Is Carbon Dioxide Just a Normal Part of the Atmosphere?

[expos4ever]

Not relevant? Here's another. You'd call Dr. James Hansen an expert, right? In 1988, during an interview with a Washington Post reporter, Hansen looked out the window at the West Side Highway in NYC and said that in 20 or 40 years it would be underwater. We're four years from the forty year mark of his prediction. The West Side Highway is still above water.

Now, you can say that this was an off-the-cuff prediction. Even so, it was easy to fact check this in 1988 by finding the elevation of the West Side Highway, dividing it by predicted sea level rise, and seeing how long it would take until the highway was underwater. Not difficult at all.

Now then: In 1988, would you have been critical of anyone doing the fact checking because Dr. Hansen is an expert? Are you now critical of anyone who points out this prediction by an expert was wrong? Or do we simply admit even experts can be wrong?

Anecdotal. The overwhelming consensus of appropriately trained experts is that climate change is indeed human caused. Period.

Obviously experts can be wrong, but the relevant question is what do we believe given the information available to us right now. And obviously, the best bet is to go with the experts.

Consider the case of smoking. Sure, the experts could be wrong. Perhaps smoking has nothing to do with cancer and heart disease. But we all know what the best choice to make is - don't smoke.

 

[chevyontheriver]

also we use much more electricity then before, I heard than in U.K. they had to build a nuclear power plant because of the plasma tv's used so much energy...I do not know if it's true I did not verify the info...

Plasma TV's are totally passe now. The LED screens sip power in comparison to plasma TV's and CRT TV's. Most Plasma TV's are now obsolete and there won't be more than a handful gulping power in the near future. One can get superior picture and much smaller electric bills with LCD screens.

Do you remember cold fusion from Pons and Fleishman about 20 years or so?

Still waiting on this to work, and waiting, and waiting.

In any case it is not always for the governments to incite industry to pollute less, we as the consumers have a big part to play by stop wasting and living simply and stop buying from the big polluters.

Many years ago now the energy expert Amory Lovins wrote a book called 'Soft Energy Paths' about trying not to go all 'government' in our energy policy but to invest at the margins and let consumers do what makes sense to their pocketbooks. No draconian policies of forbidding this or mandating that. Just letting consumers go to the builder's supply stores to buy what made sense to them. And for the most part that policy has seen great shifts to LED light bulbs and some shifts to solar panels without the government going crazy about it.

So when Halide bulbs got cheap I bought some of them, and when Florescent bulbs got cheap I bought some of them and when LED lights got cheap I bought some of them. Most of my bulbs are LED now. But the lights in my crawl space are still incandescent bulbs. I go into the crawl space twice a year and it's just not worth changing out those bulbs until they burn out sometime in 2040. That's a local calculus of return on investment that the government shouldn't be making for me by mandating LED bulbs there.

 

[chevyontheriver]

FYI, if you want to end poverty, make energy cheaper.

Helping poor nations develop using low-cost energy helps poor people better
than forcing new more expensive technologies down their throats.

Appropriate technology. Sometimes that is cheap gasoline.

 

[Tuur]

Anecdotal. The overwhelming consensus of appropriately trained experts is that climate change is indeed human caused. Period.

Oh? Hansen made his prediction to a reporter, and it was published. The highway isn't underwater yet, with just four years to go in his prediction. That's documented. An inconvenient, truth, to be sure, but still truth.

 

[Tuur]

So when Halide bulbs got cheap I bought some of them, and when Florescent bulbs got cheap I bought some of them and when LED lights got cheap I bought some of them. Most of my bulbs are LED now. But the lights in my crawl space are still incandescent bulbs. I go into the crawl space twice a year and it's just not worth changing out those bulbs until they burn out sometime in 2040. That's a local calculus of return on investment that the government shouldn't be making for me by mandating LED bulbs there.

Here it was long common to use incandescent to heat pump houses on hard cold nights. I'm waiting for someone to try that with an LED. Seriously, someone's bound to try it with an LED.

 

[Dale]

Not relevant? Here's another. You'd call Dr. James Hansen an expert, right? In 1988, during an interview with a Washington Post reporter, Hansen looked out the window at the West Side Highway in NYC and said that in 20 or 40 years it would be underwater. We're four years from the forty year mark of his prediction. The West Side Highway is still above water.

Now, you can say that this was an off-the-cuff prediction. Even so, it was easy to fact check this in 1988 by finding the elevation of the West Side Highway, dividing it by predicted sea level rise, and seeing how long it would take until the highway was underwater. Not difficult at all.

Now then: In 1988, would you have been critical of anyone doing the fact checking because Dr. Hansen is an expert? Are you now critical of anyone who points out this prediction by an expert was wrong? Or do we simply admit even experts can be wrong?

If you’re looking for someone who should worry about rising sea levels, try this. The Maldives are a country of islands in the Indian Ocean. The average elevation is only four feet above sea level.

<< According to National Geographic, we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100. If that is true, than the islanders in the Maldives have real reason to worry. The average height of this country of coral beaches is around 4 feet above sea level, and the highest point in the entire nation is just under 8 feet (about 2.4 meters). >>

It looks like the citizens of the Maldives will lose their entire country to global warming.

Source
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/climbing-the-highest-point-in-the-maldives

 

[chevyontheriver]

If you’re looking for someone who should worry about rising sea levels, try this. The Maldives are a country of islands in the Indian Ocean. The average elevation is only four feet above sea level.

<< According to National Geographic, we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100. If that is true, than the islanders in the Maldives have real reason to worry. The average height of this country of coral beaches is around 4 feet above sea level, and the highest point in the entire nation is just under 8 feet (about 2.4 meters). >>

It looks like the citizens of the Maldives will lose their entire country to global warming.

Source
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/climbing-the-highest-point-in-the-maldives

And what if the Maldives are still there in 2100? Will you admit then that more experts were wrong just like Mr. Hanson got his prediction all wrong. I'll be dead by then. So will you. And the coral reefs around the Maldives will continue to grow and raise a barrier. Call me crazy. Then go drive on that not under water road.

 

[Tuur]

If you’re looking for someone who should worry about rising sea levels, try this. The Maldives are a country of islands in the Indian Ocean. The average elevation is only four feet above sea level.

<< According to National Geographic, we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100. If that is true, than the islanders in the Maldives have real reason to worry. The average height of this country of coral beaches is around 4 feet above sea level, and the highest point in the entire nation is just under 8 feet (about 2.4 meters). >>

It looks like the citizens of the Maldives will lose their entire country to global warming.

Source
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/climbing-the-highest-point-in-the-maldives

You might not have wanted to bring up the Maldives. They were supposed to have been underwater. The Canberra Times on Monday, September 16, 1988, ran a story predicting that the Maldives would be underwater within 30 years. We are now six years past that point, and the Maldives are still above water.

The odd thing is that the number of islands in the Maldives may be increasing. Found this behind a paywall at The New York Times. It matches some research I'd heard of that turned up the same thing in other parts of the Pacific , but didn't know that this same thing was observed in the Maldives. It could be widespread elevation rise of the seabed itself or something else going on, but suffice to know that the Maldives are still with us six years after they were supposed to have vanished beneath the waves.

Science is supposed to happen when someone notices something and says "That's funny," The Maldives are a case in point. They were predicted to vanish by 2018 but didn't. Why? Just like you'd expect Savannah, Georgia, to be warmer now than it was in the 18th Century, but the official recorded high, from the 20th Century, ties an observed high from the 18th. Why wasn't the official high warmer? The local weather recording station I keep up with has shown a decline in temperatures since about 2015. Why? Something's not tracking here.

What then? Throw out observations that doesn't agree with "experts?" Accept by faith that the experts must always be right and are without error? Give experts the same deference once reserved for high priests?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And you know this how?

I can pretty much guarantee you are speculating and have no evidence to support this assertion.

Researchers at universities rely on federal grants, that is well known. No grant, no research.
College professors like John Lenox and Jordon Peterson have stated such.
But here's one article of many confirming my post.

Two MIT teams selected for NSF sustainable materials grants

Two MIT-led teams received funding from the National Science Foundation Convergence Accelerator to investigate quantum topological materials and sustainable microchip production.

news.mit.edu

 

[jacorian]

Over a thousand religious pilgrims have died of heat stroke in Mecca, news outlets tell us.

I have not seen a cartoon of the oceans boiling but that would be far more accurate than most of the editorial cartoons that I do see.

The evidence of global warming is all around us, yet I am often stunned by the arrogance of those who deny that it exists. At the least, many deny that global warming is caused by human activity.

One of the lines we hear is that carbon dioxide is just a part of the atmosphere. It is always been there and so is nothing to worry about. It is beneficial to plants. This notion has just enough truth in it to be dangerous. Is CO2 always harmless?


Contrary to this cheerful picture, carbon dioxide actually has a “permissible exposure limit” in workplaces.

<< The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are ...

• 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: this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures. >>

From a different source:

<< At 4%, CO2 levels can be fatal. >>

Why is CO2 potentially fatal to humans? It triggers the exhale reflex in the lungs. Above a certain level of CO2, you can only exhale.

The connection between carbon dioxide and global warming is straightforward to anyone who knows anything about chemistry. Carbon dioxide is O=C=O, oxygen double bond carbon, double bond oxygen. The carbon-oxygen double bond absorbs infrared rays on a wavelength crucial to the earth’s climate. Machines are in use every day that make use of this fact, namely infrared spectrometers.



Links
Toxicity: Wisconsin Department of Health Services
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm#:~:text=5%2C000%20ppm%3A%20this%20indicates%20unusual,harmful%20due%20to%20oxygen%20deprivation

Fatal Level at 4%

Carbon Dioxide Levels Chart

Discover what safe, elevated, and dangerous CO2 levels mean with our carbon dioxide levels chart. Learn how CO2 impacts indoor air quality and when action is needed.

www.co2meter.com

I beg to disagree. The CO2 level is not 4%. It is 0.04% & at times has been higher. This is not the problem, albeit I like my open space & don't understand why municipal leaders have to constantly build. The density of buildings sutured together creates lots of entropy & absorb a lot of sunlight. They also block IR from getting out. There are only a handful of mitigation practices that take some of the misery off of cities, but it's not going to change the overall weather there.

 

[jacorian]

Because MIT is a front for the New World Order, don't you know that?

Seriously, for some odd, befuddling reason, many on the right have somehow come to believe that they no more than people who have invested years of serious study, whether it is in the domain of climate science or evolution.

I'm going to answer this. You know there are many people who obtain a degree who don't become famous but just know how to reason. They don't sport lavish titles. Gee you are believing people like the media, politicians, & Hollywood who don't know anything. Our institutions have gone woke & they are doing this govt speak because it means they can get grants or get published. Sadly the lack of discourse has fallen pray to radicalism.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Over a thousand religious pilgrims have died of heat stroke in Mecca, news outlets tell us.

I have not seen a cartoon of the oceans boiling but that would be far more accurate than most of the editorial cartoons that I do see.

The evidence of global warming is all around us, yet I am often stunned by the arrogance of those who deny that it exists. At the least, many deny that global warming is caused by human activity.

One of the lines we hear is that carbon dioxide is just a part of the atmosphere. It is always been there and so is nothing to worry about. It is beneficial to plants. This notion has just enough truth in it to be dangerous. Is CO2 always harmless?


Contrary to this cheerful picture, carbon dioxide actually has a “permissible exposure limit” in workplaces.

<< The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are ...

• 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: this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures. >>

From a different source:

<< At 4%, CO2 levels can be fatal. >>

Why is CO2 potentially fatal to humans? It triggers the exhale reflex in the lungs. Above a certain level of CO2, you can only exhale.

The connection between carbon dioxide and global warming is straightforward to anyone who knows anything about chemistry. Carbon dioxide is O=C=O, oxygen double bond carbon, double bond oxygen. The carbon-oxygen double bond absorbs infrared rays on a wavelength crucial to the earth’s climate. Machines are in use every day that make use of this fact, namely infrared spectrometers.



Links
Toxicity: Wisconsin Department of Health Services
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm#:~:text=5%2C000%20ppm%3A%20this%20indicates%20unusual,harmful%20due%20to%20oxygen%20deprivation

Fatal Level at 4%

Carbon Dioxide Levels Chart

Discover what safe, elevated, and dangerous CO2 levels mean with our carbon dioxide levels chart. Learn how CO2 impacts indoor air quality and when action is needed.

www.co2meter.com

CO2 levels are fine and could be a lot higher. In fact, as they increase (though only slightly) the planet is literally becoming greener. I'd personally like to see levels triple what they are now. A greener planet is a wetter planet. I'd love to see the Sahara become a citrus growing and golfing mecca, and Siberian wine country would be awesome!

 

[eclipsenow]

CO2 levels are fine and could be a lot higher. In fact, as they increase (though only slightly) the planet is literally becoming greener. I'd personally like to see levels triple what they are now. A greener planet is a wetter planet. I'd love to see the Sahara become a citrus growing and golfing mecca, and Siberian wine country would be awesome!

Ah, no. Read some of the results of climate models. Some tiny areas might win - but the vast majority of people and planet, civilization and biosphere, lose out. Big time!

 

[Dale]

Pipe corrosion, pipe leakage, groundwater contamination from leakage of Ethylene Glycol, high initial cost, and the possibility of not balancing heat into the ground with heat out of the ground in a seasonal cycle. Geothermal is great when it works. It doesn't always. Wind is great too, but the conservationists don't like all the dead birds. Hydro is great but conservationists want less dams and not more. Nuclear is fine but we have heard of the Fukishima meltdown and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Solar is great until you get a few cloudy days. Electric cars are great but where exactly does that electricity come from? There are problems with all of these, including using coal and oil.

Chevy: “Electric cars are great but where exactly does that electricity come from?”

I know a man who has solar panels on his roof. He has an electric car and charges the car from the electricity produced by his own solar panels. Just today I drove by another house with a car in the driveway obviously plugged in, recharging. They may be doing the same thing.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Chevy: “Electric cars are great but where exactly does that electricity come from?”

I know a man who has solar panels on his roof. He has an electric car and charges the car from the electricity produced by his own solar panels. Just today I drove by another house with a car in the driveway obviously plugged in, recharging. They may be doing the same thing.

That's fine. Mostly the electricity comes from coal fired power plants. It ain't environmentally free.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Ah, no. Read some of the results of climate models. Some tiny areas might win - but the vast majority of people and planet, civilization and biosphere, lose out. Big time!

Ah, climate models. Flawed Climate Models

i.e. I don't trust them. Actually, not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't take them seriously.

 

[expos4ever]

Gee you are believing people like the media, politicians, & Hollywood who don't know anything.

Faulty reasoning.

I believe the qualified experts. The fact that people in Hollywood and the media may also report with the experts believe certainly does not mean that I am believing what I believe because of what Hollywood and the media believes.

I do the very reasonable thing of believing what the experts believe: I don't care what Hollywood or the media believe

Our institutions have gone woke & they are doing this govt speak because it means they can get grants or get published. Sadly the lack of discourse has fallen pray to radicalism.

Please present your evidence that MIT is not doing objective research. Speculation is worthless.

 

[expos4ever]

Researchers at universities rely on federal grants, that is well known. No grant, no research.

True, but all you are telling us is that Federal money supports research. You have provided no evidence that there is pressure for the research to reach a particular conclusion.

There is nothing in the article you post that remotely suggests that these institutions are pressured to produce a particular result.

It is odd how those who argue that academic and research institutions are biased are very selective. Why do you not believe that medical experts have been bought off to say that cigarette smoking causes cancer?

I think it is obvious that absent any kind of evidence, the best course of action is to believe the appropriately qualified experts. That is what most reasonable people without an agenda do - in the many domains where regular citizens do not have the necessary expertise, we defer to people who are highly trained. That is more than reasonable.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

True, but all you are telling us is that Federal money supports research. You have provided no evidence that there is pressure for the research to reach a particular conclusion.

There is nothing in the article you post that remotely suggests that these institutions are pressured to produce a particular result.

It is odd how those who argue that academic and research institutions are biased are very selective. Why do you not believe that medical experts have been bought off to say that cigarette smoking causes cancer?

I think it is obvious that absent any kind of evidence, the best course of action is to believe the appropriately qualified experts. That is what most reasonable people without an agenda do - in the many domains where regular citizens do not have the necessary expertise, we defer to people who are highly trained. That is more than reasonable.

If you believe that money from the government has no strings attached, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[expos4ever]

If you believe that money from the government has no strings attached, I have a bridge to sell you.

Do you believe that smoking causes cancer? If you do, on what basis do you believe this? If you believe it based on anecdotal knowledge of smokers you know getting lung cancer, that would be a very poor reason as everybody knows anecdotes are not a reliable grounds for believing something. If you are consistent in your skepticism about government funded research, you certainly cannot point to government funded research to justify a belief that smoking causes cancer.

So either you are going with anecdotes or you do not believe that smoking causes cancer.

What say you?