Could Global Warming Lead to an Environmental Civil War?

[jasdon11]

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...omposition.htm

Question: What Is the Chemical Composition of Air?
Nearly all of the Earth's atmosphere is made up of only five gases: nitrogen, oxygen, water vapor, argon, and carbon dioxide. Several other compounds also are present. Although this CRC table does not list water vapor, air can contain as much as 5% water vapor, more commonly ranging from 1-3%. The 1-5% range places water vapor as the third most common gas (which alters the other percentages accordingly).

[Gerry]

Nope, can't buy into it.

That whole water vapor thing is a "convenient" scapegoat.

Look, even kid's science and chemistry does not list "water vapor" as a component of air.

http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/article-195767/air

Plus, CO2 is not even an "element". It is a compound.

H2O is a compound.

As long as two hydrogen elements are bonded to one element of oxygen, it will always be water.

It is not a gas. It is water.

That is why this whole matter of global warming is nauseating listening to the "arguments of convenience" to make a point.

No one will ever be able to convince me that "water vapor" is the number one "greenhouse gas" because it is not a gas. Water vapor is water.

All of this reminds me of the abortion and gun rights issues - the arguments for and against are all a matter of interpretation but also a matter of convenience.

If you want to buy into the fact that "water vapor" is the number one greenhouse gas as a point against global warming, then fine.

The chemical composition (the elements) of the earth's atmosphere does not change depending on which side of the argument you are on.

Look at the same link you posted?

Look at the bottom graph of chemical make up of the air (atmosphere)?

Show me water vapor?

---------- Post added at 01:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis...omposition.htm

This is another article (wikipedia) that is total BS.

The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[7], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[8]

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

you can not win an argument based on those ranges.

36-72%?
9-26%?

I have never seen such BS in all of my life.
This goes back to my point made a long time ago that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
If every thing is based on 100%, then when the "water vapor" is at the low end of 36%, then what takes up the place of the 36 percentage points lost (72-36=36)

There is no argument made here. When the "water vapor gas" is only 36%, what makes up the rest of the equation???

100%-36%=64%

What makes up the remainder 64%?

Something has to occupy that sum - what is it?

The equilibrium is all whacked, mathematically it does not make sense, chemically it does not make sense, and theoretically it does not make sense.

I hate to sound like Spock, but all I can think of is "its illogical"

And if we get to the low end of "water vapor" of 36% and we get to the high end of CO2 of 26%, then another tv series character comes to mind...

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

[jasdon11]

There is water vapour in the atmosphere - yes or no?

Is air and the atmosphere, one thing, or two things? The make up of 'air' is different at varying altitudes.

Is water vapour a part of air, or a part of the atmosphere?

....

It is impossible to state that there is no water vapour in the atmosphere, and that it doesn't fluctuate - that's what humidity is.

[Gerry]

There is water vapour in the atmosphere - yes or no?

Is air and the atmosphere, one thing, or two things? The make up of 'air' is different at varying altitudes.

Is water vapour a part of air, or a part of the atmosphere?

....

It is impossible to state that there is no water vapour in the atmosphere, and that it doesn't fluctuate - that's what humidity is.

Bingo!

I can not understand the need (fabricated need) to call water vapor a gas. The "need" exists only in opposition to those that buy into MMGW.

Because water vapor is water vapor - it is H2O - and H2O is not a gas.

There are two gases that make up the composition of water.

Hydrogen and Oxygen are gases.

As you just pointed out, is humidity a Gas? No.

Humidity is a measurement of water vapor in the air (those molecules of hydrogen and oxygen that are bonded to for water in the air mixture) and the pressure it exerts.

So does that mean we now have to add footnotes to global warming arguments?

I guess so.

Because I don't know who is making the arguments and what their qualifications are.

But I can see many that have a very rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, biology, climatology, physics, and astronomy - just like me.

They are publishing papers and convincing people they are correct, something I will not do unless all the i's are dotted, t's are crossed, and providing references from other professionals.

I guess that is why there is such disagreement, as this one thread shows.

Water vapor is not a gas.

That is my final answer.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 PM ----------

There is water vapour in the atmosphere - yes or no?

Is air and the atmosphere, one thing, or two things? The make up of 'air' is different at varying altitudes.

Is water vapour a part of air, or a part of the atmosphere?

....

It is impossible to state that there is no water vapour in the atmosphere, and that it doesn't fluctuate - that's what humidity is.

Yes, there is water vapor in the atmosphere. It exists as tiny droplets of water which is two combined hydrogen molecules (a gas) combined with one molecule of oxygen (a gas) to form h2o droplets. Water is water is water and there is water in the air but water is not the primary greenhouse gas because it is not a gas. The components that comprise water and water vapor are gases. Those hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms are free to combine with anything else and form any host of chemical compounds, many of which may be helpful or harmful to us. Fortunately for life, hydrogen and oxygen have a strong affinity for each other to create water.

Why are people on both sides of this argument NOT SAY that nitrogen is the most common greenhouse gas?

Because nitrogen is free to combine with oxygen to for N2O - nitrous oxide = laughing gas.

The rationale is this...n2o does exist in the atmosphere as a chemical compound that is a gas.

And even the parties of these arguments list Nitrous Oxide as a green house gas.

Nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the air.

Therefore, Nitrogen is the largest greenhouse gas (in my book) but because it does not have the heating, absorption, and reflective properties as the other "greenhouse gases", it is not mentioned as a greenhouse gas.

All I am seeing is bogus arguments.

Water vapor does exist in the atmospheric air as a water vapor (droplets of water) and droplets of water are not a gas.

Just because they happen to be light enough to be carried in the air, that does not make them a gas.

Certain elements are lighter than elements and certain compounds (elements bound together) are still lighter than some other elements.

[jasdon11]

Water vapour has been referred to as a gas (for want of another name?) by science for at least 37 years which is when I started school. In other words, before the mmgw debate started. It hasn't just recently been renamed as such just to fit an argument (in fact both sides of the mmgw debate refer to it as such and agree that it is a greenhouse 'gas').

Using the term 'gas' to describe water vapour, is no different from the terminology we use for other 'gases'. Nitrogen in different states for example, we refer to the same way but in reverse - we simply call the gas nitrogen, and the liquid as 'liquid nitrogen'. Maybe we should call water 'liquid h2o' and water vapour just 'h2o'.

Edit:
Definitions of gas on the Web:

* the state of matter distinguished from the solid and liquid states by: relatively low density and viscosity; relatively great expansion and ...
* a fluid in the gaseous state having neither independent shape nor volume and being able to expand indefinitely
* natural gas: a fossil fuel in the gaseous state

[Gerry]

Water vapour has been referred to as a gas (for want of another name?) by science for at least 37 years which is when I started school. In other words, before the mmgw debate started. It hasn't just recently been renamed as such just to fit an argument (in fact both sides of the mmgw debate refer to it as such and agree that it is a greenhouse 'gas').

Using the term 'gas' to describe water vapour, is no different from the terminology we use for other 'gases'. Nitrogen in different states for example, we refer to the same way but in reverse - we simply call the gas nitrogen, and the liquid as 'liquid nitrogen'. Maybe we should call water 'liquid h2o' and water vapour just 'h2o'.

I don't know what people want to call anything.

All I know is what I have been taught, schooled on, and practice, and teach.

Liquid nitrogen exists as a mechanical process (here on earth).

If you were to "trap" water vapor in a jar, what would your get? water in the form of condensation.

Honestly, I can not adapt to what people want to make as a "newer terminology" for the sake of making it easier to understand by others. That's salesmanship. That's not science.

How about we call hydrogen in the atmosphere as a gas, oxygen in the atmosphere a gas, and nitrogen in the air a gas. And as gases and individual molecules they are free to choose to make compounds by combining with other elements - be it co, co2, h2co3, h20, n20 - to make compounds.

For the sake of chemistry, physics, and medicine - gases are gases. You would not want to be anesthesia administered in co, co2, or even h2o.

For the sake of the masses, I guess it is better to say water vapor is the most common compound (a bonding of 2 different elements) in the atmosphere therefore we're going to call it a gas because most people would not understand the fundamental and rudimentary concepts of chemistry. So lets not confuse them.

[Raider]

Does any of this really matter?

The bottom line is NO Global Warming bill, NO Cap and Tax Bill will be able to pass the Senate, It's NOT going to happen, at least NOT under this President, And that's a GOOD thing for the American people, they wont have to pay the estimated $2,872 MORE per year in energy costs, and businesses wont have to raise their prices on products and services onto the consumer, to cover their increase in energy cost, This is a WIN for the consumer and a LOSS for Obama, who will add yet another broken promise to his growing list of FAILURES.

[Creature]

In relation to any possible affect on global temperatures, the water Compound in the atmosphere dwarfs the CO2 Compound. So how can we prevent the water compound from getting into the atmosphere? 'Cap and Drink' maybe?

[Gerry]

In relation to any possible affect on global temperatures, the water Compound in the atmosphere dwarfs the CO2 Compound. So how can we prevent the water compound from getting into the atmosphere? 'Cap and Drink' maybe?

It is those gases, hydrogen and oxygen, that do combine to form compounds (h2o) that forms vapor clouds, clouds, rain, etc, that help keep the earth somewhat cooler.

Can you imagine how hot the planet would actually be if we did not have cloud cover?

And on the scale of elements in the atmosphere, the oxygen and hydrogen as a sum whole (>21%) dwarf the co2 as a sum whole (0.04%).

So I assume many are calling this combination of hydrogen and oxygen as water vapor.

But, again, these are individual elements and free to form and create new bonds.

That is why acid rain was (and should continue to be) a great concern.

I think the only reason that was addressed and defeated is because it actually posed a physical threat to buildings and structures and historical statues, temples, etc. Yes, it was literally eroding solid mass and building blocks. I honestly remember statues being covered up to preserve them. And this was happening on such a frequent and global scale that could be seen across the globe. Here in NC and into TN, there was a serious grave concern of the preservation of the Great Smokey Mountains.

Anyways, it is those gases called oxygen and hydrogen that do form in the atmosphere that thankfully help preserve what we do have.

---------- Post added at 05:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

The bottom line is NO Global Warming bill, NO Cap and Tax Bill will be able to pass the Senate, It's NOT going to happen, at least NOT under this President, And that's a GOOD thing for the American people,

It is exactly this moronic reasoning that is what is wrong, wrong, wrong.

You state that this will not happen under this president which is a good thing? but can and will happen under another president? and that is a good thing?

And the American People win?


So, just to clarify, Cap and Trade is good but not under Obama.

And a global Care bill is good but not under Obama.


Now, once more with clarity, all of this is a good thing and a needed thing but not under the current administration?

You call that a win?

We win?

The American people can declare a victory because something is needed and good but we are not going to act or enact it under this administration and that is a victory?



Once more, I am surprised at just how stupid you can portray yourself.

And I truly thought your depth of stupidness had a limit and had shown itself.





Yeah, you're right, none of this matters.

What does matter is you being asked by more than one member and by more than on one occasion to provide your intellectual powers to kindly show where those alleged current or former members of the IPCC are on record as having been ever members of the IPCC.

[Creature]

Can you imagine how hot the planet would actually be if we did not have cloud cover?

I welcome the Airborne Water Compound. Visible Airborne Water Compound also helps maintain heat at the end of the day. I've not yet heard of a warm night due to CO2 cover.

But, again, these are individual elements and free to form and create new bonds

Yikes, are they? Are you sure? I assumed a strong bond

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

You state that this will not happen under this president which is a good thing? but can and will happen under another president? and that is a good thing?

I didn't read that as; would be fine under a different administration. Aren't they all the same anyway, at least on major policy?

[Gerry]

Yikes, are they? Are you sure? I assumed a strong bond

Chemical compounds and elements react/respond to many different things...heat is a great catalyst.

Take CO2, for instance. Lose a Oxygen molecule and you have CO, carbon monoxide.

Here is why carbon monoxide is so deadly. Your blood carries oxygen to your organs via hemoglobin molecules in your blood. Oxygen loves to bond with hemoglobin and hemoglobin loves oxygen. But, Carbon Monoxide has a 100 times greater affinity (love for) hemoglobin than oxygen. So, what happens is suddenly hemoglobin is carry carbon monoxide instead of oxygen because oxygen can not compete with carbon monoxide. Thus, no oxygen gets to organs and cells and cells die, you die.

When you have CO2 (which is one part carbon, 2 parts oxygen) and it decides to form a bond with water (h2o) you get a new compound that looks like this:

H2CO3- carbonic acid. That is also know as bicarb.

Here is the one of the acid rains I mentioned earlier. A weak acid but still an acid with a pH of about 5.5.

[Raider]

You state that this will not happen under this president which is a good thing? but can and will happen under another president? and that is a good thing?

Jeez, you really do have shit for brains don't you? That is NOT what I wrote or even suggested.... Again your take something completely out of context for the sole purpose of launching your petty and pathetic attacks... And to think your 60 years old? My 11 year old is more mature than you are.

The point you FAILED to grasp is; Any Cap and Trade Bill will cripple this already weak economy, and so long as Obama is President, the economy is NOT going to improve, Therefore NO Cap and Tax BILL..... And when I say the economy is NOT going to improve, that's my opinion based on Obama's dismal performance of his first year in office.

So, just to clarify, Cap and Trade is good but not under Obama.

Another one pulled from your ass, NO Doc, Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us... Where did I once suggest it was good? I NEVER DID...

Obama has taken a recession and he's leading us into a depression, People are stuggling, businesses are struggling, and you think another tax burden like Cap and Trade is a good idea at this time? How about you provide some "clarity" on that one, OK a**hole?

Unlike you Doc, I'm strongly opposed to new taxes and bigger Government, But what I'm really opposed to is using a LIE like "Global Warming" as an excuse to further TAX the American people, Like were not taxed enough already... Not to mention the impact Cap and Trade will have on inflation and forcing businesses to shut down and relocate overseas.

And come to think of it Doc, weren't you the one who started a thread complaining like a whining b*tch about Dell moving out of your State?, complaining about job losses?.....

What do you think is happening right now in States like California that already passed Global Warming legislation? Do you have any clue how many businesses have moved out so far because of AB32? Just last year California lost nearly a MILLION jobs and it's expected were going to lose 1.1 MILLION more this year alone because of it...

That's it, TAX the hell out of businesses, and then complain about it on a domain forum when those businesses in your State move elsewhere.


You have your head shoved so far up your ass that you have absolutely no perception of what's going on.

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------

I didn't read that as; would be fine under a different administration.

Only Doc would read it as that... Doc tends to read things in a different way when it's written from people he doesn't like, That's when his dyslexic imagination kicks in.

[Gerry]

Glad to report Dell has extended production and has kept the plant open thanks to a demand in its product.

Dell has paid back the state and local incentives in full.

They are now basically "leasing" the facility. They were to close in January but have committed to remaining open until (minimally) July 1st.



Another one pulled from your ass, NO Doc, Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us... Where did I once suggest it was good? I NEVER DID...

Whew, that's a tough one. So even the Cap and Trade Bill passed in 1985 under the watch of George H.W. Bush limiting the amount emissions produced was a bad idea?

Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us...

So that bill, which addressed the environmental issue of Acid Rain (primarily emissions of Sulfur) which, in time, had a profound effect on nearly totally stopping a rain of sulfuring acid, was a bad deal?

Even though the law cost utilities $3 billion, rather than $25 billion as estimated, that was a bad thing???

It also generated an estimated $122 billion in health and environmental benefits SAVED, that was a bad thing?

So we do not want to repeat history UNLESS it is someone else other than OBAMA and the Dems proposing it?

Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us...





You once more have stated your ignorance and your pandering for everything Dem is Dumb and everything GOP is God.

History has shown what can be accomplished.

But I do understand your reluctance to what something might cost and estimates of just throwing numbers around.

• Like the estimates thrown out by Paulson and Bush to raise the debt ceiling again in the fall of 08 to 11.3 T when they had already just raised it to 9T in July of 08. Hmm, what a difference a couple of months makes.
• Or like the estimates put out by all the Bushites in the late summer of 08 that predicted the Unemployment rate would hit 8.5 in the Fall of 2009 when it actually hit 8.5 in January 2009? Hmm, what a difference a couple of months make.
• Or the reluctance of ANYONE within the GOP and Bush administration to mention the "R" word until AFTER the election? Hmm, what a difference a couple of months make.

Because as I see it, by the time anyone mentioned the R word (recession) we were already heading towards the "D" word. And fast.

Amazing how every one (Paulson, Bush, Rove, Cheney) can all claim how they "underestimated just how bad things actually were" when it appears the truth is...we did not disclose how bad things were.

And the only underestimations I pointed to were in the last few months of the presidency of George W. Bush.


After the games your (and my) GOP were playing and the con-jobs they were attempting to pull off, you wonder why some people (like me) saw all of this going on WHILE it was going on, spoke out on it while it was going on, and CHOSE NOT to vote GOP? Just like when I called Bush's pardon of Rove treasonous and wrongful act and you and a couple other members wanted to admonish me saying he was forgiven. And just like I spoke out in something like Jan 07 about the absolute danger and crisis we were about to experience with a massive bubble burst on the horizon in the housing market and credit woes but I was told "it won't be too bad".

You're so good at digging up old threads, why not see if you can find that?

The bottom line is NO Global Warming bill, NO Cap and Tax Bill will be able to pass the Senate, It's NOT going to happen, at least NOT under this President, And that's a GOOD thing for the American people,

Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us...

[Raider]

Whew, that's a tough one. So even the Cap and Trade Bill passed in 1985 under the watch of George H.W. Bush limiting the amount emissions produced was a bad idea? So that bill, which addressed the environmental issue of Acid Rain (primarily emissions of Sulfur) which, in time, had a profound effect on nearly totally stopping a rain of sulfuring acid, was a bad deal?

Even though the law cost utilities $3 billion, rather than $25 billion as estimated, that was a bad thing???

It also generated an estimated $122 billion in health and environmental benefits SAVED, that was a bad thing?

So we do not want to repeat history UNLESS it is someone else other than OBAMA and the Dems proposing it?

[I]Any Cap and Trade Bill is BAD, REAL BAD! BAD for ALL of us...[/I

I have to say Doc, you really out did yourself this time, LYING that is, and misleading every member that reads this thread... Shame on you.

Re-naming the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was amended in 1990 and calling it a "Cap and Trade Bill? YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING? Do you even know what Cap and Trade means? Obviously NOT, otherwise why would you make such an asinine comparison?

But the most asinine thing of all is you comparing C02 to Sulfur and Acid Rain, What an incredibly STUPID human being you are, Not to mention your sad attempt to portray C02 as a Deadly gas, A gas that's essential to life on Earth, A gas that we ALL exhale, And you want us to think we can overdose if too much is in the atmosphere?

Did you know C02 amounts to only 0.038% of the atmosphere? and water vapor amounts to over 80%?

I can NO longer take anything you say seriously, What a dumb ****ing clown you are.

You once more have stated your ignorance and your pandering for everything Dem is Dumb and everything GOP is God.

History has shown what can be accomplished.

But I do understand your reluctance to what something might cost and estimates of just throwing numbers around.

• Like the estimates thrown out by Paulson and Bush to raise the debt ceiling again in the fall of 08 to 11.3 T when they had already just raised it to 9T in July of 08. Hmm, what a difference a couple of months makes.
• Or like the estimates put out by all the Bushites in the late summer of 08 that predicted the Unemployment rate would hit 8.5 in the Fall of 2009 when it actually hit 8.5 in January 2009? Hmm, what a difference a couple of months make.
• Or the reluctance of ANYONE within the GOP and Bush administration to mention the "R" word until AFTER the election? Hmm, what a difference a couple of months make.

Because as I see it, by the time anyone mentioned the R word (recession) we were already heading towards the "D" word. And fast.

Amazing how every one (Paulson, Bush, Rove, Cheney) can all claim how they "underestimated just how bad things actually were" when it appears the truth is...we did not disclose how bad things were.

And the only underestimations I pointed to were in the last few months of the presidency of George W. Bush.


After the games your (and my) GOP were playing and the con-jobs they were attempting to pull off, you wonder why some people (like me) saw all of this going on WHILE it was going on, spoke out on it while it was going on, and CHOSE NOT to vote GOP? Just like when I called Bush's pardon of Rove treasonous and wrongful act and you and a couple other members wanted to admonish me saying he was forgiven. And just like I spoke out in something like Jan 07 about the absolute danger and crisis we were about to experience with a massive bubble burst on the horizon in the housing market and credit woes but I was told "it won't be too bad".

You're so good at digging up old threads, why not see if you can find that?

And your rant against the GOP has what to do with Global Warming again? If it's about Bush/Cheney REJECTING Cap and Trade, I'd say it was one of the BEST decisions they made for this Country, that's for sure.

Did you know Obama is on track to surpass Bush's spending record by the end of this year?, What Bush racked up in 8 years, Obama will rack up in 2 years.... And how about that unemployment rate? It was the Obama administration who said the unemployment rate wouldn't go below 8.1% if his $787 BILLION dollar Stimulus passed, It DID pass and the unemployment rate is at 10%, HELLO!!!.... I suppose that's Bush's fault too.

The only thing Obama seems to be good at is LOSING JOBS, 4.1 MILLION JOBS LOST so far during Obama's first year alone, and the number GROWS each and every month.... So why isn't this great Great, GREAT President stopping it? Didn't we elect Obama to FIX or at least IMPROVE the economy? Apparently NOT, Obama has a much bigger priority these days, like ramming Health Care down our throats, Creating jobs for people who are losing everything they own appears to be far less of a priority for this President...

But that State of the Union speech sure did sound good didn't it?

Glad to report Dell has extended production and has kept the plant open thanks to a demand in its product.

Dell has paid back the state and local incentives in full.

They are now basically "leasing" the facility. They were to close in January but have committed to remaining open until (minimally) July 1st.

Wow, Dell committed themselves for an entire 6 more months?, that's must be making every Dell employee feel extra secure about their future with the company

So what happens after July?, is this when you return to DNF and go on another PMS rant about Dell moving out?

[Gerry]

Yo, raider.

Vent your political correctness at MIT Sloan's School of Management.

That is where the dates, names, facts and figures I mention came from:


History of cap and trade: Moving beyond “sue the bastards

After a number of battles, the plan was finally implemented in 1985 and emissions fell ahead of schedule.

Cap-and-trade—a term that first appeared in print that year—quickly went “from being a pariah among policy makers,” as an MIT analysis put it, “to being a star—everybody’s favorite way to deal with pollution problems.”

I am sure you could become a guest lecturer or writer for MIT's School of Management.

Here is another article:

The Political History of Cap and Trade

Perhaps you can also be a guest columnist and contributor to Smithsonian Magazine.

[Gerry]

Raider, can you give us an esitmated date of when you would stop looking and sounding stupid?

Yeah, I remember the Dell thread...the one where you and giggleshit (or whatever) claimed I was making the whole story up?
I do remember that, now that you mentioned it.
You are so good at copy and paste, how about copying and pasting those comments by you before and after I posted the links to that local breaking news?
How about posting all of "my lies" that were a direct quote from the dell people.

And now you are trying to make me out as a liar again?
Here's a challenge to you...prove me wrong.
Please, inhale too much co2 just to prove me wrong...please, please, please...I double dog dare you!
PROVE ME WRONG!
Because according to you, all I do is lie, lie, lie and make shit up.
Here is your chance to prove I made this up.
Show us your wealth of knowledge in physics, chemistry, biology, human anatomy and physiology.
Do you own experimentation of inhaling too much CO2. You might want to videotape it just for proof.