www.collapse2050.com/small-does-not-equal-immaterial/
0.04% Atmospheric CO2 Concentration: Small Does Not = Immaterial. Here are 10 Toxins Lethal at Far Lower Concentrations.
I used to ask climateskeptics (on their sub) that came up with the stupid "but it's such a small value" augment if they were interested in a great deal. I have thousands of nice beads and shiny marbles that I want to trade for just one single thousand dollar bill... Thousands of shiny things for one small piece of paper ... For some reason suddenly the how can such a small quantity be relevant argument disappears.
They fact that they ban you almost instantly should say everything.
Oh right, I'm on a new account...! Time to piss them off with facts again lol.
Edit: Aaaand, video about 'cherry picking bias' posted. Banned in 3.... 2....
I managed to stay unbanned for about a year. Just never insult the entire sub. that's their only banneable offense. For some reason it was ok though to threaten people. Some troll over there dedicated a topic to be in an attempt to intimidate me. Was quite funny actually. And recently when I mentioned that toxic sub in a climate discussion somewhere, he did it again (even though I had been banned months before).
Wow. Conservatives ban me upon a single post. Dittonthe so called science reddits that are really hard Corp conservatives messing up science and statitistics so badly that one is hard pressed to not question their education and intelligence, more correctly the lack of both items.
Even when you don't insult them they ban you if you provide data and reference it, and require the same from them. They can't back up their arguments with data. On the rare occasions they have data they can't analyze it appropriately. 2 plus 2 equals 4. When you tell them no. It never adds up to 3. It is always 4. Any other answer is wrong.
I got banned from one reddit when I got a couple of guys to swear they would never touch a device that depended on relativity for its utility.
Well, GPS location has a relativistic correction to account for slightly different acceleration frameworks. It is minor when the satellite is launched. I believe the location loses accuracy by about 18 inches per year. A year. Not bad. Satellites live for many years. After a few years the location becomes to variable to be useful. Worse, the system can use more than one satellite. If the discrepancy between sat 1 and sat 2 is large the system has a hisdy fit.
When this was confirmed by the satellite manufacturers I got banned. And I doubt the conservatives gave up their GPSs. How will they ever find their way to their clan rallies without them?
Even when you don't insult them they ban you if you provide data and reference it, and require the same from them.
Somehow i managed to do that while getting into heavy discussions with some of their resident trolls. It was fun but took a lot of time.
Edit: but the same arguments got me banned in half an hour on r/realclimateskeptics for dishonesty and unscientific stuff, while defending the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
They can't count to 2, so there can't be a second law of thermodynamics.
Try mentioning Carnot's interpretation. That was a memorable discussion with some drunk Republicans. I won enough side bets to pay for my night out.
He would probably want her to have an abortion first. He won’t want to support someone else’s child
Yeah it’s like the tap water where I live. The epa safe levels of a PFAS is .0002 parts per billion, we are at 2.0 parts per billion, but it’s not regulated. Just because it’s alittle number doesn’t mean it’s just alittle cancer
Why CO2 matters.
The BIGGEST greenhouse gas is Water vapour!
Water vapour has a built in release valve called rain.
Warmer air holds more water vapour before it rains.
Thus a little extra of any other greenhouse gas, causes slightly warmer air, which then holds more water vapour, which cause a lot more air warming, which holds more water vapour. Until a new hotter equilibrium is reached.
CO can be fatal in concentrations of 200 ppm or more.
I think a better analogy would be to ask the other person what they think would happen if they put 400 milliliters of blue ink into a cubic meter of water (conc 0.04%). Additionally, many toxins operate through mechanisms that are dissimilar to the radiation absorption properties of gases, which may not be convincing enough for others.
CO2 is considered to be minimally toxic by inhalation. The primary health effects caused by CO2 are the result of its behavior as a simple asphyxiant. A simple asphyxiant is a gas which reduces or displaces the normal oxygen in breathing air. Symptoms of mild CO2 exposure may include headache and drowsiness.
OZONE layer is on average 8ppm (up to 15ppm). Without it Earth would be sterilized of life: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/SH.html
Anyway, this site provides other good examples of how trace amounts of substances have a big impact. Also, more in the comments: https://skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
I like this comment: "Coincidently, clouds are about 0.04% water. I've noticed quite a difference between sunny and cloudy days."
Co2 is not classified as toxic. It's an asphyxiant and not pleasant to die from because it turns the water in your mucous membrane acidic, but not remotely at current atmospheric levels. Comparing it to nerve agents is a bit strange and irrelevant. The toxicity of Co2 at that level is not its problem.
It's like saying atmospheric water vapor is bad because acid vapors can burn you.
You’re reading too far into the comparison. They’re not making the argument that CO2 is toxic. Rather they’re pointing out that things measured in ppm still have an effect even in low concentrations, examples given.
It’s my go to as well. Every time someone incredulously brings up CO2’s small concentration as if that in and of itself makes it irrelevant, I suggest they take a smell of H2S gas at only 50ppm… I mean it’s only 50 ppm… how could it have any effect. /s
And people having a belief so contrary to chemistry know what hydrogen sulfide is? I get it know, but it's weird to counter anti-scientific arguments with more science.
CO2 is inert.
And toxic
Especially to trees.
CO2 is relatively unreactive, but it certainly isn't inert. It reacts with water to form carbonic acid.
Carbonic acid - sounds harmful to the human body. Is it?
It's a relatively weak acid.
7 missing replies
Anyone who says it can't matter because it is so low will not be convinced by comparators, nor any scientific argument.
These are ideologues that have religion. They glom onto that one factory and believe they have an invitrovertable argument in their favor. They lack the language, subject matter familiarity, and general scientific knowledge to follow any technical discussion. They are relying on a lay press article from some right-wing propaganda source.
You will have better luck trying to fix Senator Lady Graham up with your sister.