When CO2 Levels Were Dangerously Low
By Paul Homewood
The CO2 Coalition is a useful source for facts about carbon dioxide, such as this:
During each of the last four glacial advances, CO2 concentration fell below 190 ppm. At the end of the last glacial advance, it fell to 182 ppm, thought to be the lowest in the Earth’s history. Why is this alarming? Because below 150 ppm, most terrestrial plant life cannot exist.
We came within about 30 ppm (30 molecules out of every one million) to the extinction of most plant life on land, and with it the extinction of all higher terrestrial life-forms that depend on it. Bear in mind that, before we began adding CO2 to the atmosphere, we weren’t sure that we wouldn’t cross that critical 150-ppm threshold during the next glacial period.
Please note that many people confuse the glacial advance with “ice age.” The current ice age we are still in began about 2.4 million years ago. The planet altered between very cold periods known as glacials and warm periods called interglacials. We are thankfully in the tail end of interglacial warm trend.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/water-vapor-is-the-primary-greenhouse-gas/
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No one knows that low CO2 kills the planet. The normies need to be told this.
Why use a rather insulting term “normie” to describe people you want to influence. Are you really any better than they see in every respect?
Actually, yes.
Seems so…
Colder oceans absorb CO2 better than warm ones.
‘The solubility of carbon dioxide is a strong inverse function of seawater temperature (i.e. solubility is greater in cooler water).’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility_pump#Carbon_dioxide_solubility
True, but Wikipedia gives a very simplistic description, particularly with regard to seawater.
This is more informative:
Click to access chapter2.pdf
Several years ago, I listened to an online lecture from the Royal Terrell Museum in Alberta, Canada. It was given by a scientist from the La Brea Tar Pits Museum on the extinction of the Pleistocene Mega Fauna.
He cited papers from a woman scientist named Ward which I was able to look up at the time.
The research is showing that the extremely low CO2 at the end of the Pleistocene, caused vegetation to be depauperate and have low reproduction rates. Thus the herbivores and little to eat. Of course the reduction in herbivores meant the carnivores went hungry.
We are still not up to where we should be in CO2 levels for good growth and greening of the planet.
The average over Geological Time is 2500ppm. That works for me as a starting point.
The optimum used in professional greenhouses is 4,000 ppm. It’s a good starting point for any discussion.
I got a native WV Canaan Fir for Christmas this year. The grower is the retired director of the WV Dept. of Natural Resources. In speaking w/ him he told me that they are adding CO2 to green up the tree foliage.
The Canaan fir is a hybrid between the northern balsam and the southern Fraser firs. They meet in Canaan Valley, Tucker County, WV and hybridize.
BTW, Canaan Valley area is also the site of that iconic photo of the coal miners pushing the out-of-juice EV to their mine charging station.
Pardon me….: I’m with you, and I’m baffled. During the time of the great hockey stick debate it was written in blood that during the carboniferous age CO2 levels were more than 3,000 ppm. This latest graph shows nothing much over 300 ppm. Who is conning who?
According to Wikipedia: “The CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit climate change denial advocacy organization…”
Thus, in its first paragraph, Wikipedia abandons any pretence of unbiased professionalism by trotting out that old brain-dead ‘climate change denial’ nag.
And, for good measure, follows with the schoolboy error: “The group’s claims are disputed by the vast majority of climate scientists…”
Criticism by Wikipedia is equivalent to sound recommendation.
“According to Wikipedia:” i.e. The Guardian online
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jimmy-wales
Avoid Wikipedia like the plaque.
More on influence:
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=Guardian%20media#committed_grants
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=telegraph#committed_grants
I’ve amended that description slightly. Let’s see how long it stays.
Measured in milliseconds. I understand that those with the power set up automated replacement text the overwrites any edits.
Wikipedia wants donations. All the “denier” carp has to go before I would give them a Halfpenny.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
There is a decent report (2010) on CO2 and the metabolism of plants here:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
“One of the most important determinants of species differences in response to elevated CO2 is photosynthetic type. Most plant species (~90%) utilize a photosynthetic process known as C3 photosynthesis. Other species use either of two physiologically distinct processes known as C4 and CAM photosynthesis (Figure 2). C4 plants include most tropical and sub-tropical grasses and several important crops, including maize (corn), sugar cane, sorghum, and the millets.”
Figure 2 only shows a simple – cartoon-like – image for C3 and C4.
CAM photosynthesis [Crassulacean acid metabolism] has a Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crassulacean_acid_metabolism
Some more CO2 Facts.
The level during the Cambrian was 7000ppm. Only one other time in Earth’s history has the level been as low as today which was during the Carboniferous/Permian transition.
The average concentration over Geological time is 2500ppm.
When the plants we eat evolved, the level was 2500-2800ppm which is why any greenhouse grower with an ounce of common sense pumps CO2 into the house atmosphere to enable plants to grow faster and larger while using less water.
When the Primates ( our ancestors evolved the level was 1500ppm.
There has indeed been a problem during each recent reglaciation when atmospheric CO2 level fell dangerously close to a level where Photosynthesis is compromised. Plants die…we all die. For the past 160 million years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been declining in a linear fashion. This has been caused by the evolution of marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 and combine it with calcium to make hard shells. Upon death a significant proportion of that locked up CO2 is not recycled but goes to form carbonaceous shelly limestones. Orders of magnitude more CO2 is contained in these limestones than in the oceans and atmosphere put together. If that 160 million year decline is considered it can be seen to intersect the death line for plants in a little more than 1 million years from now. The very fortunate temporary halting of that decline will be brief and then the decline will resume.
When was the last time you heard any of this mainstream science anywhere in the media, especially the BBC and their woke partners in crime at the Grauniad?
When have you heard a discussion or debate allowed to discuss what is the optimal concentration? ( My money goes for the average over Geological Time ( 2500ppm) We do hear liars pretending to be scientists spouting drivel about acidification of the oceans. The oceans have NEVER been acidic at any point in the Earth’s history even during the Cambrian when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 7000ppm. We see ludicrous attempts to tell us that 410ppm is dangerously high and causes brain impairment. Strange the liars try that on when the US Navy have 4000ppm as the “nice to have” level of CO2 in the breathable air in their nuclear submarines.
I wonder when the BBC fact finders will make that information available?
Lying by omission is now called science.
We are living in the time of universal deceit.
Pardon me….. All very complicated and, I have to remind myself, largely speculative. But to my simple mind the living hard proof of much much higher CO2 levels historically is in our coalfields. Real evidence of vast forrestations.
Actually Vernon, we have the massive amounts of coal because bacteria had not yet been invented to digest the plant matter. Geological History has been a very interesting time, I can recommend it!
pardon me…. I expect this thread is a bit cold now but just in case… I have always had mis-givings as to the origins of crude mineral oil (decaying marine life etc) In light of what you are saying do you think it may be the product of bacteria on vegetation i.e. forests?
No the ignoramus seems not to even know that PhDs are not generic but have a specific and unique title outlining a specific study.
Just wondering, How many victim/idiot points are needed to be enrolled? Possibly a tendency to religious behaviour could be an advantage.
Actually in geological terms we have been in an Ice Age for about 34 million years. (the definition is an ice sheet at one or both poles).
“An ice sheet has covered Antarctica for at least 30 million years, but it’s still challenging to find very old ice”. https://www.npr.org/2020/12/26/949159524/scientists-have-found-some-truly-ancient-ice-but-now-they-want-ice-thats-even-ol
There is some question as others have suggested that the Antarctic ice may have formed as recently as 14 million years ago.
If the oldest estimates are right then the good news is that we may soon get back to a warm climate.
Dec 8th paper
2 million year old DNA extracted from Greenland
proving a vast array of life/mammals
at a massively higher temp than today
The paper GUESS CO2 was much higher *
Just cos it’s published in Nature,
doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong
* well the assert it, I have doubts
Do you get high temp readings cos of CO2 ?
Or do high temps drive cause CO2 sequestrated in the sea to be liberated ?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05453-y
The low co2 levels in the coldest times likely caused the northern forests and plains to die back. Exposed soil then whipped up by winds, deposited on ice sheets, lowering abedo, enabling rapid melt next solar maximum.
Rinse and repeat.
Ellis and Palmer: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Sure, you could have CO2 levels at 2500ppm. As long as you don’t mind 70m of sea level rise as well. You ‘skeptics’ are hilarious.
CO2 level rise follows warming, not it does not precede it
You alarmists are hilarious!
This is not alarmist Paul. It’s how the laws of physics work. Sorry if it’s inconvenient for you.
Stephan, I doubt you would recognise a law of physics if it scuttled under your noisome, slimy bridge, jumped up, and sank its fangs into your warty snout.
Great argument!
Laws of physics….. so funny!
Accurate, unlike your pathetic, scientifically illiterate alarmist claptrap.
In any case, currently the climate is cooling, has been for 7 – 10 years, and is going to cool even faster for the next 15-20 as the negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation takes effect.
If we’re lucky, it won’t be amplified by Solar Cycle 25, but if it is…
“scientifically illiterate”? I’ve got a PhD in this stuff. You?
And I’m Alexander the Great!
On yer bike, child!
Well if you have a PhD your work will have been published and almost certainly available on line. Perhaps you could provide a link as I would like to study it…but we all know you can’t provide that link.
Stephan,
I have not seen, but what specifically is the title of you PhD, in which department did you perform your research and where and when was it awarded?
Also sea level rise is relative and has a number of different causes, not just the posterchild melting ice at the poles leaving the poor polar bear, weepy poster child for emotional irrationality among the over remunerated chattering classes clinging to the last piece of ice.
Your next problem is, neither geological history nor physics support the direct link you are proposing between CO2 and temperature rise. Please do not give the Arrhenius argument. “Can” and magnitude of effect are not the same thing. When was the last time you looked at the electromagnetic signatures of CO2 and Water vapour? If there is a dominant (magnitude of effect) greenouse gas ( The greenhouse effect is still only a theory), then that gas is water vapour.
Some rather clever people have looked at atmospheric co2 concentration, Berner (2001) and surface temperature over geological history, Scotese (1999). Davis (2017) looked at both. There is no correlation of any kind over geological time between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and surface temperature except the noise which is ocean degassing in response to temperature rise NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND as the chief climate fat cat Gore claims.
With that in mind run those numbers on sea level rise ( and the specific empirical data supported cause) by me again.
There were three warmings in recent human history, the Minoan, the Roman and the Medieval. Please explain why the world did not end/burn/explode/etc then? Human civilization actually flourished during all three. Why is this current 200 year old warming different?
Surely also if the warmageddonist want to know what is going on and want to be seen to “do science”, do they not then study those three previous warmings and discover the cause ( if possible) and then compare to the current warming and see if the cause(s) are different? Now, even if today they are found to be different that does not amount to demonstration of cause, but it at least shows something different is happening.
Finally dear chap, please enlighten us all with your clear and superior knowledge and point to the statistically significant empirical data set(s) which supports the claim that CO2 released back in the the Carbon Cycle by the actions of man during the last 100 years can in anyway be demonstrated to be responsible for all or any identifiable part of the current warming, the fourth warming in recent human history which ended the Little Ice Age 200 years ago.
Produce! This has to be the most famous data set(s) in the world because otherwise all those billions which could have been spent on mitigation and Third World Infrastructure have been wasted and worse spent enriching countless charlatans and the politicians who use public money to support them.
Thank you in anticipation!
Wow. That’s a long way to demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about!
Look, the science is pretty simple. The physics was mostly worked out in the 19th century and it has been confirmed repeatedly. Even the ExxonMobil scientists worked out decades ago that adding a GHG to the atmosphere would warm it (although this was denied by the company for obvious reasons). The warming has proceeded as we predicted, as has sea level rise, glacier melt etc. What you and other amateurs do is focus on the noise and not the signal.
You’ve lost the argument so may I suggest you go and get worked up about something else?
Stephan.
I always find it distasteful and more than a little shabby when claimed qualifications are promoted in place of cogent argument as if somehow bestowing greatness on the claimant.
The term PhD is meaningless. PhD’s are ten a penny in both my fields of work. What is relevant is what you studied at undergraduate level and the discipline under which the subject matter of your claimed qualification resides.
So please enlighten me (us)
How sad that you resort to ad hominem attacks rather than answering questions that are put to you. That shows you have already lost the argument, but then that is par for the course when it comes to the promoters of post Enlightenment Canutian logic.
19th century knowledge and some Exxon mobil models. Are you serious? Is that all you have? Come on Mr. “PhD”, you can do better than that.
On the issue of sea level rise, please point to the empirical data which confirms acceleration in the post glacial rate which has not changed throughout the 20th century. There are some truly dreadful and disingenuous attempts to draw trend lines through recent data wilfully misinterpreting the saw tooth pattern. Perhaps they impressed you?
Regarding your comment about amateurs, explain the basis upon which you make this sleight and what gives you the right to judge others? Science you may or may not know is the pursuit of truth not a tool for political power. It is based solely on statistically significant empirical data obtained by falsifiable methodology. Science is about what empirical data says, not what “scientists or experts” say. Anything else, regardless of how strongly held the belief is not science and no the product of models are not empirical data.
I assume I am one of the aforementioned “amateurs” to which you refer. Unlike you, neither I nor other qualified people here are so insecure that we feel the need to wave qualifications around. Not only do I possess qualifications in two scientific disciplines which fall under the umbrella of “climate science” but I have also been working with them on a daily basis for 35 years.
It is only speculation but perhaps for all your arrogance it is you who is the amateur?
I politely ask once again for you to point to the statistically significant empirical data set(s) which support the claim not only against CO2 generally, but specifically that the estimated 3% of the annual flux in CO2 attributed to man is the control knob on temperature in a way that the 97% attributed to nature is not. If you cannot produce that empirical data then there is no scientific basis for argument on any claimed effect.
That data has to exist to give credible support to the whole house of cards which is the climate industrial complex which you clearly support, so please point to it.
Finally, if you think playing the bully and waving vague qualifications is the way to impress and win a discussion, you are very mistaken.
I mentioned I had a PhD in a relevant subject after being called ‘pathetic’ and ‘scientifically illiterate’. So much for your distate of ad hominems!
I’m not going to go through your misunderstandings line by line. It’s been done many times before. The data on slr are clear….there was a considerbale slr during the Early Holocene, then it flattened off, now it’s rising. Most of this latter rise is caused by the thermosteric effect, and by the melting of the WAIS….and the latter will begin to dominate soon.
If you keep adding a GHG to the atmosphere then you will keep changing radiative forcing. In the absence of any long-term changes in TSI etc this must warm the climate. This is happening and there are consequences. The mistake you and others make is that you think this is all political. It isn’t. It’s physics.
The political argument comes from when we decide what to do about AGW. I’m not an expert on mitigation, nor adaptation so I tend to keep out of such debates. But don’t assume that all scientists involved in this issue are far-left marxists and anti-capitalists. I’m certainly not, and neither are most of my colleagues.
Read the scientific literature if you want to understand why there is a consensus on this stuff. If you disagree with it, then publish your own science.
I confidently predict that you won’t!
Noise!
You still prove unable to point to the very data which makes that which you claim based in “science”.
You are also aware of the saturation limit for CO2 and its implication for the place of CO2 in the theoretical greenhouse effect?
There is no empirical data of any kind which supports the fatuous AGW claim or the even more nonsensical leap to man made climate change.
There IS a significant body of empirical data which contradicts any such claim.
So I ask again, for you to show I am mistaken by producing the statistically significant empirical data I have ask for. I have worked for many years looking at the manifestation of climate in the geological record. Nowhere in geological literature has atmospheric CO2 concentration been promoted as a controlling or influential factor on temperature and climate but then why would it because empirical data shows the opposite
You are clearly unique in your knowledge and so if you want to be taken seriously, show the data. I am sure a lot of people who would like to improve their knowledge.
If empirical data supporting evidence of CO2 and in particular man released CO2 back into the Carbon Cycle as a cause of global warming exists then why does the IPCC not use and promote this data rather than continuing to base it’s ever more hysterical predictions on demonstrably wrong models? You cannot have it both ways.
Also, why does the bought media and all the activists world also not reference that magical data?
So if you have qualifications then why not say what they are in? It can help to understand where you come from. Certainly no single discipline of pure science has all of the answers. As for the applied world, greenology has a lot to answer for.
Stephan you have claimed to have a PhD. Your distinct lack of any evidence to support your claim when expressly asked is clear evidence that you are a liar.
You have been treated as such. Please do not lie in future.
pardonmeforbreathing says:
You are also aware of the saturation limit for CO2 and its implication for the place of CO2 in the theoretical greenhouse effect?
Me: yes, but this is a problem only at high atmospheric pressure, and this was known by Tyndall in the 1850s. The GHE occurs at high altitude where there is little water vapour and so your saturation limit argument is irrelevant. read up about the Stefan-Bolzman law before making such statements.
There is no empirical data of any kind which supports the fatuous AGW claim or the even more nonsensical leap to man made climate change.
Me: only 150 years of physics. Your assertion is just silly.
There IS a significant body of empirical data which contradicts any such claim.
me: Such as?
So I ask again, for you to show I am mistaken by producing the statistically significant empirical data I have ask for. I have worked for many years looking at the manifestation of climate in the geological record. Nowhere in geological literature has atmospheric CO2 concentration been promoted as a controlling or influential factor on temperature and climate but then why would it because empirical data shows the opposite.
Me: you are wrong. Look at the LGM record where CO2 is the main driver for deglaciation. Look at the record of how interglacials require CO2 as an amplification of Milankovitch cycles.
You are clearly unique in your knowledge and so if you want to be taken seriously, show the data. I am sure a lot of people who would like to improve their knowledge.
Me: I’m happy to help….but try blogs like The Science of Doom where the physics is explained.
If empirical data supporting evidence of CO2 and in particular man released CO2 back into the Carbon Cycle as a cause of global warming exists then why does the IPCC not use and promote this data rather than continuing to base it’s ever more hysterical predictions on demonstrably wrong models? You cannot have it both ways.
me: it does. There’s loads of research on attribution, and on the isotopic signature of CO2. You just don’t want to accept it.
Also, why does the bought media and all the activists world also not reference that magical data?
Me: they do. read AR6!
So if you have qualifications then why not say what they are in? It can help to understand where you come from. Certainly no single discipline of pure science has all of the answers. As for the applied world, greenology has a lot to answer for.
Me: you are correct that no single discipline has all the evidence. I studies a range of subjects at university including: atmospheric physics, earth science and Quaternary Science, and my PhD is in palaeoclimate and earth science.
Hoppit Stephan you silly, scientifically illiterate child.
The grown-ups are having a serious discussion.
And TAKE YOUR MEDS!
A PhD you say! So does Michael Mann, and he is a fake science moron. Having a PhD is this subject does not infer and useful knowledge if he is an example
read my book: DON’TSTOP CO2 EMISSIONS: https://amzn.to/3dWyeAZ
Kindle version ordered!
I would but the kindle app will not work on my older Android tablet. Is there an ePub version?
You don’t need the Kindle app, I read Kindles with the Kindle plugin on the Safari browser on my iPad, I believe Google can read them too.
Find a cheap or free Kindle book on the Amazon site and give it a try.
THANK YOU & ENJOY!
Lots of commentators refer to how much CO2 we have got but who knows how much we need? I could see some future technology depleting CO2 in the environment followed by forests and agriculture paying a price. The world could be destroyed by an evil genius or some useful idiot using CO2 depletion as a intentional weapon or sparking a process of cataclysmic reduction invlontarily.
It would be easy to emit CO2 again if needed. There will probably be a system of Capture & Storage so the CO2 will still be there.
Why is a liar like you posting on here? Nobody gives a flying fuck what a twat like you thinks.
Ray Sanders: Sounds like you’ve lost the argument.
Pardonmeforbreathing: Earlier you accused me of ad hominems. Seems like you might want to have a word with Mr Sanders!
Put up or shut up mate. You have made a claim (to have a PhD) but not supported the claim with evidence despite multiple times of asking. This claim is a false claim to have authority. All of us on here will happily discuss issues but not with liars. And less of the victim card please, it comes across as worse than woke.
p.s a PhD in Bullshit doesn’t count.
Careful Ray, it’s a Clown Dancing troll, one of the most pernicious varieties.
It will twirl you round and round in its silly little clown dance, just wasting your time and bandwidth.
Best not to feed it!
What an ugly discussion this has been – doesn’t reflect well on anyone (I have been on the receiving end of similar). But, I do have to add that very recently I saw an interview on TV with a climate activist/spokesperson for Just Stop Oil who was stated to be studying for a PhD in Climate Change (or similar name) and I thought what the hell?