunlight to grow something that half of my neighbors used to grow in the back 40 under natural conditions, and which is almost completely uncessecary.

[chuckChuck]

A5 we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

You have had several years to produce credible evidence from a world class scientific organization to back up your arm chair opinions.

And all we get is more hot air! LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck will be back next week.
Help not available on the weekend.

I just read Chuck's reply. Looks like he should have taken your advice and waited for the A team to come back on Monday and help him out. Instead he answered in his own words. Which appears to be a cut and paste of his previous post on the same topic without addressing any of the rebuttals posted above. But at least he's consistent.

Probably my fault though, after all I posted far too many questions and responses at once which always seems to overwhelm him I should know better and just stick with one single response with short simple sentences and no long words.
Maybe I will try again Monday.

[Guest]

cutting and pasting his own work , TF funny

[chuckChuck]

A5 you still haven't provided any evidence to back up your wacko idea that the world needs more CO2 and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not less.

The following previously posted sentences still apply. LOL

Don't disappear or change the subject or call me a troll. Just provide the evidence. Simple.

Except we all know you don't have any evidence or can't produce any scientific organizations that says we should put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Its obvious you have given up long ago and resigned yourself to defeat by failing to post anything that even vaguely resembles credible scientific support for your bonehead idea hat we need more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[TASFarms]

Why are you still arguing about co2. It a means for a tax scam nothing more. That is right from the top. The choice was h2o or co2. How has the $4 billion that Canada dished out at the Paris Climate summit helped. I see $500 million was donated to the Trudeau Foundation after