Fran Manns wrote:
Present day CO2 level were greatly exceeded by Carboniferous CO2 levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html


For the figure see the link.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early
Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by
the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to
average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to
former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous
atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's
history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary
Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only
time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and
temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists
today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2
concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today. The
highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred
during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than
today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological
periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as
they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late
Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other
factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming.



"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and
ocean to absorb carbon

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations, 02 August 2005

BERKELEY - One in a new generation of computer climate models that
include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits
to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon
dioxide.

If current production of carbon from fossil fuels continues unabated,
by the end of the century the land and oceans will be less able to take
up carbon than they are today, the model indicates.

The Earth's various sources and sinks for carbon. The land and oceans
can absorb some of the increased carbon from fossil fuel emissions, but
as the emission rate increases, these sinks saturate and become less
effective at removing carbon from the atmosphere. (Graphics by Inez
Fung/UC Berkeley)

"If we maintain our current course of fossil fuel emissions or
accelerate our emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to slow
the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're doing
now," said Inez Y. Fung at the University of California, Berkeley, who
is director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center, co-director of
the new Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and professor of earth
and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and
management. "It's all about rates. If the rate of fossil fuel emissions
is too high, the carbon storage capacity of the land and oceans
decreases and climate warming accelerates."

Fung is lead author of a paper describing the climate model results
that appears this week in the Early Online Edition of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Fung was a member of the
National Academy of Sciences panel on global climate change that issued
a major report for President Bush in 2001 claiming, [ . . . ]

For the rest of this artilce see:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...2_carbon.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804050702.htm


There should be respectable clearing house for sorting and sifting what
goes into climate modelling with respect to imbalances but
unfortunately even the basics of climate modelling emerging from
seasonal cyclical changes are incorrect therefore it is pointless
attempting to compare current climate tendencies with long term
historical data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Daylight/darkness asymmetry has more of an impact on climate imbalance
when orbital geometry becomes more elliptical while still retaining
Kepler's second law and while there would be many who would bluff and
bluster their way into saying they recognise the asymmetry,not one
single website proposes the actual and correct mechanism for variations
that presently exist.

My God,the material is so enjoyable and interesting when the proper
orientations and motions are put in place for climate modelling and
with all due respect to men who genuinely try to make sense of what is
occuring,the standard is only so good as recognition of what is
acceptable and what thereby setting a far higher intellectual standard
than what presently exists.

The above wikipedia treatment has several major errors in principle,not
small mistakes but ones which make climate modelling or deductions from
historical climate data worthless.Again,nobody needs to be told that
there is a climate imbalance for people have already worked it out for
themselves and all the faux 'scientific' concerns cannot disguise that
meterologists and climatologists have yet to model seasonal cyclical
changes correctly having adopted the erroneous astronomical models of
18th century celestial cataloguers.

Or another way,people are not doing their jobs.

As the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical while retaining constant
axial rotation and Kepler's second law,there is an extreme
darkness/daylight asymmetry as the Earth axial rotation passes through
a more extreme change in orbital orientation.For example,with present
orientations, the Southern hemisphere would be considerably colder as
the orbital changes woulfd be more rapid as constant axial rotation
passes through it.


No offense,but present designations which use non existent variable
axial tilt or changes in the Sun's position and motion against the
Equator for the purposes on annual seasonal variations can be construed
as hilarious given that the Earth's axial orientation is almost fixed.

http://homepage.mac.com/tarashnat/as.../0001-08a.jpeg

I am certain it is a huge oversight due to unfamiliarity but ignoring
it or hoping it will disappear sets a very untrustworthy standard to
approach the material.Changing solar luminosity is another matter but
if you change that ,things become unmanageable for life and almost
everything else.

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
In other words all complete theories of the atmosphere
that exist have increasing CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs
causing the current warming.

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
In other words all complete theories of the atmosphere
that exist have increasing CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFCs
causing the current warming.

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

Coby Beck wrote:
[snip]
and 200ppm CO2. Too bad humans can't survive at 6000ppm CO2 and probably
not at 1500ppm. Too bad we need things besides primordial ooze to eat.
[snip]

This is interesting. I tried to come up with some figures at too what
the maximum concentration of CO2 was/is but only came up with the
following references using Google:

Lecture, space-craft environment:
"Physiological Limits: keep below 1% = 10,000 ppm; Earth: 350 ppm
Typical levels depending on crew activity: 2,000 - 7,000 ppm (0.2 -
0.7%)"
(pdf)http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen551...vironment2.pdf


NASA-research:
"Environmental Control
20-32 ± 0.2ºC air temperature, 75 - 100 ± 3 % RH,
300 - 3000 ± 30 ppm CO2 , ≈ 21% O2 (≈ 30% O2 if EVA),
catalytic ethylene removal, humidity condensate recycling"
(rtf)http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&ct=res...KsXWwgGh8dCTBA


Now I realize this still isn't the 24/7/365 exposure you're referring
to, so I'm quite interested what the maximum exposure a human could
endure would be? (I've also got some personal interest here since I'm
living next to one of the most congested/polluted streets here in the
Netherlands.)

Rich wrote:

Now I realize this still isn't the 24/7/365 exposure you're referring
to, so I'm quite interested what the maximum exposure a human could
endure would be?

Ah, found even another reference with a guideline:

"Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The earth's atmosphere normally con-
tains 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. At considerably higher concen-
trations, it can asphyxiate people by reducing the amount of oxy-
gen present.

Manure decomposition and the normal breathing process of
animals can increase the level of carbon dioxide in confined
spaces. Typical concentrations inside ventilated buildings range
from 1,000 ppm during well-ventilated periods to 10,000 ppm dur-
ing winter. The effects of excessive concentrations of carbon
dioxide are presented in Table 3. The NIOSH maximum recommended
safe carbon dioxide concentration for workers is 5,000 ppm."
(http://www.animalgenome.org/edu/PIH/104.html)

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Coby Beck wrote:
[snip]
and 200ppm CO2. Too bad humans can't survive at 6000ppm CO2 and probably
not at 1500ppm. Too bad we need things besides primordial ooze to eat.
[snip]

This is interesting. I tried to come up with some figures at too what the
maximum concentration of CO2 was/is but only came up with the following
references using Google:

Lecture, space-craft environment:
"Physiological Limits: keep below 1% = 10,000 ppm; Earth: 350 ppm
Typical levels depending on crew activity: 2,000 - 7,000 ppm (0.2 - 0.7%)"
(pdf)http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen551...vironment2.pdf

Yes, figures like those (especially your other post with 5000 as max safe
level for workers) are like what I've seen. Unfortunately, I was just
expressing my own prejudices and not any studies I know of. I don't know if
anyone has looked at constant exposure, and if so surely not for years. How
will a fetus develope for example? What will it do for asthma? Life
expectancy? Immune systems?

It just seems like a Bad Idea to even double what our species evolved to
breathe, let alone x5 (1500) or x20 (6000).

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"Coby Beck" wrote in message
news:Hh1Ke.170223$HI.61683@edtnps84...

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Coby Beck wrote:
[snip]
and 200ppm CO2. Too bad humans can't survive at 6000ppm CO2 and
probably not at 1500ppm. Too bad we need things besides primordial ooze
to eat.
[snip]

This is interesting. I tried to come up with some figures at too what the
maximum concentration of CO2 was/is but only came up with the following
references using Google:

Lecture, space-craft environment:
"Physiological Limits: keep below 1% = 10,000 ppm; Earth: 350 ppm
Typical levels depending on crew activity: 2,000 - 7,000 ppm (0.2 -
0.7%)"
(pdf)http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen551...vironment2.pdf

Yes, figures like those (especially your other post with 5000 as max safe
level for workers) are like what I've seen. Unfortunately, I was just
expressing my own prejudices and not any studies I know of. I don't know
if anyone has looked at constant exposure, and if so surely not for years.
How will a fetus develope for example? What will it do for asthma? Life
expectancy? Immune systems?

It just seems like a Bad Idea to even double what our species evolved to
breathe, let alone x5 (1500) or x20 (6000).

Not that I think this is going to happen. This all sprang out of the
twit-du-jour saying that CO2 levels have been as high as 6000ppm in earth's
history so why are we worrying. We may well be heading for ~1000ppm
though...

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck wrote:
Not that I think this is going to happen. This all sprang out of the
twit-du-jour saying that CO2 levels have been as high as 6000ppm in earth's
history so why are we worrying. We may well be heading for ~1000ppm
though...

I understand Coby. I also had a personal interest here living this close
to a really congested road. I was kinda interested if any figures
existed and if anyone had more pointers for me. It's that my houses'
environmental system already has filters for dust but there's not any
consideration for CO/CO2 or SO/SO2 ..

The past few days though have been kinda good .. having a truly bad
Summer with lower than avg temps has also its advantages!:
http://www.lml.rivm.nl/data/histo/445-168.html (text in Dutch though)

Richard

Fran, is it too much to ask you to do a little homework before you post just
any old thing you find cruising around the net? This particular piece of
**** (put together from disparate sources by the state of West Virginia's
chief [coal] mining engineer) has no credibility. Just to start you down
the correct path, you might ask yourself exactly what proxy(ies) might be
used for temperature 500M years ago.

"Fran Manns" wrote in message
...
Present day CO2 level were greatly exceeded by Carboniferous CO2 levels.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html


For the figure see the link.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early
Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but
by
the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to
average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 370 ppm CO2 (0.037%). Compared to
former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous
atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's
history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary
Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only
time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and
temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)


There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists
today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2
concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.8 times higher than today.
The
highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred
during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 19 times higher than
today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only
geological
periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as
they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the
Late
Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2
concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.
Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other
factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global
warming.



"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
oups.com...
Faster carbon dioxide emissions will overwhelm capacity of land and
ocean to absorb carbon

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations, 02 August 2005

BERKELEY - One in a new generation of computer climate models that
include the effects of Earth's carbon cycle indicates there are limits
to the planet's ability to absorb increased emissions of carbon
dioxide.

If current production of carbon from fossil fuels continues unabated,
by the end of the century the land and oceans will be less able to take
up carbon than they are today, the model indicates.

The Earth's various sources and sinks for carbon. The land and oceans
can absorb some of the increased carbon from fossil fuel emissions, but
as the emission rate increases, these sinks saturate and become less
effective at removing carbon from the atmosphere. (Graphics by Inez
Fung/UC Berkeley)

"If we maintain our current course of fossil fuel emissions or
accelerate our emissions, the land and oceans will not be able to slow
the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're doing
now," said Inez Y. Fung at the University of California, Berkeley, who
is director of the Berkeley Atmospheric Sciences Center, co-director of
the new Berkeley Institute of the Environment, and professor of earth
and planetary science and of environmental science, policy and
management. "It's all about rates. If the rate of fossil fuel emissions
is too high, the carbon storage capacity of the land and oceans
decreases and climate warming accelerates."

Fung is lead author of a paper describing the climate model results
that appears this week in the Early Online Edition of the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Fung was a member of the
National Academy of Sciences panel on global climate change that issued
a major report for President Bush in 2001 claiming, [ . . . ]

For the rest of this artilce see:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r...2_carbon.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0804050702.htm