By Robert Bradley Jr. — September 8, 2023
“… the UK Health and Safety Executive has defined safe CO2 limits for the workplace. The limit for long-term exposure is 0.5% (5,000 ppm) but for shorter encounters it is 2% [20,000 ppm]. Anything over that figure is regarded as a risk to human health.”
Skeptical Science, advertised as “getting skeptical about global warming skepticism,” posted recently on the question: Is CO2 a pollutant? Interestingly, they made the point that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant in any sense of the word. Yes, very high concentrations in confined spaces (they provide an example) is deadly, but then so is water in a drowning. But water is not a pollutant either.
John Mason and BaerbelW [Baerbel Winkler] wrote:
If you look up the definition of pollution in a dictionary, you will soon realise it’s rather subjective. There are many substances out there that are harmless at certain levels but harmful at others.
Carbon dioxide is well-mixed in our atmosphere. That’s because when it is emitted, by any mechanism from a vehicle exhaust to a volcanic eruption, it stays in the air for many years. Unlike water, it does not condense and fall back out as rain. Turbulence does a splendid job of mixing it evenly into the air. But there are places on – and in – Earth where much higher concentrations of CO2 may be encountered.
The trouble with CO2 is that it cannot be seen and neither can it be smelt. In other words we cannot detect it from a safe distance.
In caves and mines, high concentrations of CO2 are a well-known hazard. They can result from things like rotting timber, oxidising coal and particularly by poor ventilation, where that mixing into the air fails to occur. Because CO2 is heavier than air, in poorly ventilated areas underground it may collect into pockets waiting for the unwary.
Miners or underground explorers breathing a higher than normal concentration of CO2 will experience gradually increasing ill effects. It depends on the concentration of the gas. For example the UK Health and Safety Executive has defined safe CO2 limits for the workplace. The limit for long-term exposure is 0.5% (5,000 ppm) but for shorter encounters it is 2% [20,000 ppm].
Anything over that figure is regarded as a risk to human health. There have been many accidents and fatalities over the years caused by high concentrations of CO2 in underground workings and to a lesser extent in caves. Coal-miners refer to CO2 as black- or choke-damp in recognition of the hazard.
The authors continue with a rare example of CO2 asphyxiation:
Possibly the worst CO2-related disaster was that of 21 August 1986 at Lake Nyos, in northwestern Cameroon in western Central Africa. The lake, only some 2 x 1 km in size but more than 200 m deep, is one of a number of flooded volcanic vents in a sporadically-active volcanic belt. Carbon dioxide-bearing springs are common in this area and some are present in the lake-bed.
Lake Nyos is typically stratified, meaning that normally its waters occur in distinct layers with different chemistry that do not normally mix. In something of a loaded gun scenario, the bottom layer used to become saturated with CO2 from those lake-bed springs. On 21st August 1986, something caused an overturning of the lake, meaning the deep CO2-saturated water headed for the surface. Like taking the top off a shaken-up pop bottle, a vast cloud of CO2 was instantly released and travelled out from the lake along the ground. At least 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock died instantly from asphyxiation.
Modern technology and international cooperation have since been successful in controlling the build-up of CO2 in lakes like Nyos. But clearly, in specific circumstances, CO2 is as deadly a pollutant as any other.
Comment
CO2 is not a pollutant in any sort of normal situation–and by a long shot. (Same for water, after all.) So scratch the last sentence of the above: “But clearly, in specific circumstances, CO2 is as deadly a pollutant as any other.”
But what is conveniently missing for the above, as interesting as the official 5,000/2,000 ppm estimates are? The other half of the story is that carbon dioxide is just the opposite of a pollutant. It is a plant food, a fertilizer so to speak, with a long way to go in the current buildup of atmospheric concentration.
Century 21 is shaping up to be the Century of the Plants, the Century of Global Greening, a story for another day.
It’s more than fertilizer and less than a pollutant. Life depends on it. Without it, everything dies.
quote:”Life depends on it. Without it, everything dies.
Yes. Absolutely. 100%
Oh dear – too many clever people, dazzled by their own scientific brilliance.
This Is Not About Science
What’s going on here is the taxation of air – they have now devised a way to tax the very air that we , and everything on this Earth, breathes.
These new rules are totally arbitrary (are bound to be relentlessly tightened from now onwards) and impose a statutory duty on (to start with) employers to monitor and control CO₂
This will employers and service providers money = raising prices for whatever goods/services and thus, via the insanely named Value Added Tax, increase Government tax revenue.
Employers will be required to take on extra staff, to buy ‘approved’ and regularly inspected monitoring equipment to ensure compliance and keep records = more price rises
All the while The Fear of dreaded CO₂ is ramped up, not least the very real fear of unlimited fines and jailtime.
And similar to e,g, asbestos – they will be able to come after you and your (business) descendants decades from now
So there goes a massive boost to the Financial Service and Insurance industries – which is where 95% of all our ‘members’ of parliament finish up when they retire or Get The Boot = as ‘advisers’ and ‘consultants’ in The City
and THAT is what this entire climate thing is about = creating fear and expanding government on that fear.
Next time you meet A Roman – ask him/her how all that panned out
or a Minoan. Phoenician, Aztec, Ancient Greek
That is not a comprehensive list, check here to find a few more civilisations that taxed themselves out of existence.
But they tried and tried and tried to survive – they used All The Very Best Science that they had to try and pay those taxes and survive,
How did they try: They tried to pay their tax via ploughing, tilling, fertilising, paddy-fielding, deforesting and grazing. Also warmongering with their neighbours – near and far.
Result: Oblivion for them and the landscape they lived upon
(Things did get nice and toasty warm while they were working though)
CO2 is necessary for all living things on this planet.It IS an essential trace gas in the atmosphere. All C3 plants have already evolved to efficiently use 3X the amount presently found in the atmosphere. There is a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere as far as plants are concerned.
Well, there is life around those hot vents at the bottom of some oceans that apparently does not require O2 or CO2.
The earliest life forms used sulphur and other elements and not oxygen for respiration.
Even our cells in internal organs would die if exposed to concentrations of oxygen greater than about 3%, the bloodstream is basically a reservoir of oxygen, with expelled air still containing 16% oxygen which is sufficient to keep another person oxygenated through mouth to mouth resuscitation.
Without oxygen there would be no higher life forms.
There’s a book called “Oxygen: the molecule that made the world” by Nick Lane
https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Molecule-That-Made-World/dp/B086MN5YGD/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ALICMAEPVMHB&keywords=oxygen+the+molecule+that+made+the+world&qid=1694453352&sprefix=Oxygen+the+mol%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-1
If I hold my breath until it hurts then measure the CO2 concentration in my exhaust I can reach 13% CO2. That implies that the oxygen dropped to 8%. It seems that if you are working hard, your O2 concentration drops. We also emit a small amount of CO.
Ban DHMO! With apologies to Penn and Teller
The situation is so bad it’s been found in nearly* all rivers and reservoirs. It’s even in Antarctica!
*some dry lake beds and rivers excluded
I find it fascinating that NOAA knows very well how the planet looks as an emitter of longwave radiation. But they hold publicly to the narrative that CO2 drives harmful warming. I think whoever at NOAA named the GOES Band 16 the “CO2 Longwave IR” band deserves a medal.
More here.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
Here is the text detail at that Youtube link.
*************
Are emissions of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as CO2 a risk to the climate system? Watch from space to see whether the concept of a radiative heat “trap” explains the observed result.
This time-lapse video captures 7 recent days of hourly images generated by NOAA from high resolution full-disk radiance data from the GOES East geostationary satellite for Band 16.
NOAA calls this the CO2 Longwave IR (infrared) band. It is centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns, at the edge of the “atmospheric window” part of the infrared spectrum. The “brightness temperature” color scale for visualization is such that the radiance at 50C on the scale (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) It is in this narrow band of wavelengths that a significant part of the claimed static warming effect of incremental CO2 concentrations is computed.
So what? The emitter output is obviously not that of a passive radiative insulating layer. The motion of the atmosphere is a response to absorbed energy and to the rotation of the planet. These dynamics change everything about where to expect the energy involved in the static warming effect (i.e. the GHG “forcing”) experienced at the surface to end up. The formation and dissipation of clouds dominates the overall result, and the overturning circulations at local, regional, and global scale produce highly variable emitter outputs over time and location. It is all strongly self-regulating as the motion delivers just enough absorbed energy from the surface to high altitude and from the tropics to the poles to be more easily emitted to space as longwave radiation.
The atmosphere is the authentic model of its own performance as an emitter and as a controller of longwave emission from the surface. What do we see and learn from watching it perform? The visualization helps us grasp that heat energy cannot be made to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect by what increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs do in the atmosphere. And for whatever warming has been experienced and measured down here, the minor effect of increasing GHGs cannot be isolated for reliable attribution.
So as I see it, is there risk of harmful warming from GHGs? No. We can see from space that it doesn’t work that way.
[Edit 8-23-2023 The color scale NOAA uses to convert “brightness temperature” for the visualization is given here.
Brightness temperature itself is computed by NOAA from the radiance data, using an equation and coefficients from the user manual for the imager. The radiance at 50C “brightness temperature” (red) is 13 times the radiance at -90C (white.) Radiance is the strength of the flow of energy being emitted from the planet and sensed at the satellite in this band.]
Why use band 16 centered on 13.3 when the spectrograph shows CO2 absorption at 15?
“Why use band 16 centered on 13.3 when the spectrograph shows CO2 absorption at 15?”
Good question. There is no geostationary or low-earth-orbit sensor centered at 15 microns as far as I know.
But in any case, consider attribution of warming to incremental CO2. NOAA sees value in the Band 16 images for meteorological reasons. The attached plot from a Modtran comparison shows how a significant part of the incremental static warming effect of a doubling of CO2 (from 280 ppmv pre-industrial to 560 ppmv) is computed in the Band 16 part of the spectrum. This is indicated on the plot in magenta.
It is interesting that the incremental static warming effect (i.e. reduction of outgoing radiation) centered at 15 microns is a bit negative. I suppose this means that the emission from higher altitudes toward space is boosted enough by incremental CO2 at 15 microns to result in a slight overall increase in outgoing radiation at those wavelengths.
It is also important to note that this Modtran exercise is from 70km looking down. Looking up from the surface, there would not be a computed negative warming effect in any part of the spectrum.
News flash from Let’s Go Brandon, speaking to reporters in Hanoi, Vietnam: Climate Sceptics are Lying Two-Faced Pony Soldiers. There you have it. Except for Nick it applies to everyone here. I kind of like it. Now back to the regularly scheduled program.
I think the quote is that skeptics are “lying dog-faced pony soldiers” as in the movie. OK. Woof.
I Googled around looking for the source of JBs weird insult and found not nearly enough given it was said by a U.S. president in a contentious election and quoted a ton of times. The best I found was:
“the term “pony soldier” (meaning the Canadian Mounted Police) is from the movie Hondo, which starred Wayne.
“Dog face” is a term that is used to describe infrantrymen, and was used in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, also starring Wayne.
As for the full phrase, no one has said “lying dog-faced pony soldier” in any Wayne film.”
I expect I’d have known the answer right away if “the other guy” had said it.
Good point. I was just referring to what Biden said recently, including that it was a movie quote, which itself is questionable as you say.
No one has ever said anything Dementia Joe ever quotes. It’s a Demonrat thing, kind of like 0bummer’s composite girlfriend.
“She Wore a Yellow Ribbon” had Cheyenne Dog Soldiers in it, one of the Cheyenne and Lakota warrior societies. Dog-face was slang for an infantryman but as it is a film about the US Cavalry, I really don’t think you’ll find any references to infantry in it.
It really doesn’t sound like a John Wayne line – just Biden’s mind wandering again?
G’Day Richard,
“… US Cavalry …”
Darn, I was a happy ‘deplorable’ in ‘fly-over country’ till this latest description.
Now I’m going to have to dress up, 1880’s US Cavalry uniform, and wander into town, give the tourists something to point their cameras at. (The drawback? A button-up fly. The lady who tailored the trousers insisted on authenticity.)
The American cavalry were also called “pony soldiers”. Canadian police should properly be called “pony police”. I didn’t know they were referred to as “soldiers”.
The movie starring Tyrone Power is where one person accused another of being a lying, dog-faced, pony soldier.
Naturally, Biden got the movies confused. I think he lives in a state of confusion now. That press conference he gave in Vietnam was a disaster. His whole presidency has been one disaster after another, all created by Biden and his delusions.
Isn’t it racist to refer to a movie scene that portrays a noble savage butchering the English language?
Only if he gets the quote right in the first place, otherwise it’s just a bunch of words strung together.
David, you just made me invent the term “ignoble baggage” and it is a potent ear worm.
“Watts Up With That? is a blog promoting climate change denial …. Wikipedia”
Hilarious. At least this web site now appeared as the top search result for its own name. That was not true last week. Tomorrow? I don’t know.
I’m still trying to figure out what climate change denial actually is? We are realists who realize the climate is always changing. We just dispute it is humans that cause it. These people are the ones who are actually reality deniers.
We also dispute that the climate is changing for the worse.
There is no evidence the climate is getting worse. There *is* evidence the climate/weather is getting less extreme as compared to the recent past.
There is no evidence CO2 is causing anything to change in the Earth’s atmosphere.
“Carbon dioxide is well-mixed in our atmosphere. That’s because when it is emitted, by any mechanism from a vehicle exhaust to a volcanic eruption, it stays in the air for many years. Unlike water, it does not condense and fall back out as rain. Turbulence does a splendid job of mixing it evenly into the air.” But there are places on – and in – Earth where much higher concentrations of CO2 may be encountered.
This statement is false and misleading. At least 95% of all emitted CO2 molecules are delivered to the surface in cold rain within a week or two; where it is mixed with new emissions and re-admitted. Over the tropical oceans and rain forests this cycle will occur thousands of times and is a natural process. If you model the flow of air, water, and CO2 in a thunderstorm, you will find that a small fraction of the CO2 and frozen water will be ejected into the upper atmosphere. From there, it all travels by jet streams to ultimate polar sinks, where the surface water and ice is colder than the air above it. In the NH nearly 90% of the Arctic Ocean is covered with ice in the winter. The measured concentrations of CO2 at Arctic sites rise with the freezing of the arctic Ocean and fall as the sea ice melts. Within a year. essentially all natural and anthro emissions are absorbed. There is no accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond a year.
In the SH a vast amount of cold polar water is only partially covered with ice and, unlike the NH, the seasonal variation is small.
The CO2 ppm increasing in the atmosphere, is because some sinks are slightly slower absorbing it, I.e., there is a slight imbalance. Other than that, more CO2 means more life.
God created CO2, because he knew, it would be needed to create life on Earth
What is interesting is that the UK HSE have used CO2 levels which are about half of what other organisations use. For example they use 5,000 ppm as a limit for long-term exposure whilst many others use 10,000 ppm instead. The HSE use a short-term limit of 15,000 ppm where others use 30,000 ppm instead – noting that levels of 50,000 ppm and above may cause symptoms ox oxygen deprivation. I can’t help feeling that this is yet another scare tactic, designed to make us feel that CO2 is a dangerous, toxic chemical!
I do apologise, it appears I had a slight stutter when typing this!
All the scientific measurements tell us clearly that earth is having a climate optimum because of the warming of 1 Deg. C and the best weather/climate in the previous 1,000 years (the last time that it was this warm, during the Medieval WARM Period).
At least this warm during the Roman WARM Period-2,000 years ago.
At least this warm during the Minoan WARM period~3,500 years ago.
But we are not as warm in the higher latitudes as during the Holocene Climate OPTIMUM-9,000 to 5,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for conditions that were warmer than now at 120 sites. At 16 sites for which quantitative estimates have been obtained, local temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher during the optimum than now. Northwestern North America reached peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, but the Laurentide Ice Sheet still chilled eastern Canada. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later. Along the Arctic Coastal Plain in Alaska, there are indications of summer temperatures 2–3 °C warmer than now.[10] Research indicates that the Arctic had less sea ice than now.[1
++++++++++++++++++
But this is just from the positive contribution to life on this greening planet from the slight beneficial warming over the past century.
This includes growing seasons extended more than a week in the coldest places and to higher latitudes which is especially positive for food production.
When you dial in the enormous positive contribution of increasing CO2 from the indisputable law of photosynthesis, which is currently less than half the optimal level of 900 parts per million, then this current climate OPTIMUM for most life greatly exceeds the best of any other time frame since humans have existed.
Not despite climate change/global warming but exactly BECAUSE OF it.
Our planet continues to massively green up from the increase in CO2.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Models that use photosynthesis and the real world, continue to predict the massive greening thru the year 2100!
Global Green Up Slows Warming
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming
++++++++++++++++++++
Here is irrefutable evidence using empirical data to show that the increase in CO2 is causing a huge increase in crop yields/world food production and a booming biosphere on our greening planet.
We can separate the CO2 effect out from other factors effecting crops and plants with many thousands of studies that hold everything else constant, except for elevated CO2.
Observing and documenting the results of experiments with elevated CO2 levels, tell us what increasing CO2 does to many hundreds of plants. It’s the most powerful effect from CO2 on our planet by an extremely wide margin.
Here’s how to access the empirical evidence/data from the site that has more of it than any other. Please go to this link:
http://www.co2science.org/data/data.php
Go to plant growth data base:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
Go to plant dry weight(biomass):
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Pick the name of a plant, any plant and go to it based on its starting letter. Let’s pick soybeans. Go to the letter S,
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject_s.php
Then scroll down and hit soybeans. This is what you get:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/g/glycinem.php
Glycine max (L.) Merr. [Soybean]
Statistics
300 ppm 600 ppm 900 ppm
Number of Results 290 29 7
Arithmetic Mean 47.9% 70.7% 80.9%
Standard Error 2.2% 7.1 8.9%
This tells us that there were 290 studies with the CO2 elevated by 300 ppm. The mean increase in plant biomass was 47.9% from all those studies.
The individual studies are listed below that at the link above.
USA Soybean yields in the real world since 1988 have doubled while CO2 increased by 65 ppm, so we have strong corroborating evidence.
+++++++++++
CO2 is the building block for all life in every single field of authentic science.
However, CO2 has been defined as pollution when it comes to misguided climate activism, political agenda/government policies, crony capitalism, corrupted science and the dishonest media.
Just vary the CO2 in a greenhouse and see what happens
Try running a greenhouse with CO2 removed.. See what happens !!
“the last time that it was this warm, during the Medieval WARM Period”
Not in the United States. It was warmer in the 1930’s, in the United States than it is today. The United States is in a temperature downtrend since the 1930’s.
It’s all documented. Why is this time period ignored when comparing temperatures?
Answer: It’s a mental block caused by the bogus Hockey Stick chart bastardization of the temperature record. For some reason, many people are reluctant to take on this Hockey Stick temperature fraud, so they ignore it.
Here’s a chart by James Hansen, himself, which shows the United States in a cooling trend from the 1930’s. We don’t have to go back to the Medieval warm period to find temperatures as warm as today. We’ve had warmer temperatures in the lifetimes of people still alive. Maybe someone should talk to them. But even if you don’t, the chart says it all.
And unmodified (unbastardized) charts from around the world show the same benign temperature profile as the United States chart. It was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, with less CO2 in the air at that time.
I don’t know where Mason and Baerbel are sourcing their information, but the most important mine hazard is not CO2, at least for coal mines. Carbon monoxide (CO), is much more hazardous than CO2. It and methane are the most likely hazards for coal mines.
Did they actually say it was the most important mine hazard? I can’t see it they did.
It is only raised as a situation where too high a concentration will lead to death. As methane and carbon monoxide weren’t relevant they weren’t mentioned.
“At least 1,746 people and 3,500 livestock died instantly from asphyxiation.”
Died from asphyxiation, not poisoning; in other words oxygen depletion. If there is no oxygen in your lungs you will pass out instantly. ANY gas will do this.
Exhaled breath can contain 40,000ppm CO2. Not healthy, but it won’t instantly kill you.
More scare tactics for an ignorant public.
That’s not what I was saying, the article was about CO2 which in high enough concentrations can kill you in a mine, cavern or Egyptian pharaoh’s tomb. Other gasses which can cause death in these places wasn’t part of the article and wasn’t relevant.
This is what I learnt while one of my grandchildren did homework with us after school, I didn’t do biology at school so it was all new to me.
The exchange of CO2 and Oxygen in the lungs is primarily through diffusion from a high concentration to low. The rate of diffusion of a gas is proportional to its partial pressure within the total gas mixture. The across the Alveoli.
When you’re dead you’re it doesn’t really matter whether you were poisoned or suffocated, you’re still dead.
Sorry, my comment should not have been a reply to yours.
I don’t think ‘instantly’ is accurate. I take that as quicker than a person has time to process and understand what is going on. But suffocating or drowning is not an instant painless way to die. It’s terrifying because we have plenty of time to understand what is happening.
If anyone has witnessed an attack of blood acidosis you will know what the immediate remedy is – rebreathing exhaled air which contains ……CO2 – happened with MOH and she recovered within ~ 15 minutes; very scary but illustrative that CO2 is not per se a “poison”.
This is typical of the HSE. The levels are arbitary and stupid. You might find these levels in a crowded bus on a cold day when the windows are shut. Did anyone die? Of course not! One might breathe a bit faster, but that is all. Obviously this pronouncement is devoid of science!
The levels aren’t arbitrary but they are about half of what most other organisations consider safe levels.
Several years ago I checked out Skeptical Science. Seeing their mantra as you note, I asked if it was OK to be skeptical of those who are skeptical about global warming skepticism. I was told anymore comments like that and I’d be locked out. I was shocked- and I’ve mentioned here on WUWT several times and I’ll continue to mention it.
No free thought allowed at Skeptical Science. You have to toe the line if you want to belong to the climate alarmist religion.
Just looking at the SS web site again.
I see near the top the following: “Global warming is real and human-caused. It is leading to large-scale climate change. Under the guise of climate “skepticism”, the public is bombarded with misinformation that casts doubt on the reality of human-caused global warming.”
It’s the climatistas who bombard us constantly with misinformation. It’s only on a few web sites that I see any climate skepticism- never in the MSM.
“Turbulence does a splendid job of mixing it evenly into the air.”
Just curious- it’s been 57 years since I took a course in chemistry- but- I thought since CO2 is a gas- that any gas introduced into other gases will spread out even without turbulence just because the molecules are constantly bouncing off each other so they’ll spread out. Of course turbulence will move it around also.
You’re correct. I think that is one of the five laws of gases.
So it’s the case that molecules of a very heavy gas are unaffected by gravity and mix evenly into the air over a short period of time?
In Queensland mines the max short term exposure limit is 30,000ppm. The time weighted average limit is 12,500ppm.
Interestingly, the definition of a “pollutant” in the US Clean Air Act reads as follows:
(g)The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term “air pollutant” is used.
Interestingly, the CAA does not define “air pollution agent”. So such could be anything that the USEPA declares to be an air pollution agent. Meaning the CAA definition of pollutant is entirely arbitrary and capricious. EPA declared CO2 to be a pollutant, even though all green plants on the planet emit CO2 constantly, as do all animals that breath oxygen in the air or water.
So, by this definition as worded, the USEPA could declare that all green plants emitting oxygen into the ambient are are also emitting “pollutants”. It’s entirely arbitrary. Ditto with all animals including humans. So what, should the government start locking up individual people and their lawns, gardens, and trees as “polluters”?
Plants absorb CO2 during the day and emit CO2 at night. Animals absorb oxygen and emit CO2 all day and night. Dr AD Karve at ARDRI in Pune, India raised 5 foot plastic walls around gardens on windless nights. This captured the CO2 emitted, settling near the ground. This in turn became food for the plants the next day.
“But clearly, in specific circumstances, CO2 is as deadly a pollutant as any other.”
Well that would apply to oxygen. Breathing 100% oxygen for extended period is very harmful to humans. So is Vitamin A, large does are toxic to humans. This applies to many substances necessary to human like. As it as been said, the poison is in the dose.
“human life”.
Breathing in too much liquid DHMO isn’t too good for your health, either.
As W.C.Fields once observed; “I don’t drink water, fish f#@k in it!”
Be careful when bringing dry ice to a remote fish camp by small plane. The dry ice sublimates to gaseous CO2, fills the plane cabin and asphyxiates the pilot and any passengers.
Breathing 100% nitrogen, which is 78% of the atmosphere, will make someone pass out quickly, probably in less than a minute, and die soon after from lack of oxygen. The same applies to other inert gases, such as helium and argon and of course, CO2… it seems they all have their purpose mixed, for life as we know it.
and what exactly is the concentration of CO2 from wearing a mask all day long – guessing it more than the 20,000 ppm
“… the UK Health and Safety Executive has defined safe CO2 limits for the workplace. The limit for long-term exposure is 0.5% (5,000 ppm) but for shorter encounters it is 2% [20,000 ppm]. Anything over that figure is regarded as a risk to human health.””
***************
CO2 is a killer for more reasons than one folks. It leads to pandemics according to a WEF (World Enslavement Forum) spokesperson:
https://youtu.be/0yYfI2A79G8
CO2 is going to doom us all! /sarc
Humans emit CO2 even when the inhaled concentration is 100,000 ppm. Our bodies have no use or desire for it. So I am wondering what this “risk” is.
It is a plant food, a fertilizer so to speak, with a long way to go in the current buildup of atmospheric concentration.
cO2 is not plant food!
you guys need to be more skeptical. CO2 is not plant food.
the cells of a plant are powered by glucose.
plants are autotrophs.They make there own food. they use inorganic co2 to create the food their cells can consume. they are autotrophic. even the stupidest high school freshman learns this.
plants use the energy from sunlight, along with carbon dioxide and water, to produce glucose and oxygen. Glucose is used as an energy source for the plant’s growth and maintenance, while oxygen is released into the atmosphere for other organisms to use.
!
Glucose is Plant food! plants make their own glucose they are Autotrophic!
Autotrophic organisms are able to produce their own organic molecules (such as glucose) from inorganic sources like carbon dioxide and water, typically using sunlight or chemical energy. Plants, algae, and some bacteria are examples of autotrophic organisms because they can carry out photosynthesis to create their own food.
Heterotrophic organisms, on the other hand, cannot produce their own organic molecules from inorganic sources and rely on external sources of organic compounds for their nutrition. They obtain their energy and nutrients by consuming other organisms or organic matter. Animals, fungi, and many bacteria are examples of heterotrophic organisms because they must eat or absorb organic material from their environment to obtain the energy and nutrients they need to survive.
TL:DR
people who think co2 is plant food should not be complaining about the definition of pollution.
plants create their own food(organic molecules) from inorganic sources( sunlight, water, c02)
animals consume organic molecules as food.
we call organism that create their own food (glucose) autotrophic
we call oganism that cannot create their own food from inorganic sources Heterotrophic.
now is co2 fertilizer? c02 is a waste product, like cow shit, of course you can use it as fertilizer.
So let me get this straight, your argument is that CO2 is not a plant food because plant food is glucose, ok. On the other hand no CO2 no glucose since the plant needs CO2 to make glucose, so then CO2 is a necessary ingredient for the production of glucose without which plants would die. CO2 is necessary for plant life on the planet, the more CO2 the more glucose the more and bigger plants. Your argument is nonsensical on its face.
Another load of gibberish from moosh !
Starve plants of CO₂, see what happens.
Plants do not eat or breathe or absorb glucose or take it in any other way… it is not their food.
CO₂, H₂O, sunlight, plus trace elements, are the plant’s food
O₂ is a waste product from plants… do you call it a fertiliser?
—–
“they use inorganic co2″
what is co2?
“now is co2 fertilizer? c02 is a waste product”
What is c02?
FFS, get something correct.
Your comments look like a copy paste with infill by a complete moron.
The problem on Apollo 13 was not the lack of oxygen but the build up of CO2, not sure what the partial pressure of carbon dioxide was before they jury rigged the lithium filters.
The weight of gases is registered as Vapor Density, where common Air gets the weight of 1.00. Any gas less than 1 is lighter & will rise, any gas more than 1 is heavier & will sink.
The weight of CO2 is 1.5, meaning it’s quite a bit heavier than air & is always sinking to the ground, so how can CO2, which sinks to the ground, stay up in the atmosphere to form that greenhouse effect?
It’s a sad testimony that they have to write an article telling people CO2 is not a poison or detrimental in any way.
Wow….were an idiocracy