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

Question

I asked a similar question earlier, but didn't phrase it very well, so let me try again.

There are 2 common arguments that CO2 can't be causing the current global warming. The entire arguments are that

1) CO2 can't be causing the current warming because it only comprises 387 parts per million (ppm) of our atmosphere, or 0.00387%.

2) CO2 can't be dangerous or a pollutant because it's 'plant food.'

Well, some plants eat arsenic:

http://www.physorg.com/news64159534.html

And the scientific consensus is that arsenic is toxic at 10 parts per billion (ppb), or 0.0000001%.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=5058

But I'm sure it's just a hoax. Nothing can be dangerous at such low levels.

So I ask the anthropogenic global warming doubters - if I gave you a glass containing the same concentration of arsenic as the atmosphere contains CO2 (387 ppm), would you drink it?

If not, will you accept that CO2 *might* be causing the current warming?

Heather - everything is toxic if you get too much of it. Even water. It's only the level that's 'too much' which varies. However, that is not the point of the question.

I do agree that the arguments 1 and 2 above which conclude that CO2 cannot be causing the current global warming are ridiculous, however.

Nickel - thanks for the tip. Hopefully people will get the point from the current wording. Otherwise I'll take your advice and try again.

I think I underestimated the density of global warming deniers. How they made this into a question about toxicity when it clearly states "dangerous" is hard to fathom.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

CO2 is not toxic so the comparison to arsenic is invalid. If you drink carbonated beverages, you are probably already consuming water with more the 387 ppm CO2. If you breath, you are already consuming air with 387 ppm CO2. When you exhale, the air you breath out contains more than 382 ppm CO2.

This whole post is an excellent example of many logical fallacies, and illustrates why the uneducated and uninformed should not be relied upon for rational discussion.

Answer 7

Not all plants eat arsenic, but almost all plants eat CO2. (I'm not 100% sure on Venus fly traps, so I'll say they don't.)

Also, CO2 isn't toxic like arsenic. Our bodies contain dissolved CO2 and it's part of our system that helps to regulate our breathing. We actually NEED CO2 to a certain level to live.

This argument is absurd. CO2 is a necessary part of our global system. No one argues that it contributes to warming the earth's atmosphere.

Again, another example of ideas being stretched to a ridiculous extreme.

EDIT: Oddly enough, Dana, I was going to mention something about the dose making the poison in my own answer. Doesn't change what I have to say though. Yes, trace chemicals DO have an impact. HOW MUCH of an impact (CO2 on warming, for example) is dependent on the system it's in and the chemical's own individual properties.

Answer 8

There is an awful lot of jumbling here. Listen. Why do people have to call names? (e.g. global warmers, extremists, etc). Can we grow up? There's no need for this, and it damages your credibility. The NAS and the AAAS are the biggest scientific organizations in the world. They are the "Real deal" OK? They have stated that:
yes global climate change is real, yes we are contributing to it and yes we can help slow it down if we act now. So, I ask; Why is there still debate? Don't take my word for it go check the NAS and AAAS's websites for yourself. Or are you too set on your beliefs to even look? These guys have no Bias. They have no reason to lie. If that isn't high on your credibility spectrum, I think you need to re-think this.

Answer 9

I'm just glad to see you say the phrase *might* be causing the warming. Good job Dana and keep on keeping on!! Oh and love the question can't wait to see what answers lye ahead!!

Answer 10

No matter how you phrase that question it is still going to come out sounding like the rants from a brainwashed delusional person. I think you have been spending to much time reading the IPCC report, that stuff will rot your brain. I guess if you were at a halloween party and they were creating fog by using dried ice floating in water, you would probably start running and screaming, danger, poison danger, poison.