"CO2 close to lowest levels ever for our planet"

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 05:13:57PM -0400, John Newman wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 17, 2017, at 4:39 PM, John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2017 10:50 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>>> This is one of the best put together summaries of the ???Global
> >>>> Warming??? (originally global cooling, now PC "climate change") debate
> >>>> I've ever seen:
> >>> 
> >>> Damn! Even I understood that!! Thanks! Ric
> >> 
> >> Here's an even easier one - see the picture on page 8 (another little
> >> doc put together by Gil May) - 4 pine trees grown in controlled
> >> conditions with varying CO2 levels.
> >> 
> >> Plants really needed the CO2 from the industrial revolution -
> >> otherwise the levels were quite literally precariously low for life
> >> on this planet. I'd like to see how long we'll be "right" for going
> >> forward with the amount of plant food we've pumped into our
> >> atmosphere. At least we're nearly out of the red zone...
> > 
> > Who the fuck is Gil May?
> > 
> > You are the most gullible idiot I've ever... wait, actually, you're
> > quite representative of a bunch of gullible fucking morons that seem to
> > dominate humanity. 
> > 
> > Link:
> > 
> > https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
> > 
> > See attached graph.
> > <24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg>
> 
> in case the significance doesn't dawn - look
> at the time scale.

Thanks for your graph.

Sorry for the docx file - I guess you were unable to open that first
one properly, I've saved it as PDF (attached) - check out the graph
on page 10, and note its timescale - it's another time scale again.

These geologic time scales can be a little deceptive - you see a
graph with a time scale of 400,000 years and think "oh wow, that's
yuge! That's the bees knees of the facts we need to know" and then
along comes another time scale - an order of magnitude greater.

Oh wait, let me recalibrate - actually TWO orders of magnitude
greater.

So thinking you have the full picture is, of course, an easy mistake
to make...

Regards,
Z