Is CO2 a pollutant?

[daveman]

Well Fritzy, you are still one dumb ****. 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.

Obviously, world socialism is the only thing that can prevent the Arctic Clathrates from farting.

Right, konrad?

 

[konradv]

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.

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

I see. The sun, a proven historical source of heat gets hotter, warms the planets at the same rate, which science has documented, but it's a silly little carbon energy smokestack or tail pipe that's warming the globe???

You are ******* nuts and can list that as one of your chief exports.

 

[bobgnote]

Well Fritzy, you are still one dumb ****. 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.

Regular geology doesn't smell like shit, Pig Shitz. Your head is up your asshole, again and again and again. So you are slippin' and-a-slidin' in your own fekes:

See how your graph has a recent downward trend? Let's expand that recent trend, and look at how CO2 has been forcing temperatures UP, any ******* way:

It seems you are as nutty as an animal, with a big turd, hanging out of its asshole, so you get all wild and ass-dragging-crazy, to smear your shit, on something or somebody. Why don't you eat shit, oink, and die, shit-assed wingpunk?

 

[onecut39]

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?

If you are referring to methane perhaps you could tell me how we contain these millions of square miles of sea bottom from giving up the methane as gas? How do we do that? Stretch a large garbage bag across the greater Pacific?

There has been talk of mining the methane in the frozen state. There is no way to do that with gaseous methane, at least not commercially.

If we warm the sea the methane is not going to wait till you have a way of containing it.

I truly hope you are not serious and are simply making right wing noises. If you represent any percentage of the people I can stop worrying about my grandson and start worrying about my son.

 

[Big Fitz]

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?

If you are referring to methane perhaps you could tell me how we contain these millions of square miles of sea bottom from giving up the methane as gas? How do we do that? Stretch a large garbage bag across the greater Pacific?

There has been talk of mining the methane in the frozen state. There is no way to do that with gaseous methane, at least not commercially.

If we warm the sea the methane is not going to wait till you have a way of containing it.

I truly hope you are not serious and are simply making right wing noises. If you represent any percentage of the people I can stop worrying about my grandson and start worrying about my son.

Thanks for inadvertently proving mankind can't control the environment or climate.

 

[bobgnote]

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

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.

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

I see. The sun, a proven historical source of heat gets hotter, warms the planets at the same rate, which science has documented, but it's a silly little carbon energy smokestack or tail pipe that's warming the globe???

You are ******* nuts and can list that as one of your chief exports.

But Pig Shitz! Your graph shows a recent downward trend, for radiance. Why do you insist the sun is warming, when it is on a local cooling trend, right as temperatures turned way UP? You keep posting that shit and ranting a load of pigshit, like your graph is the hottest piece, since Fecaltoons linked to a shit-study.

Normally, Pig Shitz, solar intensity cycles with CO2 forcing factors would produce some sort of result, like the plot, of the last 450,000 years, where CO2 troughs at about 180 ppm and peaks at 280 ppm, EVERY GODDAMNED CYCLE:

But hey, sooooo-IEEE!!! Pig-pig-pig!!! The sun isn't calling the shots, anymore. The CO2 is doing the main forcing, know why? Some boatload of pig-shitting fucktards cut down a lot of trees and burned a lot of fossil fuels, plain fact. So the 400 ppm CO2 is the main forcer, from HUMAN ACTIVITY, including by shitty pigs and Pig Shitz, so CH4 and other GHGs are also chiming in, to force RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING, oinker. CO2 could wind up way over 1000 ppm, and SLR could be more than 50 m.

Just like over at the other thread you are spamming and shitting up, the solar activity is on a DOWNWARD TREND, so why in a pig-shitty world's smear, is temperature going UP? Because CO2 is up, and more CO2 and CH4 are out-gassing, shitty pig!

Oh, wow, Pig Shitz. It wasn't Adolf Shitler, after all, doing all that planet-trashing war. It was CHARLIE CHAPLAIN. Oink, oink, doinkity-doink, Piggie Shitz.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

You yourself know that warming due to CO2 is on a nat log scale.. I even gave the equation awhile back. Hate to use percentages for this because you lose valuable perspective on the actual numbers. But 400ppm compared to 280ppm gives you an additional warming of 1.93watts/m2 (from memory).. The sun TSI has risen 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s. So it's not negligible like the Ministry of Truth claims when it trots out the sunspot graphs instead of the 300 year record like I did.

If you add ANOTHER 180ppm apples to that -- you will NOT get another 1.9watts/m2 of increase. That's what a log does. Even the most ARDENT warmers agree it's NOT the CO2 that matters. The Ministry of Truth turned to the Ministry of Magic and conjured up this concept that the relatively minor warming from CO2 is actually just the "trigger" to the calamity. That all these feedbacks are the REAL reason for the hysteria.. That the earth is SOOOOO fragile that a 8 or 10 degree climb ABOVE Ice Age FOR ANY REASON -- is literally gonna make the earth explode.

Doesn't it bother you that an effect (such as long term TSI) as significant (1/2 of carbon forcing) is completely IGNORED by the warmers like the plague?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Regular geology doesn't smell like shit, Pig Shitz. Your head is up your asshole, again and again and again. So you are slippin' and-a-slidin' in your own fekes:

See how your graph has a recent downward trend? Let's expand that recent trend, and look at how CO2 has been forcing temperatures UP, any ******* way:


It seems you are as nutty as an animal, with a big turd, hanging out of its asshole, so you get all wild and ass-dragging-crazy, to smear your shit, on something or somebody. Why don't you eat shit, oink, and die, shit-assed wingpunk?

So help me troll -- you crap up this thread and I will raise holy hell with the mods.

 

[konradv]

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?

If you are referring to methane perhaps you could tell me how we contain these millions of square miles of sea bottom from giving up the methane as gas? How do we do that? Stretch a large garbage bag across the greater Pacific?

There has been talk of mining the methane in the frozen state. There is no way to do that with gaseous methane, at least not commercially.

If we warm the sea the methane is not going to wait till you have a way of containing it.

I truly hope you are not serious and are simply making right wing noises. If you represent any percentage of the people I can stop worrying about my grandson and start worrying about my son.

Thanks for inadvertently proving mankind can't control the environment or climate.

We get it, the voices told you so.

 

[konradv]

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



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.

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

You yourself know that warming due to CO2 is on a nat log scale.. I even gave the equation awhile back. Hate to use percentages for this because you lose valuable perspective on the actual numbers. But 400ppm compared to 280ppm gives you an additional warming of 1.93watts/m2 (from memory).. The sun TSI has risen 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s. So it's not negligible like the Ministry of Truth claims when it trots out the sunspot graphs instead of the 300 year record like I did.

If you add ANOTHER 180ppm apples to that -- you will NOT get another 1.9watts/m2 of increase. That's what a log does. Even the most ARDENT warmers agree it's NOT the CO2 that matters.

So what? 1+ 1.92 = 2.92. Where's the proof that CO2 isn't having an effect? Seems to me it's almost tripled the effect! Cite to "warmers" that say CO2 doesn't matter? Got one? Sounds like you twisted something to fit your own bias or did the "voices" tell you so. Your analysis doesn't make rational sense, leaving the irrational.

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

If you are referring to methane perhaps you could tell me how we contain these millions of square miles of sea bottom from giving up the methane as gas? How do we do that? Stretch a large garbage bag across the greater Pacific?

There has been talk of mining the methane in the frozen state. There is no way to do that with gaseous methane, at least not commercially.

If we warm the sea the methane is not going to wait till you have a way of containing it.

I truly hope you are not serious and are simply making right wing noises. If you represent any percentage of the people I can stop worrying about my grandson and start worrying about my son.

We SHOULD be mining it.. Largely, that's what took out the BP Well. It was a mile down there -- so I'm not too worried about even a 2degC change in Gulf water releasing it.

But instead of the big plastic blanket -- let the EPA handle it.. Just like they are handling CO2 as a pollutant. By issuing waivers to green incinerators, cattle farmers, ect.. OR better yet, TAX the hell out of any ocean that farts.

How much surface temp change does it take exactly to release subcrust methane under a 1/4 mile of cold water? You're overestimating what's actually been said about this feedback.

But the thread is about CO2 as a pollutant. The ONLY REASON the EPA could be involved without additional legislation is by DEFINING it as a pollutant. I think we shouldn't work that way. Instead of making unscientific shamanistic claims.. It OUGHT to faced head on as something in THEORY that could trigger the bomb.. CO2 by ITSELF --- not gonna do it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Doesn't change the fact that CO2 has also risen. Perhaps you've heard of the concept of addition? The fruit count has risen by 200. But, but, but, we've added 100 a hundred apples, your 100 oranges don't count.

You yourself know that warming due to CO2 is on a nat log scale.. I even gave the equation awhile back. Hate to use percentages for this because you lose valuable perspective on the actual numbers. But 400ppm compared to 280ppm gives you an additional warming of 1.93watts/m2 (from memory).. The sun TSI has risen 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s. So it's not negligible like the Ministry of Truth claims when it trots out the sunspot graphs instead of the 300 year record like I did.

If you add ANOTHER 180ppm apples to that -- you will NOT get another 1.9watts/m2 of increase. That's what a log does. Even the most ARDENT warmers agree it's NOT the CO2 that matters.

So what? 1+ 1.92 = 2.92. Where's the proof that CO2 isn't having an effect? Seems to me it's almost tripled the effect! Cite to "warmers" that say CO2 doesn't matter? Got one? Sounds like you twisted something to fit your own bias or did the "voices" tell you so. Your analysis doesn't make rational sense, leaving the irrational.

Never said CO2 didn't or couldn't have an effect. But I noted that the effect of CO2 does NOT (even according to warmer central authority) lead to the disastrous consequences that are being painted. CO2 to date accounts for 1.92, TSI increase for about 1.00w/m2. What is the crap about "tripling the efffect"?? dont' get that..

THe High Priesthood of Warmers admit that CO2 forcing BY ITSELF is insufficient to cause the Armageddon that they paint out. It is simply the TRIGGER providing the 4 degC change that stops the ocean currents, conjures up giant methane explosions from miles deep and cast MegaStorms upon the human race. You know the drill. No link required. It their feedback theories that magnify the "polluting" effect of CO2.

The question in this thread (not intended to be a rehash) is what to DO about it? Lie about the "polluting power" of CO2 and confuse it on purpose with mercury, arsenic, SOx and NOx like the EPA is doing? Or address the theory and probabilities and build a couple hundred nuclear plants and call it solved?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm losing my touch.. THis morning I made this prediction..

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.. POSTED AT 10:37AM #51

Well the knumbknut didn't show until 6:56 to do exactly as I predicted..

Just like over at the other thread you are spamming and shitting up, the solar activity is on a DOWNWARD TREND, so why in a pig-shitty world's smear, is temperature going UP? Because CO2 is up, and more CO2 and CH4 are out-gassing, shitty pig!
POSTED AT 6:56PM #87

I need to do better than that....

 

[IanC]

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".

I thought the latest term was 'climate disruption'. it's hard to keep up with the name changes.

 

[editec]

Q: How stupid does one have to be to ask such a question?

A: Very

 

[IanC]

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?!?!

konradv- you have to understand the concepts, not just plug in numbers willynilly

do you understand the difference between a curve that increases exponentially, eg very fast the farther out you go, and a logarthmic curve which increases more and more slowly?

so if we are ~1/3 into the doubling of 'historic' CO2 then we have already seen ~1/2 of the increase in temps.

your 13% figure is total nonsense. but you are in good company because a whole lot of numbers that come out of climate science are total nonsense (and ridiculously precise too).

 

[Big Fitz]

Tree-ring study proves that climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is in the modern industrial age | Mail Online

 

[bobgnote]

So! Pig ******* Shitz. Do you have any idea, how ******* stupid you are?

That link was the subject, of a HealthyManure post, in Politics, this morning. Do you happen to know, how not only was climate warmer, in Medieval and Roman periods, but also during the Minoan Warming Period, and it was even warmer, during the Holocene Epoch, before human civilization?

Do you have any idea, how the Earth was probably due, to cool off, toward another Ice Age, but what stopped this was humans, cutting trees and burning fossil fuels? Do you have any idea how much the Earth will heat up, when the relatively cool Sun heats the **** up?

Solar cycles have been less intense, for several decades. We are on a mild local cycle, now. But the mild Sun will not persist, forever. The Earth will burn.

 

[bobgnote]

You yourself know that warming due to CO2 is on a nat log scale.. I even gave the equation awhile back. Hate to use percentages for this because you lose valuable perspective on the actual numbers. But 400ppm compared to 280ppm gives you an additional warming of 1.93watts/m2 (from memory).. The sun TSI has risen 1 watt/m2 since the 1700s. So it's not negligible like the Ministry of Truth claims when it trots out the sunspot graphs instead of the 300 year record like I did.

If you add ANOTHER 180ppm apples to that -- you will NOT get another 1.9watts/m2 of increase. That's what a log does. Even the most ARDENT warmers agree it's NOT the CO2 that matters.

So what? 1+ 1.92 = 2.92. Where's the proof that CO2 isn't having an effect? Seems to me it's almost tripled the effect! Cite to "warmers" that say CO2 doesn't matter? Got one? Sounds like you twisted something to fit your own bias or did the "voices" tell you so. Your analysis doesn't make rational sense, leaving the irrational.

Never said CO2 didn't or couldn't have an effect. But I noted that the effect of CO2 does NOT (even according to warmer central authority) lead to the disastrous consequences that are being painted. CO2 to date accounts for 1.92, TSI increase for about 1.00w/m2. What is the crap about "tripling the efffect"?? dont' get that..

THe High Priesthood of Warmers admit that CO2 forcing BY ITSELF is insufficient to cause the Armageddon that they paint out. It is simply the TRIGGER providing the 4 degC change that stops the ocean currents, conjures up giant methane explosions from miles deep and cast MegaStorms upon the human race. You know the drill. No link required. It their feedback theories that magnify the "polluting" effect of CO2.

The question in this thread (not intended to be a rehash) is what to DO about it? Lie about the "polluting power" of CO2 and confuse it on purpose with mercury, arsenic, SOx and NOx like the EPA is doing? Or address the theory and probabilities and build a couple hundred nuclear plants and call it solved?

HEY. It seems you are some kind of numbnut, who forgot all about sunspots being a character, of increased solar irradiance AND how CH4 is out-gassing, but you were too queer, to simply edit your above post.

I'm losing my touch.. THis morning I made this prediction..

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.. POSTED AT 10:37AM #51

Well the knumbknut didn't show until 6:56 to do exactly as I predicted..

Just like over at the other thread you are spamming and shitting up, the solar activity is on a DOWNWARD TREND, so why in a pig-shitty world's smear, is temperature going UP? Because CO2 is up, and more CO2 and CH4 are out-gassing, shitty pig!
POSTED AT 6:56PM #87

I need to do better than that....

This morning YOU SUCKED. You sucked, just like you sucked, every other morning, since your mind was formed. You will do better, when you are dead.

You suck shit, since you are Fecaltoons, the suckass clown.