I see a tendency to label arguments as straw man, even when such arguments are not in fact arguments and bear absolutely no relation to the straw man fallacy.

Well, it is true that it does not make sense to talk about CO2 reaching toxic levels in
the atmosphere. That is just is not possible.

However, there is another greenhouse gas that is often found in toxic levels and can
kill within seconds when inhaled. You might have seen it coming out of almost every
powerplants, even nuclear ones: Dihydrogenmonoxide.

Dihydrogenmonoxide is also carried in small amounts in most submarines, however
dihydrogenmonoxide leaks are responsible for over 98% of losses on board submarines.
Altho easy to detect, it often kills the entire crew without warning as the chemical
can spread quickly through the whole sub if leaks of the substance are unchecked.

It also effects the submarines systems; often causing problems with depth keeping.

/the old ones are the best.

This is pure truth. It literally drowns its victims...

Its OK for use to breather pure O2 or even Nitrogen for shorter amount of times - try that with CO2.
Besides...O2 and Nitrogen is NOT building up - are they?

I was speaking about breathing under pressure. You got a loooong way to go before atmospheric Co2 would ever become toxic.

That may be, but you do agree that of CO2, O2 and Nitrogen, CO2 is the most deadly?

I'd have to say no. We need a certain percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe. Lowering that percentage means increasing one of the other gasses whether it be Co2, Nitrogen, helium or any other "inert" gas, to compensate. Therefore too much nitrogen is as deadly as too much Co2.

On the other hand too much oxygen and plant life dies which we need to survive as well...

Lets put it this way:
If I sealed you in a room that has it's gas content controlled; would you rather I
increased the amount of oxygen, nitrogen or CO2 by 14%?

Only one will kill you with such a small rise.


But that is all academic. The toxicity of CO2 is not an environmental problem.

I would rather you not seal me in a room at all :D. But yeah of the three raising the Co2 level would be the most dangerous, at least to humans. Plants on the other hand would be loving it.

I'll check this out in a minute but isn't it CO (Carbon Monoxide) which is actively poisonous not Carbon Dioxide which is just an asphyxiant. I'll check when I'm not so pressured (sorry 'bout the pun)

I wonder what the toxic effect of CO2, when being inhaled in too large a quantity, has to do with the climatic effects of CO2 level changes in the atmosphere. Nobody has ever claimed that the threat of raising CO2 concentrations in the atmopshere has a condensate in risking medical damages of organisms breathing this atmosphere. the problem is not a chemical or physiological one, it is a physical, climatic one.

The whole discussion of this irrelevant detail of how much CO2 you can inhale without suffering physiological damage - is a distraction only, to make the climatic consequences being forgotten and ignored.

No you're not! :lol:

Guilty:oops:

:p:p

Well, if it isn't hydrocarbon, what is the real cause? :x

Obviously, CO2 is partly contributing to our current problem, if not completely. Should we release more and more CO2 to the atmosphere and fails to become carbon neutral, everyone is doomed to suffer from the global warming trend

Perhaps the USA scientists are right, there might be some other factors like natural changes which cannot be controlled by us. However, what we need to do now, is to do which can be done by human power, including a cut in CO2 emissions, in a hope to reverse the detoriating trend of global warming