hurricanes

Pity about that. Increasing the CO2 content above 1000ppm (2.5 times more C O2 than we now have in open air) doesn't produce significantly faster growt h with the plants we've got around, and making the atmosphere pure CO2 is d amnably expensive (as you'd know if you'd read anything about CO2 sequestra tion).

Breeding plants that would do well with CO2 contents above 1000ppm might sh ift this boundary, but looking at fossil plants tells us that plants growin g at past times when CO2 levels were quite a lot higher adapted by having f ewer stomata in their leaves, trading off CO2 flow into the leaf against wa ter vapour flow out, which doesn't suggest that the plants themselves would metabolise CO2 much faster when exposed to more of it.

seems to be saying that CO2 levels have typically been between 1000ppm and

The fact that the earth as a whole does fine with CO2 levels above 1000ppm isn't an argument for us to be complacent about rising CO2 levels. The most recent spike in CO2 levels saw a lot of mammalian species (amongst others) going extinct, and a lot of new species evolving to fill the gaps created by population crashes.

Our ecosystem has spent the past few million years adapting to CO2 levels r unning between 180ppm (during ice ages) and 300ppm (during inter-glacials).

Forcing it to adapt to 400ppm is already producing quite a few extinctions, and pushing it further isn't going to help our ecosystem or our agricultu re.

I heard an interview with a sort of paleo-forestry guy. He has studied tree rings and such and concluded that, in the couple of thousand years prior to

Now that we are putting out fires, we get less frequent but much bigger fires. The California forest fire problem is man-made, but it's not about climate change.

Yep. Back when "clear-cutting" was the norm in the lumber business, we had very few major fires. Then the greenies came along. I always find it delightful when it's their house that burns down >:-} ...Jim Thompson

Of course. You always delight in the misfortune of others. You are a mean, nasty old git.

Schadenfreude is best enjoyed when the victim is the initiator of the problem. (Darwin-award-style :-)

As for you, if you don't knock off the nonsense, I'm going to beat the crap out of you with my cane >:-} ...Jim Thompson

It was intentional. Larkin _is_actually_ the mean, nasty, senile old git here. ...Jim Thompson

The thing about that, was that fact was KNOWN at least 20 years ago.. The ads using Smokey the Bear were stopped due to the knowledge,i think.

Methinks you missed his point (by a mile).

His point is that he'd be delighted by someone's house burning down. I suppose their children dying in the fire would be an extra bonus for him.

You're mentally ill, go seek help. ...Jim Thompson

Some species even require forest fires every year or at least every few years to survive.

Building houses in the forest that previously had forest fires at least once or twice a decade is asking for trouble.

Building houses on a floodplain and then people complain about being flooded at least once a decade.

Cutting down the forests in the mountains and then complain about floods downstream...

It is nice if you can blame "climate change" instead of your own stupidity :-)