Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 is not an issue



Page 1 of 212>
CO2 is not an issue25-12-2015 03:55
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
As the chart on page 36 shows, because there is already so much CO2 in the air, increasing CO2 from 402 ppm now to 1000 ppm at which point people will have serious headaches will only increase temperature very slightly. This is no cause for concern. Sea level will not rise beyond a meter. Greenland will not melt.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf

The world is safe.


On top of that, because Earth was emerging from the most recent little ice age caused by Sun's cycle, Earth was naturally warming since 1800 anyway. The 1 C increase since 1800, assuming they knew what the global temperature was in 1800, is perfectly within natural variation.
Edited on 25-12-2015 03:57
25-12-2015 04:21
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
I don't buy the author's claim that it takes thousands of years for CO2 to take effect and Earth to re balance itself. Why? Because just look at summer and winter. Only a few months and boom the temperature changes drastically, with a lag of only about a couple of weeks for the ocean to adjust. CO2 is not boom added all at once. Every year about 2 or 3 ppm is added. Every year Earth should be able to fully adjust. The increase from 280 ppm to 402 ppm had negligible effect on climate. The increase in temperature caused by the increase in CO2 cannot be more than 1 C since 1800, assuming they even knew what the global temperature was back in 1800, because Earth was emerging from the most recent little ice age with a natural warming trend anyway. No island was drowned. No glacier was melted. Nothing was changed.
Edited on 25-12-2015 04:39
25-12-2015 13:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
I agree. So no debate here... sorry.
Edited on 25-12-2015 13:24
26-12-2015 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: ...increasing CO2 from 402 ppm now to 1000 ppm at which point people will have serious headaches will only increase temperature very slightly.


1. CO2 is neither poison nor pollution. As long there is ~20% oxygen to breathe, it won't matter if it's 1,000 ppm or 10,000 ppm. We currently breathe in 78% nitrogen and we don't get headaches.

2. CO2 has no magical superpower to create heat. It can't raise temperature.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-01-2016 14:45
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Actually if the PPM of CO2 went up to 10,000 we really would have some health issues as it would disrupt our respiration cycle. The partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in our veinous system would be lower than the partial pressure of CO2 in the inhaled air and so we would not be able evacuate CO2 from our blood until PP CO2 was more than the inhaled air and I dont think that would be a good thing.
04-01-2016 14:52
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
MK001 wrote:
Actually if the PPM of CO2 went up to 10,000 we really would have some health issues as it would disrupt our respiration cycle. The partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in our veinous system would be lower than the partial pressure of CO2 in the inhaled air and so we would not be able evacuate CO2 from our blood until PP CO2 was more than the inhaled air and I dont think that would be a good thing.


That's why the distinguished Dr. William Happer says 1000 ppm is ideal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw
04-01-2016 15:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote:
Actually if the PPM of CO2 went up to 10,000 we really would have some health issues as it would disrupt our respiration cycle. The partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in our veinous system would be lower than the partial pressure of CO2 in the inhaled air and so we would not be able evacuate CO2 from our blood until PP CO2 was more than the inhaled air and I dont think that would be a good thing.

"Partial pressure" is not a factor.

The human cardiovascular system delivers CO2 to the lungs and the CO2 is passed into the lungs by the alveoli, irrespective of the pressure in the lungs. It is a continual process that occurs while we inhale and exhale.

The diaphragm opens and compresses the lungs, expelling whatever gases are in the lungs and drawing in whatever gases there are to breathe. If that air has 20% oxygen, then the human body gets the oxygen it needs.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-01-2016 16:00
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Actually if the PPM of CO2 went up to 10,000 we really would have some health issues as it would disrupt our respiration cycle. The partial pressure of dissolved CO2 in our veinous system would be lower than the partial pressure of CO2 in the inhaled air and so we would not be able evacuate CO2 from our blood until PP CO2 was more than the inhaled air and I dont think that would be a good thing.

"Partial pressure" is not a factor.

The human cardiovascular system delivers CO2 to the lungs and the CO2 is passed into the lungs by the alveoli, irrespective of the pressure in the lungs. It is a continual process that occurs while we inhale and exhale.

The diaphragm opens and compresses the lungs, expelling whatever gases are in the lungs and drawing in whatever gases there are to breathe. If that air has 20% oxygen, then the human body gets the oxygen it needs.


.


If the partial pressure of CO2 in the inspired air is higher than that of CO2 in solution in the blood then CO2 will pass from the air to the blood not the other way round.
The body utilises approximately 5% of the inspired oxygen which is converted to CO2.
04-01-2016 16:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote:
If the partial pressure of CO2 in the inspired air is higher than that of CO2 in solution in the blood then CO2 will pass from the air to the blood not the other way round.

No. The alveoli serve as one-way transfer points for CO2 and O2. The alveoli extract the CO2 from the blood and place it into the lungs, irrespective of pressure in the lungs. The alveoli pass inhaled O2 to the blood, irrespective of pressure in the lungs. The diaphragm simply controls the inhaling and exhaling.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-01-2016 18:24
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann, Google "partial pressure" before you make even more of a fool of yourself.
04-01-2016 18:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
When primates evolved 66 million years ago, there were well over 1000 ppm CO2 in the air.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous
04-01-2016 20:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, Google "partial pressure" before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

How about you do you research before you post? Learn some biology while you're at it. Learn some physics while you're at it. Learn some math while you're at it.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-01-2016 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:
If the partial pressure of CO2 in the inspired air is higher than that of CO2 in solution in the blood then CO2 will pass from the air to the blood not the other way round.

No. The alveoli serve as one-way transfer points for CO2 and O2. The alveoli extract the CO2 from the blood and place it into the lungs, irrespective of pressure in the lungs. The alveoli pass inhaled O2 to the blood, irrespective of pressure in the lungs. The diaphragm simply controls the inhaling and exhaling.


.


MK001 has it right, IBdaMann. Under your model, it would be possible to survive in environments beyond 10,000ppm and where there is little oxygen.

The alveoli are not smart. They do not serve as one way doors. They simply provide a place where blood is closely exposed to air and allow the reaction to take place, but without all the usual clotting problems such exposure would normally start. The reaction is a balanced reaction seeking an equilibrium between the blood and air. Since there is much more oxygen than carbon dioxide, the reaction works in our favor. It is not the pressure of the lungs, it's the relative amounts of oxygen and carbon dioxide in them. A certain pressure in each cycle is needed, however, to provide sufficient oxygen for our needs.

Plants can run the reaction backwards because of the qualities of chlorophyll that can combine carbon dioxide, water, and light to produce carbohydrates and release oxygen in the process.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-01-2016 20:28
04-01-2016 21:37
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, Google "partial pressure" before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

How about you do you research before you post? Learn some biology while you're at it. Learn some physics while you're at it. Learn some math while you're at it.


You might want to look up the difussion process involved in the gas exchange process between the lungs and the blood while you are refreshing yourself on the partial pressure topic.
04-01-2016 22:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, Google "partial pressure" before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

How about you do you research before you post? Learn some biology while you're at it. Learn some physics while you're at it. Learn some math while you're at it.


You might want to look up the difussion process involved in the gas exchange process between the lungs and the blood while you are refreshing yourself on the partial pressure topic.

You might want to look up why we don't suffocate from breathing 79% nitrogen.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-01-2016 22:18
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: IBdaMann, Google "partial pressure" before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

How about you do you research before you post? Learn some biology while you're at it. Learn some physics while you're at it. Learn some math while you're at it.


You might want to look up the difussion process involved in the gas exchange process between the lungs and the blood while you are refreshing yourself on the partial pressure topic.

You might want to look up why we don't suffocate from breathing 79% nitrogen.


.


Even more reason why you need to understand partial pressures of gases. As a saturation diver, I always found it facinating that at a depth of 300 meters our breathing gas was 2% O2 and 98% Helium! good old partial pressure.
05-01-2016 14:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote: Even more reason why you need to understand partial pressures of gases.

I understand partial pressure. You are trying to hijack the point.

You claim that an increase of the percentage of CO2, say to 1% or 10,000 ppm, would cause us to have breathing problems, even if the percentage of oxygen were to remain the same (e.g. the percentage of nitrogen takes a hit). I claim that if we still have 21% oxygen then we will still be able to breathe, and that partial pressure of any gas does not enter as a factor because breathing will still occur.

You, however claim otherwise. You claim that by reaching 1% CO2 that the alveoli will begin forcing CO2 into the blood and will hinder CO2 being expelled from the blood and then lungs.

Since our air is 79% nitrogen (far more than 1%), why aren't we all suffering/dying from nitrogen in our blood? ...or do you believe that we are?

Good ol' partial pressure.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-01-2016 14:49
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Even more reason why you need to understand partial pressures of gases.

I understand partial pressure. You are trying to hijack the point.

You claim that an increase of the percentage of CO2, say to 1% or 10,000 ppm, would cause us to have breathing problems, even if the percentage of oxygen were to remain the same (e.g. the percentage of nitrogen takes a hit). I claim that if we still have 21% oxygen then we will still be able to breathe, and that partial pressure of any gas does not enter as a factor because breathing will still occur.

You, however claim otherwise. You claim that by reaching 1% CO2 that the alveoli will begin forcing CO2 into the blood and will hinder CO2 being expelled from the blood and then lungs.

Since our air is 79% nitrogen (far more than 1%), why aren't we all suffering/dying from nitrogen in our blood? ...or do you believe that we are?

Good ol' partial pressure.


.


Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)
05-01-2016 16:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
While this thread has provided a mildly entertaining insight into yet another of IBdaMann's fields of ignorance, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is very unlikely to reach levels that directly impact on human respiration. The actual concern is, of course, the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect arising from additional CO2 on climate systems and on sea level and acidity.
05-01-2016 19:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates
Edited on 05-01-2016 19:01
05-01-2016 20:33
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.
05-01-2016 20:39
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1069)
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.
05-01-2016 20:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote: Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler!

Shall I assume that you believe CO2 and O2 are both part of the human respiratory system? Otherwise your statements makes no sense.

You dodged the question, by the way. For your convenience I'll restate.

Our atmosphere is 79% nitrogen. You claim that CO2 can/will enter the blood from the lungs through the alveoli because of its partial pressure when it gets close to 1%. Why does nitrogen, at a much, much greater partial pressure, not do likewise?

MK001 wrote: The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.

Sorry. No one living is anywhere near saturated with nitrogen; s/he would be dead. Those who are not saturated but who merely have too much can suffer from many different maladies.

Try again.


MK001 wrote: As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm.

No, this has not been "demonstrated", to use your passive voice. What has been demonstrated is that humans are quite capable of working in 600 ppm CO2 environments without any noticeable effect. Also, only scientifically illiterate warmizombies have declared CO2 to be poison or pollution.

In fact, OSHA's warning of elevated CO2 levels stems from CO2 being heavier than oxygen and, in enclosed workplaces, could threaten to displace O2 down near the floor where people are.

Yes, it has been demonstrated that people will experience breathing issues whenever O2 is sufficiently reduced/restricted. My examples specify oxygen of 21%. You simply try to treat CO2 as a poison and don't mention amount of oxygen available for breathing.

So back to nitrogen at 79%. That's 790,000 ppm! Due to its intense partial pressure forcing it into our blood via our alveoli, we should all be dead, yes? Except that last time I checked, I wasn't dead.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-01-2016 20:57
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler!

Shall I assume that you believe CO2 and O2 are both part of the human respiratory system? Otherwise your statements makes no sense.

You dodged the question, by the way. For your convenience I'll restate.

Our atmosphere is 79% nitrogen. You claim that CO2 can/will enter the blood from the lungs through the alveoli because of its partial pressure when it gets close to 1%. Why does nitrogen, at a much, much greater partial pressure, not do likewise?

MK001 wrote: The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.

Sorry. No one living is anywhere near saturated with nitrogen; s/he would be dead. Those who are not saturated but who merely have too much can suffer from many different maladies.

Try again.


MK001 wrote: As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm.

No, this has not been "demonstrated", to use your passive voice. What has been demonstrated is that humans are quite capable of working in 600 ppm CO2 environments without any noticeable effect. Also, only scientifically illiterate warmizombies have declared CO2 to be poison or pollution.

In fact, OSHA's warning of elevated CO2 levels stems from CO2 being heavier than oxygen and, in enclosed workplaces, could threaten to displace O2 down near the floor where people are.

Yes, it has been demonstrated that people will experience breathing issues whenever O2 is sufficiently reduced/restricted. My examples specify oxygen of 21%. You simply try to treat CO2 as a poison and don't mention amount of oxygen available for breathing.

So back to nitrogen at 79%. That's 790,000 ppm! Due to its intense partial pressure forcing it into our blood via our alveoli, we should all be dead, yes? Except that last time I checked, I wasn't dead.


.


Idiot!

You really dont understand the subject matter on this topic at all do you!

790,000ppm in the inhaled gas and 790,000 ppm in solution in the body there is no pressure gradient hence no transfer in either direction unless the ambient pressure changes. Did I mention I was a saturation diver? look it up retard.

King has to be tipped now surely!
05-01-2016 21:04
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler!

Shall I assume that you believe CO2 and O2 are both part of the human respiratory system? Otherwise your statements makes no sense.

You dodged the question, by the way. For your convenience I'll restate.

Our atmosphere is 79% nitrogen. You claim that CO2 can/will enter the blood from the lungs through the alveoli because of its partial pressure when it gets close to 1%. Why does nitrogen, at a much, much greater partial pressure, not do likewise?

MK001 wrote: The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.

Sorry. No one living is anywhere near saturated with nitrogen; s/he would be dead. Those who are not saturated but who merely have too much can suffer from many different maladies.

Try again.


MK001 wrote: As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm.

No, this has not been "demonstrated", to use your passive voice. What has been demonstrated is that humans are quite capable of working in 600 ppm CO2 environments without any noticeable effect. Also, only scientifically illiterate warmizombies have declared CO2 to be poison or pollution.

In fact, OSHA's warning of elevated CO2 levels stems from CO2 being heavier than oxygen and, in enclosed workplaces, could threaten to displace O2 down near the floor where people are.

Yes, it has been demonstrated that people will experience breathing issues whenever O2 is sufficiently reduced/restricted. My examples specify oxygen of 21%. You simply try to treat CO2 as a poison and don't mention amount of oxygen available for breathing.

So back to nitrogen at 79%. That's 790,000 ppm! Due to its intense partial pressure forcing it into our blood via our alveoli, we should all be dead, yes? Except that last time I checked, I wasn't dead.


.


I found this on a kids site it should be easier for you to follow.
Nitrogen is a major component of the air we breathe. For this reason, nitrogen gas becomes dissolved in our body tissues. Under normal everyday conditions our body tissues are saturated with nitrogen. That is to say, the tissues of our body hold the maximum amount of dissolved nitrogen possible and are held in solution, in a state of dynamic equilibrium.
If however conditions change, say the air pressure should suddenly drop, this equilibrium becomes unbalanced, and the conditions within the body tissues tend to shift to re-establish the equilibrium.

The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends directly upon its partial pressure and inversely upon the temperature of the solvent.

For a healthy human the body temperature is essentially constant. However, when living or working in extreme environments, the pressure to which one is subjected can change significantly.

If ambient pressure increases, the equilibrium shifts towards more dissolved gas. If the ambient pressure decreases, the equilibrium shifts towards less dissolved gas.

If you need pictures I will send you some.
05-01-2016 21:12
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.


I assure you it does, been there done that, been experimented on and got the Tee-shirt.
05-01-2016 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.


I assure you it does, been there done that, been experimented on and got the Tee-shirt.


You seem to be confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide. There is no headache symptom at 1000 ppm (0.1%) carbon dioxide. In fact there seems to be no physiological affect noticed at all, even with exertion.

There is with carbon monoxide. Symptoms begin to appear with concentrations as low as 50ppm.

CO2 will not produce headaches until the concentration approaches 30000 ppm and then only with repeated exposure. You have to get up to 50000 ppm to experience headaches upon initial exposure. Most governments don't even consider it a problem to monitor until concentrations reach 5000 ppm, including the US (OSHA) or the EU.

I work with both of these gases all the time, and nitrogen also. You are correct concerning the nitrogen saturation in our tissues. It is why sudden drops in pressure can cause the bends.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-01-2016 21:44
05-01-2016 22:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote: Idiot!

Moron.

MK001 wrote:You really dont understand the subject matter on this topic at all do you!

Nice diversion. Stay focused on alveoli, dumbass. Answer the question.

MK001 wrote: 790,000ppm in the inhaled gas and 790,000 ppm in solution in the body there is no pressure gradient hence no transfer in either direction unless the ambient pressure changes.

Human blood is not 790,000 ppm, Mr. Genius. It's nowhere close.

You breathe in 79% nitrogen and you breathe in substantially less than 1% CO2. Your blood has a bunch of CO2 it is carrying to the lungs to expel. Your blood does not contain atmospheric levels of nitrogen.

You say that partial pressure is a driving force for CO2 but not for nitrogen. Shall I consider your king tipped?


MK001 wrote: Did I mention I was a saturation diver? look it up retard.

Great! I'm debating with Britney Spears. No wonder this is going nowhere.

If you were a diver, shouldn't they have taught you something about how your lungs work?

Alveoli. Focus on the alveoli.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-01-2016 22:36
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Idiot!

Moron.

MK001 wrote:You really dont understand the subject matter on this topic at all do you!

Nice diversion. Stay focused on alveoli, dumbass. Answer the question.

MK001 wrote: 790,000ppm in the inhaled gas and 790,000 ppm in solution in the body there is no pressure gradient hence no transfer in either direction unless the ambient pressure changes.

Human blood is not 790,000 ppm, Mr. Genius. It's nowhere close.

You breathe in 79% nitrogen and you breathe in substantially less than 1% CO2. Your blood has a bunch of CO2 it is carrying to the lungs to expel. Your blood does not contain atmospheric levels of nitrogen.

You say that partial pressure is a driving force for CO2 but not for nitrogen. Shall I consider your king tipped?


MK001 wrote: Did I mention I was a saturation diver? look it up retard.

Great! I'm debating with Britney Spears. No wonder this is going nowhere.

If you were a diver, shouldn't they have taught you something about how your lungs work?

Alveoli. Focus on the alveoli.


.


Read the next post dick head you are just making yourself look stupid. I will send pictures
05-01-2016 22:42
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.


I assure you it does, been there done that, been experimented on and got the Tee-shirt.


You seem to be confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide. There is no headache symptom at 1000 ppm (0.1%) carbon dioxide. In fact there seems to be no physiological affect noticed at all, even with exertion.

There is with carbon monoxide. Symptoms begin to appear with concentrations as low as 50ppm.

CO2 will not produce headaches until the concentration approaches 30000 ppm and then only with repeated exposure. You have to get up to 50000 ppm to experience headaches upon initial exposure. Most governments don't even consider it a problem to monitor until concentrations reach 5000 ppm, including the US (OSHA) or the EU.

I work with both of these gases all the time, and nitrogen also. You are correct concerning the nitrogen saturation in our tissues. It is why sudden drops in pressure can cause the bends.


No it was CO2 and we were tested for cognative function while in elvated CO2 environment to simulate the conditions that could be expirienced during diving and also to establish the safe set points for rebreathers (where the alarm levels should be). This work was conducted at NEDU in Panama City FL and DCIEM in Toronto. Carbon Monoxide has its own problems and I have treated a few cases of CO poisoning in recomression chambers both in the UK and in Canada.
05-01-2016 22:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote: I found this on a kids site it should be easier for you to follow.

Perhaps your use of children's websites explains why you don't have an adult understanding.

MK001 wrote: Nitrogen is a major component of the air we breathe.

Granted.

MK001 wrote: For this reason, nitrogen gas becomes dissolved in our body tissues.

Yes. The problem comes when you try to assert just how much.

MK001 wrote: Under normal everyday conditions our body tissues are saturated with nitrogen.

...and you can verify that this is not true. People would not be able to absorb more of it were they "saturated." Let me know if I'm going too fast.

If a healthy person cannot absorb more of it, s/he obviously cannot become ill from absorbing more/too much of it. None of the excessive nitrogen afflictions would be possible were humans already saturated with nitrogen.


MK001 wrote: If however conditions change, say the air pressure should suddenly drop, this equilibrium becomes unbalanced, and the conditions within the body tissues tend to shift to re-establish the equilibrium.

Explain this particular equilibrium of which you speak, noting the inputs and the outputs. I'm intrigued.

MK001 wrote: The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends directly upon its partial pressure and inversely upon the temperature of the solvent.

Great! We're back to partial pressure. Does partial pressure force huge amounts of high-partial-pressure gases, e.g. nitrogen into the blood through the lungs or is it really not a factor with CO2 because the alveoli allow O2 to enter and not CO2 or nitrogen?

I know, I know. You don't want to answer the question so you just want to call me an "idiot" and EVADE. Fair enough.


MK001 wrote: If ambient pressure increases, the equilibrium shifts towards more dissolved gas.

One moment you're mentioning this undefined "equilibrium," then you throw in a discontinuous mention of "partial pressure" and then you jump back to talking about that "equilibrium."

I know what an equilibrium is. I know what partial pressure is. What I don't understand is your claim that partial pressure works for CO2 but not for nitrogen.

Let's run over the numbers again:

1. Atmosphere is 790,000 ppm nitrogen, 400 ppm CO2.
2. The human body is verifiably nowhere near saturated with nitrogen.
3. Human blood carries CO2 to be expelled by the lungs. One could measure the amount of CO2 in an exhale to gauge how much was expelled by the body in that breath.

So, we arrive at your claim that if atmospheric CO2 were elevated to 1% then partial pressure will pump it into the blood through the alveoli, but not for nitrogen.

Could I persuade you to elaborate on that apparent disconnect? Yes, you can call me names while you do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-01-2016 23:06
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: I found this on a kids site it should be easier for you to follow.

Perhaps your use of children's websites explains why you don't have an adult understanding.

MK001 wrote: Nitrogen is a major component of the air we breathe.

Granted.

MK001 wrote: For this reason, nitrogen gas becomes dissolved in our body tissues.

Yes. The problem comes when you try to assert just how much.

MK001 wrote: Under normal everyday conditions our body tissues are saturated with nitrogen.

...and you can verify that this is not true. People would not be able to absorb more of it were they "saturated." Let me know if I'm going too fast.

If a healthy person cannot absorb more of it, s/he obviously cannot become ill from absorbing more/too much of it. None of the excessive nitrogen afflictions would be possible were humans already saturated with nitrogen.


MK001 wrote: If however conditions change, say the air pressure should suddenly drop, this equilibrium becomes unbalanced, and the conditions within the body tissues tend to shift to re-establish the equilibrium.

Explain this particular equilibrium of which you speak, noting the inputs and the outputs. I'm intrigued.

MK001 wrote: The solubility of a gas in a liquid depends directly upon its partial pressure and inversely upon the temperature of the solvent.

Great! We're back to partial pressure. Does partial pressure force huge amounts of high-partial-pressure gases, e.g. nitrogen into the blood through the lungs or is it really not a factor with CO2 because the alveoli allow O2 to enter and not CO2 or nitrogen?

I know, I know. You don't want to answer the question so you just want to call me an "idiot" and EVADE. Fair enough.


MK001 wrote: If ambient pressure increases, the equilibrium shifts towards more dissolved gas.

One moment you're mentioning this undefined "equilibrium," then you throw in a discontinuous mention of "partial pressure" and then you jump back to talking about that "equilibrium."

I know what an equilibrium is. I know what partial pressure is. What I don't understand is your claim that partial pressure works for CO2 but not for nitrogen.

Let's run over the numbers again:

1. Atmosphere is 790,000 ppm nitrogen, 400 ppm CO2.
2. The human body is verifiably nowhere near saturated with nitrogen.
3. Human blood carries CO2 to be expelled by the lungs. One could measure the amount of CO2 in an exhale to gauge how much was expelled by the body in that breath.

So, we arrive at your claim that if atmospheric CO2 were elevated to 1% then partial pressure will pump it into the blood through the alveoli, but not for nitrogen.

Could I persuade you to elaborate on that apparent disconnect? Yes, you can call me names while you do.


.


A more advanced text:
https://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org/carbon-dioxide-narcosis-and-diving

If you can follow this text get back to me otherwise its pointless; as you have obviously found the one topic you know very little about and are having a hard time adjusting to that fact. Perhaps this human physiology stuff and the magic of gases which keep the body functioning should just be put down to faith!
05-01-2016 23:10
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.


I assure you it does, been there done that, been experimented on and got the Tee-shirt.


You seem to be confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide. There is no headache symptom at 1000 ppm (0.1%) carbon dioxide. In fact there seems to be no physiological affect noticed at all, even with exertion.

There is with carbon monoxide. Symptoms begin to appear with concentrations as low as 50ppm.

CO2 will not produce headaches until the concentration approaches 30000 ppm and then only with repeated exposure. You have to get up to 50000 ppm to experience headaches upon initial exposure. Most governments don't even consider it a problem to monitor until concentrations reach 5000 ppm, including the US (OSHA) or the EU.

I work with both of these gases all the time, and nitrogen also. You are correct concerning the nitrogen saturation in our tissues. It is why sudden drops in pressure can cause the bends.


I think I owe you an apology the tests we participated in involved elevated concentrations of CO2 under pressure so the PPCO2 was probably considerably higher and hence the more dramatic effects.
05-01-2016 23:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
MK001 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
MK001 wrote:
Nitrogen is not part of the respiration system, its just filler! The body is saturated with nitrogen at 1 atmosphere and so no transfer takes place.
As to the impact of CO2; it has been demonstrated that increased levels of CO2 in the inhaled gas has a direct effect on cognative ability which starts at around 600ppm and becomes a signative factor at levels over 1000ppm. So if you had levels of 10,000 ppm then brain function would be negatively impacted. I took part in some diving trials in the 90s working in elevated CO2 environments and I can assure you it does mess you up and also causes savage headaches.
NASA sets limits for CO2 in the ISS at around 300ppm for this very reason. Most office buildings have levels at around 600 - 1000ppm and this is considered to be a polution factor (indoors)


Primates evolved when CO2 was well over 1000 ppm. 1000 ppm is not dangerous at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_primates


I think you need to check your timelines!
I did not say dangerous I said it affects cognative function.


Not at 1000 ppm it doesn't.


I assure you it does, been there done that, been experimented on and got the Tee-shirt.


You seem to be confusing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide. There is no headache symptom at 1000 ppm (0.1%) carbon dioxide. In fact there seems to be no physiological affect noticed at all, even with exertion.

There is with carbon monoxide. Symptoms begin to appear with concentrations as low as 50ppm.

CO2 will not produce headaches until the concentration approaches 30000 ppm and then only with repeated exposure. You have to get up to 50000 ppm to experience headaches upon initial exposure. Most governments don't even consider it a problem to monitor until concentrations reach 5000 ppm, including the US (OSHA) or the EU.

I work with both of these gases all the time, and nitrogen also. You are correct concerning the nitrogen saturation in our tissues. It is why sudden drops in pressure can cause the bends.


I think I owe you an apology the tests we participated in involved elevated concentrations of CO2 under pressure so the PPCO2 was probably considerably higher and hence the more dramatic effects.

That would certainly make more sense. No problem.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 15:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote:
A more advanced text:
https://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org/carbon-dioxide-narcosis-and-diving

If you can follow this text get back to me

OK, I can follow it so I'm "getting back to you." Will you now answer my question or are you going to EVADE. Why don't you just use your "advanced text" to answer my question? Why the continual DODGE?

Your "advanced text" mentions the partial pressure differential between respired CO2 and CO2 in the blood. This concept is that on which you base your assertion that 1% atmospheric CO2 would force respired CO2 into the blood (without providing any math, I might add).

All I'm asking from you is to apply the same math you used to conclude that "respired 1% CO2 would be forced into blood" to show that "respired 79% nitrogen would NOT be forced into the blood."

For your convenience I'll post the partial pressure formula right here:






I can't help but notice that when I simply ask you to support your positive assertion, e.g:

IB DaMann wrote:Could I persuade you to elaborate on that apparent disconnect? Yes, you can call me names while you do.


...you get very defensive, you DODGE the question entirely and you make claims about me being unable to understand your nonexistent explanations.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
06-01-2016 18:12
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote:
A more advanced text:
https://www.globalunderwaterexplorers.org/carbon-dioxide-narcosis-and-diving

If you can follow this text get back to me

OK, I can follow it so I'm "getting back to you." Will you now answer my question or are you going to EVADE. Why don't you just use your "advanced text" to answer my question? Why the continual DODGE?

Your "advanced text" mentions the partial pressure differential between respired CO2 and CO2 in the blood. This concept is that on which you base your assertion that 1% atmospheric CO2 would force respired CO2 into the blood (without providing any math, I might add).

All I'm asking from you is to apply the same math you used to conclude that "respired 1% CO2 would be forced into blood" to show that "respired 79% nitrogen would NOT be forced into the blood."

For your convenience I'll post the partial pressure formula right here:






I can't help but notice that when I simply ask you to support your positive assertion, e.g:

IB DaMann wrote:Could I persuade you to elaborate on that apparent disconnect? Yes, you can call me names while you do.


...you get very defensive, you DODGE the question entirely and you make claims about me being unable to understand your nonexistent explanations.


.


Look if you dont understand what saturated at 1 ATA means with respect to nitrogen in the human body then it is difficult for me to get through to you that your question with regard to nitrogen is pointless. There is no transfer of nitrogen because no more can be squeezed in!.

If the ambient environment of CO2 was 1% then the body would saturate to that level and the excess that is produced through respiration and the consumption of Oxygen would be expelled in the same manner as now.
06-01-2016 19:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote: Look if you dont understand ...

More EVASION via claims about what I don't understand. You won't address my question.

...but I am going concede the point about the atmospheric pressure. I decided to not wait for you to provide any sort of explanation and I did a little more research myself. It turns out that the alveoli function a bit differently than I thought. They will allow nitrogen to pass to the blood. I thought they did not. Frankly I'm not sure how I thought nitrogen entered the body.

Humans are not saturated with nitrogen. You shouldn't use that word. It certainly is possible to "squeeze more in". It's just that humans remain at a nitrogen equilibrium with the internal nitrogen dissolved in blood and tissue. Those nitrogen levels can easily be elevated (or lowered). If they become too elevated then there is a host of medical conditions that could arise.

So, we are left with CO2. If I were to enter an environment with 1% CO2 but with 21% oxygen, would I somehow not be able to breathe the oxygen that I need?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
06-01-2016 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Look if you dont understand ...

More EVASION via claims about what I don't understand. You won't address my question.

...but I am going concede the point about the atmospheric pressure. I decided to not wait for you to provide any sort of explanation and I did a little more research myself. It turns out that the alveoli function a bit differently than I thought. They will allow nitrogen to pass to the blood. I thought they did not. Frankly I'm not sure how I thought nitrogen entered the body.

Humans are not saturated with nitrogen. You shouldn't use that word. It certainly is possible to "squeeze more in". It's just that humans remain at a nitrogen equilibrium with the internal nitrogen dissolved in blood and tissue. Those nitrogen levels can easily be elevated (or lowered). If they become too elevated then there is a host of medical conditions that could arise.

So, we are left with CO2. If I were to enter an environment with 1% CO2 but with 21% oxygen, would I somehow not be able to breathe the oxygen that I need?


.

You will be able to breath in the oxygen you need and no more. Once equilibrium is established between air and blood, the reaction stops.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2016 22:07
MK001
★☆☆☆☆
(64)
IBdaMann wrote:
MK001 wrote: Look if you dont understand ...

More EVASION via claims about what I don't understand. You won't address my question.

...but I am going concede the point about the atmospheric pressure. I decided to not wait for you to provide any sort of explanation and I did a little more research myself. It turns out that the alveoli function a bit differently than I thought. They will allow nitrogen to pass to the blood. I thought they did not. Frankly I'm not sure how I thought nitrogen entered the body.

Humans are not saturated with nitrogen. You shouldn't use that word. It certainly is possible to "squeeze more in". It's just that humans remain at a nitrogen equilibrium with the internal nitrogen dissolved in blood and tissue. Those nitrogen levels can easily be elevated (or lowered). If they become too elevated then there is a host of medical conditions that could arise.

So, we are left with CO2. If I were to enter an environment with 1% CO2 but with 21% oxygen, would I somehow not be able to breathe the oxygen that I need?


.


Your body will still metabolise the 5% of oxygen it does now and convert that to CO2 in the blood to be carried back to the lungs. Your body would be saturated (it is the correct term I assure you) with CO2 at 1% which you will not be able to get rid of. There would not be any accumulation of CO2 other than that 1% and as i said earlier, exposure to CO2 at that level and higher does currently cause some cognative function issues, but I am sure humans would adapt to those higher levels of CO2 over time.
06-01-2016 22:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
MK001 wrote:
Your body will still metabolise the 5% of oxygen it does now and convert that to CO2 in the blood to be carried back to the lungs. Your body would be saturated (it is the correct term I assure you) with CO2 at 1% which you will not be able to get rid of. There would not be any accumulation of CO2 other than that 1% and as i said earlier, exposure to CO2 at that level and higher does currently cause some cognative function issues, but I am sure humans would adapt to those higher levels of CO2 over time.


I agree that blood CO2 levels would increase as a result of a 1% atmospheric CO2 quantity but I am not aware of any study on humans that checks blood CO2 levels in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. I'm not in the habit of drawing conclusions based on figures being nice round numbers. I'm willing to say that you might be completely correct about the medical/physiological ramifications of elevated atmospheric CO2, but no one knows. That test has not been done. Of course of interest would be such a test across gender, age groups, metabolic rates and cardio-pulmonary health.

I realize you are certain that "saturation" is the correct word,and I'm willing to accept that other divers are taught that this is the correct word, but "saturated" means something very specific, and any human walking around can physically fit more nitrogen in their bodies.

What would happen to my blood nitrogen level if atmospheric nitrogen were to increase from 78% to 79%? Would my nitrogen level increase? If so, how is that possible if I had already been "saturated"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate CO2 is not an issue:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)16417-10-2019 22:28
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact