‘CO2 levels’ and your ‘carbon footprint’ — NOT the problem you’ve been told

Posted: May 28, 2020 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, Emissions
Tags: ,

CO2 is not pollution


Irrational fears about essential carbon dioxide in relation to the Earth’s climate have long since degenerated into superstition or old wives’ tales, for which we’re all paying the price, as discussed here.
– – –
Last year a student at a nearby university complained she couldn’t focus in class; she was convinced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) were the cause, says Dan Nevert @ CFACT.

The entire building was immediately evacuated and tested for “toxic levels of this dangerous gas.” After determining the CO2 levels were less than 500 parts-per-million (ppm), the classroom air was considered “safe” and classes again resumed.

Recently, this same school advertised that you can now “offset carbon emissions from previously completed university-funded ground-transportation and air travel trips” — by filling out a “travel carbon offsets” form, available in their “Sustainability Office.” Plus, this school is offering a course on “how to lower your carbon footprint.”

National Association of Scholars is planning a meeting to discuss indoor CO2 levels, because they “may reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions.”

A publication this week in Nature Climate Change states that “government policies and human activity data, due to decreases in travel during forced COVID-19 confinements, have decreased daily global CO2 emissions by ~17% to ~25% by early April 2020, compared with mean 2019 levels.”

As I read this nonsense in the news every day, I feel like screaming: “This nonsensical obsession with CO2 and the ‘carbon footprint’ is absolute insanity! Where has common sense gone?”

Doesn’t anyone remember — from grade school and high school biology — what they learned about plant photosynthesis requiring CO2 and all animals requiring oxygen (O2) and exhaling CO2?

Life on this planet is carbon-based; if we were not carbon-based, the next available tetrahedral element (having four chemical bonds) in Mendeleev’s Periodic Chart is silicon — in which case we would be able to live on the sun’s surface!

CO2 levels in our lungs reach ~40,000-50,000 ppm, which causes us to inhale our next breath. One of the first things medical students learn in respiratory physiology — is that the carotid body (small cluster of chemoreceptor cells, located at bifurcation of the common carotid artery running along both sides of neck) detects changes in arterial blood flow pO2 (partial pressure of oxygen), pCO2, blood pH, and temperature.

When the blood pCO2 reaches a critical level, this message is quickly sent to the medulla oblongata in the brainstem, which then sends signals to our diaphragm to breathe; more O2 is needed, and excessive CO2 must be expelled.

The human breathing reflex is controlled by blood CO2 levels, not O2 levels. Too little CO2, which can happen from hyperventilating, leads to respiratory alkalosis.

This is called hyperventilation syndrome — usually brought on by stress and anxiety. Symptoms include light-headedness; tingling in the fingers, toes and face; and chest pain; sometimes people fear they’re having a heart attack.

Treatment for hyperventilation syndrome is to breathe into a paper bag, which increases your blood CO2 back to normal.

Continued here.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    “how to lower your carbon footprint.”

    Simple – don’t tread in any carbon 🥱

  2. gbaikie says:

    –National Association of Scholars is planning a meeting to discuss indoor CO2 levels, because they “may reach levels harmful to cognition by the end of this century, and the best way to prevent this hidden consequence of climate change is to reduce fossil fuel emissions.”–

    A consequence of “climate change” is the measures to reduce CO2 emission by conserving energy use {energy efficiency} in buildings could cause measures to reduce the fresh air getting into the building. So roughly speaking, trying to make a building too “air tight”.
    As it is, indoor air is far more polluted then outside air as general matter.
    In addition one can have build up of CO2- People exhale 40,000 per million of CO2. And one also keep higher levels of virus and other biological pathogens in the indoor air.
    Or their needs to be intelligent action made in terms increasing energy efficiency of buildings, as you could do far more harm, than harmless increase in global CO2 levels. In world too close to global CO2 starvation, as compared to having too much global CO2.

  3. stpaulchuck says:

    CO2 comprises about 4% of “greenhouse” gases. Humans contribute about 3.5% of the total emissions (nature does the rest). If we accepted the prediction of a 4 degree temperature rise in the next 100 years or so [*cough**cough*] then killing every man, woman and child would reduce that by 0.035 x 0.04 x 4, or about 0.0056 degrees. I don’t think the planet will notice.

    Even if you prescribe 100% of the temperature rise to just the CO2 you’d have 0.035 x 4 = 0.14 degrees. Oh my! there goes their entire theory that my F150 and my lawn mower are going to incinerate the planet. OOOPS.

  4. oldbrew says:

    Treatment for hyperventilation syndrome is to breathe into a paper bag

    Would that work on climate alarmists?

  5. ivan says:

    Sorry oldbrew but I very much doubt it although sticking their head in a bucket of ice water might.

    The unfortunate thing is that climate alarmists are so brainwashed I don’t think anything will get through to them, not even ice sheets moving down over the country.

  6. Quinn says:

    Indoor concentration of CO2 is an entirely different concern than overall atmospheric CO2 levels and I think you are conflating the two concerns here.
    Tackling overall global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is about the amount of heat that the earth retains from the sun, and even small increases on CO2, well below what would affect oxygen concentration in blood, can drastically affect the equilibrium temperature of the planet.
    Although, plants do consume CO2, it is also true that humans are removing some of that very plant matter to make way for more things that produce CO2.
    I am not recommending we abandon all CO2 production, but I do suggest we forecast a likely future and plan to change our collective behavior as a result

    [mod] moderation is delayed sometimes

  7. cognog2 says:

    Pity the university has not been named; but I suppose that is risky as these Universities have lots of money for litigation and are jealous of their reputation.
    It is amazing that such blatant ignorance abounds in such institutions.

  8. Tom Williams says:

    How about the recent discovery in Scandanavia of Viking artifacts exposed by the receding glaciers? Proof that climate was similar to today 1000 years ago. The Little Ice Age was in between. The Climate Change cult will ignore that while emphasizing the Arctic “heat wave” – which is not unprecedented. Displacement of hot and cold air within the planet happens all the time.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Quinn says: even small increases on CO2, well below what would affect oxygen concentration in blood, can drastically affect the equilibrium temperature of the planet.

    Which has never been proved or supported by observations, however much climate alarmists make their assertions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s