EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Why would I do that?
Perhaps you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one who claimed that you'd be fine in a garage with a CO2 generator in it.

a reply to: Phage

In this case, it is patently obvious that the final conclusion did not take all the symptoms into effect.

That said, it may be possible that the victims died from CO2. As someone said above, water can kill under the right circumstances. As to the garage, just for yucks, I ran some calcs.

A 10' by 20' by 9' high garage contains about 51 cubic meters of air. At 10% concentration, that's 5.1 cubic meters of pure CO2 to achieve fatal levels. That equates to about 10 kg of pure CO2. To get that, assuming 100% octane (conservative, most gasoline has an octane rating around 87-90%), you would have to burn about 1.25 gallons of gasoline. My Buick gets about 27 mpg, so that's the equivalent of driving about 34 miles (4 minutes at 60 mph) at an average of 2000 rpm, or 68000 revolutions. At idle, let's say the engine burns about half that much fuel per rpm and runs at about 600 rpm. So as long as I'm out of there before about 4 hours, the level will stay below 10%.

That's assuming: 100% hermetically sealed area, a small one-car garage, high-octane mixture, and is very conservative on the burn rate (typical idle is far less than 50% of driving consumption). It also ignores the fact that the car would begin to stall due to the excess CO2 interfering with combustion well before that time limit were reached.

In simple terms: if you can guarantee the exhaust will not put off any carbon monoxide, I'll be happy to take a nap in that garage with the engine running. I might wake up with a slight headache.

Back on Topic: the 10% level we are discussing is 250 times the highest estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels.

Reality.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Yes, under those parameters (not previously specified) you would not die. But I'm not sure about this:

It also ignores the fact that the car would begin to stall due to the excess CO2 interfering with combustion well before that time limit were reached.

The computer would compensate if necessary.

Back on Topic: the 10% level we are discussing is 250 times the highest estimates of atmospheric CO2 levels.

Indeed it is.

a reply to: Phage

Well, the only compensation the computer can perform is adjustment of the fuel/air ratio. Compensation would actually decrease the mixture as it detected less free oxygen in the exhaust, worsening the stall problem.

But I'm glad we finally got back on a reality topic.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any idea how much CO2 levels would have to increase for that to happen globally?... To put in context... That room you are in with the AC on, or the heater on has an average 1,000ppm of atmospheric CO2 in your house/room. Are you dead? Are your plants dead?... Are your pets dead?... Even if globally CO2 levels were to double, they still wouldn't reach 1,000ppm...

Its the use of the "green house" in the rhetoric that says we are in some kind of a closed system in Granny's back yard . It's a box of thought that keeps the sheep all huddled together and blatting the same chicken little sky is falling and we are doomed .

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Well, the only compensation the computer can perform is adjustment of the fuel/air ratio. Compensation would actually decrease the mixture as it detected less free oxygen in the exhaust, worsening the stall problem.

But I'm glad we finally got back on a reality topic.

TheRedneck

In which case it would be the reduced O2 rather than increased CO2 which was the problem.

Still nowhere near on topic.

a reply to: Phage

True. Any gas that reduces the oxygen level by displacement can be dangerous.

I think part of the issue may be Hollywood movies. I remember several references they used to make about suffocation in an enclosed space. While it is possible, it's not something one typically needs to worry about. Human respiratory systems are pretty efficient and hardy, and they can suck O2 out of the air at pretty low levels.

People tend to remember movies before they remember science class.

TheRedneck

a reply to: _damon

So a post full of ad homs, gotcha.
Usually what happens when you don't have anything better to say.

a reply to: Greven

Pop quiz: what is fertilizer made of?

Fertilizer is made of any sort of organic matter. From leaves and wood to poop and dead carcasses, basically anything you find in nature.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Im totally content with you believing that. Since i know the truth of it. Mere assumptions are but futile to me.

Try to question things a little harder because you end up becoming just another puppet controlled by so called "experts" you even never met. Trusting blindly in a society where lies have become the rule, is rather foolish, aint it? You should always assume something is trying to control you because that's what's happening. Either you deny it or accept it, no need to prove it, unless you want to end up wasting your life in fruitless endless debates? Never to really advance? Damn.

originally posted by: Phage
Why would I do that?
Perhaps you're responding to the wrong person. I'm not the one who claimed that you'd be fine in a garage with a CO2 generator in it.

Because you are making a red herring, you claim CO2 kills, so can anything else that displaces oxygen. Even water, which is another building block for life on Earth can kill, so can CO2... It doesn't make it bad, and certainly it doesn't make it any less plant food.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Because you are making a red herring, you claim CO2 kills, so can anything else that displaces oxygen.

No. I made no red herring. The claim was, seemingly, that CO2 is harmless. This is true under normal circumstances, but the poster was not talking about normal circumstances. So my position could be more properly called argumentum ad absurdum. Which is not actually a logical fallacy, whereas a red herring is.

It doesn't make it bad, and certainly it doesn't make it any less plant food.

Is oxygen animal food?

originally posted by: Phage

In which case it would be the reduced O2 rather than increased CO2 which was the problem.

Still nowhere near on topic.

How is your claim that CO2 kills anywhere on topic? is the level of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere anywhere close to 2,000ppm? At 2,500ppm is when people start feeling dizzy. Death occurs when CO2 levels reach 100,000PPM.

It is not. But in that room you are in, with your pc, your AC/heater, the average CO2 levels in your house are around 350ppm-1,000ppm or more.

In order for Earth to reach the level of atmospheric CO2 that will cause the death of everyone in the planet an apocalyptic event would have to occur.

...
Indoor comfort and air quality includes parameters like

temperature
odor
high or low levels of gases

Since CO2 is exhaled by people at predictable levels the content of Carbon Dioxide in the indoor air can be used as a significant indication of air quality.

Fresh supply air correlates to the indoor level of CO2 as:

15 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 1000 ppm CO2
20 cfm ventilation rate per occupant - aprox. 800 ppm CO2

ppm - parts per million

Normal CO2 Levels

The effects of CO2 on adults at good health can be summarized to:

normal outdoor level: 350 - 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
adverse health effects may be expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 - 10000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 15 minute working period: 30000 ppm

The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels

slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30000 - 40000 ppm
above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50000 ppm
unconscious, further exposure death: 100000 ppm
...

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

How is your claim that CO2 kills anywhere on topic?

I said it was off topic, didn't I? It was as about as on topic as the claim that you'd be fine in a sealed garage with a CO2 generator or a bunch of nonsense about the Earth's magnetic field.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Because you are making a red herring, you claim CO2 kills, so can anything else that displaces oxygen.

No. I made no red herring. The claim was, seemingly, that CO2 is harmless. This is true under normal circumstances, but the poster was not talking about normal circumstances. So my position could be more properly called argumentum ad absurdum. Which is not actually a logical fallacy, whereas a red herring is.

This all started when one ATS member claimed "fill your garage with CO2 and see what happens". Apparently he believes that people die from CO2 when they leave their cars running, or when there is a gas leak. It isn't CO2 that kills people.

When someone leaves their car on inside a closed garage it is CO (Carbon Monoxide) that kills them because it replaces and blocks oxygen molecules.

You will die with a smaller concentration of CO before you feel the effects of CO2.

Then you proclaimed to ATS member TheRedneck that "CO2 kills"... So can anything else that displaces oxygen.

Your argument has no merit whatsoever.

originally posted by: Phage
Is oxygen animal food?

It is another element needed by animals and humans on Earth...

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: Greven
So if you're in a closed garage with your car running, you'll be just fine?

As long as it puts out carbon DIOXIDE instead of carbon MONOXIDE, yes, you'll be fine.

TheRedneck

Excuse me, you (and others) missed a little bit of context here. Lemme help:

originally posted by: Greven
This 'CO2 is plant food' talking point is dumb.

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Greven

This 'CO2 is plant food' talking point is dumb.

Do you think plants are made of only carbon and oxygen?

LOL... Obviously you have no idea that all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based...

Carbon forms the key component for all known life on Earth. Complex molecules are made up of carbon bonded with other elements, especially oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, and carbon is able to bond with all of these because of its four valence electrons. Carbon is abundant on earth. It is also lightweight and relatively small in size, making it easier for enzymes to manipulate carbon molecules.[citation needed] It is often[how often?] assumed in astrobiology that if life exists somewhere else in the universe, it will also be carbon based.[1][2] Critics refer to this assumption as carbon chauvinism.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Some people really need to brush up on their "science"...

originally posted by: Greven

So if you're in a closed garage with your car running, you'll be just fine?

You immediately jumped on what you assumed was my error - that I had somehow forgotten carbon monoxide.

You are not thinking clearly, however.

In case you aren't seeing it:
His point was that CO2 is great because Earth's life forms are carbon-based.
Guess what carbon monoxide has in it?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When someone leaves their car on inside a closed garage it is CO (Carbon Monoxide) that kills them because it replaces and blocks oxygen molecules.

No.
Carbon monoxide (as well as carbon dioxide) are quite poisonous in high enough concentrations, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen.

It is another element needed by animals and humans on Earth...

That was not my question.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven

Pop quiz: what is fertilizer made of?

Fertilizer is made of any sort of organic matter. From leaves and wood to poop and dead carcasses, basically anything you find in nature.

Have you heard of ammonium nitrate?

originally posted by: Phage

No.
Carbon monoxide (as well as carbon dioxide) are quite poisonous in high enough concentrations, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen.

No, CO at lower levels is more dangerous than CO2, people die more frequently from CO poisoning than CO2 poisoning.

CO molecules bind firmly to iron atoms in hemoglobin which causes hemoglobin not to exchange oxygen which essentially suffocates you inside out.

CO is a lot more dangerous than CO2 Phage...

Carbon Monoxide is More Dangerous than Carbon Dioxide
November 26, 2013
...
Carbon Dioxide and Hemoglobin

Although bonding between carbon dioxide and hemoglobin occurs, it is easily reversed. It is part of respiration. It merely lowers the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen. Carbon monoxide bonds to hemoglobin in a potentially fatal way.
Combining CO with Hemoglobin

Monoxide bonds to the iron found in hemoglobin. It is the oxygen carrying component of blood. Bonds to carbon monoxide are 200+ times stronger than bonds to oxygen. Once hemoglobin bonds to CO, it is hours before it is available to bond with oxygen. What if a sizable percentage of hemoglobin bonds to monoxide? Death results by asphyxiation.

www.quirkyscience.com...

originally posted by: Phage
That was not my question.

You are just trying to make another red-herring...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Oh, it's on the web, I'm sure. It's also taught in third-grade science class.

I'm glad to hear your family gardens. It's very rewarding and much more nutritious than the processed food substitutes you can buy.

Fertilizer is made of many things. Commercially, it usually contains nitrogen (in ammonia), phosphorous compounds, and potassium compounds, along with several other nutrients including a few metallic compounds. Thank God above we learned to make commercial fertilizer so plant growth on earth was possible... oh, wait, plant growth existed before fertilizer, didn't it? And people used manure for fertilizer. Thank God above we learned to do that so plant life could be possible on earth... oh, wait, plants grow where humans have never lived.

All soil contains nutrients which are used in life processes for various reactions. We fertilize to replentish those nutrients as they are used up. One of those metallic compounds is copper. Are plants made of copper? Do you want 24 gage wire in your salad?

Your premise is unfounded. The fact that a plant is not 100% hydrocarbons does not negate the effect of carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, nor does it disprove photosynthesis. It only casts doubt on your ability to logically make conclusions based on scientific information.

TheRedneck

How quaint, 3rd-grade now. It's good to see that you've moved the goal posts. Recall:

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Plant growth rates are a function of 3 variables: amount of sunlight (in the proper radiation band), temperature (within a certain range), and availability of CO2. Decrease any of these and growth rates will decrease; increase them and growth rates will increase. Greenhouse operators have known and used this information for a very long time.

Hmm... soil seems to be a 4th variable that you are now conceding. Whoops!

Let me tell you about Oklahoma. We've got a mess of heavy red clay soil that is terrible for growing anything in naturally. It doesn't have many nutrients, it doesn't let water soak in well, and it's a pain for both people & plants to dig into. In some areas we have very sandy soil, which is also not so great for a different reason - it lets water soak in too well, though it typically still doesn't have many nutrients. Often there's a mix of that, and it still isn't great.

So, what do we do in these spots with crummy soil? Shipping in topsoil ain't cheap. You can till it as best you can, and shove in fertilizer - then stuff can grow alright. This place used to be grasslands and scraggly trees, not particularly lush vegetation.

You might remember the whole Dust Bowl thing. That was significantly our fault - a lack of knowledge in how to farm the land with terraced fields and contour farming. A lack of water from drought didn't help any, which meant ploughed and dry topsoil just blew away with our windy weather. Windbreaks helped with that, but trees take time to grow.

In case you didn't grok it from before, no I am not saying CO2 doesn't contribute to plant growth. I haven't said that at all. What I've objected to is the notion that the increase in CO2 will lead to a lush and green planet that scrubs the atmosphere clean of CO2 and everyone can just 'burn baby burn.'

Consider this:

Many scientists assume that the growing level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will accelerate plant growth. However, a new study co-written by University of Montana researchers suggests much of this growth will be curtailed by limited soil nutrients.
...
Cleveland and co-authors looked at 11 leading climate models to examine changes in nitrogen and phosphorous. They found that nitrogen limitation actually will reduce plant uptake of CO2 by 19 percent, while a combined nitrogen and phosphorous limitation will reduce plant uptake by 25 percent.

Most of the world's leading climate models assume that plants will respond to increased atmospheric levels of CO2 by growing more and more, which is known as the CO2 fertilization effect. The more the plants grow, the more CO2 they absorb from the atmosphere, thereby slowing climate change.

Whoulda thunk it?

Recall also the Green Revolution, where fertilizer played a large part.