Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you kidding? It was prolific for all life forms. 75 foot tall animals running around validate to that.The most prolific period of life on earth was when the CO2 was the highest...Nothing will be done about the climate changing. To think we can change the climate is supreme arrogance. Ruminate on that for a bit.
That is silly.
We add over 29 billion additional tons of carbon the atmosphere every single year, and CO2 last forever, so is accumulative.
You know a volcanic eruption can change the climate for a year or so, so then why do you doubt that the accumulated carbon we burn can not?
“…most previous studies regarding the CO2 fertilization effect have focused primarily on “doubling-CO2 experiments” with twofold higher CO2 concentration of about 700 or 800 ppm than the current global CO2 concentration [40, 42, 45, 48]. Nevertheless, the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis.” The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text
Prolific for plants, but not necessarily for animals.
The planet was also significantly hotter, with a constant overcast from all the humidity in the air.
The stars and moon would never have been visible.
If that happened now, solar photovoltaic cells would not work well, astronomy would be impossible, and even air travel would be very rare and risky from the constant fog.
And since we are stimulating more heating on top of what was already the end of a hot period, we are likely going to cause a warming even greater than the hottest period this planet has ever experienced.
If that initiates a positive feedback acceleration, we could be talking about surface temperatures above the boiling point of water. This is unlikely, but we don't know for sure, and there is no way to stop it at that point.
I'm sending my hopes and prayers to you.
Only Fascism can stop Climate Change
You all know climate change and pollution is a huge threat, yet in every post you deny it. Talk about burying your heads in the sand. LOL
Nothing will be done about the climate changing. To think we can change the climate is supreme arrogance. Ruminate on that for a bit.
That is silly.
We add over 29 billion additional tons of carbon the atmosphere every single year, and CO2 last forever, so is accumulative.
You know a volcanic eruption can change the climate for a year or so, so then why do you doubt that the accumulated carbon we burn can not?
“…most previous studies regarding the CO2 fertilization effect have focused primarily on “doubling-CO2 experiments” with twofold higher CO2 concentration of about 700 or 800 ppm than the current global CO2 concentration [40, 42, 45, 48]. Nevertheless, the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis.” The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text
Yes, it is true that more CO2 is good for plant growth. But that additional plant growth is not good for humans because it does not translate into more nutrition in the leaves, seeds, or whatever we harvest for. It just means more cellulose, that we can not digest. And the change on climate, such as more storms, hotter temperatures, etc., more than offset any positive in growth rates.
Again, plant growth can not equal the 100 million years worth of sequestered carbon we dump instantly into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuel. The 29 billion tons of carbon we add to the atmosphere each year is in excess of what plants can absorb. We actually produce about 10 billion more tons of carbon than that, but it is absorbed by plants.
"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Congrats! EVERYTHING in your post was totally WRONGNothing will be done about the climate changing. To think we can change the climate is supreme arrogance. Ruminate on that for a bit.
That is silly.
We add over 29 billion additional tons of carbon the atmosphere every single year, and CO2 last forever, so is accumulative.
You know a volcanic eruption can change the climate for a year or so, so then why do you doubt that the accumulated carbon we burn can not?
“…most previous studies regarding the CO2 fertilization effect have focused primarily on “doubling-CO2 experiments” with twofold higher CO2 concentration of about 700 or 800 ppm than the current global CO2 concentration [40, 42, 45, 48]. Nevertheless, the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis.” The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text
Yes, it is true that more CO2 is good for plant growth. But that additional plant growth is not good for humans because it does not translate into more nutrition in the leaves, seeds, or whatever we harvest for. It just means more cellulose, that we can not digest. And the change on climate, such as more storms, hotter temperatures, etc., more than offset any positive in growth rates.
Again, plant growth can not equal the 100 million years worth of sequestered carbon we dump instantly into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuel. The 29 billion tons of carbon we add to the atmosphere each year is in excess of what plants can absorb. We actually produce about 10 billion more tons of carbon than that, but it is absorbed by plants.
"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Totally wrong.
The CO2 level only very rarely ever got over 300 ppm, and that was a horrific period of constant fog and over cast.
The reality is that while plants grow faster with more CO2, they produce less productive nutrients for human consumption when they get more CO2.
China just recently slightly beat out the US as the greatest polluter, but they have over 10 times as many people than we do. Clearly it is the US that is the main problem, for the whole world. And China is rapidly reducing their emissions, while the US has been steadily increasing ours.
Congrats! EVERYTHING in your post was totally WRONGThat is silly.
We add over 29 billion additional tons of carbon the atmosphere every single year, and CO2 last forever, so is accumulative.
You know a volcanic eruption can change the climate for a year or so, so then why do you doubt that the accumulated carbon we burn can not?
“…most previous studies regarding the CO2 fertilization effect have focused primarily on “doubling-CO2 experiments” with twofold higher CO2 concentration of about 700 or 800 ppm than the current global CO2 concentration [40, 42, 45, 48]. Nevertheless, the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis.” The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text
Yes, it is true that more CO2 is good for plant growth. But that additional plant growth is not good for humans because it does not translate into more nutrition in the leaves, seeds, or whatever we harvest for. It just means more cellulose, that we can not digest. And the change on climate, such as more storms, hotter temperatures, etc., more than offset any positive in growth rates.
Again, plant growth can not equal the 100 million years worth of sequestered carbon we dump instantly into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuel. The 29 billion tons of carbon we add to the atmosphere each year is in excess of what plants can absorb. We actually produce about 10 billion more tons of carbon than that, but it is absorbed by plants.
"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Totally wrong.
The CO2 level only very rarely ever got over 300 ppm, and that was a horrific period of constant fog and over cast.
The reality is that while plants grow faster with more CO2, they produce less productive nutrients for human consumption when they get more CO2.
China just recently slightly beat out the US as the greatest polluter, but they have over 10 times as many people than we do. Clearly it is the US that is the main problem, for the whole world. And China is rapidly reducing their emissions, while the US has been steadily increasing ours.
Congrats! EVERYTHING in your post was totally WRONG“…most previous studies regarding the CO2 fertilization effect have focused primarily on “doubling-CO2 experiments” with twofold higher CO2 concentration of about 700 or 800 ppm than the current global CO2 concentration [40, 42, 45, 48]. Nevertheless, the CO2 fertilization effect may sustain up to about 1000 ppm for leaf photosynthesis [46, 49] and 1800 ppm for grain yield of crops [50]. For example, Xu [23] examined the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration of the CO2 fertilization effect on the growth of winter wheat and found that the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration was 894 and 968 ppm for total biomass and leaf photosynthesis.” The optimal CO 2 concentrations for the growth of three perennial grass species | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text
Yes, it is true that more CO2 is good for plant growth. But that additional plant growth is not good for humans because it does not translate into more nutrition in the leaves, seeds, or whatever we harvest for. It just means more cellulose, that we can not digest. And the change on climate, such as more storms, hotter temperatures, etc., more than offset any positive in growth rates.
Again, plant growth can not equal the 100 million years worth of sequestered carbon we dump instantly into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuel. The 29 billion tons of carbon we add to the atmosphere each year is in excess of what plants can absorb. We actually produce about 10 billion more tons of carbon than that, but it is absorbed by plants.
"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Totally wrong.
The CO2 level only very rarely ever got over 300 ppm, and that was a horrific period of constant fog and over cast.
The reality is that while plants grow faster with more CO2, they produce less productive nutrients for human consumption when they get more CO2.
China just recently slightly beat out the US as the greatest polluter, but they have over 10 times as many people than we do. Clearly it is the US that is the main problem, for the whole world. And China is rapidly reducing their emissions, while the US has been steadily increasing ours.
If you think I am wrong, then prove it.
I showed your claim of 400 ppm of CO2 being historically common to be wrong, going back 400,000 years.
And why 400 ppm of CO2 would preclude things like astronomy and most air travel.
I can not prove that CO2 increases risks a race condition that will accelerate global warming to earth surface temperatures above the boiling point of water, but everyone has to admit that is possible, because it happened on Venus and resulted in surface temperatures over 400 degrees.
Anyone who claims there is no risk at all has got to be lying, because in our life time we have seen the change.
From the year round ice locked Arctic in the 50's, to the now open Northwest Passage.
Huge change in a very short time.
Congrats! EVERYTHING in your post was totally WRONGYes, it is true that more CO2 is good for plant growth. But that additional plant growth is not good for humans because it does not translate into more nutrition in the leaves, seeds, or whatever we harvest for. It just means more cellulose, that we can not digest. And the change on climate, such as more storms, hotter temperatures, etc., more than offset any positive in growth rates.
Again, plant growth can not equal the 100 million years worth of sequestered carbon we dump instantly into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuel. The 29 billion tons of carbon we add to the atmosphere each year is in excess of what plants can absorb. We actually produce about 10 billion more tons of carbon than that, but it is absorbed by plants.
"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Totally wrong.
The CO2 level only very rarely ever got over 300 ppm, and that was a horrific period of constant fog and over cast.
The reality is that while plants grow faster with more CO2, they produce less productive nutrients for human consumption when they get more CO2.
China just recently slightly beat out the US as the greatest polluter, but they have over 10 times as many people than we do. Clearly it is the US that is the main problem, for the whole world. And China is rapidly reducing their emissions, while the US has been steadily increasing ours.
If you think I am wrong, then prove it.
I showed your claim of 400 ppm of CO2 being historically common to be wrong, going back 400,000 years.
And why 400 ppm of CO2 would preclude things like astronomy and most air travel.
I can not prove that CO2 increases risks a race condition that will accelerate global warming to earth surface temperatures above the boiling point of water, but everyone has to admit that is possible, because it happened on Venus and resulted in surface temperatures over 400 degrees.
Anyone who claims there is no risk at all has got to be lying, because in our life time we have seen the change.
From the year round ice locked Arctic in the 50's, to the now open Northwest Passage.
Huge change in a very short time.
Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner, and stop exhaling.
Congrats! EVERYTHING in your post was totally WRONG"Continuing the demonization of CO2, the article refers to China as “the biggest global polluter.” Let’s be clear, CO2 is not a “pollutant.” The average human breathes out about 2 pounds of CO2 per day. Over most of geological history, CO2 levels have been much higher than today’s approximately 400 CO2 molecules per million air molecules (ppm). Operators of commercial greenhouses routinely increase CO2 levels to 1000 ppm or more, if they can afford to pay for the CO2.
We should welcome the fact that CO2 has risen to “levels not seen on Earth for millions of years,” even if the “fact” is less certain than you might believe. Plants have been trying to cope with a CO2 famine for millions of years, a famine that is finally ending. With self-assurance worthy of Dr. Pangloss, the article implies that pre-industrial CO2 levels, around 280 ppm, were the “best of all possible worlds.” But 280 ppm is much closer to (sea-level) starvation levels of about 150 ppm, when many plants die, than to the optimum levels for plant growth, which greenhouse operators already know are greater than 1000 ppm.
There is fossil evidence of CO2 starvation at the end of the last ice age, when CO2 levels dropped to below 200 ppm. Even today’s 400 ppm is far too low for optimum plant growth.”
New York Times hysterical over global greening | CFACT
When will you realize that 'global warming' is simply a plan for global governance?
Ever?????
Totally wrong.
The CO2 level only very rarely ever got over 300 ppm, and that was a horrific period of constant fog and over cast.
The reality is that while plants grow faster with more CO2, they produce less productive nutrients for human consumption when they get more CO2.
China just recently slightly beat out the US as the greatest polluter, but they have over 10 times as many people than we do. Clearly it is the US that is the main problem, for the whole world. And China is rapidly reducing their emissions, while the US has been steadily increasing ours.
If you think I am wrong, then prove it.
I showed your claim of 400 ppm of CO2 being historically common to be wrong, going back 400,000 years.
And why 400 ppm of CO2 would preclude things like astronomy and most air travel.
I can not prove that CO2 increases risks a race condition that will accelerate global warming to earth surface temperatures above the boiling point of water, but everyone has to admit that is possible, because it happened on Venus and resulted in surface temperatures over 400 degrees.
Anyone who claims there is no risk at all has got to be lying, because in our life time we have seen the change.
From the year round ice locked Arctic in the 50's, to the now open Northwest Passage.
Huge change in a very short time.
Put your Dinaro where you put your dinner, and stop exhaling.
By gardening, planting trees, driving a vehicle that gets over 35 mpg, etc., I am more than carbon neutral, and if I die, my corpse would no longer sequester carbon. It would be released.
Yep, make up a fake boogeyman to fight who can’t hurt you.
We'll miss ya'.....
Wait.....is this you???
"WATCH: “We need to eat babies” to solve the climate crisis, says hysterical woman at AOC event
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez held a town hall in Corona, New York on Thursday, where she was confronted by a hysterical woman who suggested the only way to deal with the climate crisis is to start eating babies.
The woman, who was wearing a shirt that read, “Save the planet, eat the children”, warned Ocasio-Cortez that politicians aren’t acting quick enough to combat increasing CO2 levels.
“Even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people. Too much pollution,” the woman said. “So, we have to get rid of the babies. That’s a big problem. Just stopping having babies is not enough, we need to eat the babies. This is very serious.”
WATCH: "We need to eat babies" to solve the climate crisis, says hysterical woman at AOC event · Caldron Pool
This is your stereotypical Democrat supporter......
...watch Ocasio nodding in agreement in the background.
OMG!!!!
We'll miss ya'.....
Wait.....is this you???
"WATCH: “We need to eat babies” to solve the climate crisis, says hysterical woman at AOC event
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez held a town hall in Corona, New York on Thursday, where she was confronted by a hysterical woman who suggested the only way to deal with the climate crisis is to start eating babies.
The woman, who was wearing a shirt that read, “Save the planet, eat the children”, warned Ocasio-Cortez that politicians aren’t acting quick enough to combat increasing CO2 levels.
“Even if we would bomb Russia, we still have too many people. Too much pollution,” the woman said. “So, we have to get rid of the babies. That’s a big problem. Just stopping having babies is not enough, we need to eat the babies. This is very serious.”
WATCH: "We need to eat babies" to solve the climate crisis, says hysterical woman at AOC event · Caldron Pool
This is your stereotypical Democrat supporter......
...watch Ocasio nodding in agreement in the background.
OMG!!!!
I'm missing something here... Ok, so I get that this loon thinks the world is overpopulated, that all birth should stop, and that the population numbers should be culled. Wacky, but not the first loon who's said it.
But how does she get from there, to the need to eat the babies? Hypothetically speaking, how does eating someone after they're dead affect climate any more favorably in their warped philosophy? Sounds like she's just a demented nutjob and wants an excuse to eat a baby. She would have been in a looney bin back in the day before they closed them.
