Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
How about tornados and hurricanes?
They are naturally occurring
You think hurricanes are a pollutant that should be regulated by the EPA?
So how much MD 20/20 DO you drink a day?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about tornados and hurricanes?
They are naturally occurring
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.
Do the same thing, only with H2O.
Is water a pollutant?
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.
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..
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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..
The ecofascist dream of a planet without humans will be realized, not by pollution, but by regulation.
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.
But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---
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.
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 haven't proven there's a disease.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.
A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2! When has solar irradiance ever incresed by that much?
You haven't proven there's a disease.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.
A 13% increase in the greenhouse effect of CO2! When has solar irradiance ever incresed by that much?
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.
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.
But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---
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.
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..
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.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.
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
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.
But there is a forcing function for CO2 ---
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..
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.