Supreme Court to hear case on global warming

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

CO2 is certainly NOT an inert gas and it will kill you at elevated levels regardless of oxegen levels.
How do you think divers rebreathers work?

Good point. I stand corrected.
But I still am under the impression that breathing into a plastic bag will cause you to pass out/die from lack of oxygen, not CO2 poisoning. Though I'm no expert on this matter, as you can probably tell.

 

[dannybin1742]

what states are worried about is teh bush administration watering down the EPA by appointing people to it who hate environmental regulation,

a good read is crimes against nature, and you can see exactly what they have done, its sickening. there is a chapter specifically ont exas and what happened to it since bush was governor there, texas literally has the worst air and environmental laws of any state because of bush

one things that really bugs me is the the bush administration auctioning off public lands for strip mining and logging, that land belongs to the tax payer and can never and should never be sold, states in the upper northwest have been fighting this since 2001

 

[newmachineoverlord]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

CO2 is certainly NOT an inert gas and it will kill you at elevated levels regardless of oxegen levels.
How do you think divers rebreathers work?

Good point. I stand corrected.
But I still am under the impression that breathing into a plastic bag will cause you to pass out/die from lack of oxygen, not CO2 poisoning. Though I'm no expert on this matter, as you can probably tell.

As everyone who has taken respiratory physiology knows, carbon dioxide, while not as dangerous as carbon monoxide, still has the potential to kill you fast. I guess none of you have ever seen carbon dioxide used to euthanize lab animals before. You can hold your breath for longer than it takes them to die. Also, if carbon dioxide wasn't poisonous, why would all gas anaesthetic rebreathing apparati have carbon dioxide absorber canisters to soak up all the exhaled carbon dioxide? Without these canisters the patient would die of carbon dioxide poisoning very quickly. Maybe that example is beyond most of your experience as well.

Still, references beat anecdotal evidence. When in doubt, ask wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

"The U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safey and Health limits brief exposures (up to ten minutes) to 3% and considers concentrations exceeding 4% as "immediately dangerous to life and health." People who breathe 5% carbon dioxide for more than half an hour show signs of acute hypercapnia, while breathing 7%?10% carbon dioxide can produce unconsciousness in only a few minutes."

 

[dannybin1742]

plants use both co2 and o2, co2 is incorporatedin rubisco to be turned in 3-phosphoglycerate and ends up making sugars, plants need o2 as well because it is used as the final electron acceptor in electron transport, just like in any aerobic organism

plants cant just live on co2, the problem is that humans are producing co2 mush faster than the plants on this earth can change it back into sugars and other metabolites, couple that with the rate at which the plants and trees on this earth are dissappearing, and you can see the problem

 

[kylebisme]

But I don't want to see problems!

 

[dannybin1742]

oops double post

More E85 & nuclear power plants are a good idea for the short term. It's a good sign that even the most benighted neoconderthals are beginning to recognize this. However, how are we going to pay for developing new technologies (long term solutions) with our $6,000,000,000/month Iraq bill?

or the $300+ billion we are paying china in interest on our loans for the mess-o-potamia

 

[Goalitalia]

Good to see our checks&balance system at work (worthless executive branch).

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: GeNome
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060626_court_greenhouse.html

"WASHINGTON (AP)?The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse'' gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment."

But this part I don't really get:

"Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health."

Since when is this an "if"? For some reason, I thought it was pretty well known that CO2 was harmful to your health. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't know why people are happy. This just means that now there'll be a precedent saying that there is no global warming, or that CO2 emissions don't cause it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: GeNome
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060626_court_greenhouse.html

"WASHINGTON (AP)?The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse'' gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment."

But this part I don't really get:

"Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health."

Since when is this an "if"? For some reason, I thought it was pretty well known that CO2 was harmful to your health. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't know why people are happy. This just means that now there'll be a precedent saying that there is no global warming, or that CO2 emissions don't cause it.

Oh boy, talk about a pessimistic point of view. I prefer to think the Supreme Coup is so shamed and ashamed of themselves for electing Bush they will try to regain some credibility by clipping his wings.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: GeNome
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060626_court_greenhouse.html

"WASHINGTON (AP)?The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse'' gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment."

But this part I don't really get:

"Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health."

Since when is this an "if"? For some reason, I thought it was pretty well known that CO2 was harmful to your health. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't know why people are happy. This just means that now there'll be a precedent saying that there is no global warming, or that CO2 emissions don't cause it.

Oh boy, talk about a pessimistic point of view. I prefer to think the Supreme Coup is so shamed and ashamed of themselves for electing Bush they will try to regain some credibility by clipping his wings.

I'm a cynic, what can I say.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: GeNome
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060626_court_greenhouse.html

"WASHINGTON (AP)?The Supreme Court plunged on Monday into the acrimonious debate over global warming and whether the government should regulate "greenhouse'' gases, especially carbon dioxide from cars. The ruling could be one of the court's most important ever on the environment."

But this part I don't really get:

"Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration, the court said it would decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency is required under the federal clean air law to treat carbon dioxide from automobiles as a pollutant harmful to health."

Since when is this an "if"? For some reason, I thought it was pretty well known that CO2 was harmful to your health. Maybe I'm wrong?

I don't know why people are happy. This just means that now there'll be a precedent saying that there is no global warming, or that CO2 emissions don't cause it.

Oh boy, talk about a pessimistic point of view. I prefer to think the Supreme Coup is so shamed and ashamed of themselves for electing Bush they will try to regain some credibility by clipping his wings.

I'm a cynic, what can I say.

Hehe, remember what the Germans in the trenches of WW1 said, "Die Lage ist hoffnungslos, aber nicht ernst." The situation is hopeless, but not serious.

 

[TraumaRN]

Ok I'm gonna clean some things up regarding the effects of high doses of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. These are all quoted from UpToDate sorry if they are long but here we go.

Carbon Dioxide first---

EFFECTS OF HYPERCAPNIA ? Acute hypercapnia may produce a depressed level of consciousness, increases in cerebral blood flow and intracranial pressure, and depression of myocardial contractility [8]. It also depresses diaphragmatic function and shifts the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve to the right, leading to increased release of O2 to tissues [9].
The development of hypercapnia is associated with increases in brain glutamine and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), as well as reductions in glutamate and aspartate. This change in the CNS milieu can negatively impact the level of consciousness and depress minute ventilation and inspiratory drive [10].
The degree of acute hypercapnia required to provoke these responses is variable. Normal individuals do not exhibit a depressed level of consciousness until the PaCO2 is greater than 60 to 70 mmHg, while patients with chronic hypercapnia may not develop symptoms until the PaCO2 rises acutely to greater than 90 to 100 mmHg. The latter patients have a compensatory increase in the plasma bicarbonate concentration; as a result, a larger elevation in PaCO2 is required to produce the same reduction in pH.

And now carbon monoxide.

PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING ? Carbon monoxide (CO) diffuses rapidly across the pulmonary capillary membrane and binds to the iron moiety of heme (and other porphyrins) with approximately 240 times the affinity of oxygen (show figure 1). The degree of carboxyhemoglobinemia (COHb) is a function of the relative amounts of CO and oxygen in the environment, duration of exposure, and minute ventilation. (See "Oxygen delivery and consumption"). Nonsmokers may have up to 3 percent carboxyhemoglobin at baseline; smokers may have levels of 10 to 15 percent [1]. Severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can cause a modest but significant elevation in carboxyhemoglobin levels, even among patients without exposure to tobacco smoke. The mechanism and clinical significance of this finding is unclear [14].
Once CO binds to the heme moiety of hemoglobin, an allosteric change occurs that greatly diminishes the ability of the other three oxygen binding sites to off-load oxygen to peripheral tissues. This results in a deformation and leftward shift of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve, and compounds the impairment in tissue oxygen delivery (show figure 2).
CO also interferes with peripheral oxygen utilization. Approximately 10 to 15 percent of CO is extravascular and bound to molecules such as myoglobin, cytochromes, and NADPH reductase, resulting in impairment of oxidative phosphorylation at the mitochondrial level [6,15]. The half-life of CO bound to these molecules is longer than that of COHb. The importance of these nonhemoglobin-mediated effects has been best documented in the heart, where mitochondrial dysfunction due to CO can produce myocardial stunning despite adequate oxygen delivery [16].
CO also interferes with peripheral oxygen utilization by inactivating cytochrome oxidase in a manner similar to, but clinically less important than, cyanide. CO and cyanide poisoning can occur simultaneously in patients following smoke inhalation, and their combined effects on oxygen transport and utilization appear to be synergistic [17,18]. (See "Smoke inhalation", section on Cyanide).
The effects of CO on oxygen delivery and utilization, however, cannot account for the delayed neurologic sequelae (DNS) that may occur after CO poisoning. The mechanism of DNS is incompletely understood, but it probably involves lipid peroxidation by toxic oxygen species generated by xanthine oxidase. Xanthine oxidase is produced in situ from xanthine dehydrogenase via enzymes released by white blood cells that adhere to damaged endothelial cells [19-23]. During recovery from CO exposure, events analogous to ischemia-reperfusion injury and exposure to hyperoxia may exacerbate the initial oxidative damage [2,24].

Anyways thats that.

And why should the supreme court bother with global warming. I think the issue at hand is more of what constitutes a pollutant, and whats directly dangerous to our health.

 

[daveymark]

great, another useless supreme court case. when will they start focusing on the real issues?