BC Climate Action Enthusiast Accidentally Demonstrates the Need for Reliable Energy

Greenhouse Experiment

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon – A British Columbia climate enthusiast had to abort his attempt to live off oxygen produced by plants in a sealed plastic container, when cloudy weather prevented sufficient photosynthesis to replenish his air.

Why this B.C. man sealed himself in an airtight plastic cube for 14 hours

YouTuber Kurtis Baute says he wanted to teach people the ‘base science concepts surrounding climate change’

CBC Radio · October 26

Spending 14 hours inside an airtight plastic cube with rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels left Kurtis Baute feeling a little loopy.

“It feels physically like the air is a little bit thicker, and that’s partly because it is more massive and also because it’s building up inside your body,” the B.C. scientist and YouTuber told As It Happens guest host Megan Williams.

“And it also slows your mind down. So I felt a little bit out of it and it was kind of harder to focus and harder to do higher-order decision making. It was kind of wild to feel that happen.”

He live-tweeted the experience under the hashtag #KurtisInAJar.

“I think that people really don’t understand climate change because they don’t even understand what the air is made of. And you know what? It’s not their fault,” Baute said.

He originally planned to stay in the cube for three days, banking on his plants to absorb most of the CO2 and keep him safe.

But cloudy weather meant the plants couldn’t do their job, and he had to emerge early.

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-edition-1.4878032/why-this-b-c-man-sealed-himself-in-an-airtight-plastic-cube-for-14-hours-1.4878037

If only Baute had set up some reliable, fossil fuel powered grow lights to his sealed plastic cube, his plants might have received the nourishing light they needed to regenerate his air, allowing him to successfully complete his three day experiment.

167 thoughts on “BC Climate Action Enthusiast Accidentally Demonstrates the Need for Reliable Energy

      • He should have spent his time in the cube reading what the friggin IPCC report actually said, instead of making shit up.

        “The messed up thing about my experiment is that some of my abort values (e.g., If CO2 is too high I escape) are just everyday experiences for many people on this planet,”

        What ? Well I doubt that he is referring to submariners , so it’s pretty sure he is confounding REAL pollution in Beijing or New Delhi, with non toxic CO2.

        rising carbon dioxide levels left Kurtis Baute feeling a little loopy.

        Setting aside the fact he was clearly “a little loopy” before he went in, it was not the augmented CO2 that was ( allegedly ) affecting his brain function, it was the lack of oxygen. Quite clearly had not the slightest idea of what he was doing , nor had he bothered to do any research to find out.

        Pretty typical of these climate warriors.

        • Looked on one of his U-tube vids, it seems most of his 200 plants were little more than seedlings by 25 September.

          Never mind, I’m sure it earned him a few Patreon donations for pay for his next bag of pot.

        • Found one of his vids where he came out. He said CO2 got to 10,000 ppm ( 1% ) after 14h so he bailed out. Probably a wise move.

          Of course none of this has anything to do with climate ( changing or not ) except for the chance to say CO2 all the time. Value signalling, not raising awareness of the basic science of climate.

          • basic maths, basic biology
            volume of normal male lungs 6 litres, normal residual volume 1 litre, normal breathing rate 6 per minute (when awake)
            Blood CO2 triggers the requirement to breath, increased CO2 level causes increased O2 uptake and relaxes muscles and brain.
            air in lungs mixes very quickly and an be considered as homogeneus , air breathed in mixes with the (heavily CO2 loaded) 20% residual vol.
            we breath in air at 20.8% O2 and breath out at approx 16% O2 (that 5% swing is what gives us 100% O2 saturation in the blood, hence no more is absorbed, hence remainder is exhaled)
            air in lungs is at an elevated CO2 level relative to surroundings and is measured at between 2.7 and 7.5% (average 6%) in real speak thats 27,000 to 75,000 ppm so 10,000 ppm is no big deal when the lungs never see less that approx 30,000ppm !

            foonote : Lhaza, is at 3,658m ASL and has a lower atmospheric pressure where O2 levels equates to around 14% pvp

          • 10000 ppm. Why didn’t his enclosure run away heat and explode (that would have been an epic result). I remember laughing at a myth busters proving c02 warming using close to 100% c02 and ridiculous stage lighting to barely budge the thermometer

          • Let’s see, 10,000 ppm is how many doublings of 410? About 4.5? So at an ECS of 4.5C, it must have been about 40-50C in his biosphere, eh? No wonder he had to bail out!

            (/sarc, duh)

          • 1% Carbon Dioxide. And he didn’t die!
            Didn’t measure Oxygen levels. The information is a little futzy, because too many times the O2 levels aren’t checked, but CO2 levels of even 3% are survivable.

        • He should have spent his time in the cube reading what the friggin IPCC report actually said, instead of making shit up….

          The IPCC says CO2 is a dangerous gas….
          …and the vast majority of countries can increase their emissions

          and we have to pay them to do it

        • Personally, I’d love to know the CO2 levels in places like downtown Beijing or Mexico City. I’ve always found it odd that one measurement of CO2 is taken at Mauna Loa’s peak, and that stands for the CO2 level for the entire planet. If we need thousands of temperature measurements to come up with a global temperature anomaly, why is one measurement of CO2 sufficient for global CO2?

          Is it beyond belief that a 1000-square kilometer blanket of CO2 covering the area over and around Beijing might increase the average temperatures in the city and surrounding area? When was the study done that shows the pristine air nearly 4170 meters above the central Pacific is a good CO2 stand-in for the entire planet? If anything, it’s a minimum value for the thing.

          Likewise, where are the studies that show that using weighted averages across hundreds of kilometers of the Arctic where there are no direct temperature measurements provides values good enough to use as temperatures in the global temperature anomaly calculation? Seems to me that using an area with good coverage of temperature stations would be a good place to test these extrapolation techniques, which REGARDLESS of quality, such data should NEVER be used in calculations of this kind.

          • There are many locations where regular CO2 concentrations are measured now – Mauna Loa was the first such location where systematic measurements were taken by Keeling, starting in 1958.

            “145 sites in 45 countries”

            Unfortunately we have poor CO2 data before 1958, and the collection of surface CO2 data from Ernst Beck has been generally dismissed as deeply flawed.

            Although Beck’s collected data may be flawed, primarily due to surface biosphere contamination, I regard the outright dismissal of his work as mistaken – there may be something to be learned there, something that is lost to us until now.

            My observation published in 2008 (in icecap.us) that atmospheric CO2 trends lag atmospheric temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record has generally been ignored because it does not fit the popular narrative (with the exception of Humlum et al 2013). There is a general reluctance to examine the outcome of the global warming narrative, that the future is causing the past. 🙂

            The contention that “We KNOW that CO2 drives temperature, therefore we just won’t talk about MacRae’s observation” or “We KNOW that CO2 drives temperature, therefore it MUST BE a feedback effect” are just not credible, imo.

            If we were true scientists, we would be committed to examining and resolving this paradox.

            “My “best guess” is here:

            Regards, Allan

          • James A. Schrumpf – October 27, 2018 at 5:57 am

            I’ve always found it odd that one measurement of CO2 is taken at Mauna Loa’s peak, and that stands for the CO2 level for the entire planet. ……………… If we need thousands of temperature measurements to come up with a global temperature anomaly, why is one measurement of CO2 sufficient for global CO2?

            James A., ……. your miseducation, or lack thereof, in/of the natural sciences is the root cause of your above confusion and questioning.

            First of all, ….. 98% of the time, money and energy expended on determining “a global temperature anomaly” (or average global temperatures) has resulted in little more than an act of futility, at best. References to “average global temperature” calculations, …. is akin to, ….. references to past years baseball game scores ….. or past years newspaper stories.

            And secondly, the only two places on earth where fairly accurate atmospheric CO2 ppm measurements can be easily measured and recorded is at the observatory atop Mauna Loa, Hawaii and in the pristine air of Antarctica. Most every other available/accessible place on earth is subject to the constantly changing ppm quantities of atmospheric H2O vapor.

            When the H2O vapor ppm increases, ….. the CO2 ppm decreases, ….. and vice-versa.

          • ALLAN MACRAE – October 27, 2018 at 7:31 am

            My observation published in 2008 (in icecap.us) that atmospheric CO2 trends lag atmospheric temperature trends by ~9 months in the modern data record

            Allan M, ….. your claim of a “9 month lag time” has to be caused by a natural process …… and I know of nothing in the natural world that has a “9 month cycle time” other than the APPROXIMATE gestation period of females.

            And if I scrutinize the Keeling Curve Graph and/or the complete Mauna Loa Record, which define 60 continuous years of daily/weekly/monthly atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities, ….. I have yet to see, notice or detect any “signature” that supports or confirms you above claim of a “9 month cycle (lag) time”.

            Now there is an obvious and recognizable 6 month or “seasonal” lag time where the increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm ……. lags behind ….. the seasonal increases/decreases in the temperature of the ocean’s surface water, …… with the ocean water in the Southern Hemisphere being the “primary” driver.

            The 6 month or seasonal increases/decreases in atmospheric CO2 ppm has been pretty much “steady & consistent” for the past 60 years as defined by this Keeling Curve Graph , ….. with the timing of the Spring and Fall equinoxes driving the “seasonal variation” of Northern Hemisphere measured CO2 as denoted in the upper left corner of the cited KC graph.

            Atmospheric CO2 increases as the southern ocean water warms up, and the CO2 decreases as the southern ocean water cools down. Henry’s Law in action.

          • James,

            Fortunately, CO2 is readily mixed all over the world: the difference between near the North Pole (Barrow, Alaska) and the South Pole and in between stations, including Mauna Loa, is less than 2% of full scale, even including the seasonal amplitude (mainly in the NH) and the lag of the SH after the NH increases.
            See for a lot of places where CO2 is measured and compare the data found at:

            The only part of the atmosphere where CO2 can’t be measured as “background” is in the first few hundred meters over land, as there are too many local sources (traffic, industry, heating,…) and sinks (vegetation), which may change the CO2 level with hundreds of ppmv within an hour.

            Measuring CO2 over Beijing does only show momentary local levels and its effect on local temperature is simply not measurable: even if there was 1000 ppmv in the first 1,000 meters above Beijing, the theoretical effect is less than 0.1ºC. The urban heat island effect from concrete and asphalt is many times more important…

          • Cogar – read Humlum et al 2013. You make a few points that may be marginally relevant, but you are not up to speed – not even close.

            Humlum et al 2013 expanded on my 2008 conclusions as follows:
            1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
            2– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
            3– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.”

          • ALLAN MACRAE – October 27, 2018 at 2:47 pm

            Humlum et al 2013 expanded on my 2008 conclusions as follows:
            1– Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ….. etc,

            Allan M, the persons you speak of that “may be marginally relevant, but not up to speed – not even closeis yet to be scientifically proven/accepted, …… and I am pretty damn sure it is not going to be me.

            First of all, Allan M, …. all three of your noted “Highlights” are little more than associations and/or correlations of CO2 ppm variations with changes in the highly questionable n’ guesstimated ….. #1 (AVERAGE) changes in global sea surface temperature, ….. #2 (AVERAGE) changes in global air surface temperature ….. and #3 (AVERAGE) changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

            “DUH”, calculated “averages” are worth less than last months newspaper “headlines” and thus the calculated “changes” in said averages are worth even less.

            Allan M, quit searching for “ghostly” explanations to prove the fictional beliefs concerning the “everchanging” atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities and concentrate on the ACTUAL CAUSES that are driving said “changes” as defined by the 60 year Mauna Loa Record and/or the Keeling Curve Graph.

            And don’t respond by telling me it is a “biological” driver …. because that is a proven scientific IMPOSSIBILITY, ……. regardless of whether you or the other per se “experts” remain oblivious to said scientific FACTS.

            Cheers, Sam C, …… AB, Biological and Physical Science, ….. GSC 63’

          • Cogar – you statements are so vague and unscientific that no reply is necessary. You have not done the work needed to present a coherent response.

            “By having a vague theory, it’s possible to get either result.” – Richard Feynman

            “A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper.

            This figure is the proof that CO2 trends lag temperature trends, and the correlation is remarkable, and certainly is NOT specious:


            The situation is complicated – I think I have it sorted, but one must recognize that the science is RARELY fully settled.

          • ALLAN MACRAE – October 28, 2018 at 9:04 am

            Cogar – you statements are so vague and unscientific that no reply is necessary. You have not done the work needed to present a coherent response.

            Allan M, why didn‘t you just post what you were thinking instead of MIMICKING your above silly arsed response. The above comment is surely what you constantly heard your teachers/instructors telling the intelligent, original thinking students when they questioned the “politically correct” pseudo-facts that students are being forced to learn.

            Allan, your above “comment” is translated to mean …… “I ain’t listening to or talking to that Sam C fellow anymore because he is more intelligent and educated than I am and I can’t prove him wrong nor prove what I have been claiming is scientific fact.

            ALLAN MACRAE

            This figure is the proof that CO2 trends lag temperature trends,

            Allen, there is absolutely nothing highly questionable about the FACT that “CO2 trends lag temperature trends”, ……. but what is highly questionable is the “claimed” CO2 source VERSES the “claimed” temperature source, …… as well as your claimed “11–12 months” lag time, your “9.5–10 months” lag time and your “about 9 months” lag time.

            ALLAN MACRAE

            The situation is complicated – I think I have it sorted,

            “NO”, Allen, the CO2-temperature situation is not complicated …… except for those persons who have a “vested interest” in not publicly stating so and those persons who don’t have a clue what they are looking at or for.

            The Keeling Curve Graph disproves all of the CAGW “junk science” rhetoric.

        • You beat me to it, and I should know, because I have severe COPD, and get that way if I don’t take my puffer.

      • In the 14 hours in a cube, with really nothing to do, what kind of “higher order decision making” was he having trouble with?

        I think the decision making problems started before he got into the cube.

    • Ignorant for sure. Given how high the CO2 must have been to produce the symptoms he experienced, I would guess that the experiment would have failed even if the sun had shone brightly.

      What happens if you’re in a sealed, windowed enclosure and the sun shines brightly all day? That happens to children and dogs left in cars with the windows up.

      His excuse for ending the experiment just disguises the apparent fact that he didn’t know what he was doing.

      BTW, do you know why greenhouse growers don’t die of hypothermia? They open windows and turn on fans.

      • Yes, I don’t think he did any calculations about the surface area of foliage he had and how much CO2 they were capable of consuming. Judging by the photo and his antics, I doubt the symptoms had anything to do with CO2. He was pretty obviously “a little loopy” before he went in.

        In order for Earth to avoid cataclysmic climate change within the next few decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says carbon dioxide pollution levels would have to drop by about half by 2030 and then be near zero by 2050.

        It’s a shame he did not spend the 14h reading the IPCC report instead of making shit up. The IPCC did not state that 1.5 degC above pre-industrial temps would lead to “cataclysmic climate change”.

        • Greg

          If CO2 levels dropped to zero by 2050 I suspect we would all be dead. The guy can’t even articulate himself better than a five year old.

          This is a contemporary scientist?

          • @ VE,
            I suspect that before it reaches 150 ppm/v, life on earth would become a lot less secure. Plants start showing levels of decreased growth and weakness well before 150. Talk about an extinction level event.

          • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/15/globalization-could-undermine-efforts-to-reduce-co2-emissions/#comment-2355921


            The global cooling period from ~1940 to 1975 (during a time of increasing atmospheric CO2) demonstrates that climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero – so close to zero as to be insignificant.

            This and other evidence strongly supports the conclusion that there is NO global warming crisis, except in the fevered minds of warmist propagandists.

            There is overwhelming evidence that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans is not dangerously high – it is dangerously low, too low for the continued survival of life on Earth.

            ON CO2 STARVATION

            I have written about the vital issue of “CO2 starvation” since 2009 or earlier, and others including Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, have also written on this subject:


            1. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high; in fact, it is dangerously low for the survival of terrestrial carbon-based life on Earth. Most plants evolved with up to 4000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, or about 10 times current CO2 concentrations.

            2. In one of the next global Ice Ages, atmospheric CO2 will approach about 150ppm, a concentration at which terrestrial photosynthesis will slow and cease – and that will be the extinction event for much or all of the terrestrial carbon-based life on this planet.

            3. More atmospheric CO2 is highly beneficial to all carbon-based life on Earth. Therefore, CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.

            4. As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on this planet, I feel the duty to advocate on our behalf. I should point out that I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms. They might be very nice, but I do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. 🙂


            Atmospheric CO2 is inexorably declining as it is being sequestered in carbonate rocks. In the last Continental Last Ice Age, atmospheric CO2 declined to about 180 ppm – in the next Ice Age it could drop lower, even closer to the extinction point of C3 plants at about 150-160 ppm. ”

            Virtually ALL food plants use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, so a drop of atmospheric CO2 to 150-160 ppm will be an extinction event for ~all advanced terrestrial life on Earth.

            A few food plants (less than 1%) use the C4 photosynthetic pathway, including corn and sugar cane – but I doubt terrestrial life could survive for long on Sugar Frosted Flakes – notwithstanding the persistent rumour that “They’re Great!”

            There are also CAM photosynthetic pathway plants, so we can look forward to having pineapple with our Sugar Frosted Flakes.

            Regards, Allan

        • “In order for Earth to avoid cataclysmic climate change within the next few decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says carbon dioxide pollution levels would have to drop by about half by 2030 and then be near zero by 2050.”

          If that were remotely true why would 200 counties all agree, as proposed by the Paris climate accord, that China and India, would gets a pass on reducing emissions for 12 years?
          I thought this was a serious problem that required imminent action?
          That is the new definition of Insanity!

      • “BTW, do you know why greenhouse growers don’t die of hypothermia? They open windows and turn on fans.”

        I think you are confusing hyperthermia and hypothermia. Hypo = greek “low, under”, hyper = greek “high, over”.

      • And you need to take into account that plants respire at night,taking in oxygen and releasing CO2. Not as much CO2 as they take in during the day, but you will need many more plants than you originally thought of to have a surplus of oxygen.

    • Yup. Oct/Nov average rainy day: 19 out of 30. Sunrise, late & sunset, early.

      Not the right time if year! Plants slow down in the fall!

      Would have failed anyway. Not enough GROWING plants: O2 is a “waste” product of growing plants. You want hyper-growth.

  1. Showing yet again that CO2 is life. With a steady supply of photons to break water molecules into O and H ions (protons in the latter case).

  2. roflmao.

    The Klimate Klown doesn’t know much biology, does he

    Plants take in CO2 during the day if its sunny , but expel some of it at night !

    And he needed many more plants to have the required effect.

    • Correct!
      A medium sized potted plant produces around 0.3 grams of oxygen per day, and a person needs at least 840 grams of oxygen per day!
      So unless he had several thousand plants in there…he was gonna be a goner.
      What an idiot.
      And he thinks he is a scientist?
      It takes like 15 seconds to look up such things.

      • It takes nearly 2500 square feet of large forest trees to make enough oxygen for a person to survive.
        And they may not make it regularly enough and steadily enough to allow a person to live, even with sufficient plants or trees to make it possible in theory.

        • He survived, so he doesn’t qualify for the award, but I agree that he should at least be honorably mentioned as an “also ran”.

  3. If it’s designed to kill you, it’s not a Biodome.
    Someone get this message to him quickly, please!

  4. So he went well and beyond any realistic atmospheric CO2 levels…how does that teach people the ‘base science concepts surrounding climate change?’

    …“I think that people really don’t understand climate change because they don’t even understand what the air is made of. And you know what? It’s not their fault,” Baute said…

    Yes, it is their fault. It is a basic science concept taught in every school in the US, for example. It is readily accessible information on the internet and doesn’t require any difficult math, stats, physics, or chemistry.

    • It’s true that most people do not realise what a tiny amount of CO2 there actually is, before or after burning fossil fuels.

      If I try to explain to anyone, I have to start by explaining what ppm means. The level is so low, the units used are thousands of times smaller than anything they are familiar with.

        • 999,999 cm of empty space in that packaging case that is just waiting for 999,999 more 1 cm sugar cubes. Count to 1 million, see how long it takes you. I doubt you’ll even have the patience to count that high. Not such a small number now, is it?

        • I’ve read where earths atmosphere contains anywhere from 1% to 4% water vapor, so lets call it 2% for argument sake. 2% = 20,000ppm.
          Then lets take 400 sugar cubes (400 ppm) into your 1m packing case, add 20,000 cc of water to the same packing case. Can you find those sugar cubes? Yes, you could taste them, but the visual is gone. The rest isn’t empty space either. If you filled the remaining 970,000 cc with examples of the remaining ingredients, would you be able to taste the diluted sugar at all?
          I agree, lets put IT ALL into perspective.

          • check your math. 1 meter cube is 100 cm x 100 cm x 100 cm = 1,000,000 cm3 therefore a single cm3 is one ppm

        • Roger, it is always very comical when someone who is trying demonstrate they are real smart by disparaging someone else, turns out to instead make themselves look like a frickin’ dufus.
          You have proved that you do not know the metric system and have therefore almost surely never had any science training, you have proved you do not know how to do simple multiplication in your head, you have proved you do not commonly check on easily verifiable facts before you post them publicly and thus have zero credibility, and you have proved you do not have a lick of common sense, or any intuitive sense of proportions or of large numbers.
          Which was what Greg was pointing out!
          Now place a grain of sand in a bathtub and tell us if it looks like it is taking up a lot of the room in there?

        • Roger, my apology and mea culpa…I was wrong, you are right.
          I cm is one millionth of a cubic meter.

  5. What level of CO2 did he reach ? And what was the O2 level ?
    Bet low O2 was more of a problem ….. would that make him a ” no air head ” ?

    • I was looking for the first one to recognize this. High CO2 levels are tolerable. Low O2 levels are not. Most of his suffering was due to a low oxygen level. You can replace a lot of N2 in the air with CO2 and both plants and animals will thrive. Replace O2 with CO2 and you have problems.

      • High CO2 levels are “tolerable”…they also apparently create “fear” in normally fearless subjects by tricking the brain into thinking the body is suffocating…so said conversation on the radio yesterday…

      • If he was suffering discomfort it was probably due to high CO2, not low O2. The breathing reflex is keyed to CO2 level, not O2 level. That is why oxygen starvation due to e. g. oxygen mask failure is so insidious, you don’t notice anything much, you just “fall asleep”.

        High CO2 level on the other hand stimulates the breathing reflex, even when there is plenty of oxygen. That is actually one of the reasons the “kiss of life” works (exhaled air contains about 50,000 ppm CO2 + 160,000 ppm O2). If he was feling “loopy”it was probably because he was hyperventilating.

        • Why do you think he was not short on oxygen?
          The volume of air he was enclosed within does not have nearly enough O2 for a person to live for 14 hours.

        • Similarly, noble gasses like helium or argon displace both O2 and CO2 but don’t cause a gasping or coughing reflex like noxious gasses will. You’re suffocating and don’t know it, right up to the instant you black out.

    • I was looking for the first one to recognize this. High CO2 levels are tolerable. Low O2 levels are not. Most of his suffering was due to a low oxygen level. You can replace a lot of N2 in the air with CO2 and both plants and animals will thrive. Replace O2 with CO2 and you have problems.

      Mods, if this is a duplicate, my apologies. In my first response I used a new email address, and it didn’t appear. I am reposting under my old email to see if that was the problem.

      • Actually not. High CO2 is what causes breathing distress. “The Body in Question”, an old BBC show once did a segment where the host re-breathed air that had the CO2 filtered out. The decrease in O2 caused no distress in the absence of CO2 and the host soon pitched on his face, knocking the camera over. Great television! Anyway this didn’t demonstrate anything new as the effects of CO2 on breathing distress have been known for a long, long time. But the levels that cause distress are way higher than atmospheric levels. And I am sad to say that my fellow British Columbian in this article is a certifiable loon. Apparently anybody can call themself a scientist these days. Perhaps he is a scientist/ financial consultant/ aroma therapist. That is a quite common skill set in BC

        • High CO2 is what alerts our brain that we need to gasp for a breathe, but it is not what will kill you.
          Oxygen concentration below 17.5 % is what does that.

          • Umm, no again.

            You can climb to 750 hPa with 25% less oxygen no problem. It is the CO2 that kills first if you replace some O2 with CO2.

            In an aeroplane, 750 hPa is just normal.

          • Oh, I don’t know about that… I spent months on a submarine with the O2 levels so low lighters wouldn’t light, and cigarettes wouldn’t burn (this was back when they allowed smoking on subs… the pantywaists nowadays don’t allow that). We were on-station, so we couldn’t snorkel or surface, our oxygen generator had broken, and our CO2 scrubber was on the fritz, too. Near the end, we’d nearly depleted our O2 tank pressure, so we slowed the O2 bleed to half of normal so we could complete the mission.

            We burned oxygen candles up forward deck, but they’re pretty much useless when you’ve got 150 men packed into a sub designed for only 110.

            We hit a low of just below 12% O2. Didn’t have a problem with that, but the high CO2 gave everyone short tempers and constant headaches.

            I kind of had an advantage… the O2 bleed was in shaft alley, so any time I had watch (I was Engine Room Supervisor), I’d hang out in shaft alley near the O2 pipe.

            That was the same op where we ran out of food… we started out eating lobster and pizza and lasagna and steak… and ended up drinking bug juice and plastic milk, and eating crackers with powdered mayonnaise. That’s all we had left, except for 3-bean salad, which NO ONE ate, it tasted so bad.

            On top of all that, we were carting a dead guy in the food freezer for most of the op… he’d had a heart attack. And we had one newbie go bonkers from claustrophobia who was strapped down in the torpedo bay and sedated. We threatened to head out to international waters and launch him out a torpedo tube if he didn’t stop screaming his fool head off… we were on station, and he’d have given us away… so the corpsman sedated him and kept him sedated.

            And on top of all that, since we were in a place we weren’t supposed to be, we couldn’t dump trash via the TDU, so we had compacted cans of trash lined up everywhere… the whole sub stunk (more than usual… when the CO2 scrubber is running, the monoethanolamine gets into the air, mixes with the oil mist from the propulsion system bearing vents (they’ve got electrostatic precipitators on them, but they don’t catch all the mist), coats everything, and smells much like dog poop… you’ve got to shower three times and wash your clothes three times when you get back home in order to get that smell out… you come off a long op smelling like crap, with really bad acne from all the oil and amine).

            That was the same op where we got caught in Russian waters off the Kamchatka Peninsula, trying to watch them doing a test launch of a new weapon. The Russkies depth-charged us, so we popped up to periscope depth and radioed them that our gyros had gone out and we were lost. They forced us to surface, then escorted us out to international waters under heavy guns, ending our mission. Even at the surface, our CO was paranoid and refused to ventilate until we were well clear of the Russkies.

            When we finally came off-station and snorkeled in some fresh air, it was the most refreshing air I’d ever breathed.

            Ah, good times.

          • The minimum tolerable O2 partial pressure varies a lot individually, but healthy acclimated individuals can tolerate decreases by about 50 %. The pressure in an aircraft flying at high altitude is kept at 10,000 ft level, since any reasonably healthy person can tolerate this indefinitely. That is the equivalent to about 15% O2 at sea level. Slightly over 10,000 feet is also the lowest altitude where I have ever seen anybody get altitude sickness, but this is most unusual, it is rare to get affected below about 13,000 feet, even without acclimatization.

            Very exceptional individuals can climb Everest without extra oxygen. This is equivalent to about 7 % O2 at sea level.

          • All of those numbers relating to varying pressure are apparently not strictly relatable to
            the figure of 17.5 % which is for standard pressure.
            I said elsewhere this is a number given by NASA, not something I made up.
            But logically, having a lower atmospheric pressure does not mean that the proportion of O2 in the air has changed. The proportion is the same, but the air simply more rarified.
            The physics and physiology of gas transfer in the lungs may have more to do with proportions than with the absolute number of molecules.
            Obviously some people are conditioned to do fine with more rarified air.
            After reading all of these (some no doubt valid and based on experience, and others, maybe not so much) points made, I went and did a brief search for more information, and what I found was a welter of conflicting stuff reported as most people commonly do as factual, and yet evidently not since most of it was contradictory.
            For example, I read one person calling himself some mister science wizardy sounding name saying that at an altitude where the air is less dense, the proportion of oxygen is correspondingly smaller.
            This is obvious nonsense…the proportion of the various molecules does not change much with altitude, except perhaps with water vapor and then only on an average basis.
            One factoid not commonly known or at least not usually stated, is that as one ascends in altitude, the relationship between relative humidity and dew point changes.
            This can be seen in the charts, as the lines are curves and not straight.
            Other evidence is the curvy lines seen in most phase diagrams of common substances, notably water, which has a very complicated phase chart indeed.
            But I think for the purposes of most people at normal ground levels, some rules of thumb are probably at least somewhat true.
            I know what I do when I find out something like this…that there is a lot to know about something I have not given much thought to…I will do a bunch of reading on it before I comment any further, and also make statements that are sure to include uncertainty and such.

          • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
            I am curious…what was the barometric pressure in that submarine you were in?

        • “Perhaps he is a scientist/ financial consultant/ aroma therapist. That is a quite common skill set in BC.”

          Don’t forget the highly prized skill of macramé weaving.

        • High CO2 in the real world leads to more oxygen as seen with the greening of the planet and deserts over the last 30 years.

  6. Sealed in plastic with auxiliary oxygen you too can pull, what…. 6G’s ?
    (Stay till the end, it toys with a P-51).

  7. Maybe now he’s learned that that big yellow ball in the sky just might have something to do with life on Earth?

  8. And this guy is a scientist? He could not envision a scenario where there would be insufficient sun light to meet his oxygen needs or absorb enough CO? I mean he didn’t even last a day. Pretty pathetic.

    • There is no circumstance where a few plants can supply enough O2 for a person to live.
      It is estimated that one acres of large trees can make enough oxygen for about 18 people to live.
      So, 43,560 divided by 18 equals 2420 square feet of healthy mature forest and you might make it.

      • Most of the O2 production on Earth comes from the blanket of photoplankton covering the surface of the oceans, not terrestrial plants.

        Maybe he would have lasted longer with algae tanks. 😮

  9. Maybe he’s learnt why plastic bags have those safety warnings on them.
    It sometimes seems those with the more brains have less common sense or idea of risk.

    James Bull

  10. I suspect he may well have run out of oxygen long before the excess CO2 did him any harm.
    A little room does not have enough O2 to survive for long.
    A person needs about 520 liters of pure oxygen per day, assuming they are not exerting themselves.
    And air is only about 21% of O2.
    On top of that, the minimum concentration of oxygen necessary to sustain a human life is somewhere near 15%.
    So you would die long before all the oxygen in there was used up.
    I think he was suffering from O2 deficiency.

        • The O2 sensors we use at work alarm low at 17% so I’m sure they would ere on the safe side.

          James Bull

          • Ah sorry James, got your point upside down. But anyway, 17% O2 is OK, 5%CO2 is not so. The safe limits depend on situation.

          • 5% CO2 is 50,000 PPM.
            I have not seen anyone asserting that this is a safe level.

            If you take 21% O2 and use that until you get 16% O2 and 5% CO2, you’ll not feel good, but not because it is 16% O2 but because of the CO2. The high partial pressure of CO2 will make the existing O2 less useful.

      • In that case everybody who ever flies long distance is dead. Because the standard pressure altitude in the cabin is 10,000 feet which is equivalent to about 15% oxygen at sea-level pressure. Anybody not having a serious lung or heart condition can take that indefinitely.

        • Actually the standard pressure altitude is not 10K feet inside modern jets at altitude. People with COPD or other issues would have serious issues at 10K. FAA regulations require less than 8K and most jets are less than that (767 is 7K). The 787 is substantially less.

          I fly unpressurized GA aircraft and have to start using supplemental O2 if I get above 10K for any period of time.

        • I am not sure what you mean when you say it is 15%.
          The proportion of O2 molecules in the air being inhaled remains the same 21% or so.

          • Yes, but the partial pressure is only equivalent to 15% at sea level.

            The air at 50,000 feet also contains 21% O2, but you will suffocate all the same because the oxygen pressure is too low.

        • It does not take much looking to find a tremendous amount of conflicting information about oxygen levels and survival.
          But also a lot of sloppy language and usage.
          A lower pressure is not equivalent to a different proportion.
          The vast majority of what is readily turned up by a search is not definitive but is more like the sort of misinformation and speculation that turns up if you search for info on climate change.

  11. Ima wrap myself in plastic to prove AGW so gofundme is his whole schtick. Why didn’t I think of that?

  12. When your O2 sats’ go down (as when one has a bad case of pneumonia), your lips and nail beds turn bluish from normally being pink. Your mental acuity also becomes diminished.

  13. “It feels physically like the air is a little bit thicker, and that’s partly because it is more massive and also because it’s building up inside your body,”

    Erm…proper intelligent scientist speak? But that’s OK, he self-describes as a “whimsical scientist”.

    • Probably the increase in humidity in a sealed chamber would more than counterbalance the tiny amount of CO2 in the air, and so the air would be less dense in such a place, not more dense.
      Humans are insensitive to air density.
      In fact, most people are very hard to convince that hot humid Summer air is actually far less dense than cool dry Winter air.
      Cause it feels more oppressive, people take this to mean the air is “sticky” or “thick”.
      The opposite is true.

  14. “I think that people really don’t understand climate change because they don’t even understand what the air is made of. And you know what? It’s not their fault,” Baute said.”

    And then the media report added…”But cloudy weather meant the plants couldn’t do their job, and he had to emerge early.” Oh, yeah, oh yeah. And I have a bridge I will sell you as well…

    I watched this a few days ago on the national news, and while the media were gushing about his heroic attempts and this connection with global warming and climate change, it had absolutely nothing to do with any reality, except some form of insanity. After 14 hours, his CO2 measuring equipment was displaying 10,000 ppmv. I don’t recall whether he was monitoring O2 levels, but he was suffering from lack of oxygen. Probably because he was in sealed plastic bag..hehehe. Can’t can’t any stoopider than this, both by the idiot and the media for even reporting on it. I guess it is allowed here, cause we supposed to point this out, how stoooopid this really was. I guess the public are hungry for all news about carbon and CO2.

  15. Next the utuber bubble boy will be parading about that we are all gonna get loopy from co2 and die from a lack of oxygen from … you guessed it …. burning fossil fuels! We’ll all be stupid first and then dead! Maybe he’ll show us the way. He’s already got the stupid down pat.

  16. CBC News uses simple people to make silly news. Click bait. Comment bait. Distracting conservatives with a pothead in a greenhouse poised as an activist for climate comprehension is something the genius of Cheech $ Chong could pull off on stage using audience members.

  17. Kurtis Baute was feeling a ‘little loopy’ at the end of his experiment. This was in part due to lack of oxygen but also it was caused by his being very loopy before he went in.

  18. Why didn’t Kurtis Baute think of taking a CO2-crubber into his tent, like true submariners do when they enter their confinement under water. The scrubbers are stuffed with lithium powder that absorbs the dangerous CO2-gas. However, it does not help much, if there is no oxygen there. He seems to have found out the hard way, that air is dominated by the intert and useless gas Nitrogen.
    I think next time he tries this stunt, he should have pressured air with him, like scuba divers do. This is the brave new world of the historically inept generation. The so-called snowflakes…(or, was it zombies…?).

    • Oxygen must be diluted with an inert gas to be breathed safely. That is the use of the 70% nitrogen in the atmosphere.

  19. just found the size of the biodome he used, 3m x 3m (I guess they meant by 3m tall as well)
    3x3x3 = 27 cu m (27,000L) approx.
    5L normal breath allows for 27000/5 = 5400 breaths of air in the given space, breathing very 10 seconds means he will have breathed all the air once in 54000×10/3600 = 15 hours
    so CO2 levels should have increased to nom 25000ppm after 14 hours (excluding any plant effect)
    02 levels will have dropped approx 1%
    not rocket science

  20. Kurtis Baute (indoctrinated at the School of Environmental Sciences – University of Guelph) wrote:
    “…harder to do higher-order decision making”

    You demonstrated your lack of ability to ‘do higher-order decision making’ before you ever stepped foot in your plastic cube, you ignoramus.

    Firstly, had your 200 plants received sufficient sunlight, they still wouldn’t have given off enough oxygen to support your respiration… you’d need 400 to 500 plants, minimum, to do that. Don’t you know how to calculate plant respiration rates?

    Secondly, had your plants received sufficient sunlight, your plastic cube would have heated up to intolerable levels, forcing you to leave due to heat exhaustion. Haven’t you ever heard of the greenhouse effect? No, not your libtarded “Anthurpomoorfik Gorebull Wurmang! DURRRHHH!” definition, the scientific definition. You know… where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a transparent medium and are absorbed by objects behind that transparent medium, thereby heating the objects which re-radiate longer wavelength infrared, but the longer wavelengths of the infrared re-radiation from the heated objects are unable to pass through that transparent medium, and the transparent medium prevents that heat from being convected away, therefore… greenhouse effect.

    Thirdly, you wouldn’t even have made it overnight, even with sufficient sunlight during the day. Or weren’t you aware that plants emit CO2 at night? You’d have suffocated in your sleep… it’s too bad you bailed prematurely, thereby burdening the planet with your unfathomable stupidity for an unknowable but altogether too-long amount of time before you Darwin Award yourself properly next time.

    You’re no scientist, you’re an activist, nothing more. And a not-very-intelligent one, at that. If I were you, I’d go back to the School of Environmental Sciences – University of Guelph and demand my money back… it was clearly money wasted on making you more stupid than when you entered university.

    That’s why they’re called ‘libtards’, folks! Liberals worldwide are mentally deficient, and they demonstrate that fact daily.

    Honestly, you can’t make this sort of stuff up!

    • Its just as well that the sun was obscured. If it was shining he would have claimed that he proved how higher CO2 increases temperature, and some would believe him.

    • If he was in a polyethene biodome the LWIR would mostly have passed through the “transparent medium”, but it would still have gotten pretty warm inside, because the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse depends on inhibiting convection, not radiation.

      That is why you can cool a greenhouse by opening a few roof windows. They have very little effect on LWIR radiation (too small angular area), but a lot on convection.

  21. ‘It feels physically like the air is a little bit thicker, and that’s partly because it is more massive and also because it’s building up inside your body’ – this man is supposedly a scientist?
    Perhaps he should study the English language.

  22. He Is A Hero.
    I’ve said before, we *need* people with a bit of self-confidence to actually do some science and honestly report their findings. From actual experience as a livestock farmer, I’d suggest you learn a lot more about life, the Universe and everything by stepping into a pile of BS than by carefully avoiding it all the time.

    And how many folks here think they’re being clever by taking the pi55 out of him. Again, he could easily be a child of any one of us – it was OUR duty to educate the boy.
    He is not at fault – he is running an experiment in accordance with what he was taught at (primary) school.
    How many times around here do we still hear the idiot notion (from NASA, supposedly the biggest & best scientists, hence= educators) that burning coal & oil makes The Planet= green?

    *That* was a parallel experiment this guy was attempting so come on, why didn’t the CO2 he was breathing out turn the plant into a super-fast growing luxuriant monster-plant?
    That is what the proponents of CO2 induced greenery are saying, – they are implying positive feedback. Hurrah, Utopia here we come.
    And hello there Tree-ring Experts, any comment? Apart from telling me I’m a white right-wing who is an ignorant & stupid paranoid obsessive? Boring boring boring, try telling me something I didn’t already know.

    What he describes does not fit with an experiment I saw involving an ex-Monty Python and a C130 transport plane. He was given a free ride into the sky, without an oxygen mask and with the back-door of the aeroplane left open.
    Basically, you do not know you are oxygen starved. You carry on talking and breathing just like normal as far as you yourself can see. Observers inside oxygen masks see and imagine you to be alcoholically intoxicated – you seem to be having a ripping good time. Euphoric in fact. W
    Which perfectly explains the use of nitrogen oxide (Laughing Gas) as a cheap and nearly legal intoxicant.
    Also glue sniffing.
    What he describes, to me, sounds like something coming off the plant – a VOC of one sort or another and a chemical signal plants use to ‘communicate. Also to shoot down any ozone that may be around.

    Like ethylene for ripening fruit and something cannabis growers do to increase the potency of their crop. Do they use single sex (female) plants that emit something to encourage any local males to make pollen. If there are no males around, the girls simply up-the-ante.
    Is that what he’s describing?

    But anyway, hopefully a lot of folks will have seen what he’s tried and be questioning some of the over-simplified junk they were taught at school and not taught by lazy buck-passing parents.
    Good on him.
    9.7 out of 10 (Not a 10, he should have chosen his plant more wisely)

    • Dear Peta

      Hypoxia and nitrous oxide narcosis are two entirely different, and in a way opposite, states. Hypoxia is due to oxygen undersaturation. Nitrous oxide narcosis is a special case of inert gas narcosis. Any breathable inert gas (except helium) will induce narcosis if breathed at high enough pressure. What is special with nitrous oxide (and also xenon by the way) is that it will induce narcosis at ambient pressure and is therefore simple to use.

      This by the way is why compressed air can’t be used for diving except quite shallowly. The divers get nitrogen narcosis.

      • just to add
        CO2 is toxic over approx 200,000ppm, just as oxygen is if greater than 500,000 ppm at STP

    • No Peta, this guy is an attention seeking tool and possibly a danger to himself and others.

      Simple question – What was he trying to prove?

      He claims to be a scientist. He apparently has a Masters in Science. What was the actual Science! he was trying to prove here?

      He shut himself in a plastic covered area with a bunch of plants. What was he trying to prove? That the CO2/O2 plant cycle actually exists? Sorry, but that is well established and there are very large amounts of supporting data that would have (or perhaps SHOULD have) been able to predict the end result in advance. Again, what has he proved? That 200 iddy biddy plants cannot successfully drive the O2/CO2 cycle fast enough to keep an adult male alive?

      None of this is science. None of this drives forward the overall sum of human knowledge. The man claims to be a scientist. If he had instead claimed to have been an engineer then maybe he would have done some basic safety calculations before hand because if you work in engineering and try and pull off that complete lack of a basic safety study then you are likely to be facing a new career on minimum wage.

      Seriously, the only Science! this guy has supported is the theory that Education and Intelligence are completely independent from each other. You claim that stepping in BS gives you great insights into Life, the Universe and Everything but here is a much more practical counter concept – if you don’t look where you are walking you ruin perfectly good shoes.

      Man is an idiot. 9.7 ppm

  23. So he proved that 4-5 plants can’t produce enough Oxygen, from the CO2 that HE produced, to let him survive?

  24. I certainly hope he tries it again in the future, only next time, he should do it aboard one of those “ships of fools” that’s crossing the Arctic Ocean or the Southern Ocean in order to simultaneously prove how little sea ice there is. That would really show us D-Nye-rs, proving beyond any reasonable doubt, for all time, just how pernicious antropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have become.

    • Mods, sorry, the above from me, Mickey Reno. I must have brushed the return key as I was typing my name.

  25. All is not lost.
    He did conclude that the air became more “massive” as the CO2 concentration went up.
    I make a point of never watching CBC on any subject.
    Well, except when they are covering the Royal Family.

  26. When they need to trot out this type of insanity, they’re really getting desperate.
    This must be due to the depletion of ignorance by independent media rapidly educating the masses.

    i.e; they’re running out of sheeple.

  27. “And it also slows your mind down. So I felt a little bit out of it and it was kind of harder to focus and harder to do higher-order decision making.”
    So do climatistas sit in sealed rooms to work with their models and sniff the glue?

  28. And we had one newbie go bonkers from claustrophobia who was strapped down in the torpedo bay and sedated.
    He apparently escaped to BC

  29. Who saw that movie Shallow Grave? Remember the bit where the baddies burst in through the door and put plastic bags over people’s heads?
    I guess it’s also not this guy’s fault that he’s an ijit.

  30. “I think that people really don’t understand climate change because they don’t even understand what the air is made of. And you know what? It’s not their fault,” Baute said.
    Really? So if they could just manage to do a quick google search they’d know what air is made up of, and voila, they’d understand “climate change”, but since they can’t or don’t know how to use google (or some search engine) they remain in the dark on climate?
    What a moron! But it’s not his fault that he’s a moron. I don’t know whose fault it is, but it isn’t his.

  31. Left this comment at JoNovas yesterday under her post about Mr. ignorant.

    “Scientist seals himself in plastic tent for 3 days for “climate change”

    “I’m bored, geez it’s only been 15 minutes!”
    “I forgot my comics!”
    “It’s stuffy in here”
    “My flatulence reeks!”
    “D^ng! My phone’s battery is low!”, “I thought I charged it!”
    “Next time, I’m bringing a fan!”
    “I’ve had enough of this!”, “I already knew what I was going to discover and write before doing this lame act!”
    — aborts in 15 hours”

    I doubt he could afford a serious CO₂ meter.
    It’s rather obvious he is an urban dweller and utterly ignorant of plants, plant growth, photosynthesis, plant respiration or what air movement does for maintaining Earth’s comfortable temperatures.

    If that small plastic wrap play tent was in the real sun, say in Australia, he’d learn what strong sun does to closed system temperatures in a hurry.
    Of course, he would blame CO₂, but he was going to do that anyway.

    Next time he can invite Gore and Dressler to play in his closed system tent too.

    • The biosphere2 is still operating. Just without people.

      Fairly interesting. Part of the scientific interest at the time included how to design long range spacecraft to be self-sustaining. Or settlements on other planets.
      If the calculations are as stated in the video, the gas volume of the Arizona biosphere is over 212000 cubic meters. There were to be 8 human occupants, so if the enclosed ecosystems were balanced, that means at least 26000 cubic meters per person.

      The Vancouver guy, Baute, built his cube to be large enough to keep him alive for three days. He states the dimensions as a cube of 10 feet. Along with some potted plants and his own volume, that translates to about 25 cubic meters of air.

      25 cubic meters of air will have a mass of about 25 times 1.25 kg per cubic meter or 31.25 cubic meters.
      Using weight percents of the components, that means about 23 kilograms of Nitrogen, with Oxygen at 7.2 kilograms, Argon 0.4 kilograms. Ignoring boundry layer effects, CO2 in his cube would be 0.02 kilograms, or 20 grams, but almost certainly more.
      One adult male will have a basal metabolism releasing about 1 kilogram of CO2 per day. Which needs about 0.75 kilograms of O2 consumed.
      So at the end of 24 hours, ignoring the plants which were likely insignificant due to clouds, the amount of O2 would have dropped by about 10 percent by mass to about 19 percent of total volume.
      CO2 increasing to 1.02 kilograms. 1.02/31.25 is .0326 or 32600 parts per million.
      The water vapor is also ignored, the amount would be saturated within hours, but the displacement of N2 and O2 is not important here.
      He assumed that the growing plants would have offset his metabolism, but it looks like the limit to his health would have been reached at 24 hours, not due to O2 loss, but CO2 increase.
      Finally, his habitat would need to be about 1000 times larger in volume to approach comparability to the biosphere in Arizona.

Comments are closed.