So who was around millions of years ago to see atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm?
Note the article more sensibly reads:
The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years…
So who was around millions of years ago to see atmospheric CO2 at 400 ppm?
Note the article more sensibly reads:
The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years…
In case someone is interested in some actual facts, as opposed to “cute comebacks”, 400 ppm CO2 is 350ppm below the known area of best plant growth range (750ppm to 1250ppm). The “best plant growth range” has been confirmed through greenhouse studies and practical usage to grow commercial crops. There is also historic studies that indicates more rainfall and overall cooler temperatures within the best plant growth range.
Oh behalf of my houseplants and houseplants everywhere, I object to that comment. My houseplants are far more intelligent that the average NYT reader. They know that CO2 is good for them.
Robert L | May 11, 2013 at 10:00 pm says:
“That’s some important news , to bad plants can’t read .”
Well, the intended audience *is* your average NYT reader … so maybe they can?
(The intended joke being: They seem to posses “the IQ of a house plant.”)
That’s some important news , to bad plants can’t read .
Right. So it’s some gas in the atmosphere that raises fears. NYTimes has nothing to do it. Only reporting.