Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[kokonut]

You are ruining your health if you stroll around in an atmosphere with 5000 ppm of CO2. Sure you know this much about CO2 as you belive?

A dead give away on your lack of CO2 knowledge and concentration is seen in your comment. Do you even know what "ppm" means? Parts per million. Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or 380 molecules (parts) of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of air. In short, 380 ppm = 380/1,000,000 = .038 percent = .00038.

Got it?

Good boy.

Now, 5000 ppm means that amount of concentration of CO2, volume-wise, take up only 0.5 percent of the air around you. Or 5000 molecules of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of air. Quite harmless. It'd have to get up to 50,000 ppm (5%) for it start to become toxic to human beings. 5000 ppm is rather harmless to human beings, even for long exposures. Heck, pure Oxygen over the short period can be quite toxic to us.

Here's something for you to learn.
Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide CO2 Gas Exposure, poisoning symptoms, exposure limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures C02 Gas toxicity CO2 exposure limits

Thanks, you made my day.

 

[kokonut]

And nearly half of them are Conservatives.

No, they're RINOs. And RINOs are not conservatives in the truest sense. I'd rather side with a conservative Democrat than to side with a RINO.

 

[kokonut]

No need to quote myself with your Teacher corrections in red. Name a few Democrats you like. And the courts saved the day? It was a money thing. Re-pubes have the money on their side. You ain't gonna change my mind, no matter how often you take apart my every word. Does not matter. Sit back and enjoy your superiority complex. Red Herrings abound when you cast your net in uncharted waters. Great retort that is....:roll:

Zell Miller (former gov. of Georgia). Probably one of the last and true conservative Democrat around.

I suppose being fiscally responsible isn't at the top of your list and that spending money we don't have is a great idea, too? No wonder the U.S. is slowly tanking. Political correctness run amok, I'd say.

 

[saywhatkid]

Zell Miller (former gov. of Georgia). Probably one of the last and true conservative Democrat around.

I suppose being fiscally responsible isn't at the top of your list and that spending money we don't have is a great idea, too? No wonder the U.S. is slowly tanking. Political correctness run amok, I'd say.

I suppose fiscal responsibility would be pretty high on my personal list, since I HAVEN'T WORKED IN 8 MONTHS. I suppose learning to accept things as they are and playing well with others is not on your "to do" list? Three and a half long years to go. BTW, at least you didn't throw FDR out there as your Dem of choice. I will now find more enjoyable topics to read. See ya!

 

[kokonut]

I suppose fiscal responsibility would be pretty high on my personal list, since I HAVEN'T WORKED IN 8 MONTHS. I suppose learning to accept things as they are and playing well with others is not on your "to do" list? Three and a half long years to go. BTW, at least you didn't throw FDR out there as your Dem of choice. I will now find more enjoyable topics to read. See ya!

FDR was never a conservative president.

"I suppose learning to accept things as they are and playing well with others is not on your "to do" list?" - Not sure what you meant by that.

If you actually believe in fiscal responsibility then you would surely would not condone Obama's deficit spending a trillion dollars over the allocated budget amount. Just as I have not supported Bush for going over budget and created a deficit as well. The writing is on the wall. We cannot borrow any more money to pay for these things. Nor can we spend money we don't have.

 

[darkdog]

And nearly half of them are Conservatives.

All the more reason to give the government less power.

 

[kokonut]

All the more reason to give the government less power.

Exactly. Less govt. The answer is not bigger govt and more intrusion but less intrusion and greater rights to states.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states' sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Tenth Amendment Center also reported that Florida State Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, introduced a memorial earlier this month urging "Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power."

"Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government's reckless deficit spending and abuse of power," Sen. Baker said. "With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state's rights must be respected."

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state

Federalism at it's best.

 

[darkdog]

My opinion on what we should do about CO2? Nothing.

Now, in terms of actual pollution control (CO2 is NOT a pollutant so leave that one out) that affects readily at the local and regional scale we should continue to try and reduce acid rain, ozone pollution (at ground level), smog and so on because those things do immediately impact people directly and even indirectly (e.g. acidic stream waters).

If you want to pursue "green technology" then that's fine, too but not under the guise of fear about rising CO2 and that people must pay taxes for that. Heck, China and India want nothing to do with any protocols relating to "global warming." Why should they knee-cap themselves economically when they are growing prosperously each day? Just as we grew prosperously each day and now we're at a point where we can "afford" to look into other cleaner energy technology. Not that it's the answer but it gives us a bigger platter to make our choices from. Punishment is not the answer. Yet people are suggesting that we, too, must pay more in taxes for China's and India's growths.

What we have is a bunch of morons at the White House and Congress. Plain and simple.

I'm not in favor of doing anything to hamper the market. People are simply not going to accept the economic pain necessary to force emissions down enough to make any difference. Even if the alarmism is true, that's absolutely the worst way to go.

I'm all for going the other way- creating wealth. If this global warming thing really is a problem, only a wealthy society can fund the R&D to develop and implement the technology to get us out. I say build nuclear power plants. Drill off the coasts. Increase our GDP so companies can have resources to spend on R&D. If necessary, offer a reward to anyone that can come up with a clean, reliable, plentiful, and transportable way of producing energy that can easily compete with fossil fuels without subsidies. Even if such a reward was $10 billion, that would be far cheaper than what cap and trade or a carbon tax would cost us. And it would actually do the world some good even if the AGW hypothesis is totally wrong.

So increasing economic activity to solve the problem- seems like something the skeptics can sign onto. As for the other side, I guess it depends on how sound my thinking is (please feel free to point out any holes) and how true it is that their ulterior motive is to increase government control over our lives.

 

[kokonut]

Exactly. The idea is to give them incentives through rewards, not punishment by increasing energy taxes when the cost will be passed on down to consumers, even to poor and middle class consumers. The cap and trade is essentially a tax on everybody based on a bogus claim about CO2.

 

[flip]

A dead give away on your lack of CO2 knowledge and concentration is seen in your comment. Do you even know what "ppm" means? Parts per million. Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or 380 molecules (parts) of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of air. In short, 380 ppm = 380/1,000,000 = .038 percent = .00038.

Got it?

Good boy.

Now, 5000 ppm means that amount of concentration of CO2, volume-wise, take up only 0.5 percent of the air around you. Or 5000 molecules of CO2 for every 1,000,000 molecules of air. Quite harmless. It'd have to get up to 50,000 ppm (5%) for it start to become toxic to human beings. 5000 ppm is rather harmless to human beings, even for long exposures. Heck, pure Oxygen over the short period can be quite toxic to us.

Here's something for you to learn.
Toxicity of Carbon Dioxide CO2 Gas Exposure, poisoning symptoms, exposure limits, and Links to Toxic Gas Testing Procedures C02 Gas toxicity CO2 exposure limits

Thanks, you made my day.

Your lack of knowledge on CO2 seems to increase for each post you do on this topic, LOL. It's obvious you didn't care or didn't understand the link you posted, and just threw in the first hit you got on google after a quick glance at some numbers.

It's toxic long before 50.000 ppm. What happens at 50.000 ppm, is that you die in minuttes instead of hours or weeks. The United States Department of Labor ban exposure to anything over 5.000 ppm of CO2. For homes, recommended ppm is lower.

Carbon Dioxide

"The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health.".

Following your argument, anything that is low on ppm in the air is not toxic. Cyanide was far more common in the earliest atmosphere, like CO2, but somehow I know that you never would dare to walk in a room with 100 ppm of cyanide.

 

[flip]

Exactly. The idea is to give them incentives through rewards, not punishment by increasing energy taxes when the cost will be passed on down to consumers, even to poor and middle class consumers. The cap and trade is essentially a tax on everybody based on a bogus claim about CO2.

I think I am outta here, this is getting too weird with extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics.

 

[Jiro]

I think I am outta here, this is getting too weird with extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics.

and left wing conspiracy theories and politics as well......

 

[kokonut]

Your lack of knowledge on CO2 seems to increase for each post you do on this topic, LOL. It's obvious you didn't care or didn't understand the link you posted, and just threw in the first hit you got on google after a quick glance at some numbers.

It's toxic long before 50.000 ppm. What happens at 50.000 ppm, is that you die in minuttes instead of hours or weeks. The United States Department of Labor ban exposure to anything over 5.000 ppm of CO2. For homes, recommended ppm is lower.

Carbon Dioxide

"The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health.".

Following your argument, anything that is low on ppm in the air is not toxic. Cyanide was far more common in the earliest atmosphere, like CO2, but somehow I know that you never would dare to walk in a room with 100 ppm of cyanide.

Certainly it's toxic at 3% for those with smaller lungs or have a challenged system. For birds and smaller animal the percentage would be even lower. Yet, I was referring to healthy adults where, again, toxicty and deleterious effects begin around 5% or 50,000 ppm or so.

Here's a diagram. Deleterious symptoms start around 5% or 50,000 ppm.

Again, you came with a claim of 5000 ppm as being dangerous. It is not. You had no idea what ppm was in terms of ratio to air molecules and your comment showed that ignorance. The simple fact is that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant at high enough concentration.

Again, your science background?

As for cyanide, that's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to an extremely dangerous chemical compound lethal at 100 ppm (or even less) to that of CO2 which we can sustain concentration up to over 50,000 ppm. Night and day there, son, when it comes to concentration amount only because we're dealing with different chemical compounds. Each chemical compound has it's own level of toxicity or concentration enough to be lethal to humans. But for cyanide it has to be in the gaseous form so it must be hydrogen cyanide if you are tossing words around like "cyanide."

 

[flip]

Certainly it's toxic at 3% for those with smaller lungs or have a challenged system. For birds and smaller animal the percentage would be even lower. Yet, I was referring to healthy adults where, again, toxicty and deleterious effects begin around 5% or 50,000 ppm or so.

Here's a diagram. Deleterious symptoms start around 5% or 50,000 ppm.

Again, you came with a claim of 5000 ppm as being dangerous. It is not. You had no idea what ppm was in terms of ratio to air molecules and your comment showed that ignorance. The simple fact is that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant at high enough concentration.

Again, your science background?

As for cyanide, that's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to an extremely dangerous chemical compound lethal at 100 ppm (or even less) to that of CO2 which we can sustain concentration up to over 50,000 ppm. Night and day there, son, when it comes to concentration amount only because we're dealing with different chemical compounds. Each chemical compound has it's own level of toxicity or concentration enough to be lethal to humans. But for cyanide it has to be in the gaseous form so it must be hydrogen cyanide if you are tossing words around like "cyanide."

LOL. You crack me up. Calling me "son" I have done my homework on climate changes at university level. It's not in my interest to put my CV here, but I suspect I am better educated than you.

Now you admit one have to be healty and adult to cope with 30.000 ppm. It's still insanely much over the 5000 ppm limit from your own goverment. Interesting to see how your stance is starting to change though it's amazing to see how you ignore advices from your countrys department, and claim that those advices is something I personally have claimed. Litteracy problems? But good see it's still hope for you

Found another cite at wikipedia, that refers to The United States Department of Labor, and notice the first sentence that I missed out in earlier post, and you wrongly interpreted and guessed as the limit beeing at 30.000 ppm for infants:

"Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health."

Those facts are widely known and is basic knowledge on CO2.

 

[kokonut]

LOL. You crack me up. Calling me "son" I have done my homework on climate changes at university level. Um, sure. It's not in my interest to put my CV here, but I suspect I am better educated than you.
Not likely. Unless you have an advanced degree in geophysics/geology/hydrogeology in the area of Earth science, plus do professional work in the field of Earth science then you'll have something going for you. Hint: Kokonut Pundit: It's Idaho's Faults. Now, if you don't have a Curriculum Vitae, fine. Just don't pretend and wimp out, ok?
Now you admit one have to be healty and adult to cope with 30.000 ppm. Good lord, not cope at 30,000 ppm! Who in their right mind can "cope" at 3%? 5000 ppm, yes, but not 30,000. It's still insanely much over the 5000 ppm limit from your own goverment. My own govt? You must not be from the U.S. Interesting to see how your stance is starting to change though it's amazing to see how you ignore advices from your countrys department, and claim that those advices is something I personally have claimed. You claimed that 5000 ppm was dangerous. I said that it wasn't. My stance stayed the same ever since. Unless, of course, you can find in the medical literature that people have actually died at 5000 ppm (0.5 percent) concentration exposure of CO2. Find just one documented example of somebody dying becuase of 5000 ppm. Litteracy (note, it's spelled "literacy" and not litteracy. Nice little irony there.) problems? But good see it's still hope for you

Found another cite at wikipedia, that refers to The United States Department of Labor, and notice the first sentence that I missed out in earlier post, and you wrongly interpreted and guessed as the limit beeing at 30.000 ppm for infants:

"Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. For short-term (under ten minutes) exposure, the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) limit is 30,000 ppm (3%). NIOSH also states that carbon dioxide concentrations exceeding 4% are immediately dangerous to life and health."

Those facts are widely known and is basic knowledge on CO2. Um, again the issue was on acute toxicity where you get to have these serious deleterious effects. Not something you can survive indefinitely in. Again, 5000 ppm ain't gonna do it. 5000 ppm will not kill.

.

 

[flip]

.

Then I probably have something going for me, but so what. Your degrees don't conceal flawed arguments.

English isn't even my native language, thanks for correcting my spelling

Ok, now 30.000 is far from good? This is indeed getting more toxic. No more "not toxic before 50.000 ppm" or "30.000 ok for healty people"? You are improving, 5000 next!

I never said you die from 5000 pm, but that it will ruin your health. Of course, in the end, one risk to die much earlier.

"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."

TripAtlas.com - About Carbon_dioxide

 

[darkdog]

I think I am outta here, this is getting too weird with extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics.

The fact that you would avoid discussing my solution on its merits but flippantly refer to it as "extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics" gives credence to my suspicion that this whole global warming thing is really just a guise for socialism.

There are a few political realities the global warming crowd needs to recognize. It will be impossible to reach these carbon emissions goals through government coercion (cap and trade or a carbon tax). People won't stand for it. It would require extremely draconian action which would necessarily have to decimate the standard of living. That's political suicide. I've heard goals like 50% reduction in CO2 by the year 2050. Imagine that tomorrow, the United States halted all carbon emitting energy sources- vehicles, planes, trains, lights, machines, factories, TVs, computers, power plants- everything that didn't rely on solar panels and windmills gets turned off. Society would come to a screeching halt. I can only imagine the chaos that would result. And still, that would only reduce world carbon emissions by 25%.

Global warming skeptics also need to be aware of political realities as well- this hysteria isn't going away. You yourself have said that scientists can't predict the results of this. That means no matter what happens, whether the earth gets colder, warmer, or stay the same, it will be held up as evidence of global warming. That's why we should promote wealth-creating policies as the answer. Any solution will have to come in the form of technological advances which are rendered less likely by wealth destroying policies such as cap and trade. If a silver bullet is to come, it won't come from a third world country. Also, notice that when natural disasters, like hurricanes or earthquakes, strike in third world countries, thousands upon thousands of people die. When they strike in wealthy countries, you rarely get more than a handful of deaths. Wealth itself actually makes for a safer society that is more resilient to the catastrophes that might be created by global warming. We should work to make sure all countries are wealthy and thus have the resources to not only develop and implement greener technology, but also to make themselves resilient to whatever natural problems come along.

 

[kokonut]

Then I probably have something going for me, but so what. (But you don't and that's the problem when your background is obviously lacking). Your degrees don't conceal flawed arguments. My arguments are rather straight-forward and based on actual facts.
English isn't even my native language, thanks for correcting my spelling

Ok, now 30.000 is far from good? This is indeed getting more toxic. No more "not toxic before 50.000 ppm" or "30.000 ok for healty people"? You are improving, 5000 next! The key words were "acutely toxic" and "deleterious effects." You don't get that effect at 5000 ppm. That's a given. Symptoms at 5000 ppm, yes. But deleterious effects leading to coma and death? No.

I never said you die from 5000 pm, but that it will ruin your health. Of course, in the end, one risk to die much earlier. No, you implied in such a sense you'd die in a 5000 ppm CO2 environment. That was the basis of my whole argument. It's the much higher ppm that would undoubtedly cause problems. Even in oxygen-isotope studies from sea core beds showed that the upper limit of CO2 at one time (non-land based animals) was 7000 ppm and during the dinosaur era between 1000 and 2500 ppm over million of years.
"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."
People work in greenhouses all the time and CO2 concentration can easily go over 1000 ppm. It's actually beneficial for plants with higher CO2 concentration in the 600 to 1200 ppm range. The current 380 ppm today is actually helping plants grow more vigorously.
Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

......

So, let me ask you this, if CO2 is the main and sole driver of global warming when increasing CO2 means it'll force an increase in temperature, right? So, if CO2 concentration goes down then we can also posit that it will also force a decrease in temperature, right? After all the claim is about a direct correlation and main driver of global warming.

 

[kokonut]

The fact that you would avoid discussing my solution on its merits but flippantly refer to it as "extreme right wing conspiracy theories and politics" gives credence to my suspicion that this whole global warming thing is really just a guise for socialism.

There are a few political realities the global warming crowd needs to recognize. It will be impossible to reach these carbon emissions goals through government coercion (cap and trade or a carbon tax). People won't stand for it. It would require extremely draconian action which would necessarily have to decimate the standard of living. That's political suicide. I've heard goals like 50% reduction in CO2 by the year 2050. Imagine that tomorrow, the United States halted all carbon emitting energy sources- vehicles, planes, trains, lights, machines, factories, TVs, computers, power plants- everything that didn't rely on solar panels and windmills gets turned off. Society would come to a screeching halt. I can only imagine the chaos that would result. And still, that would only reduce world carbon emissions by 25%.

Global warming skeptics also need to be aware of political realities as well- this hysteria isn't going away. You yourself have said that scientists can't predict the results of this. That means no matter what happens, whether the earth gets colder, warmer, or stay the same, it will be held up as evidence of global warming. That's why we should promote wealth-creating policies as the answer. Any solution will have to come in the form of technological advances which are rendered less likely by wealth destroying policies such as cap and trade. If a silver bullet is to come, it won't come from a third world country. Also, notice that when natural disasters, like hurricanes or earthquakes, strike in third world countries, thousands upon thousands of people die. When they strike in wealthy countries, you rarely get more than a handful of deaths. Wealth itself actually makes for a safer society that is more resilient to the catastrophes that might be created by global warming. We should work to make sure all countries are wealthy and thus have the resources to not only develop and implement greener technology, but also to make themselves resilient to whatever natural problems come along.

Correct. Europe tried to do the cap and trade thing but it failed at that and, ironically so, the ppm still went up!
NY Times Reports Failure of Cap & Trade It’s Getting Hot In Here
Is Europe Leading or Losing on CO2 Emissions?

It's the hallmark of a failure in the making.

Indeed, there is a relationship in countries that are well off economically and financially are able to improve their energy efficiencies and pollution controls because they can afford to and dabble in those areas. Third world and up and coming countries cannot afford to do those things which is why India and China are refusing to go along with the UN mandate on the cap and trade agreement on CO2 emissions. And why should they? Let them run their course go about their economic growth and prosperity. China's pollution is horrible and new coal plants are being built every week/month to help supply electricity in a fast, growing country. Living standards continue to rise in terms of affordability of cars, houses, food and so on. And then they'll reach a point when grassroot organizations will protest about the bad health due to air pollution, water pollution, clear cutting and so on. Does that sound familiar? That was the United States from the 1940s to 1970s that witness explosive growth in prosperity. And environmental grassroots and concerned citizens were able to mobilize and convince their govt that better standards and pollution controls must be attained.
Remember this story in 1969 which helped create the Clean Water Act?
WATER POLLUTION: Cuyahoga River caught fire 40 years ago today The Conservation Report

 

[flip]

......

So, let me ask you this, if CO2 is the main and sole driver of global warming when increasing CO2 means it'll force an increase in temperature, right? So, if CO2 concentration goes down then we can also posit that it will also force a decrease in temperature, right? After all the claim is about a direct correlation and main driver of global warming.

I can recommend you a course in self insight to fully explore if your arguments really are based on actual facts.

So now you admit symptoms at 5000 ppm. Congratulations. 800 next! Comments on over 800 ppm being unhealty versus your earlier claims on 5000 ppm?:

"Quite harmless"

"5000 ppm is rather harmless to human beings, even for long exposures."

and this one on 1000 ppm:
"Even in greenhouses where CO2 is around 1000 ppm, the higher CO2 concentration does not harm people working in there and the plants love it."

Your graph is from different eras when the mix of greenhouse gases was different and not so very interesting. The Vostok graph below, showing the last 240 000 years describes more accurately the current state of earth atmosphere and what drives it. The delays in temperature and CO2 are due to interglacials, where CO2 is following temperature.

Also the next houndred thousands years below this graph.