2
   

Medieval warming was global

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 6 Apr, 2012 03:48 pm
says the snake, speaking of lower animals.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:00 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
You don't program in a conclusion in computer simulations.
That sentence there tells me I am dealing with someone who has lots of enthusiasm and very little knowledge . Propounding crap, I believe is the expression you prefer in your intellectual circles .

Quote:
You put in the processes, the equations that determine them, and the data.
Then you turn around and admit you tell the computer what the result will be . Do you think a computer is capable of original thought ?

Quote:
for every year that you have data
Is there much data around for 17APR 10,847BC ?

Quote:
And remember a lot of these disciplines have nothing to do with climate change.
Like school teachers telling children climate change is real . Why did it never take off with Geologists, the one group who was studying all this before it became a compulsory belief ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:04 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Gosh gunga... Using your "common sense" I guess you just proved that Cynaide will never kill you in small amounts.
Stretch your mind here....you have stumbled into a truth....even poisons will not kill you in small enough amounts . CO2 is NOT a poison . You can not breathe pure oxygen . Your lungs will not work correctly .

Quote:
Now, based on the percentages and "common sense" or "first principles" cyanide won't kill you gunga. Why don't you go eat .2 grams and prove your "common sense" works?
Why dont you breathe several cubic metres of CO2 and prove your poison is deadly ? Of course you will be dead according to you, but I am willing to take that chance because I think your theory is rubbish .
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:08 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
The greenhouse effect, consisting of water vapor, CO2, methane, ozone in the stratosphere, NO2, and all the other trace gases,
So where are the studies into those other gases ? Who determined CO2 was the worst ? Oh, thats right, it was a looney at the UN trying to make money out of a scam . You do know that is where all this started, dont you ?
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:08 pm
Read the IPCC reports. All the research, with citations, is summarized there, and there's a huge body of it. It's all there. You're speaking from ignorance, as usual, Ionus. And may I point out, AGAIN, the IPCC and the UN neither conduct the research, nor fund it, nor have any hand in it--the IPCC is set up to gather what has been studied and done elsewhere,all around the world, summarize it, and tell world leaders its impact.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:26 pm
I invite you to actually do your own test, Ionus. You'll be dead. Please try it out. We'll wait. Concentrations of CO2 much above 5% are in fact likely to be fatal. If you're breathingjust CO2, and several cubic meters of it, you will be an ex-Ionus. You might look up the cases of the lakes in Africa which had substantial subsurface deposits of CO2, which bubbled out unexpectedly and, since they wer in a basin, which contained the gas, killed people and animals in the night. You might also look up building safety engineering reports, which say the same thing. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

Carbon dioxide is the waste product of respiration. You can't breathe just it and survive.
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 08:33 pm
And I was programming computers probably before you were born. You're totally ignorant of what computer simulations do and how they do it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 08:48 am
@Ionus,
Gunga was the one claiming "common sense" shows that small percentages aren't harmful. It seems you don't understand that so you came up with a strawman so you can make your own argument. I pointed out that a small percentage of Cyanide in your system compared to the other chemical is deadly. That was merely to show that his "common sense" was faulty logic.

Quote:
Why dont you breathe several cubic metres of CO2 and prove your poison is deadly ? Of course you will be dead according to you, but I am willing to take that chance because I think your theory is rubbish .
That has nothing to do with my argument. I never said CO2 was 'deadly' if breathed. I only pointed out you can't argue percentages alone as evidence that something isn't bad.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 08:51 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
So where are the studies into those other gases ?

They are in the scientific literature.

Quote:
Who determined CO2 was the worst ?

CO2 is the only one of those gases that has increased dramatically the last 100 years. Are you really that ignorant? Or do you just ignore inconvenient facts?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 11:32 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

I invite you to actually do your own test, Ionus. You'll be dead. Please try it out. We'll wait. Concentrations of CO2 much above 5% are in fact likely to be fatal .If you're breathingjust CO2, and several cubic meters of it, you will be an ex-Ionus. You might look up the cases of the lakes in Africa which had substantial subsurface deposits of CO2, which bubbled out unexpectedly and, since they wer in a basin, which contained the gas, killed people and animals in the night. You might also look up building safety engineering reports, which say the same thing. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

Carbon dioxide is the waste product of respiration. You can't breathe just it and survive.
The truth of these assertions depends entirely on the unspecified other components of the air one breathes. As long as the oxygen % (by weight) remains at about 23% , the disribution of the other gasses doesn't matter much with respect to respiration. You appear to be positing that the added CO2 would displace O2. In that case - and in the cases of the lakes in Africa to which you referred - it was the lack of O2, not the excess of CO2 that would do (and did) the harm.

AS long as the O2 concentration was maintained one could breathe air with 5% CO2 and survive. You appear to have completed the same course in deceptive pedantry as Parados.

parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 12:10 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
AS long as the O2 concentration was maintained one could breathe air with 5% CO2 and survive. You appear to have completed the same course in deceptive pedantry as Parados.

You seem to be beating the same strawman that Ionus is. Perhaps you should argue against an argument I actually made. Or is that too pedantic in your world?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 12:29 pm
@parados,
Paradork:

Quote:
I never said CO2 was 'deadly' if breathed...


That's right, fool, what you said was twenty or thirty times stupider than that. What you were and are claiming is that whatever humans add to atmospheric CO2 which altogether including the non-anthropogenic components is something like 4% of the one percent of our atmosphere which you'd call 'greenhouse' gases, is gonna kill the whole world and displease Gaea, and therefore we need to shut down most of the world's economic activity and kill most of the human population of the planet, to make Gaea happy.

I'd really hate to be an idiot... how does it affect you? Does it make it hard to get dates and pick up women and what not??
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 12:39 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
What you were and are claiming is that whatever humans add to atmospheric CO2 which altogether including the non-anthropogenic components is something like 4% of the one percent of our atmosphere which you'd call 'greenhouse' gases, is gonna kill the whole world and displease Gaea, and therefore we need to shut down most of the world's economic activity and kill most of the human population of the planet, to make Gaea happy.

Where did I say that?

By the way cyanide can make up less than .04% of your food intake and kill you so your percentage argument is still nothing but a logical fallacy.


Quote:
Does it make it hard to get dates and pick up women and what not??
Dates grow on trees and women tend to pick up after themselves. Since you obviously have never had either, you wouldn't know that.
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 01:14 pm
re Georgeob:

Quote:
HOW ARE PEOPLE EXPOSED TO CARBON DIOXIDE?
CO2 can build up in buildings that house a lot of people or animals, and is a symptom of problems with fresh air circulation in the building or home. Where CO2 levels in soils are high, the gas can seep into basements through stone walls or cracks in floors and foundations. High levels of CO2 can displace oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2), potentially causing health problems.
WHAT CONDITIONS LEAD TO HIGH CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS INDOORS?
The amount of carbon dioxide in a building is usually related to how much fresh air is being brought into that building. In general, the higher the CO2 level in the building, the lower the amount of fresh air exchange. Therefore, examining levels of CO2 in indoor air can reveal if the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems are operating within guidelines. CO2 levels are usually measured in percent (%) of air or parts per million (ppm). High CO2 levels, generally over 1000 ppm, indicate a potential problem with air circulation and fresh air in a room or building. In general, high CO2 levels indicate the need to examine the HVAC system. High carbon dioxide levels can cause poor air quality and can even extinguish pilot lights on gas-powered appliances.
WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS?
Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia to convulsions and even frostbite if exposed to dry ice.
The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:
•250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level •350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange. •1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. •2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present. •>5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.


Death, george, got that? Kind of by definition if you get 5% CO2 in air you're getting less oxygen. And you get deleterious effects at much lower concentrations than that. That's far higher than in the atmosphere now, or in the likely future, (though it's levels reachable in buildings) but that's not the point--arguing that CO2 is benign, as denialists do, is only part of the picture. It can also definitely not be benign. And the point is not the health effect anyway. It's the temperature effect.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 03:55 pm
@MontereyJack,
Again you are assuming situations in which the CO2 displaces available oxygen. The same argument could be made about nitrogen or any of the other largely inert gasses found in the admosphere. CO2 is not inherently a poision as you imply. Oxygen is indeed vital for life and anything which displaces it is harmful in the atmosphere.

However even the fantastic changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration forecast by advocates of (ahem)"climate change" are far from the levels that could induce any measurable human health effects.

You are deliberately advancing misleading implications by the selective application of half truths. Very Parados-like.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2012 05:14 pm
@georgeob1,
How lovely of you george.


I suppose science was being pedantic when they said this...

Quote:
In the dogs allowed to breathe the gas mixture of 80% CO2 with 20% O2, the respiratory movement ceased in 1 min, and the terminal respirations were seen with the circulatory breakdown after apnoea of several minutes. These findings showed that the cause of death in breathing high concentrations of CO2 is not hypoxia, but the CO2 poisoning.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2504656


Quote:
You are deliberately advancing misleading implications by the selective application of half truths. Very Parados-like.

Actually, it would be you advancing misleading implications by the selective application of half truths (or outright lies). That would be very goergeob1-like except you are george0b1 so it would be expected of you.

CO2 IS a poison when levels in the blood exceeds certain levels.
Quote:
When the individual has a high level of carbon dioxide in the blood, the condition is known as hypercapnia. ... High levels of carbon dioxide in the blood can cause flushed skin, increased blood pressure, muscle twitches, reduced brain and nerve function, headaches, confusion and lethargy

http://www.medicalhealthtests.com/blood-tests/blood-carbon-dioxide-level.html


The levels of CO2 in the blood are elevated by higher concentrations in the breathing environment even if the amount of oxygen is increased.
Quote:
CO2 is produced by cellular metabolism. It can also enter the body during respiration when the
atmospheric concentration exceeds the alveolar concentration.

Health effects of Prolonged CO2 exposure
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 12:46 am
CO2 acts on receptors in the central nervous system--specifically CO2 concentration, not O2.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2012 04:31 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:
Does it make it hard to get dates and pick up women and what not??
Dates grow on trees and women tend to pick up after themselves. Since you obviously have never had either, you wouldn't know that.


Now that was highly entertaining.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/17/2022 at 05:15:17