A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 14th 06, 12:25 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

It's official.

Unless something changes soon, we be ****ed.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
  #2  
Old March 14th 06, 12:46 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

What makes it "official," Thomas? Do you have a URL?

I look for such announcements he
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/new/new.html

  #3  
Old March 14th 06, 12:56 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

Thomas (a "Mass" of excrement called "Tom)--

Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read.

We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
stop the growth engine called America.

Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
an ignorant follower of you?

RL


Roger Coppock wrote:
What makes it "official," Thomas? Do you have a URL?

I look for such announcements he
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/new/new.html


  #4  
Old March 14th 06, 01:05 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thomas (a "Mass" of excrement called "Tom)--

Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read.


It's not CO2 with regards to respiration that's the problem, loopy liar
troll. It's the warming associated with it.

We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
stop the growth engine called America.

Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
an ignorant follower of you?

RL


Poor loopy, you've lost all touch with reality.


Roger Coppock wrote:
What makes it "official," Thomas? Do you have a URL?

I look for such announcements he
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/new/new.html




  #5  
Old March 14th 06, 01:40 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

"Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read."

Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?

  #6  
Old March 14th 06, 04:53 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y [but 60 000 ppm is the OSHA limit]

Roger Coppock wrote:
"Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read."

Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?


I see your point--nobody wants to go outside only wearing a moonsuit.
But I was simply saying that humans can survive 800 ppm C02. It is
uncomfortable but survivable. Kind of like breathing fumes in a
crowded freeway.

As for toxicity, here is what OSHA says: "OSHA has indicated that the
lowest oxygen concentration for shift-long exposure is 19.5%,
corresponding to a carbon dioxide concentration well above 60 000 ppm
(6%). Carbon dioxide concentration, not oxygen concentration, is
limiting in such circumstances."

Not that I am advocating we go to the limit, but from 381 to 60k is a
ways to still go.

RL

  #7  
Old March 14th 06, 06:58 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y [but 60 000 ppm is the OSHA limit]


"raylopez99" wrote in message
oups.com...
Roger Coppock wrote:
"Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read."

Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?


I see your point--nobody wants to go outside only wearing a moonsuit.
But I was simply saying that humans can survive 800 ppm C02. It is
uncomfortable but survivable. Kind of like breathing fumes in a
crowded freeway.

As for toxicity, here is what OSHA says: "OSHA has indicated that the
lowest oxygen concentration for shift-long exposure is 19.5%,
corresponding to a carbon dioxide concentration well above 60 000 ppm
(6%). Carbon dioxide concentration, not oxygen concentration, is
limiting in such circumstances."

Not that I am advocating we go to the limit, but from 381 to 60k is a
ways to still go.

RL


The earth would likely cook long before it ever got to those concentrations
(60K), so what is your point?

George


  #8  
Old March 15th 06, 06:44 AM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

Ray wrote:
"Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read."



"Roger Coppock" wrote
Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?


The problem is that Ray is human and can survive 800 ppm of CO2 easily.
He bases his assumption that the social infrastructure that keeps him alive
will still be there to support him.



  #9  
Old March 15th 06, 01:32 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y


"Scott Nudds" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:
"Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read."



"Roger Coppock" wrote
Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?


The problem is that Ray is human and can survive 800 ppm of CO2 easily.
He bases his assumption that the social infrastructure that keeps him
alive
will still be there to support him.


He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.

George


  #10  
Old March 14th 06, 12:11 PM posted to sci.environment,sci.space.policy,alt.global-warming,sci.geo.geology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y

In article .com,
"raylopez99" wrote:
Thomas (a "Mass" of excrement called "Tom)--

Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read.

We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
stop the growth engine called America.

Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
an ignorant follower of you?

RL



From Stanford:

"GUIDELINES FOR USE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR RODENT EUTHANASIA "

But nobody's claiming we're going to asphixiate from the added CO2.


Roger Coppock wrote:
What makes it "official," Thomas? Do you have a URL?

I look for such announcements he
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/new/new.html


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scientist warns that public knowledge of space engineering fixes for global warming may be undesirable, But never mentions the benefits of H2-PV H2-PV Policy 0 March 6th 06 12:04 PM
Oxygen and Carbon Discovered in Exoplanet Atmosphere 'Blow Off' Ron Misc 3 February 16th 04 09:27 PM
Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction Ron Baalke Science 0 November 11th 03 09:15 AM
Hydrogen Sulfide, Not Carbon Dioxide, May Have Caused Largest Mass Extinction Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 November 3rd 03 06:14 PM
What to do with Carbon Dioxide? hanson Astronomy Misc 0 July 10th 03 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.