CO2 is actually quite toxic to humans…As the Apollo 11 astronauts discovered…Thank God for duct tape…Else they would have all been dead…

To the previous comment.

I think the author’s statement about CO2 is accurate, as it applies to the conversation. Generally speaking, atmospheric CO2 levels are considered safe–non-toxic. Ever drank a Coca-Cola?

Assuming you meant Apollo 13–where a cryogenic tank exploded on route to the Moon–the scrubber you are referring to, dubbed the ‘mailbox’, was crucial to the astronauts survival, but water and electric power were the most critical consumables. The actual mailbox, is on display at the Johnson Space Center.

You got the part about the duct tape right.

from the Eng-wiki:

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[7] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[8]

see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_13_LM_with_Mailbox_retouched.jpg

Sorry…That would be Apollo 13…

Just because humans can’t survive in a CO2 environment doesn’t make CO2 toxic. By that thinking water is also toxic.

David, don’t play with words or the point. This is not about being cute or playing word games. The mission is for humanity to become wise enough to save itself and all of creation. We are not doing a good job, and the effort should be directed to problem solving, not word games. I suspect it could come to the point in time where the amount of CO2 we have in the atmosphere is like sticking one’s head in a fishbowl, but we don’t need to get there. We simply have to become realistic and pursue realism in our objectives.

Think! Why should it be aloud the question the influence of CO2? Anyway: the influence of the pollution of the US army (including Nato partner) is much WORSE then any other HUMAN made CO2 exhaustion. Also: the influence of the vulcano activity and other natural happening isn´t to neclected. I enjoy reneable clean energy but is has NOTHING to do with CO2 (which is a only 0,03% in the air and that very important for every plant. Actually the put extra CO2 into plant houses to make them groß faster (if there is enough sunlight…).

I’m not the one playing word games. Either CO2 is toxic or it’s not toxic regardless of form or context – just like water CO2 is a supporter of life – quite the opposite of “toxic”. Also CO2 levels are restricted by gravity. It’s impossible for concentrations to build up the way you and other climate alarmists are predicting. By the way we don’t take care of the environment it takes care of us. We can’t be the stewards of the environment any more than a premature baby can be the steward of its incubator. When are you people going to start showing some respect for the power of nature? How many hurricanes, tidal waves, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes and earthquakes do you have to witness to realize we’re not the ones in control? On another front there are no alternate fuels, because there are so few elements that can be used as a basis. Ethynol, bio-diesel they all burn carbon. So, until you find a safe alternate base to replace carbon; there are no alternate fuels.

I think a wise first step would be world wide birth control to alleviate the burden on all of our resources and the amount of CO2 being created.

Carol’s right. Let’s start with the easy stuff.

I am a teacher of environmental science and have an M.S. Degree in Fisheries and Wildlife. There is no doubt in my mind that human actions have contributed to an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. There is no doubt in my mind that those increased levels have contributed to changes in global temperature.

However, the effects of those changes are highly debatable. There is a big difference between predicted changes and observed changes. And, it should be noted that changes can be both positive and negative.

David you are playing word games. In nature gases are not “either toxic of they are not.” Humans require oxygen, plants require oxygen, and some bacteria require methane. Buzzards thrive on decayed meat that would instantly poison humans. You would distract us from serious discussion of the article by by bringing up a series of off-topic red herring comments such as CO2 toxicity. Your comment about humans not being the guardians of nature and your allegation that those of us concerned with climate change fail to appeciate the power of nature is equally spacious. Did you know that a committee of the National Geological Society is actively considering labeling this a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, based on the magnitude of human impacts on all the planet’s self regulatory systems? Just as aerobic bacteria once changed the atmospheric balance by producing oxygen in copious quantities we humans are now changing the atmosphere via our production of copious quantities of CO2. That is the point. What we need to talk about that is how to change our behavior.

Finally, of course there are alternate fuels. What about solar power? What about wind power? What about wave power? What about bio-diseal produced by microorganisms? Where have you been that you don’t even know about these? Enough! Let’s get this discussion back on topic. It irritates me greatly that I’ve just wasted the better part of a half hour answering your foolish assertions.

Carol isn’t even close to being right. She’s convicted humanity and sentenced her own species to ultimate death through attrition without so much as a single piece of compelling evidence, let alone a trial.

You people probably also believe there’s a hole in the ozone layer, despite the fact that would be a violation of the laws of physics.

A bit of history.

Way back when there was no ozone layer UV radiation from the sun bathed the earth unimpeded, but that radiation caused a reaction with the oxygen in the atmosphere that created ozone. The ozone built up in the upper atmosphere and once it was dense enough it filtered out the UV radiation. Without the radiation the reaction stopped. Now that same UV radiation continues to bombard the planet, but the ozone layer protects us. If, for any reason, the ozone layer were to become depleted the radiation would get through, but it would then, immediately begin reacting with the oxygen to produce ozone, which again would build up until there was enough to filter out the radiation. So, aside from the scientific fact that you can’t have a hole in a fluid; how can there be a problem with the ozone layer that nature won’t fix without any help from human beings?????

Reed Mencke: My assertions are foolish only if I’m wrong. What it you’re wrong?

Solar power is not a fuel, wind power is not a fuel, wave power is not a fuel. Bio-diesel is carbon-based regardless of source; microorganisms or whatever. I’m all for solar, wind, wave, tidal and who knows what else might be developed, and I think everyone should drive a Hybrid automobile, but just because I’m in favor of these and future possibilities doesn’t change the fact, the indisputable scientific fact that carbon dioxide is an element that is essential to life on this planet and therefore it is categorically impossible that it could be harmful to the environment. It is also an indisputable scientific fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air and therefore can’t accumulate in the air as is claimed by those who want us to believe CO2 is to blame.

Which one of us is the denier?

What most of the people commenting on both sides of this issue have missed is not whether anything on Earth is good or bad – CO-2 for instance. The issue is the balance. Air is about 1/5 oxygen and 4/5 nitrogen, and a few little amounts of other gases. Make it all nitrogen and we’re dead. IT’S A QUESTION OF BALANCE. We’re changing the balance (cause) and the climate is reacting (effect). Simple.

We should stop insulting each other and focus on what we know from experience is a good balance (pre-Industrial Revolution air quality) and how we can reverse the man-made changes due to pollution and return the air quality to the proper balance, and the climate will react accordingly. We’ve got about 15 years left. Let’s get busy.

David E. Lucas I would suggest you read
Science for All Americans by F. James Rutherford, especially the section concerning conservation of matter. As well as eaarth (that’s right two a’s) by Bill McKibben. Reading texts that are peer reviewed, well referenced and that provide a well rounded discussion by a majority of leading scientists throughout the world is advisable to … wherever you might be gathering your disinformation.
Sincerely, Julie

Why not focus on individual strategies to avoid or minimize your personal impact consuming fossil fuel? A good debate is how hard is it for individuals to adopt new energy efficient habits when much of their engrained behavior was learned when fossil fuel energy was inexpensive. What will incent folks to change fuel wasting behavior – cash savings at the gas pump, or a sense of purpose knowing they are part of a bigger picture where many little actions collectively add up? Lowering individual consumption of gasoline is one of the best, fastest and least costly ways folks can actually make a difference (without change in lifestyle). In fact, it is easy and fun.

Julie, are you disputing the fact, a scientific fact that 100% of scientists have no choice but to agree with and that fact is CO2 is heavier than air. Do you disagree that CO2 is an esstential element, vital to life on this planet.
William I suggest we all stop concentrating on something that can’t possibly be the cause and start concentrating on finding the real cause.

“Lowering individual consumption of gasoline is one of the best, fastest and least costly ways folks can actually make a difference (without change in lifestyle). In fact, it is easy and fun.” Not if the only way to achieve this is by making it so expensive low-income families are forced to park or sell their car. Then how would you and these families feel when you realize – oops I guess CO2 wasn’t the cause after all.

Michael McKay why do you assume anything is out of balance? The only way the environment (or any part thereof) can be out of balance is if humans are more powerful than nature. Clearly that’s not the case. CO2, pollution etc. etc. etc. are all heavier than air and that all powerful force called gravity removes it far more effectively than anything human beings can do. So what makes you think anything is out of balance?

A response to Tony –

Emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from volcanoes are tiny compared to those from anthropogenic sources. Calculations from the US Geological Survey concluded that volcanoes produce about 200 million tons of CO2.

In contrast, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions (in 2003) were 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

For the purposes of today’s changing climate, volcanoes actually have a cooling effect while the sulphides they release remain in the upper atmosphere.

A debate on CO2 toxicity, oh brother.

Anyway, I think the best way to move forward is a three prong initiative.
1) Reach out to the uninformed middle ground folks. This may take a lot of effort and leadership.
2) Move forward with actions where possible. EPA regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act ought to be upheld.
3) Address the misinformation wherever possible and correct it. Convincing deniers is a secondary effort.

So if we pay our carbon taxes to Al Gore he will wave a magic wand and everything will be okay? Right? The sun along with the entire solar system is heating up but that has nothing to do with the climate. Right? It’s all because of us evil humans? Correct? Carol Pulitzer says world wide birth control is the answer. Reminds me of Julien Huxley and his brother Aldous Huxley and their model of Eugenics. Or perhaps China and their one child policy. Or even John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, that says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet. Carol if you are not aware of these individuals you should surely study their writings. I think you would resonate with them quite deeply.

Human population is growing at a rate of over 200 000 every day. The world is not expanding. David i dont see why Carols remarks on overpopulation are that paranoid as you make out. No ones saying forced abortions and mass sterilisation. ???

In reading through this blog. I am not sure I am getting the point or relevance of the discussion. I work as a risk manager in healthcare and unless we have had our heads in the sand over the past 50 to 100 odd years I’d say we all missed the point. In my view the real discussion needs to be about ‘respect’ for ones self and the place we all depend on and share called ‘Earth’. We long ago threw the baby out with the bath water and disconnected ourselves from our nature by inventing fear managing mythologies to prevent the bogey man in the closet from getting us. The fact or non-fact of whether CO2 is heavier than this that or the next thing is likened to the argument of whether the earth is flat or round as an Orb.
The point of discussion is prefaced by us losing our ability to understand what true ‘value’ as we are living less by our whits and more by our ‘myths’. Even those that are learned intellectuals siloed themselves for many generations because of these myths and just recently started waking up to the value of collaborating. However, it is only because of circumstance, which is often the case, that this happened. People, I urge you to drop the rhetoric and focus on trying to understand what the meaning of ‘respect’ and ‘value’ are to you and your fellow man/woman. You are all truly disconnectd from your nature and cluttering rational thinking up with the politics of your myth!
I am taking my marching orders from my great-granddaughter who when I look into her innoncent eyes, demands that I not leave her a world without, fresh clean water, fresh clean air, or other species that contribute and enhance the environment we all share. She needs to go to sleep at night with a general sense of security that allows her to sleep securely through the night without worrying too much about the mythological bogey man WE created in the closet!

If you want to read something that will help us understand the root cause of our predicament, read Milton’s, Paradise Lost (pay close attention to his arguments about Idolatry), or Rachel Carson’s, Silent Spring or better yet, Read Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson, in the latter you be taking one step towards building a tool set that will contribute to solutions for this rather sticky situation we all find ourselves in.

Isn’t CO2 the foundation of photosynthesis? Is not photosynthesis how oxegen is created? Do we not need CO2 to survive?

As a sentient species with the capability for critical and (sometimes) rational thought, it is only natural for us to relate to the Earth from a human-centric viewpoint – i.e. what conditions are good for us. Obviously this make sense because it is the automatic response of all living creatures when faced with some external threat. It is the instinctual mechanism for survival that drives us. Of course this mechanism does not always serve us well as it can often lead to short-term decision making that leaves us vulnerable to long-term consequences. Anyone familiar with economics will recognise this theme as “rational irrationality”, or “the prisoners dilemma”.
The debate over how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous has clearly been answered when taken from a human-centric standpoint. We, as a species, wish to survive (through the genes we pass on in our offspring). The increase in CO2 is a direct impediment to our success at doing this.
We have just lived through a miraculous period of about 125 years where we have had an abundance of an energy type that was perfect for our needs and allowed for an incredible expansion of our species. That abundance will irrevocably reduce, but its effects will be felt for generations – and in a post fossil fuel world (pre-industrial age) this planet will only be able to support around 1 billion of us. This is no theory, it is simply a fact of the laws of supply and demand and energy transferrance.
I personally think that it is worth looking at the issue like this: If you own a car or a house, do you pay for insurance? If so, why? Because there is always the risk that you could be caught out by unforeseen events outside of your control. You may never need to use the insurance, but you will pay the monthly premium regardless. Taking personal measures to reduce your carbon footprint is also a form of insurance (and one that can even save you money). Conservation of resources and good stewardship of the environment is, in the longterm, economically rational and also a morally correct action to take.
If you feel that there may just be good cause for precaution regarding climate change, the natural action to take is to start making changes now to the way you interact within your environment. There are so many actions, big and small, that can make a positive difference – and if we each take a few of those actions, we have a positive impact on the problem.

Here is just one small example: Your home electronic devices draw power when on standby. If everyone was to turn them off at the wall when not required, you could potentially be saving enough energy to reduce carbon emissions in the millions of tonnes.

It’s so simple. All it takes is a willingness to make a change in the way you live. Why wouldn’t you?

David’s pretty funny. I’m pretty sure that airplanes are heavier than air, too, just as oil tankers are heavier than water: which is why planes can’t fly and all boats sink.

I’m in the process of cleaning the roof of my house. It was repainted about 8 years ago. The still-to-be-cleaned parts of my roof are almost black. Not only has my roof accumulated this pollution in 8 years, I’ve no doubt been breathing in this pollution over the same period. It’s this pollution that I want to see reduced, so that I can breathe in more clean air. Concentrating on carbon pollution rather than general pollution seems to have hijacked the whole debate from its practical reality to my daily living and health.

Howard J. Are you suggesting CO2 molecules have engines that keep them in the air? Are you suggesting they displace an amount of air that exceeds their own weight? Are you conscious?

The first comment sets the tone for unbridled scientific ignorance that permeates this debate. She doesn’t know the meaning of the word “toxic.”

CO2 is not toxic. It’s not a poison. It’s a heavier than air gas. It collects in low places and can kill humans via asphyxiation. Period.

If you don’t even have that rudimentary knowledge at your command, then your opinions and arguments carry no weight with intelligent, knowledgeable people.

I suppose the same people are unaware natural gas is not toxic to humans, either. Put your head in the oven, and its asphyxiation or explosion that kills you, not the gas.

Bruce, aren’t we still off topic though? Can we get back to the issue and arguments that there may be some man-made environmental risks we need to deal with?

Friends!

I think we let ourselves carried over by the first’s commenters’s misconception about CO2. The debate (if there is to be one) should be about the post and in there, it’s indicated verbatim that CO2 isn’t toxic to humans and that it’s the greenhouse effect that is potentially harmful for the earth as a closed system.

Climate change is in my opinion part of a bigger issue: one of resource management. The earth can certainly afford a bit fossil fuel burning and resource usage, it will be engulfed by the heat of the sun as it expands towards its red giant state.
However, the alarming rate at which we are conducting those activities will very likely make us fall prey to Malthus’ law (population grows until ressources are all consummed, famine occurs and then population resorbs massively) very soon instead of us as a species living to see ourselves getting cooked by our star.
Technology (not policy) has certainly helped us averting that for while, but it won’t last forever if we keep consuming and growing like we are right now. As Carol Pullitzer clumsily suggested, it is not cars and industries that pollute and use resources, it’s humans; feel free to have you own conclusions about that, hers (birth control) is perfectly sound even if it is nowadays synonym with totalitarian policy.

And that is all simply because the earth is a closed system, and that you cannot have infinite physical growth (economy of growth, yay!) inside a closed system. The earth is a balancing act, and we shall see return of pendulum sooner than expected if we keep going down that route.

The article is interesting reading, as it reveals much about the writer’s predisposition on the subject.

It starts with the statement that ‘there’s really no “debate” that pollution from human activities is changing the climate’ and links to a University of Illinois Chicago paper, which is an exercise in statistics, analysing surveys of who “believes” which position in the debate.

Unsurprisingly, the highest persentages of “climate change believers” are “Active Publishers – Climate Change” and “Climatologists who are active publishers on climate change”.

What else could be expected? Yet the writer uses this as proof that there is “no real debate” – ipso facto.

‘True Believers’ have been responsible for a dizzying array of moral errors over human history – viz. The Spanish Inquistion, The National Socialist Party, McCarthy’s Senate Committee on Un-American Activities, Al Queda…one could go on. Yet, with the benefit of hindsight and perspective, these moral errors are screamingly obvious and universally condemned, and the harm that arose from the zeal of these True Believers, imposing their view, is deeply regretted.

The abominable “No Pressure” advert series (UK, Richard Curtis) featuring the bloody, exploding fate of those who will not ‘buy in’ to True Believers’ “initiatives” to reduce CO2, shows just how insidious this current set of crusading Do Gooders really are.

Who could have the arrogance to think human activity can both cause AND cure the level of any given gas in our atmosphere?

So, the opinion of of a True Believer should always be taken with a significant quality of NaCL (another essential element, but toxic to most life forms in large quanities).

Ken Hurley writes “I am taking my marching orders from my great-granddaughter who when I look into her innoncent eyes, demands that I not leave her a world without, fresh clean water, fresh clean air, or other species that contribute and enhance the environment we all share. She needs to go to sleep at night with a general sense of security that allows her to sleep securely through the night without worrying too much about the mythological bogey man WE created in the closet!”

The problem here is – that David Suzuki, Al Gore & Elizabeth May want us to replace the “Mythological bogey man” we all know is unreal with us and every grandaughter knows we are real. Does Ken really prefer that his granddaughter regards him as the bogey man? Does Ken want his daughter to believe she’s the bogey man? What happens to her peace of mind if she accepts the role of villain? If we have misdiagnosed the situation the only thing we do by attacking CO2 is guarantee the granddaughters of the world will not live in the kind of world we lived in. If we spend billions of dollars on carbon emissions where will they get food, if we outlaw driving and eliminate all carbon-based fuels how will they get to and from work, if we destroy the economy in the name of CO2 how will they survive. We aren’t powerful enough to hurt the environment, but we certainly can destroy the economy. A human being will die of starvation a lot faster and surer than from climate change. If Climate Change is dependent on CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere we are attacking the wrong cause, because gravity prevents the accumulation of CO2. That’s a simple scientific fact – not mythology, not politics, not rhetoric – it’s real. Ken Hurley and all of you who agree will be doing more to harm the future for your (and other’s) grandaughters than all the cars in the world.

The environment is constantly producing more clean water, clean oxygen and there’s nothing we can do to change that. The world has detonated something like 500 nuclear bombs, yet we are here to write these silly comments. The world has burned carbon-based fuels since cavemen lit their caves and cooked on open fires, the ancient Egytian used oil lamps and who knows when coal was first used. Hell an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs, but the environment was still healthy enough to support other life. The environment hasn’t been harmed by CO2 by the last 100,000 years so how can any intelligent being believe we have the power to harm it in the next 100 years. Time to grab a brain.

I think the first step is to completely ignore David Lucas. A denier of the first order herein described. The discussion is what to do about it. Leave the deniers out in the cold or heat.

First off – I’m not a denier. I accept Climate Change, but what good can possibly come from attacking the wrong cause. You waste a lot of time, energy, effort and money and Climate Change just continues to get worse.

If the oil industry gets cut-off from its customers how can it survive? If the auto industry is cut-off from gas & oil how can it survive? If people are cut-off from their workplaces how can they survive? If Canada is cut-off from gas & oil; and our enemies are not how can Canada survive?

This is what the future brings if you continue attacking the wrong cause. Let’s spend some time, energy, effort and money finding the right, true cause. That’s all I’m saying.

For Dave,
Information cribed off the internet and something you should have done before posting.
Toxicity: The quality or condition of being toxic. The degree (very important to note) to which a substance (a toxin or poison) can harm humans or animals.
Toxicity refers to the ability of a substance to induce harmful effects. Anything can be considered a toxin, it is a matter of degree, so yes CO2 can be a toxin.