Any morons on here still denying global warming?

[joswift]

Not atmospheric CO2, there would be zero reversing it and it would change blood gases, cause respiratory problems in many people, cause cognitive problems etc. Comparing it to indoor levels is silly. We are talking constant 0.1%

The important distinction: 1,000 ppm indoors vs. outdoors

If the entire atmosphere were 1,000 ppm, people would continuously breathe air at that concentration. That's different from an indoor room reaching 1,000 ppm.

"An indoor concentration of 1,000 ppm often indicates poor ventilation, and therefore other pollutants can be accumulating too. Consequently, studies associating "1,000 ppm CO₂" with health or cognitive effects don't necessarily demonstrate that CO₂ itself is responsible."

I won't be responding to AI if you are planning on allowing a computer to think for you. The comparison isn't about what I was saying and AI is wrong a shit ton of the time.

https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/air-academy/is-carbon-dioxide-harmful-to-people

"Because carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant, it mostly affects your brain. At moderate CO2 levels, around 1000 ppm, there are observable effects on your thinking. These same levels also reduce concentration and focus, as well as create discomfort from breathing stuffy air. Overall, moderate levels of CO2, which are very common in office meeting rooms, schools, and even your home, won’t let your body function optimally."

Again, this is a side argument. Where its a pretty potent vasodialator things like migraines, other headaches, breathing issues (especially in those with COPD, asthma etc), cognitive deficits etc would be widespread. There would be zero reversing it if it's what our atmosphere was so these problems would compound and persist, contrary to your AI generated screed.

Go argue with scientists , you are arguing against yourself... 

AI scours all data and comes up with facts.

You think the air conditioning people are wrong in creating a CO2 level of 0.1 parts per million?
why woiuld they do that and give people migraines you silly kunt

[joswift]

As carbon dioxide concentrations climb into percentages rather than parts per million, the gas shifts from being a cognitive stressor to an acute physical hazard:

At 10,000 ppm (1%): People can experience noticeable increases in heart rate and mild respiratory discomfort [2].
At 30,000 to 40,000 ppm (3–4%): Exposure becomes dangerous, triggering severe shortness of breath, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, and severe headaches, requiring immediate evacuation [2].
Above 70,000 to 100,000 ppm (7–10%): Higher concentrations lead to unconsciousness, convulsions, and eventually death due to a combination of carbon dioxide toxicity (hypercapnia) and the physical displacement of breathable oxygen (asphyxiation).

it would have to get into whole percentages before it had any major adverse effects you silly twat

[Necrosis]

Go argue with scientists , you are arguing against yourself... 

AI scours all data and comes up with facts.

You think the air conditioning people are wrong in creating a CO2 level of 0.1 parts per million?
why woiuld they do that and give people migraines you silly kunt

AI comes up with bullshit a ton and if you check the references you would see that.

They aren't wrong but you are. I also just used AI to dispute your AI. I then posted a link showing you are wrong and that you moved the goalposts to indoor air quality when we are talking about the atmosphere LMAO. Your link also says the negatives (which prove there are) are reversible, by you know, going outside where its far lower.

The ideal level to not impact thinking and energy levels is 600-800ppms, 1000-1200ppms causes noticeable alterations and indicates ventilation is not working correctly.

https://learn.kaiterra.com/en/air-academy/is-carbon-dioxide-harmful-to-people

if it was always 1000ppms there would be consequences.

You didn't answer my carbon dating post. Thought you could get a win here did ya?

Not today son, not ever.

[Necrosis]

As carbon dioxide concentrations climb into percentages rather than parts per million, the gas shifts from being a cognitive stressor to an acute physical hazard:

At 10,000 ppm (1%): People can experience noticeable increases in heart rate and mild respiratory discomfort [2].
At 30,000 to 40,000 ppm (3–4%): Exposure becomes dangerous, triggering severe shortness of breath, dizziness, elevated blood pressure, and severe headaches, requiring immediate evacuation [2].
Above 70,000 to 100,000 ppm (7–10%): Higher concentrations lead to unconsciousness, convulsions, and eventually death due to a combination of carbon dioxide toxicity (hypercapnia) and the physical displacement of breathable oxygen (asphyxiation).

it would have to get into whole percentages before it had any major adverse effects you silly twat

Link the references so I can make you look silly. Number 2 please.

[joswift]

Link the references so I can make you look silly. Number 2 please.

Lindsey, Rebecca. Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Web, NOAA Climate.gov, 2024) NOAA Climate.gov↩

CO2Meter. Our carbon dioxide (CO2) levels chart shows the increasing danger of elevated levels of CO2 in enclosed spaces. (Web, CO2Meter Blog) CO2Meter↩

Satish, U., et al. Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate  CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. (Academic Journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012) PMC Article↩

[Necrosis]

From your link, again this is indoor so its temporary. It's like saying low intensity exercise is healthy for an hour, but constant low intensity exercise all day long is not. Your links are about indoor air quality- aka temporary. Even then, the links support my contention even if they aren't accurate for atmospheric levels

"Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.

There were notable and substantial impacts on cognition after only 2.5 hours exposure

I mean your links also clearly state it's human made lol the first link has zero to do with our discussion here.

"Based on the annual analysis from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 422.8 parts per million (“ppm,” for short) in 2024, a new record high. The increase during 2024 was 3.75 ppm—the largest one-year increase on record. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (graph above), where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2024 was 424.61 ppm, also a new record."



"By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.

If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years."

So in an effort to prove a peripheral point you linked studies that prove your position is wrong, on both fronts lol.

[joswift]

From your link, again this is indoor so its temporary. It's like saying low intensity exercise is healthy for an hour, but constant low intensity exercise all day long is not. Your links are about indoor air quality- aka temporary. Even then, the links support my contention even if they aren't accurate for atmospheric levels

"Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.

There were notable and substantial impacts on cognition after only 2.5 hours exposure

I mean your links also clearly state it's human made lol the first link has zero to do with our discussion here.

"Based on the annual analysis from NOAA’s Global Monitoring Lab, global average atmospheric carbon dioxide was 422.8 parts per million (“ppm,” for short) in 2024, a new record high. The increase during 2024 was 3.75 ppm—the largest one-year increase on record. At Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii (graph above), where the modern carbon dioxide record began in 1958, the annual average carbon dioxide in 2024 was 424.61 ppm, also a new record."



"By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.

If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years."

So in an effort to prove a peripheral point you linked studies that prove your position is wrong, on both fronts lol.

nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor


You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments


Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.

[Necrosis]

nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor


You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments


Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.

LOL meltdown and fail.

I didn't say the graph didnt state indoor or outdoor, your fucking post was about indoor quality at 1000ppm, of course outdoor won't have a comparison at that level because it's not at that level you fucking moron, hence my point. The link I am referencing is the references I asked you to get which I quoted in my post. It can't be that hard to keep up you silly kunt.

I don't know why I even try on here LOL. You got illuminati thinking the US is the world economy, chaos not understanding how studies work, dos equis being a creationist zealot, coach posting pictures of the sun like a toddler.

[joswift]

Lol?

Heres a fucking Lol for you

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=82918&src=youtube

2013 continued the warming trend according to the idiots at Nasa.

More liberal bullshite, Nasa didn't watch the weather network apparently, because it's snowing outside right now.

https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=515262.0

[Royalty]

I don’t think that Necrosis will be posting anymore 😂

[chaos]

nope, the graph shows indoor and outdoor


You just cant help being disingenuous in your arguments


Im done discussing something with someone who tells lies.

This is why I continuously mock and belittle him. He's incapable of recognizing when he's proven wrong and will constantly change the goal posts with slight verbiage in order to appear smart. It must work on his D&D gaming sites, he keeps trying it here.