/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10182189
Wait till you see the

>>9174892
>The increase in [Cao2] is not a rapid change in the economy.
It clearly is.

>>9174876
>The global warming hoaxers think [CO2] growth is linear because they’re fed data by globalists who are pushing an agenda. It’s not linear.
>[CO2] decreases during the spring/summer and increases in winter/fall as plants go through their growth cycle.
Yes, so what? No one denies this. Not only is there a seasonal periodic cycle in CO2, there is also a linear increasing trend. What happens when you add a linear trend to a periodic trend?

>>9147441
Can you be more specific? Can you cite some papers or scientific articles that compelled you to distrust the scientific consensus?

>>8710009
Nasa chart I'm referring to that was inside the source. Forgot to post.

>>8710013
Not an argument.

CO2 levels below 300 are incredibly dangerous.

Plants are barely able to survive at that level. The planet could slip into total desertification at any time.

400 is good. We have made a lot of progress. But optimal would be 600+


Hopefully we will burn enough fossil fuels to get there.
And if we make it it will bloom and green like you have never seen before.


So step on the gas. The planet depends on us.