-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
How Silly is Climate Change Denial?
- Thread starter Angel of Ioren
- Start date
Free episodes:
Wade
FeralNormal master
You can probably blame "The Omega Block" it sort of sounds like that it's part of some giant viral marketing campaign.
...or maybe a predictive programming campaign, at any rate once it has a name, it's a thing.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Good strategy, Tyger! I can see the advantages. I don't put people on ignore as it's always important for me to know the tone of a place in its fulless. I just ignore the thread except for random check ins.Is that what's going on? For the first time (ever) I've put two posters on 'Ignore' and so what I see here is very civil and pretty innocuous. Given the video you've just posted I can only imagine the posts I am missing out on.Happy me!
Strangely, every time I stop in I see little has changed. I always see the same two old curmudgeons at the bar talking the same shite long after the bell for last call has rung. And then I walk out of the pub wth their voices echoing in my ears, "Look at theccowards run," they slur. I shake my head sadly again, and think to myself, maybe next Tuesday it'll be different, or maybe the Tuesday after that...
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming?
LINK: Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming? - Forbes
TEXT: "Every branch of the United States Military is worried about climate change. They have been since well before it became controversial. In the wake of an historic climate change agreement between President Obama and President Xi Jinping in China this week (Brookings), the military’s perspective is significant in how it views climate effects on emerging military conflicts. China will be our biggest military and political problem by the middle of this century. It would be nice to understand what issues will exacerbate our struggles.
" U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.
"The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service. This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers.
"This year, the Military Advisory Board came out with a new report, called National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, that is a serious discussion about what the military sees as the threats and the actions to be taken to mitigate them.
" “The potential security ramifications of global climate change should be serving as catalysts for cooperation and change. Instead, climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable areas of the world and are serving as catalysts for conflict.”
"Bill Pennell, former Director of the Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, summed up the threatin recent discussions about climate and national security:
" “The environmental consequences of climate change are a significant threat multiplier, which by itself, can be a cause for future conflicts. Global warming will affect military operations as well as its theaters of operations. And it poses significant risks and costs to military and civilian infrastructure, especially those facilities located on the coastline.”
" “The countries and regions posing the greatest security threats to the United States are among those most susceptible to the adverse and destabilizing effects of climate change. Many of these countries are already unstable and have little economic or social capital for coping with additional disruptions.”
" “Whether in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, or North Korea, we are already seeing how extreme weather events – such as droughts and flooding and the food shortages and population dislocations that accompany them – can destabilize governments and lead to conflict. For example, one trigger of the chaos in Syria has been the multi-year drought the country has experienced since 2006 and the Assad Regime’s ineptitude in dealing with it.”
"So why is the country as a whole, and those who normally support our military, so loathe to prepare for possible threats from this direction?
"In 1990, Eugene Skolnikoff summarized the national policy issues surrounding global warming and why it has been so difficult to rationally develop policy to address it.
" “The central problem is that outside the security sector, policy processes confronting issues with substantial uncertainty do not normally yield policy that has high economic or political costs. This is especially true when the uncertainty extends not only to the issues themselves, but also to the measures to avert them or deal with their consequences.”
" “The climate change issue illustrates – in fact exaggerates – all the elements of this central problem. Indeed, no major action is likely to be taken until those uncertainties are substantially reduced, and probably not before evidence of warming and its effects are actually visible. Unfortunately, any increase in temperature will be irreversible by the time the danger becomes obvious enough to permit political action.”
"And this was in 1990!
"CAPTION FOR PICTURE OF ICE-FREE ARCTIC WITHIN ARTICLE: "As Arctic ice diminishes, the region will see new shipping routes, new energy zones, new fisheries, new tourism and new sources of conflict not covered by existing maritime treaties. Since the United States is not party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty, we will not have maximum operating flexibility in the Arctic. Even seemingly small administrative issues may become important in the new era, e.g., the Unified Command Plan presently splits Arctic responsibility between two Combatant Commands: U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM). This type of things needs to be resolved with the coming global changes in mind. Source: Center for Naval Analysis."
"General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
"And as Rear Admiral David Titley, former Oceanographer of the Navy, stated in a 2013 testimony to Congress, “I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th-Century science that we’re now refining.”
"The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
" “While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”
"What makes this week’s U.S.-China climate agreement so important is its announcement in the run up to the 2015 United Nation’s global climate summit in Paris. Since most of humanity’s emissions come from our two countries, international pressure has mounted on both of us to get serious about reductions. Our military was knee-deep in these negotiations.
"Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
"Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared."
LINK: Does Our Military Know Something We Don't About Global Warming? - Forbes
TEXT: "Every branch of the United States Military is worried about climate change. They have been since well before it became controversial. In the wake of an historic climate change agreement between President Obama and President Xi Jinping in China this week (Brookings), the military’s perspective is significant in how it views climate effects on emerging military conflicts. China will be our biggest military and political problem by the middle of this century. It would be nice to understand what issues will exacerbate our struggles.
" U.S. Military was seriously studying global warming in order to determine what actions they could take to prepare for the change in threats that our military will face in the future.
"The Center for Naval Analysis has had its Military Advisory Board examining the national security implications of climate change for many years. Lead by Army General Paul Kern, the Military Advisory Board is a group of 16 retired flag-level officers from all branches of the Service. This is not a group normally considered to be liberal activists and fear-mongers.
"This year, the Military Advisory Board came out with a new report, called National Security and the Accelerating Risks of Climate Change, that is a serious discussion about what the military sees as the threats and the actions to be taken to mitigate them.
" “The potential security ramifications of global climate change should be serving as catalysts for cooperation and change. Instead, climate change impacts are already accelerating instability in vulnerable areas of the world and are serving as catalysts for conflict.”
"Bill Pennell, former Director of the Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, summed up the threatin recent discussions about climate and national security:
" “The environmental consequences of climate change are a significant threat multiplier, which by itself, can be a cause for future conflicts. Global warming will affect military operations as well as its theaters of operations. And it poses significant risks and costs to military and civilian infrastructure, especially those facilities located on the coastline.”
" “The countries and regions posing the greatest security threats to the United States are among those most susceptible to the adverse and destabilizing effects of climate change. Many of these countries are already unstable and have little economic or social capital for coping with additional disruptions.”
" “Whether in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, or North Korea, we are already seeing how extreme weather events – such as droughts and flooding and the food shortages and population dislocations that accompany them – can destabilize governments and lead to conflict. For example, one trigger of the chaos in Syria has been the multi-year drought the country has experienced since 2006 and the Assad Regime’s ineptitude in dealing with it.”
"So why is the country as a whole, and those who normally support our military, so loathe to prepare for possible threats from this direction?
"In 1990, Eugene Skolnikoff summarized the national policy issues surrounding global warming and why it has been so difficult to rationally develop policy to address it.
" “The central problem is that outside the security sector, policy processes confronting issues with substantial uncertainty do not normally yield policy that has high economic or political costs. This is especially true when the uncertainty extends not only to the issues themselves, but also to the measures to avert them or deal with their consequences.”
" “The climate change issue illustrates – in fact exaggerates – all the elements of this central problem. Indeed, no major action is likely to be taken until those uncertainties are substantially reduced, and probably not before evidence of warming and its effects are actually visible. Unfortunately, any increase in temperature will be irreversible by the time the danger becomes obvious enough to permit political action.”
"And this was in 1990!
"CAPTION FOR PICTURE OF ICE-FREE ARCTIC WITHIN ARTICLE: "As Arctic ice diminishes, the region will see new shipping routes, new energy zones, new fisheries, new tourism and new sources of conflict not covered by existing maritime treaties. Since the United States is not party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) treaty, we will not have maximum operating flexibility in the Arctic. Even seemingly small administrative issues may become important in the new era, e.g., the Unified Command Plan presently splits Arctic responsibility between two Combatant Commands: U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and U.S. European Command (EUCOM). This type of things needs to be resolved with the coming global changes in mind. Source: Center for Naval Analysis."
"General Gordon Sullivan put the issue of uncertainty where it should be: “People are saying they want to be perfectly convinced about climate science projections…But speaking as a soldier, we never have 100 percent certainty. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield.”
"And as Rear Admiral David Titley, former Oceanographer of the Navy, stated in a 2013 testimony to Congress, “I tell people, this is cutting-edge 19th-Century science that we’re now refining.”
"The Military Advisory Board is dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate.
" “While the causes of climate change and its impacts continue to be argued or ignored in our nation, the linkage between changes in our climate and national security has been obscured. Political concerns and budgetary limitations cannot be allowed to dominate what is essentially a salient national security concern for our nation. Our Congress, the administration, and all who are charged with planning and assuring our security should take up the challenge of confronting the coming changes to our environment.”
"What makes this week’s U.S.-China climate agreement so important is its announcement in the run up to the 2015 United Nation’s global climate summit in Paris. Since most of humanity’s emissions come from our two countries, international pressure has mounted on both of us to get serious about reductions. Our military was knee-deep in these negotiations.
"Our Military Advisory Board concluded that “coordinated and well-executed actions to limit heat-trapping gases and increase resilience to help prevent and protect against the worst projected climate change impacts are required — now.”
"Whatever your thoughts on the relative human and natural influences on climate change, ignoring our military is not prudent. They understand the dangers of not being prepared."
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Generally what I do - but as I failed to back off and stop posting on the thread - what the "same two old curmudgeons" seem to have as their goal: chase people off - they shifted gears and started to be a tad unpleasant to read, a bit too 'personal'. Needless, random stuff. Rather than leave the thread - as I really do want to post on the thread all the stuff I find, and want to hear people's opinions, too - it was the only recourse really. It is what it is. Call me a wuss for doing it but my sense of the thread is far more pleasant not having to deal with their same'ol'same'ol posts.
Last edited:
Or just maybe the block-heads just dont believe that the 0.00013% of the atmosphere that is human produced Co2, is ''CATASTROPHIC''
Maybe the people who ARE MAKING THE UNPROVEN CLAIM that humans adding 3% to a 0.04% trace gas in our atmosphere is ''CATASTROPHIC'' are not making their POLITICAL arguement convincingly enough.
Tyger is well KNOWN for running away after he fails to brow-beat, most internet intimidate-rs are.
Heres alittle quiz for you Pixel lad.
Question . What was the average lifespan of 1 part in a million of co2, once it was released into the atmosphere in 2012, and before re-absorbsion.
hehe ive been reading about the Carbon Cycle
Heres a hint, its less than 15 minutes, basically in 2012 the the co2 in the breathe you exhaled, was re-absorbed by the planet in less than 15 minutes on average. but in that 15 minutes of freedom, it was a right bastard, allegedly.
So ive worked it out pixel, you can save the planet by just stopping breathing, its obviously YOUR co2 causing all the aggro.
Maybe the people who ARE MAKING THE UNPROVEN CLAIM that humans adding 3% to a 0.04% trace gas in our atmosphere is ''CATASTROPHIC'' are not making their POLITICAL arguement convincingly enough.
Tyger is well KNOWN for running away after he fails to brow-beat, most internet intimidate-rs are.
Heres alittle quiz for you Pixel lad.
Question . What was the average lifespan of 1 part in a million of co2, once it was released into the atmosphere in 2012, and before re-absorbsion.
hehe ive been reading about the Carbon Cycle
Heres a hint, its less than 15 minutes, basically in 2012 the the co2 in the breathe you exhaled, was re-absorbed by the planet in less than 15 minutes on average. but in that 15 minutes of freedom, it was a right bastard, allegedly.
So ive worked it out pixel, you can save the planet by just stopping breathing, its obviously YOUR co2 causing all the aggro.
Last edited:
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger I dare you to come back and defend your position. Feel free to bring Maudib and Angelo with you... But you have to actually answer questions this time rather than blathering on and on with crap that has been proven to be wrong. I double dog dare you.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger, Muadib, Angelo don't have the balls to answer a few questions. If the science is settled, they shoul dhave all the answers at their fingertips. They have the burden of proof, lets see them prove it once and for all. If they dare came back they will probably regurgitate the same old talking points they have been told to repeat. They can't think for themselves or defend this "CO2 is destroying the planet" bull$#it. They are like little children who will just take their ball and go home if things don't go their way. Putting the ones who know what they are talking about on ignore is a childish tactic at best. Pathetic.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Burnt I would welcome you to try to defend yourself by answering a few questions as well but sadly you can't. You do not know crap about this topic. You might as well let the others look stupid and stay out of it.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Skeptical Science remains an outstanding source for Climate Change arguments pro and con. The comments themselves to articles I always find informative, as there can also be a response from the 'editor'.
How about this? Something to think about. 
Might explain a lot. 
Fascinating conjecture. I may as well say it here: this is what science does, make conjectures based on the data and known processes. This kind of conjecture is not fear-mongering. (The very accusation is a subvert attempt to end debate, end discussion). This is what scientists do - discuss - and this is one hechuvva interesting idea. What do others think? Read the comments for a good flavor of the debate on the evidence. This is the kind of back-and-forth that is signally absent here amongst some - but there appears no changing those some. So it is what it is.
Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Posted on 17 November 2014 by Marcin Popkiewicz
High concentration of CO2 reduces man's intellectual abilities
LINK: Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
TEXT: "Did you ever experience being at a lecture or a meeting in a room where you felt tired, your eyes were closing and no matter how hard you tried you could not concentrate? The reason did not have to be a boring subject or a mediocre lecturer – it is a common experience caused by high concentration of carbon dioxide in the air of a crowded and poorly ventilated conference room or a classroom.
"People exhale carbon dioxide. If the room is crowded, small and poorly ventilated, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air grows. When in turn we inhale such air, the carbon dioxide contained in it gets dissolved in our blood and reacts with water to create carbonic acid [H2CO3], which, in turn dissolves into ions of hydrogen [H+] and bicarbonate [HCO3−]. Increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions increases blood acidity and creates electrolyte imbalance, causing increased discomfort and decline in intellectual performance. We feel tired, numb and less capable of any mental or physical effort.
[...]
"Carbon dioxide and our ability to solve complex problems: So far it has often been assumed that elevated CO2 concentration was a proxy for other harmful pollutants. However, it turns out that CO2 itself may be the culprit. Studies show that while at elevated carbon dioxide concentrations we can effectively perform simple tasks, our ability to solve complex problems, strategic thinking and initiative quickly degrades.
[...]
"Researchers found that breathing air with a CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity. At a concentration of CO2 at the level of 2500ppm, the initiative and strategic thinking of the participants has declined to a dysfunctional level. Similarly impaired was the ability of the participants to use the available information and the breadth of approach.
"World like a badly ventilated office: In fact, it is not surprising that for concentrations above 600-800 ppm we observe a decline in our intellectual capacity. We have evolved in a climate in which the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere (since the time of Australopithecus) has varied in the range of 180-300ppm.
"Because of burning of coal, oil and gas, we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby raise its concentration, currently to about 400 ppm. Such high concentrations of carbon dioxideas today have not existed for many million years - possibly more than 10 million years ago (Tripati 2009 [full version]). Continuation of the decades-old trend of burning more and more fossil fuels will lead to an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of the century to a level of 1000 ppm, and later possibly to 2500 ppm or even more.
"Even during the lifetime of many of us the concentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere will reach a level not seen since tens of millions of years ago. Currently living species of mammals, birds, and we ourselves - Homo Sapiens - have never had to deal with such high concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Less intelligent man: Gradually, to the known effects of carbon dioxide emissions – like climate warming and ocean acidification – we will be forced to add impairment of our higher mental functions. Faced with the rising complex problems of our civilization, requiring the ability to analyze complex information, undertake initiatives and strategic planning - we place ourselves at a profound disadvantage, perhaps at a literally dysfunctional level.
The decline in intelligence, although difficult to detect on such a long time scale in individuals, can have a huge impact on the whole population. This is illustrated by the figure below, showing the effect of lowering IQ by 5 points. With CO2 concentrations increasing to 1000 ppm, 2000 ppm and possibly even higher, one may wonder what would be the decline in our IQ.
[...]
"Some people find solace in the fact that in conditions of high concentrations of carbon dioxide plants will fare better. Well, we are not plants. Nevertheless, if people insisting on unlimited burning of fossil fuels have their way, we may end up intellectually a lot closer to plants."
Here is a comment -
"01:11 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Being something of an old git, I cannot but help thinking of Apollo 13 whenever I hear/read about the decidely unwelcome effects of elevated CO2 levels.
"A quick Google check turned up the following reference which may be of interest to some readers. The title of the piece is "Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants" and it is on the National Acadamies Press.
"The section in question deals with Carbon Dioxide - although I'm sure the very idea of regarding CO2 as a contaminant will raise some hackles. The opening paragraph reads as follows...
"Carbon dioxide is the major expired by-product of human metabolism; if not effectively controlled, it can rapidly accumulate to dangerous concentrations in spacecraft atmospheres. On earth, the outdoor CO2 concentration is typically about 0.03%, and average indoor air contains CO2 in the range of 0.08% to 0.1% (IEQ 2006). In nominal spacecraft operations, the CO2 concentration is typically about 0.5%, but the concentration approached 2% during the troubled Apollo 13 mission (Michel et al. 1975). Carbon dioxide can also enter theatmosphere of a space habitat from accidental combustion of materials, from operation of payloads that use CO2 as an intravehicular propellant, and from use of the fire extinguisher, which, on the U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), is CO2.
"From the above numbers, anyone who spends most of their time indoors is already experiencing CO2 levels somewhere in the 800 - 1000 ppm(v) range as their default exposure. Until the Lithium Hydroxide scrubbers in the Apollo 13 Command Module were "persuaded" to fit into the Lunar Module, the levels in Aquarius were pushing 20,000 ppm."
Response to above comment -
"at 09:23 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Thank you all for valuable remarks and links. Yes, it's debatable, how elevated CO2concentrations influence our ability to process information. I also agree that it's quite possible that Robertson's opinion is too extreme. It's true that our bodies have strong balancing mechanisms, buffering us from too strong blood acidification and enabling us to function under such conditions, allowing us to perform simple or routine tasks. But, as research of Fisk et al (as well as ventilation norms and observation of crowded meeting rooms, who wake up after a short draught) suggest, CO2 concentration of 1000 or 2500 ppm seems to hamper our information processing and strategic thinking abilities.
"In case of submarine crews their extensive training allows them to perform their duties on a routine level, mostly without real need for learning "on the fly". Their officers, who have to make such decisions, have high intellectual abilities - even if one's IQ decreases from 130 to 125 pts (or even 120), he still will be a highly intelligent and capable individual.
"Maybe we don't have to worry much. Maybe. But none of the research cited answers this question in a direct and unambiguous way. It would be much better to be sure, by performing experiments similar to Fisk et al., but with a much better statistics and longer exposures time for various CO2 concentrations. Then we would know whether after staying at high CO2 concentrations for a long time we will adapt without any measurable loss to our IQ or not."
Response to the issues of submarine crews -
"at 10:54 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Anecdotal evidence, but...A friend of mine who spent his twenty in the navy, mostly in the sub service, told me that the low O2 and high CO2 levels were preferred because they _did_ slow the sailors down mentally, leading to more time in the bunks and less energy to cause trouble in confined quarters. After all, damage control and many other duties require rote learning, not considered decision making. Follow The Book, don't reinvent it."
How about this?
Something to think about. Might explain a lot. Fascinating conjecture. I may as well say it here: this is what science does, make conjectures based on the data and known processes. This kind of conjecture is not fear-mongering. (The very accusation is a subvert attempt to end debate, end discussion). This is what scientists do - discuss - and this is one hechuvva interesting idea. What do others think? Read the comments for a good flavor of the debate on the evidence. This is the kind of back-and-forth that is signally absent here amongst some - but there appears no changing those some. So it is what it is.Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Posted on 17 November 2014 by Marcin Popkiewicz
High concentration of CO2 reduces man's intellectual abilities
LINK: Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
TEXT: "Did you ever experience being at a lecture or a meeting in a room where you felt tired, your eyes were closing and no matter how hard you tried you could not concentrate? The reason did not have to be a boring subject or a mediocre lecturer – it is a common experience caused by high concentration of carbon dioxide in the air of a crowded and poorly ventilated conference room or a classroom.
"People exhale carbon dioxide. If the room is crowded, small and poorly ventilated, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air grows. When in turn we inhale such air, the carbon dioxide contained in it gets dissolved in our blood and reacts with water to create carbonic acid [H2CO3], which, in turn dissolves into ions of hydrogen [H+] and bicarbonate [HCO3−]. Increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions increases blood acidity and creates electrolyte imbalance, causing increased discomfort and decline in intellectual performance. We feel tired, numb and less capable of any mental or physical effort.
[...]
"Carbon dioxide and our ability to solve complex problems: So far it has often been assumed that elevated CO2 concentration was a proxy for other harmful pollutants. However, it turns out that CO2 itself may be the culprit. Studies show that while at elevated carbon dioxide concentrations we can effectively perform simple tasks, our ability to solve complex problems, strategic thinking and initiative quickly degrades.
[...]
"Researchers found that breathing air with a CO2 concentration of 1000 ppm causes a measurable decline in intellectual capacity. At a concentration of CO2 at the level of 2500ppm, the initiative and strategic thinking of the participants has declined to a dysfunctional level. Similarly impaired was the ability of the participants to use the available information and the breadth of approach.
"World like a badly ventilated office: In fact, it is not surprising that for concentrations above 600-800 ppm we observe a decline in our intellectual capacity. We have evolved in a climate in which the concentration of CO2in the atmosphere (since the time of Australopithecus) has varied in the range of 180-300ppm.
"Because of burning of coal, oil and gas, we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and thereby raise its concentration, currently to about 400 ppm. Such high concentrations of carbon dioxideas today have not existed for many million years - possibly more than 10 million years ago (Tripati 2009 [full version]). Continuation of the decades-old trend of burning more and more fossil fuels will lead to an increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by the end of the century to a level of 1000 ppm, and later possibly to 2500 ppm or even more.
"Even during the lifetime of many of us the concentration of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere will reach a level not seen since tens of millions of years ago. Currently living species of mammals, birds, and we ourselves - Homo Sapiens - have never had to deal with such high concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Less intelligent man: Gradually, to the known effects of carbon dioxide emissions – like climate warming and ocean acidification – we will be forced to add impairment of our higher mental functions. Faced with the rising complex problems of our civilization, requiring the ability to analyze complex information, undertake initiatives and strategic planning - we place ourselves at a profound disadvantage, perhaps at a literally dysfunctional level.
The decline in intelligence, although difficult to detect on such a long time scale in individuals, can have a huge impact on the whole population. This is illustrated by the figure below, showing the effect of lowering IQ by 5 points. With CO2 concentrations increasing to 1000 ppm, 2000 ppm and possibly even higher, one may wonder what would be the decline in our IQ.
[...]
"Some people find solace in the fact that in conditions of high concentrations of carbon dioxide plants will fare better. Well, we are not plants. Nevertheless, if people insisting on unlimited burning of fossil fuels have their way, we may end up intellectually a lot closer to plants."
Here is a comment -
"01:11 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Being something of an old git, I cannot but help thinking of Apollo 13 whenever I hear/read about the decidely unwelcome effects of elevated CO2 levels.
"A quick Google check turned up the following reference which may be of interest to some readers. The title of the piece is "Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants" and it is on the National Acadamies Press.
"The section in question deals with Carbon Dioxide - although I'm sure the very idea of regarding CO2 as a contaminant will raise some hackles. The opening paragraph reads as follows...
"Carbon dioxide is the major expired by-product of human metabolism; if not effectively controlled, it can rapidly accumulate to dangerous concentrations in spacecraft atmospheres. On earth, the outdoor CO2 concentration is typically about 0.03%, and average indoor air contains CO2 in the range of 0.08% to 0.1% (IEQ 2006). In nominal spacecraft operations, the CO2 concentration is typically about 0.5%, but the concentration approached 2% during the troubled Apollo 13 mission (Michel et al. 1975). Carbon dioxide can also enter theatmosphere of a space habitat from accidental combustion of materials, from operation of payloads that use CO2 as an intravehicular propellant, and from use of the fire extinguisher, which, on the U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), is CO2.
"From the above numbers, anyone who spends most of their time indoors is already experiencing CO2 levels somewhere in the 800 - 1000 ppm(v) range as their default exposure. Until the Lithium Hydroxide scrubbers in the Apollo 13 Command Module were "persuaded" to fit into the Lunar Module, the levels in Aquarius were pushing 20,000 ppm."
Response to above comment -
"at 09:23 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Thank you all for valuable remarks and links. Yes, it's debatable, how elevated CO2concentrations influence our ability to process information. I also agree that it's quite possible that Robertson's opinion is too extreme. It's true that our bodies have strong balancing mechanisms, buffering us from too strong blood acidification and enabling us to function under such conditions, allowing us to perform simple or routine tasks. But, as research of Fisk et al (as well as ventilation norms and observation of crowded meeting rooms, who wake up after a short draught) suggest, CO2 concentration of 1000 or 2500 ppm seems to hamper our information processing and strategic thinking abilities.
"In case of submarine crews their extensive training allows them to perform their duties on a routine level, mostly without real need for learning "on the fly". Their officers, who have to make such decisions, have high intellectual abilities - even if one's IQ decreases from 130 to 125 pts (or even 120), he still will be a highly intelligent and capable individual.
"Maybe we don't have to worry much. Maybe. But none of the research cited answers this question in a direct and unambiguous way. It would be much better to be sure, by performing experiments similar to Fisk et al., but with a much better statistics and longer exposures time for various CO2 concentrations. Then we would know whether after staying at high CO2 concentrations for a long time we will adapt without any measurable loss to our IQ or not."
Response to the issues of submarine crews -
"at 10:54 AM on 20 November, 2014
"Anecdotal evidence, but...A friend of mine who spent his twenty in the navy, mostly in the sub service, told me that the low O2 and high CO2 levels were preferred because they _did_ slow the sailors down mentally, leading to more time in the bunks and less energy to cause trouble in confined quarters. After all, damage control and many other duties require rote learning, not considered decision making. Follow The Book, don't reinvent it."
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
Watching the news this evening and seeing the cold and record snowfall in the Northeast of the US, I reflected on the common statement from some that they cannot reconcile the idea of Global Warming with cold temps and record snowfalls. 'Warmists' - as they are affectionately called - have always maintained that Global Warming will result in extreme weather patterns - extreme heat spells and extreme cold, as well as extreme storms of all kinds. So what is happening seems to be in keeping with the theory.
Please note the response update to the comments: this is the kind of interactive dialog that makes Skeptical Science valuable.
Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Posted on 7 March 2010 by John Cook
LINK: Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
TEXT: "The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two "once in a 100 years" snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed "Snowmageddon". Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn't happening? What do observations say? 2009 was the second hottest year on record. January 2010 was the hottest January in the UAH satellite record. Satellites data indicates last month was thesecond hottest February in the satellite record. Observations tell us that rumours of global warming's death have been greatly exaggerated.
"If global warming is still happening, why are some areas experiencing record snowfall events? As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).
"The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).
"Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).
"To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Global temperatures in the last few months of record snowfall are some of the hottest on record. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
"UPDATE 8 Mar 2010: Based on some of the comments below, a few clarifying points are in order. Global warming cannot be said to cause a specific snowstorm or any extreme weather event for that matter. An appropriate metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate is the rolling of a die. An extreme precipitation event is like rolling a six. The result is based on random, chaotic processes. However, if you weight the die, this increases the chances of rolling a six. Similarly, global warming increases the chances of extreme precipitation events.
"Global warming does not lead to increased snowstorms everywhere. They only increase in colder regions where the temperature still remains below freezing despite warming trends. Snowstorms are currently decreasing in warmer areas. Overall, the total amount of snow cover has shown a long-term decreasing trend.
"So to summate, record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions."
Please note the response update to the comments: this is the kind of interactive dialog that makes Skeptical Science valuable.
Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
Posted on 7 March 2010 by John Cook
LINK: Does record snowfall disprove global warming?
TEXT: "The 2009/2010 winter saw a number of dramatic, record breaking snowstorms. Early February saw two "once in a 100 years" snowstorms hit Philadelphia, now being dubbed "Snowmageddon". Does record snowfall prove that global warming isn't happening? What do observations say? 2009 was the second hottest year on record. January 2010 was the hottest January in the UAH satellite record. Satellites data indicates last month was thesecond hottest February in the satellite record. Observations tell us that rumours of global warming's death have been greatly exaggerated.
"If global warming is still happening, why are some areas experiencing record snowfall events? As climate warms, evaporation from the ocean increases. This results in more water vapour in the air. Globally, atmospheric water vapour has increased by about 5% over the 20th century. Most of the increase has occurred since 1970 (IPCC AR4 3.4.2.1). This is confirmed by satellites that find the total atmospheric moisture content has been increasing since measurements began in 1988 (Santer 2007).
"The extra moisture in the air is expected to produce more precipitation, including more extreme precipitation events. Observations bear this out. A study of precipitation trends over the United States found that heavy precipitation events (over 50mm in a day) have increased 20% over the 20th Century (Groisman 2004). Most of this increase occured after 1970. Various analyses of precipitation over the globe have similarly found a widespread increase in heavy precipitation days since 1950 (Alexander 2006, Groisman 2006).
"Snowstorms can occur if temperatures are in the range of -10°C to 0°C. Global warming decreases the likeliness of snowstorm conditions in warmer, southern regions. However, in northern, colder regions, temperatures are often too cold for very heavy snow so warming can bring more favourable snowstorm conditions (Kunkel 2008). This is borne out in observations. Over the last century, there has been a downward trend in snowstorms across the lower Midwest, South and West Coast. Conversely, there's been an increase in snowstorms in the upper Midwest East, and Northeast with the overall national trend also upwards (Changnon 2006).
"To claim that record snowfall is inconsistent with a warming world betrays a lack of understanding of the link between global warming and extreme precipitation. Global temperatures in the last few months of record snowfall are some of the hottest on record. Warming causes more moisture in the air which leads to more extreme precipitation events. This includes more heavy snowstorms in regions where snowfall conditions are favourable. Far from contradicting global warming, record snowfall is predicted by climate models and consistent with our expectation of more extreme precipitation events.
"UPDATE 8 Mar 2010: Based on some of the comments below, a few clarifying points are in order. Global warming cannot be said to cause a specific snowstorm or any extreme weather event for that matter. An appropriate metaphor to explain the difference between weather and climate is the rolling of a die. An extreme precipitation event is like rolling a six. The result is based on random, chaotic processes. However, if you weight the die, this increases the chances of rolling a six. Similarly, global warming increases the chances of extreme precipitation events.
"Global warming does not lead to increased snowstorms everywhere. They only increase in colder regions where the temperature still remains below freezing despite warming trends. Snowstorms are currently decreasing in warmer areas. Overall, the total amount of snow cover has shown a long-term decreasing trend.
"So to summate, record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions."
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Skeptical Science again. What a worthless pos source. You are not worth discussing this subject if you do not know the backstory of that ridiculous website and the players involved.
Lmfao[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lmfao[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
The Billy Meier of climate "science". Wow Tyger wake the f up
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Better read up on the stupid website and John "cook the books" Cook. You are looking very silly right now.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I suggest you hide your head in shame and never ever discuss climate science again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
boomerang
Paranormal Adept
Is that what's going on? For the first time (ever) I've put two posters on 'Ignore' and so what I see here is very civil and pretty innocuous. Given the video you've just posted I can only imagine the posts I am missing out on.
I will say it would be handy if people posted stand-alone posts so that others can respond to them. As it stands - I (anyway) can only infer what the exchanges might be about. For example, I am assuming that the fact that we are having cold is being delivered up as evidence that the earth is not warming. This one is an old one and very transparent: Global Warming will mean extreme fluctuations in weather - so, yes, sometimes very hot, sometimes very cold.
I'm exaggerating in a moment of mischievous mood. Real information is indeed exchanged and valid points made amidst the inevitable noise and name calling. It's jut that climate change debates tend to take on a kind of peculiar momentum all their own.
Tyger
Paranormal Adept
I see. So were I to open up the blocked posts I'd see intelligent discourse? Mature, respectful, fully fleshed out points of view? Somehow I doubt it. A series of one-liners (to bolster post count) and very lame ad hominems - dollars to donuts, I bet.
I had yet to see it. I really doubt I am missing much. Generally the same nonsense about CO2 gets repeated endlessly. You'll notice I've put up some interesting counters to those views, but I'll wager there has been no comprehensive answer (because I doubt the posts are actually read, and if by sheer chance they are, I have begun to doubt they are really understood - no real scientific understanding has been demonstrated by the spammers). Let me guess - use my ESP to suss out what might have been a response.
The website Skeptical Science has been denigrated? Bingo! Bet I'm right!Since when is such 'inevitable'? Amongst the intellectually limited perhaps?
On this chat site they do because of one particular poster, and another who follows along with 'the fun'. Follow-the-leader stuff.
Anyway, I am happy to be out of it, but I refuse to be bullied off the thread. As best as I can make out the intention is to actually shut down the conversation, and the tactics do work, because most posters have long since exited, unwilling to deal with such.
Toys all over the floor AGAIN, simple as.
Check out how many people are actually posting live temp measurements each day from besides weather stations, then check them against the official readings, they are always lower than the official reading, by about 1 degree, man made warming only exists on man-made graphs.
Check out how many people are actually posting live temp measurements each day from besides weather stations, then check them against the official readings, they are always lower than the official reading, by about 1 degree, man made warming only exists on man-made graphs.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger
1. What should the temperature of the planet be?
2. What is the minimum amount of CO2 plants need to survive?
We can start with these questions. I don't want to overload you.
1. What should the temperature of the planet be?
2. What is the minimum amount of CO2 plants need to survive?
We can start with these questions. I don't want to overload you.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
Tyger rather than post tons of crap why not answer a few questions and we can end this debate very quickly?
You think you know a lot but you don't know squat.
You think you know a lot but you don't know squat.