If you think CO2 isn't dangerous, would you drink water containing 387 ppm arsenic?

Favorite Answer

It took me a long time to "get" this, and not see it as simple provocation. So let me give my take, to provide help to others in the same place.

- The point is that some things have very large effects in very small amounts. And that those effects can shift from positive to negative as the amount increases, even though it is still seemingly very small.

- Arsenic at tiny levels, can be good for some living things. At slightly higher levels it can be toxic to others.

- Just because CO2 levels seem to be small doesn't mean it can't have large effects. And just because it's essential at low levels, doesn't mean it can't be a "pollutant" at higher levels.

Dana - Following along with Nickel, copper might be a better example. Essential to most living things at low levels, toxic at higher ones. Less likely to cause an emotional response like, "how can he equate arsenic to CO2", so better at getting to the science....Show more

If anything, this question is likely to cause people to conclude than 387 ppm of CO2 has no relationship to global warming. Toxicity of inorganic elements and compounds is largely a function of bioaccumulation. Since the atmosphere is not a biological organism, it does not bioaccumulate CO2 in a manner that would concentrate CO2 to some supposed toxic level. Thus, analogizing the introduction of an inorganic poison into an organism to the introduction of a gas into the atmosphere is so preposterous as to make people doubt any other, more plausible, arguments that CO2 might have anything to do with global warming....Show more

The argument is not very correct. Carbon and nitrogen are innocuous by themselves. As cyanide it is deadly. CO2 is a physiologically produced gas as part of metabolism. As bicarbonate of soda it is used by the body for homeostasis.
It is non-toxic unlike arsenic.

What has the toxicity of arsenic to do with the green hose effect of CO2? That depends on the IR absorption characteristics. Methane is ten times more dangerous on this count. When the permafrost melts all the locked in methane is going to be released setting up a major warming cycle.
Whether anthropogenic or not global warming is happening. The monsoon pattern in India has changed a lot in the last few years. Erosion of the sea coast caused by wind driven waves are prominent in many places.
We must act at all levels. Saying no to plastic carry bags, using solar collectors for hot water, and such acts by individuals will count.
There is no 'might' about it.
CO2, if increasing will aggravate warming.

But let us leave arsenic out of this....Show more

Firstly while I agree that human CO2 influence may be a forcer for the current global climate situation (I assume you understand what a forcer is in this context). I firstly have to state your analogy is flawed in the way it effects people emotionally it biases against the scientific point of your argument (arsenic produces instantly negative connotations to most humans). Copper would be a better analogy, or Sulphur, both essential to life including our own lives in small amounts, several proteins contain sulphur, copper salts are part of our biological balance, in excess both are toxic and the dividing line between those two is fairly small.

With regards to your actual scientific argument computer modeling has shown venus (a rocky planet in our system with an atmosphere thus something like earth in that it is not bare rock with no atmosphere) has much higher measured temperatures than would be predicted for a planet of the same size receiving the same solar radiation but with a similar Nitrogen Oxygen atmosphere with small amounts of CO2 like earth, which does support scientifically the theory that CO2 is not only a greenhouse gas but can cause significant changes on a global scale (in the case of venus it is an increase of several hundred centegrade), while we all know far less than that over a short period of time could destroy all life on earth.

My main questions with the theory are as follows, how much CO2 has humanity really released into the atmosphere compared to the global mass of the atmosphere itself and how much have we changed its composition as a result.

And how much has nature changed the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere over the same sort of relevant timeframe (since the industrial revolution mainly) as we know CO2 runs in cycles with the volcanic activity of earth which rises and falls naturally.

Also, over the same timeframe I am unsure what the figures for the output of sol are (sol being our local star, ie the sun).

While I do not reject the theory of global warming as a result of human action I accept we do not understand enough about this phenomenon as yet, and thus cannot reject natural explanations for the results we see, and it would be a moral error not to research those other possibilities, if it were natural perhaps any effort to reduce CO2 we produce may not be enough and saving the environement may need more direct action (ie some kind of atomospheric coversion equipment) in essence the same equipment proposed for terraforming of worlds to keep this planet in the balance that suits human (and other earth life).

Although it seams to me this question was posted more as a challenge towards others than an actual question, although perhaps some of my comments may make you think as well, it is not scientifically logical to get tied up in something which is not assured....Show more

The only biological reason we need CO2 is for a filler., CO2 is a waste product. We breath in much more than we need. With a healthy lung capacity breathing in pure oxygen would result in oxygen toxicity. Luckily our atmosphere is mostly nitrogen with a little CO2, this acts as a filler. When we breath in we are are still getting more than enough oxygen, however not enough to make us sick as we are predominantly breathing a somewhat inert gas (nitrogen).

The problem with C02 is that it is much heaver than air. IT sits close to the earths surface which is pretty much where we all hang out. and what this does is change to composition of the air we breath, and with every tonne of CO2 we add, well that is less oxygen our bodies are taking in.

I am not sure about you, however I myself am a big fan of breathing oxygen.

It certainly doesn't help that CO2 is also very dense. So it traps in a lot of warmth, and other toxins closer to the earths surface (we call this the greenhouse effect) So now I am breathing less oxygen and more industrial waste. Sounds great!

To answer your question, I know better than to drink 387ppm arsenic, although it may not kill me (it probably will) I certainly won't be feeling very well and it would certainly severely damage my kidneys and liver....Show more