burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
So if my air is 4x more saturated with co2 that is trivial and my brain and body will be unaffected?
Global Warming or Over Population - Earths Biggest Threat?
- Thread starter SnapsProvolone
- Start date
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Imagine there's no country.....
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Too much CO2 is not toxic when it is permanent?
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/carbon-dioxide-poisoning.html
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
That's true, but I think that threshold is way more than 4x. I'm just putting this in perspective saying that CO2 is such a small percentage of the atmosphere compared to O2. 4x a tiny number is a small number.
If you converted 1/4th of the O2 into CO2, you'd probably have a serious problem breathing.
If you converted 1/4th of the O2 into CO2, you'd probably have a serious problem breathing.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
According to this wikipedia chart I found, 1% CO2 in the air is when the lightest symptoms of CO2 toxicity occur. 4x 0.035% = 0.14%, still a lot less than 1%.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
Take fluoride or iron at 4x the needed amount for the rest of your life you would have big problems, and same logic applies. Just because the % is small does not follow that it is safe. I am just saying.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
I agree. Not easily achievable. Because it is hard, should we not try it? Tell that to 99% of all sport teams. Only 1 will be the winner, does that mean the rest should just give up?
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
so at 6x that amount this would start relative to 30x. It would be a lot more common...no car naps
We are producing more than we are importing..
The United States tiptoed closer to energy independence last month when — for the first time in nearly two decades — it produced
more crude oil than it imported, federal officials said Wednesday.
The nation has been moving toward this milestone, because two trends are converging. Domestic oil production is at a 24-year high while foreign oil imports are at a 17-year low. The result: production exceeded net imports for the first time since February 1995, although the nation still imports 35% of the petroleum it uses.
Production has been booming partly because of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, which extracts oil by blasting water mixed with sand and chemicals underground to break apart shale rock. Meanwhile, consumption has been falling as high gasoline prices have reduced how much people drive and more efficient cars and buildings have also lowered energy use.
The White House sought to take partial credit for this "transformation," noting President Obama's near-doubling of fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks by model year 2025. Spokesman Jay Carney said this fuel-efficiency standard has lowered both energy use and carbon pollution.
"We do not need to choose between growing the economy and cutting pollution," Carney said, noting that economic output is up while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are down. Carney said Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy is promoting electric vehicles and biofuels as well as increased oil production, adding the administration is making more federal lands available for development.
The oil industry said Obama hardly deserves credit. "Domestic oil and natural gas production is only on the rise, thanks to development on state and private lands," the American Petroleum Institute's Kyle Isakower said in a statement. "In areas controlled by the federal government, production has actually fallen on President Obama's watch."
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reported in March that on federal lands, oil production fell 6% and natural gas production fell 21% from the beginning of 2009 to the end of 2012.
Energy experts welcomed the production-exceeds-consumption milestone. "It's a big deal," said Jim Burkhard, head of oil market research for Denver-based consulting firm IHS, noting U.S. oil production had been falling for nearly 40 years until 2008, when it started climbing. He said high global prices created demand for oil that fracking has been able to fill while Obama's higher fuel-efficiency standards — along with steep gas prices — lowered use.
Some warn the oil boom might not last. "It's essential we continue to cut our oil use via modern, more efficient vehicles," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive-oriented research group. "We must also grow investments in cleaner, non-oil-based transportation, including electric vehicles and public transit."
The Energy Information Administration, which revealed the milestone in its "Short-Term energy Outlook," also reported that gas prices are falling. It said the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline fell to $3.27 per gallon Monday — from $3.68 July 22. It expects pump prices will average $3.24 per gallon for this year's fourth quarter.
The United States tiptoed closer to energy independence last month when — for the first time in nearly two decades — it produced
more crude oil than it imported, federal officials said Wednesday.
The nation has been moving toward this milestone, because two trends are converging. Domestic oil production is at a 24-year high while foreign oil imports are at a 17-year low. The result: production exceeded net imports for the first time since February 1995, although the nation still imports 35% of the petroleum it uses.
Production has been booming partly because of hydraulic fracturing or fracking, which extracts oil by blasting water mixed with sand and chemicals underground to break apart shale rock. Meanwhile, consumption has been falling as high gasoline prices have reduced how much people drive and more efficient cars and buildings have also lowered energy use.
The White House sought to take partial credit for this "transformation," noting President Obama's near-doubling of fuel-efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks by model year 2025. Spokesman Jay Carney said this fuel-efficiency standard has lowered both energy use and carbon pollution.
"We do not need to choose between growing the economy and cutting pollution," Carney said, noting that economic output is up while U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are down. Carney said Obama's all-of-the-above energy strategy is promoting electric vehicles and biofuels as well as increased oil production, adding the administration is making more federal lands available for development.
The oil industry said Obama hardly deserves credit. "Domestic oil and natural gas production is only on the rise, thanks to development on state and private lands," the American Petroleum Institute's Kyle Isakower said in a statement. "In areas controlled by the federal government, production has actually fallen on President Obama's watch."
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reported in March that on federal lands, oil production fell 6% and natural gas production fell 21% from the beginning of 2009 to the end of 2012.
Energy experts welcomed the production-exceeds-consumption milestone. "It's a big deal," said Jim Burkhard, head of oil market research for Denver-based consulting firm IHS, noting U.S. oil production had been falling for nearly 40 years until 2008, when it started climbing. He said high global prices created demand for oil that fracking has been able to fill while Obama's higher fuel-efficiency standards — along with steep gas prices — lowered use.
Some warn the oil boom might not last. "It's essential we continue to cut our oil use via modern, more efficient vehicles," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a progressive-oriented research group. "We must also grow investments in cleaner, non-oil-based transportation, including electric vehicles and public transit."
The Energy Information Administration, which revealed the milestone in its "Short-Term energy Outlook," also reported that gas prices are falling. It said the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline fell to $3.27 per gallon Monday — from $3.68 July 22. It expects pump prices will average $3.24 per gallon for this year's fourth quarter.
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
factually no, but the idea that increasing small components is potentially dangerous is what I was driving at.
You can start by getting rid of all the products you use that were manufactured with the aid of fossil fuels.
Transportation will be quite a task for you though, I suggest walking or jogging.
Doer
Well-Known Member
I think the word responsiblity here is still Sagansim. We are not responsible. But, Gia spun an interesting creature that calls itself "intelligent."
So, if somehow there begins an Hypoxia event, it won't be us that did it. And we are smart enough to get O2 out if the crust if we have to. So, take the long view.
Saganism proposes that man is a weak link, that man can fuck up a billion years of Gia's work. I don't think so. Saganism is Hubris. The Gia System farted and then O2 favored aerobic activity that spawned the mind of humans. But, that same mind will never give up.
We can make our own O2 for a few million people if it ever came to that....but, not for 10 billion, see? IAC, we are not a destructive force. If it got down to a stable 10 million and no breathable atmosphere, it would not be Humans that did that. And look on the bright side. we would have no need or ability to terraform Mars.
But, actually, the space rock with our name on it is THE Problem.And if Gia knows anything, she knows that. She has to get the DNA out of gravity well and she is doing just fine on that task. But, it may be a near run thing.
That little ole rock that blew up over Russia this year was not that big, but packed a wallop that made Hiroshima look like a firecracker.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
I think this is sort of ridiculous. Even if we somehow found a way to convert mineral oxygen from the crust into O2, how would we get rid of the CO2? Are you suggesting we raise absolute air pressure?
Also, assuming we stopped burning fuels (say we all die), once all the CO2 is finally converted into O2, the %O2 will rise above 21%, which would create volatility (potential for forest fires).
Also, assuming we stopped burning fuels (say we all die), once all the CO2 is finally converted into O2, the %O2 will rise above 21%, which would create volatility (potential for forest fires).
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
I can see that concept playing out. Is Gaia the same as Gia? Saganism is the idea that humans drive this balance instead of the earth as a conscious organism?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, maybe the Goddess is spelled Gaia, but I am making the distinction. I don't believe in an intelligence called Gaia. I don't say it is conscious. But, it is a System.
And if Gaia is not intelligent, it spawned us and we certainly know we need to get our asses out of here. This Earth, as nice as it is, cannot be predicted to last, as we can. It will be destroyed or wiped or somehow morphed beyond supporting carbon based life forms.
Carl Saganism is a religion that says Man is the center of all things, and is so powerful we can change the climate. It is the vast hubris to think we understand Gia systems enough to know IF, we impact them, and HOW much.
It got it's power boost by jumping on the CFC bandwagon, which is bad, and we phased it out., but Saganism takes credit for that. Saganism has jacked the UN community enough, that Poland thinks goats cause desert.
All the nations are wasting billions in a Big Oil smack down since the 70s and all the while the USA knows we are sitting on vast hydrocarbon wealth.
So, let us have a Coin for Saganism. Let us call it the Carbon Credit. For all have sinned but the Pope may issue Dispensation.
Saganism is the "fooled you, we know better" Agenda. It is sorta this attitude. "What do we care if the Lies get you to recycle, and put alcohol in fuel. We make a killing on recycle, and Corn Lobby."
It is a religion for power and money. But, they want to kill Big Oil. Too bad. Big Oil is just getting started. Big Oil will begin mining methane from the sea floor, soon.
It places man as un-natural element in Nature.
And if Gaia is not intelligent, it spawned us and we certainly know we need to get our asses out of here. This Earth, as nice as it is, cannot be predicted to last, as we can. It will be destroyed or wiped or somehow morphed beyond supporting carbon based life forms.
Carl Saganism is a religion that says Man is the center of all things, and is so powerful we can change the climate. It is the vast hubris to think we understand Gia systems enough to know IF, we impact them, and HOW much.
It got it's power boost by jumping on the CFC bandwagon, which is bad, and we phased it out., but Saganism takes credit for that. Saganism has jacked the UN community enough, that Poland thinks goats cause desert.
All the nations are wasting billions in a Big Oil smack down since the 70s and all the while the USA knows we are sitting on vast hydrocarbon wealth.
So, let us have a Coin for Saganism. Let us call it the Carbon Credit. For all have sinned but the Pope may issue Dispensation.
Saganism is the "fooled you, we know better" Agenda. It is sorta this attitude. "What do we care if the Lies get you to recycle, and put alcohol in fuel. We make a killing on recycle, and Corn Lobby."
It is a religion for power and money. But, they want to kill Big Oil. Too bad. Big Oil is just getting started. Big Oil will begin mining methane from the sea floor, soon.
It places man as un-natural element in Nature.
Doer
Well-Known Member
BTW, Saganism also seeks to prove the existence of......(AGW in this case). If a Religion needs to prove the existence of the main tenant, what else is new?
Science seeks to rule things out, not prove the existence of.
IAC, Big Oil is just getting started. The hydorcarbon fueling is not going to stop. It will get cleaner. We need Big Oil for much more than fuels. And now we can make Oil directly from Algae.
So, Big Oil in the future could be Algae sea ranchers, and pipe pushers and rough necks, frak heads, etc.
http://www.gizmag.com/algae-crude-o...ail&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-837b63e94b-91265109
Science seeks to rule things out, not prove the existence of.
IAC, Big Oil is just getting started. The hydorcarbon fueling is not going to stop. It will get cleaner. We need Big Oil for much more than fuels. And now we can make Oil directly from Algae.
So, Big Oil in the future could be Algae sea ranchers, and pipe pushers and rough necks, frak heads, etc.
http://www.gizmag.com/algae-crude-o...ail&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-837b63e94b-91265109
burgertime2010
Well-Known Member
BTW, Saganism also seeks to prove the existence of......(AGW in the case). If a Religion needs to prove the existence of the main tenant, what else is new?
Science seeks to rule things out, not prove the existence of.
IAC, Big Oil is just getting started. The hydorcarbon fueling is not going to stop. It will get cleaner. We need Big Oil for much more than fuels. And now we can make Oil directly from Algae.
So, Big Oil in the future could be Algae sea ranchers, and pipe pushers and rough necks, frak heads, etc.
http://www.gizmag.com/algae-crude-o...ail&utm_term=0_65b67362bd-837b63e94b-91265109
All I want is a clean energy source, a pristine environment, and peace. So far, not the case with big oil. The ocean is important to me and they really fuck it up. I am bitter, maybe I will share your optimism at some point.
Similar threads
- Poll
