On Thu, 14 May 2009 02:04:52 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

What A. Fool wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 22:57:34 +0200, Q wrote:

What A. Fool wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:43:17 +0200, Q wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!
I'm afraid it is a sad sad reality

[snip the woger wabbit sniffles]

The last decade we get about 2 to 3 ppm per year extra CO2, it is simply
unstoppable

Q
It sure is awful, all those trees growing faster, all that
extra grass to mow more often, but at least there should be
more wheat, corn and rice.


When is the end coming?

AGW deniers logic kicks in at this point, but wait there is mo

No cat has two tails, one cat must have one tail more than no cat, so a
cat must have three tails.

Likewise: a barber is defined as the man in a village who shaves all men
unable to shave themselves. Now who shaves the barber?

Q


I have been wondering about you, have you been in the
same ward as Scott Nudds?

Come on guys, these are serious issues,

Q

Tell us what culture those gossip tales are from, that would
help understand why cat tails are so important.

On May 14, 12:39 pm, "ozonb" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On May 14, 11:04 am, "ozonb" wrote:





"Fran" wrote in message

...

On May 13, 4:49 pm, "ozonb" wrote:
.
I can't wait!

Current CO2 Levels Are Way Too Low

Do you make the same claim about oxygen?

No.

But oxygen is a life-giving substance!!! What are you? Anti-oxygen?

Water is a life-giving substance as well, but too much can kill.

That argument is not available to those such as you who assert that
life-giving substances can't be pollutants, so I'm sounding the buzzer
on that one.

To paraphrase you: Water is a life-giving substance. It's not a
pollutant.

Maybe I should paraphrase Count Orsino:

"If water be the stuff of life, pour on, that surfeiting the soul may
sicken and so die ..."

Apologies to 'The Bard ...'

So what's your point?
My point is that our atmosphere is STARVED of CO2 not oxygen, so why do you mention the
latter?.

My point is that you are not being consistent.

You claim that because CO2 is

a) a life giving substance

AND

b) has been higher in the geological past than today

that

a) the Earth's atmosphere is "CO2-starved"

and therefore

b) We need more 'lifegiving CO2' in the atmosphere

You also specified a level of CO2 that you liked -- 1000-1200 ppmv (ie
more than four times the preindustrial level and three tiems today's
level) saying that it would lead to a lush green planet.

On YOUR logic, oxygen, which is also a 'life giving substance' for
most life on the planet and which has been as high as 35%
concentration in the past is in short supply, since we only have 21%
oxygen currently.

======================================

Huh?
Who said oxygen was in short supply?
Not me!

I agree that oxygen is life-giving and that too much could kill you, but I never said it
was in short supply as CO2 is!


You set the criteria for what was in short supply by inferring it from
historic levels for CO2

You seem to be flying off at a tangent here komrade!


I was merely extending your tangent.

Fran

On May 13, 6:17*pm, What A. Fool wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 22:57:34 +0200, Q wrote:
What A. Fool wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009 19:43:17 +0200, Q wrote:

Roger Coppock wrote:
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!
I'm afraid it is a sad sad reality

[snip the woger wabbit sniffles]

The last decade we get about 2 to 3 ppm per year extra CO2, it is simply
unstoppable

Q

* * * * * It sure is awful, all those trees growing faster, all that
extra grass to mow more often, but at least there should be
more wheat, corn and rice.

* * * * * When is the end coming?

AGW deniers logic kicks in at this point, but wait there is mo

No cat has two tails, one cat must have one tail more than no cat, so a
cat must have three tails.

Likewise: a barber is defined as the man in a village who shaves all men
unable to shave themselves. Now who shaves the barber?

Q

* * * * * *I have been wondering about you, have you been in the
same ward as Scott Nudds?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

marcodbeast was in the same ward as Scott Nudds,,, (or Nuddly the
Nuddler as some of us called him.) AKA V-For-Vendicar, Vendicar
Decarian, VD Scotty, Vendicarse Dickarian. Scott Douglas,

I always thought it funny how marcodbeast turned up at about the
same time that Vendicar disappeared. Could be just another name change
for Vendicar Decarian.

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
...
CO2 Level at Least 800,000-Year High!


Right, and we seen global cooling for 8-10 years now?

This sure sends a message that co2 is not driving the temperature. Or,
perhaps you can explain why all of sudden co2 would start to allow more heat
to escape into outer space when the co2 levels are increasing?

Super Turtle

On May 15, 2:40 pm, "ozonb" wrote:
"Fran" wrote in message

...
On May 14, 5:33 pm, netvegetable wrote: On Thu, 14 May 2009 12:39:54 +1000, ozonb wrote:
Huh?
Who said oxygen was in short supply?
Not me!

I agree that oxygen is life-giving and that too much could kill you, but
I never said it was in short supply as CO2 is!

I think she's putting to you is pretty simple, and you should be able to
grasp it. You claim that current CO2 levels are "Current CO2 Levels Are
Way Too Low" on the sole basis that they have been higher in the past.

Oxygen levels have been higher in the past too, and yet you don't make
the same claim about oxygen. Why is that?

Because he wants to repeat specious talking points that seem
impressive to people with limited knowledge and time to reflect on the
matter.
======================================

BECUASE ...

Current oxygen levels are probably about right because there are no known benefits in
having more.


Current CO2 levels are too low because there are well known benefits, even for carbon
crackpots, in having more.

N'est ce pas?

You've moved the goalposts. Whether there are known benefits in having
more was never one of your criteria for determining whether CO2 was a
pollutant. It began and ended with past concentrations and possibly,
with it being "a life-giving substance".

If you want the new criterion to be "there are benefits in having
more" then you are going to have to state how much more CO2 would be
beneficial and offer some good science to support that. There isn't
any good modelling to suggest that in net terms, extra CO2 would be
beneficial to plant growth in ways that would help us. there would be
winners and losers and some of the "wins" wouldn't be that valuable,
and also, conditional on getting more water to cope with the greater
heat.

You are also going to have to stop trying to refute the idea that CO2
can't be a pollutant because at some concentration you would have to
acknowledge that all of the benefits of extra CO2 had been exhausted,
after which point CO2 would be a pollutant on your definition.

You're also wrong that there are no known benefits from having more
oxygen in the air. With more oxygen we humans would be able to work a
little harder at high altitude. There were some pretty impressive
plants and animals when oxygen was around 35%. It's just that 35%
would provoke some serious health problems in the places where most
humans live, which is a separate question. And of course in nitrogen
in the air fell by that amount (to about 64%), all plants C4 pathway
plants would suffer.

Fran

"ozonb" wrote in message ...


This fact is well understood by greenhouse operators who burn gas to
increase CO2 levels to at least 1,000 ppm, 260% above current atmospheric
levels.


1000 ppm is what works for most plants. Plants using C4 photosynthesis are a
special case and might not be better off at that level.
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~mp364...ge-selection=2

Inside populated buildings, CO2 levels of 3,000 ppm (770% above current
levels) have been measured in homes, schools and offices with no ill
effects.

True, and even higher, such as crowded rooms, parties, etc. I'm sure that
10,000 ppm would be easily reached. But some people would start to show
some mild symptoms at 30,000 to 50,000.


Even most Health and Safety people consider 5,000 ppm (1,300% above
current levels) to be safe.

True. ASHRAE suggests engineers use a design limit of 1000 ppm housing.
Most house ventilation is designed for 4 people not to exceed 1000 ppm.



Medical gas given to people with respiratory problems typically contains
50,000 ppm CO2 (13,000% above current levels) and our lung sacs retain
about 65,000 ppm (16,800 % above current levels).


Yes, the average human breath is 5 percent CO2. Thats 50,000 ppm. It can be
higher !!



Not until CO2 levels get to 100,000 ppm (260 times current levels) is
there any concern about human health.


Thats 10 percent. Personally, I would not want to spend much time in any
place like that.
I'd even say 5 percent is not good. I don't want to breath in any air thats
higher than my exhaled breath.
I would say that there is no health concern at levels below 1 percent
(10,000 ppm)



"All plant life will also benefit from increased carbon dioxide, and much
of the extra food produced by the green revolution is the result of the
warmer and more carbon-rich atmosphere.


Almost all plant life, again, the C4 plants might not be better off.



http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2962





Warmest Regards

Bonzo

On Fri, 15 May 2009 00:31:07 -0500, "bw" wrote:


Even most Health and Safety people consider 5,000 ppm (1,300% above
current levels) to be safe.


But that is a maximum. The problem that can result from
closed buildings is more from faulty equipment though, the usual
doors and windows are not "airlock" quality.

True. ASHRAE suggests engineers use a design limit of 1000 ppm housing.
Most house ventilation is designed for 4 people not to exceed 1000 ppm.


Frankly, forced ventilation is a really stupid and
irresponsible concept.

A similar stupid concept is law requiring no clearing of brush
or burning of waste, a well designed combination incinerator-
power plant would be an asset for any community, but the
nutty extremists would rather have landfills and rotting wood
producing methane and CO2.

On May 12, 11:59*pm, Catoni wrote:
Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Fran... you might want to check your math... *Unless my math skills
have fallen off very sharply as I age, (inevitable, over time I
suppose), then 2000
is 526.3... % of 380 . *Lets say 526 %to make it simple shall we? We
really don't need use decimal points in this case.

*Or .. if we wish to say that atmospheric CO2 is now 385ppmv, then...
it would come to about 519.5%

* *To be honest, my original rough guess of 600% was indeed wrong as
well. Both of us need a math refresher course I guess. *

* Double checking.... It looks to me as if I am correct now. *Can you
see
where I might be mistaken Fran?

* I can't remember what it is you teach Fran,,,but it's not math I
take it..

* *My point is that in the last 500 million years... CO2 has been
much
much higher then now...
* *During the height of the reign of the dinosaurs, as much as 500%
and more, then it is now.

* If you take the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for that time
period, then right now, we are pretty well close to the bottom of the
chart.. *Relatively very little CO2 in the atmosphere... *I suppose
that's why they call it a "trace"gas... because there is only a trace
of it... Thank goodness too, or we would have no photosynthesis.. *No
or very little life on Earth... *it's vital... And some people are
now
labelling it pollution...
* * * Please don't give me the analogy of a little bit of cyanide.
That is such a worn out poor analogy, and has been used here before
by
Alarmists ad nauseum.

* *CO2 is almost as low as it ever has been to the best of our
knowledge.... * so I see no cause for
alarm at all.

* *I would like to make another point if I may,,, *that in the
original post by our dear friend Roger Coppock, the statement that
the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere now reaching the level that it was
800,000 years ago is very badly in error, if it is not an outright
lie.

* Catoni

••*Actually, paleoclimatologists have written that every
time CO2 has exceeded 300 ppm an ice age has
started. By Roger's chart that must have passed during
WWII.

If true, that would explain many of the violent climate
events of the past 60 years.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 06:14:48 -0700 (PDT), Last Post
wrote:

On May 12, 11:59Â*pm, Catoni wrote:
Fran- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Â*Fran... you might want to check your math... Â*Unless my math skills
have fallen off very sharply as I age, (inevitable, over time I
suppose), then 2000
is 526.3... % of 380 . Â*Lets say 526 %to make it simple shall we? We
really don't need use decimal points in this case.

Â*Or .. if we wish to say that atmospheric CO2 is now 385ppmv, then...
it would come to about 519.5%

Â* Â*To be honest, my original rough guess of 600% was indeed wrong as
well. Both of us need a math refresher course I guess. Â*

Â* Double checking.... It looks to me as if I am correct now. Â*Can you
see
where I might be mistaken Fran?

Â* I can't remember what it is you teach Fran,,,but it's not math I
take it..

Â* Â*My point is that in the last 500 million years... CO2 has been
much
much higher then now...
Â* Â*During the height of the reign of the dinosaurs, as much as 500%
and more, then it is now.

Â* If you take the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for that time
period, then right now, we are pretty well close to the bottom of the
chart.. Â*Relatively very little CO2 in the atmosphere... Â*I suppose
that's why they call it a "trace"gas... because there is only a trace
of it... Thank goodness too, or we would have no photosynthesis.. Â*No
or very little life on Earth... Â*it's vital... And some people are
now
labelling it pollution...
Â* Â* Â* Please don't give me the analogy of a little bit of cyanide.
That is such a worn out poor analogy, and has been used here before
by
Alarmists ad nauseum.

Â* Â*CO2 is almost as low as it ever has been to the best of our
knowledge.... Â* so I see no cause for
alarm at all.

Â* Â*I would like to make another point if I may,,, Â*that in the
original post by our dear friend Roger Coppock, the statement that
the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere now reaching the level that it was
800,000 years ago is very badly in error, if it is not an outright
lie.

Â* Catoni

••Â*Actually, paleoclimatologists have written that every
time CO2 has exceeded 300 ppm an ice age has
started. By Roger's chart that must have passed during
WWII.

If true, that would explain many of the violent climate
events of the past 60 years.


You seem not to be firmly AGW, but the most violent
climate events did not occur in the last 60 years, pray that
there are no more floods like killed more than a million
in China many years ago, cold summers like after the
big volcanos, etc.

http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.p...by_death_toll/

http://www.hurricaneville.com/historic.html

http://tornadoeshurricanes.suite101...._in_us_history

http://www.ezl.com/~fireball/Disaster15.htm


Chances are the Derecho winds are not just a recent event, they
may not have been cataloged before;

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDere...rechofacts.htm

Some events seem more violent now because more
people live on the rivers and coasts.

From all indications most of the jump in annual global
average temperature claimed by GISS is from changes in
methods, instruments, units, precision, computer rounding
and locations of weather stations, along with the standards
of those weather stations not being of the needed precision
for such manipulation.

But technology and knowledge with awareness may
reduce fatalities substantially.