[aperson]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEiX

https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~dmcge..._Berner_02.pdf

Ok and no I'm not going to explain a gradeschool concept to you just because you think I do not understand how it works.

EDIT: TBH this is a TLDR source you can just use the tables to find the data I was going to just link wikipedia because it gives you that info right there but I figured you would call me out for it since it's wikipedia.

Also you know I had to use DuckDuckGo just to find this source? Google wouldn't even give me any data results on this besides wikipedia to find an actual backed source pretty stupid if you ask me.

No I'll call you out for using a paleoclimate reconstruction of Tr-J carbon levels from 2004 when our proxy records and constraints on carbon have dramatically improved since then.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2014GL060457

Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration (ca) for the Phanerozoic Eon is estimated from proxies and geochemical carbon cycle models. Most estimates come with large, sometimes unbounded uncertainty. Here, we calculate tightly constrained estimates of ca using a universal equation for leaf gas exchange, with key variables obtained directly from the carbon isotope composition and stomatal anatomy of fossil leaves. Our new estimates, validated against ice cores and direct measurements of ca, are less than 1000 ppm for most of the Phanerozoic, from the Devonian to the present, coincident with the appearance and global proliferation of forests. Uncertainties, obtained from Monte Carlo simulations, are typically less than for ca estimates from other approaches. These results provide critical new empirical support for the emerging view that large (~2000–3000 ppm), long‐term swings in ca do not characterize the post‐Devonian and that Earth's long‐term climate sensitivity to ca is greater than originally thought.

You also failed to provide any sort of supporting evidence that human emissions won't ever top 2000ppm in the first place, but if you want to use actual modern consensus science that exponentially improves year over year, then you'll want to set that upper bound at around 1000ppm instead of 2000. So I'll wait for you to provide some source that global CO2 levels can't surpass 1000ppm under any of our concentration pathway outcomes.


Hitting up google scholar for the first link that you think supports your view is some pretty poor confirmation bias. I'd recommend actually learning how to parse and consume scientific literature in a domain of interest so that you don't make stupid mistakes like this in the future. For paleoclimate literature you're going to want sources that are a) as recent as possible or b) meta-analyses of multiple other sources.