Is Higher CO2 Necessarily Harmful?

Wouldn't higher CO2 levels and global warming create more habitable areas on Earth for humanity, more land available for agriculture, longer growing seasons, and increased plant output?

 

Q: Is pollution harmful?
A: Yes.

 

Sure.

But CO2 is not necessarily "pollution".

 

Excess CO2 is pollution... and it's lethal.

Just because we exhale it doesn't mean it's good for us.

Venus is a good example of what greenhouse gasses can do. It's hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. Mars is a good example of how too much CO2 is lethal; people would die from the CO2 levels on Mars without terraforming.

I don't care so much about the poles sea levels rising on Earth as much as the rising temperatures causing frozen methane pockets under the sea to melt. That will be the point of no return for us all.

 

At what level do we consider the CO2 amount to be "excessive"?

1000 ppm?

 

Our atmosphere has below 400 ppm of CO2.

Submarine personnel live in an environment of 8,000 ppm. They do not perish.

 

it's harmfull at 5%, it's currently around .035%. i doubt there's enough carbon and free oxygen to make enough CO2 to be harmful

 

Honestly, I consider any amount that is man-made to be excessive. I believe in the Gaea hypothesis, and that forest fires reduce excess oxygen, and that plants curb excess CO2. With today's deforestation and so much fossil fuel emissions, there is no way the natural process of healing can make a difference.

Yes, 1000 ppm seems excessive to me since so many people now live on coastlines and would be up to their knees in seawater.

 

Now that the IPCC cannot agree on CO2 sensitivity, they are ignoring it in the latest report. Since they were wrong, they have to regroup.

A warmer climate means more life, not less. A cooler climate is much more hazardous to life. It is a simple fact that a warmer climate will benefit anything living on this planet.

 

CO2 in itself is inconsequential for survival and respiration of Human life at any levels likely to exist on our planet. The issues of excess CO2 do not focus on our ability to breath, but on the effects this gas will inevitably have on the climate of the Earth, and the heat increases effect on civilization. While it is likely true increased temperatures will create new areas for agriculture, it will also increase areas of sterile desert unable to produce anything but lizards and weeds. Basically, we are trading our icecaps for more sand.

 

That is not supported by historical fact.

 

If you say so....it must be true.

Excellent Rebuttal (sic)

 

Actually there is no evidence that the trace amount of human produced CO2 will have any significant effect on the Earths temperature.

The fact of the matter is that higher CO2 levels help to prevent desertification because a higher ambient CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes plants to be dramatically more resistant to water stress.

 

The USA is actually experiencing "forestation".

Hopefully, the developing world will begin to do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe plants use less water in higher CO2 environments, yes?

 

The geological record does not lie.

 

If you say so....it must be true.

It would however, be helpful were you to provide a bit of data to make your opinion more...uh....impactful.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the geological data that refutes the link between increased temperature and desertification?

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

"This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago."

"The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more capacity to hold moisture, which in turn creates more rain, said Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. "

 

So is excess water.

It's not a pollutant, because it is only harmful when confined in extremely high concentrations, not when simply released into the atmosphere.

No, Venus is a good example of what the Combined Gas Law can do. Its surface temperature is so high mainly because its atmosphere is so thick. It would be almost as hot even if all the CO2 were replaced with nitrogen and oxygen in proportions similar to the earth's atmosphere. A quick calculation shows that if earth's atmosphere were as thick as Venus's, but still had the same composition, the surface temperature would be over 150C.

Flat false. Mars's atmosphere is far too thin to breathe, but if enough nitrogen and oxygen were added to provide standard earth sea-level pressure, it would be quite breathable. It would also be a lot warmer there, because of the Combined Gas Law.

Rising sea level is actually the only significant downside to global warming. It can be handled by a combination of river diversion for fresh water sequestration (which we should be doing anyway, as fresh water is in short supply over much of the earth's land area) and other forms of geo-engineering combined with gradual coastal infrastructure adaptation.

Nonsense. If that were possible, it would have happened millions of years ago when the earth was much warmer than it is now.

 

While both temperature and sea level were much higher in the past, there is no evidence that sea level could possibly rise quickly enough to pose a substantial hazard to human beings. Foolish people just insist on building things in low-lying seafront areas where even expected storms are guaranteed to destroy them, let alone higher sea level.

 

If you say so....it must be true.

[video=youtube;KbnM1QpuwWI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnM1QpuwWI[/video]

 

It is known that warmer global climate is wetter global climate, which is why warm periods were called, "optimums" before that term was ruled politically incorrect. Warmer temperature increases the evaporation rate, which MUST increase the precipitation rate.

 

Pardon me, but this concept aggravates me. You believe we are producing too much CO2 and that it's bad. Fine, we can agree to disagree on that. We can debate the information, and what it means. All good.

But don't sit there and tell me the CO2 is 'pollution' simply because too much of it can kill you. That is absolutely idiotic.

Too much water can kill you. I declare all water to be pollution. You people need to stop spreading pollution on your grass in the summer time.

Too much Sun light can kill you. I declare sun light to be pollution. We need to spread dust in the air to block out all that polluting sun light.

Too much heat, too much cold (lack of heat), will kill you. I declare that Earths seasons are pollution. To much vitamins can kill you. Ban vitamins!

Heck TOO MUCH OXYGEN CAN KILL YOU! I declare oxygen is pollution! We need to mandate Agent Orange to wipe out all plant life, so we can stop polluting the Earth with Oxygen!

This is absolute, complete and total, juvenile stupidity!

CO2 is *NOT* a pollutant. You are wrong sir. Totally wrong, and all the Ph.D morons who say the same with you. You are all wrong!

You want to debate whether man-made CO2 is directly causing changes in the environment, great. We can debate that. But no, CO2 is not a pollutant. I don't give a crap what all the morons with degrees by their name say, or what dumb rationalization all of them come up with. They are wrong. Sorry.

 

Silly scare nonsense.

 

Firstly, that has nothing to do with geology.
Secondly, though your interpretation has merit, precipitation is a localized event and does not effect desertification worldwide.