Feb 26 2009
CO2 As A Pollutant Myth BUSTED!
Alleged Public Enemy Number 1 - CO2
Some facts for people to digest on the Global Warming front. As we are well aware, the Green Nutters in the Obama administration want to designate CO2 a pollutant so they can control it and tax the world into oblivion based on unproven theories about global warming (especially given the last decades cooling trend, which is not supposed to turn around for another 10-20 years).
Well, sadly for the Nutters there are some inconvenient truths to deal with first. One of which is the reality that the Earth is experiencing an historic famine of CO2:
Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’Â
…
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,†Happer told the Senate Committee.
Emphasis mine. Keep these numbers in mind (something that will stretch our poor liberal friends) as we now look at what the EPA considers to be unsafe levels of CO2 in the work place:
Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance.
- The U.S. EPA CO2Â exposure limits:Â The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2Â of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.
- ASHRAE standard 62-1989Â recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2Â level which is below 1000ppm.
- NIOSH CO2Â exposure limits:Â NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.
- OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure. As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.
In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2Â (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure [we discuss and define “short term exposure limits” STEL below], and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health. All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together.Â
So how is it that a measly 280 ppm is a danger to the Earth, when humans can easily stand 5,000 ppm on average per week on the job? Are we that much stronger than mother Earth? ROTFLMAO! Yeah right. For our liberal friends let me do some basic math for you to ponder (don’t hurt yourselves). The current atmospheric levels on Earth are 5.6% of the allowable, long term work area limit of 5,000 ppm. In other words the Earth would have to increase its atmospheric CO2 concentration 18 times current levels to violate Federal work area standards.
And the historical normal CO2 levels of the atmosphere (1,000 ppm) are 20% of the work force limits. So even if we went back to the historical normal levels, (just under 4 times the current concentrations) we would still be 1/5th the work place limit.
Some easy law suits here, to explain why the Earth is so much more sensitive to CO2 than the work place.Â
But of course this is all a sad, pathetic exercise in silliness – except it will make a lot of liberals rich on the backs of average human beings. Here is something these radical nutters should remember from elementary or high school, it pictures how CO2 is required by plants to photosynthesize the Sun’s energy, producing oxygen. Animals breath in oxygen, but also feed off the plant life. All of Earth’s life is based on plants as the basic food source and oxygen provider. Reduce their CO2 and it could impact life on Earth, maybe even devastate it if we cause a cascading failure.
And that is not some crazy theory that does not fit the real data. Global Warming is an unproven concept. The role of plants and CO2 on the pyramid of life on Earth is not a theory – it is a hard fact (like gravity). It has been proven time and time again with mass extinctions. Cut off the photosynthesis engine and Earth becomes damn barren quickly. It is called the circle of life, mess with it and we could become one of the Planetary Darwin Award Winners for our galaxy.
There are two ways to do this: (1) block out the sun, and (2) cut off the CO2 supplies. Both could spell disaster for life on Earth, we have seen what blocking the Sun does. How long will we let liberal greed endanger every living thing on this planet? Folks, Al Gore is a nutter who likes to pretend he understands science and technology. In reality, he is a dangerous dufus. Yet even he has his groupies (like soon-to-be-ex-NASA-employee James Hansen who called for civil disobedience to bring in his gravy train), very naive and simple minded groupies.
Actually, CO2 depletion is what will kill life as we know it on this planet. Over the ages the amount of CO2 has been declining. Not only coal and oil and shale but also limestone and marble are all made from CO2 taken out of the air.
Practically all plants today first appeared when CO2 levels were about 5 times today’s levels. As CO2 drops due to things such as the erosion of the Himalayas, plants become less and less healthy. At some points the species that are less efficient at using CO2 become less healthy and their populations begin to dwindle. Species that are more efficient, take over which is why deciduous trees have replaced conifers in a good part of the world. Deciduous trees drop their leaves on the ground in winter and these decay creating additional CO2 for the trees during the next growing season.
As CO2 levels drop further, plants begin to die off and over a period of a million years or so, more and more would go extinct. As the plants die off, the animals that depend on them also begin to die off and eventually you have a long, slow, mass extinction event.
CO2 is not harmful at today’s levels in the environment. In fact, it will invigorate plant life and make for a healthier environment for the animals that depend on those plants.
As for temperature, the last interglacial period was much warmer than this one has been. And this one was at its warmest during a period called the Holocene Optimum, thousands of years ago.
crosspatch — can you give me a link for the higher levels of CO2 or is their a chart somewhere?
I am doing a posting on CO2 and want all the information sources I can find.
The big deal with banning carbon dioxide emissions is the product the population growth hysterics who claim man is overpopulating and destroying the earth. Since people inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, they feel it is necessary to eliminate 2/3 of the world’s population because some pointy headed imbecile has come up with the theory that the earth can only sustain 1 billion people, so 2 billion of us have to go. Notwithstanding that plants use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, and the more carbon dioxide the green and lusher plants grow, the utimate purpose of all these carbon scare tactics is to condition people to accept euthanizing the lesser important peoples so the chose few can survive. If the efforts to limit carbon dioxide and other gasses necessary to sustain plant life is successful, look for catastrophic food shortages and mass starvation, because plants can’t grow if their nutrients are limited. For every action there is a reaction. Am I the only person who caught Obama’s reference to global sustainability in gone of his daily speeches. That is code for extreme population control .I try not to listen to him but occasionally catch a few words while surfing to find non politicized channel.
I’ve linked to your post with a quotation from Discerning Science – Global Warming – Debate
[…] We need more CO2, not less […]