Was at the San Diego Zoo Saturday and saw this display. Everyone keeps talking about CO2 and how it is always around and that we need it to grow plants, etc. Never really thought about it before but should have known that there is always an optimum amount and an amount that begins to decrease in effectiveness and becomes either harmful or less productive or both. The following pictures illustrate that. I couldn't get the very top of what is projected to be the level in 2050 but it was around 450.
I might regret asking this, but optimum for what, and by who's standard?
I went to ask.com and got this answer:
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.
I was going to post a quote from the very first site that came up, but it mentioned the optimum Co2 level for growing Cannibus, so I quoted the 2nd, since I don't think anyone needs to know that.
The 3rd link had an interesting thing to say about the 'hockey stick' shaped curve of growing Co2 levels as they are projected:
The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The hockey-stick curve caught the attention of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre, a mining consultant, and an academic statistician, Ross McKitrick. As they began to look more carefully at the original data—much of it from tree rings—and at the analysis that led to the hockey stick, they became more and more puzzled. By hard, remarkably detailed, and persistent work over many years, consistently frustrated in their efforts to obtain original data and data-analysis methods, they showed that the hockey stick was not supported by observational data. An excellent, recent history of this episode is A. W. Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion
But I don't know how objective that is, as it is as much a plug for the book mentioned as being scientific.
They are much higher now than in the immediate past 600-700 years. If you are talking several million years ago, who knows? If you look at the chart here, the rise starts in the 1850s about the time the real heavy industrial age started.
Projections are like, well you know. Everybody has one.
The same people that are projecting these events are part of the same group that was projecting only 8% unemployment and part of the same group that are always surprised at the new unemployment reports or the new downturn in the stock market.
So far the places that have been seeing the effects of CO2 control have been those area's of business and labor as they lose jobs because of the new regulations and laws passed.
Well, if you look at it carefully, you will soon see that AFTER man hit the earth and started large industrial complexes did the CO2 levels start to rise steadily. Sure off and on thru out the early ages when there were no men interacting CO2 is estimated to have been higher but you don't know if that was because of the many volcanos active during that time or what. Many dinosaurs farted a lot more than cows do. I don't know but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that man's activities have contributed to the increase NOW.