Um, here's what you said.
The only time that has been the case was when early animals were evolving.
wrong
This is the reference graph
Clearly CO2 was 2000-4000 ppm through much of the history shown including when there were ice ages
p.s. Do you see how stupid your hypocrisy is? You claim despite what so many scientists say about there evidence, you claim there isn't enough evidence to support anthropogenic CO2 as the major driver of current climate change but you throw out a ridiculously untested theory that the world could support 70 billion people.
I answered your question indicating CO2 would not be an issue because of the logarithmic absorption of CO2.
Incremental additions to concentration adds diminishing returns of absorbance. There is only so much Infrared radiation available at the right wavelength specifically around 15 micrometers.
Think of a gallon of water putting out a fire leaving the occasional smoldering ember , the next 10 gallons will likely snuff out more embers but the job was pretty much accomplished by the first gallon
I never indicated the world could support 70 billion and
I was quite clear that space, food and water would be issues long before reaching those levels
And again for the hundredth time , the count of scientist opinions does not determine a hypotheses validity. you are an engineer , you should know this ... what school did you go to ???
You also seem to ignore that for most of the time the Earth's atmosphere was in your ideal range of CO2, the average temperature was 10 C above now
(And actual scientists think a rapid change of only 2 or 3 C will be catastrophic to our society).
I never said anything about optimal ranges. I merely pointed out that ice ages occurred when C02 was well in excess of today, which is not supportive of the catastrophic hypothesis.
You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty with the concept that elevated CO2 occurred in history when it was hot and also when we had ices ages
Which invalidates the hypothesis CO2 is the control knob for temperature
The rest of your post is just adding in other inconsequential facts to distract from how foolish your claims are.
The logarithmic relation of concentration to absorption is NOT inconsequential. It is a scientific fact which clearly shows that the catastrophic hypothesis is not supported by the physics and why much higher ppm CO2 would not be an issue
You did not have a logical rational response to this scientific fact, so instead you avoided that scientific fact altogether and try to make it personal
That is not a logical approach to a scientific discussion
It is indeed very odd that you on one hand attempt to validate your position claiming scientific superiority by quoting the number of scientists with an opinion (which is not absolute), yet on the other hand you refuse to acknowledge or even discuss a (actually four) scientific fact(s)
Do you not see your hypocrisy?