S2000 Vintage Owners Knowledge, age and life experiences represent the members of the Vintage Owners

fun facts about CO2

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 10:38 AM
  #11  
mikegarrison's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Default

Originally Posted by DrCloud,Mar 4 2009, 10:28 AM
In the foothills west of Denver, there's about 80% as much oxygen as at sea level. People of all ages live there quite happily.
Are people in Denver really happy? Or are they just faking it?

As for CO2, it is toxic at high levels, but that's not the issue here. The amount already in the atmosphere has profound effects on our lives. (Further) changing it will also affect our lives long before it reaches levels that are directly toxic.

If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be colder and most of the plants and animals we know would be dead. But if a little is good, that does not mean more is better.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 10:38 AM
  #12  
Zippy's Avatar
Gold Member (Premium)
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,579
Likes: 157
From: West Deptford NJ
Default

Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Mar 4 2009, 09:33 AM
Wow, a second smilie in two days, I'm on a roll.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 10:48 AM
  #13  
DrCloud's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 0
From: EstesPark/BocaRaton
Default

Originally Posted by mikegarrison
Are people in Denver really happy? Or are they just faking it?
Well, down in Denver proper, they're all faking it (just look at the four sports teams...). But foothills folks are quite happy up there in their aspen groves, frolicking among the deer and elk (and bears and cougars).

It wouldn't surprise me of some of the statements that started this were from the Idso bunch. Their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change seems to have gone dormant, but for years they were putting out all sorts of pro-CO2 propaganda, much of it based on some (now discredited) experiments by patriarch Sherwood on how elevated CO2 levels affect plant growth. HPH
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 11:29 AM
  #14  
tof's Avatar
tof
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,443
Likes: 2,651
From: Long Beach, MS
Default

Originally Posted by DrCloud,Mar 4 2009, 10:28 AM
And ...
Originally Posted by tof
It is like saying that the level of oxygen in the atmosphere is just above suffocation level for people. If it were lower we would suffocate.
"Just above"?

In the foothills west of Denver,...no one "suffocates."

Credibility seems to be hard to come by these days.
So do clarity and understanding. I didn't mean to imply that the level of oxygen in our atmosphere at sea level is, in fact, just above suffocation level. Nor was I endorsing any of the information in the original post.

I was trying to illustrate to Kyras what the original statement re levels of co2 meant. Kyras got it. Why didn't you, Doc?
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 11:31 AM
  #15  
DrCloud's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 0
From: EstesPark/BocaRaton
Default

I was using these facts to dispute your "explanation" of the original assertions, which are crap.

Are you able to understand this now? HPH
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 11:56 AM
  #16  
Vanishing Point's Avatar
15 Year Member
Photogenic
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,119
Likes: 47
From: Wildwood, TN.
Default

Originally Posted by boltonblue,Mar 4 2009, 04:55 AM
did you know that solid CO2 better known as dry ice, will extract the water from an alcohol / water / fruit juice solution resulting in a much higher concentration of alcohol in the mixture?

on campus they referred to this particular form as a hairy buffalo.
Dry ice works well for removing small dings in metal body panels too.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 12:07 PM
  #17  
dean's Avatar
Registered User
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DrCloud,Mar 4 2009, 03:48 PM
It wouldn't surprise me of some of the statements that started this were from the Idso bunch. Their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change seems to have gone dormant, but for years they were putting out all sorts of pro-CO2 propaganda, much of it based on some (now discredited) experiments by patriarch Sherwood on how elevated CO2 levels affect plant growth. HPH
I've not heard of this group. Were/are they a mouthpiece for some faction of special interest, or on the lunatic fringe independently?
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 12:22 PM
  #18  
tof's Avatar
tof
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,443
Likes: 2,651
From: Long Beach, MS
Default

Originally Posted by cordycord,Mar 3 2009, 09:34 PM
First, do you know that carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere is:

--only slightly more than 1/3rd of 1/10th of 1 percent?
--just recovering from the lowest level in the history of the earth?
--the source of carbon for all life forms, on land or in the sea?
--only slightly above the suffocation level for green plants?
--a fraction of the level for which evolution designed plants?
--so low as to cause some people breathing problems?
--increased by 130 times and more when administered to sick patients?
--considered a pollutant by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Over the last 350 million years CO2 has varied by 10 fold, approximately 250 ppm to 2,500 ppm with an average level of 1,500 ppm. This average level happens to be the optimum level for plants, it seems by evolutionary design, and is the reason that this level of CO2 is used in greenhouses Since plants and animals evolved together it's likely that humans also evolved to function best at some higher level. However, at 380 ppm we are not far from the lower end of that 10 fold range.

Has anyone heard this before? It's copied from a reliable source, but there wasn't any attribution.
My math must be off. Every source I can find puts current atmospheric CO2 levels at close to 400 parts per million. This would make it .0004 or .04%, considerably less than the 1/3 to 1/10 of one percent cited in the op.

To expand on DrCloud's point, according to the Wisconsin Dept of Health Chemical Fact Sheet on Carbon Dioxide, CO2 levels greater than 5,000 ppm (a bit more than 10 times current ambient levels) can produce "serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death." So those patients getting 130 times current ambient levels (about 6,000 ppm) better not be getting those levels for long.

Nope...I don't give that source quoted in the op much credence, either.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 12:24 PM
  #19  
tof's Avatar
tof
15 Year Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 16,443
Likes: 2,651
From: Long Beach, MS
Default

Originally Posted by DrCloud,Mar 4 2009, 12:31 PM
I was using these facts to dispute your "explanation" of the original assertions, which are crap.

Are you able to understand this now? HPH
I was not supporting the original post, only clearing up a point of confusion about the exact meaning of one of the statements it contained.
Reply
Old Mar 4, 2009 | 12:34 PM
  #20  
cordycord's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Default

OUCH!! Wikipedia proves me wrong again....

When I read it, I actually thought they were talking about plants "suffocating", not people.

If I were just a layperson (which I am) and saw this list, I'd believe the following:

--only slightly more than 1/3rd of 1/10th of 1 percent? Wow, but ok.
--just recovering from the lowest level in the history of the earth? Wouldn't believe it, but Wikipedia says it's true
--the source of carbon for all life forms, on land or in the sea? Nope. I would have thought carbon in the ground for some reason...
--only slightly above the suffocation level for green plants? No way.
--a fraction of the level for which evolution designed plants? I wouldn't have believed this--how does one tell?
--so low as to cause some people breathing problems? how can you fake this? :thumbump:
--increased by 130 times and more when administered to sick patients? Nope
--considered a pollutant by the U.S. Supreme Court? I believe what anyone says about our legal system

So I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV, but that's what I think passes and fails the "smell test".
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:33 PM.