Debate Now Maybe We Need More CO2 and Not Less?

[Decus]

SDZ Public Service Post!

Ad hominem Define Ad hominem at Dictionary.com

ad hominem
[ad hom-uh-nuh m -nem, ahd‐]
adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Smart alek

"profound ignorance".....hmmm?

Sweetie....

What are clean debate rules? These are the kinds of comments I would expect in non-CDZ threads.

.

Guidelines for the Structured Debate Zone (SDZ) can be found here;

Debate Now - Structured Discussion Forum US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The OP specified these Rules for this thread;

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic and relate opinions and observations as much as possible to the stated thread topic.

2. No ad hominem re persons, political parties, ideologies, or other members. Criticize or comment on the argument made and not the character or intent of those making it.

3. Links are not required to express your own opinion. If you post excerpts from or links to other sources, you must in your own words give a brief summary of what the content is and what you expect others to learn from the source.​

So no ad homs are allowed in this thread.

.

It was a rhetorical question. I will not post the definition of rhetorical for you. You'll have to look it up yourself.

Did you post your solution to CO2 levels?

.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a proven fact that very high concentrations of CO2 will kill both plant life and animal life. It has been demonstrated numerous times in areas of high volcanic activity. So I have no quarrel with the article there.

But the author of the article you linked does not say how high is too high when it comes to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And it does not dispute the numbers Moore used or that Archibald uses in his book. And it does not provide evidence that their opinion that CO2 levels are currently too low is not correct.

Now I'm confused. You have, it seems, taken a position on whether or not Moore's argument has merit.

Nope. Making an observation is not the same thing as taking a position. I have not and probably will not take a position on the discussion topic because I frankly don't know whether Moore is right.

All I know is I am willing to at least look at the merits or lack thereof of arguments made on the subject, and I am not willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker anybody else's opinion on the subject either without very good reason to do so.

You insult my intelligence. I gave you a good reason. You think the overwhelming majority of climate scientists the world over are going to suddenly say "Oops! Our bad! More CO2 is good for the environment. Drill baby, drill!"

I'm not asking you to accept any one persons opinion. That is what YOU are asking of me. I'm going with thousands of scientists here.

Take the ad hominem out of that and I will respond to it. I have asked nothing of you nor have I insulted your intelligence or anything else about you. And I believe true scientists ask questions and try to find answers for them and I believe thousands of scientists fall into that category.

The OP asks a question about CO2 levels and whether it is wrong for the IPPC to focus on CO2 and not on all causes of climate change. Let's focus on that and not me, okay?

You insulted my intelligence.

Your intelligence, however, is not the topic of this discussion. Let's focus on the topic as it is clearly expressed in the OP, okay?

 

[Foxfyre]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

It is said that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. And some of the world's most mentally challenged people occasionally come up with a gem of wisdom now and then. So whether Moore is a credentialed scientist or a janitor with a 4th grade education or a serial killer or whether or not it the statement was developed via good science, his stated opinion either has merit or it does not. Two plus two equals four no matter who says it or whether the person saying it has any understanding of what they are saying when they say it.


So it is the statements themselves and not the credibility or reputation or the motive of the person saying them that is the topic of this discussion.

Every opinion has some merit...but not all opinions are equal when making claims. For example...if I was having a problem with recurring skin rash (which, I did!) - I would put more weight in the opinion of my dermatologist than I would in my geologist coworker, though I would consider his opinion.

I don't know that the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. I do believe that those scientist who receive funding from people interested in achieving that verdict or who need acceptance in certain professional circles overwhelmingly support anthropogenic climate change. I haven't seen much evidence of that from scientists who are not in that position, however. So I think the verdict is still out on that.

That's where I disagree. It's an often used argument that scientists in support of anthropogenic global warming are funded by those with a vested interest in affirming it. That same argument applies to skeptics who are often funded by the energy industries, including, I might add, the Heartland Institute. At the very least, the funding issues should cancel each other out so we should look at the preponderance of evidence.

And given the plethora of credentialed and esteemed scientists who are not convinced that anthropogenically generated CO2 emissions are the primary culprit re climate change, I do think the IPPC should be given equal merit to all factors of climate change so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help.

According to this study, the number of scientists who feel that human activity is not the primary cause of climate change is an increasingly shrinking group, a mere 3% with the consensus of scientists from multiple disciplines now being at 97%. : Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Given that, how could you justify the expenditure of money, research and time on factors that are not supported by the main body of science?

You state: ...so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help

That is another problem. The first is what does the science say? The second (and third) is - what can or should we do about it (if anything) and will it make a difference.

The first is a statement of science - the theories that are best supported by available evidence and subject to change as more evidence becomes available. It is not a statement of policy.

The rest...is policy.

So we don't get derailed into yet another discussion on that 97% consensus, I'll post the link to Anthony Watts 97-sources who dispute that. (Not that it matters, but I am not one who embraces that 97% consensus statement.)
97 Articles Refuting The 97 Consensus on global warming Watts Up With That

Now as for credentials that convince us that we can believe who we believe on AGW, I don't have a lot of problem with us using that in our argument. If you say you are coming from the perspective of what you believe to be the 97% and you trust that source, and I say I have looked at that but lean more in a different direction, we can still have a conversation on the thread topic.

But I don't want to allow bashing of each other's sources (or each other) in lieu of focusing on what we think those sources actually contribute to the discussion and why we look to those sources. Or what we have figured out on our own. And because it is so much easier to criticize the source or the member rather than the content, I'm guessing we all have to bite our tongues and delete a lot of lines that we type to keep from doing that. Speaking from experience, it does get easier with practice.

My problem with so many who say something is a 'statement of science' is that so often it isn't. But even when it is, is saying "Too much CO2 is harmful to plant and animal life" any more scientific than saying "Too little CO2 is harmful to plant and animal life"?

Even if it is that janitor with the 4th grade education from Duluth who is saying one or both statements?

 

[Coyote]

First...Dr. Moore's argument is an opinion...and not necessarily founded on good science and that influences it's merit.

Does Dr. Moore's argument have merit as expressed in #1 and #2 below?

1. The IPPC should be required to investigate all possible causes of climate change instead of concentrating on anthropogenic CO2 emissions or it should be disbanded.

The scientific consensus thus far is overwhelmingly in support of anthropogenic induced climate change. If substantial evidence came out that other factors are the main contributors, then that IPPC's mandate should be expanded. As of now, non-anthropogenic climate change is a fringe group with strong ties to the traditional energy sector and industry.

To demand that it should investigate, with equal fervor, ALL possible causes seems a really wasteful demand. When trying to find a cause for something - you quickly rule out the least likely or least supported causes, and concentrate on those that have the most evidence supporting them or that seem the most likely to produce an answer.

2. CO2 is essential to life on Earth as we know it and we would benefit from more, not less, of it.

There are a lot of things essential to life and they are all interconnected. When one elements is out of balance it has a ripple effect through out ecosystems. Just because something is "good" doesn't mean that more of it is "better".

It is said that even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. And some of the world's most mentally challenged people occasionally come up with a gem of wisdom now and then. So whether Moore is a credentialed scientist or a janitor with a 4th grade education or a serial killer or whether or not it the statement was developed via good science, his stated opinion either has merit or it does not. Two plus two equals four no matter who says it or whether the person saying it has any understanding of what they are saying when they say it.


So it is the statements themselves and not the credibility or reputation or the motive of the person saying them that is the topic of this discussion.

Every opinion has some merit...but not all opinions are equal when making claims. For example...if I was having a problem with recurring skin rash (which, I did!) - I would put more weight in the opinion of my dermatologist than I would in my geologist coworker, though I would consider his opinion.

I don't know that the scientific consensus overwhelmingly supports anthropogenic climate change. I do believe that those scientist who receive funding from people interested in achieving that verdict or who need acceptance in certain professional circles overwhelmingly support anthropogenic climate change. I haven't seen much evidence of that from scientists who are not in that position, however. So I think the verdict is still out on that.

That's where I disagree. It's an often used argument that scientists in support of anthropogenic global warming are funded by those with a vested interest in affirming it. That same argument applies to skeptics who are often funded by the energy industries, including, I might add, the Heartland Institute. At the very least, the funding issues should cancel each other out so we should look at the preponderance of evidence.

And given the plethora of credentialed and esteemed scientists who are not convinced that anthropogenically generated CO2 emissions are the primary culprit re climate change, I do think the IPPC should be given equal merit to all factors of climate change so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help.

According to this study, the number of scientists who feel that human activity is not the primary cause of climate change is an increasingly shrinking group, a mere 3% with the consensus of scientists from multiple disciplines now being at 97%. : Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Given that, how could you justify the expenditure of money, research and time on factors that are not supported by the main body of science?

You state: ...so that we don't make disastrous errors in expensive and useless remedies that won't do a single thing to help

That is another problem. The first is what does the science say? The second (and third) is - what can or should we do about it (if anything) and will it make a difference.

The first is a statement of science - the theories that are best supported by available evidence and subject to change as more evidence becomes available. It is not a statement of policy.

The rest...is policy.

So we don't get derailed into yet another discussion on that 97% consensus, I'll post the link to Anthony Watts 97-sources who dispute that. (Not that it matters, but I am not one who embraces that 97% consensus statement.)
97 Articles Refuting The 97 Consensus on global warming Watts Up With That

Now as for credentials that convince us that we can believe who we believe on AGW, I don't have a lot of problem with us using that in our argument. If you say you are coming from the perspective of what you believe to be the 97% and you trust that source, and I say I have looked at that but lean more in a different direction, we can still have a conversation on the thread topic.

But I don't want to allow bashing of each other's sources (or each other) in lieu of focusing on what we think those sources actually contribute to the discussion and why we look to those sources. Or what we have figured out on our own. And because it is so much easier to criticize the source or the member rather than the content, I'm guessing we all have to bite our tongues and delete a lot of lines that we type to keep from doing that. Speaking from experience, it does get easier with practice.

My problem with so many who say something is a 'statement of science' is that so often it isn't. But even when it is, is saying "Too much CO2 is harmful to plant and animal life" any more scientific than saying "Too little CO2 is harmful to plant and animal life"?

Even if it is that janitor with the 4th grade education from Duluth who is saying one or both statements?

I'm fine with that - a conversation can get derailed and bogged down in opinions about sources

 

[ralfy]

The world does not operate like an experiment with controlled conditions.

 

[Foxfyre]

The world does not operate like an experiment with controlled conditions.

This is the thing. That study that went viral involved an experiment growing crops in one field with the existing atmosphere and crops in an adjacent field with forced CO2. The reported results were lowered nutrients in the crops with forced CO2. I would really like to know if they fertilized the crops? And I would like to know if they tested the soil in both fields to make sure the nutrients in both were pretty much the same.

But a better experiment if it is going to be in a controlled environment would be to test the produce of the hundreds or thousands of greenhouses that are feeding the plants high amounts of CO2 compared with hundreds or thousands of crops grown with no CO2 forcing.

And finally does it make a difference if large amounts of CO2 are forced into the plants environment as opposed to gradual increase over a period of years? And do the seeds from those reported nutrient deprived plants also produce nutrient deprived plants?

I was taught in 9th grade science class that one test or experiment provides information that may or may not be significant or important but we cannot make firm conclusions about it beyond the one test or experiment, especially when there are many possible variables.

 

[westwall]

The world does not operate like an experiment with controlled conditions.

That's true. That's why we should pay very close attention to what we know has occurred in the past. The AGW supporters ignore all that verifiable historical fact. Why is that?

 

[Foxfyre]

The world does not operate like an experiment with controlled conditions.

That's true. That's why we should pay very close attention to what we know has occurred in the past. The AGW supporters ignore all that verifiable historical fact. Why is that?

Ah my friend Westwall, whom I admire greatly because of the consistent wisdom of your posts, watch the ad hominem however mild. And let's veer back toward the track here and focus on the higher CO2 aspect and the IPCC role in the research.

If Moore and Archibald's theories are right that the CO2 levels are too low and that presents more danger to Planet Earth than higher levels of CO2 do, shouldn't we be looking more closely at that? Just because it seems to be a strange theory and a politically unpopular one to boot, is that a reason to shrug it off and dismiss it? Those offering the hypothesis have some pretty heavy hitting credentials.

Shouldn't we expect the IPCC to be looking at and reporting on the possibly detrimental consequences of lowering CO2 in the atmosphere as well as consequences of increasing it? How reliable can we consider the IPCC conclusions to be when they limit their research to such a narrow aspect of what could affect climate change?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Moore and Archibald's theories are right that the CO2 levels are too low and that presents more danger to Planet Earth than higher levels of CO2 do, shouldn't we be looking more closely at that?

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

We can weigh that reality against the claims that "CO2 levels are too low" and see for ourselves that it is a ludicrous position to even postulate, let alone give any credence that it "presents more danger to Planet Earth".

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and on that recent UC at Davis study that concluded that forced CO2 on plants reduces nutrients. I finally did track that down and found that it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory. That in itself of course does not render the study invalid, but it does tell me I need more confirmation before I consider it significant.

I also found this study that appears to support the UC Davis study and takes a more scientific approach if it is the real deal.
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition Nature

Their solution to the phenomenon though, if in fact it proves to be a problem, was to develop crops resistant to nutrient depletion in higher concentrations of CO2--and this is feasible since only a very few crops appear to be affected.

I wonder though, if it is a serious problem, why the government isn't regulating all those greenhouses who are using CO2 forcing to enchance plant growth and vigor? And why it isn't objecting to all that extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

 

[Foxfyre]

If Moore and Archibald's theories are right that the CO2 levels are too low and that presents more danger to Planet Earth than higher levels of CO2 do, shouldn't we be looking more closely at that?

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

We can weigh that reality against the claims that "CO2 levels are too low" and see for ourselves that it is a ludicrous position to even postulate, let alone give any credence that it "presents more danger to Planet Earth".

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago--you know, the milestone that once was supposed to be catastrophic with massive ice melt and other disastrous consequences? All the arctic ice was supposed to be gone at such levels, remember? But that milestone came and went so unimpressively its hard to take it seriously as significant. And the arctic ice cap is still there and in fact has been increasing until this year when it retreated a bit--the NOAA attributes that to prevailing weather patterns that have shifted warmer weather to Alaska and north while the Great Lakes and the northeast were in a massive deep freeze all winter. Global warming probably had nothing at all to do with either phenomenon.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh and on that recent UC at Davis study that concluded that forced CO2 on plants reduces nutrients. I finally did track that down and found that it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory. That in itself of course does not render the study invalid, but it does tell me I need more confirmation before I consider it significant.

I also found this study that appears to support the UC Davis study and takes a more scientific approach if it is the real deal.
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition Nature

Their solution to the phenomenon though, if in fact it proves to be a problem, was to develop crops resistant to nutrient depletion in higher concentrations of CO2--and this is feasible since only a very few crops appear to be affected.

I wonder though, if it is a serious problem, why the government isn't regulating all those greenhouses who are using CO2 forcing to enchance plant growth and vigor? And why it isn't objecting to all that extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

You just asked why the government is not regulating greenhouses who increase CO2 in controlled environments. I love it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and on that recent UC at Davis study that concluded that forced CO2 on plants reduces nutrients. I finally did track that down and found that it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory. That in itself of course does not render the study invalid, but it does tell me I need more confirmation before I consider it significant.

I also found this study that appears to support the UC Davis study and takes a more scientific approach if it is the real deal.
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition Nature

Their solution to the phenomenon though, if in fact it proves to be a problem, was to develop crops resistant to nutrient depletion in higher concentrations of CO2--and this is feasible since only a very few crops appear to be affected.

I wonder though, if it is a serious problem, why the government isn't regulating all those greenhouses who are using CO2 forcing to enchance plant growth and vigor? And why it isn't objecting to all that extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

You just asked why the government is not regulating greenhouses who increase CO2 in controlled environments. I love it.

Thank you. I thought it was a reasonable question and I'm happy that it was appreciated.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Oh and on that recent UC at Davis study that concluded that forced CO2 on plants reduces nutrients. I finally did track that down and found that it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory. That in itself of course does not render the study invalid, but it does tell me I need more confirmation before I consider it significant.

I also found this study that appears to support the UC Davis study and takes a more scientific approach if it is the real deal.
Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition Nature

Their solution to the phenomenon though, if in fact it proves to be a problem, was to develop crops resistant to nutrient depletion in higher concentrations of CO2--and this is feasible since only a very few crops appear to be affected.

I wonder though, if it is a serious problem, why the government isn't regulating all those greenhouses who are using CO2 forcing to enchance plant growth and vigor? And why it isn't objecting to all that extra CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

You just asked why the government is not regulating greenhouses who increase CO2 in controlled environments. I love it.

Thank you. I thought it was a reasonable question and I'm happy that it was appreciated.

Absolutely. It made me laugh. Always appreciated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is an interesting essay in which a number of highly credentialed climate scientists not only support Moore's theory that we need to increase CO2 levels, not reduce them, but also agree with him that all factors of global warming/climate change need to be included in the research and conclusions. That would support Moore's opinion that the IPCC should be studying and reporting on all aspects of global warming/climate change rather than concentrating almost exclusively on CO2.

Excerpt:

But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.

Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine” and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. . . .
CO2 Nears 400 ppm Relax It s Not Global Warming End Times But Only A Big Yawn Climate Depot Special Report Climate Depot​

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05...only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

And most of these also point out that increasing CO2 levels have far less greenhouse affect the higher they go.
Some of the esteemed scientists and authorities named in the article who appear to support Dr. Moore's thesis:

Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer
NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt
Renowned atmospheric scientist Dr. Reid Bryson
Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland,
UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London
Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl
Award winning top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Leonard Bengtsson, fomerly of the UN IPCC.
New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas
Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer
Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer
Danish Physicist Dr. Henrik Svensmark

Their studies, statements, and informed opinions are all cited in the article.

 

[Derideo_Te]

it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory

Really?

How was it determined that they "don't fund anything that" does "not support the AGW theory"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If Moore and Archibald's theories are right that the CO2 levels are too low and that presents more danger to Planet Earth than higher levels of CO2 do, shouldn't we be looking more closely at that?

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

We can weigh that reality against the claims that "CO2 levels are too low" and see for ourselves that it is a ludicrous position to even postulate, let alone give any credence that it "presents more danger to Planet Earth".

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago--you know, the milestone that once was supposed to be catastrophic with massive ice melt and other disastrous consequences? All the arctic ice was supposed to be gone at such levels, remember? But that milestone came and went so unimpressively its hard to take it seriously as significant. And the arctic ice cap is still there and in fact has been increasing until this year when it retreated a bit--the NOAA attributes that to prevailing weather patterns that have shifted warmer weather to Alaska and north while the Great Lakes and the northeast were in a massive deep freeze all winter. Global warming probably had nothing at all to do with either phenomenon.

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago

You are comparing 2 years to 6,000 years?

And the arctic ice cap is still there and in fact has been increasing

Ever noticed how ice melts in a glass of water?

All that ice below the surface keeps on rising up and floating on the top?

Why wouldn't the exact same thing be happening to the Arctic ice cap?

 

[Foxfyre]

it was funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i.e. federal government agencies who don't fund anything that do not support the AGW theory

Really?

How was it determined that they "don't fund anything that" does "not support the AGW theory"?

Considerable research over the past several years. I have yet to find any group who have received government funding who have not concluded that CO2 is a significant hazard to humankind. Those presenting a different opinion are not getting any government money.

 

[Derideo_Te]

12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm. . .

What was it that happened back then when CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm?

Wasn't that when the last ice age retreated because of global warming and the sea levels rose?

Only we are not currently in an ice age and the CO2 levels rising. So what is happening? The glaciers are melting and the sea levels are rising.

Too bad we don't have the benefit of an ice age to offset man made CO2 level rises.

 

[Foxfyre]

If Moore and Archibald's theories are right that the CO2 levels are too low and that presents more danger to Planet Earth than higher levels of CO2 do, shouldn't we be looking more closely at that?

Then there is the reality of the documented past couple of thousand years where low CO2 levels were more than sufficient for the human race to not only survive but also to thrive and become the dominant species on the planet.

We can weigh that reality against the claims that "CO2 levels are too low" and see for ourselves that it is a ludicrous position to even postulate, let alone give any credence that it "presents more danger to Planet Earth".

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago--you know, the milestone that once was supposed to be catastrophic with massive ice melt and other disastrous consequences? All the arctic ice was supposed to be gone at such levels, remember? But that milestone came and went so unimpressively its hard to take it seriously as significant. And the arctic ice cap is still there and in fact has been increasing until this year when it retreated a bit--the NOAA attributes that to prevailing weather patterns that have shifted warmer weather to Alaska and north while the Great Lakes and the northeast were in a massive deep freeze all winter. Global warming probably had nothing at all to do with either phenomenon.

But humans seem to be quite healthy and robust and are suffering no known ill effects in CO2 levels that passed that 400ppm milestone two years ago

You are comparing 2 years to 6,000 years?

And the arctic ice cap is still there and in fact has been increasing

Ever noticed how ice melts in a glass of water?

All that ice below the surface keeps on rising up and floating on the top?

Why wouldn't the exact same thing be happening to the Arctic ice cap?

I didn't compare 2 years to anything. I simply made a very reasonable statement of fact.

According to the AGW alarmists of some years ago, including Al Gore, we weren't even supposed to have an Arctic ice cap by now if CO2 emissions were not sharply curtailed and the rise in CO2 levels were not halted. We we haven't and it wasn't, and the Arctic ice cap is still there.

I wonder when most people begin to realize, as some of us do, that computer models that miss the mark again and again aren't all that reliable to use to determine what our lifestyles and public policy ought to be?