So C02 is dangerous to humans. According to EPA

[PLC1]

When we exhale, we breathe out C02.

So is the govt going to regulate my breathing. Some are going to say I'm grabbing.. but with all the idiots working for Obama's administratin I'm not counting anything out at this point.

This is absurd! The sooner the Obama Administration is gone the better.

I had to look to see if there was any truth to the headline, as no link was provided.

It seems that there is, some.

I found a link here:

The Environmental Protection Agency, with approval from President Barack Obama, has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers human health or welfare under the Clean Air Act and, therefore, must be regulated.

the threat of Obama placing emissions regulations on power plants or refineries that spew CO2 into the atmosphere may be enough to put new pressure on Congress to set up a cap-and-trade system, pushing industries to make concessions at the bargaining table on Capitol Hill.

So, the EPA doesn't think that CO2 is a poisonous gas or any such absurdity. It is trying to further the agenda of promoting cap and trade.

There is no movement to impose an exhalation tax, not even by or for "libs."

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This could have been a good topic. Take away the insults and see that the analogies to mountaintops and refirgerators come no where near close to reality.

The reality is that the amount of CO2 in the air is and always has been very very small. The range from greatest to least can be made to sound huge but it is measured in parts per million.

"Carbon dioxide today is 350 parts per million (ppm) or .035 percent – compared to 270 ppm [before] But 1.4 billion years ago, CO2 was more than 10 to 200 times today's level."

So even a billion years ago when the number was 35000 it was still only 350000 individual molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of other gasses. Not at all the equivalent of climbing a mountain or getting stuck in a fridge.

btw, since it was a hundred times higher back then why is the planet still thriving? Answer: at all levels, even when it was a hundred times higher, CO2 has been good for the planet and allowed lots of plants to grow (plants that then consume CO2).

When the scientists can predict the stock market (and get rich) then we can consider the computer models that predict the earths warming and cooling. (One of the quotes from the stolen e-mails was a statment explaining that they have no explanation for the present lack of warming)

thats what you get when a thread with no link, and nothing of value in it is posted....and says things like the goverment wants to regulate peoples breathing....see had someone posted something more like what you posted, even if i don't agree....but for some here, that seems to much to ask....

and Arsnic is in our water in very small amounts as well, does not mean its not a pollutant. as for saying its teh same as 1.4 billion years ago..based on this report,....it was alot higher actuly then is today...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030918092804.htm
and somehow I doubt humans would have enjoyed life on earth 1.4 billion years ago...also even if we said what you said was correct, it fails to account for other gases and factors....

 

[chestnut]

C02 is what happens when you exhale.
It is also a gas that is needed by all plants on the planet.

 

[always]

I had to look to see if there was any truth to the headline, as no link was provided.

It seems that there is, some.

I found a link here:





So, the EPA doesn't think that CO2 is a poisonous gas or any such absurdity. It is trying to further the agenda of promoting cap and trade.

There is no movement to impose an exhalation tax, not even by



EPA -- STATED "C02 IS a DANGEROUS GAS!! Making HUMAN BREATH DANGEROUS!! My OWN view is MANS BREATH IS ONLY DANGEROUS WHEN IT IS SPOKEN WHILE READING A "PROMPTER"!!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

C02 is what happens when you exhale.
It is also a gas that is needed by all plants on the planet.

when was the last time you even took a science class?
you make such basic statements yet offer nothing of value. Yes plants need CO2, yes we exhale it..
Yes if you park your car in the and breath in the C02...you Die.
Yes if you put more and more CO2 in the air, and cut down more and more plants, trees and Forest....you get....you guessed it ...More C02...what can More CO2 lead to? Thats right health issues and death.

 

[chestnut]

Who decides what too much c02 is? I don't think the scientists know. Since you seem so bright, why don't you explain. Maybe you can go to Copenhagen and have a breakout session about it

 

[Dr.Who]

when was the last time you even took a science class?
you make such basic statements yet offer nothing of value. Yes plants need CO2, yes we exhale it..
Yes if you park your car in the and breath in the C02...you Die.
Yes if you put more and more CO2 in the air, and cut down more and more plants, trees and Forest....you get....you guessed it ...More C02...what can More CO2 lead to? Thats right health issues and death.

Scientists published in climate journals say:

"Scientists in this section conclude that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment.

* Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO2-derived blessing is as sure as death and taxes."[58]
* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[59]
* Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."[60]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Who decides what too much c02 is? I don't think the scientists know. Since you seem so bright, why don't you explain. Maybe you can go to Copenhagen and have a breakout session about it

actuly scientist are the oness who do know...but you can always sit in the garage and try to guess ...or maybe since you seem to know "so much" about this, you can tell the class....how much CO2 is to much for the earth to not cause major issues....what is the tipping point? Please tell us..we will all sit and wait..

now class, lets all just wait for this, and not post anything more to the teacher Asur....watch this thread get real silent real fast.....also if you can give your explain how in your vast knowlage of science you come up with your magic number please let us know....and no using scientist for your responce. after all they don't know anything, you have told us that.

 

[PLC1]

Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, nor are any serious scientists saying that it is. The reason they are saying it can be harmful is that it is accelerating global climate change, pure and simple.

Of course, if someone threw you into a tank of pure CO2, you would suffocate. If someone threw you into a tank of water, and you couldn't keep your head out of it, you would suffocate also. The difference is that the water would buoy you up, but the CO2 wouldn't. You most likely would lose consciousness before you realized that you were breathing something besides air.


Oh, yes, and that gas that is coming out of your car's exhaust contains carbon monoxide, which is poisonous even in small concentrations.

 

[MrSheepish]

* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming."[59]

I suspect people who live on island nations that will be swallowed by the ocean under many possible scenarios would disagree.

* Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute: "scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (Celsius), plus or minus a mere quarter-degree ... a modest warming is a likely benefit... human warming will be strongest and most obvious in very cold and dry air, such as in Siberia and northwestern North America in the dead of winter."[60]"

The earth has warmed that much already just this last century, when most of the world hasn't even been industrialized. What will happen when CO2 concentrations are doubled? Scientists aren't worried about a warming of 1 degree, they're worried about a warming of several degrees celsius. That would dramatically reshape the world and be devastating for many nations. Maybe the fact that this guy is from CATO should give us a clue.

 

[Dr.Who]

I suspect people who live on island nations that will be swallowed by the ocean under many possible scenarios would disagree.

I think I should give you some rope.

Just how high do you expect ocean levels to rise in what time frame? What makes you think so?

 

[chestnut]

Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous gas, nor are any serious scientists saying that it is. The reason they are saying it can be harmful is that it is accelerating global climate change, pure and simple.

Of course, if someone threw you into a tank of pure CO2, you would suffocate. If someone threw you into a tank of water, and you couldn't keep your head out of it, you would suffocate also. The difference is that the water would buoy you up, but the CO2 wouldn't. You most likely would lose consciousness before you realized that you were breathing something besides air.


Oh, yes, and that gas that is coming out of your car's exhaust contains carbon monoxide, which is poisonous even in small concentrations.

So in theory, since the levels of c02 have gone up a great deal, then the temperature should have followed in sync.

THAT DID NOT HAPPEN! The two cannot be connected or the temperatures would be much hotter then they have been. We would have had more hurricanes hit the U.S. the last 2 years.

 

[PLC1]

So in theory, since the levels of c02 have gone up a great deal, then the temperature should have followed in sync.

THAT DID NOT HAPPEN! The two cannot be connected or the temperatures would be much hotter then they have been. We would have had more hurricanes hit the U.S. the last 2 years.

Of course it happened. The CO2 levels went up, the temperatures went up. What is in some dispute is that the temperature went up because the CO2 levels went up. Most scientists think there is a cause and effect, but there is no hard and fast proof.

It isn't in dispute, except perhaps on the "conservative" blogs, that the average temperature of he Earth has increased over the past half century or so. The talk of "global cooling" is nonsense.

There is some puzzlement over why the temperature increase doesn't seem to have caused an increase in the number and strength of hurricanes, as was predicted.

I don't think anyone really knows what the specific results of global warming are going to be.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

the global temps went down, thats why the ice caps melted and you can send a ship across the north pole now...and Huge ice shelfs fell of in Antarctica...they got to cold

 

[Bunz]

This could have been a good topic. Take away the insults and see that the analogies to mountaintops and refirgerators come no where near close to reality.

Point taken. While I was the one who made the refrigerator comment, I think the point of the post was not lost on you.

The reality is that the amount of CO2 in the air is and always has been very very small. The range from greatest to least can be made to sound huge but it is measured in parts per million.

It might make for some gaudy graphs no doubt...but that does not change the concern.

"Carbon dioxide today is 350 parts per million (ppm) or .035 percent – compared to 270 ppm [before] But 1.4 billion years ago, CO2 was more than 10 to 200 times today's level."

I thought the world was only 6,000 years old?
Of course humans couldnt have survived in those conditions. For me, the point of concern is making sure that humans dont pollute the planet to the point of destroying humanity itself. While that wont happen in my time, or even in 200 years, or maybe ten thousand, or who knows. I doubt the Natives who habitated the area of the country you live in could fathom what would happen. So I wont make a prediction on timeline.
I think it is important humans recognize that we take measures that will prolong the existance of humans on Earth for however long.

So even a billion years ago when the number was 35000 it was still only 350000 individual molecules of CO2 for every million molecules of other gasses. Not at all the equivalent of climbing a mountain or getting stuck in a fridge.

Well I guess we could call this a double red herring. Because humans dont thrive in any of the above described scenarios.

btw, since it was a hundred times higher back then why is the planet still thriving? Answer: at all levels, even when it was a hundred times higher, CO2 has been good for the planet and allowed lots of plants to grow (plants that then consume CO2).

I am not ready to concede the argument that Earth is thriving.
As I said in one of my original posts, we as humans will reach a breaking point and I think already have reached a capacity decline where we are producing more CO2 than the environment can absorb without having an impact on human life.

I also think the problem could and will eventually grow at an exponential rate.

When the scientists can predict the stock market (and get rich) then we can consider the computer models that predict the earths warming and cooling. (One of the quotes from the stolen e-mails was a statment explaining that they have no explanation for the present lack of warming)

I would rather have scientists focus on science rather than getting rich in the stock market. I hope that isnt a real benchmark in your mind.

As for the current lack of warming measured in annual or even mothly and daily temps, I am more concerned with and have seen with my own two eyes the real effect and dangers of climate change to humans. A raise in water level and the resulting erosion.