From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.global-warming,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: DAMN That CO2 Pollution!
Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 15:17:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2025-05-30 13:48, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 May 2025 13:12:41 -0700, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-05-30 12:37, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> CO2 is good for agriculture... More proof.
>> Maybe if you got something more than a GED, you'd have learned
>> that correlation is NOT causation.
>
> Muh Good Enough Diploma taught me that CO² has ZERO effect on
> weather and climate, but DOES have a measured effect on plant
> growth. (see below)
>
> Not all CO² is manmade, stupid. Man's contribution isn't even what's
> making the total CO² level go up at the rate it is. Warming is what
> causes the RELEASE of NATURAL and Manmade CO².
>
> I forgot... what climatology degree do you have?
>
> Please prove this DEGREED climatologist wrong.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/chQsqdJ.mp4
>
> https://i.imgur.com/q5vr7kV.mp4
You seem to have left out any evidence of that person's educational
credentials.
I'm sure that's just an oversight.
>
>> And that you cannot simultaneously argue that man's contribution
>
> Not talking about "man's" contribution, Kindergarten dropout...
>
> Man's CO² contribution IS too small to do anything significant.
> 12ppm out of the whole ginormous 400ppm aka 0.04% of the atmosphere.
>
> The warming we're seeing is Earth warming BACK up to where she was
> before the Little Ice Age, and that warming is releasing CO².
>
>> increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are too
>> small to have any effect on climate...
>
> Correct.
>
>> ...but they are large enough to increase agricultural yields by
>> nearly 4%.
>
> Also correct.
>
> Talk about not knowing something. You're trying to conflate to
> totally different aspects of CO². One being warming and the other
> its effect on plant growth. You can't put them in the same sentence.
> One has NOTHING to do with the other.
>
> 400ppm CO² can have NO effect on warming, while 100ppm CO² can cause
> plants to grow at a higher rate.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/Xi1ZTFc.png
No information on what they mean by "low CO2", "amb. CO2", or "high
CO2", so that can be ignored.
>
> https://youtu.be/jODIYw_5A40
That one literally says a "180% increase in atmospheric CO2".
That means CO2 levels 2.8 times higher than today.
>
> https://i.imgur.com/nGNxSK6.jpg
And that one, too, touts the growth levels of CO2 at up to as much as
nearly double current CO2 concentrations (currently about 430ppm)
>
> It is you, dropout, who can't distinguish between correlation,
> causation and conflation.
>
> For the past 550 million years since the Cambrian explosion of life
> the CO2 content in the air was between 1000 ppm and 2000 ppm for 95%
> of the time. This was the time when land plants evolved. Higher CO2
> content is baked into the plant DNA. It was only in the last 10s of
> millions of years that CO2 dropped to these extraordinary low
> levels, that plants had to adapt to the CO2 starvation by creating
> more and larger stomata. Not the other way around.
A reminder that we don't live in that time.
What matters is what rising CO2 levels will do to OUR time...
...can sea levels in the Cambrian Period were FAR higher than today.