Do you understand that carbon also moves through the Earth in a cycle, and will eventually be put back into the air by volcanoes and other geological events?
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Crantag wrote:So yeah, we have the record of what would happen.
Pants-of-dog wrote:CO2 is toxic to animals.
So an atmosphere high in CO2 would actually have little animal life even if it had more plant life.
The current increase in CO2 is happening at the same time as massive deforestation, so even this benefit is being nullified by human impact.
Also, sheer mass is not the best way to look at the health of a biosphere. You would want to look at biodiversity and other factors.
Atlantis wrote:Exactly, life emerged on a barren rock in the universe.
The climate change deniers want to reverse that life-creating process by a death-producing process.
Nothing can live on the toxic detritus of industrial society.
Truth To Power wrote:Not in any plausible atmospheric concentration.
Only if by "high" you mean at least an order of magnitude more than the current level.
A lot of the forest is being cut for fuel. If people had better access to fossil fuels, they would cut down fewer trees. The increase in forested area in North America and Russia over the last century is largely attributable to the abandonment of wood as a fuel source in favor of fossil fuels.
But sheer mass is a good first approximation.
Life emerged on a planet with a high-CO2 atmosphere.
You have it backwards. Life has been sequestering carbon, and if it proceeds much further, there won't be enough carbon in the atmosphere to sustain life.
Clearly false. Lots of animals thrive on the detritus of industrial society.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Dear god, science education is truly shitty these days, and the Dunning-Kruger effect means all these people without a sodding clue think they know enough to opine about science on the internet.
In the very long term, the carbon cycle for the earth includes carbon deposited on the sea floor as organic matter or carbonate rocks, subsumed at plate boundaries under the earth's crust, and eventually expelled in volcanic eruptions (this is the mechanism proposed to have ended the "Snowball Earth").
Sivad wrote:The earth contains something like 100,000,000 gigatons of carbon and the biosphere comprises a tiny fraction of that at only a few thousand gigatons, so it's doubtful that the size of the biosphere is determined by quantity of available carbon.
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power
As far as I can tell, you have no argument.
You have a few unsupported criticisms, and you have not shown how they relate to the original claim.
Julian658 wrote:A 3rd grader knows that the planet is greener since due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you have any evidence for your claim that the Earth is now greener due to all the pollution?
Julian658 wrote:As a lefty you are supposed to be an expert in climate change. This is painful to watch.
Why do you always ask for citations for things that are so obvious? This is something that I learned in the 3rd grade.
Next you are going to ask for a citation to prove the Earth is spherical?
Palmyrene wrote:Oh my god you're so basic.
He was making fun of you. What he said was basically you're claims with the stupid speech patterns removed.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The Earth is actually not greener.
^ From the article: During the referendum campaig[…]
They need more than that to beat Labour when it c[…]
I think Sleepy Joe's memory may start failing him[…]
Yes. GM having been on a lifeline for a decade at[…]