It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reality of Climate Change - Hacked E-mails Debunked

page: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I did some reading on the MMGW subject and my main problem is that I ended up with more questions than I started with. I found it is a very time consuming thing to do, as there is no clear path to follow. I will start with the first issue I stumbled upon. On Wikipedia you can read:

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback."

As far as I know this value is also used by the IPCC. But what about saturation of the spectrum by other gases? It seems to me that this is not taken in account, I could not find it at least. If so this would decrease this value of 3.7 W/m2 significantly. Around a wavelength of 2, 3 and 6 micron the radiation is already saturated by water vapor. Around a wavelength of 2 and 8 by methane. Around 5 and 7 by N20.

Maybe someone can point me to a paper or article where this is explained, and why the IPCC still uses a value of 3.7 W/m2.




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Sounds like you have a question that could be answered by someone at RealClimate.org



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
As far as I know this value is also used by the IPCC. But what about saturation of the spectrum by other gases?



So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn’t overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there’s little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models.

Then you can heave a sigh, and wonder how much different the world would be today if these arguments were understood in the 1920’s, as they could well have been if anybody had thought it important enough to think through.



Around a wavelength of 2, 3 and 6 micron the radiation is already saturated by water vapor. Around a wavelength of 2 and 8 by methane. Around 5 and 7 by N20.




A saturated gassy argument

A saturated gassy argument II



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Ever herd of hyperventilation? If you breath too fast, you reduce the CO2 in your blood, and raise your pH levels to alkaline. Now what do you think the opposite of that would be? Too much CO2 in your blood? It would lower your pH levels and you would have acidosis. That is not fun...

An increase of carbon dioxide under 1 ATM pressure will not increase the amount of carbon dioxide in your bloodstream. It simply doesn't work that way.

Your bloodstream carbon dioxide level decreases during hyperventilation because the carbon dioxide leaves your bloodstream faster than normal. But the inverse is not true because bloodstream carbon dioxide levels do not originate in the lungs. It originates in the cells throughout your body as carbon-containing molecules (food) is oxidized by the oxygen in your bloodstream. The oxygen originates in the lungs, is carried to the cells, exchanged for carbon dioxide, and then exhaled through the lungs again as it is exchanged for more oxygen.

Sheesh, talk about ignorance-based fear mongering...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
The economist released an excellent response to the quackery.
Definitely worth the read.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


Thanks IgnoranceIsntBliss, I have bookmarked your comment for posterity.

Now when any Acolyte of the Church of Climatology brings up the emails, it won't take long to show them my heresy.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



ep.physoc.org...


Breathing carbon dioxide (CO2) is known to induce hypercapnic acidosis and to affect chemoreceptor regulation of the cardiovascular system.


You know, it's really hard to release CO2 while breathing in CO2 which causes the body to retain extra CO2, causing acidosis.

Nice attempt at a debunk..



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


This answers my question, thanks. My assumptions on how they calculated the increase in radiative forcing caused by doubling CO2 was incorrect. But still, I can nowhere find how they did calculate it. I read the paper linked on Wikipedia, but it pointed to the IPCC report. In that report I could not find it. If anyone can give me the page in the report where it is calculated, or knows a paper or article that explains it, it would be very welcome.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by -PLB-]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
Nice attempt at spreading ignorance.

You apparently didn't read the the title of your link... the big bold words at the top:

The effects of breathing 5% CO2 on human cardiovascular responses and tolerance to orthostatic stress
Source: ep.physoc.org...

The article is speaking of breathing concentrated carbon dioxide at a stated concentration of 5% (50,000 ppmv) as opposed to present levels of 0.038% (380 ppmv). What you are saying is, in effect, like saying it is dangerous to drink 12 oz. of water a day because people have had health problems after drinking 12.5 gallons of water a day.

Get real. You're losing it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Allow me to "Debunk" your "debunking" as it pertains to "hide the decline".


While you are correct it pertains to tree-ring data, you are incorrect that this is a trivial matter.

The tree-ring proxy data was DELETED post 1960 in the code and in the charts that were released because it completely diverges from instrument readings at that time.

Such a massive divergence at the point when the tree-rings and instrument readings should be in close agreements INVALIDATES ALL THE PROXY DATA AS GARBAGE.

The scientists in question couldn't explain away the divergence so they hid it.

TOTAL FRAUD.



Wrong - the tree ring data was deleted because it indicated a local event and not considered valid. Trees in one area on different soils can grow at vastly different rates when compared to the same trees. It indicates more weather and less climate. The data that replaced this was the ACTUAL TEMPERATURES - which are considered more valid. Your post is incorrect and misleading.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I never personally stated how much CO2 I am talking about, because I am talking about the FUTURE which has not happened yet. In the future, if we don't do anything about our CO2 levels, we will have high CO2 levels. Not just in the atmosphere, but in our own buildings too..

You are thinking about an even distribution, but I am thinking about uneven distribution in large cities, and in buildings. High concentrations exist in larger cities with more cars and people, before it is circulated through Earth.....

I was talking about breathing ANY abnormal amount of CO2.

I just posted a source the debunks your ignorance on the subject. I was talking about how breathing extra CO2 causes "acidosis", and then you tried to debunk me and utterly failed...

Now you are grasping at straws and trying to extend the argument by saying we are talking about different amounts when the amount is irrelevant to my original point.


Even then, you are still showing ignorance...

www-formal.stanford.edu...


Air can be about 5 percent CO2, from a stuffy room, before people become uncomfortable. According to the Wikipedia article, amounts above 800 ppm are considered unhealthy, amounts above 5,000 ppm are considered very unhealthy, and those above about 50,000 ppm are considered dangerous to animal life.


www.inspectapedia.com...



At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.


Higher CO2 outside will increase CO2 inside... makes for greater chances of raising blood acidity.


Here is other factors you have to take into account:



Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respiration.

If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal "acidosis" (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.

Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.



dictionary.reference.com...


acidosis resulting from reduced gas exchange in the lungs (as in emphysema or pneumonia); excess carbon dioxide combines with water to form carbonic acid which increases the acidity of the blood


dictionary.reference.com...


acidosis that is caused by excessive retention of carbon dioxide due to a respiratory abnormality (as obstructive lungdisease)




Originally posted by TheRedneck
Get real. You're losing it.


No, YOU are loosing it for even trying to debunk me, and proven science.

More CO2 means more acidic blood in humans... doesn't matter how much more, just MORE in general. And you can't compare that with water......

Your ignorance has been denied.




[edit on 13-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Water intoxication (also known as hyper-hydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by over-consumption of water.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

No similarities, eh?


So far, every carbon dioxide level you have mentioned has been in excess of more than double the present average level, and even at those concentrations the effect is minimal. Yes, concentrations of 1000 ppmv can exist in crowded areas; now consider where all that carbon dioxide in the crowded area came from: breathing. That means there is less oxygen because people breathing changed it to carbon dioxide.

None of the increased such concentration came from power plants or barbecue pits or wildfires... because such does not exist in crowded auditoriums. And despite these 'extreme' concentrations, people manage to survive and even flock to such crowded areas. Amazing.


Future projections? let's see, it took 60 years to increase average levels by 100 ppmv. So to get to that 'discomfort' range of 5000 ppmv would take... 5000 - 380 = 4620. 4620 / 100 = 42.6. 42.6 x 60 = 2556 years, which means in the year 4565, we're all doomed! Oh, the horror!

Yes, breathing rate increases as carbon dioxide levels increase. It also increases with altitude. Same reason: at 3% carbon dioxide, the oxygen content is usually lower because carbon dioxide and oxygen are different sides of the same cycle. At higher altitudes, there is less air pressure, meaning less density and less oxygen. The breathing rate increases due to oxygen depletion, not due to carbon dioxide levels.

What's next? I suppose you're going to claim carbon dioxide causes severe frostbite because, let's face it, dry ice is c-o-l-d!


Or maybe you'll claim carbon dioxide causes lung cancer... it is a component of cigarette smoke, you know.


Or maybe you'll even say it causes sulfuric acid to form... look at Venus! It has a very high carbon dioxide concentration and sulfur dioxide too!


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Water intoxication (also known as hyper-hydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by over-consumption of water.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

No similarities, eh?



I am well aware of water intoxication I almost died before because of that, but in terms of quantity there is no similarities. Everything you said about it is irrelevant.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
So far, every carbon dioxide level you have mentioned has been in excess of more than double the present average level, and even at those concentrations the effect is minimal.


AVERAGE LEVEL, is your keyword....

This is why I usualy ignore your posts, because you keep going and going and going.. grasping at straws because I think you just don't have the ability to understand anything anyone says...

You are very intelligent, you just don't pay attention.

You, nor I, know what the concentration of CO2 will be in the future, all you can do is estimate based on speculation. So we are forced to only talk about more or less than now.

My origional point is that in the FUTURE if we don't slow down our CO2 produciton there will be MORE CO2, and it could HARM US. Now why the freak are you even trying to debate against that?

Have you lost your mind?

You lost man, you lost the argument before you even started.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, concentrations of 1000 ppmv can exist in crowded areas; now consider where all that carbon dioxide in the crowded area came from: breathing. That means there is less oxygen because people breathing changed it to carbon dioxide.


More straw grasping.... another reason I ignore your posts... I already know the CO2 comes from breathing... I figured you were smart enough to look beyond that.. but you aren't.

Do what you say, CONSIDER WHERE ALL THAT CARBON DIOXIDE CAME FROM. To get inside a crowded area you need to first come from outside. If there are higher concetrations of CO2 outside, that same concentration exists inside, this highers the risk of crowded areas becoming more filled with CO2, and less oxygen. The CO2 from outside raises levels inside too..

Now consider someone outside in high concentrations of CO2, and raising their CO2 levels in their blood. Then they go inside the crowded area, and try to expell that extra CO2 from their blood.... See what happens? Most of the extra CO2 inside is created because of extra CO2 outside.

If there was higher CO2 levels outside in the future, that increases the entire crowds CO2 levels in their blood. Then they go inside, and when they breath, they are trying to expell the extra CO2 in their blood.

This is just common sense man... please... sense it.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
None of the increased such concentration came from power plants or barbecue pits or wildfires... because such does not exist in crowded auditoriums.


Misleading, wrong, and ignorant.

I guess all buildings are air tight right? Wrong.... Higher CO2 outside increases CO2 inside... common sense man...really..

Also, higher concentrations of CO2 outside increases CO2 in human blood. This means when they go inside, they are trying to expell more CO2 than normal.

Although the increase doesn't come directly from power plants etc., they DO directly effected the increase inside.

I thought you would figure that out on your own.. but I was wrong.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
And despite these 'extreme' concentrations, people manage to survive and even flock to such crowded areas. Amazing.



Straw grabbing and misleading quotes AGAIN.

Just because someone survives doesn't mean they are not being damaged. Just because they don't notice instant effects, doesn't mean it is healthy.

Also, thousands of people avoid crowded areas because they feel suffocated, and they get woozy. So even mentioning that "people flock to these locations" insisting it is because CO2 is healthy, is just a freaking discrace to ATS.

People flock to drugs too.. right.. so it must be ok!
No....

You lost it man.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Future projections? let's see, it took 60 years to increase average levels by 100 ppmv. So to get to that 'discomfort' range of 5000 ppmv would take... 5000 - 380 = 4620. 4620 / 100 = 42.6. 42.6 x 60 = 2556 years, which means in the year 4565, we're all doomed! Oh, the horror!


You seriously think you can project the future based on the past? Wow you are clueless.

You are so misleading that I'm just about to put you on ignore because you are worthless, there is no point in talking to someone who can't even see ignorance in your quote above.

You are assuming the rate stays the same... you are assuming the population growth stays the same, you are assuming our power demands stay the same, you are assuming many many many things in your projection, and it is disapointing to even read that quote it is so wrong.




Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, breathing rate increases as carbon dioxide levels increase. It also increases with altitude. Same reason: at 3% carbon dioxide, the oxygen content is usually lower because carbon dioxide and oxygen are different sides of the same cycle. At higher altitudes, there is less air pressure, meaning less density and less oxygen. The breathing rate increases due to oxygen depletion, not due to carbon dioxide levels.


It doesn't matter why the breathing rate increases... it only matters that it does when CO2 increases and oxygen decreases. When you increase breathing you increase CO2...........

Man stop pulling those straws, think before you type.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
What's next? I suppose you're going to claim carbon dioxide causes severe frostbite because, let's face it, dry ice is c-o-l-d!


Or maybe you'll claim carbon dioxide causes lung cancer... it is a component of cigarette smoke, you know.


Or maybe you'll even say it causes sulfuric acid to form... look at Venus! It has a very high carbon dioxide concentration and sulfur dioxide too!


TheRedneck


Whats next? I'm going to put you on ignore because you are misleading, uninformed, lacking common sense, you grasp at straws, you make insanse assumptions, you jump to conclusions, you don't think ahead, you don't grasp the whole but only the parts, and you are just plain wrong......

You are a waste of time...


[edit on 13-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

www.economist.com...

You off to see the wizard there scarecrow?

[edit on 13-12-2009 by '___'omino]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I just can't believe TheRedneck lured me into debating how healthy CO2 is in high concentrations.....

Anyone seriously doubting the health risks of high levels of CO2 has probably ignored several science classes.

High levels of CO2 is not healthy, period, there is no debate.... but somehow TheRedneck managed to make one out of nothing.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
well AllisOne, it look like you support "population Control" by killing more human to save the earth.

To tell you the truth, everything you said is a TOTAL FRAUD, someone must have paid you to do this or you just another Government's butt-kissing believer

Did you know that climategate hacked e-mail caused the resigning of some members and asking Al Gore or any of his friends about Climategate would just roll his eye and ask you leave the area without any answer

They know they are in deep doo-doo, and you too.

I don't believe the earth are in danger, human ARE in danger.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by IceDash]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IceDash
well AllisOne, it look like you support "population Control" by killing more human to save the earth.


What? That was the dumbest thing I have ever herd.

I don't support population control by killing.

I support reduction of CO2 created by our machines and power plants. I support alternative energy sources, and more efficient machines and electronics....

Humans don't even come close to making the same amount of CO2 that our machines do... Obviously we can't reduce breathing, we must reduce our machine's pollution.


Originally posted by IceDash
To tell you the truth, everything you said is a TOTAL FRAUD, someone must have paid you to do this or you just another Government's butt-kissing believer


You wouldn't know the truth even if it was killing you.

Oh yeah someone paid me money to have common sense and see that our production of CO2 can cause health issues and Earth issues... oh yeah..

CO2 has been debated as an issue for 150+ years now... lets not ignore 150+ years of untouched logic. Oh too late, you already did.



Originally posted by IceDash
Did you know that climategate hacked e-mail caused the resigning of some mebers and asking Al Gore or any of his friends about Climategate would just roll his eye and ask you leave the area without any answer


Yes, and how does that disprove climate change? It doesn't.... it proves that people are idiots and not worth debating because they are uninformed and ignorant. They jump to conclusions and mike wild assumptions.



Originally posted by IceDash
They know they are in deep doo-doo, and you too.


No, they are not in deep doo-doo... People resign to avoid ridicule caused by misleading rumors all the time.

The e-mails have been debunked many times... the e-mails don't show ANYTHING that wasn't already publicly admitted. They e-mails only contain out of context quotes that people manipulate to support their lack of knowledge and ignorance.



Originally posted by IceDash
I don't believe the earth are in danger, human ARE in danger.


Your belief is based on what exactly? Rumors and speculations and conspiracies.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Please excuse my rudeness in my last posts.

I get really frustrated when people deny or ignore what I see as completely obvious. I also get angry when I have to talk in circles or go into extreme detail on things that are common sense or easily noticed via logic.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE

I am well aware of water intoxication I almost died before because of that, but it terms of quantity there is no similarities. Everything you said about it is irrelevant.

Actually, I already figured in terms of quantity. 380 ppmv carbon dioxide is to 5000 ppmv carbon dioxide as 12 ounces of water is to 12.5 gallons of water. As to similarities, perhaps you are right. 5000 ppmv carbon dioxide might give you a slight headache if you are very sensitive... drink 12 gallons of water a day and you will be in serious trouble.


My origional point is that in the FUTURE if we don't slow down our CO2 produciton there will be MORE CO2, and it could HARM US. Now why the freak are you even trying to debate against that?

Because you, sir, are using fear tactics. If we do not know what the carbon dioxide level is in the future, then why are you making statements about it being 5000 ppmv or 50,000 ppmv?


Do what you say, CONSIDER WHERE ALL THAT CARBON DIOXIDE CAME FROM. To get inside a crowded area you need to first come from outside. If there are higher concetrations of CO2 outside, that same concentration exists inside, this highers the risk of crowded areas becoming more filled with CO2, and less oxygen. The CO2 from outside raises levels inside too..

OK, let's consider that. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels were 280 ppmv. they are now 380 ppmv. That is a 100 ppmv increase. now, assuming a crowded auditorium contains 1000 ppmv, if we brought overall carbon dioxide levels back to 280 ppmv, the level in the same auditorium would become 900 ppmv... a mere 10% decrease of a level that is not even dangerous.

Figure it any way you want. It's still a fear-based argument, not a fact-based one.


If there was higher CO2 levels outside in the future, that increases the entire crowds CO2 levels in their blood. Then they go inside, and when they breath, they are trying to expell the extra CO2 in their blood.

You are still making an incorrect assumption that we somehow take in carbon dioxide when we breathe. We exhale carbon dioxide, not inhale it! The membranes in the lungs do not conduct carbon dioxide into the blood stream under standard atmospheric pressure; they conduct it out. It is analogous to a one-way chemical valve.


I guess all buildings are air tight right? Wrong.... Higher CO2 outside increases CO2 inside... common sense man...really..

The buildings are tight enough to contain the higher carbon dioxide levels... or is there some physical reason carbon dioxide rushes in from outside but doesn't move outside from inside?

Common sense, man... really...


Also, thousands of people avoid crowded areas because they feel suffocated, and they get woozy. So even mentioning that "people flock to these locations" insisting it is because CO2 is healthy, is just a freaking discrace to ATS.

Where did I say carbon dioxide was healthy? It's as healthy as nitrogen. And it is as unhealthy as nitrogen.

Any time you are in an enclosed area, you will notice a decrease in the amount of oxygen available. THAT, and that alone, is the cause for this 'wooziness' you mention. Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it, unless you want to consider that it contains the oxygen that used to be in the room.

If the oxygen content remained constant, the carbon dioxide content would be irrelevant.


You seriously think you can project the future based on the past? Wow you are clueless.

Really? that's exactly what you did when you started worrying about future carbon dioxide levels poisoning people. That is exactly what the IPCC does when they project future carbon dioxide levels and temperature changes. That is exactly what the CRU does when they make their predictions.

I guess you are all clueless as well. Thank you for clearing that up.



You are assuming the rate stays the same... you are assuming the population growth stays the same, you are assuming our power demands stay the same, you are assuming many many many things in your projection, and it is disapointing to even read that quote it is so wrong.

And you are assuming massive increases, even beyond what we have seen to date by orders of magnitude.


It doesn't matter why the breathing rate increases... it only matters that it does when CO2 increases and oxygen decreases. When you increase breathing you increase CO2...........

First, it does matter what why the breathing rate increases. Just because you can tie two phenomena together it does not follow that one caused the other. Was it in this thread that someone pointed out that carbon dioxide levels are inversely proportional to the number of pirates in the Caribbean? That is the exact same logic you are using.

Second, breathing more does not increase carbon dioxide in the blood; it lowers it! You said so yourself a few posts back:

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Ever herd of hyperventilation? If you breath too fast, you reduce the CO2 in your blood...


Third, if you are referring to the carbon dioxide in the air increasing, what is your proposal to stop this? Stop people from breathing? The only difference is that the exhaled breath of all those people are temporarily trapped in an enclosure. If the people were not in the building, would they still not be breathing? Would they still not be producing carbon dioxide? Of course they would, so this temporary increase in a room does absolutely nothing to the atmosphere as a whole. This phenomenon has been occurring since the dawn of man, and most people just consider it 'common sense' that one uses up oxygen in enclosed spaces by breathing it.

Here's an idea... let's increase the air flow into and out of the buildings, so the oxygen can be replenished!

Incidentally, I should add that even though such air is oxygen-deprived, it is still far from deadly. What type of air is used in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation? 100% carbon dioxide laden, oxygen depleted, exhaled air. If what you were saying were true, then it would kill anyone who was given mouth-to-mouth instead of saving them.


...you jump to conclusions, you don't think ahead...

Isn't that like saying "you drive too fast and you drive too slow"?



TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The membranes in the lungs do not conduct carbon dioxide into the blood stream under standard atmospheric pressure; they conduct it out. It is analogous to a one-way chemical valve.



afaik, it isn't one-way at all, carbon monoxide inhalation is ample proof for that, because it bonds more readily to haemoglobin than O2, which means that relatively little is needed to reach lethal levels.

it's true that O2 is carried almost exclusively by erythrocytes while CO2 more via plasma, but you're generally OK as long as O2 levels are around twice those of CO2. since the situation in crowds is slightly different, because any production CO2 has to consume O2 first and given a 21% O2 at 10,5%, the ratio becomes 1:1, while at 7% CO2 it's the mentioned 2 O2 to 1 CO2, which is tolerable for some time, at least by healthy people.


None of these effects in humans are relevant in the context of climatology, though and arguing about the health issues of carbon dioxide just shows that any excuse will be used to advance a particular agenda. What is it again with CO2 that it is constantly being singled out?? Personally, i'm nearly 100% sure that if our fuels released only H2O vapor into the atmosphere, we'd be buried under a barrage of PR against emissions related to agriculture, like N2O

because that would arguably be the next best thing which affects us all. heck if all failed, one could still calculate our global production of heat - and claim it accumulates. if one can sell that Venus can on average be hotter than Mercury by greenhouse effect, that's not even a stretch.


as for


Originally posted by ALLis0NE


Ever herd of hyperventilation? If you breath too fast, you reduce the CO2 in your blood, and raise your pH levels to alkaline. Now what do you think the opposite of that would be? Too much CO2 in your blood? It would lower your pH levels and you would have acidosis. That is not fun...



i mean seriously, acidosis is usually the result of a systemic disease, or trauma, the body is mostly self-regulated and external changes wll be compensated. pH isn't different from heat balance in this regard. i suggest analysing retrieved data a bit before using it for PR talking points.

[edit on 2009.12.14 by Long Lance]




top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join