http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/9-12/features/912_liftoff_atm.html

The atmosphere is primarily composed of
Nitrogen (N2, 78%),
Oxygen (O2, 21%), and
Argon (Ar, 1%).
(H2O, 0 - 7%),
Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%),
CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2, 0.01-0.1%)

How many sources (human and non-human) contribute to this 0.01 - 0.1%??

In percentage terms what do humans contribute to this 0.01-0.1%.

Even if humans are 100% responsible to carbon emissions then it's ONLY 0.01-0.1% of the atmosphere.

Australia ONLY contributes 1.2% to this 0.01-0.1%

And these idiot environmentalist are telling us that Australia cutting it's Carbon emissions by 5% will make a difference???  :D

The reality is the environmentalists do not know in percentage terms how much carbon humans contribute to the carbon cycle

Professor Garnaut doesn't know and he's been paid to advise Labor on this issue

Out of ALL the chemicals they could use to blame "global warming" on they choose the least abundent chemical in the atmosphere.

There's more Water vapors in the atmosphere but they ignore that!!

WHY?!

Go on lefties - read about the impact of Water Vapors on global warming!

The fact that there's 7% water vapor compared to 0.1% Carbon Dioxide tells you the farcical science the Greens are using to explain global warming

Yes but Water Vapor isn't as 'poisenous' as C02 (Carbon Dioxide)

Have a look at Scuba Divers with what C02 poisening can do.
Then you have FreeDivers who suffer "shallow water blackout" which usually ends in death if they dive alone.

When I worked in Hospitals, the poor patient  would be in a state if more than x4 visitors were in his/her room with the door shut. They tend to steal the 'good air' with their constant chatter and presence.
The room becomes stuffy and hot.
One poor patient had passed out, much to the ignorance of x15 visitors in his private room, chatting away amongst themselves.

I wish we had an atmosphere like the Dinosaurs had: constant 30C degrees at the equator, 10C degrees at the Poles. The sky was always 'hazy' so the sun wasn't as intense and bright. The Air was x3 as thick which assisted the great mass of the Dinosaurs.
"...ahhh, I feel better already"
Alas, the closest we get to such good stuff these days is a tank of Nitrox mix.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 7:59am:

Yes but Water Vapor isn't as 'poisenous' as C02 (Carbon Dioxide) Have a look at Scuba Divers with what C02 poisening can do. Then you have FreeDivers who suffer "shallow water blackout" which usually ends in death if they dive alone. When I worked in Hospitals, the poor patient  would be in a state if more than x4 visitors were in his/her room with the door shut. They tend to steal the 'good air' with their constant chatter and presence. The room becomes stuffy and hot. One poor patient had passed out, much to the ignorance of x15 visitors in his private room, chatting away amongst themselves. I wish we had an atmosphere like the Dinosaurs had: constant 30C degrees at the equator, 10C degrees at the Poles. The sky was always 'hazy' so the sun wasn't as intense and bright. The Air was x3 as thick which assisted the great mass of the Dinosaurs. "...ahhh, I feel better already" Alas, the closest we get to such good stuff these days is a tank of Nitrox mix.

Jasign, scuba divers DON'T from Co2 poisoning....It's NITROGEN that kills scuba divers, the 'bends' and 'nitrogen narcosis' ( the so called 'Rapture of the Deep) that gets most scuba divers..

Shallow water blackouts are caused by a LACK of Co2 in the blood....

Case of Dave Shaw death: gradual buildup of C02 in bloodstream while on a Rebreather at depth of 276m in south Africa while trying to retrieve the body of a young diver.
-> the excessive level of work-rate that Dave Shaw had to do at that depth/pressure to untangle himself from the intrusive Camera mounting and rope, created excessive C02 levels.
-> many divers do die from being Narked, 02 toxicity (convulsions - mouthpeice is lost) and others
...but C02 buildup gives you that "narrowing of vision, spots before your eyes and eventual "sleep" or blackout towards eventual death.

Prof Simon Mitchell expressed the danger of C02 buildup in a seminar just this past weekend at the OzTek at Redfern.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Case of Dave Shaw death: gradual buildup of C02 in bloodstream while on a Rebreather at depth of 276m in south Africa while trying to retrieve the body of a young diver. -> the excessive level of work-rate that Dave Shaw had to do at that depth/pressure to untangle himself from the intrusive Camera mounting and rope, created excessive C02 levels. -> many divers do die from being Narked, 02 toxicity (convulsions - mouthpeice is lost) and others ...but C02 buildup gives you that "narrowing of vision, spots before your eyes and eventual "sleep" or blackout towards eventual death. Prof Simon Mitchell expressed the danger of C02 buildup in a seminar just this past weekend at the OzTek at Redfern.

Yes, and since a rebreather is not designed to be used below 20 feet, this is a surprise why????

I think you might have confused a Rebreather with somthing else Gizmo.
Rebreathers are used down to very great depths for longer periods with less decompression times due to mixes of gas.
The trick is to remove C02 through a "scrubber" so 02 can be 're-used' without excessive C02 levels.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 3:04pm:

I think you might have confused a Rebreather with somthing else Gizmo. Rebreathers are used down to very great depths for longer periods with less decompression times due to mixes of gas. The trick is to remove C02 through a "scrubber" so 02 can be 're-used' without excessive C02 levels.

Yeah I WAS thinking of the older oxygen rebreathers....

But still, Shaw went deeper than the depth rating on his particular rebreather, which had also 'modified' himself, with no technical training...

It's like flying a single engine Cessna to above 25,000 feet....it will stall long before you get there...

Plus they think he got tangled in the ropes he wanted to use  to lift the body....

Read this page and see what you think..
http://www.michaelmcfadyenscuba.info/viewpage.php?page_id=695

Agree on the 'older' Rebreathers.

Dave Shaw's Death is contentious. I've read the Book and seen the clips. I tend to think it was a lot of circumstances, even his 'religious' background. But I think he was a very capable man, no different to Richard Branson wanting to try his luck at a lot of things. McFayden can be like a lot of Divers - too conservative: No Open Water student is 'worthy' until they dive 1000 dives in North Sea condtions, blah, blah (my father travelled 100km to school barefoot through blizzards blah, blah). Mc Fayden is a good diver though. But I think Shaw could have easily handled the body bag and recover. What he couldn't handle was the added Media intrusion of a Camera for the Media coverage.
I say this with the recent death of Mark Spencer (as recently highlighted at the Oztek last weekend) - who, in my view, succumbed to the added pressure/workload of the Media, in this case - National Geographic.
So in essence, I think it was the 'camera' (I vaguely remember that it was placed in an unfamiliar position due to size or something) that caused the death of Shaw which resulted in entanglement and eventual overload of C02 and thus death.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 4:12pm:

Agree on the 'older' Rebreathers. Dave Shaw's Death is contentious. I've read the Book and seen the clips. I tend to think it was a lot of circumstances, even his 'religious' background. But I think he was a very capable man, no different to Richard Branson wanting to try his luck at a lot of things. McFayden can be like a lot of Divers - too conservative: No Open Water student is 'worthy' until they dive 1000 dives in North Sea condtions, blah, blah (my father travelled 100km to school barefoot through blizzards blah, blah). Mc Fayden is a good diver though. But I think Shaw could have easily handled the body bag and recover. What he couldn't handle was the added Media intrusion of a Camera for the Media coverage. I say this with the recent death of Mark Spencer (as recently highlighted at the Oztek last weekend) - who, in my view, succumbed to the added pressure/workload of the Media, in this case - National Geographic. So in essence, I think it was the 'camera' (I vaguely remember that it was placed in an unfamiliar position due to size or something) that caused the death of Shaw which resulted in entanglement and eventual overload of C02 and thus death.

Look I'm sorry, but the  consensus of opinion seems to be that Shaw over ran the specs on his rebreather, AND went deeper than he ever had before,.....so basically 'poo happens'....

So Agnes Milowka would delve deeper into cave systems than ever before and discover whole new systems - its called "pushing the envelope". Captain Cook did so, as did Columbus, etc. Some live, some die.
I think Shaw's depth (and the recovery) was do-able but I think he was 'distracted' by the Media factor, as was Mark Spencer in a sadly 'fatal' way.
I know the feeling, I do some amazing things, but when people ask me to do it again for 'the camera', its a different ballgame.

I think Shaw would have succeeded if there was no Media aspect, but they went for the 'money' as paid for by the Media Coverage and their demands.

I wonder how in the HELL is a tax going to EFFECT CLIMATE CHANGE the way these people want it ??,  I mean the science is far from settled with me.

These same people could think also that WE COULD STOP VOLCANOS FROM EXPLODING OR STOP EARTHQUAKES OR NEUTRALISE TORNADOS. Lol

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 5:01pm:

So Agnes Milowka would delve deeper into cave systems than ever before and discover whole new systems - its called "pushing the envelope". Captain Cook did so, as did Columbus, etc. Some live, some die. I think Shaw's depth (and the recovery) was do-able but I think he was 'distracted' by the Media factor, as was Mark Spencer in a sadly 'fatal' way. I know the feeling, I do some amazing things, but when people ask me to do it again for 'the camera', its a different ballgame. I think Shaw would have succeeded if there was no Media aspect, but they went for the 'money' as paid for by the Media Coverage and their demands.

"I think Shaw would have succeeded if there was no Media aspect, but they went for the 'money' as paid for by the Media Coverage and their demands."

So you think that his rebreather WOULD have worked if there hadn't been any 'there'????.....Oh please....

His Rebreather was working fine, before he got tangled up and started to over-stay his welcome down there and started loading up excessive amounts of C02 from his exertion to 'escape'.
Why did he get tangled up?
Because of that damn 'Camera' which he was forced to position in an unfamiliar way to what he had practiced. He had to take the Camera - it was a condtion of the Media that helped finance the Dive.
Personally, I wouldn't have done the dive under such compromises from the Media.
But he did and thats where I blame the 'Religious' aspect of his life (which you will read in the middle of the book).
...but thats another more complicated discussion.

Mark Spencer was over-worked by the added inclusion of the National Geographic Media that involved some of the world's best Divers for the Doco on the Britannia. He shouldn't have dived. He made a mistake that cost him his life.

Its one thing to do a daring risky dive,
its another thing to do it and 'put on a show'.

Errrm, excuse me, but it`s a bit hard to find a relevent connection between AGW, and scuba diving ackshully.

;D True.
We somehow got lost upon the C02 connection with death in ScubaDiving/FreeDiving.

Anyway, I would rather an increase in Water Vapor than C02 anyday or night.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 6:48am:

Out of ALL the chemicals they could use to blame "global warming" on they choose the least abundent chemical in the atmosphere. There's more Water vapors in the atmosphere but they ignore that!! WHY?! Go on lefties - read about the impact of Water Vapors on global warming! The fact that there's 7% water vapor compared to 0.1% Carbon Dioxide tells you the farcical science the Greens are using to explain global warming

Wow Maqqa, where do I start with your confused and warped pseudo scientific arguments?

- water vapour keeps the earth warm but it wont INCREASE the temperature because when it becomes saturated it falls out as rain.

- the fact that there is 0.1 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely irrelevant. The important fact is that the concentration is INCREASING which is causing the temperature to INCREASE. CO2 absorbs heat better than the other gasses.

So why is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing? I'll give you a clue. burning fossil fuels emits CO2 and deforestation reduces the absorption of CO2.

And burning straw contributed to it as well until
the Farmers of Nevada/Nebraska realised it was better
to build far superior houses out of Straw Bales than Double-Brick Veneers
for 80% cheaper! ;)

Suck on a cylinder of co2 for a few mins...

Or more realistically, do some controlled experiments to satisfy yourself.

Better yet, check out some of the controlled experiments that have already been done by smart people.

Or just keep doing what your doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfq3lIWu9s


...and we use C02 to gas excess chickens where I work.
(They only got to live for a day :(, because people would rather eat 'rare' species instead.)

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 18^th, 2011 at 7:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 18th, 2011 at 6:48am: Out of ALL the chemicals they could use to blame "global warming" on they choose the least abundent chemical in the atmosphere. There's more Water vapors in the atmosphere but they ignore that!! WHY?! Go on lefties - read about the impact of Water Vapors on global warming! The fact that there's 7% water vapor compared to 0.1% Carbon Dioxide tells you the farcical science the Greens are using to explain global warming Wow Maqqa, where do I start with your confused and warped pseudo scientific arguments? - water vapour keeps the earth warm but it wont INCREASE the temperature because when it becomes saturated it falls out as rain. - the fact that there is 0.1 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere is completely irrelevant. The important fact is that the concentration is INCREASING which is causing the temperature to INCREASE. CO2 absorbs heat better than the other gasses. So why is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing? I'll give you a clue. burning fossil fuels emits CO2 and deforestation reduces the absorption of CO2.

We probably shouldn't bother, she has her own agendas and the real world just doesn't fit in!

But you can ask her to say hello to slr & mellie?