This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Pests
Ben B's speech got a big cheer from the stock market. I think Obama was cheering too.
Two views:
.
.
*********************************************
.
Other Pests
If you live in America, you know it has been unusually hot. During the week of March 18, 3,550 heat records were set.
.
The spring heat has brought us a large new crop of unwanted visitors. High on the list is the Halyomorpha halys, better know as Brown Marmorated Stink Bug, or “stinkers” for short. If you have not yet come across these pests, you probably soon will. They are spreading across the country like wildfire.
These bugs are hardy sons of bitches. They are about ¾ of inch long, and have a very hard shell. They hibernate in the winter. As a result of the early spring, they are coming out in droves. A few pics of what to look for:
.
I happened to be in Florida over the weekend and was very surprised to learn that stinkers are problem there. I thought they were just an issue for the North-East. The Florida agriculture Department had this to say about the arrival of Stinkers in the Sun Shine state:
US distribution of this pest is a moving target. These bugs are suited ideally to hitchhiking with items moved by human activity.In Florida, a specimen was caught in a trap next to a commercial ship berth at Port Everglades. Additionally, several specimens have been found in homes and vehicles of seasonal residents, or residents who moved to Florida from various infested states.It feeds on a wide range of hosts, including peach, apple, pear, fig, mulberry, grape, raspberry, citrus and persimmon, as well as on row crops such as snap bean and soybean.
Stinkers are a new phenomenon in America. They came to this country from China. They were first observed in 1998 in Allentown PA. They have been proliferating and spreading ever since. They kill crops and are a nuisance. These bugs have the potential to cause a great deal of damage. They have a needle-like nose that bores into fruit/corn and other crops. This ruins the crops.
Last year some poor bastard in Maryland had his house taken over by tens of thousands of stinkers. The bugs won, the homeowner lost:
If you see one of these bugs, don’t step on it. You’ll regret it if you do. When crushed, they stink. Your house will smell awful and you’ll need a new pair of shoes (hence the name). Pesticides will kill them, but that is not a good solution either. If they die in the walls, they'll rot and stink as if they were crushed. The odor of their death can bring another problem. The smell of the dead stinkers attracts carpet beetles, which can be as problematic as the stinkers themselves.
So far stinkers have been found in thirty-seven states. They hitch a ride on cars and trucks; by the end of 2012 they will be in every state.
.
»
- advertisements -
Bruce, THINK! Glaciers can do 1 of three things at any one time: They can grow, they can shrink, they can stay the same. If you go back over 10K years, and wanted them to stay the same, we would not be where we are today. Climate, like the weather, changes, over time. That is the history of this planet. What year would you like the climate to be, and how to you propose to "freeze" the climate at that point? Impossible. So why are you losing sleep over it?
Those glaciers were there 15 years ago. Gone today. If you had said it took 1000 years I would say that it was just the "natural" way of things. But ten years??? That's happening much quicker than anytime in the last 1000 years.
You don't find that odd???
Not at all. So it was warm there for the last 15 years. So what? The "natural" way of things? Really? And how would you know what that was? Have you been alive for thousands of years?
One glacier melts and that is all the proof you need eh? Try reading about many other glaciers that (gasp) have gotten bigger, not smaller.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20801
Seriously, what is a little glacier compared to northern and southern ice caps? I talk about million square kilometers that melt/freeze each year Bruce, I hope it helps you understand the "natural way of things"
Southern "anomaly" from the 1979-2000 mean
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
Northern ice coverage from >1978
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg
Oh and it's proven that ice loss i.e. in swiss glaciers is as much about sublimation (chemistry, I love it!) than melting, actually. It's about cosmic rays (but I digress: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html. So much to learn, I don't understand how people can buy the IPCC / ARx crap.)
What do Geitner, Bernanke, Gates, Buffet, Soros, Corzine, Hank Paulson, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Turner, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, all his czars and virtually all of Hollywood and the entire EU bureaucracy agree on? That the "science" is settled. Doesn't that make you stop to think?
Even if there is global warming we cannot have confidence that it exists because the truth is as obfusticated as the "science" by the same people who are manipulating all our the markets and the government. The truth has been deliberately hidden from us. The solution does not come from this same government that has deliberately divided and politicized all aspects of our lives. Progressivism must be repudiated and rolled back, its followers are in this to the bitter end.
Global warming has been going on for 10,000 years. Where I sit right now, there was ice 2 miles thick back then. But it does not always go on at the same rate.1000 years ago Vikings were farming on Greenland and picking wild grapes in Newfoundland, and there were vinyards in England. The climate in the North Atlantic was warmer then than it is now. Likewise in late Roman times 2000 years ago Northern Europe was warmer than it is now.
Current climate trends are within historical limits and well within them.
Furthermore, astronomers tell us there are signs of warming on Venus and Mars. They blame variations in solar radiation.
There are a lot of angles on this problem and it does not pay to take all your information from one source.
Have you been to the Finger Lakes recently? same thing no more glaciers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/the-end-for-small-glaciers-or-anth...
Stop beliving propaganda and look at some actual old photos.
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/pages/results/?state=&date1=183...
I guess you believe that people would never lie or use propganda to achieve a political objective. Go watch this;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7344181953466797353
I sorta hate opening peoples eyes to this stuff because I was much happier when I didn't know it...but things are getting out of hand.
There aren't any more glaciers in Manhattan either. But some day there will be because glacial cycles probably haven't been suspended in honor of our inflated sense of self-importance. You'll recall that human civilization began when the last one ended ~10k years ago. If anthropogenic global warming is delaying the next ice age we should be happy about that because I don't think Central Planning has that on the agenda.
Bruce you are being manipulated and guiled by those with economic benefit for controlling the affairs of the public.
The sun is in control of our climates. Man is but a stinkbug in the face of climate.
You chose to print a map of the temps in the US early this year. Have a look at the west coast on your map. Notice anything funny? It is cold there. California had nothing but warm, dry weather until late February. Now it has had nothing but rain, normal for December and January, and it is staying cold.
If you doubt the cold weather in the Pacific look at this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77461
It is a photo of the Bering sea showing the second largest ice extents since 1976.
One man's global warming, is another man's freezing to death.
You are nothing but a tool of the fascists who want to micromanage everyone's lives to their monetary benefit. You in turn are using it to benefit yourself. This is really ugly.
Bravo! Bruce is a closet progressive and he is a closet warmist. Too much time among ivy league graduates does it to them every time. Pretty soon they start thinking that government can solve problems and the next thing you know you've got FATCA and NDAA and you are on the road to serfdom.
BK, I am so disappointed. Had you been around 13,000 years ago you would seen glaciers, every thing north of the 45th parallel in fact. And you would weep for the loss of about 80% of the land area of then Florida which is now under water because sea levels were 400 feet lower then. And it is true that some littoral areas of the planet will have to deal with building sea walls, or in cases where that cannot be done they will have to pick up and move their littoral populations inland as sea levels move water inland, but we will also gain fertile ground 100 times as large as most of Canada becomes the worlds' bread basket and Siberia becomes verdant. From the Urals to Alaska, a space twice as large as the continental US, now tundra, IF the doom and gloomers get their way and are right we will also get vast new land areas habitable and arable.
Of course modern life comes with carbon, please choose which you prefer, to delete half or more the people alive, or return to a rural agrarian life in which half will starve anyway.
Inescapable FACT, 7 billion + human beings is just totally unsustainable in a healthy ecosystem with current technology. But another fact is that life will survive and thrive and adapt because that is what life DOES! Rocks do not adapt and thrive, they are not alive, see the difference?
Boiltherich,
Great post!
Over the last 13,000 years the planet has had the finest possible climate for mammals in general and humans more sdpecifically. The great flowering age of humans has been possible only because the climate has been locked in a very narrow temperature range near the top of the temperature range of the preceding period or about 325,000 years, if i am remembering this correctly. Like a handle on a pot which the chartists here will comprehend immediately:imagine a foot long chart of gold trading betwwen $75 and $1500 and a two inch handle trading between $1300 and $1500, and most recently,from$1430 to $1500. What would one expect to happen, that it revert to an ancient pattern non-existant for 13,000 years or 'break out to new highs'?
I saw this chart without knowing what it represented about three years ago and asked my friend, a climatologist what it was(hoping it was something I could go long) and when he told me it was the earth's average temperature---I knew that responsibility for Global Warming was not the issue---only adaptation and survival.
I am on the equatorial coast of the Pacific tonight and at one time the sea in front of me boiled from the high temperature while ferns grew at the poles---I still can't believe that this happened
thanks again, Boil om wow! boiltherich and boiltheequatorialsea!!!
TY, but even at the highest temp the planet has ever been, about 121 degrees F it was not near hot enough to boil water, though ferns did grow in regions we now see miles under rock and miles deep in ice.
I actually dispute the concept of a snowball Earth as well. They say it happened millions, hundreds of millions of years ago (at least 650 million) and our beloved climate scientists hypothesized this based on their computer models. They have no proof at all, not even evidence that this happened but they insist it did. And they so scramble for modern proof that they claim stones stacked in piles one on top of the other in Namibia are the smoking gun of snowball Earth. They claim that the ONLY way these rounded stones, some the size of houses, could possibly have gotten one on top the other is if they had once sat upon an ice sheet, carried there from far away by the melt water rivers that came and went with the seasons. A rock deposited thus would sit in the sun and warm till it melted it's way down into the ice. Then one day another flood and more rocks, they would fall into the hole the first rock melted and get stacked on top of it. Eventually the whole ice sheet would melt leaving behind stack of rocks. In 650 million years AT LEAST even normal erosion factors like rain and wind would have disposed of those stacks, they cannot be older than a couple hundred thousand years. And that is being god awful generous.
I ask where is the common sense? Had such a series of individually plausible events happened how is it that millions or hundreds of millions of years later they are still stacked that way? For one thing they are all rounded after being tumbled like river stones in the flow of melt water, have you ever tried to stack rounded rocks? It can be done but the first disturbance knocks them over. And there is no part of our planet that does not experience earthquakes from time to time, for that matter a large bird lands on them and over they go. The last time the planet was supposed to be covered in ice the continents were not even in their current position.
They also sink ice cores in Greenland or Antarctica and tell us that the trapped air bubbles in the ice are proof of atmospheric conditions last year, 200 years ago, and 20 thousand years ago, even millions of years ago. From this they can tell us that carbon dioxide levels were x, y, and z at different epochs of time and that CO2 is totally always the main factor in all the pre-human warmer periods. I have to beg again for some common sense. This method of studying the past eras of atmospheric conditions assumes that all snow that ever fell at the ice caps is still in the same position it was long ago, compressed into ice under it's own weight and not so much as a flake that has ever melted. Aside from the very silliness of the concept it would require suspending the other major science called geology which studies plate tectonics. The ice that is where it is now could not have been there for millions of years.
For one thing Greenland has been ice free as recently as a few hundred thousand years ago, ergo they cannot have gasses trapped in ice from before that time. The ice sheet there is miles thick, but common sense says that a lot of what was there at the peak of the most recent ice age 12,000 years ago has already melted, and we know that is true because only 12,000 years ago sea levels were 400 feet lower than now, a LOT of ice and thus gaseous geological record has melted in the blink of a geological eye. If it melted they have then lost all the data trapped in the ice sheet so that they are not looking at the last 120,000 years of ice, but ice that existed prior to that, which survived the last melting. Probably more than 2 miles of both Antarctic and Greenland ice have been lost since the Holocene interglacial era began, yet they claim they can show soot from the start of the industrial age in the 1,700's.
Antarctica was a paradise of forests and life 33 million years ago. and it will be again. Continents move at a pace of about the same as your fingernail grow, how long would your fingernails grow in 33 million years?
"Prior to the Oligocene, and into the Mesozoic, the world had little or no polar ice (there is still debate as to the exact measure of ‘little or no’). Probably, there were small amounts of ice at least part of the time, for even in the late Cretaceous (generally regarded as a ‘greenhouse’ time) there were oscillations in sea level of a few tens of metres that seem best ascribed to the melting and re-forming of small polar icecaps."
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) estimates for the Middle Cretaceous (MK) have a range of 4000 ppm, which presents considerable uncertainty in understanding the possible causes of warmth for this interval. This paper examines the problem of MK greenhouse forcing from an inverse perspective: we estimate upper ocean water temperatures from oxygen isotope measurements of well-preserved late Albian-Turonian planktonic foraminifera and compare these against temperatures predicted by general circulation model (GCM) experiments with CO2 concentrations of 500-7500 ppm. At least 4500 ppm CO2 is required to match maximum temperatures inferred from well-preserved planktonic foraminifera. Approximately 900 ppm CO2 produces a good match between the model and the minimum temperature estimates for the MK. An ocean model forced by these two extremes in surface conditions brackets nearly all available bottom water temperature estimates for this interval. The climate model results support nearly the entire range of MK CO2 estimates from proxy data. The ocean model suggests possible MK oceanographic changes from deep water formation in the high latitude region of one hemisphere to the other hemisphere in response to changes in atmospheric temperatures and hydrologic cycle strength. We suggest that, rather than contradicting one another, the various proxy CO2 techniques (especially those with high temporal resolution) may capture true variability in CO2 concentrations and that MK CO2 could have varied by several thousand ppm through this interval.
7,500 ppm? We are at 350? 375? And CO2 is rising at 3 ppm per year, so we only have 2,350 or so years to learn how to adapt to the same conditions the dinosaurs thrived in.
Hubris ...
... exaggerated pride
I was in Canada a few years ago when the papers where running a front page story on the "loss" of the glaciers in the Rockies. As an ironic sidebar, they were dscussing they fact that the scintists had discovered a large petrified forest when the glaciers had retreated but they didn't know what it meant!
The "scientists" could not put 2 + 2 together to come up with "There was a standing forest here when the climate turned much colder. The forest was entombed in snow which eventually turned to ice. The ice continued to accumulate into a glacier. One can deduce from this periods of rapid climate change have occurred recently enough that this location was a forest in the period before the last ice age."
Note: For the AGW believers - stop and think before you reply.
barliman
It's one glacier. Many other much larger glaciers around the world are growing. Yes it has been exceedingly warm in the U.S. this winter, but most other parts of the world have had record cold and record snowfall. On average the global temp has not moved in over a decade. It is clear is that it is not CO2 driving this. More likely is that it is a natural cycle which we should try to understand before imposing a tax on the world to solve a non-problem. It is equally as likely that we see a dramatic global cooling event (as opposed to runaway warming) that would be far more catastrophic for the world's population.
So for Bruce to make an observation about the weather and try to infer how that will affect the future he has to believe in global warming?
I guess you missed the "ironic" photo at the end, Bruce DBA "Man Made Global Warmster"
global warming or anthro global warming aka algore climate change, it would be interesting if Bruce as a weather geek would share his perspectives on both
Thanks for the knowledge. I had just thought that they had an interesting shape...
if only the IQ of man made global warming savants rose as well..we would soon see that weather cycles on long time scales have variation..then perhaps a light bulb would go on and mom nature gets the blame..mom nature is a bitch ask the three toe sloth.
They should start naming all new forms of rotten species after people in congress! As the terminology "politics" all those years ago made perfect sense! "Poli" means "many" in Latin, and "tics" are blood sucking insects!
Hahaha! That's a funny etymology hijack ;)
ta politika
Believing in global warming isn't the same thing as believing in surrendering what little personal liberty you have left to the government to "fix" it.
Got bugs? - figure out a way to kill the fuckers.
They are a HUGE pain in the ass and they can be voracious with any crop. They completely devoured my zuccini last year (not an easy feat). I'm not sure they are in Bernanke's league as far as international threats to humans, but they do smell very similar...
I killed one last night. It had a beard and his voice was quivering as he said something about print
Did you remember Zombieland Rule #4, the doubletap? Those suckers tend to get right back up if you don't do the job right.
Silver lining...looks like a new retirement food source
Bring back the DDT beechez!
Can't, the government already "fixed" the DDT problem.
And saved the bald eagle, thank you very much.
I hope you don"t think banning DDT saved the bald eagle. That would be incorrect. But banning DDT did cost millions of human lives in terms of disease carried by mosquitos.
Not sure that would helped even in terms of human lives (DDT poisonous to humans too). Mosquitos due to short life cycle would have adapted to DDT soon enough anyway, but amount of DDT in the biosphere would increased dramatically because people would just spray much more as mosquitos developed tolerance. And, since DDT is not bio-degradeble, accumulates in the body, and transferred through prey-predator, we would have been for many nasty surprises in our food sources.
we saved the eagle so that wind turbines can hack them to death. It's happening by the hundreds each year.
I thought ZH hated the global warming subject, as a matter of principle, as it was an Al Gore scam. So when you wear tainted lenses you can't see beyond the end of your own nose. Go long Pinnochio.
How global warming and Al Gore are treated at par is beyond me...he could be right on this and wrong as a political sham and scammer who used the global warming escalator to line his pockets. Why junk the GW baby with the Al Gore bath water...
Agree. Global warming has been predicted for 1900 years (.. and the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun, and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire...Rev 16:8).
Al Gore's scam was anthropogenic global warming. As if we humans had the power to create (and control) it. That's hubris for you, and Al, along with all the other hubristic baby boomer nitwits out there, is the poster child, nay the JonBenet Ramsay, of hubris. As usual, Revelations is right. Global warming is caused by the sun, in this recent case, the large CME that blasted by earth just before the heat wave. Go long on sunscreen, "cause you'll be needing it.
fp
not sure i understand the point you are trying to make. The problem with global warming is that the 'solutions' have been around for decades (tax increases, slowing of growth, decrease population, eliminate cars etc). Global Warming is merely the latest vehicle with which to cram these 'solutions' down our collective throats. Look at all the academic shenanigans that were uncovered. If the science is so convincing then why the lies?
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23465874?searchTerm=climate%20ch...
ws.google.com/newspapers?id=fBxkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J3sNAAAAIBAJ&pg=4008,1217261&dq=climate-change&hl=en
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/37975395?searchTerm=%22climate%2...
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/68657631?searchTerm=climate%20ch...
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/72280521
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=greenland%20...
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/38087689?searchTerm=%22climate%2...
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QkNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kjoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5...
And now....Drumroll please
http://books.google.com/books?id=0zNLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA488&dq=jefferson+clim...
Dessert?
http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=VG5bAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcove...
MAN MADE global warming is the intellectual tripe I think some ZHers find laughable. The climate may be getting warmer - or we may now be heading for cooling -- man's activities have very little do do with it....
Only an idiot would believe that we can dump unlimited amounts of hydrocarbons and co2 into the atmosphere without it having some kind of an effect on our climate.
@monoloco
I have no argument with either side of the discussion of responsibility.
I am a practicing conservationist; this is my life, but I am not interested in who is at fault as much as I am in changing human behavior towards adaptation to the universe rather than jawboning about the past. Adaptation includes not putting more fuel on the fire whether or not it makes a difference. This is simply being respectful of reality instead of pissing into the wind with normal human arrogance.
Even if we die off as a species in the future, it doesn't matter---other species have preceded our own in extiction events; this is nothing new.
We could go out, however, in sane and in good health by doing what we can to have a healthier habitat for all species during our last few generations---this is up to each individual. Remember, however, that the majority of humans do not possess the CAPACITY to even comprehend the topic under discussion. Try not to be too impatient with stupidity and our self-destructive will.
I tell this oldman this each and every day occasionally it makes my day better
Thanks for the post---most humans are idiots ask a monkey om
"we must be sinning, it can't be ok".
whatever. This planet was getting warm and then cooling long before man came on the scene.
In 100 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up from 285 parts per million to 385 parts per million. That is 1 in 10,000 parts, or one one hundredth of one percent. This is enough to raise the temperature of the planet 1 degree.
That makes CO2 the most powerful insulation in the universe. If 1/100 of 1% will do that what will 100% do? Why don't we insulate our houses with CO2? Just put all the CO2 in bubble wrap and put it in the walls. This will sequester all the CO2 and at the same time, our houses will be so perfectly insulated 1 gallon of furnace oil will heat the house all winter.
Result, no more CO2, no more greenhouse gases, no more pollution, problem solved.
Yeah, let's exterminate CO2 and all the plants that can transform it in O2 we need to live.
P.S. You are plain wrong about insulation properties of CO2 (K = 0.0146)
Insulation properties of elements (sorted) http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/periodic/thermal.html
Insulation properties of materials (you can sort by K asc) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thermal_conductivities
P.P.S. Vacuum (theoretical) K = 0
Fucktard.
Um..you do understand that in order for us to 'dump' it, it had to exist there in times past. Plants are mostly made from Carbon. Where do you think that carbon came from originally? It is a closed system w/ external energy input. Matter is not created or destroyed. Mankind just finally figured out you can make money by scaring people. Please go watch "The Smartest Guys in the Room". Come back and discuss if you still feel the same way. The people who are taking pictures of the glaciers cleaving off, melting, etc. and scaring you have a objective. Have you noticed that they always take those pictures in the summer? Know how you know it is summer? Because there isn't any sunlight there in the winter. Know how else you know? It is so cold there in the winter that electronic cameras won't work.
If Smartest Guy's in the Room isn't enough for you, watch this movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
Don't just blow him off like the Propaganda Box told you to. Actually go and read the books and research what he says. Try to form your own opinion. It will show you how very, very little we actually know.
"It is so cold there in the winter that electronic cameras won't work."
Worse still, glaciers are growing in winter. "We do not need need stuff like that" even for the balance purposes.
We need balance and we need to return to the principles this nation was founded on. Restore Liberty and Prosperity and all of those problems will be a very small thing. The saddest thing is, these people will NOT like the world they are creating.
Someone mentioned the windmills killing birds above. Consider this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YyHxSdUMro
Maybe those people breathing out CO2 and making those carbon based plants grow is a good thing.
Breath of life and all...
Plants love CO2.
Volcanoes create more ozone damaging gases and chemicals than the Industrial Revolution to the present.
Yes, we pollute the planet, but it isn't changing the climate.
But, egocentricity is appealing to us apes.
Your wrong.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/
Time magazine 1987 was it? Cover photo of Icebergs and sheets of ice with the ominous caption question ARE WE ON THE VERGE OF A NEW ICE AGE?
Two years later a couple of lone voices in the climate issue weighed in and claimed no, greenhouse gasses from man made sources were warming the planet and soon all life would end from roasting. And they had the data from their supercomputer models they had been working on for years to prove it. Just disregard the fact that every single week climate scientists make new discoveries about past and present environmental inputs that had they been included in the variables of the original model would have altered the results thus invalidating the basis for the claims that anthropomorphic global warming is responsible for our impending doom.
What slays me is the earnest weight the global warmers put on ending our carbon output without any consideration at all to the impact that would have. Then they use manipulated maps and charts like the one above as "proof" of their findings even though the recent warm weather east of the Rockies was just that, WEATHER, and scientists are the first to point out that weather is NOT climate. That is a perfectly normal pattern that is just a few weeks early, and I would like to point out that while the rest of the nation was basking in great weather the west has been unseasonably cold and wet at a running departure from normal of about 10 to 20 degrees below normal and more than 40 degrees below record temps. Again, WEATHER, not climate.
And then how are most people supposed to separate the noise from the real data? We read so many outrageous claims, sea levels will rise anywhere from a foot and a half over the next two centuries to over 200 feet by 2100. Currently rising at about half an inch per decade. But, we do know that the planet has been ice free many times and with the regularity of a metronome. We also know that in the past CO2 levels were just 4 times as high as at present. Around 1,400 ppm rather than the current 325 ppm. We know that at least once the planet was covered in ice, and at least once reached an average temp of 121 degrees. By those metrics we are nowhere near anything like a tipping point.
My way of looking at it is that yes man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and possibly at an unsustainable level over the long-term, CO2 is higher than if man did not exist at all, but CO2 is not only natural and capricious in the environment it is also one of the bit players, quick which is by far the prominent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? If you said water vapor you would be right, 95% of all greenhouse gasses is water vapor. And then there is naturally released methane, mostly from rotting vegetation as plant material decays, and from subsea methane hydrates, methane is not as big a contributor to warming as CO2 in cubic volume but it is 30 times as powerful so that one gram of methane is equal to 30 grams of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and it is longer living in the environment. The crust of the planet has trillions and trillions of tons of the stuff in the form of methane ice.
But, human contribution to the absolute level of greenhouse gasses is surprisingly small when looked at with an honest appraisal, about the same per year as one or two really good sized forest fires and the climate has managed to cope with those since the first tree came along. More important is just how do these bullshit artists and their brainwashed millions plan to end human contribution to greenhouse gasses? Queue the crickets because we will be waiting a long time for that answer.
The fact is that you can reduce the CO2 footprint of every person by about 85%, and live as cavemen again, and they will tell you even that is not enough, or you can allow people to just go ahead and live but reduce the population by 85%, and they would still bitch, but they will not tell you of that alternative to reach their goals because even though it is the only feasible way to reduce human CO2 to near background levels it does something they REALLY do not want, it changes the argument from one of climate that they have elevated to a religion in which they are the high priests and claim the power over others, to an argument that is totally different, one of population control in which I presume those with the power will be the ones NOT making millions and billions of new pie holes by which they can propagate their new religion. See? Gay people were right all along. This is not about the globe being buried in carbon, it is about the Earth being bred by heterosexuals to death.