ppm CO2 in atmosphere

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > ppm CO2 in atmosphere

ppm CO2 in atmosphere08-03-2021 22:51
joseph369 ☆☆☆☆☆ (8)	I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts?
09-03-2021 00:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	400ppm which is what we have right now.I have a CO2 reader and thats about what it is.I share this with anyone who cares that how things are now is how it is going to be.I doubt we have the ability to lift it any higher nature sends it round and round.The alarmist theory is all based on it doubling and tripling which would take a big effort
09-03-2021 00:42
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	CO2 is a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere so it wouldn't take so much CO2 to double or triple that amount.
09-03-2021 00:42
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	duncan61 wrote: 400ppm which is what we have right now.I have a CO2 reader and thats about what it is.I share this with anyone who cares that how things are now is how it is going to be.I doubt we have the ability to lift it any higher nature sends it round and round.The alarmist theory is all based on it doubling and tripling which would take a big effort Hey Duncan, Do you ever compare indoor versus outdoor readings? Just curious...
09-03-2021 00:58
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	keepit wrote: CO2 is a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere so it wouldn't take so much CO2 to double or triple that amount. Dollars are a small percentage of the world's currency so it wouldn't take much to double or triple that amount. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

09-03-2021 01:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: CO2 is a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere so it wouldn't take so much CO2 to double or triple that amount. Dollars are a small percentage of the world's currency so it wouldn't take much to double or triple that amount. ... without increasing the number of dollars. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-03-2021 01:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats).
09-03-2021 03:02
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	joseph369 wrote: I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts? We have way too little which is why I burn all my old tires
09-03-2021 06:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Swan wrote: joseph369 wrote: I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts? We have way too little which is why I burn all my old tires I buy up Brazilian rain forest, just to have it slashed and burned for the salvation of global plantlife. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-03-2021 06:29
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.
09-03-2021 07:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: joseph369 wrote: I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts? We have way too little which is why I burn all my old tires I buy up Brazilian rain forest, just to have it slashed and burned for the salvation of global plantlife. . Killing plants, to save plants...
09-03-2021 07:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	HarveyH55 wrote:Killing plants, to save plants... Desperate Climate times call for desperate Climate measures. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-03-2021 12:25
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased. If I breathe on the meter it goes up in increments to over 6000ppm.The reason people get drowsy in high CO2 concentrations is the air has less oxygen duncan61
09-03-2021 13:06
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	keepit wrote: CO2 is a very small percentage of earth's atmosphere so it wouldn't take so much CO2 to double or triple that amount. It took over 65 years of very intensive burning to get CO2 to go up 120ppm.Aprox 280-400ppm.I am predicting that it will not go higher and nothing bad will happen.Its good that mankind has detected the CO2 levels and is trying to do something about it but as usual there are extremists that will say its the end of the world.We always get that and nothing happens duncan61
09-03-2021 13:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased. What this study tells us are the predetermined results desired by the person funding the "study." All studies provide excellent customer service and give the clients the results they are purchasing, like a waiter in a restaurant. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

09-03-2021 19:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	joseph369 wrote: I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts? There isn't one. Neither can it be controlled. Pointless question. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-03-2021 19:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: joseph369 wrote: I'm curious to know what people think is the ideal amount of CO2 in our atmosphere? 200 ppm? 300 ppm? 1000 ppm? Any thoughts? We have way too little which is why I burn all my old tires I buy up Brazilian rain forest, just to have it slashed and burned for the salvation of global plantlife. . Killing plants, to save plants... One of those circle of life kind of things. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-03-2021 00:25
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	duncan61 wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased. If I breathe on the meter it goes up in increments to over 6000ppm.The reason people get drowsy in high CO2 concentrations is the air has less oxygen Being in a poorly ventilated room with 6000 ppm of CO2 is likely to cause headache, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Have you ever compared indoor versus outdoor air? Studies by NIOSH in 1976 dispelled the myth that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and only causes adverse health effects when it displaces oxygen. CO2 Concentration Duration Physiological Impact/Health Effect 1,000 ppm Less than 2½ hrs. Impairs judgment, decision-making ability, and thinking skills on a short-term basis, even for healthy individuals. 2,500 ppm Less than 2½ hrs. Many individuals are rendered cognitively marginal or dysfunctional. 5,000 ppm with 20.9% Oxygen Headache, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. 6% 1-2 mins. Hearing and visual disturbances 7% (70,000 ppm) with 20.9% Oxygen 5 mins. death 10% to 15% Dizziness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, unconsciousness and death within a few minutes. Even though oxygen is necessary to carry out cell functions, it is not the lack of oxygen that stimulates breathing. Breathing is stimulated by an excess of CO2. If an individual breathes too slowly (bradypnea), does not breathe deeply enough, (dyspnea), or is exposed to excessive CO2 levels, too much CO2 can build up. This causes increased breathing and the other physiological responses discussed above. Concentrated CO2 conditions impact most living organisms. Plant roots can actually be suffocated, which stops the uptake of nutrients and kills the plants.
10-03-2021 00:29
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased. What this study tells us are the predetermined results desired by the person funding the "study." All studies provide excellent customer service and give the clients the results they are purchasing, like a waiter in a restaurant. . I think the ventilation system in your padded cell needs a vacuum cleaning. You're not making good decisions in your posting.
10-03-2021 01:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Spongy Iris wrote:I think the ventilation system in your padded cell needs a vacuum cleaning. You're not making good decisions in your posting. You're a gullible moron. You will believe anything if you are told it is the result of a "study." When you begin to wonder why you wander through life in a frustrating haze of confusion, let me know and I'll explain it to you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2021 04:06
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	There is so much wrong with this "study". I'd call it a joke, but that would be an insult to comedians. I'd call it trash, but that would actually insult our loyal landfill workers. For now let's just call it a heap of Spongy. Let's see just how ridiculous it is to claim any knowledge from this farce. Sponygy Iris wrote: Twenty-two participants 22 people?! That's barely a sample of your average factory breakroom. Sponygy Iris wrote: were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm In what order? Increasing? Decreasing? Random? IF CO2 had any effect, then order of test would make a HUGE difference. Was there recovery time between tests? Sponygy Iris wrote: in an office-like chamber, What kind of people are they? Are they accustomed to an office setting? Put me in an "office like chamber" for 10 minutes and my decision making will be about one thing...getting the hell out! Sponygy Iris wrote: in six groups. So unequal participant numbers in each group. Nice. Sponygy Iris wrote: Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions Again, what type of people? Accustomed to working 2.5 hours without a break? Working at all? What type of work? Did they eat in between? Hunger will affect decision making! Sponygy Iris wrote: all on 1 day, So many other factors come into play throughout their day which can affect decision making. Did they have communication with the outside world during or in between the testing? How many participants recieved a text from their spouse that that just pissed them off? What CO2 concentration were they in when they received the text? Sponygy Iris wrote: At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Tell me how gullible I must have to be in order to believe the conductors of this "study" were able to meter the exact source of the CO2 entering each participants lungs. I don't recall reading they were wearing masks of any kind. Sponygy Iris wrote: participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance So the computer decides what a good decision is? Who wrote the program? Sponygy Iris wrote: Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. WTF does this even mean??!! IBdaMann was absolutely correct when he said this study shows exactly what it was intended to show. Who funded this POS anyway? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 10-03-2021 04:31
10-03-2021 04:17
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see 800-1000 ppm. Should give most areas on the planet, closer to their ideal level, least some of the time, with little to no impact on people with health issues (democrats). Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06-0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased. What this study tells us are the predetermined results desired by the person funding the "study." All studies provide excellent customer service and give the clients the results they are purchasing, like a waiter in a restaurant. . I think the ventilation system in your padded cell needs a vacuum cleaning. You're not making good decisions in your posting. It's known that at 1,000 ppm that some people start experiencing drowsiness. With ITN and company, it's usually after the first toke. Then they get the munchies and forget what they were doing. That's why most of their posts make little or no sense. With the computers, that gave the people in the study something to focus on. That could be why with the 2,500 ppm that they were more focused on one thing. That also means that they're ignoring everything else. That could be a way of compensating for the effects of CO2. What could show something like that is to have them multi-tasking and doing 2 and 3 different things.
10-03-2021 04:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	James___ wrote: It's known that at 1,000 ppm that some people start experiencing drowsiness. ... but that's because they have alveolar lung disease. Normal healthy people have no problem with 2,000 ppm CO2 and up. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-03-2021 12:27
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I breathe in air at 400ppm and exhale air at 6000ppm.Seems to be working for me I have been doing it for a while
10-03-2021 17:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	duncan61 wrote:I breathe in air at 400ppm and exhale air at 6000ppm.Seems to be working for me I have been doing it for a while So we can safely say that the quantities of CO2 in your lungs are clearly not poisonous, yes? So we can safely say that plantlife appreciates your CO2 contributions to the atmosphere and that we can therefore remain safe in the knowledge that the quantities of CO2 that you exhale are clearly not pollution, yes? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2021 03:15
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: There is so much wrong with this "study". I'd call it a joke, but that would be an insult to comedians. I'd call it trash, but that would actually insult our loyal landfill workers. For now let's just call it a heap of Spongy. Let's see just how ridiculous it is to claim any knowledge from this farce. Sponygy Iris wrote: Twenty-two participants 22 people?! That's barely a sample of your average factory breakroom. Sponygy Iris wrote: were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm In what order? Increasing? Decreasing? Random? IF CO2 had any effect, then order of test would make a HUGE difference. Was there recovery time between tests? Sponygy Iris wrote: in an office-like chamber, What kind of people are they? Are they accustomed to an office setting? Put me in an "office like chamber" for 10 minutes and my decision making will be about one thing...getting the hell out! Sponygy Iris wrote: in six groups. So unequal participant numbers in each group. Nice. Sponygy Iris wrote: Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions Again, what type of people? Accustomed to working 2.5 hours without a break? Working at all? What type of work? Did they eat in between? Hunger will affect decision making! Sponygy Iris wrote: all on 1 day, So many other factors come into play throughout their day which can affect decision making. Did they have communication with the outside world during or in between the testing? How many participants recieved a text from their spouse that that just pissed them off? What CO2 concentration were they in when they received the text? Sponygy Iris wrote: At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Tell me how gullible I must have to be in order to believe the conductors of this "study" were able to meter the exact source of the CO2 entering each participants lungs. I don't recall reading they were wearing masks of any kind. Sponygy Iris wrote: participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance So the computer decides what a good decision is? Who wrote the program? Sponygy Iris wrote: Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. WTF does this even mean??!! IBdaMann was absolutely correct when he said this study shows exactly what it was intended to show. Who funded this POS anyway? Are you guys seriously arguing that CO2 levels of 1000 ppm and greater has no health impact??? Since you love CO2 so much, why don't you take Dr Faucis advice and wear 2 masks. Get high on your own CO2. It will give you razor sharp focus.
11-03-2021 03:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Spongy Iris wrote:Are you guys seriously arguing that CO2 levels of 1000 ppm and greater has no health impact??? Are you seriously arguing that it does? CO2 is not poison. As long as a human gets >18% oxygen there is no issue, right? ... or do you have some information that the rest of humanity somehow does not have? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2021 03:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	GasGuzzler wrote:Who funded this POS anyway? Notice that the study did not specify "22 Olympic long-distance runners" as the study group to ensure we had a baseline of healthy people ... leaving the door open for the possibility that the study was conducted at the Emphysema COPD Research Center. Notice that the study did not specify "22 MBA graduates with 15 years experience in their industry" as the study group to ensure people who normally make good business decisions ... leaving the door open for the possibility that the study was conducted at the Kennedy Krieger Institute Down Syndrome Clinic and Research Center. ... but you're right ... who funded the "study"? This wasn't mentioned. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2021 07:43
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: There is so much wrong with this "study". I'd call it a joke, but that would be an insult to comedians. I'd call it trash, but that would actually insult our loyal landfill workers. For now let's just call it a heap of Spongy. Let's see just how ridiculous it is to claim any knowledge from this farce. Sponygy Iris wrote: Twenty-two participants 22 people?! That's barely a sample of your average factory breakroom. Sponygy Iris wrote: were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm In what order? Increasing? Decreasing? Random? IF CO2 had any effect, then order of test would make a HUGE difference. Was there recovery time between tests? Sponygy Iris wrote: in an office-like chamber, What kind of people are they? Are they accustomed to an office setting? Put me in an "office like chamber" for 10 minutes and my decision making will be about one thing...getting the hell out! Sponygy Iris wrote: in six groups. So unequal participant numbers in each group. Nice. Sponygy Iris wrote: Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions Again, what type of people? Accustomed to working 2.5 hours without a break? Working at all? What type of work? Did they eat in between? Hunger will affect decision making! Sponygy Iris wrote: all on 1 day, So many other factors come into play throughout their day which can affect decision making. Did they have communication with the outside world during or in between the testing? How many participants recieved a text from their spouse that that just pissed them off? What CO2 concentration were they in when they received the text? Sponygy Iris wrote: At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants' respiration. Tell me how gullible I must have to be in order to believe the conductors of this "study" were able to meter the exact source of the CO2 entering each participants lungs. I don't recall reading they were wearing masks of any kind. Sponygy Iris wrote: participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance So the computer decides what a good decision is? Who wrote the program? Sponygy Iris wrote: Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models. WTF does this even mean??!! IBdaMann was absolutely correct when he said this study shows exactly what it was intended to show. Who funded this POS anyway? Are you guys seriously arguing that CO2 levels of 1000 ppm and greater has no health impact??? Since you love CO2 so much, why don't you take Dr Faucis advice and wear 2 masks. Get high on your own CO2. It will give you razor sharp focus. When will people wake-up, and realize Dr. Fauci is a moron? Hide in your basement, to protect others, and we can get control over the virus. It failed, of course, blame Trump for not shooting any fool, who dared not comply. Dr. SIMON Fauci says, "where your mask", to protect others, so we can flatten the curve, and get control over the virus. Failed, blame Trump, who refused to jail the non compliant. Now, Dr. Simon-says, is selling vaccine, which everyone must comply, to protect others... What? Vaccines produce antibodies, to protect the individual, not you grandma, unless she gets vaccinated as well. Who are these 'others', who lack cognitive function, to protect themselves? It's never been about a virus, it's about control, and compliance. Democrats are pushing for a socialism-style, nanny-state, where people must give up their cognitive function, and let the government do all their thinking for them. We all must join the democrat hive collective, or be harassed and shamed, if we fail to comply with their directives. I'll trust in nature to prove, and protect life on this planet. Been doing a great job, for a very long time. Democrat are self-serving, control-freak, liars, who fail often. Who are you going to trust, the experts?
11-03-2021 21:14
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I breathe in air at 400ppm and exhale air at 6000ppm.Seems to be working for me I have been doing it for a while So we can safely say that the quantities of CO2 in your lungs are clearly not poisonous, yes? So we can safely say that plantlife appreciates your CO2 contributions to the atmosphere and that we can therefore remain safe in the knowledge that the quantities of CO2 that you exhale are clearly not pollution, yes? . It is if you don't exhale it.

11-03-2021 21:16
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Are you guys seriously arguing that CO2 levels of 1000 ppm and greater has no health impact??? Are you seriously arguing that it does? CO2 is not poison. As long as a human gets >18% oxygen there is no issue, right? ... or do you have some information that the rest of humanity somehow does not have? . Humanity has this information. Studies by NIOSH in 1976 dispelled the myth that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and only causes adverse health effects when it displaces oxygen. CO2 Concentration Duration Physiological Impact/Health Effect 1,000 ppm Less than 2½ hrs. Impairs judgment, decision-making ability, and thinking skills on a short-term basis, even for healthy individuals. 2,500 ppm Less than 2½ hrs. Many individuals are rendered cognitively marginal or dysfunctional. 5,000 ppm with 20.9% Oxygen Headache, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. 6% 1-2 mins. Hearing and visual disturbances 7% (70,000 ppm) with 20.9% Oxygen 5 mins. death 10% to 15% Dizziness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, unconsciousness and death within a few minutes. Even though oxygen is necessary to carry out cell functions, it is not the lack of oxygen that stimulates breathing. Breathing is stimulated by an excess of CO2. If an individual breathes too slowly (bradypnea), does not breathe deeply enough, (dyspnea), or is exposed to excessive CO2 levels, too much CO2 can build up. This causes increased breathing and the other physiological responses discussed above. Concentrated CO2 conditions impact most living organisms. Plant roots can actually be suffocated, which stops the uptake of nutrients and kills the plants.
11-03-2021 21:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote:Are you guys seriously arguing that CO2 levels of 1000 ppm and greater has no health impact??? Are you seriously arguing that it does? CO2 is not poison. As long as a human gets >18% oxygen there is no issue, right? ... or do you have some information that the rest of humanity somehow does not have? . Humanity has this information. Studies by NIOSH in 1976 dispelled the myth that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and only causes adverse health effects when it displaces oxygen. CO2 Concentration Duration Physiological Impact/Health Effect... Spam. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-03-2021 02:37
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Turn a tough chewy steak into delicious tender entree by marinating it for 1 hour in carbonated water. https://youtu.be/32Q8rHAhAwU
12-03-2021 02:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	Spongy Iris wrote:Turn a tough chewy steak into delicious tender entree by marinating it for 1 hour in carbonated water. Let me know when I can cook a steak to perfection by spraying it with just the right amount of CO2. . Attached image:

Join the debate ppm CO2 in atmosphere:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Layers of the Atmosphere as Viewed in Blue	22	27-01-2024 23:16
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
upper atmosphere temp	212	07-10-2023 19:02
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22