I did, you slimy fuck. But it wasn't until I nailed you to a fucking cross that you actually gave results.
The same could be said for our food system, which assumes that farmlands will get about 20th-century levels of rain and heat. Knowing this, Selin says, one could make the case that 20th-century levels of CO2 are ideal, and that humanity ought to aim for the atmospheric levels of a few decades ago, somewhere between 300 and 350 ppm.
Those who study the effects of carbon concentration in the atmosphere
Holy fuck, give me a study/name or shut the fuck up.
You could have asked
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-ideal-level-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-human-life#:~:text=Holding%20CO2%20at%20no,overshooting%20the%201.5%2Ddegree%20goal.
Let me know if you’d like another. There were a ton of options when I did a search
I did, you slimy fuck. But it wasn't until I nailed you to a fucking cross that you actually gave results.
This article already poisons the well by assuming that higher CO2 levels can only ever be a bad thing, that there is no feedback mechanism in nature to deal with rates of CO2, and doesn't mention things like Cambrian explosion where CO2 rates were dated to be at their highest or how current CO2 concentration is at it's lowest. I guess its easier to make your point when you cherry pick.
So testy.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php#:~:text=Likewise%2C%20when%20carbon%20dioxide%20concentrations,which%20then%20amplifies%20greenhouse%20heating.
This is on the effect high carbon has on environment conditions