[yor_on]

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 narc’ed, 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?

[yor_on]

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..

[yor_on]

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.)

[MoreCarbonOK]

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/

[Bored chemist]

"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)

[MoreCarbonOK]

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!

[Bored chemist]

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.

[yor_on]

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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

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...

[Bored chemist]

"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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

@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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[JP]

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. 

[MoreCarbonOK]

ehhhh...
400 is not enough for the dutch tomato growers....that add 1500...
so more than 400 is better?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

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/

[MoreCarbonOK]

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 you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” Michael Crichton 17 January 2003 speech at the California Institute of Technology

[Bored chemist]

"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 you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.” 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?

[MoreCarbonOK]

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?