Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby GregT » Fri 24 Mar 2017, 16:25:49

My wife has spent the last 32 years of her career in the fields of hematology, microbiology, histology, and pathology. When I brought your above links to her attention Cid, she just nodded her head in agreement. This has been a topic of conversation between herself and her peers for quite some time. She was not aware of the Bierwirth working paper, and has printed out a copy for further examination and discussion.

Thanks.
GregT
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013, 20:18:20
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 24 Mar 2017, 18:09:31

Thanks dis and Greg. If you all can add any relevant studies (and links to them) to the discussion, it would be greatly appreciated. Some to you, T.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16017
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 24 Mar 2017, 22:16:44

Image

According to the Atlantic magazine indoor air pollution in 1900 was the main cause of death of 23 percent of the population. Today that number has fallen to about 5 percent because we use electric lighting and what gas appliances we have are vented to prevent CO/CO2 from building up in our indoor air.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dissident » Fri 24 Mar 2017, 23:17:22

Tanada wrote:Image

According to the Atlantic magazine indoor air pollution in 1900 was the main cause of death of 23 percent of the population. Today that number has fallen to about 5 percent because we use electric lighting and what gas appliances we have are vented to prevent CO/CO2 from building up in our indoor air.


Most people in 1900 were working the fields and spending their time most of the year, including winter, outdoors. They were not holed up in their houses in front of TV and computers. Same goes for office work, which was a fringe activity.

I will call BS on that graphic since it is ripped off from this report:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/site ... lution.pdf

and represents the total exposure to solid fuel use (Figure 4). Some clown scaled mortality as proportional to fuel use. Complete rubbish of an inference. Trying to fob off the CO2 impact on the metabological syndrome with this is simply not good enough. Mortality in 1900 was dominated by lack of antibiotics and medical infrastructure. The average life expectancy in 1900 was 46 years ( http://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html ). That is, most people died before heart disease and diabetes could manifest themselves. The typical peak for metabological disorder deaths is for people in their 60s.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 07:46:13

dissident wrote:
Tanada wrote:Image

According to the Atlantic magazine indoor air pollution in 1900 was the main cause of death of 23 percent of the population. Today that number has fallen to about 5 percent because we use electric lighting and what gas appliances we have are vented to prevent CO/CO2 from building up in our indoor air.


Most people in 1900 were working the fields and spending their time most of the year, including winter, outdoors. They were not holed up in their houses in front of TV and computers. Same goes for office work, which was a fringe activity.

I will call BS on that graphic since it is ripped off from this report:

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/site ... lution.pdf

and represents the total exposure to solid fuel use (Figure 4). Some clown scaled mortality as proportional to fuel use. Complete rubbish of an inference. Trying to fob off the CO2 impact on the metabological syndrome with this is simply not good enough. Mortality in 1900 was dominated by lack of antibiotics and medical infrastructure. The average life expectancy in 1900 was 46 years ( http://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html ). That is, most people died before heart disease and diabetes could manifest themselves. The typical peak for metabological disorder deaths is for people in their 60s.


The average life expectancy in 1900 was 46 years because of the incredibly high infant mortality rate. If you made it to age 5 your life expectancy was 62, which considering all the challenges of the piss poor medical establishment, which was unable to treat conditions like diabetes at all effectively, was a sign of how robust people were. It is also a blatant falsehood to say most people spent most of their time out of doors even in the winter. About half the population were farm folks, they would go out and tend the livestock a few times during the day but other than emergencies they spent the bulk of any 24 hour period indoors in winter when cold was a real threat to life and limb. Even worse if you were a "homemaker" in spring and summer you would be tending your garden plot for a couple hours a day, but in fall you spent your gardening time engaged in preserving the food, typically by canning it, salting it, or even smoking it. None of those preservation methods are good air quality situations, it is not as if humans are design to inhale salt dust particulate matter and breathe fumes while tending the cooking process.

Sure kids before 1985 spent a lot more time outside playing, but that was after they crossed that 5 years of age threshold. Before that as infants and toddlers they spent 20+ hours a day in a polluted indoor air environment. Almost half of the elderly on the other end of the life span died from Pneumonia or other forms of respiratory ailment. There you are, 60 years old you catch a cold or the flu and become bedridden in that polluted environment. There are no antibiotics. Your cold allows a opportunistic strain of pneumonia bacteria to settle in your longs and within a very few days or a week you are room temperature dead.

Now try setting aside your preconceived notions about life in 1900 and think about it, if you are a male laborer with an outside job you spend a little over half your day out working in summer. On the other hand if you work in manufacturing you go from polluted home air through the outside to polluted factory air where you worked 10-12 hours. Your brief period outside was however long it takes you to travel from home to work and back, and just like people today most people lived and worked between half an hour and an hour apart. If you are an office worker in 1900 you still have an excellent chance that your office is using gas lighting because electricity was not yet widespread. That means you leave your polluted home air, commute and then spend a shift often of 10-12 hours working in polluted office air. In the winter time if you are a male outdoors laborer the odds are very good you are laid off for winter. A few lucky fellow work clearing sidewalks or similar winter activities, but construction halts for the season, there are no crops to tend or harvest and so on and so forth. For the laborers who do continue working outside the daylight period is brief, 8 hours to 9 hours, so they are working fewer hours. Not a whole lot of exterior lighting bright enough to allow working before dawn outside in 1900, and the same applies after sunset. most workers were paid not by the hour necessarily, but by the day, which meant 10-12 hours depending on occupation so long as the sun was up long enough for you to see what you were doing.

In addition to gas lighting most factories were designed with window walls on the south face and if possible skylights to get as much natural light into the structure as possible during the day. Office space on the south face of buildings was considered premium real estate for leasing for the exact same reason, until the 1920's artificial light was weak and often hazardous, not to mention an expense every business wished to avoid. You had three choices for light, you could have sunlight, flame light, or electric light. Flame was generally gas in cities and kerosene outside the pipeline network. Electric came in two varieties, Edison bulbs that glowed a dull yellow orange color or arclights that were eye searingly bright white used for spotlight type applications. None of the artificial sources was cheap or convenient in 1900 and if you already had gaslight you were very reluctant to switch because wiring a building was not a trivial expense. As a result indoor air quality was somewhere between bad and deadly. Cases of carbon monoxide poisoning were common.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 08:16:25

As T noted, homemakers, including rural ones, were often largely restricted to indoor environments.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2398 ... aled_Woman

The most striking feature of Le Guin's world is that it was confined almost entirely to the indoors, from the bedrooms where her children were born and where her parents lay ill and died to the stove room where the daily meals were cooked and cleared.


Her situation, however extreme, was not unique in her day.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16017
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 09:43:31

March 24: Unavailable
March 23: 406.66 ppm
March 22: 406.56 ppm
March 21: 406.63 ppm
March 20: 406.30 ppm

Here is the graph of the cycle, remember black dots are daily readings, red dashes are weekly averages and blue dashes are months averages.

Image
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dissident » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 10:43:37

dohboi wrote:As T noted, homemakers, including rural ones, were often largely restricted to indoor environments.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2398 ... aled_Woman

The most striking feature of Le Guin's world is that it was confined almost entirely to the indoors, from the bedrooms where her children were born and where her parents lay ill and died to the stove room where the daily meals were cooked and cleared.


Her situation, however extreme, was not unique in her day.


Sorry but you are wrong. Women on farms were not spending their time indoors like 1950s housewives. They were all part of the team tending to the farm (don't believe me look it up, there are other books on it, not every farm family could afford to hire help and the woman and her children were doing lots of chores outside the house; it is only today that we can live 100% inside buildings without having to leave since we can order all the food and toilet paper we need). In 1900 most people lived in farming communities and not in urban centers.

Anyway this "counterproof" based on mortality of people who never made it past 46 years of age is a total failure dismiss the CO2-metabologicial syndrome link. It even offers potential support for it since wood smoke is associated with CO2 and cooking in confined spaces with wood is bad for your health not only because of the aerosol exposure (soot is hydrophoic so soot particles in the sub-micron diameter range do not hydrate when inhaled into the lungs, since they don't hydrate the do not grow in size and hence are not effectively deposit on the mucous membrane that helps clear out your lungs and thus reach deep in the alveoli and penetrate uncoated gas exchange membranes directly into the blood stream, thereby acting as vectors for assorted nasty organic compounds) but because of CO and CO2 exposure.

Why was this example even trotted out since it is not even an obvious refutation of the effect of CO2?

People in 1900 and even in 1930s died from too many other causes to be used as some sort of guide post to dismiss the effect of CO2 on human health. Especially based on an example where the CO2 effect can't even be untangled.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 25 Mar 2017, 11:34:15

"Why was this example even trotted out since it is not even an obvious refutation of the effect of CO2? "

Yeah, I've lost track of what the point of this is in all this. I just thought it was an interesting example, that went against my assumptions when I first heard about this. That she had a largely indoor existence was certainly true of the woman whose diary are represented in this volume--I had the pleasure of hearing the editor of these entries discuss them, and to have lunch with him and his wife, the inimitable Ursula Kroeger LeGuin.

But that there were some women who had this home-constrained life (as you point out, probably those with the means to afford this 'luxury') does not mean that there weren't many others who were out in the fields with their husbands. It would be nice to have some sociological studies linked here that track such things rather than just anecdotes (in my case) and suppositions and generalizations. I just thought this was an interesting case to throw into the discussion. Not really taking 'sides' here.

I'll bow out now for a while and let you guys duke it out in peace :-D :-D
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16017
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 27 Mar 2017, 11:41:47


Week beginning on March 19, 2017: 406.77 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 405.37 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 385.28 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 08:02:42

March 29: 409.28 ppm
March 28: 409.47 ppm
March 27: 406.57 ppm
March 26: 406.88 ppm
March 25: 407.74 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 11:45:47

T - "407.74 ppm". Really? You buy accuracy to a global number to 2 decimal places? Out of morbid curiosity do they offer a standard deviation on that 407.74 stat? LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10066
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby efarmer » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 12:07:30

I do see the point Rockman makes vis a vis the decimal being artifact but the integer being above 400 is
the takeaway for me. I do know that the inertia is that we are looking at decades to move the
integer value around to a lower number if emissions ceased. And I also observe that 350ppm
was the cited value for "no harm no foul" climate change for reference.

Our government is adopting the posture that this is a bogus factor, the factor of course will be
tracked, as will observed climate changes and major events.

So we are going to go commando on this until consequences bite in a manner that cannot
be dismissed or CO2 levels do not have impact and are proven a hoax in support of our
present policy makers.
Ready, fire, aim and tweet me sweet little nothings.

We are going to find out the truth by going there and letting results pick winners and losers.
User avatar
efarmer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri 17 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 15:37:40

http://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide ... aight-year
Carbon dioxide levels rose at record pace for 2nd straight year
Feedbacks?
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money.”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7083
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby sjn » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 16:52:16

ROCKMAN wrote:T - "407.74 ppm". Really? You buy accuracy to a global number to 2 decimal places? Out of morbid curiosity do they offer a standard deviation on that 407.74 stat? LOL.

It's not a global variable, it's the reading at Mouna Loa. I'm pretty sure they have CO2 detectors with sufficient precision.
User avatar
sjn
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dissident » Fri 31 Mar 2017, 21:45:37

ROCKMAN wrote:T - "407.74 ppm". Really? You buy accuracy to a global number to 2 decimal places? Out of morbid curiosity do they offer a standard deviation on that 407.74 stat? LOL.


It's not an estimate, genius, it is an instrument measurement. That it is relevant globally is because CO2 is a long lived gas that has slow sinks, and since the atmospheric circulation mixes tracers from pole to pole in a single year, there is enough time to homogenize its global distribution. But the homogenization is not total (i.e. a single constant does not describe the concentration everywhere) and some gradients are still present due to emissions.

Image

Note the scale: blue is 382 ppmv and red is 390 ppmv. This figure is a roughly 500 hPa level slice. This is satellite data so there are actually gaps near the poles which are being filled. I would not trust the minima and maxima plotted.

All you shleptics need to go and buy a clue and shut up. You just smell the place up with inanity.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Synapsid » Sat 01 Apr 2017, 14:36:54

dohboi,

Her name is Ursula Kroeber LeGuin. She's Alfred Kroeber's daughter. Kroeber Hall at UC Berkeley is named for him.
Synapsid
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 20:21:50

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 02 Apr 2017, 03:23:07

Syn, yeah, I know. That was a typo on my part. Sorry.

Getting back to CO2, that was quite a jump this last week: 406.57 on Monday, 409.08 on Friday, with a 409.47 in between. It seems likely that we will see a daily value at or above 410 soon.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16017
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 02 Apr 2017, 20:31:41


Week beginning on March 26, 2017: 408.37 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 405.56 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 385.88 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13676
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 03 Apr 2017, 06:45:15

efarmer wrote:
We are going to find out the truth by going there and letting results pick winners and losers.


Bumper sticker material!
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 5567
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests