Why Global Warming is total bullshit 101

[Peach]

CO2 is inert, moron.

Nope.

This non science bull about CO2 being harmless was discussed in a Bachmann thread.

Hypercapnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

CO2 is inert, moron.

Nope.

This non science bull about CO2 being harmless was discussed in a Bachmann thread.

Hypercapnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CO2 is inert, moron.

Nope.

This non science bull about CO2 being harmless was discussed in a Bachmann thread.

Hypercapnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's probably the stupidest thing you ever posted

 

[Zander]

Science has never been wrong. They have a consensus. The earth is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth. Humans are causing global warming. There is a consensus.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Carbonation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ZOMG!!!

Global warming is turning the oceans into Soda!

 

[wirebender]

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

And they call us anti science. What catergory does abject ignorance of the subject fall under; anti science or just plain stupid?

 

[konradv]

Nope.

This non science bull about CO2 being harmless was discussed in a Bachmann thread.

Hypercapnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

Inertness depends on the system in question. Nitrogen is inert in AGW and most chemical processes, but not when dissolved in blood or in 'nitrogen fixtion'. Since I'm the one using the word, you'll have to accept the meaning of 'inert' I intended. It's not up to you to cherry-pick a specific defintion of the word and force me to adhere to it.

 

[konradv]

Nope.

This non science bull about CO2 being harmless was discussed in a Bachmann thread.

Hypercapnia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's probably the stupidest thing you ever posted

It's not inert with respect to absorption of IR, formation of carbonic acid and carbonates in solution or in photosynthsis!!! CO2 is definitely NOT inert.

 

[konradv]

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

And they call us anti science. What catergory does abject ignorance of the subject fall under; anti science or just plain stupid?

Ignorance? Aren't photosynthesis and the formation of carbonic acid in solution chemical reactions?!?!

 

[Oddball]

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

And they call us anti science. What catergory does abject ignorance of the subject fall under; anti science or just plain stupid?

Judging from my contact with the cast of characters, I'm going with the latter.

 

[konradv]

Nitrogen is inert too and comprises 70+% of the atmosphere. And if you get too much into your system you'll die from that too. Inert is a chemical term and refers to CO2's lack of reactivity with other compounds and elements.

And they call us anti science. What catergory does abject ignorance of the subject fall under; anti science or just plain stupid?

Judging from my contact with the cast of characters, I'm going with the latter.

Aren't you a member of that same "cast"? Calling CO2 inert in all situations is false on the face of it, yet you defend it?

 

[Oddball]

Since I'm the one using the word, you'll have to accept the meaning of 'inert' I intended. It's not up to you to cherry-pick a specific defintion of the word and force me to adhere to it.

How very George Orwell of you.

 

[wirebender]

It's not inert with respect to absorption of IR, formation of carbonic acid and carbonates in solution or in photosynthsis!!! CO2 is definitely NOT inert.

Your problem here as with all other aspects of the science is that your knowlege base is simply lacking. You don't know enough to effectively arge and honestly, you don't know enough to have formed a rational opinion on the topic. Every time you try to talk science, you prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here is some info on CO2 from a source that could care less about AGW:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Fire Suppression Systems

CLIP: CO2 is an inert gas, it is a relatively inxpensive gas, commonly available and quite easy to handle. Inert gases have the ability to prevent fires and explosions by inerting combustible atmospheres.

True, CO2 absorbs IR, but it emits it immediately and unfortunately for your arguments, the physcis simply don't allow the emitted IR to go back to the ground to be reabsorbed. CO2 in the atmosphere effectively scatters IR which means that it acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one.

 

[konradv]

Since I'm the one using the word, you'll have to accept the meaning of 'inert' I intended. It's not up to you to cherry-pick a specific defintion of the word and force me to adhere to it.

How very George Orwell of you.

You'd rather have someone else chose my meanings for me? I think you've got the reference twisted!

 

[konradv]

It's not inert with respect to absorption of IR, formation of carbonic acid and carbonates in solution or in photosynthsis!!! CO2 is definitely NOT inert.

Your problem here as with all other aspects of the science is that your knowlege base is simply lacking. You don't know enough to effectively arge and honestly, you don't know enough to have formed a rational opinion on the topic. Every time you try to talk science, you prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here is some info on CO2 from a source that could care less about AGW:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Fire Suppression Systems

CLIP: CO2 is an inert gas, it is a relatively inxpensive gas, commonly available and quite easy to handle. Inert gases have the ability to prevent fires and explosions by inerting combustible atmospheres.

True, CO2 absorbs IR, but it emits it immediately and unfortunately for your arguments, the physcis simply don't allow the emitted IR to go back to the ground to be reabsorbed. CO2 in the atmosphere effectively scatters IR which means that it acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one.

The word 'inert' is context-dependent. Even the noble gases can be made to react under certain conditions. Fire suppression doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Sorry, but that definition of 'inert' is unacceptable in this context.

 

[Oddball]

Since I'm the one using the word, you'll have to accept the meaning of 'inert' I intended. It's not up to you to cherry-pick a specific defintion of the word and force me to adhere to it.

How very George Orwell of you.

You'd rather have someone else chose my meanings for me? I think you've got the reference twisted!

So, if you decided that the word "moonbat" means "enlightened" then you'd be happy with the moniker?

 

[wirebender]

The word 'inert' is context-dependent. Even the noble gases can be made to react under certain conditions. Fire suppression doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Sorry, but that definition of 'inert' is unacceptable in this context.

It has to do with the fact that CO2 is an inert gas konradv. You are grasping at straws trying to make a pointless point. No one has ever, to the best of my knowledge suggested that CO2 is responsible for any sort of chemical reaction in the atmosphere leading to global warming. As to making the oceans acidic, it is BS. The oceans are outgassing and ingassing at the same time. CO2 is not making the oceans more acidic. Consider that most sea life evolved during a period when atmospheric CO2 was considerably higher than 2000 ppm. The oceans are not going to turn acid no matter how much fossil fuel we burn.

 

[konradv]

How very George Orwell of you.

You'd rather have someone else chose my meanings for me? I think you've got the reference twisted!

So, if you decided that the word "moonbat" means "enlightened" then you'd be happy with the moniker?

I've merely decided the context of my statement. You want to twist it beyond recognition. 'Inert' has a contextual meaning, NOT an absolute meaning.

 

[konradv]

The word 'inert' is context-dependent. Even the noble gases can be made to react under certain conditions. Fire suppression doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Sorry, but that definition of 'inert' is unacceptable in this context.

It has to do with the fact that CO2 is an inert gas konradv. You are grasping at straws trying to make a pointless point. No one has ever, to the best of my knowledge suggested that CO2 is responsible for any sort of chemical reaction in the atmosphere leading to global warming. As to making the oceans acidic, it is BS. The oceans are outgassing and ingassing at the same time. CO2 is not making the oceans more acidic. Consider that most sea life evolved during a period when atmospheric CO2 was considerably higher than 2000 ppm. The oceans are not going to turn acid no matter how much fossil fuel we burn.

Would an inert molecule participate in photosynthesis?

Would an inert molecule convert to carbonic acid in solution and combine with metallic ions to form carbonates?

 

[westwall]

It's not inert with respect to absorption of IR, formation of carbonic acid and carbonates in solution or in photosynthsis!!! CO2 is definitely NOT inert.

Your problem here as with all other aspects of the science is that your knowlege base is simply lacking. You don't know enough to effectively arge and honestly, you don't know enough to have formed a rational opinion on the topic. Every time you try to talk science, you prove that statement beyond any reasonable doubt.

Here is some info on CO2 from a source that could care less about AGW:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in Fire Suppression Systems

CLIP: CO2 is an inert gas, it is a relatively inxpensive gas, commonly available and quite easy to handle. Inert gases have the ability to prevent fires and explosions by inerting combustible atmospheres.

True, CO2 absorbs IR, but it emits it immediately and unfortunately for your arguments, the physcis simply don't allow the emitted IR to go back to the ground to be reabsorbed. CO2 in the atmosphere effectively scatters IR which means that it acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one.

The word 'inert' is context-dependent. Even the noble gases can be made to react under certain conditions. Fire suppression doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. Sorry, but that definition of 'inert' is unacceptable in this context.

Even your brain can be made to react in certain rare instances. CO2 upon entering the oceans is broken down into its constituent parts by the solvent nature of water. Then the C (which is truly remarkable in that it bonds with almost anything, it truly is a magical element, probably is the reason ALL LIFE WE KNOW OF IS BASED ON IT) and then causes the oceans to turn "acidic". Of course they will nevel become alkaline as there isn't enough C on the planet to accomplish that little trick. But hey, that's science again and we know the religious fanatics don't do science.