What Do We Think About Climate Change

1; Why do you come dragging with polar bears? I dont remember that I've mentioned anything about polar bears, they're big, fast, hungry, have more teeth than I do.... Not even sure if I like them...

2; Same as the rest of the world, those gases are considered to be more damaging/ dangerous to poeple. CO2; well that is a result of a full combustion, while a clogged air filter/ bad timing may result in CO/ NOX.

3; Is this a "mydickislongerthickerthanyourscontest"? IF you run a frikkin' test center I'd expect you to know just that what you state above.

4; Well the gas in itself is 100% natural, don't think anybody have objected to that. Same is methane. It's the amounts that worries some people.

5; The thought of suicidal behaviour by car, in a garage, was a result of the attitude "stating" that what we do, in our tiny cars, is just sooo little that in comparison to the big world we can't cause any change. So the idea was one car, one garage. Then consider; there are now on the roads of this world; 600 000 000 cars/ vehicles, a bigger garage maybe...?
then; ships, airplanes, coal powerplants... It will, in my opinion be sensible to assume that, all added, it may be possible that some (unwanted) changes can be the result. But I see that you didn't get that point.

 

But you don't seem to know why
It's becouse they indicate if the engine isn't working properly.. To say it in other way.. What you think measuring CO2 should indicate? ..

 

I couldn't agree more. But, who is doing the misinforming exactly?

Why do you keep on supporting this Boston? All evidence points to you and other global warming supporters as misinforming people.

http://www.newsmax.com/us/EPA_climate_/2009/06/26/229332.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...alls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/epa-hid-report-skeptical-of-g-warming

Funny how the EPA report was hidden, and then released after the House voted on (and passed) the CO2 Cap and Trade Bill. The report pretty much sums up that we are cooling and that CO2 has nothing to do with it. This just boils my blood. How can people be so nieve to believe this crap.

This global warming thing is about one thing and one thing only. It is what every war on the face of the earth was fought over.

$
$

Cha Ching.

 

Knut, stay focused here. You're going off on a tagent. The crack about polar bears was a joke, you know that. Don't know where the dick contest part comes from, but then much of your posts are getting a bit strident and off track lately, add some fiber to your diet. Of course I know why we test for HC, CO, and NOX. Connecticut has the toughest emissions standard in the country along with California. We have reduced vehicle emissions by hundreds of thousands of tons since reinstituting our test system 5 years ago. If you want to reduce pollutants, support a nationwide test and repair system. You guys want to mitigate the equivalent impact of a fart in a hurricane instead by calling CO2 a pollutant. You offer no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 causes warming because all of you earlier evidence was arrived at by cooking the data or just plain incompetence. You refuse to look at any evidence that contradicts the voodoo science of the AGW rip off industry and just repeat in a mantra like manner, 97%, 97%, CO2 is bad, CO2 is bad, the ice is melting, the ice is melting. Now that more and more people around the globe are looking at the phony evidence, the fraud, the deception, the intimidation, you are getting worried that, oh my gosh, we could be wrong, but if we just keep putting out the same lie over and over, it won't matter as long as we put through our social agenda.

Then of course you fixate on the oil companies. I just don't have that class hatred of big business. I fear big goverment much more. They are a much bigger threat.

I love Bostons disclaimer btw, fitting that he posted it above his post, talk about a fountain of deception and misinformation.

Finally Knut, I understand what you are trying to say. That I ain't buying what you're trying to sell doesn't mean I don't understand. You need to understand that there is a great deal of difference between being heard and being heeded.

 

Knut,
If CO2 in atmosphere comes down to 200 ppmv plants grow will stop. On the other hand, life has thrieved in past when concentrations were as high as 1000, 2000 and 5000 ppmv. High athmospheric concentrations of CO2 are healthy for life on Earth.

Cutting carbon emissions (or carbon print, or whatever you want to name it) is suicidal for humankind, both from the point of view of a more expensive energy as for a lower food production ability.

Luckily, trying to cut carbon emissions is nothing but an unattainable target. And even if we cut all human CO2 emissions, that will be negligible for Earth's carbon cycle.

The CO2 trading scheme is just the new way of making Al Gore and the like richer while it causes famine and starvation. I'm wondering when you, greeners, will realize that.

Cheers.

 

mudman there is a far bigger "ka-ching" $$$ reward for the other side of the equation, as it means all the polluters continue merrily polluting and not having to sequester carbon output etc etc., - - but who cares just get the facts right.... - your "Ka-ching" argument is wrong....

Generally, for CO2, at about 10,000ppm (1%) humans will start to feel drowsy say in an auditorium, and about 2% for most to become aware of something not right.... Example of Fatal Levels of CO2 Carbon Dioxide in a Building

Per Levéen has thoughtfully provided the detailed analysis comparing the hazards of elevated carbon dioxide in a building with the accompanying reduction of O - oxygen in the same space as the level of CO2 increased.

100 liters of air contains:

-20.9 liters of oxygen (20.9%)
-0.04 liters of CO2 (0.04%)

If we add 1.4 liters of CO2 to this mixture, we will get 101.4 liters of air with:

(1.4 + 0.04) / 101.4 = 0.014 = 1,4 % CO2 and

20.9 / 101.4 = 0.206 = 20.6 % oxygen

This change in the mix of gases in air when the level of CO2 increased results in a decrease with 1.4% in the oxygen level (and not 6.7% as is stated at Example of Reduced Oxygen Level in a Building)

This is important because we recently had an accident with CO2 in Sweden killing two persons.

According to the newspapers CO2 is nontoxic and it is the decreased oxygen levels that kills. Using the equation above one can quickly conclude that adding 31 liters of CO2 would result in 24% CO2(almost instantly fatal) and 16% oxygen (equivalent with breathing at 2800 meters above sea level, which is not dangerous).

In conclusion, it is the toxic properties of CO2 that is fatal, not the drop in oxygen. ( http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm ) You can do the CO research... so I have to agree with Guillermo on that point...

 

Masa,
In my humble opinion you are perfectly wrong.
CO2 (only) emmittants are not polluters but nice contributors to Earth's health by helping plants grow.
In the greenhouses CO2 levels are risen to around 1000 ppmv and that kills nobody.
CO2 is NOT toxic. If you think it's toxic, please stop breathing.

Cheers.

 

humm gentlemen?

There is a difference in the ppmv and % (well depending somewhat on the numbers in front of them, of course. I've heard that greenhouses uses up to 4000 ppmv (0,4%) Thats not as much as 25%, 25% as Mas uses is clearly bravo yankee echo.... no doubt.

Under the "right" circumstances, even O2 may kill you, no spark needed either, just some pressure.... Not too much either...

Wiki:

Toxicity
See also: Carbon dioxide poisoning

Main symptoms of Carbon dioxide toxicity, by increasing volume percent in air.[2][37].Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 hPa level, i.e. about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location (see graphical map of CO2).

Prolonged exposure to moderate concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.[37]

Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]
At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[37]
At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[37]
At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[37]
A natural disaster linked to CO2 intoxication occurred during the limnic eruptions in the CO2-rich lakes of Monoun and Nyos in the Okun range of North-West Cameroon: the gas was brutally expelled from the mountain lakes and leaked into the surrounding valleys, killing most animal forms. During the Lake Nyos tragedy of 1988, 1700 villagers and 3500 livestock died​

 

Please explain how oil and gas stand to make more profit?

You get the facts straight. There are already strict regulations in the US about venting and flaring emissions, air handling permits, water quality permits, etc. We go through alot in oil and gas to make sure we are doing things as safe as possible with as little impact to the enviornment as possible. It can't get much cleaner than it is already being done. I just filed for 37 permits for one well. 5 of which were returned. I am currently spending more of the companies money to buy better equipment to reduce CO2 emissions, get a better Air quality, and reduce impact to marshlands. It will only cost an estimates 2 million, which will be passed on to the consumer. If oil companies could, don't you think that they'd keep that 2 million and destroy the earth. I think that they would, but they can't. This is not the 1950's. We have rules now.

We currently can not reduce the ammount of CO2 emmissions any more because the technology does not exist. So what, this bill will lower the ammount of emmissions (which can't be done) and force companies to pay a tax on a problem that does not exist? And in the end, the consumer will pay for it, not oil companies.

EPA has stated that Global warming is not real!!!!!! So, we can safely say that CO2 emissions has not had an impact on Global Warming(Which is FAKE, a LIE, a SHAM). The only side that stands to make a profit in this bill is the US government. It certainly is not you, me, or oil companies.

All I'm saying is that if there isn't a problem, then why fix it?

 

Knut,
even wine is toxic if taken in big amounts....
Anyhow you agree with me 1000 ppmv are not dangerous at all and even desirable for plants growing. But we are worrying about a mere 386 ppmv!

Remember: planet Earth has been for most of its existence a warm & humid place with high CO2 concentrations. Now we live in a slightly (and short!) warm peak within the current Pleistocene ice age. Nowadays' atmospheric CO2 concentration is probably the lowest in the last 500 million years.

Current warm temperatures are about 3ºC lower than the ones happening when the previous warming, some 125,000 years ago, when Homo sapiens sapiens began its globetrotting from the Omo valley in Africa.

Cheers.

 

I thought that is what I said 10,000ppm is danger level so a long way to go yet

 

Agreed to the wine thing there, Guillermo, also might add whisky....

1000 ppmv seem to me to be a close to zero problem for humans, animals and plants, looking at that factor alone. 385 ppmv seem to be "no" problem either, problem is rising. CO2 as a gas has some mechanical behaviours like the fact that it can work as an insulator.

CO2 have been way up higher in this earths history, same has the temperature, there's not a single argument against that from me on that. These variations also happened without human interference, so what must be considered serious variations in climate will in my opinion occure even if humans hadnt been here, burning fossil fuels. I kinda look at is as a speedbump in the road, its coming (or not, weather/ climate changes) wether we like it or not, I just doesnt want to increase the speed any more than needed, if you see my meaning.

And well also, in periods where CO2 was way up higher, temp was way up higher, these walked (or flew) on the earth. I can really imagine a bad day starting like this; uhhhh, waking up in the cave, skratching belly, uuuhhh, **** no coffee today either, walking outside for a pee. Getting observed by one of these, also grumpy also hungry, and the size of a small cessna.... Call me cynical, but I don't want those good old days back.

 

from Knut,
And well also, in periods where CO2 was way up higher, temp was way up higher, these walked (or flew) on the earth. I can really imagine a bad day starting like this; uhhhh, waking up in the cave, skratching belly, uuuhhh, **** no coffee today either, walking outside for a pee. Getting observed by one of these, also grumpy also hungry, and the size of a small cessna.... Call me cynical, but I don't want those good old days back

I don't want the cave days back either Knut, that's why I am so vocal in my opposition to the Zero Growth nuts of the AGW KoolAid Club.

 

hey! don't forget the "K" in nut!!


Edited/ added:
The level of CO2 can cause other effects not mentioned in the last posts...

http://www.ocean-acidification.net/

Last year I couldn't find any Hermit Crabs in my area.... Have always been some... Should show them to my son, don't know the actual cause though....

 

If the ocean releases CO2 as it warms, and the Lord Gods Gore and Boston tell us it is warming, how is CO2 causing acidification of the oceans and CO2 is released and stays in the troposphere for 50-200 years as the Lord Gods proclaim? We musn't question dogma Knut, shame on you!