Urban Co2 'Domes' Increase Deaths

Surprised not to see anything about this. Seems global warming is not the only problem with our current obsession in producing carbon emissions at every opportunity.

Urban CO2 Domes Increase Deaths

Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem. Now a Stanford study has shown it is also a local problem, hurting city dwellers' health much more than rural residents', because of the carbon dioxide "domes" that develop over urban areas.

~ ~ ~

Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations -- discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago -- cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.

In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.

So, after all that, the EPA were right. CO2 is a pollutant, it is dangerous to human health, and it makes sense for that reason alone to cut emissions - especially from vehicles.

Current estimates of the annual air pollution-related death toll in the U.S. is 50-100,000.

are you kidding me lol
Co2 now equals death
wow

jacobson estimated an increase in premature mortality of 50 to 100 deaths per year in California and 300 to 1,000 for the contiguous 48 states.

"This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts," he said.

Current estimates of the annual air pollution-related death toll in the U.S. is 50-100,000

How dumb do they think people are?

Originally posted by blankduck18
How dumb do they think people are?

I think that is irrelevant to them. The know the ones with the power to actually do anything by affecting policies are incredibly gullible, mostly on account of their egos.

So, CO2 is there, and yet they now want to ignore the urban heat island effect, caused by miles of concrete and lack of vegetation and make hasty or perhaps knowingly-false conclusions implicating CO2 instead.

Much like second-hand smoke effects, you just change the criteria to be affirmation of the hypothesis when the result aren't conclusive or refute it under customary standards, turning science into a mechanism of propaganda to establish any desired link.

one more reason to get out of the city.

country air is indeed better.

Originally posted by Essan
Surprised not to see anything about this. Seems global warming is not the only problem with our current obsession in producing carbon emissions at every opportunity.

Urban CO2 Domes Increase Deaths

Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem. Now a Stanford study has shown it is also a local problem, hurting city dwellers' health much more than rural residents', because of the carbon dioxide "domes" that develop over urban areas.

~ ~ ~

Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations -- discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago -- cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.

In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.

So, after all that, the EPA were right. CO2 is a pollutant, it is dangerous to human health, and it makes sense for that reason alone to cut emissions - especially from vehicles.

First of all Science Daily and it's sister rag News Daily are entrenched Alarmist publications.

Now consider this. The monitoring stations for global temperature are now mainly in the cities - more and more so as they re-site them in order to continue promulgating their lie. This article admits that urban areas are warmer, and therefore the figures are being skewed - artificially.

Carbon Dioxide is 1.5 times heavier than air, so whilst I am quite prepared to be contradicted, I cannot see that CO2 would be forming a dome over a city. That sounds like an impossible feat. What you do get over cities and motorways is a dome of pollutants that are held over the area unless dispersed by that other incredibly damaging greenhouse gas oxygen dihydride.

Of course we should be reducing pollution, no sane person could possibly argue against that, but this does not give the Alarmists the right to twist the figures for their own purposes - mainly tax gathering. Without CO2 we would all die. Although it is only a trace gas in the atmosphere it is needed by plants for respiration. It is also used by the extensive networks of mycellium to breath and all of this contributes to our oxygen supply.

Frankly I am getting sick of these so called scientists spouting forth their drivel purely so they can hang on to their funding. They should go and find themselves proper jobs if they cannot find anything more intelligent to do than perpetuate what is proven to be a complete lie purely for the purposes of lining their pockets.

• Global warming is a myth. Get over it
  
• Climate change is a reality and is a natural process
  
• Pollution is a severe problem. Stop whinging about climate change and start tackling pollution - worldwide.
  
• Stop bleating about being green and then dumping toxic waste on other counties
  
• Stop closing down steel works and moving production to other countries and then giving them billions in ridiculous 'carbon credits' so they can sell steel back to us and pollute to their heats content at the same time.
  
• Carbon credits are an excuse for continuing pollution
  
• Carbon trading is a scam for the wealthy.
  
• Trying using common sense as a guide - it does work. The trouble is that most people in government don't have any.
  

[edit on 25/3/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by PuterMan

Global warming is a myth. Get over it

Climate change is a reality and is a natural process

Don't those two points contradict one another? But GW is not a myth, nor is the science behind why CO2 emissions should be causing GW, nor is the science behind why land use change, black carbon, etc should be causing GW. Nor is the fact that GW and other forms of climate change can occur naturally as well.

Obviously climate change is not all natural but neither should we assume all current climate change is manmade.

Pollution is a severe problem. Stop whinging about climate change and start tackling pollution - worldwide.

Totally agree

Stop bleating about being green and then dumping toxic waste on other counties

Totally agree

Stop closing down steel works and moving production to other countries and then giving them billions in ridiculous 'carbon credits' so they can sell steel back to us and pollute to their heats content at the same time.

We don't have any steel works ......

Carbon credits are an excuse for continuing pollution

Carbon trading is a scam for the wealthy.

Not so much a scam as a means for people to think they/their government is doing something when in reality they are not. Although I would like personal carbon credits 'cos I'd make money out of them

Trying using common sense as a guide - it does work. The trouble is that most people in government don't have any.

Most? I think you mean all .....



Edit: Oh, and by the way, Science Daily is about the least alarmist media outlet on the planet And you certainly won't see alarmist strawman comments like '"without CO2 we will die" there

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by Essan


The suggestion by Alarmists that 'global warming' is 100% man-made is indeed a myth. Not 'GW is a myth' and 'climate change is real' do not contradict each other since there was no suggestion here that climate change necessarily means an increase in global temperature. It could equally refer to a decrease in temperature whereas the term global warming cannot.

Until someone can come up with realistic figures that are not all harvested from cherry picked stations then I prefer to believe more in the satellite figures, despite that fact that they had to fiddle them as well because they did not show what they wanted, and in the sea temperature readings where a probable decrease in temperature is recorded but which were conveniently ignored by the IPCC.

Does the UK not have steel production that is being closed and shifted to India along with 600 million in carbon credits? I thought it did or is that another MSM lie? I have to say I have not researched that one yet.

At least we agree on most of the other points!!

Edit, oh missed you silly comment

And you certainly won't see alarmist strawman comments like '"without CO2 we will die"

. I can assure you that if all CO2 was removed from the world we would indeed eventually die so no more of the straw man comments unless you can back that up?

[edit on 25/3/2010 by PuterMan]

I'm pretty sure global temps have been on the increase over the past 150 years, certainly in Europe & N America they have.

Originally posted by PuterManDoes the UK not have steel production that is being closed and shifted to India along with 600 million in carbon credits? I thought it did or is that another MSM lie? I have to say I have not researched that one yet.

Well, we just about have a little bit left which is going to India - but mainly because it's a lot cheaper there .....

At least we agree on most of the other points!!

Aye Most people in the climate change debate do agree on most points - it's the little details we fight thermonuclear wars over!

Edit, oh missed you silly comment

And you certainly won't see alarmist strawman comments like '"without CO2 we will die"

. I can assure you that if all CO2 was removed from the world we would indeed eventually die so no more of the straw man comments unless you can back that up?

Ah, come on - you know full well that saying 'without co2 we will die' was introducing a strawman We might well die if all co2 was removed by some space aliens, but no-one's suggesting anything like that will happen.

Of course, we'll also die without selenium. But too much will kill us much quicker. It's all about striking the right balance.

IMHO regardless of any concerns about carbon emission derived global warming (I'm more worried about other forms of AGW/ACC) it wouldn't be a bad thing to aim to curb carbon emissions and develop cheaper, more efficient, transport and industry etc.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Essan]

Originally posted by PuterMan
First of all Science Daily and it's sister rag News Daily are entrenched Alarmist publications.

That may be, but Reuters is not a "rag", and they published Jacobson's findings a while ago:

www.reuters.com...

I don't think there is anything weird in temperature increase due to local increase in CO2 concentration. Everybody knows that clear nights are crispy and cloudy nights are warmer, same kind of physics at work here.

Originally posted by Essan

IMHO regardless of any concerns about carbon emission derived global warming (I'm more worried about other forms of AGW/ACC) it wouldn't be a bad thing to aim to curb carbon emissions and develop cheaper, more efficient, transport and industry etc.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by Essan]

You won't get an argument from me there.

how could they possibly eliminate other factors involved, aka urban heat island effect? CO2 is sketchy for global effects, but it's totally ludicrous to invoke a greenhouse effect on a local scale, due to *drumroll* wind, including but not limited to updraft.

vegetation for one will evaporate a lot of water, while concrete obviously won't. pollution in the cities is worse, how could one quantitatively separate the effects of temperature and chemical pollution? 'conclusions' such as these can only serve to give statistics a bad name.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


I don't think there is anything weird in temperature increase due to local increase in CO2 concentration. Everybody knows that clear nights are crispy and cloudy nights are warmer, same kind of physics at work here.

this logic will do you no favor at all. remember, clouds block a lot of light (IR and UV included of course) while any gas has much more limited effects - on isolated wavelengths as opposed to wide bands. said wavelengths are also subject to saturation....



PS: recently, i watched a TV documentation where they investigated cows' digestive system... turns out they got their money through invoking global warming because cows emit methane! AGW in a paper = money, no AGW, no money, the result will be claimed to be the result of 'natural selection'

[edit on 2010.3.25 by Long Lance]

Some more info on Urban CO2 domes from CO2 Science (a skeptical site)

www.co2science.org...

Jacobson's paper is availble to purchse here:

pubs.acs.org...

The abstract reads:

Data suggest that domes of high CO2 levels form over cities. Despite our knowledge of these domes for over a decade, no study has contemplated their effects on air pollution or health. In fact, all air pollution regulations worldwide assume arbitrarily that such domes have no local health impact, and carbon policy proposals, such as “cap and trade”, implicitly assume that CO2 impacts are the same regardless of where emissions occur. Here, it is found through data-evaluated numerical modeling with telescoping domains from the globe to the U.S., California, and Los Angeles, that local CO2 emissions in isolation may increase local ozone and particulate matter. Although health impacts of such changes are uncertain, they are of concern, and it is estimated that that local CO2 emissions may increase premature mortality by 50−100 and 300−1000/yr in California and the U.S., respectively. As such, reducing locally emitted CO2 may reduce local air pollution mortality even if CO2 in adjacent regions is not controlled. If correct, this result contradicts the basis for air pollution regulations worldwide, none of which considers controlling local CO2 based on its local health impacts. It also suggests that a “cap and trade” policy should consider the location of CO2 emissions, as the underlying assumption of the policy is incorrect.

Also, from 2001, a study of the Phoenix, Az, CO2 Dome

Hahaha

So changing green pastures into concrete and other heat absorbing structures isn't what causes the UHI effect. It's the CO2!!

While reducing pollutants is a good thing, the alarmists desire to blame everything on CO2 is getting ridiculous. Of course there is a concentration of pollutants (CO2 is not one) released in a city. But saying that it's the CO2 emmisions which is causing the pollutants to stay there and kill people is a joke.

I'd love to know how they came up with this

In addition to the changes he observed in local air pollutants, Jacobson found that there was increased stability of the air column over a city, which slowed the dispersal of pollutants, further adding to the increased pollutant concentrations.

How does a slight increase in trace CO2 levels in a local area increase stability of an air column?