CO2 Emissions and the Environment: Myths vs. Facts from Real Scientists

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter 2f9hg0jd5
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Co2
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of CO2 emissions and their environmental impact, particularly in relation to the melting southern ice shelf. Participants explore the reasoning behind the argument that CO2, being a naturally occurring gas, should not be considered harmful and whether this perspective is valid. The conversation touches on broader themes of natural versus artificial substances and their potential effects on health and the environment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning of a colleague who argues that CO2, as a natural gas, cannot be harmful and therefore should not be controlled, prompting a discussion on the potential dangers of excessive natural substances.
  • Another participant proposes a theory that natural systems can absorb large variations in atmospheric CO2, suggesting a negative feedback loop where increased CO2 leads to more plant growth, which in turn absorbs more CO2.
  • A different viewpoint highlights the complexity of CO2 emissions, mentioning geological processes that can trap and release CO2 and speculating on self-balancing mechanisms involving biomass and oceanic carbon trapping.
  • One participant expresses concern that the public misunderstands the role of CO2, emphasizing that the majority of greenhouse gases are water vapor and criticizing the portrayal of human contributions to CO2 emissions.
  • Another participant uses an analogy involving medical treatment to argue that even natural substances can be harmful in excessive amounts, reinforcing the idea that context and quantity matter in discussions about CO2.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of CO2 emissions and the validity of arguments against controlling them. There is no consensus on the reasoning methodologies or the potential consequences of CO2 levels in the environment.

Contextual Notes

Participants raise questions about the balance of gases in the atmosphere and their biological implications, but these points remain unresolved and depend on various assumptions about environmental interactions.

2f9hg0jd5
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Part of Explorations today dealt with CO2 emissions and the melting southern ice shelf. I have a colleague who argues against placing controls on CO2 emissions because, since CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, there is no way that it can be justifiably called 'harmful'. Since it is 'natural' and not 'harmful' there is no reason why it should be controlled.

What do real scientists have to say about this reasoning methodology? Are there any other instances where too much of a natural thing can be harmful?

I recall reading something discussing the changing balance between O2 and CO2 and the possible ramifications on life. Unanswered questions were raised as to what such a change in balance might mean on a biological level. Could this explain attention deficit disorder? IOW, could some of our societal problems lie in the air we breath?

Thank you very much
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a theory that the natural world can absorb even quite large variations in atmospheric CO2. It goes like this, if the CO2 builds up, plants will grow more vigorously (this has been demonstrated). So they will put out more roots and thus deepen the humus that covers the natural floor of the ground. And the deeper the humus , the more atmospheric CO2 it will absorb and fix for long periods of time. So you have a rough negative feedback loop here.

Your friend's dichotomy of "natural" or "artificial" is not adequate in thinking about the world. Too much of something can be bad for you, even if it's natural and even if a little bit is good for you. Consider sugar. For that matter snake venom and anthrax are natural.
 
You should ask your friend if he would like to bathe in some perfectly natural H2S04 (Sulfuric Acid).

CO2 is an interesting case because there are many different processes that emit CO2. There are geological processess that trap and release CO2 on a large scale. In fact, a currently popular theory calls for volcanoes to emit sufficient greenhouse gas and soot to end an ice age.

This is AFAIK not an accepted theory, but it's entirely possible that highter CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures leading to more biomass leading to more carbon trapping at the bottom of the ocean leading to lower CO2. That would mean that the CO2 levels are more-or-less self balancing.

Unlike other many other types of air polution, CO2 is also relatively easy to deal with because there are so many organisms that interact with it. For example, H2S, the chemical that causes rotten egg smell, is much more difficcult to deal with because it is much more toxic, and there are relatively few organisms that are adapted to dealing with large quantities of it.
 
I think that the main problem is that the majority of the public don't understand the subject. Environmentalists seem happy for the public to draw the conclusion that mankind produces all of the Co2 and this is simply not the case and by a long way.
Additionally, the majority greenhouse gas (approx 99%) is water vapour and no one has suggested limiting that!
They also use ridiculous scaremongering statements such as, "We (humans) are destroying the planet". Someone should suggest that they consult a dictionary for a definition of the word destroy!
 
2f9hg0jd5 said:
I have a colleague who argues against placing controls on CO2 emissions because, since CO2 is a naturally occurring gas, there is no way that it can be justifiably called 'harmful'. Since it is 'natural' and not 'harmful' there is no reason why it should be controlled.
His argument is very poor. Suppose my Leukemia came back. Then one way to save my life is to give me chemo until all my white blood cells are dead. Then give me in the correct manner a thethal dose of radiation. After the radiation kills all the "blood cell" producing cells inside the bone marrow the patient is given healthy marrow from another, matching, patient. The marrow then gets nice and comfy in its new home and the patient is cured. So you tell me? Is that dose of radiation lethal?

My motto in life is this - All things in the right amount

Pete
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 184 ·
7
Replies
184
Views
50K
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
39K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K