Historic milestone... as long as you ignore most of history. What was that definition of "cherry picking" again?

7000 ppm didn't seem to bother coral.

Unless you believe coral today came from something other than coral then I don't see how it's relevant. It adapts, the very definition of evolution.

"Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1251336

"Threatened Caribbean Coral Is Able to Mitigate the Adverse Effects of Ocean Acidification on Calcification by Increasing Feeding Rate"
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123394

"For cold water corals, warming is beating acidification to drive a growth spurt"
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/ocean-temperature-not-acidification-affects-coral-growth.ars

"Palau's coral reefs surprisingly resistant to ocean acidification" http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=130129&preview=false

"Reef losses due to climate change are unlikely"
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/coral-reef-winners-and-losers-in-a-warmer-world

But coral does have genes it can switch on to handle heat and CO2 just as CAM plants - occurring in nearly every plant family - have biochemical pathways that don't kick in till 2000 ppm. Even Wikipedia gets this right. Please read that.

You can't deny "historical milestone" in meaningless here. 7000 ppm was also a "historic milestone" and there were many others. It doesn't actually convey any meaningful information.

It's like that "20 hottest years" thing that' true if the temperature is decline or increasing.

If it's so true why resort to weasel words? CO2 stalled, one article, buried, that nobody read. It goes up one part per million and 10,000 blogs lose their mind.

"Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide stalled in 2014"
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

What is epsilon here?

It's almost like people don't understand the inverse relationship between plant biomass and atmospheric carbon dioxide. We killed half the world trees in the last 100 years - where do you think that massive amount of carbon went?

It's also not well understood increased CO2 increases the rate of cooling or that if CO2 goes under 150 ppl plants stop growing and everything dies. One paper points out unless we increase CO2 we won't be able to feed an increased population.

http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf

Increased Co2 re-greens the earth. Look at any truecolor globe - see the brown parts? That's where man evolved and like a cancer destroyed all the green stuff. The Sahara, the mid east into Asia, all used to be green.

I'd be more worried about pollution, deforestation an habitat loss, these actually kill people, increased CO2 just means we can grow more food. Conveniently, plats literally eat pollution and the only thing coming out of a smokestack that isn't toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic is CO2. So we son't talk about dioxins, phenols, nitric and sulphuric acids , mercury and other heavy metals (that we know kill and how they do it) and who knows what else, and instead freak out about a chemical that all plant life on eash is rate limited by.

"I just think they don’t understand the climate," he said of climatologists. "Their computer models are full of fudge factors."

A major fudge factor concerns the role of clouds. The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide on its own is limited. To get to the apocalyptic projections trumpeted by Al Gore and company, the models have to include assumptions that CO2 will cause clouds to form in a way that produces more warming.

"The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."

"To show how uncivil this crowd can get, Happer e-mailed me an article about an Australian professor who proposes — quite seriously — the death penalty for heretics such as Dyson. As did Galileo, they can get a reprieve if they recant.

I hope that guy never gets to hear Dyson’s most heretical assertion: Atmospheric CO-2 may actually be improving the environment.

"It’s certainly true that carbon dioxide is good for vegetation," Dyson said. "About 15 percent of agricultural yields are due to CO-2 we put in the atmosphere. From that point of view, it’s a real plus to burn coal and oil."

In fact, there’s more solid evidence for the beneficial effects of CO-2 than the negative effects, he said. So why does the public hear only one side of this debate? Because the media do an awful job of reporting it.

"They’re absolutely lousy," he said of American journalists. "That’s true also in Europe. I don’t know why they've been brainwashed."

I know why: They’re lazy. Instead of digging into the details, most journalists are content to repeat that mantra about "consensus" among climate scientists.

The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

"It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin."

There’s a lot of room left in that bin for the ideas promulgated by people dumber than Dyson. Which is just about everyone."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html

The amount of foliage worldwide is increasing despite massive deforestation. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract

Global warming or global greening? https://web.archive.org/web/20130607223311/http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-24.shtml v Coral has genes they can switch on for both heat and pH. Think about it, coral is carbonate - CO3.

What is the raw material coral uses to make CO3? CO2.

All plant families from algae to the most derived forms have members with CAM processes that kick in at 7000 ppm.

"Positive results have also been obtained in studies with super-elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Hew et al. (1995), for example, reported that Mokara White orchids exposed to a CO2 concentration of 10,000 ppm produced total dry weights that were approximately 33% greater than those displayed by ambiently-grown plants, while the fumigation of other epiphytic orchids with air containing 10,000 ppm CO2 resulted in total dry weight values that were twice as great as those exhibited by orchids grown at ambient CO2 (Gouk and Hew, 1999)."

Gouk, S.S., He, J. and Hew, C.S. 1999. Changes in photosynthetic capability and carbohydrate production in an epiphytic CAM orchid plantlet exposed to super-elevated CO2. Environmental and Experimental Botany 41: 219-230.

Anybody who has more than a couple of fishtanks and who's been around a while knows in the 80s there was a major revolution when we figured out you have to add CO2 to get stuff to really grow and this let us keep things alive all the older books say "can't be grown in aquaria"or "very difficult". Plants quite literally grow twice as fast and twice as big with CO2 and we add a LOT. Coral o rare exotic plants, you need CO2 and don't even bother without it. There's some great great proofs of this in "the Dupla book" if you read German, by Horst and Kipper.

The phrase "needs CO2" pops up all the time. Some plants you can grow without it but a lot more don't even bother trying, and adding CO2 is the cure for algae in an aquarium as tens of thousands of people can tell you. We're all carbon based life and more carbon helps, not hurts.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=aquarium+%22needs+co2%22&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=OutPVefeKMqOyATrkoDYAg

Perhaps it's not well understood outside of botanical circles but all plant life on earth is CO2 rate limited.

The alarmists have not once made a correct prediction and are notorious about ignoring the biologists so you're not going to convince me (I do have rather a lot of experience in this area) that suddenly they're able to predict the effect on biological systems. It's as absurd in our carbon starved world as saying "gosh, we're running on fumes, I hope the engine doesnt die if we fill the gas tank too quickly."

Think about it, more CO2 mean more and bigger plants and guess what they're going to gobble up and gobble up more of? Next year even more. This feed forward loop was ignored until 2010 when NASA and NOAA screamed at them enough.

"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise." xhttps://www.google.ca/search?q=aquarium+%22needs+co2%22&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=OutPVefeKMqOyATrkoDYAg

You could double CO2 tomorrow and all you'd notice is plants grow a little better.

Please understand not a single organism on earth needs to "evolve" to handle CO2 even 100X higher than now, you can prove this to yourself with a soda bottle vinegar and baking soda and a plant in a plastic bag. This is not exactly rocket science. 40 parts per milion? Pfft, try 30 parts per thousand and notice how much better plants grow. Animals are unaffected.

Have a quick look at this to see what a lot of people know that you don't. https://www.google.ca/search?q=co2+levels+in+aquaria&num=100&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=fO1PVdfPPJKVyASw1YGQCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1090&bih=1105

Scroll down 20 pages or so to get a good feel for it.

Go into any decent aquarium store, buy a CO2 kit and dial it up to 10,000ppm. You'll see nothing dies, terrestrial or submerged and in fact they merely grow better.