The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?  (Read 66268 times)

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #50 on: 26/05/2013 08:32:36 »
BC says
So the assertion that "most urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 1% CO2 most of the time"
is flatly and obviously false except

Henry says
how do you know? Typically, they have these concentrations in green houses in Holland where they grow tomatoes.
In submarines they let it go up to 4000 ppm with no effect.
If the place of work is in downtown New York with high rises in the street and lots of traffic, I can imagine that the CO2 gets higher than 1%, especially if there is little or no wind. This is because it is heavy. We have already seen that the danger of the CO2 is not its poisonous nature, but that it is heavy. It takes some time to mix in and diffuse. The benefit of more CO2 in the air is a booming biosphere and this may help us a bit as we are entering a time of global cooling, by (the extra vegetation) trapping some heat. So anything that can help us to stay warm is good. That is good for life.
More carbon is OK.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #51 on: 26/05/2013 10:28:43 »
Thank you for providing me with the data which shows that you are wrong.
"In submarines they let it go up to 4000 ppm with no effect."
Why don't they let it go up further?
Obviously, because it does have an effect (and, equally obviously, not a good effect)
Also, it may shock you to learn that most urban dwellers don't live in Dutch greenhouses.

"We have already seen that the danger of the CO2 is not its poisonous nature, but that it is heavy."
Stop denying reality.
The drowsiness + headaches that were discussed earlier are evidence of a toxic effect.
"I can imagine that the CO2 gets higher than 1%, especially if there is little or no wind. "
Who cares what you can imagine?
I already posted some measurements.
Why do you think your imagination is more important that the truth?


Learn some physics
"(the extra vegetation) trapping some heat".
Plants transpire, in doing so they evaporate a lot of water. Doing that takes energy.
They cool their environment rather than trapping heat.

"More carbon is OK"
True, the problem is that people keep burning it and making CO2.
« Last Edit: 26/05/2013 10:41:42 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #52 on: 26/05/2013 12:29:55 »
bored chemist says
Why don't they let it go up further?

henry says
you demonstrate that you still don't understand it.
We have shown to you that CO2 is not poisonous. For pete's sake, you have it in your blood.
Smokers do not die (immediately) from inhaling  near 100% CO2

Obviously, any substance becomes toxic at very high concentrations, even sugar and salt.

However, the rabbits would not die at 65% CO2,  PROVIDED oxygen was kept at 21%
There is the problem. As soon as CO2 goes up, other components of the air go down, especially oxygen, if you are burning something.
And that creates the  problem (of inconvenience) , especially for people with breathing problems.
For people that suffer from hyper ventilation, CO2 is a miracle cure.....
Wiki is not right there, again.

Now go along, ask your doctor or GP , what he writes on the death certificate in the case of a suicide by a person who gasses himself in a car with exhaust fumes.
Hint: it will not be:  CO2 poisening.
CO2 poisening does not exist. You will die of lack of oxygen before you die of CO2 poisening....

Best wishes
MoreCarbonOK
« Last Edit: 26/05/2013 12:45:01 by MoreCarbonOK »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #53 on: 26/05/2013 13:12:03 »
"We have shown to you that CO2 is not poisonous. "
No.
You have cited evidence that, even at fairly low concentrations, it's toxic- for example it causes headaches. These are not due to oxygen deficiency.
If breathing or combustion added 1000 ppm of CO2 to the air then it would remover 1000 ppm of oxygen.
That does reduce the amount of oxygen available, but so does a drop in air pressure caused by the weather.
The changes caused by the weather are rather bigger than those caused by the conversion to CO2
So, it's not the drop in oxygen concentrations which causes the headaches and so on, it's the toxic effect of CO2

Is it that you don't think a headache is a toxic effect or are you labouring under the misunderstanding that the headache is due to oxygen deprivation?

"For pete's sake, you have it in your blood."
For Paracelsus's sake there's lead and cyanide in my blood- but at levels which are not toxic.

"Smokers do not die (immediately) from inhaling  near 100% CO2"
No, but they would die from the nuclear radiation that would need to be produced from converting the nitrogen in the air to CO2.
Would it be better if you understood what you are talking about, before you made comments like that?


"For people that suffer from hyper ventilation, CO2 is a miracle cure....."
Miracle is overstating it- the science is well known- though not, it seems, by you.
However, at least you have accepted that CO2 has a physiological effect that's not just oxygen deprivation.

Taken to excess and in the absence of initial hyperventilation, that physiological effect is, of course, toxic.

"Now go along, ask your doctor or GP , what he writes on the death certificate in the case of a suicide by a person who gasses himself in a car with exhaust fumes.
Hint: it will not be:  CO2 poisening. "
Indeed, it will be carbon monoxide poisoning, because, unlike you, he knows what he's talking about.
Here's a video of a man who is suffering from CO2 poisoning.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/diving/video/co2video.htm

You will probably try to say that it's oxygen deficiency.
No, it's CO2 toxicity.
The sorbent in the rebreather failed, but the oxygen delivery system was working fine. It will have maintained the O2 levels as they should be.

What would it take to get you to realise that you have already cited evidence that CO2 is toxic- you just haven't understood it.
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #54 on: 26/05/2013 23:51:49 »
OK then,

First I am owing BC another apology because I said "... the fact that most urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 1% CO2 most of the time."

I should have said "... the fact that many urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 0.15% CO2 much of the time."

(Certainly my original statement is a fact in the "trivial" sense pointed out by BC, but I was focussed on the lower limit on the toxicity of CO2 rather than the offence I might have been causing another poster that I was criticizing)

To get a bit of authority into the subject, I am just going to quote a few wikipedia articles about CO2 toxicity. Sorry that you do not recognise that wikipedia articles are authoritative henry, but you should not complain too much because they largely support your side of the story.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Quote
Toxicity [edit]
See also: Carbon dioxide poisoning
...{ at this point in the original there is a figure showing the main symptoms of CO2 toxicity. It is colour coded with levels ~1%, ~3%, ~5%, and ~8% . The only toxic effect at ~1% is drowsiness, which the text indicates is both mild and reversible. Some of the indicated effects at the higher levels, 5% and 8%, are quite drastic, however.}...
Main symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity, by increasing volume percent in air. [79]
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.[80]
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy.[79] Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[81]
Because it's heavier than air, in locations where the gas seeps from the ground (due to sub-surface volcanic or geothermal activity) in relatively high levels, without the dispersing effects of wind, it can collect in sheltered/pocketed locations below average ground level, causing animals located therein to be suffocated. Carrion feeders attracted to the carcasses are then also killed. For example, children have been killed the in same way near the city of Goma due to nearby volcanic Mt. Nyiragongo.[82] The Swahili term for this phenomena is 'mazuku'.
Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[83][84] However, it should be noted that submarines have carbon dioxide scrubbers which reduce a significant amount of the CO2 present.[85].
My interpretation of this is that you do not need to worry about chronically toxic effects of CO2 until the level gets to around 2%, and that both BC and henry are overstating their cases. It is also fairly clear that most if not all of the effects attributed to acute toxicity of high levels of CO2 are the result of asphyxiation via removal of the oxygen supply
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_air_quality
Quote
Carbon dioxide [edit]
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a surrogate for indoor pollutants emitted by humans and correlates with human metabolic activity. Carbon dioxide at levels that are unusually high indoors may cause occupants to grow drowsy, get headaches, or function at lower activity levels. Humans are the main indoor source of carbon dioxide. Indoor levels are an indicator of the adequacy of outdoor air ventilation relative to indoor occupant density and metabolic activity. To eliminate most Indoor Air Quality complaints, total indoor carbon dioxide should be reduced to a difference of less than 600 ppm above outdoor levels. NIOSH considers that indoor air concentrations of carbon dioxide that exceed 1,000 ppm are a marker suggesting inadequate ventilation. ...
My interpretation of this is that elevated indoor CO2 levels are indicative of poor ventilation and elevated levels of other more toxic gases, most notably formaldehyde and carbon monoxide, and that some of the reported effects of CO2 toxicity at lower levels should be reattributed.
I know that both BC and henry are likely to want to come back and scoff at "My interpretation of this is ..." but I would really appreciate it if they produce new evidence of why my interpretations of the articles is ridiculous when they do.
« Last Edit: 26/05/2013 23:55:12 by damocles »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #55 on: 27/05/2013 08:10:27 »
Apparently the target for Spacecraft is less than 0.5% CO2.  However, Apollo 13 got up to about 2% which was considered critical.

"Neurological impairment" was considered to start at about 3%.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12529&page=112

Anyway, we are no where near those levels, at least in the typical outdoor environment.  If levels were slowly increased to say 5% over a period of 1000 years, most species would likely adapt (except perhaps some crustaceans).  Although, if things like migraines don't limit the human ability to procreate, potentially humanity would suffer more than other species.

I think the problem is that we are considering Earth, and all our progeny as one large experiment, without knowing the outcome. 

If we get it right, some plants will experience greater growth, and perhaps longer growing seasons.  Potentially we will never see a return of glacial periods.  Possibly enlarged tropical climates, and more pleasant temperatures in northerly climates.  Species may be shifting, and for some, the changes may be too rapid for them to fully adapt.

If we get it wrong, we'll be battling flooding along all the coasts, and `perhaps enlarged arid areas.  Or, if the impact is over-estimated, we will be spending millions or billions of dollars to fix, or put a band-aid over problems that don't exist.

The prudent course of action would be be invest in conservation.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #56 on: 27/05/2013 15:27:18 »
I dug this up on wikipedia: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

According to the table it has no significant effects until ~2% concentration in air.  The table comes from an article here:
http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/3861

To quote from the abstract of that article,
Quote
Inhaled carbon dioxide produces the same physiological effects as does carbon dioxide produced metabolically. These effects appear to result from the acidosis induced by carbon dioxide reaction with water, rather than by the CO2 molecule itself. Toxic effects of CO2 do occur when such high concentrations of CO2 are inhaled that severe and disruptive cellular acidosis occurs. This acidosis and its effects are alleviated by lowering the inhaled concentration of CO2.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #57 on: 27/05/2013 19:30:35 »
All this talk of concentrations is beside the point.
Henry said  "More CO2 is better."
It's not.

Incidentally, NASA is in a position to be sure that the people exposed are fit and healthy and also that they are only exposed for a relatively short time.
Using their figures as a potential "target" for atmospheric concentrations would condemn quite a lot of the elderly, the very young, and those with respiratory problems to death. Personally, I don't see that as acceptable morally or in terms of common sense. Killing (even some of) your own young isn't clever.

Also, you may wish to consider that the last time the earth's CO2 levels were regularly above 400 ppm the sea levels were (IIRC) about 5 to 40 m higher.
That wipes out a lot of cities.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4105
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #58 on: 28/05/2013 13:16:34 »
The rebreather accident video shows that as well as having O2 sensors, the rebreather computer should have CO2 sensors.
Then they could set off an alarm when the CO2 levels in the rebreather air get dangerously high.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #59 on: 28/05/2013 22:00:47 »
The rebreather accident video shows that as well as having O2 sensors, the rebreather computer should have CO2 sensors.
Then they could set off an alarm when the CO2 levels in the rebreather air get dangerously high.

In reality, yes: but in Henry's world. no. Because CO2 isn't toxic.
He says  "More CO2 is better."
I think he's wrong.
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #60 on: 30/05/2013 08:20:37 »
BC says

more greenery does not trap heat

henry@BC

deforestation causes cooling, see here

<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

and more greenery causes warming,
look at my results for Las Vegas and northern Namibia (big increase in greenery)

ergo

more carbondioxide promotes more greenery

hence

more carbon is OK!

« Last Edit: 30/05/2013 13:23:03 by peppercorn »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #61 on: 30/05/2013 09:57:07 »

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4rLRObEhC4I


(Ian Plimer, in England, gives a very nice summary about the carbon dioxide that everybody can understand)
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #62 on: 30/05/2013 13:54:40 »
(Ian Plimer, in England, gives a very nice summary about the carbon dioxide that everybody can understand)
...but is fraudulent.

"Plimer has become the go-to guy for Australian deniers and authored a book, Heaven + Earth, critical of climate science. Most of his objections consist of long refuted talking points about solar cycles and bad models. Ian G Entings's lengthy analysis of Plimer's book ran to an impressive 64 pages of errors, misrepresentations and other such fudges. Impressively, the book misrepresents the content of cited sources 43 times, the nature of recreated graphs twice and recorded data at least 10 times.
However, he did come up with an original talking point that has become popular in denialist circles: Underwater volcanoes. Plimer argues that volcanic activity releases more CO2 than all of humanity combined. This was quickly refuted by actual climate scientists who noted that humans released over 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Like any good crank, Plimer has continued to put forth these debunked arguments over and over. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

And,
Plimer is a director of seven mining companies
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #63 on: 30/05/2013 15:07:40 »
henry@peppercorn

Perhaps I should inform you that an attack on the person (ad hominem) instead of anything in particular that he said (in the video) shows your poor character.
 

Post by MoreCarbonOK click to view.

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #64 on: 30/05/2013 15:14:28 »
Shrunk
pepper corn (?) says
<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

henry says
ehh, ehh, scratch my head,
this is an observation from data, rather supported by data, i.e. supported rethoric,
that shows that in the south of Argentine, where they hacked all the trees away,
the difference between maxima and minima is increasing,
whereas in other places that saw large increases in greenery the difference between maxima and minima  is decreasing.
please put that link back?
this is daft.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #65 on: 30/05/2013 16:25:18 »
MoreCarbonOK

You have received your last warning (twice) stop linking to your blog and stop moaning about it when you are pinged by the moderators. 

I have shrunk your last post.  There is plenty of peer-reviewed and well-sourced data out there - give links to that, not to your blog.

For your guidance - critiquing the motivation and expertise of person put forward as an expert is not technically an ad hominem.  An ad hominem argument is fallacious due to unsaid proposition that the personality/nature/characteristics of this person, unrelated to the matter at hand, causes his or her argument to be incorrect. 

Peppercorn is advising the membership of the site that the supposed expert has been found to have misrepresented the facts about climate change in the past, has a personal motivation for dissembling in this area, and thus might not be a fair advocate to explain the science; it is a subtle but important difference. 

On the other hand "shows your poor character" - is an insult.  Stop it. 
« Last Edit: 30/05/2013 16:37:45 by imatfaal »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #66 on: 30/05/2013 19:21:23 »
BC says

more greenery does not trap heat

henry@BC

deforestation causes cooling, see here

<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

and more greenery causes warming,
look at my results for Las Vegas and northern Namibia (big increase in greenery)

ergo

more carbondioxide promotes more greenery

hence

more carbon is OK!


Citing your own blog doesn't tell us anything.
Please explain how the process of evaporating water (as done on a big scale by plants) doesn't cool the surroundings.
Alternatively, accept that it does.
 

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 756
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #67 on: 31/05/2013 00:45:53 »
Henry, it might interest you to know that Plimer's previous target was literal interpretations of the Old Testament. His life was made a misery by pious defenders of a young earth taking out legal actions against him, but then he was rather waving a red flag in front of a bull when he took out his own legal action -- forget what exactly it was but something to do with Noah's flood and being "misled" by their claims.
Plimer is an Aussie.
***
(so much for the "ad hominem")
***

I have not listened to the whole of Plimer's address/submission, but it is inappropriate for him to claim rapid CO2 change in the recent or remote geological past, because the present rate of increase -- 1.5 ppm/yr, or 100ppm in 150 yr (the increase has been roughly exponential)-- simply is beyond the resolution of any of the proxies. It could be true or false, there simply cannot be any evidence either way.

(later ...) OK I decided that that was a rather lazy post. Here is the full detail, which was easy to find on a google search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

« Last Edit: 31/05/2013 01:32:14 by damocles »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #68 on: 31/05/2013 06:55:16 »
Henry@BC
Plants extract energy from the sun via photosynthesis and use it to grow and live.  When ever we eat a vegetable we are using energy that a plant has got from photosynthesis.  The calories in things like starchy potatoes , like bread, and sweet sugary fruit come from photosynthesis.  Even when we eat meat we are getting energy from say beef or chicken or lamb - but the animals in turn got the energy from grass and grain - which originally got its energy from photosynthesis.  All the energy you will every use in your body will most likely (I cannot think of an exception) have come (maybe via long route) from the Sun via a plant and photosynthesis.

So, clearly, before we eat this energy, it is still there,
that is how the heat gets trapped?
It is not much though, according to Roempps, but a little bit.

Anyway, my results clearly that show that heat is being trapped by advancing greenery by looking at the decreasing difference of Tmin - Tmax and there where the trees were hacked down you see the difference between Tmax and Tmin rising.

 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #69 on: 31/05/2013 07:00:08 »
Sorry, Damocles,
I stop here again with this subject
after one of my comments here has been removed
we cannot have an open discussion here
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #70 on: 31/05/2013 12:20:02 »
The comment which was shrunk was a entirely unwarranted complaint against moderation.  You have been told ad nauseam that links to your blog are both unacceptable as evidence and contrary to our forum acceptable usage policy.   You continue to link to your blog - these are deleted by staff.  When you complain on the forum about these deletions we will shrink your posts that moan. 

Please do not play the lone sane voice whose views are censored by the thought police - you have been given greater leeway and more chances than any previous member of this site.   The fact that you can still post after receiving multiple final-warnings shows the tolerance of the moderators and our desire to maintain a plurality of opinions and outlooks even in the face of personal insults.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #71 on: 31/05/2013 19:31:47 »
There is a reason for noticing the 400 ppm CO2 :)
A historic one.

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there. In fact, the last time CO2 levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic boasted forests instead of icy wastes. The land bridge connecting North America and South America had recently formed. The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher...

At present pace, the world could reach 450 ppm in a few short decades. The record notches up another 2 ppm per year at present pace. Human civilization developed and flourished in a geologic era that never saw CO2 concentrations above 300 ppm. We are in novel territory again and we show no signs of slowing to get our bearings, let alone stopping." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/

And you Carbon seem to take the denier discussion one step further here. From denying it to arguing that it will be 'good for you' :)

Wouldn't surprise me if there's a sponsor or two waiting in the bushes somewhere, but I'm not sure if it is us on TNS that should be the ones, paving that road, for you? Why not fight it out at that blog of yours instead?
« Last Edit: 31/05/2013 19:34:48 by yor_on »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #72 on: 01/06/2013 09:08:50 »
Henry@BC
Plants extract energy from the sun via photosynthesis and use it to grow and live.  When ever we eat a vegetable we are using energy that a plant has got from photosynthesis.  The calories in things like starchy potatoes , like bread, and sweet sugary fruit come from photosynthesis.  Even when we eat meat we are getting energy from say beef or chicken or lamb - but the animals in turn got the energy from grass and grain - which originally got its energy from photosynthesis.  All the energy you will every use in your body will most likely (I cannot think of an exception) have come (maybe via long route) from the Sun via a plant and photosynthesis.

So, clearly, before we eat this energy, it is still there,
that is how the heat gets trapped?
It is not much though, according to Roempps, but a little bit.

Anyway, my results clearly that show that heat is being trapped by advancing greenery by looking at the decreasing difference of Tmin - Tmax and there where the trees were hacked down you see the difference between Tmax and Tmin rising.


You are now arguing against yourself here.
Since the energy of the sun is converted into stored energy in the form of carbohydrates and such, that same energy isn't available to heat the surroundings so as we now both have shown, plants make the place cooler.

That's the thing with arguing against the laws of physics: you lose.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #73 on: 01/06/2013 14:45:24 »
By the way. I'm still surprised over the amount of 'hits' that Carbons musings procured? Soo many people reading if you check those 'hits' :) None interacting though, except us being at TNS before?
=

And yes, we've passed the point of no return as I see it. We have two immense fields of ice on earth, slowly starting to react to a global warming. As they do a lot of things will change, streams will change, winds will change, farming and your local weather too. People seems to think we will fix it anyway :) They also think that it doesn't really matter if we continue to spew out man-made CO2? As that is what we continue to do, each year. If we thought otherwise I would expect us to stop, but we don't.

I hope they are right.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/pliocene-snapshot.html
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 16:57:40 by yor_on »
 

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #74 on: 01/06/2013 17:50:11 »
Henry@inmatfaal

listen to me carefully as I am only going to tell you once
If you had read all my posts here you would realize that I am saying exactly as what Ian Plimer is saying in the video. So what do you have against me? I am making money out of this? How? Where?
I am just trying to educate you so that one day when we have to do terra forming some place in the universe, on another planet, we actually get it right.

You are what we call in Dutch a "snotkop"
A snotkop, as opposed to a slimkop (somebody who is clever in the head) ,
is somebody who thinks he is clever, but he lacks the experience...
We let such people sometimes make the mistakes that we made in the past,
(if it does not affect the corporation too much), just to teach him a lesson.
Me quoting from Roempss (tests!) rather than WIKI should already made you realize that I could probably be your father, and I will become a granddad soon...
So whatever I say, you treat me with respect.
I have no problem with you or anyone disagreeing with me, with whatever I say,
but you DO NOT DELETE anything I say

If you do not put it back you can just carry on listening to the complete nonsense like yor_on from the SS in the previous comment is trying to put across to you.
Have a great day!

« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 18:13:43 by MoreCarbonOK »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #74 on: 01/06/2013 17:50:11 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums