Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Some CO2 info: INTENDED VERSION
Some many posts ago, I listed scientists who in the 1800s compiled the basic underpinning CC science: atmosphere must have a blanket or world temps would be -16C to -20C on average, found infrared radiation, found CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.

But, you need to know more!
Do you know what snow is? Crystals of ice plus air filling the spaces. A layer of snow falls in the Antarctic. It stays put, and next winter, another layer forms, and so on.

At Vostok in the Antarctic, the frozen snow and compressed snow is 3km deep. The Russians retrieved a core of compressed ice 3km long. It contains over 800,000 years of snow, and each piece of snow provides temperature data (a proxy) and CO2 concentration. Plotting this data shows a number of ice ages, showing cooling periods, and warming periods.

You may not know, but the lowest concentration of CO2 during peak glaciation was never below about 160ppm and during warm periods, CO2 concentration never exceeded about 280ppm.

Our lifestyle over past decades has raised the world’s blanket of CO2 to 410ppm, and still rising.

We have no way of decreasing CO2 levels.

Scientists calculated that some increase is possibly ok, but that we should not exceed 350 ppm.

We have!

A very new technical IPCC paper authored by over 20 scientists is out for review. The world has agreed to not go above a 2C rise. But the unexpected magnitude of extreme events, loss of water, heatwaves and much more is causing the IPCC to almost demand that we do not exceed 1.5C.

Unfortunately we may exceed 1.5C within the next few years. And, about 16 renowned scientists wrote, almost a year ago, that there is a possibility that with Antarctic and Greenland and Arctic ice melt, we could have 6 to 9 meters sea level rise by 2100.

Ahh, well Tony. I guess we're all gonna die. Not that it matters to the earth that much. Extinctions come & go as they have done for 3.8 Billion years. The loss of humans on this planet will be no big deal to the planet.

Maybe next time intelligent life evolves on Earth it will be Octopuses or Octopi, whatever takes your fancy. Still, the name of the Game is "Survival of the Fittest"

//But clearly you would bet//

Nope, that's a sucker's bet.

Fascinating that you aren't willing to risk your hard-earned but you are willing to risk something much more valuable. You know we can't just buy a new planet, right? Magrathea is closed for business.

As we all know, the Earth varies from one place to another. I am curious as to where these readings are taken from. If it is one place then it simply shows the status of that particular location. If it is taken at random anywhere, then it is possible for the environment at those locations are also varied, in time. Thereby putting into question the validity of the data. Just a thought.

Toni,

I get the impression that you don't really understand that doing something to save the planet isn't cost-free. It'll cost and depending who you read it'll cost somewhere between a lot and a sh!tload.

But those costs will be disproportionately borne by people who aren't you and that, it seems is perfectly fine as far as you're concerned.

I don't see any indication that you appreciate that these decisions don't have to be made now. There is no particular hurry other than the hurry to get the policies in place before , perhaps, inconvenient data is in place.

There's every chance that emissions won't ever reach the levels being touted as dangerous and that even if they do it'll be a century before that happens.

So why the rush? Some people might say that the planet's in danger and therefore all measures are justified. But I can equally opine that 'doing something' will endanger the planet and the people's of earth and therefore no measures are justified(eg imposing undue costs on the economy => depression => political breakdown => authoritarian regimes => war => Armageddon).

So place your bet using other people's future....I'll wait to see what happens and then spend my money.

SR,

I have no idea what that quote has to do with anything under discussion here other than your feeble attempt to change the subject - the subject being that you'd made up the assertion that I thought GW wasn't occurring.

Having been called out, a better man would have owned up and then moved on. But SR, being SR, moves with alacrity to change the subject.

While I'm here, perhaps you could also let me know if there's any other properties of CO2 that you've utterly misunderstood that I could help you with.