Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Keep it up. I did not make these comments about the poster. The comments were for the report writers.

Even worse.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Ok, if you really want to go with the thesis breathing CO2 will not kill you I suggest the following scientific experiment:

We know:
1. Humans breath in air containing 78% Nitrogen 21% Oxygen and about 0.9% Argon. Gases like Carbon-Dioxide, Nitrous-Oxides, Methane, and Ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.

2. An average resting adult, the lungs take up about 250ml of oxygen every minute while excreting about 200ml of carbon dioxide.

The Thesis:

CO2 is not a lethal gas.

The Aim:

Prove scientifically that you can survive breathing "non-toxic" CO2

The Method:

Put a 10l plastic bag over you head and apply a air-tight seal around your neck. As you breath in you use up all the O2 (~2.1l) and replace it with CO2. Within about 10.5min all O2 is replaced with CO2. Write a log every 30s reporting your well-being. (You might need an assistant to continue your log in case your thesis is wrong and you fall unconscious).

Continue for about 20 minutes and report back here - or not. Either way we will know whether or not your thesis was right.

In that situation, it's not the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen that's the killer.

To properly test your proposition, you would need to devise an experiment that replaces the nitrogen with CO2, not the oxygen.

[StuM]

CDC - Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health Concentrations (IDLH): Carbon dioxide - NIOSH Publications and Products

"It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]."

[Udacha]

I might have been a little mixed up on the CO2 and CO thing, it has been fifty years since I learned that stuff in grade school.There is nowhere in my post that says anything about lethal, one is toxic one is not. By putting a bag over your head and breathing you will die from lack of oxygen because the oxygen is used up every time you take a breath. On the other hand carbon monoxide is toxic and I'm pretty sure if you breath that there's going to be problems, maybe you could try that and get back to me

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Now you AGW types are trying to murder deniers. First you guys threaten jailing for disent and now you resort to trying to kill us off. I can see clearly through your plot. As clear as a clear plastic bag over my head.

I'm not a AGW type, I'm an astrophysicist. I am one of the "corrupt scientist" "falsifying the data" shaking my head in disbelieve reading this sometimes really hilarious thread. I'm not interested in political crap or believing in anything. I want to know.

Hey, and if he really believes CO2 is harmless nothing will happen to him. However, I recommend commencing an extensive literature review before starting the experiment!

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I'm not a AGW type, I'm an astrophysicist. I am one of the "corrupt scientist" "falsifying the data" shaking my head in disbelieve reading this sometimes really hilarious thread. I'm not interested in political crap or believing in anything. I want to know.

Hey, and if he really believes CO2 is harmless nothing will happen to him. However, I recommend commencing an extensive literature review before starting the experiment!

Perhaps you could peer review the test before he applies it.

[Udacha]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I'm not a AGW type, I'm an astrophysicist. I am one of the "corrupt scientist" "falsifying the data" shaking my head in disbelieve reading this sometimes really hilarious thread. I'm not interested in political crap or believing in anything. I want to know.

Hey, and if he really believes CO2 is harmless nothing will happen to him. However, I recommend commencing an extensive literature review before starting the experiment!

Wow, an astrophysicist and you don't know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

Perhaps you could peer review the test before he applies it.

Now you are talking!

Let's refine the experiment set-up:

Originally Posted by StuM

In that situation, it's not the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen that's the killer.

To properly test your proposition, you would need to devise an experiment that replaces the nitrogen with CO2, not the oxygen.

Interesting experiment setup StuM. I was thinking of that, but I wanted him to be able to write some sort of log.

Replacing Nitrogen with CO2 would render him immediately unconscious.

In medical sciences 1 atmosphere, i.e. the pressure of the air at the sea level is expressed as 760 millimetres of mercury, 760 mm Hg. So, if we assume that the air consist of 78% N2, 21% of O2 and 0.04% of CO2 then each of the three molecules exerts the following pressure:

N2: (78/100)*760 = 593 mm Hg
O2: (21/100)*760 = 160 mm Hg
CO2: (0.04/100)*760 = 0.3 mm Hg

Now we need to make connection between the partial pressure of CO2 in the air and in the blood, before breathing in and after breathing out. For the gas molecule to cross from the lungs to the blood it needs to have the higher partial pressure in the lungs than in the blood, and obviously, the opposite is true – if the partial pressure of the gas molecule is higher in the blood than in the lungs, it will cross from the blood to the lungs. When it comes to CO2, its concentration in the blood, after the blood has collected all the CO2 generated by the bio-chemical process keeping the cells alive reaches the pressure of 45 mm Hg, while the pressure inside the lungs after we breathe in the air is 0.3 mm Hg.

Therefore, as long as the partial pressure of CO2 in the air that we breathe in is less than 45 mmHg, the human body will be able to clear out the cell-produced CO2. By the way, when people suffer serious brain damage which affects breathing, the function of those machines that maintain the life is to bring in the oxygen and make sure that all the CO2 is cleared from the blood stream.

The number to watch for is 45 mm Hg of CO2 in the air, or 6% or 60,000 PPM – that is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct. If my math is serving me right, if we divide 60,000 PPM with 400 PPM we get the ‘kill factor’ for CO2: 150.

No danger there that we kill ourself with CO2. However replacing Nitrogen (78%) with CO2 and leaving O2 untouched will kill him instantly.

Originally Posted by Udacha

Wow, an astrophysicist and you don't know the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

Be my guest and put a plastic bag over your head if you really think CO2 is non-toxic.

Don't forget writing the log.

I would not follow StuM's recommendation replacing Nitrogen with CO2 because you will not be able to write a log even this experiment would prove the toxicity of CO2 as there is still oxygen in the air mixture.

CO2 is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen).

StuM's Experiment setup will prove the former, my set-up the latter. But as you can't do both ...

Btw. you will also exhale 5% water vapor, a miniscule amount of several parts per million (ppm) of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, 1 part per million (ppm) of ammonia and less than 1 ppm of acetone, methanol, ethanol and other volatile organic compounds.

But with the amount of Carbon-monoxide you exhale you will rather starve to death in the plastic bag or die of natural causes if fed intravenouses.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Anti-Science....you want to talk Anti-science and relate it to a political ideology...hey I'm game, lets talk. And folks this example will highlight how Cultish behavior and group-think happens and can spread through a political/religious ideology.

Gender:
Science defines a Male of a species as having an XY chromosome
Science defines a Female of a species as having an XX chromosome.
With the exception of birth defects, which are well known and classified by Science, there is no grey area and everyone fits into XY or XX...it's basic 8th Grade Bioligy. The individual animals don't get to define what gender they are, they don't self-identify as male or female they simply are by the very nature of their DNA. That's Science.

Now enter the Left and the Cultish mindset:
Basic Science is upended and now the very phrase Man/Woman, Male/Female is hate-speech and if you even bring this issue up, you are labeled a hater, this-aphobe or that-aphobe. Just like how the left labels people Deniers to silence them, the same Alinsky tactics are used on this topic. The "Consensus of Scientists" (which is really just a convenient way to say "shut up, all the smart people already figured out the truth and you ain't one of them"). Mmainstream pop culture now calls Scientific fact and basic Science a lie...look the other way, nothing to see here as we change the basic meaning of terms and science. In the past if a person thought they were Napoleon or someone other than themselves, medical science and the culture would both agree and say that person was suffering from a mental illness. Their illness wouldn't be promoted or celebrated, treatment would be sought for that individual. But not today, where Science yields to the whims of pop Culture. Today there are over 58, yes 58 different forms of gender. Science is out the door and the Cult of pop culture has taken over. Even reading this you feel uncomfortable due to your social programing...it goes to show you just how powerful this game is.

The MMGWC asks us dim-whitted Deniers, if there is a conspiracy and how could the entire scientific community be in on a fraud? It's impossible they say. Well folks, it's easy...we now have over 58 different official genders. And if you speak against it you are a hater...bingo...see how the game is played on the left and how Science and Truth have no roll other than to be used as a means to their end.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

Now you are talking!

While I'm talking. What do you think the effect is of the flapping of butterfly wings in the Congo on the winds of Saturn?

Perhaps the same answer to my first question applies to the effect CO2 emissions have on Antarctic ice.

[Udacha]

I'll be sure to think about that right after the next time you go diving and hook up to a tank of CO.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

The number to watch for is 45 mm Hg of CO2 in the air, or 6% or 60,000 PPM – that is the concentration of CO2 that needs to be reached for the humankind to become extinct. If my math is serving me right, if we divide 60,000 PPM with 400 PPM we get the ‘kill factor’ for CO2: 150.

No danger there that we kill ourself with CO2. However replacing Nitrogen (78%) with CO2 and leaving O2 untouched will kill him instantly.

Only if you replace all of it. Same if you replaced all the nitrogen with oxygen.

What's the "kill factor" for oxygen?

As I understand it, pulmonary toxicity occurs when O2 exceeds 50%, so that would be a "kill factor" of just about 2. Which sort of puts CO2's "kill factor" of 150 into perspective.

Everything is toxic at sufficiently high levels.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Udacha

I'll be sure to think about that right after the next time you go diving and hook up to a tank of CO.

I dare you to go diving with a tank of CO2. I'm coming with as your "Dive-Buddy" you taking a video, but I will not give you my spare mouth-piece

Evolution designed our bodies to fit to the atmospheric composition we have. We can tolerate a lot of change in the atmosphere before we will get extinct. For CO2 it would need about 10,000ppm before some of us would start to drop dead. But I think evolution would adapt life to this situation too.

Originally Posted by StuM

Only if you replace all of it. Same if you replaced all the nitrogen with oxygen.

What's the "kill factor" for oxygen?

As I understand it, pulmonary toxicity occurs when O2 exceeds 50%, so that would be a "kill factor" of just about 2. Which sort of puts CO2's "kill factor" of 150 into perspective.

Everything is toxic at sufficiently high levels.

I think you are right. I have not checked it but as far as I remember it is 50-60% O2. It's amazing if you think about it. Too much Oxygen kills you faster than not enough O2.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Udacha

It's been amazing to me on this thread how the GW believers (non-scientist) argue and belittle actual scientist (non-believers)
I see a lot of graphs here supporting GW, but they only show the last 150 years, which is not even a blink. Here is one that goes back a bit further. The the little red part is the famous Hockey Stick, as you can see it is quite meaningless. If you actualy dig a little deeper and go back millions of years you will find that high co2 is a RESULT of warming not the cause.

Interesting graph, not because of the information it provides, but because of what it says about people who rely on such tricks to try and make their point.

If the point is that this graph somehow refutes the 'hockey stick' measurements...

For starters, why does a '10,000 year graph' only show 9780 years?

Why is the interval between the years on the left side 436 years, but on the right side 113? What effect does the gradually shortening scale have on the accuracy of the curve, or what it is purportedly illustrating?

If the time period ends at 1950 on the right, we must assume that the last year shown on the graph is 1855. If that assumption is correct, then the graph leaves out the 'blade' (the very rapid warming period) of the original hockey stick graph completely. The original graph is also shown below.






The original hockey stick graph.




Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).



Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfn9FaJKPwo

[StuM]

Going back to the original plastic bag experiment.

The minimum safe lower limit for O2 is .16 bar at normal atmospheric pressure. " Hypoxia and sudden unconsciousness becomes a problem with an oxygen partial pressure of less than 0.16 bar absolute."

So breathing inside that bag, once we have converted 5% of the oxygen to CO2, we hit the critical low concentration of O2 at 16%.

At that stage, CO2 is 50,400 ppm - well below that 60,000 ppm that we have to watch out for.

IOW, it is the lack of oxygen that will kill you in this experiment.