Is CO2 a pollutant?

[onecut39]

Let's do a simple experiment

Place a plastic bag over your head and wrap it tight

Then tell us if Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

Moron.

Of course it's stupid. You suffocate in an atmosphere of pure oxygen too. You actually NEED a small amount of CO2 to make things work right.

Key words? "Work right". Is true for almost everything. Too much air in the fuel mixture? Won't work right. Too much lead in your system? Things don't work right. Too much salt will kill you as sure as too much arsenic.

You are so right. Too much or too little of damn near anything can screw things up.

Carbon dioxide is a "trace gas" composing less than 1% of the atmosphere. A little seems to go a long way. It has enormous effects at that tiny concentration

You wanna double it? Triple it maybe? Still be less than 2% of the atmosphere. You really think things would still "work right".

I hope you try it on your home planet first.

 

[Big Fitz]

Moron.

Of course it's stupid. You suffocate in an atmosphere of pure oxygen too. You actually NEED a small amount of CO2 to make things work right.

Key words? "Work right". Is true for almost everything. Too much air in the fuel mixture? Won't work right. Too much lead in your system? Things don't work right. Too much salt will kill you as sure as too much arsenic.

You are so right. Too much or too little of damn near anything can screw things up.

Carbon dioxide is a "trace gas" composing less than 1% of the atmosphere. A little seems to go a long way. It has enormous effects at that tiny concentration

You wanna double it? Triple it maybe? Still be less than 2% of the atmosphere. You really think things would still "work right".

I hope you try it on your home planet first.

It is a weaker greenhouse gas than Water Vapor and nobody is concerned about water vapor. And just so you know, Water Vapor varies between 1-4% total atmospheric volume. Not 0.04%. Also, CO2 is not a poison like arsenic or lead so go eat some paint chips and quit with the false analogies.

Second, we produce only 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere a year, which is STILL not enough with all the natural sources to overwhelm natural carbon sinks.

Thirdly, you are demanding ecofascist totalitarian government control for our input of 0.00018% of total atmospheric volume which is essentially undetectable on the whole in it's effects on the atmospheric composition let alone climate.

Lastly, plants grow better and fix more carbon when there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Check at any professional greenhouse that uses this method to grow better plants. They pump it up to 1400ppm and everyone's just fine.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moron.

Of course it's stupid. You suffocate in an atmosphere of pure oxygen too. You actually NEED a small amount of CO2 to make things work right.

Key words? "Work right". Is true for almost everything. Too much air in the fuel mixture? Won't work right. Too much lead in your system? Things don't work right. Too much salt will kill you as sure as too much arsenic.

You are so right. Too much or too little of damn near anything can screw things up.

Carbon dioxide is a "trace gas" composing less than 1% of the atmosphere. A little seems to go a long way. It has enormous effects at that tiny concentration

You wanna double it? Triple it maybe? Still be less than 2% of the atmosphere. You really think things would still "work right".

I hope you try it on your home planet first.

Actually the "warming power" of CO2 is a natural log function that DECREASES at increasing concentrations. There is a point where you can pump 3X the amount and not much will happen.. That is because CO2 only absorbs in very narrow spectral bands of the sun's energy and once you saturate those bands (which largely overlap with water vapor anyway) -- you don't get anymore absorption. And it's far less than even 1%.

But IT DOES probably contribute to warming. So does the 1Watt/m2 increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) that we've seen since about 1700..

 

[IanC]

Question is NOT whether you die like the guy who got locked into a freezer full of dry ice.

Question is whether 400ppB in the atmosphere is a pollutant and OUGHT to be treated the same as mercury, arsenic and zinc..

I assure -- 400ppb is less than what's in your lungs right now since the day you were born..

your comment reminds me of the insane claim from 3 or 4 months ago that the increased CO2 in the air was affecting the blood pH of people and causing the obesity epidemic.

anybody who has studied human physiology knows that there are multiple buffering systems that regulate blood pH and the difference in ambient air of a miniscule 150 ppm has zero effect on people.

it is truely a shame that so many people are so gullible as to believe any accidental correlation to CO2 is actual causation instead. perhaps if schools were more interested in critical thinking rather than imparting unearned self esteem we would have a more literate population.

 

[konradv]

Nope. It is a naturally occuring substance. It is the byproduct of aerobic metabolism and a source of food for much of the earth's living things. Also, it's what makes beer all nice and bubbly!

Let's do a simple experiment

Place a plastic bag over your head and wrap it tight

Then tell us if Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

Then water must be a pollutant as well for if I held your head under you would die just as you would in your example.

Too much of anything can be bad. Just ask NOLA about water.

 

[konradv]

Actually the "warming power" of CO2 is a natural log function that DECREASES at increasing concentrations. There is a point where you can pump 3X the amount and not much will happen.. That is because CO2 only absorbs in very narrow spectral bands of the sun's energy and once you saturate those bands (which largely overlap with water vapor anyway) -- you don't get anymore absorption. And it's far less than even 1%.

But IT DOES probably contribute to warming. So does the 1Watt/m2 increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) that we've seen since about 1700..

So, you're saying that an ~13%(increase in CO2 on log scale over historical values) in warming power wouldn't be significant? Tell me when the sun's radiance has increased by that much.

 

[konradv]

We need to apply the hippocratic oath to this argument.

"FIRST, do no harm or at least try to do good."

If the treatment is such a disruption to life with no damn good reason, it's NOT a benefit the same way a dangerous treatment for an ailment that does not exist is a harm.

You're begging the question. The answer you want is included in the question. You haven't proven that the treatment would be worse than the disease.

 

[daveman]

Nope. It is a naturally occuring substance. It is the byproduct of aerobic metabolism and a source of food for much of the earth's living things. Also, it's what makes beer all nice and bubbly!

Let's do a simple experiment

Place a plastic bag over your head and wrap it tight

Then tell us if Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

Childish.

 

[daveman]

Let's do a simple experiment

Place a plastic bag over your head and wrap it tight

Then tell us if Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

Then water must be a pollutant as well for if I held your head under you would die just as you would in your example.

Well, lets let rising tides flood your house and we can see what the effects are

Impossible. The One stopped the rising of the seas.

 

[IanC]

Moron.

Of course it's stupid. You suffocate in an atmosphere of pure oxygen too. You actually NEED a small amount of CO2 to make things work right.

Key words? "Work right". Is true for almost everything. Too much air in the fuel mixture? Won't work right. Too much lead in your system? Things don't work right. Too much salt will kill you as sure as too much arsenic.

You are so right. Too much or too little of damn near anything can screw things up.

Carbon dioxide is a "trace gas" composing less than 1% of the atmosphere. A little seems to go a long way. It has enormous effects at that tiny concentration

You wanna double it? Triple it maybe? Still be less than 2% of the atmosphere. You really think things would still "work right".

I hope you try it on your home planet first.

have you actually thought things through on CO2 and the greenhouse effect?

the GH effect is ~ 33C. CO2 is estimated to be 5-25%of that. CO2 by itself is theoretically calculated to increase temperature by ~1C per doubling. does this make sense?

perhaps yes. if the first part per million raised the temp 1C then we would have have about 8.5C increase because we are halfway into the 9th doubling (256-512). that fits OK with 25% of 33C. but it also means that at most we can only expect 1.5C more increase all the way out to 1024ppm CO2.

and this is the high end of the estimates. what if CO2 is only responsible for 12.5% of the 33C GH effect? then the ~4C effect means there is a negative feedback and there will only be another 0.75C increase by the time we get to 1024ppm CO2 from our present 400ppm

skeptics typically agree that there is some warming attributable to man, just not the insane 3,4,5 degree predictions from the catastrophists.

our money would be better spent on actual pollution control of other things rather than plant food. especially when the results for the expense are close to zero.

 

[daveman]

For those of you voting Aye... Should livestock FARMERS be exempt?

What about

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed - environment - 24 February 2005 - New Scientist

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about."

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

Ready to make that formerly green source of energy a planet killer?
Wonder how you're supposed to control CO2 emissions from a place like Bonneville Dam? Guess you'd have to just tear it down wouldn't you?

Careful of that carbonated drink -- it's spewing pollutants..

And so it begins: The basis for regulating out of existence every single energy source. Those few that will be left simply will not be able to supply our needs.

The ecofascist dream of a planet without humans will be realized, not by pollution, but by regulation.

 

[daveman]

We need to apply the hippocratic oath to this argument.

"FIRST, do no harm or at least try to do good."

If the treatment is such a disruption to life with no damn good reason, it's NOT a benefit the same way a dangerous treatment for an ailment that does not exist is a harm.

You're begging the question. The answer you want is included in the question. You haven't proven that the treatment would be worse than the disease.

You haven't proven there's a disease.

 

[mudwhistle]

I hate polls, but we've wasted enough time tiptoeing around the obvious central question of what should be done about Global Warming..

Time to get down to brass taxes..

They don't call it Global Warming anymore.

They changed it to "Climate Change".

Kind of the way they changed "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care".


They've had to adjust their rhetoric whenever their lies are exposed.

 

[skookerasbil]

I hate polls, but we've wasted enough time tiptoeing around the obvious central question of what should be done about Global Warming..

Time to get down to brass taxes..

They don't call it Global Warming anymore.

They changed it to "Climate Change".

Kind of the way they changed "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care".


They've had to adjust their rhetoric whenever their lies are exposed.

Actually Mud............just last week, all the radical environmentalists were in Brazil for one of those k00k summits and the new term is "Sustainable Development".

 

[mudwhistle]

I hate polls, but we've wasted enough time tiptoeing around the obvious central question of what should be done about Global Warming..

Time to get down to brass taxes..

They don't call it Global Warming anymore.

They changed it to "Climate Change".

Kind of the way they changed "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care".


They've had to adjust their rhetoric whenever their lies are exposed.

Actually Mud............just last week, all the radical environmentalists were in Brazil for one of those k00k summits and the new term is "Sustainable Development".

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!

Sounds less threatening then.

Like the way they changed spending cuts to Austerity.

 

[skookerasbil]

They don't call it Global Warming anymore.

They changed it to "Climate Change".

Kind of the way they changed "Universal Health Care" to "Affordable Health Care".


They've had to adjust their rhetoric whenever their lies are exposed.

Actually Mud............just last week, all the radical environmentalists were in Brazil for one of those k00k summits and the new term is "Sustainable Development".

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!

Sounds less threatening then.

Like the way they changed spending cuts to Austerity.

Mud........and check this out...........THE official playbook for the UN to promote wealth redistribution under the guise of "Climate Change". I saw this and my face almost fell off. Heres the title of the playbook..............

Mainstreaming Climate Change
in National Development Processes and UN Country Programming
A guide to assist UN Country Teams in integrating climate change risks and opportunities


Of course, I highlighted the ruse part of thet title.

http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy/Climate%20Change/Capacity%20Development/UNDP-Guide-Mainstreaming-Climate-Change.pdf



LMAO......and the stupid-ass k00ks on this forum still think this is about the science.

 

[konradv]

We need to apply the hippocratic oath to this argument.

"FIRST, do no harm or at least try to do good."

If the treatment is such a disruption to life with no damn good reason, it's NOT a benefit the same way a dangerous treatment for an ailment that does not exist is a harm.

You're begging the question. The answer you want is included in the question. You haven't proven that the treatment would be worse than the disease.

You haven't proven there's a disease.

A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2! When has solar irradiance ever incresed by that much?

 

[Big Fitz]

We need to apply the hippocratic oath to this argument.

"FIRST, do no harm or at least try to do good."

If the treatment is such a disruption to life with no damn good reason, it's NOT a benefit the same way a dangerous treatment for an ailment that does not exist is a harm.

You're begging the question. The answer you want is included in the question. You haven't proven that the treatment would be worse than the disease.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqImkDgDwHU"]The Simpsons - Dr. Nick - YouTube[/ame]

Doctors also do more harm performing major surgery on hypochondriacs than they cure. That's what Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming is. Hypochondria.

 

[bripat9643]

Nope. It is a naturally occuring substance. It is the byproduct of aerobic metabolism and a source of food for much of the earth's living things. Also, it's what makes beer all nice and bubbly!

Let's do a simple experiment

Place a plastic bag over your head and wrap it tight

Then tell us if Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant

Do the same thing, only with H2O.

Is water a pollutant?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're begging the question. The answer you want is included in the question. You haven't proven that the treatment would be worse than the disease.

You haven't proven there's a disease.

A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2! When has solar irradiance ever incresed by that much?

Let's check Mann's tree rings!