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, 01:01 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

I'd guess from this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
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, 01:05 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




  #6  
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?

  #7  
Old March 14th 06, 01:47 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

"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.

  #8  
Old March 14th 06, 01:58 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

Roger Coppock wrote:

"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.


I just watched a great presentation. They got it direct.

Mauna Loa is so ... year before last.

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

  #9  
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

  #10  
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


 




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 08:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.