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
  #11  
Old March 14th 06, 07:10 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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:25:35 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

It's official.

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

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


We be ****ed already, so what does a few extra ppm mean in the scheme of
things?

Rather than a bad thing, it can be seen as a very good marketing
opportunity for manufacturers of low cost breathing apparatus. By way of
example, think of the profit that could be made by supplying all of New
Zealand's sheep with oxygen masks.




  #12  
Old March 14th 06, 10:03 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

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:45:57 -0800, Roger Coppock wrote:

Incidentally, a linear projection of the Mauna Loa
data projects 800 ppm in the middle of 23rd century.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are growing faster
than linear, so much then for Star Trekô dreams.


Exponentially is the appropriate terms, which means they were a tad short
sighted in their estimate. By definition, linear regression is
grossly inadequate to chart CO2 growth.


--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/


  #13  
Old March 14th 06, 11:26 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


"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ups.com...
"BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
- 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."

The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
please.


Try this link then.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
and this
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png

Cheers, Alastair.



  #14  
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


  #15  
Old March 14th 06, 03:09 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

Eduard Groenstein wrote:

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


We be ****ed already, so what does a few extra ppm mean in the scheme of
things?


It's the few parts per million year after year after year.

And now at 3 ppm, soon to be 5 ppm, it's more than just a few ppm/y.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
  #16  
Old March 14th 06, 05:01 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

"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:

:
:"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
: "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
: levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
: - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
:
: The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
: UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
: please.
:
:Try this link then.

I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
more as an oxymoron than as anything else.

:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
:and this
:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png

Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
the way).

What's the measure look like where people live?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #17  
Old March 14th 06, 05:24 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


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Alastair McDonald" k
wrote:

:
:"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
: "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
: levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
: - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
:
: The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
: UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
: please.
:
:Try this link then.

I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
more as an oxymoron than as anything else.

:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr..._trend_mlo.png
:and this
:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/sr...2_data_mlo.png

Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
the way).

What's the measure look like where people live?


Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.

There is now a chain of measuing station which confirm the Manua Loa
readings.

Cheers, Alastair.



  #18  
Old March 14th 06, 08:20 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 [but 60 000 ppm is the OSHA limit]

"George" wrote in message
newsYsRf.860053$xm3.237035@attbi_s21...

"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?


I think his point is that we don't have to worry too much about the air
becoming unbreathable from the amount of CO2 we are adding to the
atmosphere.

  #19  
Old March 14th 06, 08:30 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 [but 60 000 ppm is the OSHAlimit]

El Guapo wrote

"George" wrote in message


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


I think his point is that we don't have to worry too much about the air
becoming unbreathable from the amount of CO2 we are adding to the
atmosphere.


No, it's just those multiple global warming induced category 5
hurricanes, year after year after year, plus the droughts and floods and
wildfires and all those other pesky little agricultural problems.

Then the nuclear proliferation and oil blackmailing and water wars.

Plus the whole overpopulation thing. Loss of habitat.

Global mass extinction. Minor little problems all.

Did I miss anything?

http://cosmic.lifeform.org
  #20  
Old March 14th 06, 09:03 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 [but 60 000 ppm is the OSHA limit]

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
El Guapo wrote

"George" wrote in message


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


I think his point is that we don't have to worry too much about the air
becoming unbreathable from the amount of CO2 we are adding to the
atmosphere.


No, it's just those multiple global warming induced category 5 hurricanes,
year after year after year, plus the droughts and floods and wildfires and
all those other pesky little agricultural problems.

Then the nuclear proliferation and oil blackmailing and water wars.

Plus the whole overpopulation thing. Loss of habitat.

Global mass extinction. Minor little problems all.

Did I miss anything?


Yeah... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

 




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 10:11 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.