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

  • 245 Replies
  • 68273 Views

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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 »
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 #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
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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.
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 #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 »
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 CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • 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
  • ******
  • 3366
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 4317
    • 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
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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.
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 #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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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
  • ****
  • 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.

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #64 on: 30/05/2013 15:14:28 »
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
  • ******
  • 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 »
Thereís no sense in being precise when you donít even know what youíre talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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.
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 #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 »
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 #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
  • ****
  • 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
  • ******
  • 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.
Thereís no sense in being precise when you donít even know what youíre talking about.  John Von Neumann

At the surface, we may appear as intellects, helpful people, friendly staff or protectors of the interwebs. Deep down inside, we're all trolls. CaptainPanic @ sf.n

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 globeís 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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • 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.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 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 »

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #75 on: 01/06/2013 18:16:23 »
Henry@inmatfaal

listen to me carefully as I am only going to tell you once.

O' ho ho! Chance would be a fine thing if you only 'told' any of us anything once. Sadly, the reality is you return time and again to spout more of the same unsubstantiated* nonsense that is then repeatedly challenged, dissected and disproven by long-suffering educated members here.

In your 'universe' respect may be a factor of age, or 'experience' (so-called), but on this forum all that is respected is good science.  And you have been shown lacking heartily in that area.

* - NB. here we mean scientifically unsubstantiated.

And I don't think you will do what remains of you arguments any good by stating that you are 'agreeing with Ian Plimer' - as he has previously been shown to be a charlatan by a number of well respected sceptical commentators, ie. science journalists and academics.

The moderators' job is to enforce both the guidelines and the spirit of this science forum (that is primarily, a question and answer 'space').  As we have laid out in both PMs and replies, your rhetorical use of 'personally gathered' data is not permitted under any circumstances when stating an argument on the 'boards here; and likewise posts going after the moderators personally will be shrunk.
« Last Edit: 01/06/2013 18:29:19 by peppercorn »

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 #76 on: 02/06/2013 00:26:45 »
Think it's high time someone stood up against those repressors of real science (naturally only referring to such science as done by real men, following their vision, lone and proud of it), as those pesky moderators. Hopefully we now at last can correct science into what it should be. Not that corrupted excuse for a word called peer review, and those even worse called 'consensus by ones peers'. A reality where a man at last can speak freely, without hiding from the the naked scientists 'thought police'.

And I think you have that possibility in reach Carbon, at your blog.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #77 on: 02/06/2013 17:02:57 »

peppercorn accuses moreCarbonOK:
the reality is you return time and again to spout more of the same unsubstantiated* nonsense that is then repeatedly challenged, dissected and disproven by long-suffering educated members here.

MoreCarbonOk says
Fine, let us just recap for the records?

On the issue if CO2 is a poison:

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 the blood of veins) of which we daily breath out about 700 grams. Human can breath for hours in 2.5% CO2 without any damage."

1-0

On the issue whether the earth is cooling

All data sets, including my own,  show we are cooling from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

if it carries on - and unfortunately my own data set says it will -- we will face serious challenges of climate change, especially in the Great Plains of the USA, namely droughts. Nothing to do with the CO2!!!

2-0

On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results.

3-0

Sorry,
looks to me I am bit ahead of the Naked Scientists, but you are all entitled to believe whatever you want, what was it again, the 98% consensus?

LOL

maybe you did not get that. maybe one day you will.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #78 on: 02/06/2013 17:22:19 »
"On the issue if CO2 is a poison:

In the case of rabbits..."
Which matters if you are a rabbit.
However if you are human, it's plainly toxic- the only room for debate is whether that's at 2%, or 5% or so.
1- 0 to Science.

"On the issue whether the earth is cooling
All data sets, including my own,  show we are cooling from 2002"
But nobody takes such a short snapshot seriously so your conclusions are not valid. (and the data might be questionable too, but that's not the real issue)
 2-0 to Science.
"On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results.

"On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results."
Nobody can give an exact figure for 100 ppm will cause x degrees more warming, but they can show that warming will take place (and a simple experiment can show the same thing)
So, as you say, the score is 3-0 ,
Against you, and in favour of science.

Before you post anything arguing  against this, please sit in a room with 80% CO2 and 20% O2 for an hour or so.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #79 on: 02/06/2013 17:43:50 »
OKC:  Aww, thank you :) - I did enjoy your 'scoreboard' lay out; most entertaining *grin*

...as is your stoic abilities for selective amnesia when it comes to all this.
It's almost magnificent in the face of being so repeatedly 'challenged, dissected and disproven'... and to be able to put all that out of your mind and 'go round on the ride again' is sort of strangely innocent. Lovely :)

A point of order, for those enjoying this gentle spiral into the ridiculous, if one is challenging conventional wisdom in science, one needs to find one own -peer reviewed- analysis to overturn accepted views.  Whether anyone did bother to supply OKC with 'a balance sheet which shows how much warming/cooling is caused by a 100 ppm increase in CO2' is really very kind of them but he ultimately needs to do his own 'peer review homework', then maybe he can really (to use his analogy) get a bit closer to 'a shot on goal' (at the opponents end, anyway).

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 #80 on: 02/06/2013 17:53:47 »
http://precisiondiving.net/blog/hidden-killer-understanding-carbon-dioxide-toxicity/

"Our bodies respond to the elevated partial pressure of the gas. So a safe PPCO2 on the surface is four times higher at 100 feet underwater. The increase of carbon dioxide has the following symptoms: shortness of breath, headache, confusion and loss of conscientiousness (i.e. blacking out and thus drowning). What many people do not know, is that CO2 is four times more narcotic than nitrogen. When I first started doing deep air dives, I felt like complete crap after my dives. I had headaches and was very tired after. While I knew I was narcíed, I believed that it was from the nitrogen. Instead it was from the CO2. While many scuba diving accidents are blamed on nitrogen narcosis, rarely is CO2 toxicity blamed (which is most likely the case). As you can see in the chart above, CO2 is highly solubility in lipid oil (the test for narcotic potency). As CO2 is significantly more narcotic than nitrogen, the effects can cause a diver to lose mental capacity and not respond in a calm and orderly manner to emergencies. "

http://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

"Carbon Dioxide CO2 Exposure Limits & Toxicity to humans: this document discusses normal and abnormal CO2 gas levels, the toxicity and exposure limits for exposure to carbon dioxide gas (CO2). We discuss Carbon Dioxide gas levels in outdoor air, in buildings, typical CO2 levels and conditions under which levels are unsafe. We discuss the symptoms of carbon dioxide poisoning, describe different types of risks where high levels of CO2 may be present, and present data about the effects of CO2 exposure. Seek prompt advice from your doctor or health/safety experts if you have any reason to be concerned about exposure to toxic gases. Links on this page also direct the reader to carbon monoxide gas information in a separate document. We give references and explanation regarding toxicity of Carbon Dioxide."

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx200220r

"The toxicity of carbon dioxide has been established for close to a century. A number of animal experiments have explored both acute and long-term toxicity with respect to the lungs, the cardiovascular system, and the bladder, showing inflammatory and possible carcinogenic effects. Carbon dioxide also induces multiple fetal malformations and probably reduces fertility in animals. The aim of the review is to recapitulate the physiological and metabolic mechanisms resulting from CO2 inhalation. As smokers are exposed to a high level of carbon dioxide (13%) that is about 350 times the level in normal air, we propose the hypothesis that carbon dioxide plays a major role in the long term toxicity of tobacco smoke."

Those together should give an idea of its toxicity. As for doing a study on Global warming? Global warming discuss the heat stored in CO2, not if you're getting poisoned by it :) That's two different things actually, maybe you missed it though. If so I hope I've cleared it up slightly?
« Last Edit: 02/06/2013 18:21:48 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 #81 on: 02/06/2013 19:23:44 »
As for defining at what point we should worry about CO2 as poisonous? That has very little to do with Global warming Carbon. It is also so that when you add one concentration of a gas it might bear on a concentration of some other gas existing, it's fiendishly difficult to define all possibilities there. It's a science, not sooth saying, although deniers seem to assume that if science can't be absolutely precise then it's not science :).

"Atmospheric O2 measurements provide a powerful and independent method of determining the partitioning of CO2 between the oceans and land (Keeling et al., 1996). Atmospheric O2 and CO2 changes are inversely coupled during plant respiration and photosynthesis. In addition, during the process of combustion O2 is removed from the atmosphere, producing a signal that decreases as atmospheric CO2 increases on a molar basis (Figure 2.3). Measuring changes in atmospheric O2 is technically challenging because of the difficulty  of resolving changes at the part-per-million level in a background mixing ratio of roughly 209,000 ppm. These difficulties were first overcome by Keeling and Shertz (1992), who used an interferometric technique to show that it is possible to track both seasonal cycles and the decline of O2 in the atmosphere at the part-per-million level (Figure 2.3). Recent work by Manning and Keeling (2006) indicates that atmospheric O2 is decreasing at a faster rate than CO2 is increasing, which demonstrates the importance of the oceanic carbon sink."  from Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing - IPCC.

You can see a similar reasoning here. "What may be unclear in some cases is whether the sub-acute (sub-toxic) effects at modestly-elevated levels of CO2 in air stem from more from exposure to higher levels of carbon dioxide or whether they are due to reduced levels of oxygen. In an enclosed space such as a tight home or an enclosed basement or work space, increasing the level of CO2 is likely to simultaneously reduce the proportion of Oxygen (O2) in that same breathing air. Some experts opine that complaints that seem to be associated with high CO2 problem in many if not most circumstances are likely to be actually due to the corresponding reduction in available oxygen in air rather than high toxicity levels of CO2 in the air. As carbon dioxide levels climb above a few percent the relative proportions of gases making up that air change: the concentration of oxygen in the air inhaled is reduced as the amount of CO2 is increased.

However, the TOXIC effects of elevated levels of CO2 are serious at levels when the oxygen reduction effects are only minor. [3]" http://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm

And it's not as simple as you want it to be. Nothing is..
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 #82 on: 02/06/2013 20:28:13 »
You know Carbon, I can't decide if you're serious, or just argumentative? What worries me is that so many seem to read it, possibly assuming we're having some 'scientific debate'. This is not a scientific debate, at most it is you arguing against climate science, that you personally refuse to accept.

Have a look at this, apropos 'global gas mixing'. Atmospheric Oxygen Decline Due to Fossil Fuel Combustion. Not that we need to worry yet, but to me it points to that we still have a fair way to go, to understand all ways a whole world can interact. And Scripps O2 Global Oxygen Measurements. That does not imply that I can ignore the science made though. Neither will I call this a positive trend.
=

(Changed the first link as it actually linked to the Gaia hypothesis :) I don't want that, although the information itself seemed correct, as far as I could judge. Better have ones links as neutral as possible.)
« Last Edit: 02/06/2013 21:00:43 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #83 on: 03/06/2013 17:47:08 »
You guys are so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for you/

we were talking (in this post) about 400 ppm (0.04%), not 1  or 2 or 65 or 80%!!!
and I was only saying that if you want to do terra forming, like when we go out to Mars,
life actually needs a lot more than 300 or 400 ppm (as Plimer said).
\ as we have seen,  they are adding 1500 ppms CO2 in the Dutch greenhouses, to stimulate life!
So are we all agreed now that, on that scale,  more CO2 is better (for life)?
please say yes

As to the issue on whether we are cooling or warming: we are currently cooling.
I wish it would go away (because I know warmth is better for life), but I know it won't...
 I found three confirmations in history that we warmed from 1950 or 1951,
and we started the downward curve from 1995, looking at energy-in (max. temps.)


As to whether an increase of 0.01% (100 ppm's), in CO2, as observed from 1950-2013,
causes any global warming, I say that the IPCC made the obvious mistake, that befalls many a scientist.
I made such a similar mistake myself, in a complex investigation, a long time ago. But I learned from it!!
You must first establish true cause, before you apportion blame!!
Here you can see that we never really got to the point of establishing what is causing sudden warming and sudden cooling periods.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/02/multiple-intense-abrupt-late-pleisitocene-warming-and-cooling-implications-for-understanding-the-cause-of-global-climate-change/


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #84 on: 03/06/2013 18:27:51 »
"we were talking (in this post) about 400 ppm"
And you said "More CO2 is better"
and we have shown (at some length because you refused to accept it) that your statement is false.

"as we have seen,  they are adding 1500 ppms CO2 in the Dutch greenhouses, to stimulate life!
So are we all agreed now that, on that scale,  more CO2 is better (for life)?
please say yes"
No.
Of course not.
That would be a silly generalisation- just like the one about more CO2 is better.
It is true that, from the point of view of well watered, well fed plants, the growth is faster (and more economic) in 1500 ppm of CO2.
But there's no reason to suppose that such a notion would generalise if we extended it to the whole of teh atmosphere.
Most notably, those plants wouldn't grow under water.
However if we increased the whole of the atmosphere to 1500 ppm we would raise the earth's temperature, melt the ice and flood those greenhouses with sea water.

"As to the issue on whether we are cooling or warming: we are currently cooling."
On what time scale?
"You must first establish true cause, before you apportion blame!!"
But, before you establish cause you need to know   what the effect is.
and, at the moment, the effect is warming.



(Edited to fix typo)

« Last Edit: 03/06/2013 19:17:04 by Bored chemist »
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 #85 on: 03/06/2013 18:39:42 »
BC says
and, at the moment, the effect is cooling.

henry says
Good heavens BC, either you are confused or you must be drunk.
You were the one who once said:
let's have a planet, let's add some CO2, let's see if the temp. goes up,
it did, so THAT MUST BE IT.....

 I never forgot that!!!

Cheers!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #86 on: 03/06/2013 19:18:11 »
BC says
and, at the moment, the effect is cooling.

henry says
Good heavens BC, either you are confused or you must be drunk.
You were the one who once said:
let's have a planet, let's add some CO2, let's see if the temp. goes up,
it did, so THAT MUST BE IT.....

 I never forgot that!!!

Cheers!

You overlooked the obvious: I made a mistake.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12350
  • (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 #87 on: 04/06/2013 02:01:58 »
Eh, IPCC is not a scientist Carbon?
You can check it out here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body, set up at the request of member governments. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53

Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with a Summary for Policymakers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. "

Hope this help?
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #88 on: 22/06/2013 19:09:15 »
Your friend JP banned from this site
claiming all that I  said here was proven wrong
I challenged him in a personal note to show me one (scientific) statement that I made where (any)one of you (naked scientists) proved me wrong
and I got no reply,....which shows the kind of person he is...


I encourage anyone of you with questions to try and approach the IPCC, and please tell me if you (ever) received a reply?
I never got any answers....to any of my questions to them...


*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #89 on: 22/06/2013 19:32:57 »
"I challenged him in a personal note to show me one (scientific) statement that I made where (any)one of you (naked scientists) proved me wrong"
"More CO2 is better"
But a high enough concentration of CO2 is toxic, so more is not better.
So, you were, in fact, proved to be wrong.
Had you forgotten?
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 #90 on: 22/06/2013 19:59:56 »
Henry@BC
I distinctly remember telling you that any chemical or substance, even sugar or salt, becomes toxic at high concentrations...
CO2 is like sugar or salt....
What is so difficult to understand?

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #91 on: 22/06/2013 20:11:18 »
@BC
clearly in the range of 0.04% or 400 ppm CO2 (earth) to 0.4% orn 4000 ppm (submarine vessel) there is no problem.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #92 on: 22/06/2013 20:40:08 »
Which would be relevant, had you claimed that in the range 0 to 4000 ppm more is better.
You would still have been wrong, because the environmental damage gets worse at higher concentrations.
But, since you made the unadorned and unqualified claim that "More CO2 is better" you were still wrong.


OK, so now you are saying "clearly in the range of 0.04% or 400 ppm CO2 (earth) to 0.4% orn 4000 ppm (submarine vessel) there is no problem."
But it's anything but clear that it isn't a problem. There is strong evidence for harm
Practically nobody who understands the climate agrees with you.

So, you are still wrong.
So, once again
"I challenged him in a personal note to show me one (scientific) statement that I made where (any)one of you (naked scientists) proved me wrong"
OK this "clearly in the range of 0.04% or 400 ppm CO2 (earth) to 0.4% orn 4000 ppm (submarine vessel) there is no problem."
is proven wrong because it's far from "clear" (and probably not actually true) that "there is no problem".

Why don't you just accept this, and move on?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #93 on: 22/06/2013 21:20:19 »
Just to set the record straight, since Henry is misrepresenting my PM:

What I said to Henry via PM was that other users had pointed out major scientific flaws in his analyses that he refuses to address.  I warned him to address the science or his posts would be considered evanglism which is against forum rules.

As far as the (temporary) ban goes, it was primarily for personal attacks, especially "You guys are so pathetic, I almost feel sorry for you" posted up above.  Though at this point, he's been repeatedly warned for personal attacks, evangelism, posting links to his blog and copy/pasting content to this site, all of which contributed the ban.  I'm not going to get into any further arguments on moderator decisions in this thread. 

*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #94 on: 22/06/2013 21:21:13 »
ehhhh...
400 is not enough for the dutch tomato growers....that add 1500...
so more than 400 is better?

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #95 on: 22/06/2013 21:30:43 »
Here we go again.
Here's a reminder of the explanation I already gave you of why you are wrong about that.
"400 is not enough for the dutch tomato growers....that add 1500..."
That would be a silly generalisation- just like the one about more CO2 is better.
It is true that, from the point of view of well watered, well fed plants, the growth is faster (and more economic) in 1500 ppm of CO2.
But there's no reason to suppose that such a notion would generalise if we extended it to the whole of the atmosphere.
Most notably, those plants wouldn't grow under water.
However if we increased the whole of the atmosphere to 1500 ppm we would raise the earth's temperature, melt the ice and flood those greenhouses with sea water.

Why don't you just accept that you are wrong?
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 #96 on: 22/06/2013 22:00:09 »
BC says
Practically nobody who understands the climate agrees with you

@BC
So, my idea was that you were going to provide me with the balance sheet? Where is it?
Clearly,you have no scientific proof to show me that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than cooling....
 

More CO2 is caused by more warming.
Since we are cooling, for the past odd 15 years, or so, that argument of more CO2 causing harm (warming) falls flat.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/




*

Offline MoreCarbonOK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 164
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #97 on: 22/06/2013 22:05:19 »
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agreeing on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had. Letís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.Ē Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8855
    • View Profile
Re: What is the meaning of 400 ppm (0.04%) atmospheric CO2?
« Reply #98 on: 22/06/2013 22:16:46 »
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agreeing on something or other, reach for your wallet, because youíre being had. Letís be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.Ē Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology"

That particular logical fallacy was an appeal to authority.
Did you somehow think it was valid?

"Clearly,you have no scientific proof to show me that the net effect of more CO2 is that of warming rather than cooling...."
Well, there is more CO2 and there is warming but there is no cooling
so I hardly have to explain that something which is happening does not cause something which is not happening.
Did you think you had a point there?

Why do you keep raising logical fallacies and re-raising points that have already been addressed?
Is it poor memory or poor understanding or what?
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 #99 on: 23/06/2013 16:34:20 »
bc says
Well, there is more CO2 and there is warming but there is no cooling

henry says
who says it is warming? you have simply not been paying attention to me in the thread of this post?
earlier on this thread we noted that it has been cooling for at least one whole solar cycle
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

Note that this result from various data sets is confirmed by my own results which JP says I may not quote...here? JP and your  team has some peculiar rules when it comes to global warming....

If you want to go nit picking you could also ask: how long has is not been warming? That leaves those poor souls whose miserable lives depend on this global warming scam some stay of execution.
e.g.:  this post contains graphs of running trends in global surface temperature anomalies for periods of 12+
 and 16 years. They indicate that we have not seen a warming hiatus this long since the 1970s.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/may-2013-global-surface-landocean-temperature-anomaly-update/

However, my own results for the drop in global maxima will show you that the current cooling trend will continue, until at least 2040....or there about.

So, there is no warming trend, and there has not been any, for at least 16 years. You, get on with that. I ask you: why do you keep referring  back to it as if it (i.e. the "global" warming) were truly still happening?