Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The world has a CO2 problem – there is not enough free CO2 in the atmosphere, to maximise food production, alleviate world hunger, green deserts, and to attempt to hold off the next ice age. But if my calculation is correct, raising CO2 to a safer level would be surprisingly affordable.
Although a lot of nonsense has been written about CO2 harming plant growth, the reality is commercial greenhouse growers maintain elevated CO2 levels of around 1000ppm, because one of the most effective means of promoting plant growth is to make sure plants get enough CO2 – enough being defined as a significantly higher concentration than is currently available in the atmosphere.
The world is also almost certainly teetering on the brink of the next glaciation. I’m not suggesting it will start tomorrow, but interglacials, of the kind we are currently experiencing, typically only last 10-15,000 years. We are well past the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the peak of our current interglacial. Without serious anthropogenic intervention, it is all downhill from here. There is no guarantee raising CO2 will prevent or mitigate the slide into the next glaciation period, but given the catastrophic consequences the coming ice age will have on human civilisation, it has to be worth a try.
How much energy would be required to raise atmospheric CO2 to 1000ppm?
According to Wikipedia, cooking a kilogram of Limestone in a regenerative kiln takes around 3.6MJ / Kg.
Calcium has an atomic weight of 40, Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, Oxygen has a molecular weight of 16. Burning Limestone produces Calcium Oxide (Quicklime) and Carbon Dioxide.
CaCO3 + heat => CaO + CO2.
So burning 1Kg of Limestone releases:
(12 + 16 + 16) / (40 + 12 + 16 + 16 + 16) * 1Kg = 0.44Kg of CO2.
The atmosphere, at 400ppm of CO2, contains 400ppm x 2.3Gt / ppm = 920Gt of CO2.
To raise CO2 to 1000ppm, we need another 600ppm * 2.3Gt / ppm = 1380Gt of CO2.
This will require burning 1380Gt / 0.44Kg CO2 per Kg Limestone = 3136Gt of limestone.
This would require the expenditure of 3.6MJ / Kg * 3136Gt or limestone = 1.1289 x 10^19 joules of energy.
The total global energy budget is 3.89 x 10^20 joules per annum, so if the energy expenditure was spread out across say a decade, we’re talking about 1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.89 x 10^20 = 0.3% of global energy expenditure.
At around $30 / MWh (source Wikipedia), or $30 per 1,000,000 x 3600 joules = 3.6×10^9 joules, the total cost would be:
1.1289 x 10^19 / 3.6 x 10^9 * $30 = around $100 billion dollars.
Obviously there are additional costs for building the kilns and mining the limestone, but even if these additional costs drive the price up to $300 billion, the return on investment would be tremendous – slightly milder winters and substantially improved farm productivity on a global scale. Spread over 10 years, a cost of $300 billion is $30 billion per year – a lot of money, but in the context of previous vast expenditures such as President Obama’s Trillion dollar Stimulus Package, $300 billion would be affordable, for all the good it would deliver.
In addition, I haven’t considered that a lot of the heat for cooking limestone would likely be delivered using fossil fuel – so the amount of limestone which would have to be cooked to achieve this goal would likely be less than the amount indicated by the calculation.
One final issue would be what to do with the approx. 1500Gt of Quicklime which would be produced by burning the limestone. The obvious solution would be to dump it into the ocean, where as Calcium Hydroxide it could counter any ocean acidification caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, and would hopefully not promote rapid re-absorption of the released CO2.
Update (EW) – h/t daveburton, Leonard Weinstein – unfortunately my calculation was way off, so this scheme is currently impractical. However in a hundred years, let alone a millennium, mankind’s engineering capability will be far greater than we currently enjoy (think Wright Brothers to Apollo Moon Landing). Engineering projects such as this one should become feasible well before our civilisation is endangered by the coming glaciation.
Update 2 (EW) – higley7 and Miso Alkalaj pointed out that rapid ocean absorption of the released CO2 would make it difficult to maintain the desired atmospheric concentration.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Eric, lets stay with proven fossil fuels. It will actually make sense (and money)
Just saying…
Um, the resultant cement will just slowly reabsorbe the CO2 and in a couple of decades, you get to start over…
you only see the down side … just define it as a sustainable jobs program … win/win.
Sustainable.
This lava lake has been here in Ethiopia for 110 years. Less than 100 km down the road in Eritrea are large fossilised coral beds which sucked the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/08/10/3610637D00000578-3680466-image-a-2_1467969101875.jpg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3680466/Welcome-Gateway-Hell-Daring-photographer-captures-rare-images-lava-lake-flowing-100-YEARS.html
Give back what the coral has taken away. Put the atmosphere back how it was. Now that would be Green.
If it causes any sea level rise there will be ample concrete for coastal defences.
I love it – very “Lord of the Rings” 🙂
Right on! Lads. But wait there’s more. Cook the Limestone in the (all natural sustainable) Ethiopian Lava lake, sell the CaO to Chinese Construction Contractors and dump the surplus into the ocean reversing the “Catastrophic acidification of the Oceans.. (CaO?)”. We’ve got a win-win one here! Make money, save the planet and while we’re at it let’s dig up the limestone from the Afar depression (nearby) and fill it up from the Red sea to stop Sea-level rise. Did we miss anything?
p.s. not sure whether to label this sarc or serious?
Dunno, it depends on elevation. If the limestone is higher than the lava lake we can use gravity, a bit of C4 and a simple rail system to feed it. Some of the Rift Valley is below sea level. Then if we have to get it back up to sea level we could use one of these new Hyperloop things powered by the CO2 to get the concrete back up to the coast before releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere. And the Hyperloop can carry a bit of sea water back again on the return trip. Sorted! A totally cost free way of saving the planet 🙂
I’m in! Now we need a conference, a journal, and, most importantly, Limestoners t-shirts!
And government grants.
Lots and lots of government grants and more ngos.
Eric, your heart and broader goal is great but sadly, you missed a factor of 3,000 or so (3 for ppmv interpreted as ppm-of-mass and 1,000 for mega-giga or kilo-ton confusion – as others have probably pointed out above) and another factor of 3 from the stabilization of the elevated concentration.
Because the project is 10,000 times harder than you announced, see
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-we-upgrade-atmosphere-to-1000-ppm.html?m=1
it’s probably not economically feasible. After all, any attempt to geoengineer the composiion of the whole atmosphere is uneconomic. You wanted to push CO2 in the right direction, unlike the IPCC, but at the end, both projects are equally unreasonable in the absolute value. The atmosphere is just too large and it’s not reasonable to try to change the whole atmosphere – much like it’s not reasonable to try to feed the whole Milky Way.
A rather large space based reflector might do some good. Heat small areas of ocean water and cook limestone out in the desert somewhere. Control sea ice with it. Focus on your enemies’ house for a couple minutes.
Underground coal mines only have about 50% yield. A better solution is to seal a large fan at the mouth of the main shaft of abandoned coal mines to provide positive air pressure and light a fire in the mine.
Remind me not to ever live near you or one of your groovy ideas.
Thank you.
I always appreciate hearing from fans.
Enjoying the Satire…
The evidence for CO2 levels vs glacial periods and Ice ages is that CO2 follows temperature, the idea of increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase planetary temperature is flawed from the start, first of all CO2 is already saturated, there will be no rise or fall of global temperatures related to CO2. And “slightly milder winters” which is weather caused by CO2 is just about the dumbest thing I have read on a wuwt post (and there have been some hot-whoppers lol).
Even if we pretend that CO2 could increase planetary temperature by producing more, we would need the rate of CO2 production to be in the ballpark of several massive volcanoes to produce the CO2 to 1000ppm, and when this goal is reached, then we need to gradually increase the production of CO2 as the planet got greener and the oceans absorbed more and try to maintain this rate of CO2 production just to stay ahead of the carbon cycle.
In reality, as soon as the Ice age rolled around, cooler oceans will have huge CO2 absorption rates, CO2 itself will cool and literally fall from the sky and become buried in growing ice sheets miles thick, and at this stage the futile anthropogenic carbon-dioxide production will have to be increased by several more volcanoes with no obvious effect to planetary temperature just to stay in balance with absorption rates of an Ice age.
Defeatist!
tactical nukes on the methane hydrate deposits in the Arctic would be cheap and effective.
Locating unextractable coal seams and burning them in situ with forced ventilation is low cost as well.
We could just ban renewable energy. That would increase CO2 emissions and cut power costs. Cheaper power and good for the environment, a win-win.
As long as the continents have their present configuration, there is little hope that we can change anything to the glaciation cycle. Unless there are astronomical phenomena which could influence the quantity of energy that the earth receives from the sun and that we haven’t taken into account (galactic dust clouds for instance), the conditions of limits are well-known and will lead to a new glaciation.
*wrings hands and gnashes teeth concernedly*
“Eric, your heart and broader goal is great but sadly, you missed a factor of 3,000 or so (3 for ppmv interpreted as ppm-of-mass and 1,000 for mega-giga or kilo-ton confusion – as others have probably pointed out above) and another factor of 3 from the stabilization of the elevated concentration.
Because the project is 10,000 times harder than you announced, see
http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/can-we-upgrade-atmosphere-to-1000-ppm.html?m=1
it’s probably not economically feasible. After all, any attempt to geoengineer the composiion of the whole atmosphere is uneconomic. You wanted to push CO2 in the right direction, unlike the IPCC, but at the end, both projects are equally unreasonable in the absolute value. The atmosphere is just too large and it’s not reasonable to try to change the whole atmosphere – much like it’s not reasonable to try to feed the whole Milky Way.”
One wonders if the management will come around to retract the post or force the writer to correct his errors?
Na..
never happen..
Maybe Eric can go post with Goddard
You are the one that keeps bringing him up.
Why do you do that?
If it wasn’t for you….his name would never come up here.
Because the truth hurts los warmistas, so they must falsely put Heller down. Poor souls, not a patch on him, just childish.
Lol, why don’t you ask Anthony why Heller’s stuff doesn’t get posted here anymore?
Eric you will be relieved to learn that eminent climate scientists have pondered the problem of delaying the next glacial inception and concluded that we are safe for at least 50000 years at the current , human enhanced , CO2 levels and that your bold but demanding experiment will not be needed (if their models are correct ):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000482/full
Reviews of Geophysics ” Interglacials of the last 800,000 years”
Excerpt:
-“Based on model experiments, the glaciation threshold depends not only on insolation but also on the atmospheric CO2 content [Archer and Ganopolski, 2005]. Models of different complexity and time series analyses of proxy data have been used to investigate the response to orbital forcing in the future for a range of atmospheric CO2 levels. These results show consistently, that a glacial inception is unlikely to happen within the next approximate 50 ka (when the next strong drop in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation occurs) if either atmospheric CO2 concentration remains above 300 ppm or cumulative carbon emissions exceed 1000 Pg C [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Archer and Ganopolski, 2005; Cochelin et al., 2006]. Only for an atmospheric CO2 content below the preindustrial level may a glaciation occur within the next 10 ka [Loutre and Berger, 2000; Cochelin et al., 2006; Kutzbach et al., 2011; Vettoretti and Peltier, 2011; Tzedakis et al., 2012a]. This can be used to explain why glacial inception occurred during MIS 19c under astronomical configuration rather similar to the present one but at lower CO2 concentration (~240 ppm).”-
How do we feel about climate models around here? I’m starting on my space based reflector. Please send your surplus gold and silver to:
John Harmsworth
Canada
(We all know each other)
We need to have festivals where we burn limestone in the public square — while waving Save The Planet banners. I bet a lot of dumb without a clue greenies would attend and cheer the burning on.
Eugene WR Gallun
My banner will say, ” burn the greens, save the limestone “!
Greenhouse CO2 use as an indicator of ideal plant conditions keeps getting cited as evidence ~1,000 ppm CO2 is “more better” for them. It overlooks the fact that the plants in greenhouses are living in artificially controlled conditions for water, light & available nutrients. The 1st link original post gives describes greenhouse enclosures as otherwise prone to use up natural CO2 soon (by the way also specifies not to add CO2 come night – unless contrary to nature keeping high pressure sodium lights on then), action on mulch (organic litter outdoors) by soil microrgsnisms itself adds CO2 that should be taken into account & the conductivity (electrical conductivity = EC in link) rather than the numerical amount of different nutrients in a fertilization formula has to be modified.
From memory (no time right now to look for free full Brazil text link in English, would later in anyone interested): when water is just enough, ideal or a lot (of water) edible peppers grown at current ambient CO2, ~ 600+ & 1,000 ppm CO2 the crop was not the best at 1,000 ppm CO2. This shows that when 3 water levels & 3 CO2 levels were experimented with the assumption that a linear increase if CO2 to 1,000ppm is not automatically going to be “more better” outdoors.
A fair number of recent studies have noted the greening of the planet thanks to enhanced CO2.
Other studies using real world plants have found the enhanced CO2 causes increased growth in plants.
Enhanced CO2 also helps plants use water more efficiently which permits crops and other plants to grow in areas that used to be to dry for them.
Since see commentators enthused by greenhouse CO2 let’s look at O.P. 1st link’s very last sentence how elevated CO2 sometimes requires increasing boron (B). By the way, using reverse osmosis to get the water used for mixing fertilzer nutrients formulation (so can control electrical conductivity, EC) be aware boron is not removed by reverse osmosis (greenhouse operators test the water they are going to use including boron level).
Seedlings require low boron at first & plant root cells use transporters (influx & efflux) to shunt it. Low boron does not lead to less nitrogen, phosphorus or potassiun uptake or these themselves being low in leaves. Raising boron however does increase uptake of potassium, calcium & nitrogen; this affect on nitrogen applies only to field plants & not in hydroponics.
Low boron leads to reduced growth in root apices; stem (meri-stem) cells defects stop tip growth (possibly related to worse cassava root yields reported in earlier commentator’s link).
There is also reduced meri-stem cell division in primary & lateral root meri-stems which plays out as less root elongation. The reduced cross linking (of rhamno-galact-uron pectin poly-saccharides) in cell walls (from low boron) creates thinner & shorter root nodes.
Low boron sustains the natural level of auxin hormone, but it (auxin) just stays where made & this by altering the auxin ratio to cytokinin hormone leads to less root development; &, for that matter, less absorption of phosphorus (H2PO4-). The downstream reduction of cytokinin ratio means + low boron induced reduction of root cytokinin output leads to less cell division/mitosis/nuclear RNA & less root elongation. The result is a bushy plant (lots of lateral buds) but this is a consequence of reduced auxin transport (low boron stalls auxin movement & limits apical dominance auxin movement normally exhibits).
Vegetative (leafy crops) growth under low boron can not be extrapolated to flowering conditions (since leaves are not trying to undergo morpho-genesis & ~67% of boron in leaves is just stabilizing calcium in pectin of cell walls) the aberrant stem (meri-stem) cells at axis of floral transition site lose their cell wall integrity. The phase in of cell vacuolation off the stem is reduced, defects in inflorescence occur (young inflorescence are normall ~65-87% cross linked pectin with increased dividing cells), pectin wall defects increase, cell integrity is less & barren inflorescence patches occur.
Elevated boron produces firmer fruit; it helps more potassium get pulled into the sector (the reduction of leaf potassium gets leaves to do less physiological processes. This boron let’s 20-40% of potassium move over at fruiting with leaf levels of potassium only going down to ~3% potassium (from usual 4.5% potassium in leaves); whereas low boron draws leaf potassium down to ~2%.
Earlier (above) I mentioned how 1,000ppm CO2 was not optimal for edible peppers & one of the criteria was that (at 1,000ppm CO2) it resulted in a lot of aberrant shaped peppers (not very saleable). The more commercially appropriate level was 600+ ppm CO2 & this was better than current ambient level CO2 for pepper production.
Dog needed taking out for walk; shall resume. Unlike greenhouse growers field levels of boron can vary at start of season & with different soils be lower.
~70% of leaf cell division happens after the lamina open & ~ 4% of leaf expansion has happened (bonzais leaves have less numbers of cells & normal sized leaf cells). As leaf gets 12-50% expanded (hormone gibberellin synthesized in young leaf boosts expansion) it won’t draw on root carbohydrates; best CO2 derived carbon (water & minerals) assimilation in leaf in many plants’ leaves occurs when leaf is 3 weeks along (peak days approximately 22-24 day old).
Once the leaves start making sugar (sucrose) the hormone auxin can synergistically use that for forming “tracheids” phloem/xylem; the ratio of xylem to sieve cells depends in turn on the % of sucrose in use. Higher CO2 leaf made carbo-hydrates results in a dynamic with auxin that creates more lignin & as the % sugar goes up this auxin hormone interaction creates both longer growing parts above ground + more dry weight.
Some variation of plant responses to elevated CO2 is related to the way carbo-hydrate levels interact with cytokinin hormone; cytokinin up-regulates the enzymes that increase starch metabolism, which leads to less oxygen O2 uptake into cells. Different plants regulate their cytokinin hormone balance by the same enzyme (cytokinin oxidase) in opposite directions (thus natural cytokinin hormone might be increased or decreased).
Cytokinin hormone level is important to get the plant hormone abscisic acid (ABA) tied up for lowering the ABA level; otherwise the NO3- nitrogen processing enzyme (nitrate reductase, whose messenger RNA transcription gets increased by cytokinin) level is held down. Young leaves have higher natural ABA levels (than older leaves) & ABA has a temperature response (in addition to soil moisture response); this is part of why some temperate crops introduced into tropical fields do poorly despite abundant nitrogen fertilization (I have elsewhere detailed how elevated CO2 causes poor NO3- nitrogen assimilation).
Greenhouses control temperature & this affects cytokinin levels; as temperature goes up in the field
more cytokinin is needed to get the same cytokinin related effects downstream in the plant. Commentators repeatedly point out that high CO2 close leaf stomata (pores) & less water moves out of the leaf; actually it is this water coming out of the stomata that cools (evapo-transpiration) the immediate air at leaf surfaces out in the field.
A differdnt geno-type of the same plant can make a difference in it’s cytokinin hormone response to temperature; the same kind of plant’s growth rate can go down when exposed to cooler &/or higher than it’s optimal temperature range. Balancing the level of cytokinin is via an enzyme (cytokinin oxidase) & different kinds of plants respond differently (feedback loops vary); when cytokinin levels go up some make more of that enzyme (cytokinin decreases) & other making more of that enzyme increase their natural cytokinin. By referencing CO2 levels from millions of years ago as proof plants thrive on1,000 ppm CO2 seems (to me) overlooking adaptations plants have made; & seem to have made under human agricultural selection of plant landraces.
WOW.
Now I know why we added boron to our citrus nutritional sprays.
As others have pointed out, the calculations are badly in error. Yet another error is the statement “The obvious solution would be to dump it into the ocean, where as Calcium Hydroxide it could counter any ocean acidification caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, and would hopefully not promote rapid re-absorption of the released CO2.”
The chemical reaction that counters acidification is the same as the reaction that promotes rapid adsorption of the CO2. So you can not have one without the other.
We are engaged in rather modest, unintended geoengineering.
Just because the panic over that is overblown does not mean that much more massive, intentional geoengineering is a good idea.
We are returning the earth to a state closer to what was natural for 100’s of millions of years.
How is that an experiment?
“How is that an experiment?”
Unprecedented rate of change.
Eric Worrall
I have a possible way to test your theory outside of a “green house”
Pick a busy street with plenty of car, truck and bus traffic. Plant trees, ferns and such along its side walks.
Pick an out of the way place with no traffic. plant the same. Other then one being on a busy street all other factors should be as close to the same as possible.
monitor growth, and CO2 levels in each location.
Oh and get a gov grant, must not forget the grant.
Anyone from New England has seen the effects of sweet little trees planted alongside side walks after twenty to thirty years.
michael
been done.. http://sealevel.info/ScientificAmerican_1920-11-27_CO2_fertilization.html
oops. this study was done in 1920.. some young folk may feel this is ‘obsolete’ (based on feedback I’ve had elsewhere;)
Scientific American sure has gone downhill in the last 100 years.
Karl,
Thanks.
seems we are always reinventing the wheel.
1920 ………………..
michael
Very funny article, Eric. Thanks. Let’s hope it causes a few alarmists to spill their coffee. 🙂
Of course it’s not necessary to treat the entire atmosphere with CO2 to improve agricultural productivity, at least for some high-value plants. As vertical farming increases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming
food plants can be exposed to optimal levels of CO2 (and light, nutrients, etc.) with far lower production of the gas.
The sun is evaporating water just as fast as it can. The resulting water vapour drifts up, up and away until it condenses high in the atmosphere and releases heat, much of which escapes to space. H2O as a “greenhouse gas” has a built in governor.
Quite visible in the equatorial daily weather patterns.
The calculations above are way off, as they ignore the partitioning of CO2 into the oceans at a rate of 50 to 1. You would have to burn 50 times the amount calculated as the oceans would fight increased atmospheric CO2. The cost would be in excess of $5 trillion, particularly as plants in and out of the water would be gladly feeding on the higher CO2.
And, by the way, ocean acidification is not happening because carbonic acid is a weak acid and, as it is part of unexpended equilibrium from CO2 to calcium carbonate, any protons (H+) released by carbonic acid are meaningless as an equilibrium cannot affect itself.
Photosynthesis is an alkalizing process, such that in bays and estuaries the pH can rise from around 8 to above 10 on a sunny day. Clearly, this does not harm these organisms.
Furthermore, metabolic processes in living corals produce acidic waste products such that waters passing through coral reefs come out the other side acidified. However, this dilutes out quickly and the complex buffer system we call seawater, resists great changes in pH.
As the oceans’ pH has been within normal ranges of variation for the last 50 years while atmospheric CO2 has risen, it is clear that ocean acidification is not a problem. Even if it was happening, it is clear that all of the marine species we have today survived during times of much higher and much healthier atmospheric CO2. They have what is called physiology that can control their internal pH. Human blood pH must stay within 0.1 pH unit of 7.4 or we go into a coma and die. However, we can literally drink vinegar with a pH of 3 and are fine.
In addition, referring back to the extended equilibrium from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate to calcium carbonate, when you add more CO2 you get more calcium carbonate deposition. The warm oceans (calcium carbonate is less soluble in warm water than cold, an exception to the normal rule for salts) are also effectively saturated solutions of calcium carbonate, with lots of extra calcium as well, so, when CO2 rises, calcium carbonate precipitates, which is exactly why coral reefs tends to concrete shells together over time, building up the base.
A nice summary about [no] acidification. Thanks!
Limestone is currently (previously?) added to coal-fired power boiler furnaces. Just build, or reopen, coal-fired power plants!
> The atmosphere, at 400ppm of CO2, contains 400ppm x 2.3Gt / ppm = 920Gt of CO2.
> To raise CO2 to 1000ppm, we need another 600ppm * 2.3Gt / ppm = 1380Gt of CO2.
You forgot absorption into the oceans.
But you didn’t take into account that there have been a slew of submarine volcanoes discovered recently and large amounts of volcanic gasses, a significant portion of those is CO2.
giant biodomes! I know greenies like giant biodomes.. Have them fund a few, don’t tell them they’ll be coal powered (don’t worry, they won’t ask.. they never ask for details) we make them big enough then we can move in and farm our Frankenplants in peace – they may remain out in the natural world with Gaia looking after them and helpfully vaccinating them the natural way. With crystals.. we’ll need to give them crystals.. and maybe hummus
This is a very entertaining speculation, but the last thing we need is another vast technocratic Plan. Besides, CO2 is increasing quite nicely already and, without the greens suppressing it, and China chugging along, would arrive at 1000ppm in due course.
Yeah, but this is a DIFFERENT vast technocratic plan!
Regarding idea of 1000 ppm of CO2 as a natural background, please take into account:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-comfort-level-d_1024.html
http://www.e-inst.com/carbon-dioxide/legislation
The effects of CO2 on adults at good health can be summarized to:
normal outdoor level: 350 – 450 ppm
acceptable levels: < 600 ppm
complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 – 1000 ppm
ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
general drowsiness: 1000 – 2500 ppm
adverse health effects may be expected: 2500 – 5000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 – 10000 ppm
maximum allowed concentration within a 15 minute working period: 30000 ppm
The levels above are quite normal and maximum levels may occasionally happen from time to time. In general – ventilation rates should keep carbon dioxide concentrations below 1000 ppm to create indoor air quality conditions acceptable to most individuals.
I suspect some of those numbers are too low. For starters submariners, people trusted to have their finger on then nuclear button, live for months at a time, with substantially elevated CO2 levels, well above 1000ppm.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
In addition, people in respiratory arrest can be revived with mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, breathing air into their lungs at around 50,000ppm CO2. I’m not suggesting a sustained 50,000ppm would be a good thing, but it seems difficult to reconcile harmful effects from levels as low as 1000ppm, with the ability to revive people whose respiratory system is compromised with air which contains 50,000ppm CO2.
that’s a little different to any numbers I’ve seen in Australia too – http://hsis.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/HazardousSubstance/Details?hazardousSubstanceID=4370 suggests 5000ppm (0.5%) is acceptable indefinitely – with a short term exposure limit set at 30,000 ppm (3%)
It’s disgraceful that so many would mock the very serious problem of CO2 emissions like this.
And to do so with such a cavalier disrespect for the many thoughtful people who have committed so much of their human existence to facing the challenge of climate change is just plain mean.
The laughing ridicule aimed at the caring and concerned side of the climate debate feeds the justified demand that government intervention establish harsh consequences for the horrible people who impede the necessary steps to address climate change.
You’re all in very big trouble.
In this troubled era those responsible for the fate of the planet and it’s people will need to become supreme judges to deal with the ringleaders in this treason, and to cauterise down to the raw flesh the ulcers of this poisoning of the wells in our human survival. Let the world know that its existence—which depends on its order and security—cannot be threatened with impunity by anyone! And let it be known for all time to come that if anyone raises his hand to strike the necessary world governance, then discipline is his lot.
That is all.
Tee time.
Good day 🙂
You may want to consider notifying the OSU Bias Response Team. Note that the Bias Response Protocol (although not formally completed) states that the Protocal may be initiated for even for off campus incidents that adversely impact the OSU community.
But be careful and don’t mention the golfing. Letting people know that you have the surplus time and financial resources (that they don’t have) for such a grand en devour is more than just being plain old rude, it is a great big fat elitist micro aggression.
[No offense intended by “plain old”, or “great big fat”]
[No offense intended by suggesting that “you may want to consider”, when you are obviously intelligent enough to have considered it already, all by yourself]
WOW!
Nice rant.
I copied it to a word file, printed, posted in my office and now I will try to memorize it.
You don’t mind do you.
[snip -off topic -policy .mod]
Steve Oregon, I sure hope you forgot the “/sarc” tag.
What you said is funny if you did forget. Sad if you didn’t.
The obvious solution would be to dump it into the ocean, where as Calcium Hydroxide it could counter any ocean acidification caused by the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels….
===
uh no
It will locally supersaturate…..taking the calcium carbonate (buffer) with it…result, less buffer
It is unlikely that we are teetering on the brink of a new ice age.
Because orbital eccentricity is low at present, there will not be a strong precessional (Milankovitch) Great Winter to force ice sheet growth, for some considerable time.
The insolation forcing at 65oN that forced the last ice age was 441 wm2, 116 ky ago.
This is quite low.
The Holocene maximum was 529 wm2, 11 ky ago
Our present insolation has gone down to 480 wm2, which is why it is cooler now than at the Holocene maximum. However, NH insolation will be going up from now on, not down. So we are at the start of a very weak Great Summer warming period, and will not experience an ice age now.
The next possibilities for an ice age are:
53 ky hence, with 470 wm2
96 ky hence, with 474 wm2
170 ky hence, with 455 wm2
(Data Laskar 2004.)
But if the albedo theory for the modulation of ice ages is correct, then we can just spray the growing ice sheets with soot and avert the next ice age. It will be cheaper than producing Co2, and more effective if Co2 is actually a very weak warming agent.
Ralph