Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

a reply to: CranialSponge

No that is the difference between highly toxic, and less toxic.

Most death by CO2 is caused by suffocation because it displaces oxygen. With ventilation, oxygen is replenished.

Have you ever heard of the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster?
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Most death by CO2 is caused by suffocation because it displaces oxygen.

Exactly.

It simply displaces oxygen.

Oxygenic suffocation does not equate to CO2 being toxic, in and of itself. It just simply means a dangerous imbalance of the needed oxygen ratio.

You can have oxygenic suffocation in the water too. Doesn't mean the water killed you (literally), the lack of oxygen did.



Interestingly enough, CO2 was not considered a pollutant (by any definition) until AGW came along.

a reply to: CranialSponge

Then you have never heard of carbon dioxide poisoning either, a.k.a. Hypercapnia...

en.wikipedia.org...

Carbon dioxide has always been a pollutant.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

The EPA lists six major contributors to air pollution: Ozone, Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead.

I don't see carbon dioxide in there... do you ?!

Carbon dioxide is non-toxic, tasteless, colourless, non-irritating to the skin or other organs, non-carcinogenic, and with no known harmful effects brought on by chronic exposure. Chemistry 101.

Apparently, your definition of a "toxic pollutant" and mine are quite different from one another.


Like I said, CO2 was never a "pollutant" until AGW came along.


And by the way, it's pretty obvious the only reason you brought up the catalytic converter thing was to try to correct me on my listing of carbon monoxide as being a part of the chemical makeup of "smog"... in an attempt to show that carbon monoxide is not a main part of that chemical makeup. You couldn't be more farther from the truth.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: CranialSponge

Then you have never heard of carbon dioxide poisoning either, a.k.a. Hypercapnia...

en.wikipedia.org...

Carbon dioxide has always been a pollutant.

Why do you keep talking about oxygen suffocation ?

What... because they use the term "carbon dioxide poisoning" then it literally must mean that the CO2 is toxic and poisonous ?!

Reduced oxygen levels in the blood is dangerous in any scenario. Period.
CO2 or no CO2.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: WeAre0ne

The EPA lists six major contributors to air pollution: Ozone, Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead.

I don't see carbon dioxide in there... do you ?!

No I don't see carbon dioxide, because they are only listing the six common pollutants that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set standards for.

The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards for six common air pollutants.

Again, you need to practice reading more, specifically the very first sentence of your EPA source.

Speaking of EPA sources...

www.epa.gov...

EPA determined in 2009 that emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases that build up in the atmosphere endanger the health and welfare of current and future generations by causing climate change and ocean acidification.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution leads to more frequent and intense heat waves that increase mortality, especially among the poor and elderly.

www.epa.gov...

The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) — in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare.

That's funny, the EPA refers to Carbon Dioxide as greenhouse gas pollution.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Carbon dioxide is non-toxic, tasteless, colourless, non-irritating to the skin or other organs, non-carcinogenic, and with no known harmful effects brought on by chronic exposure. Chemistry 101.

At ordinary levels, CO2 is non-toxic. At high levels, humans can suffer carbon dioxide intoxication, which may turn into carbon dioxide poisoning, and cause death.

en.wikipedia.org...
chemistry.about.com...

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Apparently, your definition of a "toxic pollutant" and mine are quite different from one another.

Yes, that is because you don't understand the definition of "toxic" or "pollutant", and I do.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Like I said, CO2 was never a "pollutant" until AGW came along.

AGW was dicovered in 1896, so that is quite a long time.

Admittedly, people were hesitant to call CO2 a pollutant because it is naturally found in our atmosphere. They figured, how can you pollute what is already present? It really became a concern when our machines started to create a massive amount of CO2, and harming our environment, that is when it could be considered a pollutant.

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: CranialSponge
And by the way, it's pretty obvious the only reason you brought up the catalytic converter thing was to try to correct me on my listing of carbon monoxide as being a part of the chemical makeup of "smog"... in an attempt to show that carbon monoxide is not a main part of that chemical makeup. You couldn't be more farther from the truth.

Wow, you couldn't be further from the truth. I would never claim carbon monoxide is not a part of the chemical makeup of combustion engines, and I never did make that claim, ever. That would be completely foolish.

I brought up the catalytic converter because you failed to mention carbon dioxide, which is byproduct of combustion engines fitted with catalytic converters (almost all vehicles in the USA). You also made an extremely ignorant claim that pollution from combustion engines has nothing to do with AGW, when you couldn't be further from correct, because combustion engines with catalytic converters create CO2.

Wow...

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Why do you keep talking about oxygen suffocation ?

What... because they use the term "carbon dioxide poisoning" then it literally must mean that the CO2 is toxic and poisonous ?!

Reduced oxygen levels in the blood is dangerous in any scenario. Period.
CO2 or no CO2.

I'm not just talking about oxygen suffocation. Wow, you are having trouble with this. lol.

Increased levels of CO2 in the blood stream causes all sorts of problems with your body and mind. Only one of those problems is lack of oxygen.

I gave you the sources to read, you obviously are not reading them.

en.wikipedia.org...

Symptoms and signs of early hypercapnia include flushed skin, full pulse, tachypnea, dyspnea, extrasystoles, muscle twitches, hand flaps, reduced neural activity, and possibly a raised blood pressure. According to other sources, symptoms of mild hypercapnia might include headache, confusion and lethargy. Hypercapnia can induce increased cardiac output, an elevation in arterial blood pressure, and a propensity toward arrhythmias.[5][6] In severe hypercapnia (generally PaCO2 greater than 10 kPa or 75 mmHg), symptomatology progresses to disorientation, panic, hyperventilation, convulsions, unconsciousness, and eventually death.[7][8]

F.Y.I. the quote is not talking about suffocation, its talking about elevated levels of CO2 in the blood stream.

Nice little graphic:

a reply to: WeAre0ne

So,

How much "excess" and "damaging" CO2 is in the air right now?

And how do we know if the "excess" is man made?

Doesn't the oceans and plants and land make up for "excesses"?

a reply to: WeAre0ne

EPA determined in 2009 that emissions of carbon dioxide and other long-lived greenhouse gases that build up in the atmosphere endanger the health and welfare of current and future generations by causing climate change and ocean acidification.

Yes, that's correct.

In 2009, CO2 was suddenly listed as a pollutant.

Again, it was not a pollutant until the AGW hyperbole. AGW was not hyperbolic in 1846... or 1916 or 1946 or 1986.

At ordinary levels, CO2 is non-toxic. At high levels, humans can suffer carbon dioxide intoxication, which may turn into carbon dioxide poisoning, and cause death.

Incorrect. So long as a person has a sufficient amount of oxygen going into their blood, they will not suffer any adverse effects from high levels of CO2. Again, you are misunderstanding "oxygen suffocation".

I brought up the catalytic converter because you failed to mention carbon dioxide, which is byproduct of combustion engines fitted with catalytic converters (almost all vehicles in the USA)

I didn't fail at anything.

I purposely didn't mention CO2, because it's not the smog-producing culprit. All the other byproducts are.

You failed to recognize that CO2 is not photochemical reactive and thus, not a major part of the chemical makeup of "smog" (aka: air pollution) - the stuff lingering over major cities that another poster mistakingly identified as carbon dioxide.

You also made an extremely ignorant claim that pollution from combustion engines has nothing to do with AGW, when you couldn't be further from correct, because combustion engines with catalytic converters create CO2.

I never said that combustion engines have nothing to do with AGW.

I said "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant".

Smog is polluting, CO2 is not. Ergo, pollution has nothing to do with AGW. They are different subjects.

There are 6000 different forms of pollution. Therefore, using a generalized term such as "pollution" is incorrect when you're talking about AGW. This is why so many people confuse "pollution" as being the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. They are not.

CO2 is not polluting our planet, everything else is.

Or are you saying that tossing a Pepsi can into the river is going to cause the planet to warm up ?






This all boils down to some other poster blathering on and on about how carbon dioxide is causing all the smog that lingers over the major cities of the world.

It is not.

It is not the emissions byproduct that causes all that smog we see hanging over our heads.

The other byproducts I listed are the culprits.

Carbon dioxide is not photochemical reactive, nor does it cause us direct adverse effects....

And that's why the EPA cannot claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant without also having to mention anthropogenic global warming (now called climate change) in the same sentence. Because it would be disinformation on their part if they didn't say it that way, and they bloody well know it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
How much "excess" and "damaging" CO2 is in the air right now?

For the past 800,000 years (possibly even 15 million years), we have never seen CO2 levels rise above 300ppm. Today, we are at 401ppm, and climbing fast, with no sign of slowing.



mashable.com...
co2now.org...

Before the industrial revolution, CO2 levels naturally fluctuated, but only within a certain range (never above 300ppm max). I personally believe anything above that natural range is "excessive" and "damaging". So to answer your question, I believe we currently have 100ppm "excess" CO2 in our atmosphere.

originally posted by: xuenchen
And how do we know if the "excess" is man made?

Through direct and indirect measurement we know how much natural CO2 was constantly absorbed and released from the carbon cycle for the past 800,000 or more years. We also know how much CO2 humans have been releasing outside of the natural carbon cycle since the industrial revolution.

Naturally, before humans entered the equation, the carbon cycle was balanced. It naturally absorbed roughly the same amount of CO2 that it released. The ocean absorbed 338 gigatons of CO2, and release 332 gigatons. Vegetation and Land absorbed 450 gigatons of CO2, and released 439 gigatons.

Since 2011, humans have been releasing 30+ gigatons into the carbon cycle, but we have not been absorbing any. We have upset the balance.

To answer your question, the "excess" is not just man-made CO2, it is also natural CO2. That is because when we release man-made CO2, it increases temperature, and that increased temperature warms the ocean which releases the natural CO2, and unnatural CO2 it has absorbed previously, and that will cause temperature to rise more. So humans have released unnatural CO2, and caused natural CO2 to release as well.

Mind you, there is no difference between natural CO2 and unnatural CO2 other than the history of how it was introduced into the environment. It's all the same.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Doesn't the oceans and plants and land make up for "excesses"?

No. The carbon cycle roughly releases the same amount of CO2 that it absorbs. Very little is trapped.

This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans in billions of tons of carbon per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions in billions of tons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.

Introducing "excess" CO2 like humans are doing on a constant basis will only increase the amount that is released and absorbed in the carbon cycle, and over time reduce the amount of places for it to get trapped. No matter how you look at it, humans will be adding CO2 to the cycle, never removing, which will add up over time.

Simply put, it's a cycle, and adding more CO2 will only increase the amount that is in water, vegetation, land, and air at any given moment. We will be adding more than is being removed. Sooner or later the carbon cycle will reach its limit (if it hasn't already) and stop functioning. Water can only absorb and release so much, plants can only absorb and release so much (and we are cutting down trees too), the land can only absorb and release so much, the air... all of it will just build up.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

F.Y.I. the quote is not talking about suffocation, its talking about elevated levels of CO2 in the blood stream.

You proved yourself wrong when you answered my question regarding the auditorium scenario when you said one simple word: "Ventilation".

With sufficient air ventilation (oxygen to breath), nobody in the auditorium suffers any adverse effects from 4000 ppms of CO2.

Thus, carbon dioxide toxicity is caused by a lack of oxygen intake. NOT the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the air around you. If there is enough oxygen to continue taking in, CO2 levels are completely moot.

And how does one going about stopping carbon dioxide toxicity ?
They take in a breath of fresh air.

Why do you continue to argue yourself wrong ?

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Yes, that's correct.

In 2009, CO2 was suddenly listed as a pollutant.

Again, it was not a pollutant until the AGW hyperbole. AGW was not hyperbolic in 1846... or 1916 or 1946 or 1986.

So you agree, CO2 is listed as a pollutant.

CO2 has always been a pollutant. It doesn't just magically become a pollutant when someone puts it on a list.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Incorrect. So long as a person has a sufficient amount of oxygen going into their blood, they will not suffer any adverse effects from high levels of CO2. Again, you are misunderstanding "oxygen suffocation".

You are incorrect. You are assuming the adverse effects of excessive CO2 are caused by lack of oxygen, and that is false. The adverse affects still exist even if blood oxygen levels remained normal, and only CO2 blood levels increased.

Again, read more.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
I didn't fail at anything.

I purposely didn't mention CO2, because it's not the smog-producing culprit. All the other byproducts are.

You failed to recognize that CO2 is not photochemical reactive and thus, not a major part of the chemical makeup of "smog" (aka: air pollution) - the stuff lingering over major cities that another poster mistakingly identified as carbon dioxide.

I never said or implied anything about CO2's photochemical reactivity. So what makes you think you know what I recognized or didn't recognize? Again, you make an erroneous assumption.

Let's start over... The original ATS member you were replying to said this:

Will you deny there is a "greenhouse effect" basically over all major urban centers today, in the US as well as in China or Europe...where cities are literally choking under a cover a smog...caused by....well you guessed it...EMISSIONS and mainly Co2.

That member was asking if you deny that there is a local greenhouse effect happening in all major urban centers today, caused by emissions (mainly CO2). The member happened to make a statement mid sentence that cities are choking on smog.

You then proceeded to call him ignorant, and said:

The chemical makeup of smog is:
- Nitrogen oxides
- Sulfur dioxide
- Carbon monoxide
- Hydrocarbons
- various VOCs (volatile organic compounds)

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
You're confusing actual manmade pollution with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Two completely different things.

The most obvious mistake you made is not knowing that "nitrogen oxides" includes nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas and contributes to AGW...

The second most obvious mistake you made was trying to claim CO2 is not a pollutant. You knowingly or unknowingly created the illusion that CO2 is not emitted from combustion engines. If one were to read your reply for the first time, they might assume you are completely ignorant yourself, and that you are unaware that catalytic converters on vehicles convert carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, and pollute our air. When you claimed the man-made pollution is different from AGW, you confirmed said assumption.

AGW is an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans which will inevitably cause the Earth to heat up. Vehicle emissions (man-made pollutants) including nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, are all greenhouse gases, and contribute to AGW.

That is why I informed you of the existence of catalytic converters, and that CO2 contributes to AGW in my initial reply to you.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
I never said that combustion engines have nothing to do with AGW.

I said "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant".

Smog is polluting, CO2 is not. Ergo, pollution has nothing to do with AGW. They are different subjects.

You said, "You're confusing actual manmade pollution with Anthropogenic Global Warming. Two completely different things.". Just now, you say it again, "pollution has nothing to do with AGW".

Are you being serious? Man-made pollution is the main cause of AGW!

Man-made pollutants from vehicle emissions such as nitrous oxide, methane, CO2 contribute to AGW. Yes, CO2 is a pollutant, and you already agreed to it, and so did the EPA.

Again, a pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
There are 6000 different forms of pollution. Therefore, using a generalized term such as "pollution" is incorrect when you're talking about AGW. This is why so many people confuse "pollution" as being the same thing as anthropogenic global warming. They are not.

You have a serious problem with semantics.

In the context of AGW, the term "pollution" is and always has been the generalized term for all the chemical substances that are released by humans and contribute to AGW, which include the main greenhouse gases I have listed many times.

Pollution from vehicles is one of the main concerns of AGW proponents.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
CO2 is not polluting our planet, everything else is.
Or are you saying that tossing a Pepsi can into the river is going to cause the planet to warm up ?

No, CO2 is polluting our planet. I am done talking to you now. Have a good day.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
You proved yourself wrong when you answered my question regarding the auditorium scenario when you said one simple word: "Ventilation".

With sufficient air ventilation (oxygen to breath), nobody in the auditorium suffers any adverse effects from 4000 ppms of CO2

Thus, carbon dioxide toxicity is caused by a lack of oxygen intake. NOT the increase of carbon dioxide levels in the air around you. If there is enough oxygen to continue taking in, CO2 levels are completely moot.

And how does one going about stopping carbon dioxide toxicity ?
They take in a breath of fresh air.

Why do you continue to argue yourself wrong ?

I didn't prove myselft wrong, everything I said is correct.

You continue to claim that CO2 toxicity symptoms are simply lack of oxygen symptoms, and that is just not true. The symptoms are caused by excess CO2 in the blood stream.

If you were able to instantly inject CO2 into your blood stream which contains sufficient oxygen levels, you would still get CO2 toxicity symptoms, and not lack of oxygen symptoms...

How does one go about stopping CO2 toxicity? You EXHALE to remove CO2 from your body.

Ok now I'm done.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

The adverse affects still exist even if blood oxygen levels remained normal, and only CO2 blood levels increased.

If this were true, then everyone would have dropped dead in the auditorium.

The only way for CO2 to increase is for O2 to decrease, and vice versa.

You cannot have "normal" blood oxygen levels (90-98%) alongside with extremely high levels of CO2.

a reply to: CranialSponge

And if the opposite were true - there were no CO2 in the air - we would all drop dead.

It is rising levels of CO2 in the blood stream that triggers that brain to initiate action to take the next breath!

So what exactly is your point?

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: CranialSponge

And if the opposite were true - there were no CO2 in the air - we would all drop dead.

It is rising levels of CO2 in the blood stream that triggers that brain to initiate action to take the next breath!

So what exactly is your point?

Tired of Control Freaks

The point is: They work hand in hand.

The body takes in oxygen and expels the byproduct CO2.

If that ratio goes out of kilter in either direction, you're in trouble. And the only way that ratio can change is for one side of the equation to decrease without any means to bounce back.

He's trying to say that CO2 in and of itself, will cause a person to drop. Oxygen levels be damned.

This is simply not correct.

Oxygen depletion has to happen in order for CO2 toxicity to happen.

They're reciprocal.

a reply to: Mary Rose

There is nothing wrong with science....

But there is a lot of wrong with you measuring everything in money...

Sure, denial will save you couple of bucks today... and cost your kids real fortune in future...

I am sure this is what you would look with all evidence pointing to human making climate change faster and worst... still in denial.

So we are overdosing the earth with CO2 but somehow this doesnt have any effects on the climate at all? You really believe that?

Have you seen Bejing, India or any major city these days? That smog has to go somewhere and if you dont believe it changes the chemical consistency of the atmosphere I dont know what does.. Its not like we have a chimney on the earth or something.

We are overdosing the earth. And even if this global warming is part of a natural climate change that happened before, you cant tell me it ever went in a matter of decades without a lot of help from us.

originally posted by: Mary Rose
Man-made global warming re-named climate change is a pretext to try to justify a carbon tax. The fact that scientists will go along with this fraud is a very good example of what's wrong with science today. Science is not free to seek the truth. It is controlled by vested interests.

smoking re-named smoking is a pretext to try to justify a smokingsmoking tax. The fact that scientists will go along with this fraud is a very good example of what's wrong with science today. Science is not free to seek the truth. It is controlled by vested interests.

a reply to: WeAre0ne

Not a bad lecture.

Now what are governments and people supposed to do?

Without the financial/banker carbon derivative complex involved.