Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bouncer

CO2 in the atmosphere is making us all fatter

37 posts in this topic

Then how am I as skinny as hell despite the fact I barely exercise :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely true. Its all to do with our blod.

CO2 makes our blod more acidic and the pH level in our blood decreases.

And lower pH level in blood would effect our nerve cells in our brain. Which decides our metabolism and how hungry we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then how am I as skinny as hell despite the fact I barely exercise :wacko:

Just because you are skinny on "the outside" doesn't mean you are skinny on "the inside"

You proberbly have a lot of internal fat, if you dont exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely true. Its all to do with our blod.

CO2 makes our blod more acidic and the pH level in our blood decreases.

And lower pH level in blood would effect our nerve cells in our brain. Which decides our metabolism and how hungry we are.

Aha! That explains all those fat people in the (starving) third world then doesn't it! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha! That explains all those fat people in the (starving) third world then doesn't it! :tu:

How can you be fat(not talking about Kwashiorkor, which makes you look fat) if you are starving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is absolutely true. Its all to do with our blod.

CO2 makes our blod more acidic and the pH level in our blood decreases.

And lower pH level in blood would effect our nerve cells in our brain. Which decides our metabolism and how hungry we are.

The blood's normal pH is supposed to stay between 7.35 and 7.45.

CO2 is indeed one of the major player in blood pH imbalance.

But now saying it makes us fat? I don't think so in a direct way.

From what I've read, it could very well influence the metabolism and hormones such as orexins in the brain that influence energy expenditure and food intake.

So it could make you more hungry perhaps but it's of your responsability to control your food intake if you don't want to get portly.

All that, as far as I've read, is still theorical. And since I'm no doctor, biologist, neuroscientist etc. I can't say if anything of this is really valid or true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that, as far as I've read, is still theorical. And since I'm no doctor, biologist, neuroscientist etc. I can't say if anything of this is really valid or true.

We do have empirical evidence. As stated in the article from the daily mail, a university(Copenhagen university) made an experiment, which showed men with more CO2 in their blood ate 6% more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"says some fool", :)

thanks, very funny.

this is bunk. the reason is that there would be a very easy experiment to perform. simply put rats in environments of differing co2, and look at their body fat.

proof positive, you'll get grant money for linking anything to co2.

what's happened to science?

edit - it seems they did do an experiment.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"says some fool", :)

thanks, very funny.

this is bunk. the reason is that there would be a very easy experiment to perform. simply put rats in environments of differing co2, and look at their body fat.

proof positive, you'll get grant money for linking anything to co2.

what's happened to science?

I agree regarding the grant money.

And actually he is going to do the rat experiment. Which would confirm his hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have empirical evidence. As stated in the article from the daily mail, a university(Copenhagen university) made an experiment, which showed men with more CO2 in their blood ate 6% more.

Good enough for me for the moment. That perhaps confirm what I've read.

I'd have to check the study more in detail though. An other time perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"says some fool", :)

thanks, very funny.

this is bunk. the reason is that there would be a very easy experiment to perform. simply put rats in environments of differing co2, and look at their body fat.

proof positive, you'll get grant money for linking anything to co2.

what's happened to science?

edit - it seems they did do an experiment.

You should at least read about the scientific explainations behind it all before saying it's bunk. I don't see anything there so far that seems bunk to me. CO2 does in fact, according to what I've read, affect the metabolizm by acidifiying the blood thus I see no reason why it couldn't make people hungrier thus eat more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"says some fool", :)

thanks, very funny.

this is bunk. the reason is that there would be a very easy experiment to perform. simply put rats in environments of differing co2, and look at their body fat.

proof positive, you'll get grant money for linking anything to co2.

what's happened to science?

edit - it seems they did do an experiment.

Nothing is happening to science, but something happened to certain people wanting to live in some kind of lala-world that are incommoded by scientific findings. Well I suggest they lock themselves in their cellar and pretend that the real world is not happening. No matter how much sponsorship certain companies give to certain "Universities" to create superfluous positions (such as professors that do not teach a single class but only write papers in the interest of the sponsors) the facts do not go away. The history of the DNA discovery should be warning the sponsors not to waste their money. You cannot hide facts.

And to come back to your favorite subjects, the fact that carbon was rising was not discovered by Al Gore but in the 50s by Charles David Keeling, who just needed something to study while on Mauna Loa observatory. The fact that there was a warming correlation was not discovered by Al Gore either but by Wally Baker in 1975 and no, he got no grant for that either. When both Al Gore and Big Oil got into the action the sheeet had already hit the fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...now those who are challenged by their weight can have another excuse...

"Its not my fault Im fat, its the climate"....(pass me one of those cakes please)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2114995/CO2-atmosphere-making-fatter-Researcher-says-increasing-size-gas-levels-up.html

I don't know about animals, but it seems to be making my trees fatter. Radial ring thickness (TRW in millimeters) at my Cold Springs site has a component directly related to CO2 concentration:

TRW = 0.00637*K + 0.1574*PDSI

(FIT index is 0.985 and standard error is 0.28mm.)

K is Keeling's atmospheric CO2 concentration and PDSI is the average of the summer Palmer Drought Severity Index values. SO: CO2 concentration is affecting shortleaf pine growth. That's CO2 concentration, not temperature.

And no I didn't get any grant money for it.

BTW: When I fit Keeling's data to an exponential curve, the result came up with base value of 313 ppmbv (No matter how far back you go in time, the value never drops below 313.). That's 33 ppmbv above the average for the Holocene. Hmmmm! Of course, I'm extrapolating well past the end of my data.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should at least read about the scientific explainations behind it all before saying it's bunk. I don't see anything there so far that seems bunk to me. CO2 does in fact, according to what I've read, affect the metabolizm by acidifiying the blood thus I see no reason why it couldn't make people hungrier thus eat more.

the study was not presented, so all we have is a journalists spin on it.

the study doesn't carry plausibility for these reasons:

why aren't animals getting fatter?

your lungs contain hundreds of times higher concentration of co2 than air, increasing the concentration of co2 in the air by a fraction would interfere with that? doesn't gas diffuse from higher to lower concentration.

quantities matter, does it use realsitic quantites ? if it uses 50,000ppm co2, then the conclusion people will inevitably draw (that higher atmospheric co2 is increasing obesity) would be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

why aren't animals getting fatter?

Actually they are.

I can't find the paper for free, but its called: Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics

20.000 animals in 8 different environments are getting fatter. The chance of it not being the same cause is 1/10.000.000.

Found it.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/19/rspb.2010.1890.full.pdf+html

Edited by BFB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the study was not presented, so all we have is a journalists spin on it.

the study doesn't carry plausibility for these reasons:

why aren't animals getting fatter?

your lungs contain hundreds of times higher concentration of co2 than air, increasing the concentration of co2 in the air by a fraction would interfere with that? doesn't gas diffuse from higher to lower concentration.

quantities matter, does it use realsitic quantites ? if it uses 50,000ppm co2, then the conclusion people will inevitably draw (that higher atmospheric co2 is increasing obesity) would be false.

Who said they are not?

Pigs, for example, have up to 10% more body fat than they used to have at the beginning of the 20th century(comparing the same race kept under the same conditions). In fact there are extensive breeding programs in place to get the problem under control.

Just because you don't see it does not mean it does not happen. On the other side, the fattening of the general populace may only be caused fractionally by carbon dioxide. Most of it is unhealthy diets (and strangely, strangely, there where a lot of carbonated drinks are consumed people tend to be fatter. May also be worth a study... but I already see Coca Cola and Pepsico getting their "scientists" in position).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the study was not presented, so all we have is a journalists spin on it.

the study doesn't carry plausibility for these reasons:

why aren't animals getting fatter?

your lungs contain hundreds of times higher concentration of co2 than air, increasing the concentration of co2 in the air by a fraction would interfere with that? doesn't gas diffuse from higher to lower concentration.

quantities matter, does it use realsitic quantites ? if it uses 50,000ppm co2, then the conclusion people will inevitably draw (that higher atmospheric co2 is increasing obesity) would be false.

There is a lot of informations about this phenomenon affecting humans and animals over the web. If you google it, I'm pretty sure you'll find all the anwsers you are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you be fat(not talking about Kwashiorkor, which makes you look fat) if you are starving?

hhmm, it was a little sarcasm....thats all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of informations about this phenomenon affecting humans and animals over the web. If you google it, I'm pretty sure you'll find all the anwsers you are looking for.

i'm sure the carbonazis are lapping it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pity is, there's not a lot any of us can do about this is there? And Im racking my brains but Im fairly sure I read an article which claimed that the Earth used to have MUCH much more co2 and this was a reason, allegedly, dinosaurs and ancient animals grew so big..

But cant verify that bit Im afraid!!

No doubt I'll be corrected here :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8,000 ppm co2

sample size - 6

http://www.nature.com/nutd/journal/v2/n3/full/nutd20122a.html

bull<cough>

Why are we getting hyper over this? Some critters putting on a few extra pounds will probably not make much difference ecologically. Also, a sample size of six is not what I would call definitive.

BTW: What's the LD50 for CO2? 8000 ppm is getting up there.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pity is, there's not a lot any of us can do about this is there? And Im racking my brains but Im fairly sure I read an article which claimed that the Earth used to have MUCH much more co2 and this was a reason, allegedly, dinosaurs and ancient animals grew so big..

But cant verify that bit Im afraid!!

No doubt I'll be corrected here :rolleyes:

Not only but yes. The size animals grow to depends on the quality of their nourishment. For example, elephants that survived on Greek islands after the big thawing of the last ice age turned to be midgets. Most probably the Flores man (also known as the Hobbit) also was a evolutionary change due to low calorie intake and a lack of large predators.

Now, if we say indirectly: Larger amounts of carbon dioxide and the warmer temperatures caused by that leads to larger plants, which in turn leads to larger herbivores which in turn leads to larger predators and the whole scenario just keeps on amplifying itself to the point where additional growth is balanced out by the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.