Just a quick question for all you greenes out there.?

It is difficult to really say. Unlike the warmers I do not take a stance like I or humans know everything.

Fact is that the Earth has been taking CO2 out of the atmosphere for a very long time. It is notable that both Mars and Venus have atmospheres of around 95% CO2.

The only reason why our atmosphere is so low at only 0.04% is because of the Earth taking out the CO2 via processes like the reation of limestone.

A climate of too much CO2 is certianly bad. Too much CO2 looks like around 5000 ppm. This causes problems for the animals that are now adapted to much lower CO2 levels. Too little CO2 is around 150 ppm, which would cause serious problem for the plant life. We are currently at 400 ppm.

So without regard to the temperature, we may indeed be doing life on this planet a great service. When looking a tthe span of the Earth's existence, CO2 has ben plummeting, and we may just be saving life millions more year of existence.

But this is really not known. Most of our CO2 information comes from what I would consider shoddy paleoclimate surrogate data.

The biggest concern in the short time, however, is the effect on temperature. This has to do with feedbacks and how strong they are. We know that CO2 alone would cause about 1 degree of warming for a doubling. But our estimates of the feedbacks have a very large range.

Since so much is unknown about the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere,. it would be wise to limit the amount of CO2 placed into the atmosphere until we have a better grasp on the affect. The warming community, however, is taking stnace stance of giving what MIGHT be as a certainty and claiming the upper bounds of the models of the change as the likely scenario. Instead of spreading information, they are spreading panic. Our level of knowledge both in what we know and what we do not know simply do not justify panic.

The last time CO2 levels were this high, global temperatures were 5-10 degrees F warmer and sea levels were 75-120 feet higher.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/last-time-carbon...

Sea level rise of 100 feet would flood land lived in by billions of people. This wasn't a problem when there were no people, but losing Venice, Alexandria, Bangkok, Hanoi, Shanghai, Miami, New Orleans, Houston and most of Bangladesh would probably cause a lot of suffering and economic damage.

This is from research led by UCLA scientists:

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/last-time-carbon...

When you're talking about ~8,000 parts per million, you're looking something like half a billion years into the past. The Sun is a main sequence star, and as these stars get older they get hotter. The Sun is now hotter than it was 500 million years ago and there's evidence that the higher CO2 levels were needed to prevent Earth from constantly being in deep freeze.

Put the continents back to where they were 500 million years ago and 8,000 ppm of carbon dioxide will probably be fine. But raising carbon dioxide will melt ice and will have unpredictable effects on weather. Given that some people think that a few wars, earthquakes and hurricanes are supposedly the end of world, why wouldn't something thousands of times worse be bad.

Raisin Caine

<Unlike the warmers I do not take a stance like I or humans know everything. >

Straw man argument

8,000 ppm? I don't think that is correct. But I assume you are referring to the Cambrian period when it appears that CO2 may have reached something like 7,000 ppm.

The Cambrian period was not a "few" million years ago, it was about 500 million years ago.

The Cambian period was not a good time for humanity. Mostly because animals were just evolving. Mammals did not evolve for another 200 million years.

Humanity has thrived in the relatively stable climate of the past 12,000 years. When we talk about risks of climate change, we are talking about the human experience, how climate will affect humanity. The planet does not care how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. It is humans that are affected by it.

It really was great for the flora, obviously. Greenhouses artificially jack up the CO2 level to about there with great results.

Grungo makes a good point when he states that there were no humans on earth back then. If humans are causing this rise in CO2 then why was it higher when there were no humans. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Look that one up in your Karl Marx book, Senior Grungo.

And it was originally 100% CO2. Try living on primeval Earth. The concern is that we kinda like Earth as it has been during our evolution.

In addition to what camillo said, you just might want to look into the "mountain-top-removal" method of mining coal. Check out the devastation that the method creates in watersheds, forested areas, and surrounding areas. Check out the damage that the use of coal does to the atmosphere, disregarding even the carbon dioxide emission coal emits dangerous particulate matter including arsenic dust and radioactive particles.

Sorry don't know the answer to the question. Question for you though...if we pollute all of our rivers, cut down our rainforests, build roads and structures over nature, fill the air with co2, is that the kind of world you want to live in? Sorry I couldn't answer the question...

How many billions of people were living on earth back then?

How many animals were living on earth back then? Or plants, trees and the like?

You are comparing apples with oranges as the world back then was totally different then it is today.

Your IQ & shoe size are the same number.