CO2 could KILL US ALL

Post Reply New Topic

You clicked on this thread thinking the title was just sarcastic hyperbole didn't you?
How cute.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE6at2IEUOU[/youtube]
I always knew CO2 was a big deal because I love nature. I just didn't know how big a deal it was until I watched this.
Better get a poison gas mask; it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Plants and algae handle CO2.

We will be fine.

Ignore the fear mongering.

Chemistry and biology 101.

Now, if those fear mongering guys said we had to fear CO (carbon monoxide), they might actually get somewhere.

Not when there is so much of it.


no

^^Greetings DarthMetaKnight and thank you very much for posting. I must that I believe I agree with both of you DartMetaKnight and zer0netgain. I believe that there is indeed no purpose in panicking about this, yet at the same time acknowledge the great danger and do all that you can to prevent such emissions and also other environmental damage (if you do indeed feel strongly about this).

After all, I believe that, acting and not panicking has the same effect environmentally as acting and panicking. However, I believe that the difference is that you may be cursed much more and unhappy with the second option.

I am sorry if this is incorrect of me.

In other news, Ozone layer is getting better. Wooo. Bet that's proper screwed up some doom-mongering in the pipes.

Anyone old enough to remember being taught at school that there wasn't going to be an ozone layer in 50 years?

Yup. I want my goddamn flying car and rocket boots and unscratchable CDs like I was promised, but it looks like we don't get those either. Damn those scientists. If my calculations are correct, then by the time I hit 70, the Ozone will be right back to what it was like when I was born, gradually improving over the next 40ish years. Optimism about the environment is apparently very passe, but hey, the futures bright.

Club of Rome b.s.. The sky did not fall. First they predicted an ice age. That did not happen. Then they predicted the Earth would turn into Venus. That did not happen.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is what we exhale and what plants inhale. Actually it is oxygen that is the pollutant.

ruveyn

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo[/youtube]



The warming of the globe may have some positive benefits for agriculture in some parts of the world but I think that the negative effects overwhelm them.

Here are two articles on PNAS showing that rice yields diminishes with global warming:

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.abstract

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.full


Also the oceans absorb CO2 released on the atmosphere. That process causes the acidification of the oceans that might cause negative impacts on some ecosystems. Plankton development also might be threatened. The reduced Ph affects calcifying organisms such as planktonic microalgae and coccolithophores. These organisms also play a role in the regulation of climate. Increased Ph of the oceans also threatens coral reefs that are home to a diversity of fishes. Availability of iron is likely to change with decreased Ph which is likely to change the nutrient availability to phytoplankton impacting the rate of carbon cycling in the marine system. Also economically important especies prey on phytoplankton. ( http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... lyetal.pdf )

Other articles suggests that the acidification of the oceans will have impact on key marine organisms such as corals and some plankton. Like this one on Nature ( http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidi ... e04095.pdf ). There is also one article on PNAS about the impact on fish population ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/29/12930 ).



Chemistry 101




To a marine alga to assemble a skeleton or shell out of calcium carbonate, it is necessary a positively charged calcium ion, Ca2+, and a negatively charged carbonate ion, CO32-. To form calcium carbonate, the coral must be able to absorb both of these ions from seawater. The addition of carbonic acid to seawater (through CO2 in the atmosphere) produces excess hydrogen ions that react with CO32- to form HCO3-, thereby decreasing the availability of CO3 - to corals and other calcifying organisms (Figure 4). ( http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/ ... ldeira.pdf )

How depressing. That's gone and ruined an otherwise pleasant evening.

.

That's a good thing that we reacted at time by bannying CFC.


They don't handle it at the same rhytm we releasing it.


How do you define pollutant? If I breath a too high concentration of CO2 I can die, if I breath a too high concentration of oxygen I can die and if I breath a too high concentration of hydrogen sulfide, which like said in the video the global warming can bring, I can die.

CO2 is irrelevant; the world ends in 2012 anyway

If the ice caps melt, we'll all surely die from dihydrogen monoxide poisoning.

Let's see.

The world has actually been cooling for the last ten years.

The ice caps are getting thicker, not thinner.

The world was warmer during the Middle Ages and back around the time of Christ.

The sea level is not rising.

If you go back a few million years the pattern is 100,000 years of Ice Age followed by a 10,000 year warmer period.
We have had our 10,000 years so we are due for an ice age.

Carbon dioxide is needed by plants. The more carbon dioxide the better they grow.

In New Zealand you have to pay a tax to make up for your cows and sheep farting.
How is giving the government money going to make up for your cows farting?

In Australia we get most of our electricity from burning coal. We will have to pay MUCH more for electricity while at the same time we export a zillion tons of coal to China.

China has stated that they plan to build coal fired power stations equal to the entire output of Australia EVERY YEAR for the next twenty five years.

So we cripple our economy while China intends to do NOTHING.

How stupid are we?

The sea level is rising. There are two ways to estimate the average global mean sea level. One is from tide gauge records and the other is satellite altimetry. Based on 25 tide gauge records (Douglas, 2001) estimated that the rate of sea level rise was 1.8 mm per year for the past 70 years. In other studies (Church et al., 2004) determined a global rise of 1.8 ± 0.3 mm per year during 1950 to 2000, and Church and White (2006) determined a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year for the 20th century.


References:

Douglas, B.C., 2001: Sea level change in the era of the recording tide gauges. In: Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences [Douglas, B.C., Kearney, M.S., and S.P. Leatherman (eds.)]. Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–64.

Church, J.A., et al., 2004: Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950 to 2000 period. Journal of Climate, 17(13), 2609–2625. ( http://people.rses.anu.edu.au/lambeck_k/pdf/241.pdf )

Church, J.A., and N.J. White, 2006: A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602 ( http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstru ... 024826.pdf )



The figure below shows estimated sea-level deviations (from 1961 to 1990) from tide gauge.



The figure shows annual averages of the global mean sea level (mm). The red curve shows reconstructed sea level fields since 1870 (Church and White, 2006); the blue curve shows coastal tide gauge measurements since 1950 (from Holgate and Woodworth, 2004) and the black curve is based on satellite altimetry (Leuliette et al., 2004). The red and blue curves are deviations from their averages for 1961 to 1990, and the black curve is the deviation from the average of the red curve for the period 1993 to 2001. Error bars show 90% confidence intervals.


References for figure:

Holgate, S.J., and P.L. Woodworth, 2004: Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s. Geophysical Research Letters., 31, L07305, doi:10.1029/2004GL019626. ( http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2 ... 9626.shtml )

Leuliette, E.W., R.S. Nerem, and G.T. Mitchum, 2004: Calibration of TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason altimeter data to construct a continuous record of mean sea level change. Marine Geodesy, 27(1–2), 79–94. ( http://sealevel.colorado.edu/MG_Leuliette2004.pdf )




Also since 1992, global mean sea level can be computed at 10-day intervals by averaging the altimetric measurements from the TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) and Jason satellites over the area of coverage (66°S to 66°N) (Nerem and Mitchum, 2001). Each 10-day estimate of global mean sea level has an accuracy of approximately 5 mm. Numerous papers on the altimetry results show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm per year over 1993 to 2003 (Cazenave and Nerem, 2004; Leuliette et al., 2004).


References:

Nerem, R.S., and G.T. Mitchum, 2001: Observations of sea level change from satellite altimetry. In: Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences [Douglas, B.C., M.S. Kearney, and S.P. Leatherman (eds.)]. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 121–163.

Cazenave, A., and R.S. Nerem, 2004: Present-day sea level change: observations and causes. Review of Geophysics, 42(3), RG3001, doi:10.1029/2003RG000139. ( http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453webs ... 000139.pdf )




The graph below shows sea level anomalies (from mean 1993 to mid 2001) estimated by satellite altimetry




Figure: Variations in global mean sea level (difference to the mean 1993 to mid-2001) computed from satellite altimetry from January 1993 to October 2005, averaged over 65°S to 65°N. Dots are 10-day estimates (from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite in red and from the Jason satellite in green). The blue solid curve corresponds to 60-day smoothing. (Updated from Cazenave and Nerem (2004) and Leuliette et al. (2004)).


The main reasons for the sea-level rise are the thermal expansion of the ocean waters as they warm and increase in ocean mass from ice glaciers and ice caps and ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. The average rate of thermosteric sea level rise caused by heating of the global ocean is estimated to be 0.40 ± 0.09 mm year over 1955 to 1995 (Antonov et al., 2005)
Also during the 20th century, glaciers and ice caps have experienced considerable mass losses, with strong retreats in response to global warming after 1970. For 1961 to 2003, their contribution to sea level is assessed as 0.50 ± 0.18 mm per year and for 1993 to 2003 as 0.77 ± 0.22 mm per year. (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007) ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 5-5-2.html )

Reference:

Antonov, J.I., S. Levitus, and T.P. Boyer, 2005: Steric variability of the world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophysical Research Letters, 32(12), L12602, doi:10.1029/2005GL023112.

You've got it backwards. You love nature ergo you "know" CO2 is a big deal.

As far as climate change goes: most of the data suggests it's happening but there isn't an effective proof for a smoking gun. Industrial CO2 is a fraction of a percent of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere.