[Black Cloud]

Originally Posted by njp

Your tragedy is that this post really does demonstrate the level of your scientific understanding, which is on a par with that of bmillam or Prof Cloud.

It is, I suppose, conceivable that this ignorant guff was what you meant all along when you claimed that "Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today", and that it isn't just an attempt to save face having realised (once again) that there is no credible evidence for one of your stupid historical claims.

But a textual analysis of the sentence doesn't really support that interpretation. It seems to refer to a pre-technology era. Are you saying that you now use advanced technology in order to survive a night in your own bedroom, but that in your hardier youth you somehow managed without? Are the state-of-the-art bedrooms at Eel Towers equipped with CO2 scrubbers, as used on board spacecraft and nuclear submarines?

The lack of scientific understanding is yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...man_physiology

Here's the relavant bit

ToxicitySee also: Carbon dioxide poisoning

Main symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity, by increasing volume percent in air.[8]Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.039% (390 ppm), depending on the location.[76]

Adaptation to increased levels of CO2 occurs in humans. Continuous inhalation of CO2 can be tolerated at three percent inspired concentrations for at least one month and four percent inspired concentrations for over a week. It was suggested that 2.0 percent inspired concentrations could be used for closed air spaces (e.g. a submarine) since the adaptation is physiological and reversible. Decrement in performance or in normal physical activity does not happen at this level.[77][78] However, it should be noted that submarines have carbon dioxide scrubbers which reduce a significant amount of the CO2 present.[79]

Acute carbon dioxide physiological effect is hypercapnia or aphyxiation sometimes known by the names given to it by miners: blackdamp (also called choke damp or stythe). Blackdamp is primarily nitrogen and carbon dioxide and kills via suffocation (having displaced oxygen). Miners would try to alert themselves to dangerous levels of blackdamp and other gasses in a mine shaft by bringing a caged canary with them as they worked. The canary is more sensitive to environmental gasses than humans and as it became unconscious would stop singing and fall off its perch. The Davy lamp could also detect high levels of blackdamp (which collect near the floor) by burning less brightly, while methane, another suffocating gas and explosion risk would make the lamp burn more brightly).

Carbon dioxide differential above outdoor levels at steady state conditions (when the occupancy and ventilation system operation are sufficiently long that CO2 concentration has stabilized) are sometimes used to estimate ventilation rates per person. CO2 is considered to be a surrogate for human bio-effluents and may correlate with other indoor pollutants. Higher CO2 concentrations are associated with occupant health, comfort and performance degradation. ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2007 ventilation rates may result in indoor levels up to 2,100 ppm above ambient outdoor conditions. Thus if the outdoor ambient is 400 ppm, indoor levels may reach 2,500 ppm with ventilation rates that meet this industry consensus standard. Levels in poorly ventilated spaces can be found even higher than this (range of 3,000 or 4,000).


Then there's this.

http://archive.rubicon-foundation.or...123456789/3861

Adaptation to moderate inspired concentrations of carbon dioxide (to three and four percent) occurs in normal men who can tolerate continuous inhalation of three percent inspired CO2 for at least one month and four percent inspired CO2 for over a week. Because the effects produced by low and moderate concentrations of carbon dioxide are physiological and reversible, rather than toxic and damaging, it is recommended that the allowable inspired levels of carbon dioxide be increased from 0.5 to 2.0 percent in inspired air. This level has not been shown too induce decrement in performance or in normal physical activity.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Black Cloud

The lack of scientific understanding is yours.

I think the lack of understanding of what Eel posted is yours:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

No need. Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today.

We want to know when this time was, after all, last night living in a modern home hardly counts as living "without the technological assistance we have today", does it?

Nothing you posted tells us what era Eel was referring to.

[elfcurry]

BC, are you and Eel thinking that the concern over atmospheric CO2 is over safe levels for humans breathing it and surviving? I found the Wikipedia page yesterday and noted the ~2% level being tolerable for a time so that must be a weight off your mind.

More to the (AGW) point though, at much lower levels (currently 350-400ppm) it's making the world hotter. We know it's not linear but we have to get off our collective backsides and do something well before we let it reach whole-number percentages.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

Your tragedy is that this post really does demonstrate the level of your scientific understanding,

True dat.

It is, I suppose, conceivable that this ignorant guff was what you meant all along when you claimed that "Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today",

So just to get this clear, we have the unScientific American's claim that >560ppmv is not survivable, ie the "planet-livable threshold". You think that claim is correct?

But a textual analysis of the sentence doesn't really support that interpretation. It seems to refer to a pre-technology era.

How do you infer that? This may explain why you don't understand climate science.

Are you saying that you now use advanced technology in order to survive a night in your own bedroom,

Depends who's sharing it with me I guess..

..but that in your hardier youth you somehow managed without?

Yep, fewer hazards around in my youth. More now, thanks to green business promotions..

Are the state-of-the-art bedrooms at Eel Towers equipped with CO2 scrubbers, as used on board spacecraft and nuclear submarines?

Scrubbers?.. well.. occasional weekends perhaps..

But if >560ppmv makes the planet unlivable, shouldn't I be thinking of installing CO2 mitigation devices. Probably a huuge market for those, especially in the US where CO2 has been designated a toxic pollutant.

In fact, why not make them mandatory everywhere, especially given the amount of toxic CO2 humans exhale. We're about to hold the Olympics, let's show the world how green we are and fit all the athletes with CCS masks!

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

BC, are you and Eel thinking that the concern over atmospheric CO2 is over safe levels for humans breathing it and surviving?.

Not so fast.. I was simply testing the idea that 560ppmv is a realistic "planet-livable" threshold and found a volunteer in andykn to play with. Partly inspired by that German article I linked earlier pointing out the ways that 'Green' measures like insulation and especially super-insulation can be harmful.. Especially if you don't know your science.

Poor air quality has been known to be harmful. Humans share a lot of similarity to sea water. If sea water can be turned into acid at <560ppmv, just think what 2,000+ must be doing to your bodies!

Read this for more info-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_acidosis

then of course there'll be the potential respiratory effects of black molds that may make the situation worse..

More to the (AGW) point though, at much lower levels (currently 350-400ppm) it's making the world hotter.

Oh no it isn't! Well, ok, it is, but only by a teensy amount..

We know it's not linear but we have to get off our collective backsides and do something well before we let it reach whole-number percentages.

Not really. Because it's non-linear we've seen about all we'll see with this potential doubling of CO2. Hence the tradgedy of the missing heat, and why temperature levels are unlikely to ever catch up with the UN's profit forecasts.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

I'm saying this doesn't apply to me or now:

Zombie?

and you haven't told us when it does apply.

If you've been indoors in a well insulated, poorly ventilated environment you've survived CO2 levels >560ppmv. Congratulations!

Think of it as a variation on Gore et Al's bottle experiment from his 24hrs of madness. Just without the fakery. 2 bottles, 1 with CO2, 1 without. Heat source, warming in a bottle. Proof of GHG and impending Thermageddon, as described by the unScientific American if we exceed 560ppmv.

You've been in a similar experiment. Heat source, CO2 emissions and to make it more fun, you've also been emitting that positive feedback amplifier.. Water vapor.

How come you ain't dead?

<sigh> It really is tedious tracking down all your lies, there's just so many of them:

Easy for me to show your misquoting though..

Originally Posted by me

The ONS has been known to fiddle with the basket to adjust inflation but I'm pretty sure it hasn't in this case

But like a proper climate 'scientist', you discard inconvenient data..

Domestic energy prices dropped in Feb.

And would have been billed.. when? And as allaorta pointed out, prices are still higher than the previous year.

Difference is we consumed less, so had smaller bills thanks to global warming, climate change or just the weather..

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Zombie?

If you've been indoors in a well insulated, poorly ventilated environment you've survived CO2 levels >560ppmv. Congratulations!

Think of it as a variation on Gore et Al's bottle experiment from his 24hrs of madness. Just without the fakery. 2 bottles, 1 with CO2, 1 without. Heat source, warming in a bottle. Proof of GHG and impending Thermageddon, as described by the unScientific American if we exceed 560ppmv.

You've been in a similar experiment. Heat source, CO2 emissions and to make it more fun, you've also been emitting that positive feedback amplifier.. Water vapor.

How come you ain't dead?

Because I have technological assistance "today"? I'm still wondering what era you referred to here:

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

No need. Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today.

Easy for me to show your misquoting though..

Er, I didn't say "in this case". You made the accusation in general, which was the context I suggested it was an invention. Paradoxically, the only way lower energy bills with higher energy prices can reduce inflation is if the basket is "fiddled".

But like a proper climate 'scientist', you discard inconvenient data..

Why not try giving me some data like when "Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today"?

And would have been billed.. when? And as allaorta pointed out, prices are still higher than the previous year.

Difference is we consumed less, so had smaller bills thanks to global warming, climate change or just the weather..

Only affects inflation if the basket is "fiddled". The basket stays the same size (no of energy units) until "fiddled".

And a drop in prices, even if higher than the same time last year, will result in a lower rate of inflation, a lower rise in other words.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by andykn

Because I have technological assistance "today"?

Such as? Air conditioning or CCS in your bedroom to keep CO2 levels below 560ppmv?

Only affects inflation if the basket is "fiddled". The basket stays the same size (no of energy units) until "fiddled".

And a drop in prices, even if higher than the same time last year, will result in a lower rate of inflation, a lower rise in other words.

Ah, you don't understand. Again.

February's leccy bill would have been KWh x the unit price. February's bill could be lower if either the number of KWh used or the unit price were lower..

For a milder February, especially compared to last year, which do you think is the more likely reason for a lower energy bill?

For bonus points, compare mortality rates for the same month.. Another reason why global warming is good..

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Such as? Air conditioning or CCS in your bedroom to keep CO2 levels below 560ppmv?

Still not sure how any of this relates to

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today.

Ah, you don't understand. Again.

Careful, you'll upset Prof Cloud.

February's leccy bill would have been KWh x the unit price. February's bill could be lower if either the number of KWh used or the unit price were lower..

For a milder February, especially compared to last year, which do you think is the more likely reason for a lower energy bill?

I think it's you who "don't understand". The only way for energy prices to reduce inflation is for the price to go down or the ONS to "fiddle" the number of kWh in their basket.

For bonus points, compare mortality rates for the same month.. Another reason why global warming is good..

Tell Prof Cloud, he still thinks it's cooling.

[allaorta]

[quote=Jellied Eel;57263512]

Such as? Air conditioning or CCS in your bedroom to keep CO2 levels below 560ppmv?

He has an iron lung installed

Ah, you don't understand. Again.

February's leccy bill would have been KWh x the unit price. February's bill could be lower if either the number of KWh used or the unit price were lower..

For a milder February, especially compared to last year, which do you think is the more likely reason for a lower energy bill?

For bonus points, compare mortality rates for the same month.. Another reason why global warming is good

Interesting point since as someone who goes through umpteen catalogues and views a number of auctions, I can report there's a dearth of goodies coming to the auction market as a result of inconsiderate people living through the winter.

[Jellied Eel]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/2...he-atmosphere/

Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

Cue the usual suspects to deny CO2 as a cooling gas..

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by spiney2

modelling climate is complicated. inherently non linear. the discovery of chaotic dynamics was largely from climate modelling ......

all scientists know this. the ideologically motivated deniers just ignore it.

Actually we keep pointing it out as the reason why climate models are inherently unreliable. Climate modellers know this. The politically motivated deny it and demand billions.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Cue the usual suspects to deny CO2 as a cooling gas..

This "usual suspect" is simply going to point out that the thermosphere is not "the atmosphere". The thermosphere is so high up and so sparcely populated with molecules that the International Space Station orbits slap bang in the middle of it.

One again, the hopeless jumble of misunderstand science factoids randomly jostling for attention in your brain lets you down. It's the same reason you regularly trot out nonsense like:

"Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today."

...and then struggle to justify it as some sort of bedroom humour, without ever managing to explain what "technological assistance" we have today.

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Actually we keep pointing it out as the reason why climate models are inherently unreliable. Climate modellers know this.

No, climate modellers understand the limitations of climate models, but they also understand why they are useful.

People who don't know any science but are ideologically driven to dispute its findings - people just like you - inevitably find that inconvenient.

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

BC, are you and Eel thinking that the concern over atmospheric CO2 is over safe levels for humans breathing it and surviving? I found the Wikipedia page yesterday and noted the ~2% level being tolerable for a time so that must be a weight off your mind.

More to the (AGW) point though, at much lower levels (currently 350-400ppm) it's making the world hotter. We know it's not linear but we have to get off our collective backsides and do something well before we let it reach whole-number percentages.

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Not so fast.. I was simply testing the idea that 560ppmv is a realistic "planet-livable" threshold and found a volunteer in andykn to play with. Partly inspired by that German article I linked earlier pointing out the ways that 'Green' measures like insulation and especially super-insulation can be harmful.. Especially if you don't know your science.

Poor air quality has been known to be harmful. Humans share a lot of similarity to sea water. If sea water can be turned into acid at <560ppmv, just think what 2,000+ must be doing to your bodies!

Read this for more info-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_acidosis

then of course there'll be the potential respiratory effects of black molds that may make the situation worse..



Oh no it isn't! Well, ok, it is, but only by a teensy amount..



Not really. Because it's non-linear we've seen about all we'll see with this potential doubling of CO2. Hence the tradgedy of the missing heat, and why temperature levels are unlikely to ever catch up with the UN's profit forecasts.

Why bring up the safe-to-breathe level at all? We're adversely affecting the atmosphere at our current level of 350-400ppm and you're wittering on about 2% (20,000ppm) as though that's what this is about! Talk about missing the point! And does air-con remove CO2?

[Black Cloud]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

BC, are you and Eel thinking that the concern over atmospheric CO2 is over safe levels for humans breathing it and surviving? I found the Wikipedia page yesterday and noted the ~2% level being tolerable for a time so that must be a weight off your mind.

More to the (AGW) point though, at much lower levels (currently 350-400ppm) it's making the world hotter. We know it's not linear but we have to get off our collective backsides and do something well before we let it reach whole-number percentages.

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the simple reason that there isn't enough to cause a problem.
What does concern me is the attitude of people like you have towards CO2 and your insistance on spending vast quantities of moenel, not to mention wrecking economies, to solve a none problem.

[Black Cloud]

Originally Posted by andykn

I think the lack of understanding of what Eel posted is yours:

We want to know when this time was, after all, last night living in a modern home hardly counts as living "without the technological assistance we have today", does it?

Nothing you posted tells us what era Eel was referring to.

I don't know which era JE is talking about but I would say the time is now.
We do after all routinely live in CO2 levels above 560ppm without any technical assistance.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Black Cloud

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the simple reason that there isn't enough to cause a problem.

According to Black Cloud fantasy physics, but not according to actual science.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Black Cloud

I don't know which era JE is talking about but I would say the time is now.
We do after all routinely live in CO2 levels above 560ppm without any technical assistance.

Is this another denier schism?

Eel clearly isn't talking about today, because he says:

"Humans lived through 560ppm and that's without the technological assistance we have today"

And of course nobody apart from you (and now possibly Eel, in an attempt to avoid further embarrassment) was talking about breathable levels of CO2. Everybody else was talking about the well-mixed level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and its effect on the climate, which is something quite different.

[Black Cloud]

Originally Posted by njp

According to Black Cloud fantasy physics, but not according to actual science.

Oh NJ, you say that about anyone you don't agree with which puts me in the same company as the likes of Freeman Dyson. I'm not worth but thanks anyway.

Now, in the best traditions of Blue Peter, here's some science you denied earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...ature-plot.svg

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Black Cloud

I'm not the slightest bit concerned about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere for the simple reason that there isn't enough to cause a problem.

Yes, but you claimed to have calculated cooling since 2002 with a statistical significance of just under 60% so we know how reliable your assertions are.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yes, but you claimed to have calculated cooling since 2002 with a statistical significance of just under 60% so we know how reliable your assertions are.

he is probably far more acurate than any global surface temperature record available to date. it wouldn't surprise me if the world had actually been cooling the last 100 years.

ho for some real honest science for a change.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

he is probably far more acurate than any global surface temperature record available to date. it wouldn't surprise me if the world had actually been cooling the last 100 years.

ho for some real honest science for a change.

As he specifically said he calculated it using the HadCRUT data I do rather suspect you are hopelessly wrong.

Again.

But you won't let everything you say being wrong put any doubt in your mind that you might actually be wrong, will you?

Have you even understood what statistical significance means yet? The last time you tried to explain it you were even more wrong than you usually are.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

As he specifically said he calculated it using the HadCRUT data I do rather suspect you are hopelessly wrong.

Again.

But you won't let everything you say being wrong put any doubt in your mind that you might actually be wrong, will you?

Have you even understood what statistical significance means yet? The last time you tried to explain it you were even more wrong than you usually are.

nope I use real science not made up science.
even this AGW graph shows the global temperature is probably cyclic in nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...emperatu.shtml

and HadCRUT shows shows strong, steady cooling over the last 10 years.
http://www.real-science.com/phil-ends-time-in-2010

but hay dont let reallity get in the way of a good story.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

nope I use real science not made up science.
even this AGW graph shows the global temperature is probably cyclic in nature.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...emperatu.shtml

and HadCRUT shows shows strong, steady cooling over the last 10 years.
http://www.real-science.com/phil-ends-time-in-2010

but hay dont let reallity get in the way of a good story.

Er, you said "probably far more acurate than any global surface temperature record" yet he was using the HadCRUT record.

All you're looking at is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif

Edit: And look how much warmer the cycle you posted is than the previous cycle. That's what "underlying" means and is why scientists smooth data.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

Er, you said "probably far more acurate than any global surface temperature record" yet he was using the HadCRUT record.

All you're looking at is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif

Edit: And look how much warmer the cycle you posted is than the previous cycle. That's what "underlying" means and is why scientists smooth data.

and the cycle is on the way down.
but using another well trusted temperature guage used by climate scientists TREE RINGS say the world is cooling.