Is CO2 a pollutant?

[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.

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

Blah, blah, blah. The effect of CO2 on warming has increased ~13% over historical levels. When has the suns irradiance increased by that much?

Since we're into cutesy medical analogies, the insane are always the last to know.

 

[daveman]

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?

A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2?

Now they're just making up shit, aren't they?

 

[nitroz]

cO2 can be used for photosynthesis which means more plants that make more air.

 

[daveman]

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?

Well, leftists have little imagination. They've only come up with a few solutions...most of them final.

 

[daveman]

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.

Indeed...as long as they get to dictate who the 1% is, of course.

Konrad, Old Rocks, would you guys be willing to die for Gaea, or are you going to be generous with other people's lives?

 

[konradv]

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?

A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2?

Now they're just making up shit, aren't they?

As Ian keeps saying, the CO2 effect is on a log scale. 13% is the log of the ~35% increase in CO2 over historical levels. All I've done is taken known measurements and added in the argument of one of your buddies. Is he wrong and, if so, what else is he wrong about?!?!

 

[daveman]

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.

Ceasing to burn fossil fuels as quickly as possible?

What are you going to replace them with? There's nothing at all that's viable, economical, and scalable.

 

[konradv]

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.

Indeed...as long as they get to dictate who the 1% is, of course.

Konrad, Old Rocks, would you guys be willing to die for Gaea, or are you going to be generous with other people's lives?

1%??? More like a 35% increase in CO2, leading to a 13% increase in forcing. Where'd you get that 1%, 1800?!?!

 

[Uncensored2008]

1%??? More like a 35% increase in CO2, leading to a 13% increase in forcing. Where'd you get that 1%, 1800?!?!

If you really believe this, shouldn't you kill yourself? Shouldn't you stop adding CO2 by breathing and all your other activities?

Ah, but you just want to kill your neighbor, you won't die for Gaea, but you'll kill for her, woncha?

 

[konradv]

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.

1%? Are you lost? You seem to have wandered into the wrong thread! This is about the 35% rise in CO2 over historical levels and the resultant 13% increase in its warming effect.

 

[daveman]

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.

And what, pray tell, would your ecofascist dictator do about it? Decree it to stop?

 

[konradv]

1%??? More like a 35% increase in CO2, leading to a 13% increase in forcing. Where'd you get that 1%, 1800?!?!

If you really believe this, shouldn't you kill yourself? Shouldn't you stop adding CO2 by breathing and all your other activities?

Ah, but you just want to kill your neighbor, you won't die for Gaea, but you'll kill for her, woncha?

Like I said, the insane are always the last to know.

 

[daveman]

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

What about



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.

Look, dubmass, I'm just going by what you and your fear-mongering freaks say.

You don't like it?

Quit being a fear-mongering freak, dumbass.

 

[daveman]

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..

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.

Do you feel better after these little tantrums, Roxy?

 

[daveman]

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 to prevent change to our lives and the enjoyment of same, we need to change the way we live and our enjoyment of that life.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

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

Blah, blah, blah. The effect of CO2 on warming has increased ~13% over historical levels. When has the suns irradiance increased by that much?

Since we're into cutesy medical analogies, the insane are always the last to know.

I believe you were answered here. No surprise you ignored it.

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..

It's also cute to watch you run from analogies after getting slapped around by them again. How about this, you go back to Hellokitty.com where you can be a big fish in a small pond more your intellectual level. You're obviously incapable of life here.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Indeed...as long as they get to dictate who the 1% is, of course.

Konrad, Old Rocks, would you guys be willing to die for Gaea, or are you going to be generous with other people's lives?

1%??? More like a 35% increase in CO2, leading to a 13% increase in forcing. Where'd you get that 1%, 1800?!?!

I believe he's referring to who gets to decide who is the 1% that controls the world.

Fancy you missing your own belief's desires to be that 1%.

 

[daveman]

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

A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2?

Now they're just making up shit, aren't they?

As Ian keeps saying, the CO2 effect is on a log scale. 13% is the log of the ~35% increase in CO2 over historical levels. All I've done is taken known measurements and added in the argument of one of your buddies. Is he wrong and, if so, what else is he wrong about?!?!

It's not up to me to disprove your nonsense. It's up to you to prove it.

So far, you cultists have not.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

And what, pray tell, would your ecofascist dictator do about it? Decree it to stop?

It's more 'out of ass' science. He should wash it next time.

...smells like poo too.

 

[daveman]

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.

Indeed...as long as they get to dictate who the 1% is, of course.

Konrad, Old Rocks, would you guys be willing to die for Gaea, or are you going to be generous with other people's lives?

1%??? More like a 35% increase in CO2, leading to a 13% increase in forcing. Where'd you get that 1%, 1800?!?!

The left harps about wealth being concentrated in the hands of the 1%...​

If you can't read, you probably should stay away from the internet.

Oh, and you didn't answer my question:

Would you be willing to die to save the planet? Or are you convinced the world needs you too badly to sacrifice yourself?