Runaway Global Warming

There are some interesting things about CO2 that are already known and yet to be discovered I feel.
(all references C/O wiki)

For example:
"Hypercapnia or hypercapnea (from the Greek hyper = "above" or "too much" and kapnos = "smoke"), also known as hypercarbia, is a condition of abnormally elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the blood. Carbon dioxide is a gaseous product of the body's metabolism and is normally expelled through the lungs.

Hypercapnia normally triggers a reflex which increases breathing and access to oxygen, such as arousal and turning the head during sleep. A failure of this reflex can be fatal, as in sudden infant death syndrome.[1]"...

You will notice the reference to SIDS, being a failure of a specific reflex, yet causation of this failure is apparently unknown.

You will also notice that this "failure of reflex" factor is not widely published. and was, IMO with out much doubt, well known by the medical scientists in the early 80's and deliberately kept under wraps. Blood CO2 testing is easy to preform as part of a typical blood test procedure, so they MUST have known that SIDS infants (80's) had severe elevated blood CO2.

***But one can not avoid the almost direct link between SIDS and CO2***

Hypothesis:
It also IMO explains the sudden development of the Quit smoking campaign in the 80's which was claimed to be focused on the reduction of Lung disease when in fact it probably was more focused on reducing the Carbon monoxide, oxygen blocking that smoking creates. thus reducing the risk of Hypercapnia [excessive blood CO2 levels]

==============

Also,

"Dry ice, sometimes referred to as "cardice" (chiefly British chemists), is the solid form of carbon dioxide. It is used primarily as a cooling agent. Its advantages include lower temperature than that of water ice and not leaving any residue (other than incidental frost from moisture in the atmosphere). It is useful for preserving frozen foods, ice cream, etc., where mechanical cooling is unavailable.

Dry ice sublimes at −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F) at Earth atmospheric pressures. This extreme cold makes the solid dangerous to handle without protection due to burns caused by freezing (frostbite). While generally not very toxic, the outgassing from it can cause hypercapnia due to buildup in confined locations."

So in a sense CO2 could be considered as a natural refrigerant.

"Dry ice is easily manufactured.[12][13] First, gases with a high concentration of carbon dioxide are produced. Such gases can be a byproduct of another process, such as producing ammonia from nitrogen and natural gas, or large-scale fermentation.[13] Second, the carbon dioxide-rich gas is pressurized and refrigerated until it liquifies. Next, the pressure is reduced. When this occurs some liquid carbon dioxide vaporizes, causing a rapid lowering of temperature of the remaining liquid. As a result, the extreme cold causes the liquid to solidify into a snow-like consistency. Finally, the snow-like solid carbon dioxide is compressed into either small pellets or larger blocks of dry ice"

What I am exploring at the moment is that the atmospheric CO2 may demonstrate some of it's extraordinary cooling properties in the near future... as pressure differentials become more extreme in the worlds atmosphere.

We presume we know most of all there is to know about CO2 but have yet to explore such a massive and dynamic environment as a global atmosphere/eco-system that is constantly seeking equilibrium.

Gosh is that my super ego showing again?? :)
 
Last edited:
Effects of CO2 exposure in humans.
from (unqualified/unverified source):

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF CO2
full document : http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf

Excerpt:
"Low-Level Exposure Summary
Prolonged exposure to low-level CO2 is not immediately life threatening, but it may have health consequences for healthy individuals as well as sensitive populations.

Some of the observed effects in studies reported prior to the 1980s have been questioned for technical reasons, and only additional studies can determine the true potential of prolonged CO2 exposure to induce adverse health outcomes."
 
Quantum Quack said:
Effects of CO2 exposure in humans.
from (unqualified/unverified source):

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF CO2
full document : http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/04/carbon-seq/169.pdf

Excerpt:
"Low-Level Exposure Summary
Prolonged exposure to low-level CO2 is not immediately life threatening, but it may have health consequences for healthy individuals as well as sensitive populations.

Some of the observed effects in studies reported prior to the 1980s have been questioned for technical reasons, and only additional studies can determine the true potential of prolonged CO2 exposure to induce adverse health outcomes."
Click to expand...

you are part of the problem
 
river said:
Read Tim Balls book

Then go from there
Click to expand...
Sorry, but his blog spot site tells me all I need to know about Tim Balls thoughts.

You have inspired an interesting question IMO
One that, I believe, has yet to be asked directly.

"What can the individual do about it?"
"What can the guy on the street, the moms and dads, the average every day consumer do about it?

I wonder how Tim Ball would answer the above regarding his non-anthropogenic (naturally) induced climate change scenario?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Sorry, but his blog spot site tells me all I need to know about Tim Balls thoughts.

You have inspired an interesting question IMO
One that, I believe, has yet to be asked directly.

"What can the individual do about it?"
"What can the guy on the street, the moms and dads, the average every day consumer do about it?

I wonder how Tim Ball would answer the above regarding his non-anthropogenic (naturally) induced climate change scenario?
Click to expand...

To ask questions about the findings of the IPCC and the SPM and the Group 1 , scientific findings and go from there
 
river said:
To ask questions about the findings of the IPCC and the SPM and the Group 1 , scientific findings and go from there
Click to expand...
and then do what?

What can you or I do about climate change that IS occurring today, tomorrow and in the foreseeable future?
I just went out and purchased a small portable evap. cooler [all I could afford] that may be sufficient for perhaps 2 summers after which it will be virtually useless.
From the IPCC perspective the cooler has a huge carbon footprint and probably should not be manufactured sold or purchased. [ it is powered by coal fired generators ]

From T Ball's perspective what could I have done?

"Dig a hole in the ground, stick my head in it and hope it all goes away"
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
and then do what?

What can you or I do about climate change that IS occurring today, tomorrow and in the foreseeable future?
I just went out and purchased an evap. cooler [all I could afford] that may be sufficient for perhaps 2 summers after which it will be virtually useless.
From the IPCC perspective the cooler has a huge carbon footprint and probably should not be manufactured sold or purchased. [ it is powered by coal fired generators ]

From T Ball's perspective what could I have done?

"Dig a hole in the ground, stick my head in it and hope it all goes away"
Click to expand...

You'll just have to figure it out for yourself QQ

Have you read Tims book ?
 
river said:
You'll just have to figure it out for yourself QQ

Have you read Tims book ?
Click to expand...
nah.. too busy coping...no time for words...action only please...
now where is my pick & shovel ... oh damn it... I sold them to buy the cooler! :)
 
Quantum Quack said:
...I would rather be part of the solution. Do you have one?
Click to expand...
A solution may not exist but you should push for replacing gasoline with renewable, slightly CO2 negative, many low skill job creating (and with job they buy high tech goods so some more good jobs too) but most importantly for most is fact that sugar cane based alcohol gives motor slightly more power and is significantly cheaper per mile driven, with no subsidies.

Stop the largest of all farm subsidies (for corn, almost half the total) and very low Return on Energy Input if used to make alcohol (perhaps not even greater than unity according Cornell study - see right graph at end.) and upward pressure on food pieces with more than 1/3 of all US corn being turned into alcohol, which due the large amount of nitrogen fertilizer needed to speed growth in Iowa's short summers makes lots of NOx pollution - so much so that just using gasoline instead of "gasohol" is better for human health and the environment as NOx is strong GHG.

I.e. be like me - advocate global switch to sugar cane alcohol as transport fuel and grown in tropical lands (not Brazil, as Brazil's soil is richer than that grass needs and can be more economically used for food crops) Note also that cane needs no fertilizer if every 5th year soy beans are grown in the same field instead of cane. This does lower the five year average yield but increases the global food supply assuming only now abandoned pasture is converted to growing sugar cane - more than enough of that currently not used land could supply all the fuel world's cars need (if they are modern efficient designs.) while have these many benefits.
slide-17-1024.jpg
Note the 2nd best (very much worse than sugar cane) does not even exist on a commercial scale and has in the largest / best pilot plants more than twice the production cost per gallon as costly enzymes are used to make alcohol from cellulose. Scaling up production volume is tough as the enzyme produced soon turn into wide strains - much harder than making good wine in large volume.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting find.(related to Hypercapnea)

Article dated 19/08/2009.
O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising
Implications for Climate Change Policies​

"It is becoming clear that getting rid of CO2 is not enough; oxygen has its own dynamic and the rapid decline in atmospheric O2 must also be addressed. Although there is much more O2 than CO2 in the atmosphere - 20.95 percent or 209 460 ppm of O2 compared with around 380 ppm of CO2 – humans, all mammals, birds, frogs, butterfly, bees, and other air-breathing life-forms depend on this high level of oxygen for their well being [5] Living with Oxygen (SiS 43). In humans, failure of oxygen energy metabolism is the single most important risk factor for chronic diseases including cancer and death. ‘Oxygen deficiency’ is currently set at 19.5 percent in enclosed spaces for health and safety [6], below that, fainting and death may result. "

Src: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

In summary..

Atmospheric O2 levels as of

2009 were 20.95%

Min required is understood to be 19.5%
2009 Safety margin of only 1.45%

Suggesting that any further significant decline in global oxygen levels could prove potentially catastrophic.

(requires further research and collaboration.)
Searching for more recent Global O2% data has proved futile so far.

=======

Spring in Australia is the time for the Southern Ozone Hole to reach maximum

Coincidentally (*?) we have just recently experienced a number of large and long duration lightening displays in 3 (*?) states.

Numerous injuries have occurred.

Lightening generates ozone..

(natural balancing act perhaps?)
 
Last edited:
billvon said:
Fortunately there is no risk of that.
Click to expand...
I truly hope you are right... however there appears to be empirical and a heap of anecdotal evidence that strongly suggests other wise...
Maybe go search for more recent qualified data and if you can't find any ask yourself: "Why not?"
"Global CO2 records go back more than 50 years [8], but O2 measurement in combination with CO2 goes back barely two decades [9]" -article dated 2009
~again a reference to 1980's

If any one can find more current Global O2% data please post
 
Last edited:
Billy T said:
A solution may not exist but you should push for replacing gasoline with renewable, slightly CO2 negative, many low skill job creating (and with job they buy high tech goods so some more good jobs too) but most importantly for most is fact that sugar cane based alcohol gives motor slightly more power and is significantly cheaper per mile driven, with no subsidies.

Stop the largest of all farm subsidies (for corn, almost half the total) and very low Return on Energy Input if used to make alcohol (perhaps not even greater than unity according Cornell study - see right graph at end.) and upward pressure on food pieces with more than 1/3 of all US corn being turned into alcohol, which due the large amount of nitrogen fertilizer needed to speed growth in Iowa's short summers makes lots of NOx pollution - so much so that just using gasoline instead of "gasohol" is better for human health and the environment as NOx is strong GHG.

I.e. be like me - advocate global switch to sugar cane alcohol as transport fuel and grown in tropical lands (not Brazil, as Brazil's soil is richer than that grass needs and can be more economically used for food crops) Note also that cane needs no fertilizer if every 5th year soy beans are grown in the same field instead of cane. This does lower the five year average yield but increases the global food supply assuming only now abandoned pasture is converted to growing sugar cane - more than enough of that currently not used land could supply all the fuel world's cars need (if they are modern efficient designs.) while have these many benefits.
slide-17-1024.jpg
Note the 2nd best (very much worse than sugar cane) does not even exist on a commercial scale and has in the largest / best pilot plants more than twice the production cost per gallon as costly enzymes are used to make alcohol from cellulose. Scaling up production volume is tough as the enzyme produced soon turn into wide strains - much harder than making good wine in large volume.
Click to expand...

Found this regards Biofuel deforestation and concerns.
Dated: 2007
src: http://www.ipsnews.net/2007/03/environment-biofuels-boom-spurring-deforestation/

"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay.
"We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS."

and

"The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined."

hmmm...maybe things have changed since then?
 
billvon said:
Oxygen is declining at about four parts per million per year. (.0004% a year.) If we burned every bit of coal, oil and natural gas we had, oxygen levels would decline about 3% from our current total - from 20.95% to 20.32%.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html[/quote]
Click to expand...
interesting!
One can only guess why the previous report was headed:
O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising -2009
and used language such as:

"It is becoming clear that getting rid of CO2 is not enough; oxygen has its own dynamic and the rapid decline in atmospheric O2 must also be addressed.
Click to expand...
when the Scripps O2 program you have referred to claims reduction is incidental.
Apparently the earlier data set was taken from two testing stations

1999-2009

"Decrease in atmospheric O2 has been detected in stations around the world for the past decade, a consistent downward trend that has accelerated in recent years.

The largest fall in O2 was observed in the study of Swiss research team led by Francesco Valentino at University of Bern, for data collected at high altitude research stations in Switzerland and France. The Jungfraujoch (JFJ) station in Switzerland (3 580 m above sea level, 46o 33’N, 7o 50’E) is located on a mountain crest on the northern edge of the Swiss Alps. The Puy de Dôme station (1 480 m above sea level, 45o46’N, 2o 58’E) is situated west of the Alps at the summit of Puy de Dôme."
src: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

Perhaps being High altitude testing makes a difference?

The Scripps team appear to be measuring at sea level [or close to] whereas the two mentioned earlier were 3580m and 1480m

I shall research both stations in Switzerland and France and see what I can dig up...

Edit: a quick search reveals that no public ally available research documents on the issue appear to exist after 2009
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
...
hmmm...maybe things have changed since then?
Click to expand...
I have several times posted to identify the main cause of deforestation in Brazil. It is rich people mainly in US and Europe but probably an increasing number in Asia wanting to own beautiful hard wood furnature (and fact that many men living in the Amazon rain forest can earn more with one illegally cut mahogany tree than by working and collecting the minimum wage for more than a year even if they can get a salaried job). Usually to hid their "serious jail time" crime they set fire that will burn its self out after many dozens, if not hundreds, of acres have burned.

Sugar cane is a very bulky, low value per Kg crop (less than one cent / Kg) and the gasoline or diesel is a greater cost than its value if moving it even only 50 miles in a truck to the distillery. Thus there are many small distilleries spread out among the cane fields near the main markets of Sao Paulo and Rio to keep alcohol delivery cost low. - Not one of these cane fields is less than 500 miles from the closest part of the Amazon Rain forest. To cut those trees down to grow cane is totally impossible economically by a factor of at least ten!

Saying that sugar cane will end the rain forest is paid for propaganda LIES. Sugar cane is an economic threat to the oil industry; hydrogen "fuel" is not so they say nice things about the exhaust being only water, etc. - a clever distraction shifting the public's focus from the real threat to the oil industry. - Hell H2 is an energy transport means, not even a fuel - something else that made the H2 is the real fuel.

Typically what does happen to the burnt acres is that some local, who perhaps eaked out a living before the fire, by catching parrots or monkeys etc to sell now puts cow or two into the fire cleared area. But it is full of stumps and half burn log and the soil is terribly poor. So after failing to make a go at farming it for his food, he sells his dubious claim to the land to some richer Brazilian who can afford to clear it properly, add a little fertilizer and plant grass to raise beef on it. The cheaper cuts he sells or gives away locally to those who cut the weeds* and the better cut are worth 40 or more times the value of sugar cane per pound so they can be shipped to the larger towns along amazon river.

SUMMARY: Although not meaning to, the rich in first world countries are paying locals with no job to burn the Amazon Rain forest. Sugar cane has nothing to do with this - it can't as Amazon grown cane is 10 or more times father than where it can be transported to nearest distillery. So that is not done - no one is that ignorant (except for a few who fall for the oil companies totally false, self-serving, propaganda - anti-sugar cane alcohol lies.)

About a decade ago, the government finally realized that it could not, even with stiff jail terms and 100s of forest police, stop the burning of the Amazon to hide crimes, so started a program that allowed for SELECTIVE legal cutting of mature valuable hard-wood trees - issued a controlled number of permits, but still some who can't afford the permit fee, or just don't care, do cut and burn.

* I had a small cattle ranch for a decade in Brazil and paid generous by local standards wage to my hired man and sometimes to his son, to cut weeds. (equal to ~ $100/ month)** The cows make Darwinian selective pressure favoring the weeds by eating the grass - his 44 hours with a hoe / week made a counter Darwinian pressure against the weeds.

** That got me into trouble with other absentee land owners - their employees started asking for "high wages" like the American paid!

PS to QQ: I doubt you can discover which oil company pays Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay or for their office rent - but one (or an association of them) must to spread such silly and obvious lies about sugar cane grown in Brazil. Because of the location of the two main market cities, at least half of the sugar cane grown in Brazil is grown just south of the tropics!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
I have several times posted to identify the main cause of deforestation in Brazil. It is rich people mainly in US and Europe but probably an increasing number in Asia wanting to own beautiful hard wood furnature (and fact that many men living in the Amazon rain forest can earn more with one illegally cut mahogany tree than by working and collecting the minimum wage for more than a year even if they can get a salaried job). Usually to hid their "serious jail time" crime they set fire that will burn its self out after many dozens, if not hundreds, of acres have burned.

Sugar cane is a very bulky, low value per Kg crop (less than one cent / Kg) and the gasoline or diesel is a greater cost than its value if moving it even only 50 miles in a truck to the distillery. Thus there are many small distilleries spread out among the cane fields near the main markets of Sao Paulo and Rio to keep alcohol delivery cost low. - Not one of these cane fields is less than 500 miles from the closest part of the Amazon Rain forest. To cut those trees down to grow cane is totally impossible economically by a factor of at least ten!

Saying that sugar cane will end the rain forest is paid for propaganda LIES. Sugar cane is an economic threat to the oil industry; hydrogen "fuel" is not so they say nice things about the exhaust being only water, etc. - a clever distraction shifting the public's focus from the real threat to the oil industry. - Hell H2 is an energy transport means, not even a fuel - something else that made the H2 is the real fuel.

Typically what does happen to the burnt acres is that some local, who perhaps eaked out a living before the fire, by catching parrots or monkeys etc to sell now puts cow or two into the fire cleared area. But it is full of stumps and half burn log and the soil is terribly poor. So after failing to make a go at farming it for his food, he sells his dubious claim to the land to some richer Brazilian who can afford to clear it properly, add a little fertilizer and plant grass to raise beef on it. The cheaper cuts he sells or gives away locally to those who cut the weeds* and the better cut are worth 40 or more times the value of sugar cane per pound so they can be shipped to the larger towns along amazon river.

SUMMARY: Although not meaning to, the rich in first world countries are paying locals with no job to burn the Amazon Rain forest. Sugar cane has nothing to do with this - it can't as Amazon grown cane is 10 or more times father than where it can be transported to nearest distillery. So that is not done - no one is that ignorant (except for a few who fall for the oil companies totally false, self-serving, propaganda - anti-sugar cane alcohol lies.)

About a decade ago, the government finally realized that it could not, even with stiff jail terms and 100s of forest police, stop the burning of the Amazon to hide crimes, so started a program that allowed for SELECTIVE legal cutting of mature valuable hard-wood trees - issued a controlled number of permits, but still some who can't afford the permit fee, or just don't care, do cut and burn.

* I had a small cattle ranch for a decade in Brazil and paid generous by local standards wage to my hired man and sometimes to his son, to cut weeds. (equal to ~ $100/ month)** The cows make Darwinian selective pressure favoring the weeds by eating the grass - his 44 hours with a hoe / week made a counter Darwinian pressure against the weeds.

** That got me into trouble with other absentee land owners - their employees started asking for "high wages" like the American paid!

PS to QQ: I doubt you can discover which oil company pays Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay or for their office rent - but one (or an association of them) must to spread such silly and obvious lies about sugar cane grown in Brazil. Because of the location of the two main market cities, at least half of the sugar cane grown in Brazil is grown just south of the tropics!
Click to expand...
Thanks Billy T.. a good read...
Just briefly, as I must go exercise...
It reminds me of my experience on the beaches of Natal (north coast) when chatting to a German male tourist who used to walk around with a $100 usd note poking out of his back pocket...and how he used this trick to commit a fraud on the local community of prostitutes and street people [Of which there are many as you know and $100 usd cash is worth over half a years income for most]
I guess what we are talking about is what is referred to as "unconscionable" conduct by International Wealth being misapplied to those who are desperately seeking a way to exist. Abusing the power of privilege in a way that will, in the end, hit them in the face.

I agree, that the slash and burn of the Amazon-ia is one such example as you mention IMO.

more later...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top