• kelly said on Oct 04, 2009....

  Bloc, you shouldn't let science get in the way of a good political fight.  :-)
  
  
  But seriously, that's an amazing chart.  The historical cycle is fascinating, and of course the recent upturn is more than a little worrisome.

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Okay, now I have to ask, where do they get these numbers? We didn't even know what carbon dioxide (CO2) was until 1630AD. Therefore this is a computer model at best. I also don't see how this "rhythm" could constitute that pesky scientific fact and period in history called the "Ice Age" that half of the climate change boobs say we'll fall into again in the next 10,000 years. So in conclusion, either this chart is rigged, the rest of the global warming hoopla is rigged, or both.
  

• bloc said on Oct 17, 2009....

  There are a few methods for measuring co2 from past times. From wikipedia
  
  On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 Ma of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm.[17] On long timescales, atmospheric CO2 content is determined by the balance among geochemical processes including organic carbon burial in sediments, silicate rock weathering, and vulcanism. The net effect of slight imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years has been to reduce atmospheric CO2. The rates of these processes are extremely slow; hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, when the ice sheets of Antartica started to taken their current form near the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event, CO2 has been found to be about 760 ppm,[18] and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma. Present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 Ma[17] and certainly higher than in the last 800,000.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Because the balance of oxygen to carbon dioxide is closer to 1:1 than it probably ever has been. That does not mean anything close to global climate change. That means we have a much higher level of oxygen breathing organisms on the planet. Some "global warming" evangelists call this "over-population." Two ways to fix that problem : Kill off some O2 breathers or plant more trees and bushes. The C4 plants you mention don't just disappear when the CO2 ppm goes back up, you know. They tend to hang around...
  
  Now if you want to get into how carbon monoxide (CO) is diddling with the ozone layer, that's a totally different ball of wax.

• bloc said on Oct 17, 2009....

  We're not talking about the ratio. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, agreed? More CO2 leads to warming. The levels of CO2 have risen, and continue to rise, due to human activity. Therefore, we're causing warming.
  
  This is the bullet point version of the issue.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Carbon dioxide (CO2) is exhaled by most non-plant-based organisms and inhaled by plant life, which then turns around and produces breathable oxygen (O2), agreed? If you have more animals exhaling than plants to absorb it, you have high concentrations of CO2. Again, either kill more animals or plant more trees. Don't take away my comfy toilet paper... That will make me angry... You wouldn't like it when I'm angry...
  

• bloc said on Oct 17, 2009....

  So you believe that the increase in CO2 is primarily due to animals exhaling it rather than the use of fossil fuels?

• javadewd said on Oct 17, 2009....

  Absolutely. Fossil fuels cause carbon monoxide (CO) emissions when they burn, as do badly tuned catalytic converters on cars. These emissions are 800 times more toxic than CO2. Hell, bloc, if CO2 was the issue, every time you popped the top of a soda can you'd be killing the earth according to the global warming dip shits. Carbonic acid (the bubbles in your soda) equals water plus high-pressure carbon dioxide.
  
  Now if you want to start talking about CO and its effects on the ozone and so forth, then I'd probably be behind you most of the way... Because you see, CO and certain man-made nitrates (remember acid rain?) along with hydro-flouro-carbons (CFCs and HFCs) cause higher atmospheric disturbances like eating our ozone layer and retarding its ability to naturally reset things like barometric pressure and so forth. If Al Gwhore would reference this, he'd make more sense to me, but he doesn't.
  
  This is one of many reasons why guys like me think guys like Al are idiots, but it's a good starting point. Instead of going after the shit that matters -- yes, replacing a coal-burning power plant with a nuclear plant will generate 6-7 times the power and 7/10th of 1% of the carbon monoxide emissions -- instead of making shit up about cow flatulations (comprised mostly of carbon dioxide and a biological form of methane -- I think it's a type of flouro-methane, not quite as efficient as the stuff we pull out of the ground), then we wouldn't think he's just a big fucking joke.
  
  I know you may be skeptical, so let me bring another more obvious fact to your attention. If you're like me, you either have now or had at some point in your life a fireplace that burned wood. If not, then let me remind everybody that you had to put the wood in the fireplace, put paper or kinling (smaller, drier, brittle wood) around it, light it, and give it plenty of oxygen to combust. If you didn't give the fire a means to exhaust the carbon monoxide out of your house, there was a risk that your family would either wake up sore, stiff and feeling ill, or may not wake up at all. This is the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning. This has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
  
  Unlike when we were kids, most homes now have a carbon monoxide detector. Not to sound like I'm bragging or anything, but I know most of this because I was a firefighter for a while. More people die of smoke inhalation (inhaling carbon monoxide) than being burned in a fire. Victims of such are usually found with a thin layer of soot on their face. They don't sufficate from lack of oxygen or from carbon dioxide. If their was sufficient carbon dioxide in smoke, the body's natural reaction is to gag and therefore it would save most people's lives.
  

• bloc said on Oct 18, 2009....

  I understand the issue with other pollutants, but I'm haven't been able to understand your position on climate change. CO is not a green house gas. I'm trying to stick to the issue of climate change.
  
  CO2 is a green house gas.
  Our industrial process is putting more of it into the air than there has been in the past.
  This is a problem.
  
  I'm not sure which of these pieces you disagree with.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 18, 2009....

  CO2 is not a pollutant. CO is a pollutant.
  
  If you fill a greenhouse with CO2 and leave it for a month, you arrive to find it has been converted to O2 by the abundance of plants and the lack of animals. Therefore CO2 is not a pollutant! Call it a "green house gas" if you want to, but it really doesn't have much to do with what's polluting our atmosphere. CO pollutes our atmosphere. Its density alone should be a red flag for all of these environmentalists!
  
  "Our industrial process" as you call it -- and I'm assuming you mean burning coal? -- has more to do with CO than CO2. It's only jack-holes like Al Gwhore who want to make CO2 an issue when it isn't an issue.
  
  Our only problem with more CO2 in the air is that we don't have enough trees to cycle it out. Plant more trees or kill more animals. Problem solved. We don't need a cap-n-tax system to do that. We need guns and roses, er, orchards!
  
  Hope that clears it up for you...
  

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  as I've said before, I understand the difference between pollutants and green house gases. The fact that CO2 is not a pollutant says nothing about the dangers of it as a green house gas. There are no enough trees to cope with the amount of CO2 we are putting into the air. We're currently clear cutting rainforests to make more cattle ranches. Simply put, our lifestyle is leading to massive amounts of CO2 in the air compared to what we know about historic levels. There is a real and significant risk to this, and we could prevent it by changing our lifestyles. I think we should, and I think we should have a carbon tax to achieve it.

• javadewd said on Oct 20, 2009....

  You might, but it appears the global warming folks do not.
  
  
  There are no enough trees to cope with the amount of CO2 we are putting into the air. We're currently clear cutting rain forests to make more cattle ranches. Simply put, our lifestyle is leading to massive amounts of CO2 in the air compared to what we know about historic levels. There is a real and significant risk to this, and we could prevent it by changing our lifestyles.
  
  
  Absolutely! Kill more animals and plant more trees...
  
  
  I think we should, and I think we should have a carbon tax to achieve it.
  
  
  Sigh.
  
  Makes about as much sense as taxing bubble gum... Oh, wait, the coming tsunami of inflation will take care of that! Those three cent pieces will be a dime before long, because sugar is bad, right? It makes kids obese according to the health nuts? Well, do you know what happens when you deprive your body of sugar? Your blood robs it from wherever it can find it, like your bones, and you become weak and die.
  
  I mentioned another couple of really good examples of carbon dioxide versus carbon monoxide for the rest of the folks who still don't seem to get it.
  
  Why are the global warming nut-bars also proponents of limiting populations? Hmm... They've been giving China raves for limiting families to one kid. Perhaps if China kicks out all boys over a couple generations they'll find themselves on the road to extinction... But at least they'll get our cap-n-tax money to console them! I guess that's somebody's brilliant way of paying China for buying our debt. Feels like rape to me.
  

• bloc said on Oct 20, 2009....

  You're still dancing around the actual issue.
  
  CO2 is a green house gas.
  Burning fossil fuels is putting more of it into the air than there has been in measurable history.
  This is likely a very big problem.
  
  
  

• javadewd said on Oct 21, 2009....

  Those who call carbon dioxide a green house gas do so for the sake of misconstruing it to be a pollutant. It is not. Any botanist will tell you that. Any fifth grader can tell you that, too. At some point I referenced where the EPA was going to attempt to label carbon dioxide a pollutant. It's absurd. No, CO2 is not a "green house gas" in the sense that it is a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not destructive to human life. Without CO2, plants die, fields die, and that's a staple of our food supply.
  
  Carbon monoxide (CO) is a pollutant. It is destructive to all life. It causes problems in our atmosphere and it is the result of burning fossil fuels. It is a result of human beings. It is a result of the industrial age. Its effects have been proven and documented since the industrial age and has been proven to be a cause of the "green house effect" that traps the excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  
  I'm not dancing around the actual issue. I'm telling you that any twit who honestly believes that global warming is the result of CO2 doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and needs their damn head examined or at the very least re-take basic grade school science. Blaming CO2 is bullshit. The issue is CO. If that's not acknowledged, then allow me to simply disagree with you and I'll be on my way... Otherwise I am not only wasting my time trying to explain "real science" to you, but I would have a more honest debate talking to a tree stump.
  

• bloc said on Oct 27, 2009....

  you keep changing the subject. Being a green house gas has nothing to do with the epa. CO2 is a green house gas, which means that it has a warming effect. You seem to be confused about these differences.
  
  Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. In our solar system, the atmospheres of Venus, Mars and Titan also contain gases that cause greenhouse effects. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33°C (59°F) colder than at present.
  
  Being a pollutant does not make something a green house gas. These are completely separate issues. You're conflating them to dodge the issue at hand.
  

• javadewd said on Oct 27, 2009....

  Thanks for the cut and paste job from your local Al Gwhore pamphlet, but you have no basic concept of how the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rose in the first place.
  
  You are correct that industry plays its part, but it is not the emission of carbon dioxide that is a problem. If that were the only problem, we would simply have healthy plant life -- speaking from a "planetary model" -- the problem is the pollutants that have been unleashed into the upper atmosphere by industry, burning wood and coal, and the combustion engine. All of these processes release carbon monoxide (CO) into the air. Since carbon monoxide (CO) is lighter than all of the "green house gases" that you mention, it rises into the upper atmosphere and tampers with things like the ozone layer and causes your beloved "green house gases" to get trapped, which cause your again beloved "green house effect."
  
  You [and every other imbecile who doesn't understand basic high school science] are totally wrong in the idea that this is being caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and are blaming things that simply do not emit carbon dioxide (CO2). You instead have been brain washed into believing that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the enemy instead of being taught properly that carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), chlorofluorocarbons (also known as CFCs), benzene and other already known man-made pollutants are the actual cause of the problem and by the replacement or substitution of other processes these pollutants can be lessened and only over time (to which the earth will heat and cool as it wishes) will these pollutants dissipate and eventually the ratio of carbon dioxide to oxygen (CO2 to O2) will go back to pre-industrial levels.
  
  Short of creating some sort of sub-atmospheric army of ozone skimmers (in the analogy of pool skimmers) that could change the carbon monoxide (CO) by using positively charged ions of sodium (Na+) or potassium (K+) to transform the carbon monoxide (CO) into a heavier element (Na2C2O2 or K2C2O2) that would plummet down from the upper atmosphere and reverse its effects, we'll simply have to wait for the sun's oxidation of the carbon monoxide (CO) into carbon dioxide (CO2) and let the plant life on this planet lap it up. This process easily takes decades for each year we pump more carbon monoxide (CO) into the atmosphere.
  
  Again, if you want a "carbon tax," then tax the proper thing, otherwise I'll gladly watch the bone-head politicians get taxed for every lie they exhale! Taxing us for breathing... That's pretty damn low... Not to mention they would have to tax us for the use or consumption of dry ice (CO2), carbonated water / soda pop (CO2) and flatulence. Also, since you're obviously not too familiar with organic chemistry, most artificially constructed smells use a chemical compound derived of multiples of -CHO or -CHO2 which is derived from pumping carbon dioxide (CO2) into various organic forms of sugar, which I'm sure that these uneducated politicians will be taxing next.
  
  So if you're going to accuse me of changing the subject, perhaps you should know what you're talking about first instead of simply preaching the global warming lemming speech. If you're going to accuse me of "dancing around the issue," then perhaps you should know what the actual issue is, instead of trying to make me engage in a debate over a fictional subject. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a danger, especially to plant life. Carbon dioxide (CO2) will not cause one problem. Not one. It doesn't cause health problems. We won't breathe any differently. It will not transform the earth. It will not make the sea levels rise. It will not make you fat, and it certainly is not worth all of the hoopla that has been spent on it. It's a slogan for people who want to tax a fictional issue and it is straight out of the liberal playbook.
  

• bloc said on Nov 03, 2009....

  Everything I've read suggests that CO has a minor role in the green house effect. I'd be happy to read some peer reviewed papers on the effect of CO if you have them.
  
  I've spent the last 30 minutes search for any scientific paper outlining the effect of CO on the greenhouse effect, and I haven't found any. You have to show me something with real numbers that show that the effect of CO is greater than that of CO2, which is a much stronger green house gas than CO.
  
  Also, you're still dodging. The fact that CO has an effect does not mean that CO2 doesn't. You've shown no evidence to contradict the simple fact that CO2 is a green house gas, and we're pumping more and more of it into the air.
  
  You're a smart guy, so I find it hard to believe that you don't realize the slight of hand that you are using.
   

• bloc said on Nov 03, 2009....

  In my research I did find some good data explaining the reasons for believing that the increase in CO2 is from burning fossil fuels, not exhaling as you suggested a few times before. 

• javadewd said on Nov 04, 2009....

  Of course everything you've read suggests that carbon monoxide has a minor role int the green house effect. As I recall, every time I try to get you to read any source I post, you read about 1/10th of it and claim that it doesn't make any sense and that you just "stopped reading." You're a worthless researcher, because you won't accept anything that anyone submits to you that you don't agree with. But alas, for the rest of the lemmings who read this thread, here's some sources that back up what I'm talking about :
  
  EPA's CO Page that states that carbon MONOXIDE is "formed when carbon in fuel is not burned completely" hence the result of combustion and comes from vehicles and industrial processes! One of its links even says that CO is the main component of smog and the displacement of ground-level ozone, which is a mini-model of the "green house effect."
  
  Here is the EPA's page on pollutants that directly affect your beloved "green house gases" (GHG). Notice it says what I've been saying all along about nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide et al. See? You simply don't want to listen, read, comprehend, agree. That makes you appear very intellectually dishonest, even though perhaps you may not be trying to be.
  
  And lastly, here's the CO concentrations since 1980. Notice that back before catalytic converters, we had HIGH concentrations of CO that were causing all types of air pollution. Since then, sunlight and time have oxidized the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide, causing a portion of your "high concentration of carbon dioxide in the air." Now all we have to do is plant trees or kill people and it will all go back down to where it is suppose to be. The result (not what initiated it) is a naturally occurring process by which CO becomes CO2 over time.
  
  What kills me -- and has been my whole point throughout this thread -- is that at some point the EPA's data moves into pollutants, then air quality, then suddenly the words "carbon monoxide" start to get replaced with "CO2" and not even "carbon dioxide." This is where I think all of the "global warming" loons are getting confused. Some nit-wit doesn't know basic science. Sorry you appear to be one who was duped! Redeem yourself and acknowledge that I'm not blowing smoke!
  
  YOU still haven't accepted the simple fact that plants BREATHE carbon dioxide! Clear-cutting rain forests have definitely contributed to an increase in CO2. Yeah, that's because humans did it. That much I can agree with. Plant more damn trees or kill more damn people, preferably the ones who can't rationally tell the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. End of story.
  
  If you're going to support a tax on me for breathing, packing things in dry ice, soda pop and farting, then you're an idiot that needs your ass removed.
  
  Notice that the tune I keep singing has not changed since the same post, but perhaps repetition is the only way this sinks in for you?
  

• bloc said on Nov 05, 2009....

  You still haven't shown any empirical link between the CO levels and the rise in temperature. I'm open minded on this, but you just haven't shown it. I have shown the correlation with CO2. CO2 is a stronger green house gas than CO. I agree that cutting down forests is a contributing factor. So is pumping CO2 in the air via the burning of fossil fuels. 
  
  
  I want to make sure i understand you though. Are you saying that human beings are causing climate change, primarily through CO and deforestation?

• javadewd said on Nov 06, 2009....

  Industry and incomplete combustion is the only source of air pollution. The only way you can blame nature on air pollution is to say that forest fires and volcanoes are somehow contributing, but in essence the EPA's chart showing the huge amount of carbon monoxide in the air in the 1970's is totally human made.
  
  Again, the essence of my argument is that if you had a "cap 'n tax" bill in front of you -- let's say on a computer screen for ease of illustration -- and you simply replaced all instances of CO2 and carbon dioxide with CO and carbon monoxide, the bill would be perfect. It would do everything that the crazy tree-hugging hippies wanted and not insult the intelligence of everybody else. There's your "green economy." Take it or leave it. Taxing people for breathing, belching and farting is absurd.
  
  Hmm... Empirical link between the CO levels and the rise in temperature. Ah! Here you go. That pretty much shows the direct link between the higher centigrade temperatures in combination with carbon monoxide levels in the atmosphere. And unless NASA became some sort of right-wing fringe group overnight, I'd say I just put a fork in your complaint. A-cha-cha-cha. I do, I do for you kids...
  
  So again -- not bitching over green, just asking y'all to get the wording right so both sides can fight against the right thing here. If you don't, your beloved bill will cause the opposite effect by cutting back on the air in which plants breathe. Plants can't breathe, plants die. Plants die, we die. End of story. The moral of the story : Plant more trees or kill more people if you want to cut back on CO2... But if you want to actually do something about industry and pollution, 90% or more of America would be behind that. I know I would be!
  
  Another awesome example of how carbon monoxide is your true killer of civilization and not carbon dioxide : Never burn charcoal in your fireplace. The incomplete combustion of the charcoal causes high amounts of CARBON MONOXIDE and will kill your happy ass [and your family] in a matter of minutes. [ CPSC source ] This was actually demonstrated on CSI once in a murder plot. Again, this situation on a global scale (replace home with earth, fireplace with industrial smoke stack and vehicle emissions, happy ass and family with earth's population) and you have what's causing what you're touting as the "green house effect."
  

• bloc said on Nov 06, 2009....

  pollution and the green house effect are not the same thing.
  
  
  Your link isn't correlating CO with the rise in global temperature. I searched for a long time and haven't found any studies on this. I'm open to the idea, but I haven't seen anything linking the two.
  
  
  You keep using a non sequitur. CO is a pollutant, therefore CO2 isn't causing warming. I know your smart, which only leaves me to believe that you are doing this intentionally. 

• javadewd said on Nov 07, 2009....

  As much as I wish I were joking with you, I fucking give up. You are obviously set in your ways of believing that nothing I have said is true, none of my sources are relevant and when you get the sand out of your ears from having your head buried in it, I'll be happy to continue this discussion. I am thrown by the amount of times I have repeated myself over and over telling you that carbon dioxide is not the enemy here, that "global warming" and its relation to carbon dioxide is a total hoax and even attempted to show you over and over that if the rest of the left-wing liberals would simply address the facts about carbon monoxide, they could pass a bi-partisan "carbon tax" bill... But you don't want to hear what I have to say. You don't want to acknowledge that anything I have said is true. You want to believe what you want to believe and simply dismiss the rest of us as idiots, wife beaters and racists. Hey, at least I can walk away from this discussion knowing that at least I know the damn difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and all of you "global warming" lemmings still think that exhaling, popping a soda can, evaporating dry ice and farting will kill us all. Congratulations! I'll let this thread expose this argument for what it is.

Comment on "Some real science about global warming"

Currently tagged	politics climate change Science Global cooling global warming global nonsense (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment