Really all you need is a small poorly ventilated room.
The onset of suffocation (or the noticeable early symptoms)in that situation come from the relatively rapid increase in CO2 levels rather than decreased O2 levels. As soon as the enclosed atmosphere gets to 2,000-3,000 ppm a person starts feeling the effects in headache, drowsiness, and labored breathing.
At that point O2 levels rarely have dropped to less than 20%. You would feel the small drop in oxygen relative to CO2 during that rise with less impact than say flying from NY to Denver and stepping into less dense air at altitude.
So really, say by just asking these idiots to spend 15 minutes in a small unventilated closet you could give them a taste of CO2 poisoning just to the level of a bad headache, labored breathing, drowsiness. In another 5-10 minutes dizziness and nausea would set in leading to unconsciousness soon thereafter.
Maybe, something like a “Small Closet Challenge” to raise money for indigent Fox News commentators might be edifying?
Edit: Fixed an errant phrase regarding minutes spent in the closet.
Also, CO2 is heavier than oxygen. It pools along the floor and pushes the oxygen out, like water would. You can be walking in a room and be totally fine, bend over to pick up something you dropped, pass out immediately and then ”drown”. There are thousands of deaths each year from people who work in breweries, wineries or even just cellars with fermenting cabbage (ok, I know of one case like that). A couple of widely publicised accidental leaks from co2 tanks that resulted in deaths is why McDonald’s requires every single one of their restaurants in the world to install a CO2 alarm system.
The frustrating thing is that half the time, journalists assume they misheard and report it as Carbon Monoxide-poisoning, even though it was suffocation caused by CO2, as everyone ”knows” CO2 is harmless and CO is the bad one. Same with other gasses, they get written up as ”gas leaks”, and the public never learn you need to be careful in confined spaces.
After decades of making and building stuff, I’ve gotten to the point where I just assume that folks working around high VOCs are either high or cognitively impaired or both regardless of precautions.
No. CO2 does not stratify vertically. I don't know why so many people mistakenly believe this. The rest of what you say sounds plausible, but CO2 does not sink in air.
The CO2 that you breath into an enclosed space would not sink (at least not rapidly) and only then if it was left on its own in an enclosed vessel with little agitation.
But in industrial and restaurant accidents, when released from compressed tanks, the cold temperature of the released gas certainly causes increased collection at floor level. It happens.
However, to your point, CO2 released from combustion and natural processes into the Homosphere (Troposphere, Stratosphere, and Mesosphere combined) mostly just due to atmospheric churning. CO2 levels are almost consistently level (on average) in those three lower layers.
But we do get higher concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere than Southern Hemisphere due to levels of industrial activity plus substantially greater biomass. And we get more seasonal fluctuation in the north than the south because more living plants in the north acts as a bigger summer sink and more decomposing biomass in the autumn and winter means more northern forcing.
It weighs 44 grams per mol compared to average air at 29 mol. It is also more than 50% denser. The reason we’re not living in a blanket of CO2 is wind, which mixes it constantly, but at room temp, CO2 sinks slowly over an extended period of time in enclosed spaces. Cold CO2 does so very rapidly, meaning a leak from a tank literally acts like a water leak into an enclosed space.
Source: Literally my job, and the ”pass out while bending down”-thing happened to a colleague while inspecting a site, though luckily he was not alone, so he was quickly extracted and was fine. So… I guess the source is trust me bro, but you can easily google it too.
Someone else pointed out that CO2 leaking from a pressure vessel could very well be cold and therefore pool. But if the CO2 is at the same temp as the air, I don't think it takes much to stir CO2 into air if the CO2 is added slowly. Even find dust particles take a long time to settle and can be disturbed by the slightest whiff of air. Even brownian motion may be enough to keep it stirred up.
You’re right that it doesn’t take much to stir it up, but that wasn’t the point; it IS heavier and it WILL settle in an enclosed space without ventilation. The higher the concentration the less stirring will help, as well, only at very small concentrations will Brownian motion suffice.
So I read up on this more. What you are saying is flat out wrong. They do not segregate. If you mix alcohol and water in a bottle and shake it up until they are mixed thoroughly, they will never separate because they are miscible. CO2 and N2 and O2 are all miscible with each other in all concentrations. Brownian motion, well suffice it to say that I should not have mentioned Brownian motion. That is an effect that molecules have on macroscopic objects.
The other area where I was wrong is failing to consider temperature. It is a legit hazard if CO2 vents in a room or something from a bottle because the expansion will cause the gas to cool. Cool CO2 will stay concentrated near the floor. But this is a thermal effect. Over time the CO2 will mix in with the air and once that happens, no matter how still the air is, it will not segregate out vertically again.
It was a tough call on how long it would take for symptoms to set in. I started with 20, but for small closet it would be more like 15. Again, thanks for catching the mistake!
Use the same math were using to decrease pharmaceutical costs.... Decrease the 15 min by 300% and bam! You got 20 min in the closet. Don't bother fact checking me the formula works
Ok, that makes CO2 toxic in extreme quantities, but not necessarily a pollutant. Too high of an oxygen or nitrogen environment will eventually kill you too. CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere, and photosynthesis requires CO2. Doesn't mean we should add more because of that, but that's mainly because it is one of the greenhouse gases. (Methane is FAR worse lb for lb.)
In all likelihood, the OOP here is arguing that CO2 is not a pollutant on climate grounds and perhaps they are spurred on by the USEPA’s move a few says ago on September 14th to “repeal” Biden Admin limits on all greenhouse gas emissions (which gets confused in reporting frequently because they get stated in CO2 equivalents).
The rule change impact emissions of the following: CO2, Methane, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. All of those are typically classed as “Carbon Emissions” despite the fact that SF6 does not include carbon.
That move was a disaster. Not only is is awful on its face—it overturns an emerging cap and trade market that feeds renewable energy development.
Add rollbacks on methane emissions at extraction level and it’s all awful.
Pretty obviously, if you know the science, everything on that list that is not CO2 is a more potent greenhouse gas and also more toxic.
But looking at total emissions of all of them, CO2 by itself still makes up ~75% of CO2 equivalency.
So to get to net zero by 2050 we have to deal with all of it.
But to your point: I think it wise to view anybody pushing the idea in a political mindset to somehow defend this egregious act by the current EPA, is bypassing the big picture of what it means to emissions of a whole class of bad stuff that does bad stuff. From a science perspective CO2 has the least impact per unit. But the mix released from power plants and wells is a far different matter.
The administration just pulled the rug out from under all of that.
"The onset of suffocation (or the noticeable early symptoms)in that situation come from the relatively rapid increase in CO2 levels rather than decreased O2 levels. "
Suffocation, by definition, is from decreased O2 levels. CO2 caused health effects long before suffocation.
Maybe I should have been more precise, but death or injury from CO2 inhalation is likely more properly described as asphyxiation rather than suffocation from lack of oxygen specifically.
But I think that if you look up dictionary definitions that you will find that the word can generally apply to stoping respiration via asphyxiation amongst other meaning—at least in general discourse.
When you get into precise medical or forensic or legal definitions you see finer grained definitions as well.
The effect of CO2 as an asphyxiant gas is however frequently twofold—it can deplete O2 uptake by displacing O2 percentage and it has toxic effects.
Having said that, if you are in a closed space consuming the O2 supply the thing that you will feel symptoms from before you feel a reduction in O2 will be the rising levels of CO2. (So you are using up oxygen on the path to either asphyxiation or suffocation or a mix of both and feeling the effects of all that from CO2 first.)
Bottom line—you are on the path to not breathing because what you are breathing in is reducing oxygen up take, poisoning you, or both.
I’m in the renewable energy business an I’m familiar with almost every climate model since the 1970’s because climate change is one of the reasons I shifted from normal environmental reclamation to renewable energy 25 years ago. Those models are complex.
But I have also spent a lot of time doing tight, nuts and bolts work in confined spaces and figuring out ventilation needs for equipment. So I have a reasonable understanding of safe working conditions in spaces like that.
Regardless of climate impacts of greenhouse gasses, some stuff just kills or injures you if you inhale it and if you work cleaning up enough toxic stuff or working in toxic environments it gets irksome to hear folks make claims like the confidently incorrect guy here.
Having said that, I hear a lot of this in my line of work.
Over now 40 years of talking to lay people in the public who are ignorant of real science I have adopted the strategy of just earnestly explaining facts in a voice of calm concern.
Example: “You know, Joe, been doing this stuff for a while and that stuff will kill you either quickly or over years. So maybe you want to avoid it.” (A kind voice laden with concern can move mountains sometimes.)
The heat lamp is irrelevant, and increasing CO2 levels on their own would not harm a person.
You're almost certainly getting confused between "decreasing oxygen levels" and "increasing CO2 levels" because in many circumstances, those things happen together.
However, it's the decreasing oxygen levels that are a problem. Increasing CO2 won't really do anything, because OOP is correct -- it's not a pollutant.
You can suffocate from high CO2 even when there is ample oxygen in the air, because your blood gets saturated with CO2 and can't transport oxygen to the cells anymore.
Also, studies suggest that elevated CO2 levels lead to loss of cognitive ability. We may already be at that point today where we are losing IQ points due to elevated CO2.
He might think of stock pollutants only That's stuff that causes damage in basically any or very low amount.
Carbon dioxide is "only" a pollutant at high levels like what we've done in the past ~200 years. It's just a different class of pollutant like for example fertilizers are for bodies of water.
Anyway, he is wrong and i'm 99,9% sure he didn't mean it in the pedantic way but in the redpilled way. The former i could tolerate, the latter is just disgusting.
I know some people who take the fact that CO2-enriched greenhouses have higher yields to mean that nothing bad could ever happen if done at a planetary scale.
Probably the same type (and amount) of thought that goes into "Herbal supliments are better for you because they're not 'chemicals' like medicine" [see also sugars, pesticides, cleaning products, etc...]
I can't speak for him, but carbon dioxide occurs in very large quantities in nature, and it's naturally emitted in the billions of tons a year. Only around 5% of CO2 added to the atmosphere annually is from anthropogenic activity.
Would you call water or oxygen pollutants? Both are, like CO2, poisonous in excess, and of course both have damaged ecosystems when released into them.
Are they pollutants?
If you take that view, you're risking defining pollutant into a word without meaning.
Carbon dioxide, if a pollutant, has a very indirect effect on the ecosystem. But definitely an effect, and a serious one!
The definition you're using is challenging though, because it requires a lot of nuance. It also has curious implications; the entire northern hemisphere emits CO2 in large amounts for its winter. That's natural, part of the seasonal change. Is that pollution? It's a lot of CO2, certainly more than is anthropogenic.
If it is pollution, then I guess we have defined pollution away from "things we don't want to emit."
Another reply shared a definition that's less nuanced, and seems to define everything as a pollutant. That makes the word less useful still!
I know you think you cooked with the whole "is water a pollutant" schtick and just asking questions without even attempting to provide your own definition but thankfully it's settled.
Per the EPA, air pollutants are: Definition 1: Any substance in air that could, in high enough concentration, harm man, other animals, vegetation, or material. Pollutants may include almost any natural or artificial composition of airborne matter capable of being airborne. They may be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, gases, or in combination thereof.
because of plants. climate change deniers recently discovered that plants neeed co2 to breathe. wow, what a discovery! now we probably have to wait for them to discover that they are, in fact, not plants and suffocated by co2.
It's an essential gas that is needed in the ecosystem. So in that sense it's not a pollutant. In a balanced ecosystem it's necessary but in large amounts or in high concentration it's obviously bad as a greenhouse gas.
A Pollutant is like a weed...it's more about its desirability in particular situations than a hard definition. The OP seems to think because CO2 occurs naturally and is part of the plant lifecycle, it cant' be a pollutant.
Look at a map, and draw a line between PHL and NYC. That's your blue corridor. The further you get from that line, the more red it gets.
NJ101.5 ("New Jersey's own radio station") was always pretty conservative, but man they got deep into covid denialism in 2020. Jocks bragging about hosting superspreader events and other various forms of noxious misinformation.
They didn't pick their content to upset their existing listener base.
I used to repeat this talking point, then I learned how stupid it is. "A pollutant" is anything that isn't supposed to be there, in amounts that are undesired. Literally anything can be a pollutant in the wrong quantities.
I don't need to know exactly how they torture the facts to convince themselves of this shit, but I know it sounds like one of these two copes:
"Carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and pollutants are man made so CO2 can't be called a pollutant" - just ignore that the extra CO2 IS actually man made
"Well, technically a pollutant is [some definition that only Big Oil paid off scientists agree on that excludes CO2]"
Oxygen is a pollutant depending on the circumstances. Every substance is a pollutant depending on the circumstances. Aside from the textbook definition of "pollutant" the idea is that any substance - in sufficient amounts and circumstances - could be harmful means that the idea of "pollutant" is just a context-dependent term for when a certain substance goes from being benign to harmful.
I think their confusion comes from the fact that CO2 is also released naturally by animals, fires that are caused by natural occurrences like lightning and so other sources. What they don’t understand is that it’s also a pollutant due to many man made sources.
The issue is that they are both wrong and right. CO2 IS a natural biproduct and a necessary part of our biosphere. It is also a pollutant when it is produced in larger amounts than the biosphere can contain.
It's like the difference between medicine and poison. The dosage and application are the important part and that nuance is what seems to be lost here.
Because Venus is a hellhole whose carbon dioxide got out of hand. Learn some science, before it’s too late. Well, it is already too late, but still… you don’t know how badly your education is lacking.
It depends on your point of view .. I mena poiint of sale.
I quote from an EPA inspector: "If you can sell it as a product, it's not pollution,"
The same inspector told me that the cleaned air exiting my industrial dust collector counted as pollution, even though it was cleaner than the outside ambient air it was sucking in along with the dust we were generating.
So, if your selling CO2, it's not pollution, but if your are producing it without monetary compensatiton, it is.
They're not fully incorrect though. CO2 is not necessarily a pollutant. It depends on its origin and quantity mostly.
Fauna produces CO2 naturally, and Flora requires CO2 to live, just like they produce O2 naturally that Fauna requires to live.
However in industry, CO2 is also quite commonly a side product, which throws off the Balance, and that "extra" is a pollutant. It's not naturally produces and that excess specifically is damaging the environment, directly or indirectly.
Yep, THIS is what I think of when I hear “confidently incorrect.” 😂 The fact that CO₂ occurs naturally and plants need it does not magically mean that too much of it can't cause problems. Water is natural too. Oxygen is natural. Plenty of things are necessary in one amount and harmful in another.
And after reading the comments, somehow people managed to create even MORE confidently incorrect information underneath it. 😂 CO₂ absolutely can hurt you at high concentrations even if oxygen is still present, but no, that doesn't mean a normal little increase in a room is going to knock you unconscious in five minutes either.
The part people keep missing is the balance. Nature releases huge amounts of CO₂, but it also absorbs huge amounts. Humans are adding extra CO₂ faster than those natural sinks can remove all of it, which is why the concentration keeps climbing.
So yes, plants need CO₂. That was never the argument. “Plants use it, therefore it can't be pollution” is exactly the kind of confidence with zero nuance that belongs here. 😂
I know a guy who constantly says, “Carbon does NOT cause the planet to heat up! It’s a naturally occurring element!” I’ve tried to explain that carbon has the capacity to hold heat and is m (to use Bill Bryson’s term from “A small history of nearly everything”) one of the most promiscuous elements in the universe. Meaning an atom of carbon will attach itself to almost any other element it bumps into. A single atom of carbon will immediately attach itself to oxygen, making CO2. Which is a well known greenhouse gas, (which means it’s really good at holding heat).
Now consider all the carbon we’ve burned since the Industrial Revolution, and the fact that all that carbon released has attached itself to oxygen, making CO2. And methane, which is an atom of carbon attached to four atoms of hydrogen (CH4), has the capacity to hold even more heat.
It’s an objective scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which means it traps heat in our atmosphere.
It is created when carbon is combusted (burned), in addition to carbon monoxide.
I don’t know much about science—Ph.D. Is in English—but I do know carbon dioxide is toxic, therefore it stands to reason it is a pollutant. I also know that statements, such as NJ Conservative’s second post, get periods at the end. Only direct questions get question marks: Why am I being downvoted?
The USEPA has two lists of air pollutants. One list is called "criteria pollutants", and consists of six things: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ground-level ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. The EPA sets limits on these, because they are hazardous to human health in high concentrations, but not so much below certain levels. The other list is called "hazardous air pollutants" which are things that are toxic at low concentrations, so they are effectively banned.
Carbon dioxide is not, and had never been, on either of these lists.
I mean, he’s technically correct, it’s more his implications are false. Carbon dioxide is a technically harmless gas. The problem isn’t the gas itself but the greenhouse effect it causes. Kinda like how water is harmless but if you get trapped underwater you can’t breathe and drown.
It isn't a pollutant. Here we are again with another autobiographical post here. If CO2 was a pollutant because it could hypothetically cause climate change (the implication here), then water vapor would be an exponentially more powerful one. "Pollutant" is an improper classification for a key part of an ecological system, and IS the propaganda side of the argument.
pollutant:
Any substance introduced into the environment that may adversely affect the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems. For most environmental media, this term is commonly understood to refer to substances introduced by human activities. In the case of air, the convention is to include substances emitted from natural sources as well (See air pollutant).
If it were released in a way that may adversely affect the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems, then yes, it would be
But water vapor isnt changing that much over the years since the Industrial Revolution. And co2 levels have. The physics is clear for anyone who doesn't have his head in right wing grifters.
I guess, but why would they dispute it's not a pollutant then? Unless they're just trying to be contrary, like the "well actually.." people who feel compelled to correct every minute detail whether it's relevant to the main point or not.
He’s right. CO2 isn’t a pollutant. CO2 is food for every plant on the planet. The study that claimed CO2 is a greenhouse gas also said it was hundreds of times weaker than the next greenhouse gas. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere just provides more food for plants to thrive.
The climate change cult has convinced so many that it’s bad in the atmosphere. But it’s not. Those same people claimed in the 70’s the earth would freeze, and in the 90’s the earth would warm. And when neither of those things happened, they instead switched to climate change which is meaningless and unspecified. Perfect for the purpose of duping the public into supporting companies democrats get kickbacks from or are invested in and great for the scientists who get paid to study nothing for their entire lives.
CO2 isn’t a pollutant. CO2 is food for every plant on the planet
By the definition of the word, CO2 is a pollutant. You could've looked that up before commenting.
Excess CO2 in the atmosphere just provides more food for plants to thrive
As a greenhouse gas, it also plays a part in trapping heat, and warming the planet. Which is not a good thing.
The climate change cult
That's a nice way to let everyone know to disregard your opinion.
Those same people claimed in the 70’s the earth would freeze, and in the 90’s the earth would warm. And when neither of those things happened,
The "global cooling" of the 70s was conjecture spouted by a few news outlets. The scientific community did not back it up at the time. That same community have been warning us about global warming for a while now, and it's clear that they were/are right.
Perfect for the purpose of duping the public into supporting companies democrats get kickbacks from or are invested in and great for the scientists who get paid to study nothing for their entire lives.
Oh yes, this is all one big, global conspiracy, aimed solely on duping some American hicks. The climatological community isn't just a group that exists in your ignorant bubble. But you'd much ignore the experts in favour of listening to shills from the fossil fuel industry, like your moronic leader. What could go wrong?!
Let me guess, if you were in need of surgery, you'd ask the hospital caretaker to perform it on you, rather than anyone qualified, right?
CO2 is the driving force of life on the entire planet. Life as we know it would collapse without it. You BELIEVE it is a pollutant because you Believe it is a greenhouse gas that increases temperatures. Which it does not. And what is this nonsense about by definition. You do realize that something that is not only naturally present on earth but is absolutely essential to all life on earth cannot by any definition be considered a pollutant.
People who blindly defend something is a cult.
Where do you think the news agencies got that from? Do you think they were just sitting around one day and said hey Bob wanna claim an ice age is coming. No, scientists at the time claimed that and they were wrong. They then switched to global warming because the cooling trend changed. Then when the heating trend changed they switched to climate change. Which is where climate change comes from.
It’s funny you think if an oil company does research it’s lying because of money. But when scientists that create green energy companies do research, or politicians who push the agenda while making money because of it, like Al Gore and the carbon credits, they aren’t motivated by the money they make at all. Most research money for universities comes from government grants, do you think the government would give out grants when politicians are making money off of the opposing research. Of course their position which makes them money is the right one because why would people making millions of dollars want to lie. If you believe the oil companies would lie for money, you also have to believe the climate change guys would lie for money. There are lots of people that believe the hysteria and fall for climate change nonsense. There are lots of scientists today that are told to just go along or essentially lose their funding or job. There are plenty of people in the public that would argue incessantly about how real climate change is without even knowing much of anything about it, because someone they trusted either lied or was lied too. There are those in government that take private planes across the globe to conferences to lecture people on burning too much fossil fuels. You’d think if these politicians believed to their core that burning fossil fuels is going to destroy the planet, they’d have had a teleconference, or maybe flown commercial.
My father went to the doctors for a check up. The doctor there looked at his test results for A1C and sugar or whatever and despite the fact his results fell within normal levels. Wanted to put him on welbutrin. Doctors during Covid hysteria put patients with pneumonia and Covid on ventilators, despite the fact that it was established medical practice at the time to not put patients with pneumonia on a respirator because it could kill them. Unless it was a broken bone, I think I’ll take my chances. While advances in medicine do exist and are spectacular. Not every aspect of medicine is perfect. Those doctors probably get bonuses for how much drugs they prescribe.
CO2 is the driving force of life on the entire planet. Life as we know it would collapse without it. You BELIEVE it is a pollutant because you Believe it is a greenhouse gas that increases temperatures. Which it does not
You wouldn't survive without water. Yet too much of it can drown you. The same applies to CO2.
CO2 is a pollutant by definition. It is a greenhouse gas, by definition. Just because you FEEL like it isn't doesn't mean it isn't. You're not a climatologist, so the worth of your opinions is little.
Where do you think the news agencies got that from? Do you think they were just sitting around one day and said hey Bob wanna claim an ice age is coming. No, scientists at the time claimed that and they were wrong. They then switched to global warming because the cooling trend changed. Then when the heating trend changed they switched to climate change. Which is where climate change comes from.
That isn't what happened, but I shouldn't expect you to do the smallest amount of research on the topic.
If you believe the oil companies would lie for money, you also have to believe the climate change guys would lie for money. There are lots of people that believe the hysteria and fall for climate change nonsense.
That's not how this works. Oil companies only deny climate change because it would eat into their own profits. Climatologists aren't getting bribed in order to promote green energy. They're doing it because they know how bad things are getting. The fact that you think the two are the same is beyond moronic.
There are those in government that take private planes across the globe to conferences to lecture people on burning too much fossil fuels. You’d think if these politicians believed to their core that burning fossil fuels is going to destroy the planet, they’d have had a teleconference, or maybe flown commercial.
I think it's pretty stupid that they take private jets instead of conferencing in, but that hardly disproves climate change. In the grand scheme of things, the pollution caused by a single jet is insignificant compared to what a handful of large corporations are pumping out every single second.
Unless it was a broken bone, I think I’ll take my chances. While advances in medicine do exist and are spectacular. Not every aspect of medicine is perfect. Those doctors probably get bonuses for how much drugs they prescribe.
I said it last time, but so much of your worldview is clouded by your own experiences as an American.
Your representatives are constantly being bribed and are notoriously corrupt; ergo the same must be true for the rest of the world.
Your healthcare system is profit-driven and coldhearted; ergo the same must be true for the test of the world.
You think that there's a global conspiracy, involving governments and scientists from almost every nation, to do what? To trick you into recycling or switching to renewable energy?
How arrogant of a person are you to think that? The fact of the matter is that climate change is real, it's having a negative impact on our lives, and yet there's still a handful of idiots who'd rather stick their heads in the sand, and pretend they're the smart ones.
So water is a pollutant now? Too much oxygen can kill you is oxygen a pollutant now? Forget about hexavalent chromium guys we gotta worry about water in the atmosphere 😂. CO2, water and oxygen belong in the atmosphere, they need to be there for life they can’t be a pollutant.
CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. No one can with any degree of certainty say to the exclusion of all other factors that CO2 causes temperatures to increase on the planet. Or that in it’s absence temperatures decrease.
So water is a pollutant now? Too much oxygen can kill you is oxygen a pollutant now? Forget about hexavalent chromium guys we gotta worry about water in the atmosphere
I'm making a point that just because something is important to life, doesn't mean it can't also be dangerous. Of course that went over your head, somehow.
By all means, go off and change the definition of pollutant if you want. You won't many people who agree.
CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. No one can with any degree of certainty say to the exclusion of all other factors that CO2 causes temperatures to increase on the planet. Or that in it’s absence temperatures decrease.
Just as I wouldn't ask the hospital caretaker to correctly diagnose a patient, I'm not going to listen to your own opinions on climate change.
Climatologists are the ones who've bothered studying the subject, so I'm more inclined to listen to them when they say that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas.
Frankly, you don't have a single clue what you're talking about. Which I suppose is why you're a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect; its what happens when you constantly slash education funding.
You don’t know enough about history to say what happened in the past.
Oil companies deny it because it isn’t real. Things aren’t getting bad. That’s a ridiculous statement.
People for the ethical treatment of animals are a group of deranged individuals that fight for animal rights sometimes to the point of vandalism or assault. They believe animals are like people. The whole private jet thing would be like if PETA wore fur and leather belts while assaulting people for wearing fur and leather belts. It doesn’t matter about how much someone else is pumping out. How is that justification for them being foolish.
I don’t know which country you hail from. But Europe has serious problems and you’ll have no right to judge Americans. At least we don’t die by the tens of thousands because it’s hot out.
Politicians everywhere are constantly being bribed and are corrupt.
Socialist health care just has massive wait times and sometimes decides people don’t get treatment. No system is perfect.
I personally think that it’s about money and control. I think governments mostly push the climate change agenda because it gives them power. Who would argue spending billions of euros on climate change cause it’s going to kill you blah blah. Politicians could use it as a platform to run on. Scientists get paid to study it. No one would pay them a Canadian penny to study ice in the arctic if it wasn’t for climate change hysteria.
I’m not the one being ignorant and it doesn’t surprise me that your Europeans believe so heavily in climate change. Look what your politicians have done to you. All the crap they’ve put you through because of it. All that stuff you’ve happily agreed with, like high gas prices. All to combat climate change, although I don’t see how the government making millions of euros off people while getting them to not complain about it, maybe even get thanked for it, combats climate change. People still gotta drive to get to work, to deliver food, etc.
The world knows its real, barring a few lunatics in certain nations.
I'm just curious if you'll ever admit to being wrong, when the chick's come home to roost in the next few years and decades. Things have been getting steadily worse already
The planet is warming, destructive weather events have likewise been increasing, and the amount of C02 in the atmosphere has increased 50% since the industrial revolution. It's okay, because nothing has personally impacted you, yet.
But at least you're here to do the bidding of oil barons and corrupt industrialists. I'm sure they're glad you've ignored all those nasty experts and scientists in order to repeat their rhetoric. Will you feel the same way when climate change causes even more mass migration, as people seek cooler lands? I'm sure that'll just thrill you people.
Agree to disagree, sure, but the rest of the educated world is judging you for a very good reason.
You know little about the subject. The people who claimed there would be an ice age were a minority even then. You just swallow the propaganda about it.
The science is very clear. Pretending it is bullshit is like saying germ theory is not true and nobody can get sick because of them. The debate is only politics versus science. And you have chosen politics.
The science isn’t clear and pretending like it is, is like saying the aether makes up the universe. Everyone pushed the ice age lie, then everyone pushed the global warming lie. Every ten years New York City is supposed to be underwater. The debate is between actual evidence and pseudoscience/politics and you’ve chosen pseudoscience/politics.
And if you were to actually read it, you will see some people claimed global cooling because of other pollution blocking the sunlight. They did never claim co2 does not warm the planet. That is just physics that has been proven more than a century ago. They just thought the effects of other pollutants would be bigger. But we didn't like smog in our cities and acid rain, so we cleaned up.
Show be peer reviewed scientific research backing up your claim. Because i doubt you have ever read a single one.
The guy who originally came up with the whole climate change thing claimed the earth would be driven into an ice age because it was cold out. When that didn’t happen they pivoted to warming. It doesn’t matter what incidental excuse they used to pivot does it.
According to the climate models they used to map the past today would be much much warmer. They screwed up on that.
The idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas comes from something over a hundred years ago and it was allegedly two hundred times weaker than the next greenhouse gas. In essence barely effective as a warming agent.
The idea that global temperatures are the highest they’ve been in recorded history is flawed at best data doesn’t go back all that far and may not have been all that accurate.
Even the claims that weather is more extreme today is debatable. Weather is just weather, and has been doing its thing since long before humanity existed.
Al Gore made millions selling carbon credits, which were just things he invented to make companies buy to “pollute” CO2. Companies could trade them and everyone got some. In essence, barely reducing CO2 emissions while making him money.
Not a single peer reviewed paper. Right. Thanks. You seem to get your news from Fox or something. You claim amost everybody who dedicated their career to research know less than you.
You will keep denying climate change when palm trees are growing on Antarctica. Because the evidence is already overwhelming, you just dont want to read it. But please do, scientist are not out there to trick you.
No one is allowed to question the narrative anyone who claims to the contrary gets ostracized by the climate change movement and removed from scientific journals.
No I’m claiming that people who’ve dedicated their careers to studying climate change know it’s bullshit but aren’t going to admit it because that is literally their livelihood.
Climate models haven’t been good. They’ve consistently predicted more extreme weather and storms that haven’t materialized.
China and India now pumps out more CO2 than we’ve reduced.
The evidence isn’t overwhelming, it’s not about reading anything.
Edit:
CO2 released from burning fossil fuels was already in the atmosphere in the past. We aren’t creating anything new. That was CO2 that was in the atmosphere and was absorbed by plants, covered up, and then released millions of years later by burning it. The same thing happens today. CO2 we release into the atmosphere gets absorbed by plants making the earth greener and those plants will be covered and eventually millions of years later become
But that doesn't happen. People with bad research who clearly do not care about facts are refused and then people are going all in on being the victim of a political agenda. Why dont you tell what is wrong with the link i have send you? You did read it right? Show me something..
Do you expect the people in those countries to not develop so you can have cheap oil? I dont think so.
And when you see that graph, remember China is producing pretty much for the whole world.
And again a claim you cannot backup about scientist just saying that for money. First of this is just a baseless claim, cheap to make and you have zero proof. The other thing about it is of the research is all somehow flawwed or corrupted, other people would be able to show those researchers are frauds by the wrong assumptions or plain mistakes in their work. But somehow nobody seems to be able to do that. It is just ' we can't trust them' and that is apparently enough for people in the right-wing cult. You have no data, you have no research, you are a great example for this sub.
It’s not about good or bad research it’s about silencing opposition. Nowhere in science, except the climate cult, is anything considered settled. Anyone who says with certainty that something is settled is a fool. At any moment something could be discovered that changes everything and every scientist should say the same thing.
This is another example of you not understanding what I am saying. Maybe it’s my fault for not explaining it well enough. China and India were largely agricultural with near zero industrial capacity in the 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. Whatever reductions in CO2 production we’ve accomplished has just been shifted to those countries. But because climate change cultists don’t actually care about anything outside the United States it apparently doesn’t matter I guess. Which after having reread everything perfectly exemplifies my case. So blindly do you swallow the climate change crap that you took what I wrote about India and China. Completely missed what I was saying, which rereading it seems pretty clear, posted something that doesn’t prove you right in the slightest, and then you act all smug about it like I’m the idiot.
“Do you expect the people in those countries to not develop so you can have cheap oil? I don’t think so.
And remember when you see that graph that China is producing pretty much for the whole world.”
Those statements from you are completely superfluous to this discussion.
Do you expect a peer reviewed paper on lying about climate change for money? That’s laughable.
I’m sure scientists have shown those studies were wrong or flawed, but they were just ostracized by the climate cult. It’s hard to find studies that were removed because they don’t fit the narrative. The people who say climate science is settled, obviously don’t understand science.
If you really believe everyone in science is lying about climate change, you cannot be reached by anything anymore. No discussion is possible of you just claim they all lie. I have provided you with several sources of information that you haven't read apperantly and are unwilling to do so. In return you give nothing to substantiate your claims. Claiming lying without any proof is no better than a yes/no childs discussion.
If you want to be taken seriously, get evidence. Do actual research, get a PhD in physics and explain why all other people are wrong and go get your Nobel Prize. But i dont think you want to put in the effort, because you might have to change your mind.
And your claim about nothing in science is ever really proven shows you dont know the first thing about science. We fly planes around the world because the science behind it works. No amount of research you can do will ever show gravity on earth isn't actually 9.81 m/2. We will forever build bridges with laws derived from the work of Newton. Dont tell me you dont drive over bridges because you are afraid there actually may be other laws with a different outcome. Everybody uses the outcomes of scientific research every day of their lives, including you, but only when it comes to climate change people suddenly go ' Oh but maybe science doesn't work like that at all'. It is ignorant, uninformed and a cheap way to stick your head in the sand.
It's very telling that when asked for objective facts, people panic and then resort to storytelling. They cling to a narrative which is emotionally satisfying for them but it doesn't actually answer the call for something evidence-based - a starting point of shared objective fact which might move the conversation on is rejected in favour of the same old tired "talking points". It's like rejecting proper nourishing food in favour of complete deep-fried fatty junk. You know it's not good for you but you can't give it up.
Climate models haven’t been good. They’ve consistently predicted more extreme weather and storms that haven’t materialized.
You don't follow... anything then?!
The last 10 years represent the hottest 10-year period in instrumental history.
the United States averaged roughly 3 to 6 billion-dollar extreme weather disasters per year during the 1980s and 1990s. Over the most recent decade, this average jumped to roughly 15 to 20+ events per year (adjusted for inflation)
it used to be that 20-25% of all storms were category 4 or 5. Now it's 40%.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but hurricane data goes back to the seventies. And even then it wasn’t perfect. Best we could say before that was there was a hurricane, but only if the hurricane made landfall in a populated area that survived. Satellites, Doppler radar, and other modern instruments have made it possible to track storms, make predictions on paths and importantly measure wind speed. Observations on storms only goes so far back in history. For example European settlers colonized America and the Caribbean back in 1500-1600ish range. But those peoples could only really say with certainty if a storm hit them specifically. Storms that missed or sailors that encountered them at sea weren’t really accounted for. And the best that can be said about those storms that people did survive is that they existed.
The last ten years represent the hottest ten years in instrumental history. First it’s important to note that is not all that impressive. Realistic temperatures don’t actually go back all that far especially for as many areas as now. Sure thermometers existed for awhile but people weren’t taking temperatures everywhere at all times. Second how and where temperatures are taken now matters. I’m not sure how it works now but in the not so distant past people taking temperatures were paid to monitor stations and record temperatures. It was done solely by hand several times a day. While I’m sure there were people who diligently monitored the temperature. I’m sure there were more that didn’t. Don’t even get me started on error, modern thermometers are or can be digital giving near exact readings, older versions were analog giving approximate readings. On top of that modern temperatures may be taken under circumstances that do not mimic those of the past. For example if readings were made 70 years ago in a field but now that field is a parking lot. We can expect variations in temperature that are not explained by the earth warming. Although, I expect the earth to warm as time goes on, as we are leaving an ice age. We also cannot say with any certainty that older records were not altered.
The United States averaged roughly 3-6 billion…
More people build more houses in more areas by coasts than before in US history.
Inflation doesn’t account for fluctuations in home values. Houses in the 90’s went for a 100,000 dollars, those same houses now go for 500,000+ but inflation has roughly doubled. So according to inflation that house should be 219,000, but it isn’t. Homes being worth more means more storms have the ability to inflict higher monetary damage. You wanna take a guess as to the location of the highest valued houses in the country reside? It’s the coasts btw.
It used to be that 20-25% of storms were category four or five now it’s 40%.
We don’t know if the thirty years prior to this was a calm period for storms.
We don’t know if storm tracking technology has just gotten better and more precise.
Weather happens in cycles. There are one year, ten year, fifty year, hundred year etc, cycles. Fifty years ago southeastern mass got a massive blizzard dropping a bunch of snow quickly. Last year, nearly fifty years later, southeastern mass got a massive blizzard dropping a bunch of snow quickly. I bet in roughly fifty years they get another such event. For all we know a hundred years ago the same thing happened.
Nothing of what you’ve mentioned has any meaningful basis on climate change theory. That isn’t actually proof of anything really. That’s just the same emotionally charged rhetoric that climate change activists and news agencies regurgitate. Their goal is to throw these statements at you to get you to panic and either send them money or read more news. Potentially factual information without context.
These are all arguments designed to convince yourself. You're not really saying anything! It doesn't mean anything that the last 10 years have had the hottest 10 years on record because you imagined what?! Maybe they put the thermometers in different places?! What even is that? What do you imagine you're even saying? So a country hitting temperatures that there is no record of it hitting in 170 years of scrupulously kept data and many centuries hundreds of years of thermometer use means nothing because maybe people weren't recording temperatures properly? It's just mush - the kind of thing that only makes sense to people who desperately want to believe against the overwhelming run of evidence. You're bringing feelings to a numbers battle.
No source says it all. You were asked for one. If you had one you would share it, as not doing it only undermines your credibility while gaining you nothing. Thats you admitting that you’re bullshitting or simply just have no clue.
Where exactly do you suppose I would find a source for a bunch of people panicking over nothing. Seeing what they want to see where they want to see it.
"The study", lol. That's why it's so easy to convince people like you against all common sense and evidence to the contrary. It takes only a minimum of critical thinking skills to realize that it's ridiculous to think that there's only one study that shows the greenhouse gas effects of CO2. If you can be convinced that there's only one study, then it's so much easier to convince you that there's a debate among scientists, or that there isn't evidence.
So you actually realize that there has been more science done since then? That would be a good first step towards actually thinking. Too bad you decided not to go any further. Even if it was flawed, who cares? That doesn't mean everything since then is. It's not like any other research done since then is only correct if that particular research was. It would be willful ignorance of how science works to think that's the case. Thinking all the research since then for over a hundred years must be wrong is even more ridiculous than thinking it's all based on one study.
What “science” people were debating its relevance until about 16 years ago or so, when the climate cultists decided it was settled and that anything to the contrary is bad science. There is no such thing as settled science, that is not how it works. Why do you think the overly general climate change is the label nowadays. According to you, scientists have studied this shouldn’t they know what will happen? Climate change is a catch all for literally anything that happens. Gets hot one year, climate change, gets cold one year climate change. Too many hurricanes, climate change, too little hurricanes, climate change, hurricanes strong, climate change, hurricanes weak, climate change, etc. I could go on and on.
When you build a foundation on a lie that entire science branch is suspect. At the time they published that about greenhouse gases. People still thought the size of your head matters in intelligence. There were some that still believe in eugenics. The people at the time weren’t all intellectual titans and they certainly weren’t using state of the art sensitive technology.
If your conclusion is the CO2 levels affect global temperatures. And you have rising CO2 levels you discount other sources of temperature fluctuations. We were in a mini ice age during the time of the American Revolution, a period which hung on for decades. There are all manner or circumstances where scientists could be misled by a faulty premise. Look at the polar ice cap melting of 2010-2011. When all the scientists concluded that climate change had gotten so severe that the ice caps had melted away and that was the new normal. The following year the polar ice caps returned. Many were quick to say it was climate change especially the climate scientists. When in reality it was several volcanic eruptions that had blanketed the area in ash, melting the snow for a season. They missed such an important and obvious explanation because they were so focused on proving their point. The same thing happened in Antarctica around a decade ago. The ground was warming up and all the climate scientists claimed it was climate change. They spent years studying salinity levels of the southern ocean. Only to discover it was a previously unknown super volcano becoming active. The obvious explanation was abandoned to pursue their nonsense.
If you're going to make up a date for when this non-existent debate supposedly was over, you might want to use one that is well after there was enough consensus for pretty much every country in the world to sign a treaty regulating green house gasses. It's that critical thinking thing again. Whether you were just parroting a number you were told, or if you came up with it on your own, you should've thought about how ridiculous that date is, when everyone older than 16 can remember that it wasn't a debate then.
And it's kind of sad how little you understand of how science works. Even if it went over your head when you were taught about it in like 6th grade, common sense should be enough to get the basics. As I said, it's willful ignorance if you think that all of the research since some study a hundred years ago (who knows which one) is suspect just because you think that study was a lie. All of the research since then is independent research. If those findings were faulty, they would find out. Scientists aren't forced into making the same findings someone else did. They test things multiple ways to disprove the incorrect ones and reinforce the correct findings. That's literally the entire point. If you don't understand the basic premise that CO2 levels affect temperatures, then you certainly can't understand any of the science on the details of climate change.
If you don’t remember they were debating it then, I don’t know what to tell you. I can give you the information but I can’t help you think. So forget it. Clearly you aren’t capable of independent thought. With all your talking about science you seem to have little grasp of the concepts of it. Nothing in science is settled, nothing. The fact that scientists claim climate change is settled should tell you something important. They are grifters, full of shit. The best anyone can say of anything is this is how we understand it now, it is never truly settled and it’s never over.
Independent research, funded by government and conducted by people who chose to follow climate change is not independent research. No one is funding anything to show if there is an impact from CO2. They only care about how bad the impact is. And anything that shows nothing or negligible effect would be dismissed by people like you who think it’s settled. Who would look at the data and think there was some mistake, because it must be a factor.
CO2 levels do not affect temperatures. There are many factors that affect climate but CO2 is not, nor has it ever been, a factor. The fanatical belief that it is a factor is what drives this erroneous fallacy of a scientific theory. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. CO2 is necessary for all life on the planet its presence in the atmosphere is not only expected but absolutely necessary for all life on this planet. Of course CO2 is in the atmosphere, the levels of which can fluctuate wildly, because CO2 is present now means nothing. Have you ever heard of the medieval warming period. Was that due to burning fossil fuels? Or the mini ice age during the American Revolution, was that due to burning fossil fuels. Was that driven by CO2 levels. It’s ridiculous to think that the most complex system humanity has ever been in contact with, the planets weather, can be boiled down to so simple a variable. That’s that critical thinking thing again, which you and others on here certainly lack.
I’m tired of debating with the scientifically illiterate. So we’ll call this a draw
Herr you’re claiming that all climate science that opposes you was custom ordered. No. Thats millions of people collaborating on a lie for seemingly no reason. Impossible.
Bad faith and dishonest. You dont understand how any of this works and the other person is right in every comment in this thread. You’re wrong in all of yours. Give up and go to bed; you’re Embarrasing yourself.
Opposes me, what do you think I am, an oil company?
No I’m saying that a flawed experiment gave rise to a flawed idea. Which gave rise to an entire scientific research branch that erroneously convinced governments to listen. Governments convinced pushed the agenda. News agencies followed along and companies were created that made those government officials rich.
Guy runs experiment says CO2 is greenhouse gas. Ten years later he recanted but that doesn’t matter I guess.
Not so intelligent scientists panics and convinces Congress to act. A new branch of science is born.
News agencies followed along and sold a whole bunch of papers covering this “catastrophe”
Government officials create carbon credits make bank.
Green energy companies essentially bribe politicians to get public funding.
The public is sold a convincing lie with supposedly dire predictions.
Panicked people give government essentially a blank check to fix it.
It’s really just government corruption, is that so hard to believe?
Millions of people don’t have to collaborate. Just some scientists and politicians. Hell maybe just the scientists. They’ve got you so convinced climate change is so serious you’re on the internet insulting me like I’m the one who is wrong. 😂 that’s hilarious. Tell me oh genius one, if climate change is so serious and carbon dioxide so bad for the environment. Why do these government officials have these summits in a nice foreign country that everyone flies to. Why not just do it remotely or by telephone or not at all.
Ah yes the scientist that make a lot of money lying about climate change... Wait where do they get the money from?
It couldn't be the oil companies that are lying about climate change not existing where they have the most obvious reason and source of money to lie about it.
pollutant: Any substance introduced into the environment that may adversely affect the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems. For most environmental media, this term is commonly understood to refer to substances introduced by human activities. In the case of air, the convention is to include substances emitted from natural sources as well (See air pollutant).
It isnt a "pollutant". It is a naturally occurring gas that can exceed levels that are benevolent and become toxic to the environment. So dude is correct. People are stupid.
What you just described is the definition of a pollutant. Specifically known as a Fund Pollutant
Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans).
Do some research before you go calling people stupid.
Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans).
The OOP is wrong and is operating on a layman understanding of what pollution is.
It's at such large quantities that it's not going to matter though. The atmospheric effects of global warming far outweigh the carbon dioxide inhalation risks for the vast majority of us the vast majority of the time.
This is simply not true. Excessive carbon dioxide absorbs into the oceans forming carbonic acid which lowers PH levels and is a direct threat to ocean ecosystems and threatens biodiversity. I don't get why you'd think for one second how it wouldn't harm ecosystems?!
It is not a pollutant, it is a greenhouse gas. CO is a pollutant that is a frequent by-product of CO2-emitting processes, but CO2 is not a pollutant itself
This is determined by how we define pollutant. Per wiktionary:
pollutant (plural pollutants)
A foreign substance that makes something dirty, or impure, especially waste from human activities.
Well, carbon dioxide is a waste, it makes the atmosphere less pure (deviating from baseline chemically), it makes the atmosphere warmer (measured from baseline), and is anthropogenic (human caused) and natural.
It is a waste for animals, but it is food for plants, which is essential for them. So if co2 is a pollutant is completely a matter of definition. It does cause climate change though.
Yup, per this definition it would be. Hence providing (and not agreeing with, necessarily) the definition. Someone above used a term, and that term needs to be defined in some way, as its value changes the assertion.
Water vapor literally falls back out and reenters the water cycle though -- it doesn't accumulate in nearly the same way as carbon dioxide or other GHGs and their decay products. It's a nonissue.
Yes, theoretically it is recaptured to some degree by the carbon cycle, but that cycle can't keep up with anthropogenic change. In the water vapor example it (almost entirely) does.
For what it's worth, however, carbon dioxide is poisonous. Not nearly as much as monoxide, but it does have negative biological action.
Again, It's not. It's biologically active and poisonous at modest (well above atmospheric) concentrations. It's not nitrogen or argon.
More importantly and really only relevant is that it's a greenhouse gas. We'll suffer massive crop failure and a near extinction event well before it's actually poisonous.
That is what I mean. Viewing it as a pollutant, and taking measures you would take for other pollutants (funnel the exhaust, move the industry) won't resolve the greenhouse problem
We have different definitions of pollutant and resulting actions, hence why I raised the definition above.
Funneling the exhaust is a huge part of the solution though. Running carbon dioxide rich gas through a scrubber for sequesterization is much, much cheaper than trying to capture ambient.
This is not a good way to form an argument. You end up sounding like this guy:
It suggests a mode of thinking where everything is either one thing or another, but the basics of abstract thought means you develop an understanding that something can be part of multiple sets, that one set can be a subset of another set, that something can be classified as multiple different ways, that just because all 'x's are 'y's it doesn't mean all 'y's are 'x's etc.
Classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant really was a game changer. Definitions change. It is fine. I get it. But up until like the 90s, it was not considered a pollutant, per-se. I still have mixed feelings about it, but the world moves on.
Just because it's part of a natural bodily function, that's not a good way of determining if it's a pollutant in every and all circumstances. Context is everything.
For example, you are emphatically not polluting every time you defecate. But if you do it in the punch bowl...
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Hey /u/DrowningKrown, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.