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

[sequoias]

Don't forget we breath a small part of nitrogen, too.

I think the damaging part of pollution is hydrocarbons and carbon moxidide.

 

[flip]

Over 800, no. Like I said you have to look at the scale of things when it comes to the amount of CO2 that takes over the volume of air. Even at 5000 ppm there is no indication that it will "ruin" your health just by simply strolling around in that environment. 5000 ppm = .5% which means 99.5% is air. People have not died nor suffered life-threatening complications from exposures to 5000 ppm. Do you have any reports to back this up? A stroll through 5000 ppm isn't hazardous. You make it sound like the equivalent of walking in a room full of carbon monoxide, this is carbon dioxide we're talking about. Consider 5000 ppm as the "upper limit" but certainly it is, again, harmless at that level since you'd be breathing 99.5% of air versus 99.95% of air with ppm at 500 ppm. Or for 800 ppm then that means you'd be breathing 99.92% air, down from 99.96% at 380 ppm. A change of .04 percent. Pretty insignifican in terms of volume lost to CO2 replacing air.

What ruins your health is to stroll around in a thick, hazy smog environment, carbon monixide exposure, even breathing pure Oxygen 100% of the time will eventually kill you. We're not breathing pure CO2 here folks. We're not talking about an environment of 10,000, 50,000 ppm here. Even if ppm today get up to 1000 ppm in, say, 50 years from now, it'd still be an insignificant amount of volume change over.

Go on and move into a house with 5000 ppm of CO2. I promise no one will dare to live with you. The police might even show up and demolish the house since it's not legal to commit suicide without reason in USA.

Looking at the stat you pulled up on CO2 from cambrian times to now, the earth use at least 10 millions of years to change concentrations of 1000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. You say it's ok to change that in freaking FIFTY YEARS. Man, you are extreme.

 

[netrox]

Over 800, no. Like I said you have to look at the scale of things when it comes to the amount of CO2 that takes over the volume of air. Even at 5000 ppm there is no indication that it will "ruin" your health just by simply strolling around in that environment. 5000 ppm = .5% which means 99.5% is air.

What ruins your health is to stroll around in a thick, hazy smog environment, carbon monixide exposure, even breathing pure Oxygen 100% of the time will eventually kill you. We're not breathing pure CO2 here folks. We're not talking about an environment of 10,000, 50,000 ppm here. Even if ppm today get up to 1000 ppm in, say, 50 years from now, it'd still be an insignificant amount of volume change over.

Once again, you distort numbers to argue that CO2 is totally safe - and you fail.

You argued that CO2 is only .5% of the air we breath therefore since it's so small, it has to be safe. WRONG!

Then you acknowledge that carbon monoxide is dangerous and can kill you. At what concentration is required to harm a person? Only 667 ppm. That means only .06% in the air can cause serious harm. OSHA limits exposure to 50 ppm.

Stop playing with numbers. Just because it sounds so small doesn't make it "safe." Every molecule has its own potency and each has a different effect on humans.

Smoking RARELY causes immediate death. Even nicotine doesn't kill you immediately. It's the long term smoking that will eventually kill you. Just because it doesn't produce death immediately doesn't make it safe.

You have the tendency to overlook the significance of "trace" amounts of chemicals and that's very dangerous.

 

[Hwy99]

Dinosaurs was adjusted to a specific kind of climate. The atmosphere and temperature in the dino-age was different, and you would probably be the only one claiming the air is so fresh that time. Notice the swift change in climate at the end of the dino-era. It was not only dinosaurs who got in trouble, but 70-90 percent of all species became extinct. Something similar happened when great mammals became extinct. Don't worry, and be happy about climate changes..

Yeah, and also don't forget, there are a lot of new species that come out today due to the global warming, too.

 

[C.C.Sinned]

Yeah, and also don't forget, there are a lot of new species that come out today due to the global warming, too.

mother nature wants those five legged frogs :P





this topic give me a headache, it must be the CO2

 

[Hwy99]

mother nature wants those five legged frogs :P

this topic give me a headache, it must be the CO2

Yes, CO2 is part of those that cause the global warming and also the sun itself is growing bigger and bigger, that is another probably the reason why the global warming exists. The heatwaves also cause the climate changes since we have the CO2 that weaken the ozone of the earth.

But there are always ways we can use to protect ourselves from the global warming

 

[kokonut]

In the beginning of this thread you said: "CO2 is never known to be a climate driver."

Now it's: "..increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the sole/major driver in climate change."

Greetings with improvements.

CO2 has never been known to be a climate driver. Increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the sole driver in climate change. Nor can it be viewed as a major driver, either. What part you do not understand? It means that CO2 cannot even come close to a "major" driver. So, where does that put it?

 

[kokonut]

Don't forget we breath a small part of nitrogen, too.

I think the damaging part of pollution is hydrocarbons and carbon moxidide.

Smog is a whole variety of stuff, including ozone. It was really, really bad back in those days. It actually caused deaths. Remember the famous London Fog? Killed thousands.
The Great Smog of 1952

 

[netrox]

Smog is a whole variety of stuff, including ozone. It was really, really bad back in those days. It actually caused deaths. Remember the famous London Fog? Killed thousands.
The Great Smog of 1952

Oh yeah, and you don't think we have the ability to destroy the world.

 

[Jiro]

Oh yeah, and you don't think we have the ability to destroy the world.

we don't, silly. we can only kill ourselves but not the world.

 

[kokonut]

Yes, CO2 is part of those that cause the global warming and also the sun itself is growing bigger and bigger, that is another probably the reason why the global warming exists. The heatwaves also cause the climate changes since we have the CO2 that weaken the ozone of the earth.

But there are always ways we can use to protect ourselves from the global warming

No. The sun is currently not expanding. For it to expand means that the sun's fuel is being spent. And it would also mean that the sun would be cooling as well.

CO2 does not weaken the ozone. It's has no role in the weakening of the ozone layer. Read more about the ozone in the stratosphere.
Ozone Depletion Home | Ozone Depletion | US EPA

Heat waves do not cause climate change. Rather it's the claim that global warming or increasing CO2 concentration is causing more heat waves. But that's bogus thing, too.

 

[netrox]

we don't, silly. we can only kill ourselves but not the world.

Oh we CAN. Trust me.

 

[Jiro]

Oh we CAN. Trust me.

no we can't. you will not find any single intelligent scientist who will agree with your statement

 

[kokonut]

Oh yeah, and you don't think we have the ability to destroy the world.

Destroy the world? No. But we can certainly wipe ourselves out of existence. Just pray that there won't be an all out nuclear war using up every single nuclear stockpiles on Earth. Earth has survived with comets and asteroids slamming into it, and recovered time and time again. It may take a few thousand years to recover but recovered she did.

Now, you're implying that increasing CO2 will destroy the world?

Ooh, wait a minute. You're thinking about the Death Star thingy?
Star Wars vs Star Trek Technology: The Death Star
Fortunately, no. Man cannot destroy the planet. Unless you have an energy weapon enough to deliver instantly at least 1 * 10^32 joules of energy. The most powerful nuclear device detonated was in Russia exploded a 58 megaton nuclear device (see Energy of a Nuclear Explosion ) that released 2.4 x 10^17 joules of energy. In other words, to match that "Death Star" energy capability you'd need to have 1,000,000,000,000,000 or 1 quadrillion of these 58 megaton nuclear bombs going off all at once. How long do you think it would take to make 1 quadrillion bombs? LOL

However, Hollywood has a nasty habit of saying that we can destroy the world....thru fiction that is. Be careful what you watch and believe, Netrox.

 

[Everglade85]

As of now, to my knowledge, humans cannot purposely destroy the world.

I would not say that it's impossible that humans could eventually destroy the world. If it were to happen, I would say that it would most likely be an accident. Such an accident would happen if we experiment with dangerous things we don't understand.

For example, people have concerns that the Large Hadron Collider could accidentally create a black hole that could envelop the entire planet. Do I think that this could realistically happen before our sun goes supernova and we all die? No.

Would I say that there is absolutely no chance of a black hole forming? Well...that's a different story.


It's much more likely that the planet Earth would be destroyed by events occurring in space.

 

[flip]

CO2 has never been known to be a climate driver. Increase in CO2 concentration cannot be the sole driver in climate change. Nor can it be viewed as a major driver, either. What part you do not understand? It means that CO2 cannot even come close to a "major" driver. So, where does that put it?

Ok, let me explain with some special needs pedagogy the problems with your statemens, and why they wouldn't get approval from even a english high school teacher:

"CO2 has never known to be a climate driver." = CO2 don't drive any changes in climate. 97 percent of climate scientists disagree strongly with that statement, making it illogical to write "never known".

"CO2 increase cannot be the sole driver in climate change"=something else than above. Now CO2 can drive climate changes. Big difference. If you blame the word "increase" then you have a classic example of unclear statements, and it's illogical, because if the word increase is needed to be a climate driver, then nothing can drive the climate according to your first statement. Sun activities have to increase to drive the climate, else it's not a climate driver. CO2 have to increase, else it's not a climate driver.

 

[flip]

Oh we CAN. Trust me.

It's pretty easy yeah. Just drill deep holes and drop some nuclear bombs into them! Biggest firework the world ever will see, but first we need to build more bombs

 

[sequoias]

Ok, let me explain with some special needs pedagogy the problems with your statemens, and why they wouldn't get approval from even a english high school teacher:

"CO2 has never known to be a climate driver." = CO2 don't drive any changes in climate. 97 percent of climate scientists disagree strongly with that statement, making it illogical to write "never known".

"CO2 increase cannot be the sole driver in climate change"=something else than above. Now CO2 can drive climate changes. Big difference. If you blame the word "increase" then you have a classic example of unclear statements, and it's illogical, because if the word increase is needed to be a climate driver, then nothing can drive the climate according to your first statement. Sun activities have to increase to drive the climate, else it's not a climate driver. CO2 have to increase, else it's not a climate driver.

More CO2, water and warmer weather=faster plant growth. I still think it's carbon Moxide and hydrocarbons and other stuff causing bad things to the planet...I doubt it's CO2.

 

[Jiro]

It's pretty easy yeah. Just drill deep holes and drop some nuclear bombs into them! Biggest firework the world ever will see.

we did that many times. ever heard of underground nuclear bomb testing? we're still fine

 

[flip]

More CO2, water and warmer weather=faster plant growth. I still think it's carbon Moxide and hydrocarbons and other stuff causing bad things to the planet...I doubt it's CO2.

That's a big if. New and growing forest are CO2 neutral due to composition and fallen branches etc, so not much aid there. It's some claims that forests can consume more CO2 than it pours out, but then it have to be old-growth forest, something that we are chopping down at a incredible fast rate.

I agree that CO and hydrocarbons contribute to our problems!