Is Higher CO2 Necessarily Harmful?

No, you fail to learn simple facts.

We don't consume CO in beverages, and you do not know what you are talking about.

<sigh> A liter of water in your lungs will kill you, but not in your stomach. Likewise, CO2 in your stomach isn't dangerous.

The body will not absorb CO2 in preference to oxygen. The body transports CO2 out via the lungs.

Even N2 will asphyxiate people if it displaces enough oxygen.

 

Yes pollution is a problem. But AGW is a theory...As I and several other posters here, whom you would classify as being anti-environment, have stated one of the problems with the AGW bandwagon and the funding it requires, is that it takes away funding from legitimate ecological concerns.

 

Not arguing his credentials - just his stance of some aspects of AGW

- - - Updated - - -

Most of which belongs to AUSTRALIA

Look it up on a map

 

That is true but no-one is claiming that

 

You need to explain this to mushroom then as he is completely confused about what is being argued.

 

Actually, I do know. However, I am shaking my head in amazement at the idiocy of people who confuse something that asphyxiates with something that is toxic. This to me is such a failure of the basic understanding of science and it's terminology that it honestly astounds me.

Crayons are non-toxic, but I bet I can asphyxiate somebody with one.

Now do some of you have a better idea of what the definition of "toxic" is? Because according to some of your definitions water is toxic, dirt is toxic, everything is toxic simply because it can kill you if it gets into your lungs.

And that is not what "toxic" means.

However, a bunch of you have proven that I am trying to debate with children. You are not debating from any kind of knowledge at all, but from a knee-jerk need to attack anybody that dares to disagree with them.

tox·ic
adjective \&#712;täk-sik\

: containing poisonous substances
1: containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>

2: exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis <the patient became toxic two days later>

So you see Poptech, the problem here is that there are people trying to insist that a common gas is toxic. When people are this ignorant and refuse to even understand what toxic is and continue to debate that it is over and over even when their mistake is simply explained to them, then I am not sure what is ever going to change here.

Radon is indeed a toxic gas, and radioactive as well. But pretty much every gas can asphyxiate you (even oxygen under the right circumstances). But just because it asphyxiates, that does not by default make it toxic.

 

Quote who is arguing that CO2 is toxic here because I am not.

 

Yes there is the theory of evolution and there is the theory of special creation. When it come to AGW you clearly are inclined more toward the latter style of thinking. Also I wouldn't call saving the planet from frying an illegitimate ecological concern.

One subject that is not getting into the mix is the negative effect of overpopulation. The full means to practice birth control should be available to everyone everywhere.

 

co2 is both an asphyxaint and a toxin http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

 

which I brought up earlier, the effects of CO2 as an asphyxiant or a toxin to life and the effects of co2 on the physical environment due to temp increases are two completely different issues...

 

The planet isn't frying silly.. You are being reactionary and illogical. And what "latter style" of thinking dude? IF there is anybody here thinking in unscientific ways, it's you.. What is the difference in somebody shouting hell-fire and brimstone raining on non-believers in their god, and somebody shouting hell-fire and brimstone raining on non-believers in global warming?

You have shown the tendency to debate this based on fear and threat. Sounds like a church I had to attend when I was a kid..

And the real motivation behind AGW, is global sustainability. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. Sustainability as in within the means of the planets and our own respective abilities to sustain ourselves indefinitely.. But they don't like to say things that upset overly emotional and reactionary types...

 

There is no possibility of the planet "frying," or even being significantly heated, by human CO2 emissions.

There is no overpopulation. There is under-liberty, under-justice, under-honesty, under-knowledge and under-wisdom, but no overpopulation. And I'm speaking as someone who has lived in Tokyo, where there are 35M people living within 100km of Shinjuku Station.

 

I'm sure "frying" wasn't meant in the literal sense...

global shortages of fresh water and food, declining ocean fisheries... despite 35m in tokyo there too many people sharing finite and dwindling resources...

 

That only depends on where you live and the government you live under. We don't have an obesity problem due to food shortages.

 

what government do international ocean fisheries live under?...

 

True, it was just a bogeyman word.

There is no global shortage of fresh water, as proved by the amount that the Amazon River discharges into the Atlantic Ocean every second, and there is no global shortage of food, as proved by the rising global obesity epidemic.

That's just a tragedy of unmanaged commons: under-justice, under-honesty, and under-wisdom.

Garbage. The salient fact is that people AREN'T sharing the finite and dwindling resources: they have been appropriated as private property, and their owners are using them for private profit. Malthus has been proved wrong too many times to take overpopulation claims seriously.

 

I can agree that there is enough in this world to satify everyones needs but never enough to satify anyones greed.

But how are you going to get all that fresh water from the Amazon to the places that need it...and how much will it cost? Most obesity in the U.S. is not caused by a food shortage but bad food....too much fat and too much sugar. Good, healthy food costs more than cheap, unhealthy food.

There is just as much water as there has always been but it is not where it is needed in a lot of cases. And as far as more land opening up in the colder regions of the earth a person should do a little homework on how many years it takes for topsoil to form. I have this pasture that i have been working on for five years now and I am just now getting it in good enough shape to grow decent grass. I have manured it, planted soil building plants on it grazed it and it will probably be another five years before I can get a crop of corn or wheat on it.

I usually disagree with gslac on everything but I have to agree that sustainability is very inportant and will go a long way to solving many of mans problems with food, fuel. and shelter.

 

Rain falls where it falls. Always has and always will. Some places will suffer a drought, and some will suffer flooding. Increasing CO2 won't alter rainfall patterns,and the assumption is a silly one.. The point behind him mentioning the Amazon discharge of freshwater into the Atlantic, was simply that any actual change in levels of rainfall will show in places where fresh water feeds into the oceans. And so far I would say they haven't shown a decline, at least not one they can use to claim a new "unprecedented event"..

And as far as it getting where it needs to,how do you think it all worked in the past? Do you think everyone had all the fresh water they needed? That somehow the planet portioned or rationed it to ensure it went where it was needed? That was another emotionally-driven claim...

If you had to reform topsoil in a pasture, you have some really bad soil. My yard is mostly clay, yet I can grow grass just fine. Even grew a decent garden last year. What exactly was in your pasture before you decided to "get it into shape"..

I'm sorry you disagree with me most of the time.. But you misunderstand my point.. I wasn't praising the concept, I was explaining what the motivation in AGW legislation is.. Personally I think when bureaucrats are allowed to lie and call something other than what it is, it's sure sign that something isn't kosher.. If their purpose is so noble, why all the BS and nonsense?

Because it isn't about making sure we all have enough to go around... It's about making sure some people can maintain their lifestyle..

 

Now you are talking about local shortages, not a global one. On every continent, almost all the fresh water is allowed to run back into the ocean and become worthless. Hydrological projects could fix that, but they can't be built because under the current system their value has to be given away to landowners (under-justice, under-honesty, and under-wisdom again), so there is no way to fund them.

True, but water doesn't cost more than Coke. Obesity is caused by addiction to fat and sugar, not high cost of foods with less fat and sugar. The fat people I see in the supermarket aren't buying cheap, healthy food like beans, rice, chicken, eggs or carrots, they're buying expensive food that is high in fat and sugar: soda, chips, candy, cakes, ice cream, etc.

There's lots of land with good topsoil at higher latitudes. Corn and wheat are probably not what you should be aiming at, as they are quite demanding on soil nutrients. In any case, greenhouse agriculture can be fantastically productive with almost no topsoil or even water.

 

Here we go again.

You guys know so damned much that just ain't true.

Food shortages?!? What?!?

There is more food than ever.

As to water, there is more than enough of it.

The problem isn't one of availability, but access.

In rich, free, capitalist economies, food and water are healthy, safe, cheap, and abundantly available.

The real crime is that some people want to limit our access to these necessities. They want to essentially lower us to the standards of the third world nations. When what they should really wish is for those backwards nations to rise up to our level.

 

None, and therein lies the problem.

Classic tragedy of the commons.

 

870 million people are malnourished or undernourished http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world hunger facts 2002.htm

773 million people have water access issues... http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/

you evidently have limited knowledge of the real world outside your neighbourhood...

 

and the depletion of fisheries continues, as one species is eliminated from commercial viability another is targeted and depleted followed by another, until the free fish stocks are all depleted, that's when the consequences of overpopulation start to really make itself felt just in time to coincide with the effects of climate change on agricultural production...

 

and just how are you going to move all that amazon water roy? what effect do you think depleting the amazon would have on the amazon basin's ecology? should we conclude your plan is to copy the brilliant use of the Colorado River, that's a wonderful example of responsible water use

 

and as a farmer how long do you think it would take you to do that with no soil to begin with...too many simpletons look at a map and think "hey we can farm there!" well no you can't because muskeg, mountains and exposed bedrock are not farmland, wait 1K years and maybe you can start on the muskeg regions ...cold doesn't prevent farming in canada's north the lack of soil does, wherever there is good soil there are farms, crops can be adapted to cold weather... there is even farming in Greenland but viable farmland is limited...a warming climate will create very little new farmland in the north and will not begin to replace what will be lost in southern locations...