What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?

  • 245 Replies
  • 67659 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
For quite some time we've been getting close to 400ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2

They said on the Radio that it has finally hit that level.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts
[attachment=17728]

I've been missing fine detail long-term CO2 estimates over the past few million years.  They suggested this level had occurred about 2 million years ago. 

If we truly were at these levels 2 million years ago, it would have occurred around the time we were plunging into our current glacial/interglacial cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record


So, what does this all mean to humanity?
« Last Edit: 11/05/2013 16:16:47 by chris »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #1 on: 13/05/2013 15:54:43 »


Clifford,
are you a chemisdt?
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #2 on: 13/05/2013 19:06:50 »
"More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that."
No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #3 on: 13/05/2013 19:36:51 »
henry@bored chemist
they did tests in 1970 with rats
they upped the mixture to 60% CO2
but still had 20% oxygen
the rats would not die
(I have no pity on those rats)
Roempps
check it yourself/ @ Roempps
CO2 is not a poison
the fact that you live actually proves it


*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #4 on: 13/05/2013 19:44:07 »
Note we are only talking about 0.04%
not 60%
as mentioned in the previous comment

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #5 on: 13/05/2013 20:00:18 »
btw
the 400 ppm (parts per million) level has NOT been reached
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/13/premature-400-ppm-fail-a-bration/

*

Offline Mazurka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #6 on: 14/05/2013 12:39:55 »
There is no particular "meaning" to the 400ppm level other than as human beings we tend to like nice round numbers - hence the pseudo "science" of numerology. 400 ppm does not represent a “tipping point” or some other sort of point of no return, it is merely a symbolic milestone.

It is entirely true to say that life as we know it would not exist without the CO2 and the greenhouse effect.  However, it is facile(*) to suggest that more carbon in the atmosphere is unequivocally a good thing.  Changing weather and climate patterns are more likely to result in poor harvests rather than the enhanced ones some people anticipate due to higher CO2 levels because we are growing things in the “wrong” place.  These impacts may be compounded by impacts on populations of pollinator species and land use issues caused by the demands of a burgeoning global population.  I would accept that higher CO2 is good for life generally, but it is hard to see how it is good for Homo sapiens specifically.   

Whilst in the controlled conditions of a lab or commercial greenhouse, increased CO2 can significantly boost growth in some plants, the evidence in the real world does not support it, where, more often than not, other factors – such as soil fertility and water availability are the limiting factors to growth/ production. There are also species that respond to increasing temperatures by reducing growth (often to limit moisture loss). 

It is also expected, that increased energy in the atmosphere is likely to result in increasing numbers of extreme weather events – these can devastate production on a local/ regional scale. Good examples of this include the shortage of the right quality wheat for weetabix due to the poor summer in the UK last year http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-22248961 or the devastation of the Italian basil crop in 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5267796.stm  whilst, of course, any one weather event is impossible to (scientifically) link to increasing CO2, it is an increasingly reasonable connection to make. 

We are entering almost entirely uncharted territory climate wise.  This is because the paleo-historic temperature increases, whether resulting from Milankovitch cycles, or other mechanisms, appears to drive increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.  In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO2 will drive temperatures upwards.  The only occasion when there is clear evidence that this happened before is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum.  The PETM resulted in a mass extinction (and subsequent re-radiation) of foraminifera species (a kind of plankton) but also in the diversification of mammal species.   Unfortunately, the cause of the PETM is unclear, although there is a lot of academic interest in it.


* as is much of the assumption heavy analysis / group think posted on Anthony Watt’s site.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #7 on: 18/05/2013 13:55:00 »
Mazurka says
 In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO2 will drive temperatures upwards.

Henry says
huh?
You actually have the  results (from actual tests and measurements)  that I have been looking for?
Where are they?

I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. 

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.

I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.

 Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere. However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

<link to scientifically unsupported blog removed, in line with previous notifications by the mod. team>
« Last Edit: 18/05/2013 20:05:39 by peppercorn »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #8 on: 19/05/2013 17:37:59 »
henry@bored chemist
they did tests in 1970 with rats
they upped the mixture to 60% CO2
but still had 20% oxygen
the rats would not die
(I have no pity on those rats)
Roempps
check it yourself/ @ Roempps
CO2 is not a poison
the fact that you live actually proves it



And your assertion was that more is better. So, what about 100% CO2?
Also, at levels greater than a few % it is plainly toxic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia#Tolerance

Survival isn't the same as health.

Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #9 on: 19/05/2013 19:19:31 »
bored chemist says
Also, at levels greater than a few % it is plainly toxic.

henry says
who uses wiki for reference?
roempps suggests that maybe at a few % it becomes a bit uncomfortable, but never toxic.
everything at high concentration becomes toxic eventually, even sugar or salt.
Anyway, we are talking about a few hundredth of a %, not one or two %
it went from 0.03% to 0.04% in 100 years.
and the result was this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

the earth is getting greener

this is why they add it to greenhouses (1500 ppm)

so more carbon is OK!

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #10 on: 20/05/2013 00:24:51 »
No, as I understand it, the studies indeed show some increase in growth, but then the vegetation gets limited by other factors.

Meanwhile the higher temperatures reduce growth. In addition higher temperatures are going to increase desertification and similar issues.

While the biosphere can adapt in the very long run, the changes are happening much too quickly.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #11 on: 20/05/2013 01:04:11 »
from henry (moreCarbonOK):
Quote
Clifford,
are you a chemisdt?
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today. Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that.

Henry are you a chemist? Any (good) chemist knows that there must be a stoichiometric balance in an equation system like the one you have been quoting so frequently to justify your simplistic assumption.

If the equation that you are relying on to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2 as the result of increasing temperature, then the alkalinity of sea water would be rising in accordance with the increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact it has been falling. This is more in line with the conventional explanation of a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 in line with human activity, with approximately one third of the additional CO2 burden being taken up by the world's oceans. An analysis of the global sources and sinks of CO2 also matches the conventional explanation: CO2 is mostly generated over land, and much more over populated industrialized land, and is mostly absorbed in the oceans. The models now have a fine enough resolution to pick out specific areas of ocean, e.g. the Behring Strait, where CO2 is being released to the atmosphere. But they are more than compensated for by the overall effect of the oceans in absorbing CO2. (By the way this has been confirmed by direct measurement).
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline Mazurka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #12 on: 20/05/2013 10:03:56 »
Mazurka says
 In the current situation, the reverse is true - the consensus is that increasing CO2 will drive temperatures upwards.

Henry says
huh?
You actually have the  results (from actual tests and measurements)  that I have been looking for?
Where are they?

I was referring to the observed lag of CO2 levels behind temperatures through most of the quaternary. In other words other mechanisms were forcing the climate change observed -  this is likely to primarily be the Milankovitch cycles.  The one event where it appears temperature rise lags behind CO2 levels is the PETM. 

Quote
I first studied the mechanism by which AGW is supposed to work. I will spare you all the scientific details. I quickly figured that the proposed mechanism implies that more GHG would cause a delay in radiation being able to escape from earth, which then causes a delay in cooling, from earth to space, resulting in a warming effect. 

It followed naturally, that if more carbon dioxide (CO2)  or more water (H2O) or more other GHG’s were to be blamed for extra warming we should see minimum temperatures (minima) rising faster, pushing up the average temperature (means) on earth.
  Whilst I accept the logic of this, I disagree as it is an over simplification of an exceedingly complex system, that we (mankind) have an imperfect understanding of.

Quote
I subsequently took a sample of 47 weather stations, analysed all daily data, and determined the ratio of the speed in the increase of the maximum temperature (maxima), means and minima.

You will find that if we take the speed of warming over the longest period (i.e. from 1973/1974) for which we have very reliable records, we find the results of the speed of warming, maxima : means: minima

0.036 : 0.014 : 0.006 in degrees C/annum.

That is ca. 6:2:1. So it was maxima pushing up minima and means and not the other way around. Anyone can duplicate this experiment and check this trend in their own backyard or at the weather station nearest to you.
That does seem to be a very small data sample.  I vaugely recall an analysis on WUWT in realtion to the locations of weather stations that fell apart quite quickly after it was scrutinised
Quote
Having effectively found little or no real evidence of AGW in the temperature records, I did notice that anyone (like me) now querying the “certainty” of “climate change” being due mostly to AGW, are mocked or vilified in the media and the blogosphere.
It depends on where you look.  The group think/ confirmation bias seen at WUWT and similar blogs very much applauds "skeptic" coments/ polemic
Quote
However, it also appeared to me that most people do not even understand the very basics of the chemistry involved. Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today.
Whilst I hesitate from making what could be seen as an Ad hominem comment, thus confirming your perception that self claimed climate skeptics are attacked in the blogosphere, I think this statement illustrates the problem.  It is partially true.  It is a contributory factor as to why mankind is alive today not the "actual reason" why we are here today.  There was plenty of CO2  in the atmosphere before the Oxygenation event 1.8Ga...

Quote


Cause and effect, get it? There is a causal relationship. More warming naturally causes more CO2. Without warmth and carbon dioxide there would be nothing, really. To make that what we dearly want, i.e. more crops, more trees, lawns and animals and people, nature uses water and carbon dioxide and warmth, mostly.

<link to scientifically unsupported blog removed, in line with previous notifications by the mod. team>

Again, a facile generalisation, no one is disagreeing with the notion that warmth and CO2 are factors  essential to life as we know it.  I disagree that in reality "on the ground", that increased CO2 universally leads to more growth.  This is because other factors are important to life as well.  Furthermore, extremes of weather driven by climate change  can,  in a timescale as short as a few hours, destroy harvests of particular crops.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #13 on: 20/05/2013 12:40:54 »
wolfekeeper syas
No, as I understand it, the studies indeed show some increase in growth, but then the vegetation gets limited by other factors.

Henry says
The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and production within the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential component of photosynthesis (also called carbon assimilation). Photosynthesis is a chemical process that uses light energy to convert CO2 and water into sugars in green plants. These sugars are then used for growth within the plant, through respiration. The difference between the rate of photosynthesis and the rate of respiration is the basis for dry-matter accumulation (growth) in the plant. In greenhouse production the aim of all growers is to increase dry-matter content and economically optimize crop yield. CO2 increases productivity through improved plant growth and vigour. Some ways in which productivity is increased by CO2 include earlier flowering, higher fruit yields, reduced bud abortion in roses, improved stem strength and flower size. Growers should regard CO2 as a nutrient.

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

Carbon dioxide enters into the plant through the stomatal openings by the process of diffusion. Stomata are specialized cells located mainly on the underside of the leaves in the epidermal layer. The cells open and close allowing gas exchange to occur. The concentration of CO2 outside the leaf strongly influences the rate of CO2 uptake by the plant. The higher the CO2 concentration outside the leaf, the greater the uptake of CO2 by the plant. Light levels, leaf and ambient air temperatures, relative humidity, water stress and the CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentration in the air and the leaf, are many of the key factors that determine the opening and closing of the stomata.

Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.
etc. read it here:

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

did you notice that life was really lucky to have developed at all with so little CO2 in the air? 180 is the lower limit. Below that, life will not exist.
Everything we eat and drink (except water) depends on CO2
Anyone wanting less of water and CO2 must be daft.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #14 on: 20/05/2013 12:47:57 »
wolfekeeper says
Meanwhile the higher temperatures reduce growth. In addition higher temperatures are going to increase desertification and similar issues.

henry says
temperatures are not going up.
if you want to be technical: they have stayed unchanged for 16 years.
If you knew what I know, (by studying maximum temperatures in particular) you would realize that we have started cooling down since about the beginning of the new milennium.
This (cooling) will cause drought, at the higher latitudes, not the lower latitudes.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #15 on: 20/05/2013 12:54:43 »
Wolfekeeper says
While the biosphere can adapt in the very long run, the changes are happening much too quickly.

henry says
60% of the CO2 that we put up in the air has simply gone "missing"
where do you think it has disappeared into?
(7 billion people wanting more plants, more lawns, more trees, and more food in their stomachs, perhaps?)

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #16 on: 20/05/2013 15:27:14 »
Tell you what, why don't you read the peer-reviewed papers on these subjects, and find out what the truth is rather than hanging out on echo-chamber websites?

I know it's dangerous, for example you might learn something, rather than simply having 'an opinion'; everyone has an opinion, but I personally respect people that have experimental data directly backing up their opinion.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #17 on: 20/05/2013 16:58:35 »
wolfekeeper says
rather than simply having 'an opinion'; everyone has an opinion, but I personally respect people that have experimental data directly backing up their opinion.

henry says
I did my own investigations, and very thorough at that, if I may say so myself...

but Imatfaal says

This is a clear warning - one more link to your blog will lead to your suspension. 

imatfaal - moderator

Clearly, this is a catch 21 situation?

You must speak to him, not to me?

try google
climate change henryp
and see if you can find my results...

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #18 on: 20/05/2013 17:08:22 »
Sorry, but I don't believe you've done a proper sceptical analysis of the sources. People that have done a proper analysis don't come to the conclusions you have.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #19 on: 20/05/2013 19:10:50 »
henry@wolfekeeper
That was a very scientific argument. Thx. for the insult. God bless you for that!
You go with the 97% and..
I go ..ehh.. with myself....
Meanwhile, in another country, we are only 1.5 hours away from the record (cold) in Alaska
and the ice that is NOT melting...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47872.msg411911#new

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #20 on: 20/05/2013 19:25:52 »
That's weather, not climate, and it's local weather; we already covered that.

You're clearly not listening to us, as well as not reading the research.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #21 on: 20/05/2013 20:29:05 »



this is why they add it to greenhouses (1500 ppm)

so more carbon is OK!
More carbon is OK if you are a vegetable.
In particular, if you are a plant which is being looked after in all other respects- most notably the supply of water and other requirements (N, P, K etc).

But, obviously, most wild plants and even crops are not. (Especially in the developing world).
For them , the limiting factor is likely to be water.
And messing with the thermodynamics of the atmosphere means that the rain falls in different places to where it used to.
But the plants can't get up and walk to where the rain is- so they die.

So more CO2 isn't a good thing.
Perhaps you should breathe some until you can come to your own independent view, rather than trusting wiki (or even this).
http://www.bmj.com/content/2/5103/1012
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #22 on: 21/05/2013 01:26:42 »
As far as CO2 poisoning.  At high levels, carbon dioxide is routinely used as a euthanasia agent.

However, it is likely that humans and most animals would be able to adapt to a slow increase of CO2 over hundreds, or thousands of years.  Certainly significant toxicity wouldn't be reached at levels less than 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm).

That is, except perhaps for crustaceans.  But even the crustaceans have likely evolved during times of relatively high CO2 levels.  One of the problems with the crustaceans is that we are adding the CO2 to the surface of the ocean faster than it can diffuse through the entire ocean.

Plants are divided into C3 plants (many of our grains, wheat, barley, most trees, etc) and C4 plants (corn, sugarcane).  The C4 plants likely are experiencing close to their peak growth rate at current CO2 levels.  Adding more CO2 won't help them significantly.  The C3 plants, on the other hand, will likely experience some increased growth based on the increased CO2 levels, but as BC mentioned, it will also depend on heat, water, other nutrients, and other factors.

Earth has experienced many climate changes in the past, and not everything died off.  But, it may take some time to adapt, and some people believe that the speed at which the climate is currently changing is faster than has happened in the past.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #23 on: 21/05/2013 07:21:46 »
henry@clifford & bored chemist.
I looked again at the books.
In the case of rabbits, they found that the animals would not die if they went to 65%, as long as they kept O2 up at normal 21%. On these results I quote from roempps: (translated from german)
"The conclusion from this (i.e. the results as mentioned above) is that as such we can hardly regard CO2 as a poison. This is further proven by the fact that we consume CO2 in large quantities in our bodies with carbonated cooldrinks, without any disadvantage, and that in the human BODY (not plants only!!) CO2 circles around in the blood at comparative high levels (50-60 vol. % in venoesen? blood) of which we daily breath out about 700 grams. Human can breath for hours in 2.5% CO2 without any damage.
end quote; ()& ? is my comment

Anyways, like I said, we are talking about 0.01% added in 100 yrs, not  1 or 2 % or 65%. And I hope you understand that 0.02% is not enough for life.
Even salt and sugar are poisonous if the concentration is high enough....
Danger does exist from CO2 sources, especially natural sources,  because, among other things, we must not forget that it is heavier than air and therefore we can die of asphyxiation (lack of oxygen) rather than CO2 poisoning.

Climate is changing because we are naturally cycling back to cooler times.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47872.msg411911#new
The models predicted that the arctic would warm,
but I showed you that the models are wrong, anyway.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #24 on: 21/05/2013 10:38:37 »
OK then Henry, let us consider the reaction

HCO3(-) + heat ==> CO2 (g) + OH(-)

CO2 (g)  delta H°f = –314 kJ/mol   S° =  213.6 J/mol/K   delta G°f   –315 kJ/mol
HCO3(-)(aq)  delta H°f = –691.99 kJ/mol  S° =  91.2 J/mol/K  delta G°f  = –586.77 kJ/mol
OH(-)(aq)  delta H°f = –230 kJ/mol  S° = –10.75 J/mol/K  delta G°f = –157.24 kJ/mol

reaction  delta H° = 148 kJ/mol  delta S° = 111.65 J/mol/K   delta G° = 114.5 kJ/mol

These figures are taken from standard values at 25°C, so at 15°C  delta G° = 115.7 kJ/mol

how did I arrive at this figure? You will need to put aside your favoured websites and read a bit of genuine chemical thermodynamics!

The equilibrium constant Kp is then given by p(CO2) * a(OH–]/a[HCO3–] = exp (– delta G°rxn /R /T)

Substituting in for a(OH–) and a(HCO3–) gives us

p(CO2) * 7E–7 / 5.E-3 = exp ( –115.7 / 8.314 / 0.288 )

leading to p(CO2) = 5.E-3 * 1.E-21 / 7.E-7 = 7.E-18

Still with me? Good! But what does it mean?

What it means is that sea water, on average, has the capacity to take in more carbon dioxide. Far from being released, this treatment shows that, on the whole, an increase in temperature does not release more carbon dioxide, but that carbon dioxide is continually being slowly taken up by the ocean. The equilibrium partial pressure of carbon dioxide is 7.E-18 atm, and the actual partial pressure of carbon dioxide is around 3.9E-4 atm

In order to participate properly in a scientific debate, you need to be particularly well read in the subject matter, you need to have done some original research and submitted it for peer review, and you need to listen to and carefully consider the reviewers' criticisms. If the journal editor refuses to submit your material for peer review that is usually a sign that your work is fairly obviously flawed. The alternative conspiracy theory is not really a goer, especially if you submit your work to a forum like this and find that it is not favourably received here either.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #25 on: 21/05/2013 14:29:17 »
Henry@Damocles
your calculations are as much putting the horse behind the carriage as the IPCC's

You must always first observe before you "calculate"
What is expressed in my equation is that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the warm periods, it does not cause warming,  I will give you many verifiable references that all seem to agree that CO2 lags by about 600-1000 years, e.g.

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/



Here is a quote from CO2science.org :

For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica — which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration — the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.
This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote — in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim — that “changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987).” Hence, he concluded that “changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988).”

How has our understanding of this issue progressed in the interim? Our website provides several updates.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years” and that “the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.” Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions.”

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what’s the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon — specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue “can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change” — in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that “the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”

This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., “confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation.” Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 — which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world’s oceans — serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.

In consequence of these several observations, the role of CO2 as a primary driver of climate change on earth would appear to be going, going, gone; while the CO2 warming amplification hypothesis rings mighty hollow.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
References
Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.

Idso, S.B. 1982. Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Idso, S.B. 1988. Carbon dioxide and climate in the Vostok ice core. Atmospheric Environment 22: 2341-2342.

Idso, S.B. 1989. Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition. IBR Press, Tempe, AZ.

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

I hope this helps to explain things for you.

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #26 on: 21/05/2013 16:28:53 »
You're quoting from CO2Science.org, who say with regards their funding:

Nevertheless, questions about funding persist, and they are clearly of great interest to many people, as evidenced by the spate of publicity aroused by the 4 Sep 2006 letter of Bob Ward (Senior Manager for Policy Communication of the UK's Royal Society) to Nick Thomas (Esso UK Limited's Director of Corporate Affairs), as well his criticism of us in his BBC Today Programe interview of 21 Sep 2006 with Sarah Montague, where he pointedly described our Center as being one of the organizations funded by ExxonMobil that "misrepresent the science of climate change."

That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past; they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue.


Uh huh. No chance of this being selectively quoted then from the literature, I'm sure that's full and balanced. Oh. Wait.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #27 on: 21/05/2013 16:35:03 »
From MoreCarbonOK:
Quote
your calculations are as much putting the horse behind the carriage as the IPCC's
I do not believe that I am, and the scientific jury certainly does not believe that the IPCC is

Quote
You must always first observe before you "calculate"
Yes, certainly, but I have observed carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans, and my calculation only serves to show how ridiculous your use of that equation is in this context.

Quote
What is expressed in my equation is that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere follows the warm periods, it does not cause warming
No, your use of that particular equation does not show that at all. (Actually, all that it really shows is how shallow your understanding of the subject is). Certainly it has been the case throughout the ice ages and interglacial periods that CO2 has followed behind temperature rises. It has been generally a bistable system with a level around 200 ppm in the ice ages rising to around 280 ppm in the interglacials. But what has happened in the last 150 years is that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 396 ppm. This has not been preceded by any temperature rise, is a remarkably short period on the time scale of the geological processes that have led to switching between the two attractors, and is easily accounted for by humanity's use of fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.

Quote
I will give you many verifiable references that all seem to agree that CO2 lags by about 600-1000 years, e.g. ...

But I am not disputing this, and nor, if you read the report carefully, is the IPCC.

Quote
Here is a quote from CO2science.org :

A pity you had to use this deniers' webpage as the basis of your lengthy quote, although it does contain many good (if irrelevant) references.

Quote
I hope this helps to explain things for you.

well, no it does not, because all of this looking into the past is quite irrelevant to a new phenomenon brought about by the industrial revolution, and humanity's profligate consumption of fossil fuel reserves.

We have moved from a situation where a bistable system with attractors around 200 and 280 ppm has operated for at least a million years (and where CO2 levels have lagged behind temperature) into an unstable system where the level is 396 ppm and rising fast over a timespan of a mere 150 years
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #28 on: 21/05/2013 16:53:14 »
CO2Science.org says:

"our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there, which we have been doing and subsequently writing about on our website on a weekly basis without a single break since 15 Jul 2000, and twice-monthly before that since 15 Sep 1998 ... and no one could pay my sons and me enough money to do that."

Which is very high minded, although Wikipedia lists their yearly funding at $1,001,003 so I fail to see how that really works in practice. They've been paid a million dollars to write on their website once a week?

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #29 on: 21/05/2013 17:45:54 »
henry@damocles

Going by the various graphs from Joanna, for example, the Medeviel WP was about 0.4 or 0.5 warmer than 1950 but we were almost equal now, I think, in the modern warm period, before turning down now, to cooling.
I personally believe the Medieval WP was slightly warmer than the Modern WP due to the people in the middle ages in Holland being convinced that a north west passage had existed(remember Willem Barentz?).
This was also the time when large parts of Greenland were habitable and the Vikings prospered.There was a quick way via the north to get to America.

So your whole argument there falls a bit in the water.
There is no evidence for AGW in my tables (to which I cannot provide a link, because of Imatfaal). Other people have confirmed it too, by looking at various parameters that affect the GH effect.
e.g.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/an-analysis-of-night-time-cooling-based-on-ncdc-station-record-data

sorry if you have built your whole life around the 0.01% CO2
there is no AGW

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #30 on: 21/05/2013 17:58:48 »


Yup, nothing to be worried about there; the people being paid $1 million dollars a year by petroleum companies just to run a website to simply deny there's anything going on are likely right.

Funny how the upswing coincides with injecting trillions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, but what possible link could there really be?

Oh wait.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #31 on: 21/05/2013 21:21:07 »
"On these results I quote from roempps"
Who or what is that?
Did you not realise that you need to explain "references" like that?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #32 on: 22/05/2013 06:19:44 »
henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #33 on: 22/05/2013 06:38:15 »
henry@wolfekeeper

The graph you referred to is the graph where they made the MWP almost go away
but if you look carefully you will see the peak at around 1000, larger than the ModernWP
(look at the graph on the bottom)

don't forget that there has been a large increase in accuracy of thermometers and temp. recording which also may explain some "warming" late 20th century.

the latest results here confirm my own results:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/monckton_hadcrut4_98month_graphic.png

We already dropped by about -0.1 degree C since 2002 (= one whole solar cycle)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/to:2014

and according to my own tables we will drop by as much as the maxima are dropping now, accelerating to a bit more than -0.9 degree K per century.
By 2040 we will be back to where we were in in 1950, more or less. The global cooling will not stop until 2039, at least, and then there is some lag after that.



« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 06:49:44 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #34 on: 22/05/2013 15:45:51 »
If you look at the graph the temperature went down by about 0.2 between 1940 and 1960 or so, but the underlying trend was the same as it is now; if the temperature is more or less the same over the last ten years, it means absolutely nothing at all; we get natural variations of that order, but we've never seen a fast rise like the one we've been in since 1900, not in 2000 years. Since 1900 the temperature has gone up by a whole degree, and the CO2 is higher than it's been in millions of years, and we've been injecting huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the biosphere.

Note that the rise was predicted before the measurement, and at some points the experimental actually pointed away from global warming, but as measurements have improved, the signal has come ever more clearly out of the noise; this is the opposite of what happens with pseudoscience. Indeed the case for there not being global warming is becoming ever weaker, to the point where 97% of scientists are pretty sure it's happening, and that it's caused by humans. This is not just the thermometers reading better; the scientists have put in careful adjustments to the raw data to allow for that kind of thing, and the results have been calibrated against things like satellite temperature readings to check that that's been done correctly.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #35 on: 22/05/2013 18:53:02 »
Henry@wolfekeeper

we have seen in my posts that the increase in CO2 from 0.03% 0.04% has caused a change in the biosphere:it has started booming. That is why we started adding CO2 in real greenhouses: you want big fruit & vegetable.

What is the logical consequence of this increase of the greening of earth?
What I have noted from my analyses of weather stations from all over the world is that where the change
in vegetation was dramatic, like in Las Vegas, which changed from a desert into a green paradise, in a relative short period of time, some heat gets trapped. Exactly the opposite happened in Tandil (ARG), where deforestation was noted. (If you want to see my tables, ask Imatfaal to approve links to my blog)
In the end, what I concluded from my tables is that
earth is warmed by
1) the sun, mostly
2) by itself (volcanic, core, lunar etc.), a little
3) by the increase in vegetation, a very little bit, due to entrapment of heat

Seeing that I also could see from my tables that the sun is going to take a nap (a figure of speech) I decided that more CO2 and more vegetation is good, to help us against the common (coming) cold....

Follow the results on my blog and you will begin to realize that we are only 6 or 7 years away from the droughts that became known in history as the Dust Bowl droughts 1932-1939 (USA). I think we will not be able to stop that from re-occurring.

Do you understand me now?

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #36 on: 22/05/2013 18:59:41 »
I understand that you're making new claims about the environment, that this particular effect, which is probably to some degree real, overwhelms all the other effects of raised CO2, many of which are negative, many of which are positive, as well as the effects of the high rate of increase of CO2, which are mostly only negative.

If you claim to know more than 97% of scientists, write it up and submit it to a proper scientific journal. That's how science works.

In the meantime the overall scientific evidence that is in the published record does not seem to agree with you.
« Last Edit: 22/05/2013 19:01:45 by wolfekeeper »

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #37 on: 22/05/2013 19:17:58 »
Henry@wolfekeeper
Climate science is my hobby. No interest in the glory. But I challenge you and anybody to repeat my analyses.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #38 on: 22/05/2013 19:50:25 »
henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.

Not all European chemists speak German.
Even Google doesn't recognise it.
Did you mean "Rompp Chemie Lexikon"
(It's a bit useless unless you have log-on credentials and read German)
and, if I am looking for information about human health I will look at the journals that cover that field, like the BMJ, rather than one that specialises in chemistry.

In the meantime, it's good to know that these people didn't really die.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083623/Two-French-wine-makers-suffocated-carbon-dioxide-fumes-grapes-treading.html
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #39 on: 22/05/2013 19:59:55 »
henry@bored chemist

suffocated = lack of oxygen

I told you to be careful with CO2

it is not poisonous

but it is heavy....


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #40 on: 22/05/2013 20:55:10 »

It's fairly strongly acidic, It's enough to mess up blood chemistry at concentrations well below those which cause suffocation.
And the thing about drinking carbonated drinks is a red herring too.
The stomach puts up with quite a high concentration of HCl,
but it's bad news to breathe it.
(not to mention the fact that much of the CO2 in cola is burped out)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #41 on: 22/05/2013 23:43:54 »
From Bored chemist:
Quote
Quote from: MoreCarbonOK on Today at 05:19:44
henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.


Not all European chemists speak German.
Even Google doesn't recognise it.
Did you mean "Rompp Chemie Lexikon"
(It's a bit useless unless you have log-on credentials and read German)
and, if I am looking for information about human health I will look at the journals that cover that field, like the BMJ, rather than one that specialises in chemistry.

In the meantime, it's good to know that these people didn't really die.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083623/Two-French-wine-makers-suffocated-carbon-dioxide-fumes-grapes-treading.html

Sorry BC, but I have to side with henry on the subject of CO2 toxicity.

• First there is the issue of Rompp/Roempp -- these are two alternative renderings of the German o with an umlaut. English does not have any accents over letters, so there are two alternative renderings of Schrodinger/Schroedinger, etc. However Roempps Chemie Lexicon is a printed volume dating from the 1970s (when I started my career as a chemistry researcher/teacher) and climate science has moved on a long way from then. But if henry is only quoting Roempps values for LD50 there would not be too much wrong with them.

• There is also the fact that most urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 1% CO2 most of the time. The fact that CO2 levels decrease from the source is in fact one of the main points that helps us to unravel the carbon cycle. It is also the reason why the readings for CO2 levels in places like Bulgaria are elevated, and should not be used as the basis of any argument that CO2 levels have exceeded 400 ppm many times in the recent past. There are certain "remote location" monitoring stations which are effectively controlled for CO2 levels: these include Mauna Loa (Hawaii), Cape Grim (NW Tasmania), Amundsen-Scott (South Pole), American Samoa, etc.

• It is also a fact that levels of 400 ppm have no toxic effects on humans. When we get to levels of 10% and above then we need to consider the possibility. At lower levels it is unlikely that there are any chronic effects of toxicity, and is there not some evidence that CO2 helps the breathing reflex?

• The French wine makers who were unfortunately killed almost certainly met their deaths as the result of "pooling". A gas that is heavier than air will accumulate under the influence of gravity while it remains unmixed into the air. Once mixed, it will not "unmix", but until it mixes in it can form pools in low lying areas or near strong sources, and exclude the oxygen.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #42 on: 23/05/2013 07:22:20 »
Thank you, Damocles, for coming to my help there. I appreciate. I rely on my Roempps more than Wiki, which I often find "adapted" and "controlled" to fit in with general opinion. It won't be long and we will be back to like it was in German Nazi time, with all information being controlled (by the anti-christ).

Did you perhaps catch my argument here:
Quote
we have seen in my posts that the increase in CO2 from 0.03% 0.04% has caused a change in the biosphere:it has started booming. That is why we started adding CO2 in real greenhouses: you want big fruit & vegetable.

What is the logical consequence of this increase of the greening of earth?
What I have noted from my analyses of weather stations from all over the world is that where the change
in vegetation was dramatic, like in Las Vegas, which changed from a desert into a green paradise, in a relative short period of time, some heat gets trapped. Exactly the opposite happened in Tandil (ARG), where deforestation was noted. (If you want to see my tables, ask Imatfaal to approve links to my blog)
In the end, what I concluded from my tables is that
earth is warmed by
1) the sun, mostly
2) by itself (volcanic, core, lunar etc.), a little
3) by the increase in vegetation, a very little bit, due to entrapment of heat

Seeing that I also could see from my tables that the sun is going to take a nap (a figure of speech) I decided that more CO2 and more vegetation is good, to help us against the common (coming) cold....

Follow the results on my blog and you will begin to realize that we are only 6 or 7 years away from the droughts that became known in history as the Dust Bowl droughts 1932-1939 (USA). I think we will not be able to stop that from re-occurring.

Do you understand me now?

You are probably going to argue that this does not prove that CO2 on its own also does not trap heat, so how can I be sure?
Well, I did investigate that matter, at the very first beginning when I started to look at this problem. Here in Pretoria we get a lot of inversion, during winter times. In winter, also, people start burning fossil fuels for heating. So in winter there is elevated CO2 in the air. What I did was checking the rate of the trend in warming in winter months and compared it to the rate of the trend in warming in the summer months (in Pretoria) from 1973 to present (2011, at that time). There was no difference. If anything, the reverse was true. It is a pity that I lost my own report on that, when they made changes to my blog, so I cannot give you a reference. However, I think we can repeat the statistical analysis.


« Last Edit: 23/05/2013 07:31:18 by MoreCarbonOK »

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #43 on: 23/05/2013 11:10:16 »
henry I am very much afraid that you are not listening nor reading carefully. You are also being very repetitive with your arguments. If you fail to convince people the first time you put a particular argument you are not likely to do anything other than annoy them by repeating it. I cannot really be bothered to point out all of your misconceptions, many of which would be eliminated if you were to read a bit of chemical thermodynamics, which I would hope would not be part of a conspiracy theory!

henry from reply #35 and repeated in reply #42
Quote
In the end, what I concluded from my tables is that
earth is warmed by
1) the sun, mostly
2) by itself (volcanic, core, lunar etc.), a little
3) by the increase in vegetation, a very little bit, due to entrapment of heat

If most of the Earth's warmth comes from the sun, then there is a very simple radiation balance equation that can be performed to calculate an equilibrium temperature at a planet whose distance from the sun is the same as the Earth's. The result is that the average temperature at the Earth's surface "should be" –20°C. In fact, fortunately for us, the average temperature is actually +15°C. Is something wrong with the model? Well, no, because we can observe the moon, which qualifies as a planet the same distance from the sun as the Earth, and we find an average temperature of –20°C.
The Earth's internal heat generation can account for at most about 1°C. (I have no idea what the third source of heat can be but I note that you say that it is even smaller than the geothermal contribution). So what is missing from the model? The greenhouse effect, which is around 90% due to water vapour and around 10% due to carbon dioxide. So if there is a natural greenhouse effect contributing around 35°C and human activity is putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there would at least be a prima facie expectation of an increasing temperature.

henry from reply #42:
Quote
I rely on my Roempps more than Wiki, which I often find "adapted" and "controlled" to fit in with general opinion.

damocles from reply #41:
Quote
However Roempps Chemie Lexicon is a printed volume dating from the 1970s (when I started my career as a chemistry researcher/teacher) and climate science has moved on a long way from then. But if henry is only quoting Roempps values for LD50 there would not be too much wrong with them.
The fact is that Roempps on anything to do with climate science is about 40 years behind the latest research, while wikipedia is right up with it.

henry from reply #1:
Quote
Any (good) chemist knows that there are giga tons and giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans and that (any type of) warming would cause it to be released:

HCO3- + heat => CO2 (g) + OH-.

This is the actual reason we are alive today.

Damocles in reply #41 pointed out that urban air typically contains rather more CO2 than remote location air. This indicates strong sources of CO2 in or near major cities rather than CO2 being emitted from the oceans (even if the latter were not clearly ludicrous for good reasons of chemical thermodynamics).

And finally henry tried to use figures from 2 stations in Eastern Europe that were not in the network of remote location stations to indicate that CO2 levels had exceeded 400 ppm in the recent past -- undoubtedly they had indeed indicated this, but that is only because they were close to sources, and the daily readings would depend on which way the wind was blowing.
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #44 on: 23/05/2013 15:34:33 »
henry@damocles

You are not good at providing actual (measured) results (from tests) that prove your position, like I do. No word on my results here on Pretoria where elevated CO2 during winter does not cause any change in the difference of Tmax- Tmin compared to summer months. It is you who keeps on referring to calculations that are based on misconceptions. For example, we know that at TOA the TSI is reasonably constant but incoming at sea level is what varies. In this respect, Trenberth simply forgot that besides ozone, the E-UV from the sun also produces peroxides and nitric oxides that also back radiate. The oceans (SH, mostly) then get less F-UV. Incoming UV is immediately transferred to heat, due to the strong absorptivity of water in the UV.
If you go back to that solar spectrum that I showed you, and to Trenberth's papers,  you can see that the peroxides and nitric oxides are not mentioned.
So, on 1) there is a large unknown factor, also known as Trenberth's missing energy. I think I found it. My results suggest that earth is most likely on an 88 year A-C wave, the so-called Gleissberg solar/weather cycle, with ca. 44 years of warming followed by 44 years of cooling.
On 2) you have no specific values because nobody has
On 3) we can say from the results that (more) vegetation does trap some (extra) heat, but it won't be such a lot. Rompps does report some values for this in 1974, (sonnenenergie) and it is not so much. Either way, it is not up to date. I could not find any other up to date values. Note that there has been a big increase in greenery over the past 40 years.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #45 on: 23/05/2013 20:05:09 »
From Bored chemist:
Quote
Quote from: MoreCarbonOK on Today at 05:19:44
henry@bored chemist

sorry
I thought all European chemists knew what I meant
it is Roempps Chemie Lexicon,
(Germany)
it has all the chemical properties of any known substance.


Not all European chemists speak German.
Even Google doesn't recognise it.
Did you mean "Rompp Chemie Lexikon"
(It's a bit useless unless you have log-on credentials and read German)
and, if I am looking for information about human health I will look at the journals that cover that field, like the BMJ, rather than one that specialises in chemistry.

In the meantime, it's good to know that these people didn't really die.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083623/Two-French-wine-makers-suffocated-carbon-dioxide-fumes-grapes-treading.html

Sorry BC, but I have to side with henry on the subject of CO2 toxicity.



• There is also the fact that most urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 1% CO2 most of the time. The fact that CO2 levels decrease from the source is in fact one of the main points that helps us to unravel the carbon cycle. It is also the reason why the readings for CO2 levels in places like Bulgaria are elevated, and should not be used as the basis of any argument that CO2 levels have exceeded 400 ppm many times in the recent past. There are certain "remote location" monitoring stations which are effectively controlled for CO2 levels: these include Mauna Loa (Hawaii), Cape Grim (NW Tasmania), Amundsen-Scott (South Pole), American Samoa, etc.

• It is also a fact that levels of 400 ppm have no toxic effects on humans.


.
Where are these urban dwellers who get 1% CO2?
The levels I have seen are about 500 ppm at the most.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ad_hoc/12755100FullTextPublicationspdf/Publications/sookim/ElevatedAtmosphericCO2ConcentrationandTemperatureAcrossanUrbanRuralTransect.pdf

http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=geosciences_theses

(Page 31 to save you time.)
LD50 is about lethality.
Do you understand that things can cause toxicity at levels that don't kill half the population?
And, since nobody said that 400 ppm would kill (or harm) anyone, it's a red herring.

And I still maintain that a book that most people can't read isn't the best thing to cite.
(BTW, how old are the data)
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #46 on: 23/05/2013 22:36:47 »
Quote
Where are these urban dwellers who get 1% CO2?
Indoors, mostly.
From wikipedia article on indoor air quality
Quote
Carbon dioxide
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. ASHRAE recommends that carbon dioxide levels not exceed 700 ppm above outdoor ambient levels.[17] The UK standards for schools say that carbon dioxide in all teaching and learning spaces, when measured at seated head height and averaged over the whole day should not exceed 1,500 ppm. The whole day refers to normal school hours (i.e. 9.00am to 3.30pm) and includes unoccupied periods such as lunch breaks. European standards limit carbon dioxide to 3500 ppm. OSHA limits carbon dioxide concentration in the workplace to 5,000 ppm for prolonged periods, and 35,000 ppm for 15 minutes.

Quote
LD50 is about lethality.
Do you understand that things can cause toxicity at levels that don't kill half the population?
Yes

Quote
And, since nobody said that 400 ppm would kill (or harm) anyone, it's a red herring.
umm ... Is it not a red herring that you dragged in?

Quote
And I still maintain that a book that most people can't read isn't the best thing to cite.
Agreed. It is a comfortable reference for henry though, because it dates from a time when we had a much poorer understanding of climate science, and the issue of global warming had not been recognized.
Quote
(BTW, how old are the data)
As far as most of the content of the reference is concerned, 40 years plus. As far as LD50 is concerned, anything up to 100 years. But that is not really important because an old measurement of LD50 is likely to be just as reliable as a recent measurement.
« Last Edit: 23/05/2013 22:55:44 by damocles »
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline damocles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 756
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #47 on: 25/05/2013 02:32:46 »
I said:
Quote
Quote
And, since nobody said that 400 ppm would kill (or harm) anyone, it's a red herring.
umm ... Is it not a red herring that you dragged in?

 My apologies, BC. On re-reading carefully through the thread I find that in fact it was henry who introduced the red herring.

bored chemist says
Also, at levels greater than a few % it is plainly toxic.

henry says
who uses wiki for reference?
roempps suggests that maybe at a few % it becomes a bit uncomfortable, but never toxic.
everything at high concentration becomes toxic eventually, even sugar or salt.
Anyway, we are talking about a few hundredth of a %, not one or two %
...{snip}...
1 4 6 4 1
4 4 9 4 4     
a perfect perfect square square
6 9 6 9 6
4 4 9 4 4
1 4 6 4 1

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #48 on: 25/05/2013 08:56:14 »
To summarize, we do not know that (more) CO2 causes (more) warming. If it does, probably only very indirectly so, by causing the biosphere to boom. Namely if you look at my tables at Las Vegas, that used to be a desert, you will see the difference Tmax – Tmin decreasing whereas in Tandil (ARG) where they hacked all the trees down, you see Tmax – Tmin rising.
From the beginning I figured that we must rather look at the average change from the average in a specific period of time at a certain place (weather station). To do that you need linear regression.So all of the (black) figures you are looking at in my tables, are the result of a linear regression.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[link to my tables has been removed to please Imatfaal}

My sample of weather stations was balanced by latitude and 70/30 sea/land. I looked at average yearly temps. so that the influence of longitude is cancelled out.
How do I know my tables are right? First of all, if you look at the table for means, you will see that we warmed by about 0.013 or 0.014 degrees C/annum over the past 32 years. A similar result is reported by Spencer and he looked at data from the satellites. Others also reported the same result. So we warmed by about 0.4 K over the past 32 years, on average.
This warming is an average, taking over time. Obviously the speed of warming in each year is different. This is best seen in my first table, on the bottom, where we can see a gradual drop in maximum temperatures that seemed to follow a binomial distribution. In the end, I decided it must be an A-C wave. I hope it is, because if it is not, I am not sure where we will end up.
So, don’t tell me statistics does not work. It works!! And it tells everything you want to know. I am stunned that nobody has yet been able to reproduce my results.They are all just lazy, or they rather do not want to know what the figures are telling us.
[The average temperature data from the stations were obtained from http://www.tutiempo.net.
I tried to avoid stations with many missing data. Nevertheless, it is very difficult finding weather stations that have no missing data at all. If a month’s data was found missing or if I found that the average for a month was based on less than 15 days of that month’s data, I looked at the average temperatures of that month of the preceding- and following year, averaged these, and in this way estimated the temperatures of that particular month’s missing data]
Based on my results, we can see that by 2040 we will be back to where we were in 1950, more or less.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8736
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #49 on: 25/05/2013 15:29:19 »
OK, The original assertion from Henry was
 "Wake up out of your dream worlds. More CO2 is better. I hope you at least agree with me on that."
Now whether you think CO2 is only a problem at 65% (according to some rats) and above or about 0.5% (according to OSHA)
or above 300 ppm according to the environment, the point is that more that that cut off (whichever one you choose) is a bad thing so .
Henry's original assertion is wrong above 65%, wrong  above 0.5% or wrong above 300 ppm.
The only question is not if it's wrong, but just how wrong it is.

There is also a ridiculous level of difference between saying that
"most urban dwellers are breathing air containing up to 1% CO2 most of the time."
(1% is 10,000 ppm) and reality saying "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. ASHRAE recommends that carbon dioxide levels not exceed 700 ppm above outdoor ambient levels.[17] The UK standards for schools say that carbon dioxide in all teaching and learning spaces, when measured at seated head height and averaged over the whole day should not exceed 1,500 ppm. The whole day refers to normal school hours (i.e. 9.00am to 3.30pm) and includes unoccupied periods such as lunch breaks. European standards limit carbon dioxide to 3500 ppm. OSHA limits carbon dioxide concentration in the workplace to 5,000 ppm for prolonged periods, and 35,000 ppm for 15 minutes."

Do the maths- only one of those figures is over 1% and they say that a level like that should only be tolerated for 15 mins or less.

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 in the trivial sense that 500 ppm is "up to 1%" because it's massively less than 1%.

"Carbon dioxide at levels that are unusually high indoors may cause occupants to grow drowsy, get headaches, or function at lower activity levels. "
Is a statement of the toxic effects of CO2 so can we stop pretending that it's not toxic?

Please disregard all previous signatures.