Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Why would I focus solely on a type of terrain known for being fairly static in its climate?

 

We have no carbon dioxide caused climate crisis.

 

You mean such as the polar regions?

You would at the very least look at deserts since they are naturally hotter.

 

Submarines levels of dangerous gasses are tightly controlled. Studies prove the men tolerate much higher than 400 ppm carbon dioxide.

So, you only accept cherry picked areas that you believe favors your pet theory?

 

We is humans. We (humanity) have contributed significantly to atmospheric CO2 as well as the CO2 in the ocean (which results in oceanic acidification. As for a world without airplanes and ships, have fun with that straw man.

 

You've yet to prove that claim.

 

No one is claiming tha

And you ignore the PhD scientists who study global warming. Funny, that. You're argument is a straw man. No one is claiming that the concentration is dangerous because of inhalation. We are talking about the greenhouse effect.

 

Climate change is more than just "hotter or colder".

 

his post had nothing to do with temperature effects of CO2 in a sub. It discussed physiologic effects inside the body. Read much?

 

Humans are naturally resilient. How many other life forms are usually carried in a submarine's ecosystem?

 

You are aware that the greenhouse effect is a thing, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we have contributed significantly to atmospheric CO2, correct?

 

Physiological effects have nothing to do with climate change.

 

Yes, it is a straw man. A bait and switch.

 

I offer we contributed negligibly.

 

I also invited you alarmists report studies of the deserts. Crickets are louder than the replies back.

 

Then we disagree about the facts: https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

 

Yes, that's what happens when you produce straw men.

 

Well, that means we are making progress since I did not speak to the psychological effects. The report speaks of various matters.

 

I think the facts are on my side.

 

Which is why you refused to read them?

 

I have read some ill informed and obtuse arguments in my time ,but the OP takes the cake .

 

No, we have not contributed much carbon dioxide. Do you need parts per million explained to you?

 

Climate changes don't apply to deserts? Really? Since when?

 

Say you start out at 200 ppm and double it. We now have 400 ppm.

Now look at it as you do money.

A man who has a million dollars hands you 200 dollars. Is he in danger of going broke? Okay, nick him for 400 dollars. Is he now in danger of going broke?

I don't understand why the lot of you do not understand just how tiny this all is.

 

We've contributed hundreds of billions of tonnes of CO2. Denialists who try to downplay this by evoking parts per million do not grasp the basic concept of the climate sensitivity metric.

Adding an additional straw man already? They are really piling up.