1. 

oh but here is the rub, its the other chemicals you rarely hear about that is toxic but doesn't kill you fast it slowly builds up in your system and then you die but because each of our chemical make up is slightly different it might effect your colon, but the bone marrow in me. We have more than enough air to survive and even thrive..yet a unseen chemical is building up in our system every time we go outside its absorbed by out skin, the mucus in our eyes, every breath we take.

don't believe me search for cancer rates around the world and keep watching for you will see rates raise in the country's we have sent our jobs to...for now they too are being exposed to greater levels. While here every car that passes kicks it back up so that its airborne again...in the 1950's they warned us but everyone laughed at them then shut them up...but who wants to live forever?

I believe 70,000-100,000ppm and we would risk suffocation. Although, I doubt those levels could be reached in nature due to carbon sinks.

There is no chance at all of reaching CO2 levels that would make it difficult to breathe. The CO2 levels of the Jurassic persion were 2200 ppm. We are currently at 400 ppm. We would have had no trouble breathing during the Jurassic period.

There is no chance whatsoever of reaching anything that you would define as catastrophic in terms of ending humanity.

IF (a big if) the warmers are right, however, we could reach upwards of 700-800 ppm, with increases in temps of 5-7 degrees as a mostly worst case scenario.

The problem caused by this would be.

1.) Flooding in low lying regions near the oceans.

2.) Droughts in some location. Location still around glaciers would see flooding.

3.) Stronger storms.

4.) The end of some species like the polar bears (actually the polar bears can mate and produce viable offspring with the Grizzly bears, so the genetic information would not be lost). Desalination of the oceans could cause some problem for ocean life as well.

All of these problem would be costly for mankind, but would not come remotely close to ending mankind. This is all assuming the warmers are right about exponential warming. I don't think they are. Linear... probably, exponential ... doubtful.

Linear would look like a 1 degree change over the next 100 years. Sea level would rise by 4 mm/yr, instead of the current 3 mm. There would be some problems in a few low lying regions that could be mitigated by planning. Some regions would experience mild changes. No mass extinctions.

Dook,

Talk about LYING. That is ALL you are doing. You want to pretend that humans would die out in the jurassic period??? LOL. You sir, are full of crap.

Now I will grant you, that YOU would quickly die if you had to live around dino (dinos that are now extinct and not coming back). But your imagination that dinos are just going to come back and kill us all, is just too funny.

People like myself, however, you know people that deal with reality, realize that more plant growth and a jurassic period environment also has positives that can be taken advantage of.

But this is the major difference between you and I, in your imaginary dinos coming back world. You would see a dino and crap yourself and get eaten. I would see an opportunity to make a dead fall and feed my tribe of people off of the dino's dead carcass for weeks.

OF course all of this goes to your amazing ability to lie to yourself and others in a pretense that we can acutally hit the 2200 ppm of the jurassic period, EVEN though we have hit max oil production and have only increased the CO2 by 100 ppm. You are literally of the nonsensical belief that we are going to find 18 times as much fossil fuel as we ahve already used.

You claim I am lying all of the time, yet have yet to catch me in one lie. YOU are lying right here and I constantly catch you in lies with your alarmist BS.

Care to talk about how low the current CO2 levels are and how plants thrive with more CO2 in the atmosphere??? You make out the Jurassic period to be horrible??? Are you kidding??? It saw far more plant life than we currently have.

Gringo,

The person you are quoting is an idiot. Adaptation occurs extremely quickly, especially when the environment that the species is adapting to, has already been seen by the species in the past. The gene pool holds a ton of information. It is not about evolving a new trait that hasn't been seen. It is about information already present in the gene pool, due to having had to already evolve and survive in that environment in the past.

Dook,

You said.

" Business as usual maximum exploitation and reliance upon fossil fuels is very likely to send us back to a dinosaur world in which mammals scarcely existed, and would survive now only in smaller numbers."

In fact, you said this in this very same post. LOL, Too funny.

You want to use the "dinosaur world" imagery and claim I am lying when I mock this imagery??? What delusionary world do you live in? Are you He-man, master of the universe, or something more arbitrary like Zerbert, defender of the Wigwams???

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-co...

By enduring, how many survivors do you mean? 1 billion? 1 million? 1 thousand?

Because oxygen is 500 times more abundant than carbon dioxide, there is basically zero likelihood of us running so low on it as to make breathing difficult. The realistic upper limit to CO2 would be that reached by burning up most of the recoverable reserves of fossil fuel. Not sure what those CO2 levels would be, and it would partly depend on things such as methane feedbacks, but surely a multiple of current levels. In any case humanity would by then be long since on a Jurassic Park (or uglier) planet. And, that IS the direction we are now headed.

It is perhaps the most monstrous lie of the anti-science clowns who infest this website (and are obsessed by Goebbels, literally or in spirit) that even small token efforts to reduce CO2 emissions would send humanity "back to the stone age," when in reality the truth is 180 degrees opposite. Business as usual maximum exploitation and reliance upon fossil fuels is very likely to send us back to a dinosaur world in which mammals scarcely existed, and would survive now only in smaller numbers. It would almost surely be a considerably more impoverished global economy than what we have been used to since the industrial revolution of the early 1800s. That is the course we are on now, and as long civilization lasts, the deliberate and thoroughly dishonest anti-science deniers of today will be remembered as great criminals of history. Why they are treated with kid gloves here, called "skeptics" (they are the opposite of skeptical), and allowed to run rampant sabotaging every positive informational aspect of the site is beyond rational comprehension.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaarth

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinio...

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...

http://www.economist.com/node/18741749

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

Edit: I agree with Gringo that the rate of change is more important than the ultimate destination, but the two are related: (a) the further we go away from the norms of hundreds of years of human history, the greater the risk of positive feedbacks increasing the rate of change, (b) both ultimate destination and rate of change are disregarded due in large part to the confusion and deceptions of anti-science deniers.

Edit2: Raisin. So I " have yet to catch" you "in one lie"??!! Well, your word on that is less bonafide than your "PhD" in statistics, but no matter. You lie stupidly right on this page, by claiming that I "want to pretend that humans would die out in the jurassic period."

WHERE do I say that? WHEN did I EVER say that? Even with your possibly faked, surely overrated, "degree" in Statistics, surely you are not so dumb as to actually think

"more impoverished global economy" = "humans would die out." Ergo you are lying, habitually, again.

WHAT WE KNEW 25 YEARS AGO BUT DID ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT: