@djrikki
Co2 aint pollution though no matter how much the greenies want you to believe it is. Co2 is as essential to life as the air we breath and Earth was more habitable during times with high level of co2. The current levels are nearly as low as it gets, while normal average over last billions of years have been in thousands of ppm range. I do agree there is alot of other pollution and crap from gasoline and such though. But right now there is so much more important environmental problems, like toxic waste, deforestation, overfishing/trawling and so on. Actually this war on co2 is actually making our problems worse thanks to forest being cut down for bio fuel, food prices going up and so on.

@Tomas
Quote:

Co2 aint pollution though no matter how much the greenies want you to believe it is. Co2 is as essential to life as the air we breath and Earth was more habitable during times with high level of co2.

Id agree this is a semantic issue. However claiming CO2 as only having positive effects,as you have , is just as wrong.

Any substance in sufficent quantities can be a pollutant. CO2 is a direct pollutant. (url=http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-27-pollution-deaths_N.htm) killing about 22K a year (/url) and an indirect pollutant causing system changes resulting in areas that are less hospitable for various creatures.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Co2 aint pollution though no matter how much the greenies want you to believe it is. Co2 is as essential to life as the air we breath and Earth was more habitable during times with high level of co2. Id agree this is a semantic issue. However claiming CO2 as only having positive effects,as you have , is just as wrong. Any substance in sufficent quantities can be a pollutant. CO2 is a direct pollutant. (url=http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-27-pollution-deaths_N.htm) killing about 22K a year (/url) and an indirect pollutant causing system changes resulting in areas that are less hospitable for various creatures.

So how do you explain life thriving at times with co2 in thousands of ppm range?
The benefits outweigh the cons by far....

The simple fact is that plant growth would more less stop if levels dropped a bit more than they were during pre industrial times.
Our planet has also gotten more green over last decades which is thought to be due to increase in co2 levels.

@Tomas

Quote:

So how do you explain life thriving at times with co2 in thousands of ppm range? The benefits outweigh the cons by far....

Because some life thrived it doesn't mean that all life thrived. During many of those areas the type of life was different.

If you look back in these threads this question has been asked before. I had posted research done by a University located in California that did outdoor CO2 testing on plants. Turned out that some plants thrived. Others did not. There was inadequate nutrients in the soil (same soil btw) for them to adequately process and dispose of the CO2. This resulted in smaller plants with less potency.

We see examples of the result of Global Warming on the planet today. Alaska has seen a 4F temp rise over the last 50 years. Water sources are shrinking. Insect invaders are devouring the spruce and cedar. Net photosynthesis production is down over the last 25 years

Quote:

The simple fact is that plant growth would more less stop if levels dropped a bit more than they were during pre industrial times.

Scientific journal citation please.

Quote:

Our planet has also gotten more green over last decades which is thought to be due to increase in co2 levels

The USA was clear cut in a century ago. The return of folliage is due to man taking action to plant more trees moreso than the net positive effects of CO2.

I agree CO2 can be good. However, it can also have detrimental effects . Let's put you in a room of only CO2 and see how quickly you grow.

@BrianK

Quote:

We see examples of the result of Global Warming on the planet today. Alaska has seen a 4F temp rise over the last 50 years. Water sources are shrinking. Insect invaders are devouring the spruce and cedar. Net photosynthesis production is down over the last 25 years

I have for many years believed that Artic ice breaking (weakens the overall sheet), and warming up Artic waters via Nuclear cooling systems from submarines etc.; was altering the Artic.

Now the news: Russian Nuclear Power Plants Take to the Seas

>>>Servicing these far-flung communities has never been easy. The job has been handled largely by Russia's fleet of nuclear-powered ice-breakers, hulking vessels that have the massive horsepower needed to ram sea ice up to two meters thick and bring in needed supplies. Keeping these towns heated and lit has been another challenge - one made harder after the collapse of Soviet-era energy and transportation subsidies. Now however, the resourceful Russians have come up with an idea, one that they hope could not only secure the country's position as the preeminent Arctic power, but also blossom into a lucrative export business: floating nuclear power plants (FNPPs).
-----
Then there is the issue of where FNPPs might be deployed. Among a dozen or so countries reportedly interested is Indonesia, which is susceptible to tsunamis, not to mention terrorists who could hijack the vessel and steal radioactive material or simply blow the reactor up, possibly releasing a tremendous cloud of radioactive steam.
-------

Russia seems determined to improve its reputation for safety, and has announced that it will keep the enrichment level of the fuel in its portable nukes to under 20%, below the weapons-grade threshold. But the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority worries that Moscow might eventually be tempted to step up its enrichment level to improve profitability since its "main focus" is commercial. Russia's icebreakers were initially powered by 5% enriched fuel; its present, third-generation models run up to 90% - though in this case the motivation was efficiency, not money.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

Another Update in todays news.
Leaking Siberian ice

If you are a “true believer”, and believe reductions in carbon dioxide will have an effect in warming then this will blow ur ideas away. Methane is considered
23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

>>The Russian scientist shuffles across the frozen lake, scuffing aside ankle-deep snow until he finds a cluster of bubbles trapped under the ice. With a cigarette lighter in one hand and a knife in the other, he lances the ice like a blister. Methane whooshes out and bursts into a thin blue flame.

Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @djrikki Co2 aint pollution though no matter how much the greenies want you to believe it is. Co2 is as essential to life as the air we breath

First of all: What is "pollution"?
Wikipedia defines it as
"Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.

Now lets check how Co2 fits into that definition:

Carbon dioxide and health
Carbon dioxide is essential for internal respiration in a human body. Internal respiration is a process, by which oxygen is transported to body tissues and carbon dioxide is carried away from them.
Carbon dioxide is a guardian of the pH of the blood, which is essential for survival.
The buffer system in which carbon dioxide plays an important role is called the carbonate buffer. It is made up of bicarbonate ions and dissolved carbon dioxide, with carbonic acid. The carbonic acid can neutralize hydroxide ions, which would increase the pH of the blood when added. The bicarbonate ion can neutralize hydrogen ions, which would cause a decrease in the pH of the blood when added. Both increasing and decreasing pH is life threatening.

Apart from being an essential buffer in the human system, carbon dioxide is also known to cause health effects when the concentrations exceed a certain limit.[b]

The primary health dangers of carbon dioxide are:
- Asphyxiation. Caused by the release of carbon dioxide in a confined or unventilated area. [b]This can lower the concentration of oxygen to a level that is immediately dangerous for human health.
- Frostbite. Solid carbon dioxide is always below -78 oC at regular atmospheric pressure, regardless of the air temperature. Handling this material for more than a second or two without proper protection can cause serious blisters, and other unwanted effects. Carbon dioxide gas released from a steel cylinder, such as a fire extinguisher, causes similar effects.
- Kidney damage or coma. This is caused by a disturbance in chemical equilibrium of the carbonate buffer. When carbon dioxide concentrations increase or decrease, causing the equilibrium to be disturbed, a life threatening situation may occur.


So yes - Co2 is essential to life, but in very narrow confines.
Increasing or decreasing its percentage in our breathing air beyond those limits is life threatening.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: and Earth was more habitable during times with high level of co2.

Says who?
In the light of the facts mentioned above your statement seems to be very dangerous. The higher the level of Co2, the more dangerous.

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The current levels are nearly as low as it gets, while normal average over last billions of years have been in thousands of ppm range.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere is 0.0387% by volume, or 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv) as of 2010, and rising by about 1.9 ppm/yr.



Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today.
0.0387% x 20 = 0.774%



...
Toxicity:

See also: Carbon dioxide poisoning

Main symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity, by increasing volume percent in air. Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.

Prolonged exposure to moderate[clarification needed] concentrations can cause acidosis and adverse effects on calcium phosphorus metabolism resulting in increased calcium deposits in soft tissue. Carbon dioxide is toxic to the heart and causes diminished contractile force.

Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

1% can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.

At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.

At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory center, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath. Panic attacks may also occur at this concentration.

At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.

Due to the health risks associated with carbon dioxide exposure, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm (0.5%). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less.
...

And now decide what Co2 concentration YOU prefer - todays Co2 concentration in the atmosphere or the one from 500 million years ago?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: ... But right now there is so much more important environmental problems, like toxic waste, deforestation, overfishing/trawling and so on. Actually this war on co2 is actually making our problems worse thanks to forest being cut down for bio fuel, food prices going up and so on.

I wouldn't say those probs are more important - to me they're equally important.

Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 12:23 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 12:06 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.

I'd like to add that while you spent a lot of time talking about humans CO2 concentrations and effects are different for different living organisms. Also, CO2 introduces instabilities in a physical system. One thing not taken into consideration into the 'CO2 is always good' mantra is the rate of change of that CO2. Certainly life evolves. Too quick of a rate of increase may mean that certain life cannot evolve quickly enough. Mass exoduses from once usable land and unequal rates of evolution are definitely items I'd consider instabilities in a physical system.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: @BrianK So how do you explain life thriving at times with co2 in thousands of ppm range?

Five hundred years or even a billion years ago life on earth was quite different from now. Back then the creatures were used to such Co2 levels.
Roughly 330 million years ago Co2 level had dropped to a level similar to todays level and since then never exceeded 2.5% again (see the "Phanerozoic Carbon Dioxide" diagram in my last post).

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The benefits outweigh the cons by far....

Not sure where you got this idea from...

Quote:

Tomas wrote: The simple fact is that plant growth would more less stop if levels dropped a bit more than they were during pre industrial times.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Past_variation]Past Co2 variation[/url]:
...
The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.
...
While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 Ma of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm, and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma.
...
The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka. During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials.
...
The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka. During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials.


CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and during ice ages they were 180 – 210 ppmv. Plants even survived the ice ages with their low Co2 levels and even developed more nutrient species during the low Co2 period - so what exactly was your point?

Quote:

Tomas wrote: Our planet has also gotten more green over last decades which is thought to be due to increase in co2 levels.

Yeah - but does having "gotten more green over last decades" mean that the plants are more nutrient now and so can feed more people/animals?
No - the contrary is the case:
The higher the Co2 levels, the less nourishing is the food - despite everything looking greener.

Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 01:29 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 01:25 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy ... One thing not taken into consideration into the 'CO2 is always good' mantra is the rate of change of that CO2. Certainly life evolves. Too quick of a rate of increase may mean that certain life cannot evolve quickly enough. Mass exoduses from once usable land and unequal rates of evolution are definitely items I'd consider instabilities in a physical system.

That's why I wrote in my last post "Five hundred years or even a billion years ago life on earth was quite different from now. Back then the creatures were used to such Co2 levels."
But once again you worded it much clearer - as always...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: ... If you are a “true believer”, and believe reductions in carbon dioxide will have an effect in warming then this will blow ur ideas away. Methane is considered 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Nothing new...

Quote:

Interesting wrote: The Russian scientist shuffles across the frozen lake, scuffing aside ankle-deep snow until he finds a cluster of bubbles trapped under the ice. With a cigarette lighter in one hand and a knife in the other, he lances the ice like a blister. Methane whooshes out and bursts into a thin blue flame. Gas locked inside Siberia's frozen soil and under its lakes has been seeping out since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. But in the past few decades, as the Earth has warmed, the icy ground has begun thawing more rapidly, accelerating the release of methane. Remember methane has another name "natural gas"

Some "Global warming"-threads ago I already pointed out that warming oceans might lead to a situation where all the frozen hydromethane might be released as gas and accelerate the global warming effect significantly - same goes for the permafrost areas...

Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 07:25 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 07:20 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 07:19 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 07:18 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 01:47 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 01:46 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 23-Nov-2010 at 01:46 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Antarctica Warming In this article they talk about not only about the warmth and reductions of sea ice but ecosystem impact of declining Krill and Penguin colonies. An interesting read.

@BrianK
While other parts of antarctica is having normal or opposite trend.
Sea ice is growing in other parts of antarctica as well.

@Tomas

Quote:

While other parts of antarctica is having normal or opposite trend. Sea ice is growing in other parts of antarctica as well.

The Western side of Antarctica is cooling. The Eastern side appears to be (at best) cooling at a lower rate than it was 50 years ago. Averaged on a whole the continent is warming because the warmer side has a larger positive change than the Eastern side.

@Dandy

Quote:

First of all: What is "pollution"? Wikipedia defines it as "Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into a natural environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.

By that wide definition you are pollution. Man is pollution.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Dandy

Quote:

Nothing new...

Oh? Dandy why are you so worried about C02. The two Russian stories are in direct conflict with each other. If ice melts are such an issue then breaking and heating the ice is wrong.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy Quote: Nothing new... Oh? Dandy why are you so worried about C02.

???
You mention that Methane is a greenhouse gase 23 times more powerful than Co2 and ask me why I'm so worried about Co2?
The Co2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution increased the atmospheric Co2 level by roughly 30%.
This led to a situation where the Co2-caused warming reached a critical level so that the huge deposits of frozen methane hydrate at the sea floor start to thaw and to outgas and that the permafrost equally starts to thaw and to release Methane at a large scale.
If the warming continues, all the frozen Methane will be released to the atmosphere and cause a significant acceleration of the warming process - and you really ask me why I'm worried about the Co2?

Quote:

Interesting wrote: The two Russian stories are in direct conflict with each other. If ice melts are such an issue then breaking and heating the ice is wrong.

Which "two" Russian stories?
So far I saw only one - the one you referred to in your post...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @Dandy By that wide definition you are pollution. Man is pollution.

Yes - the way mankind treats this planet, I see our "civilisation" as its desease and our cities as its cancer abscesses...

"Mankind is the pride of creation" - baa...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Dandy Antarctica Warming ... An interesting read.

A very interesting read, indeed. Thanks for the link!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: Interesting wrote: By that wide definition you are pollution. Man is pollution. Yes - the way mankind treats this planet, I see our "civilisation" as its desease and our cities as its cancer abscesses... "Mankind is the pride of creation" - baa...

A humorous look at the idea of man being pollution. A Case of the Humans

Sure Man is the pride of creation. And we know pride is one of the 7 deadly sins.