Is CO2 a pollutant?

Is CO2 a pollutant and how should it be legislated?

  • Don't know. Haven't heard of man-made global warming.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
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.

Isn't it amazing that the eco-fascist dream is the same one the Khmer Rouge and other murderous regimes all had?
 
Do the same thing, only with H2O.

Is water a pollutant?

The left would love nothing more than to declare water a pollutant, and deny it to those who are seen as unworthy.

The left harps about wealth being concentrated in the hands of the 1% - but the reality is that the left would like nothing more than to slaughter the 99%, leaving only the 1% alive.
 
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.

FOR REAL???? OMG -- never heard that one -- but it didn't come from Warmer HQ.. Sounds more like the homeopathic , "cure cancer with blackberries" crowd...
 
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..

First, it is 400 ppm, not ppb. Second, we are speaking of the effects of that level on the climate. Your use of that referance to what's in your lungs simply reveals your basic dishonesty.

400 ppm in the atmosphere is already having visable effects on the extremes of weather. The people that insure losses from these extremes have the records and have been stating that by their records we are seeing a severe increase in extreme weather events. As we are on the path to more than double that number, we can expect to see even worse results by the end of this century.

Yes, given the effects of the increased GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere, they are pollutants, and need to be treated as such. Which means ceasing to burn fossil fuels as quickly as is possible. And regulations on manmade GHGs that have no analog in nature, and are some are thousands of times as effective of GHGs as CO2.

But you fellows need not fear. You have won. We will get to realize the full effects of the continueing increase. Watch the Arctic Clathrates this summer.
 
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.

Well Fritzy, you are still one dumb fuck. Water vapor is a feedback from CO2 and the other GHGs. And we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% and CH4 by over 150%.

We now can see the effects of amount of GHGs that were in the atmosphere in the 1980's, for it takes about 30 to 50 years for the full effects of the present level to be felt. An increase of 3 to 5 times as many extreme weather events per year is not negligable. The warming we have seen in the last 15 years is not negligable.

As for governmental control, if the Arctic Clathrates let go with a giga-ton burp in our lifetimes, you may find yourself wishing for government control of any kind.
 
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.

Several factors there.. None of it complicated if your just looking at CO2 contribution to warming. One is that CO2 and Water Vapor are effective in ALMOST the same bands of solar spectrum, so large amounts of water vapor totally MASK the CO2 contribution.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3643-atmosheat.jpg


But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3908-co2force.png


that describes the equivalent increase in irradiation at the earth surface due to CO2 concentrations. To get the REAL surface warming --- you need to multiply by an additional factor consisting of earth albedo and ability to recieve that energy, but to compare to Total Solar Irradiance -- you just plug in something like 400ppm/280ppm and get 1.92 watt/m2.

That's the amount of extra irradiance we're looking for.. NOW -- TotalSolarIrr has increased from the 1700s by about 1.1 watts/m2.. (I can provide the graphs for you if you've not been following on the forum.) This is often obfuscated by the warmers when they deflect the issue to looking at JUST the 11 and 22 yr solar sun spot cycles -- and say that the sun is irrelevent. But it's NOT at the scale of 2watt/m2 !!!! Not when you look at the LONG TERM solar trends..

I've done this many times and pardon me if i'm terse.. But the facts are facts. HIGHER concentrations of CO2 don't continue to increase the warming as rapidly. And the TSI increase from the sun IS a significant percentage of that number.
 
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.

Here we go again. Brainless hyperbole by willfully ignorant assholes.
 
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.

Several factors there.. None of it complicated if your just looking at CO2 contribution to warming. One is that CO2 and Water Vapor are effective in ALMOST the same bands of solar spectrum, so large amounts of water vapor totally MASK the CO2 contribution.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3643-atmosheat.jpg


But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3908-co2force.png


that describes the equivalent increase in irradiation at the earth surface due to CO2 concentrations. To get the REAL surface warming --- you need to multiply by an additional factor consisting of earth albedo and ability to recieve that energy, but to compare to Total Solar Irradiance -- you just plug in something like 400ppm/280ppm and get 1.92 watt/m2.

That's the amount of extra irradiance we're looking for.. NOW -- TotalSolarIrr has increased from the 1700s by about 1.1 watts/m2.. (I can provide the graphs for you if you've not been following on the forum.) This is often obfuscated by the warmers when they deflect the issue to looking at JUST the 11 and 22 yr solar sun spot cycles -- and say that the sun is irrelevent. But it's NOT at the scale of 2watt/m2 !!!! Not when you look at the LONG TERM solar trends..

I've done this many times and pardon me if i'm terse.. But the facts are facts. HIGHER concentrations of CO2 don't continue to increase the warming as rapidly. And the TSI increase from the sun IS a significant percentage of that number.

But the results of the higher concentrations in CO2 do increase the feedbacks from that increase. Water vapor and CH4 being two of the most important. Decreased albedo in the Arctic is another.

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted | Global Warming Myths & Climate Skepticism | LiveScience

The sun is to blame
Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.

Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)

A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.
 
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?
How many diseases require the equivalent of chemotherapy or heart bypass surgery? Now how many diseases have a symptom as common as sayyyy... blood in sputum? Or a fever? Or a dry hacking cough? One? Ten? Ten thousand? Do you even care, or is this just an excuse to fire up the big machines and expensive care so you can be important?

You want to instantly claim it's one disease and one disease only. You don't give a shit about differential diagnosis, you just want to push the cure that will give you the most power and money. You've picked your disease and dammit, you're going to make sure everyone has it even when they don't.

To give a Houseism, When you hear a heard of hooves, you think horses, not zebras.

You aren't thinking horses, you're thinking Unicorns and Centaurs and Pegasus, oh my!
 
Last edited:
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?

OK -- Here's 1/2 of the total warming effect attributed to CO2...

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture4620-tim-tsi-reconstruction-2012.jpg


It's the chart that the warmers never really want to discuss. The sun IS getting hotter. That rate is high enough to contribute greatly to the observed warming.

Watch -- in 10 minutes -- some knumbknut will drag out a chart of sunspots for the past 36 years to in a futile attempt to deflect and confound..
 
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..

First, it is 400 ppm, not ppb. Second, we are speaking of the effects of that level on the climate. Your use of that referance to what's in your lungs simply reveals your basic dishonesty.

400 ppm in the atmosphere is already having visable effects on the extremes of weather. The people that insure losses from these extremes have the records and have been stating that by their records we are seeing a severe increase in extreme weather events. As we are on the path to more than double that number, we can expect to see even worse results by the end of this century.

Yes, given the effects of the increased GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere, they are pollutants, and need to be treated as such. Which means ceasing to burn fossil fuels as quickly as is possible. And regulations on manmade GHGs that have no analog in nature, and are some are thousands of times as effective of GHGs as CO2.

But you fellows need not fear. You have won. We will get to realize the full effects of the continueing increase. Watch the Arctic Clathrates this summer.

NO -- in this thread we're not discussing the effect on the climate. We're discussing CO2 being regulated as a POLLUTANT.. And the fact that your lungs are currently sitting WAAAAY above 400 ppb (thanks) --- is an HONEST observation...
 
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.

Several factors there.. None of it complicated if your just looking at CO2 contribution to warming. One is that CO2 and Water Vapor are effective in ALMOST the same bands of solar spectrum, so large amounts of water vapor totally MASK the CO2 contribution.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3643-atmosheat.jpg


But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3908-co2force.png


that describes the equivalent increase in irradiation at the earth surface due to CO2 concentrations. To get the REAL surface warming --- you need to multiply by an additional factor consisting of earth albedo and ability to recieve that energy, but to compare to Total Solar Irradiance -- you just plug in something like 400ppm/280ppm and get 1.92 watt/m2.

That's the amount of extra irradiance we're looking for.. NOW -- TotalSolarIrr has increased from the 1700s by about 1.1 watts/m2.. (I can provide the graphs for you if you've not been following on the forum.) This is often obfuscated by the warmers when they deflect the issue to looking at JUST the 11 and 22 yr solar sun spot cycles -- and say that the sun is irrelevent. But it's NOT at the scale of 2watt/m2 !!!! Not when you look at the LONG TERM solar trends..

I've done this many times and pardon me if i'm terse.. But the facts are facts. HIGHER concentrations of CO2 don't continue to increase the warming as rapidly. And the TSI increase from the sun IS a significant percentage of that number.

But the results of the higher concentrations in CO2 do increase the feedbacks from that increase. Water vapor and CH4 being two of the most important. Decreased albedo in the Arctic is another.

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted | Global Warming Myths & Climate Skepticism | LiveScience

The sun is to blame
Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.

Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)
A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.

Two bolded assertions above.. The FIRST (about feedback effects) would happen during ANY warming period.. Including the effects of coming out of thousands of years of ice ages.
Wouldn't it?? If the planet can't keep it's pants on over a 4 degC increase -- we're pretty much looking at disaster REGARDLESS of CO2..

The 2nd highlighted crap above IS EXACTLY the deflection that the warmers use anytime someone brings up the MULTI-CENTURY trend of increases in TSI.. NOT F'ing SUN SPOTS moron... The effect is over 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s and CLIMBING.. Eventually you know, stars go from white dwarf to red giant. It's inevitable.. We are doomed by that fact as well. Your grave WILL BE CONSUMED by a Sun that's grown bigger than your current comfortable orbit..
 
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..


laugh.jpg



So, Feke! When did you change whatever shit you are talking about, to "ppb?" Is this more Roberts Lab science, where we find out somebody cooked up a study, with absolutely no practical applications?

CO2 in the atmosphere is measured, as in 400 ppm. CH4 is measured, in ppb. Cut the clowning, not the cheese, Fekophile.
 
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.

Forgive me I did not know you were a plant. If you think that 1400ppm will have no effect on our atmosphere and climate, you are indeed a plant
 
Forgive me I did not know you were a plant.

Funny, I'm pretty well convinced that you're a vegetable.

If you think that 1400ppm will have no effect on our atmosphere and climate, you are indeed a plant

The climate is fragile, like the Earth. Unless your virgin daughter are sacrificed, the Earth simply will not survive. Your obedience and sacrifice is the only thing keeping the world from ending.

Say sparky, how DID the Earth survive 4.5 billion years without your cult taking care of it?
 
Several factors there.. None of it complicated if your just looking at CO2 contribution to warming. One is that CO2 and Water Vapor are effective in ALMOST the same bands of solar spectrum, so large amounts of water vapor totally MASK the CO2 contribution.

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3643-atmosheat.jpg


But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---

flacaltenn-albums-charts-picture3908-co2force.png


that describes the equivalent increase in irradiation at the earth surface due to CO2 concentrations. To get the REAL surface warming --- you need to multiply by an additional factor consisting of earth albedo and ability to recieve that energy, but to compare to Total Solar Irradiance -- you just plug in something like 400ppm/280ppm and get 1.92 watt/m2.

That's the amount of extra irradiance we're looking for.. NOW -- TotalSolarIrr has increased from the 1700s by about 1.1 watts/m2.. (I can provide the graphs for you if you've not been following on the forum.) This is often obfuscated by the warmers when they deflect the issue to looking at JUST the 11 and 22 yr solar sun spot cycles -- and say that the sun is irrelevent. But it's NOT at the scale of 2watt/m2 !!!! Not when you look at the LONG TERM solar trends..

I've done this many times and pardon me if i'm terse.. But the facts are facts. HIGHER concentrations of CO2 don't continue to increase the warming as rapidly. And the TSI increase from the sun IS a significant percentage of that number.

But the results of the higher concentrations in CO2 do increase the feedbacks from that increase. Water vapor and CH4 being two of the most important. Decreased albedo in the Arctic is another.

The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted | Global Warming Myths & Climate Skepticism | LiveScience

The sun is to blame
Myth: Over the past few hundred years, the sun's activity, including the number of sunspots, has increased, causing the world to get warmer.

Science: In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend, while the climate has been heating up, scientists say. In the past century, solar activity can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount. (Solar activity refers to the activity of the sun's magnetic field and includes magnetic field-powered sunspots and solar flares.)
A study published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics in December 2011 revealed that even during a prolonged lull in the sun's activity, Earth still continued to warm. The study researchers found that the Earth absorbed 0.58 watts of excess energy per square meter than escaped back into space during the study period from 2005 to 2010, a time when solar activity was low.

Two bolded assertions above.. The FIRST (about feedback effects) would happen during ANY warming period.. Including the effects of coming out of thousands of years of ice ages.
Wouldn't it?? If the planet can't keep it's pants on over a 4 degC increase -- we're pretty much looking at disaster REGARDLESS of CO2..

The 2nd highlighted crap above IS EXACTLY the deflection that the warmers use anytime someone brings up the MULTI-CENTURY trend of increases in TSI.. NOT F'ing SUN SPOTS moron... The effect is over 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s and CLIMBING.. Eventually you know, stars go from white dwarf to red giant. It's inevitable.. We are doomed by that fact as well. Your grave WILL BE CONSUMED by a Sun that's grown bigger than your current comfortable orbit..

If all that happened were that the everyday temperature were 4c higher nobody would give a shit, although it would mean the difference between a 90 and a 97 degree day.

Obviously that's not the problem. The problem is the climate change that this increase would bring about. Changing weather patterns, droughts and floods occurring where they never had before. Violent storms brought on by the greater thermal energy in the air and sea. Personally I have no desire to live in the northeast corner of the new Great American Desert.

Then there is the ocean. Just a degree or two and you can stop the great currents like the Gulf Stream. This would be a catastrophe for Europe, then there is the Japanese current that we would miss dearly.

Again that degree or two. The northern tundra has huge amounts of methane trapped under the ice and in the tundra. Guess what? With the arctic warming and ice melt this stuff is starting to bubble out. Anyone care to claim methane is not a warming gas?

BBC News - Arctic melt releasing ancient methane

But back to the few degrees and methane. The ocean floor has enormous amounts of frozen methane. (in this case frozen simply means it is in a solid state, anything not liquid or gaseous can be said to be frozen)

Anyway, a couple of degrees rise in the ocean temp and this stuff will "thaw" and be turned loose into the atmosphere. Now we are talking real Armageddon stuff.

Runaway Methane Global Warming

I give you this reference simply because it is short, and simple. Should you really be interested there are articles with as much volume and complexity as you are capable of handling.

Enjoy!!!

P.S. I am quite willing to concede that the earth will someday be consumed by the sun. Being that that will not happen for a few billion years it loses some of it immediacy. I am thinking of my grandkids here, not my 10 to the eleventh power grankid,
 
OneCut39:

I thought we were OUT of fossil fuel and now you're telling me that we're sitting on perhaps the LARGEST fuel-air weapon of mass destruction in the Milky Way?? Which is it?

If 4degC is the trigger for the bomb, we better find some gullible Romulan to buy this wreck of a planet and move on...

Similiarly, if a specie cannot adapt to a couple degree AVERAGE temp increase over a century -- then perhaps it's time to just accept fate..

Did you see the 1watt/m2 rise in solar heating over 300 yrs that I posted.. We're looking to explain 2 maybe 3 watt/m2 over the past 100 years. That's the magnitude of the panic. CO2 ALONE does not get us there. Which is the purpose of the thread..

IS it a pollutant? If it's a pollutant.. Show me the health risk.. ((and I'm not talking obesity))
 
OneCut39:

I thought we were OUT of fossil fuel and now you're telling me that we're sitting on perhaps the LARGEST fuel-air weapon of mass destruction in the Milky Way?? Which is it?

If 4degC is the trigger for the bomb, we better find some gullible Romulan to buy this wreck of a planet and move on...

Similiarly, if a specie cannot adapt to a couple degree AVERAGE temp increase over a century -- then perhaps it's time to just accept fate..

Did you see the 1watt/m2 rise in solar heating over 300 yrs that I posted.. We're looking to explain 2 maybe 3 watt/m2 over the past 100 years. That's the magnitude of the panic. CO2 ALONE does not get us there. Which is the purpose of the thread..

IS it a pollutant? If it's a pollutant.. Show me the health risk.. ((and I'm not talking obesity))

I guess you just don't get it. It is not the heat. It is the atmospheric changes brought about by that heat.

It is not a question of wiping us out. I probably won't but it sure as will change the way you live and your enjoyment of that life.
 
OneCut39:

I thought we were OUT of fossil fuel and now you're telling me that we're sitting on perhaps the LARGEST fuel-air weapon of mass destruction in the Milky Way?? Which is it?

If 4degC is the trigger for the bomb, we better find some gullible Romulan to buy this wreck of a planet and move on...

Similiarly, if a specie cannot adapt to a couple degree AVERAGE temp increase over a century -- then perhaps it's time to just accept fate..

Did you see the 1watt/m2 rise in solar heating over 300 yrs that I posted.. We're looking to explain 2 maybe 3 watt/m2 over the past 100 years. That's the magnitude of the panic. CO2 ALONE does not get us there. Which is the purpose of the thread..

IS it a pollutant? If it's a pollutant.. Show me the health risk.. ((and I'm not talking obesity))

I guess you just don't get it. It is not the heat. It is the atmospheric changes brought about by that heat.

It is not a question of wiping us out. I probably won't but it sure as will change the way you live and your enjoyment of that life.

So the new definition of pollutant is anything that nebulously impairs enjoyment of life?
That would include bad neighbors, junk mail and fleas wouldn't it?

Don't think I DON'T get it.. I do.. But I''m not buying the INTENTIONS of the GWarmers as to saving the planet from CO2.. We could do that TOMORROW, and tear down the coal plants, free the salmon on the rivers, AND cool the earth by building 140 new nuclear plants. Which are you more afraid of? Nuclear plants or CO2?

BTW -- ARE WE sitting on a large fossil fuel bomb or are we running out?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top