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.

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 Trek™ 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/

"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.

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

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

"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

"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.

"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.

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

"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!