Is CO2 a pollutant?

[orogenicman]

I'd like to refute some bad denier pseudoscience, but it's getting hard to find any of it (Billy's insanity doesn't qualify). The deniers used to fake trying science, but they've given up even that pretense. Failing so hard at the science and being humiliated over and over must have taken its toll on their poor little minds, so they don't try anymore. Now it's just 24/7 power sulking about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy and how meeeeeeaaaaaaaaan those awful liberals are.

Here's a tactic the deniers here will all approve of. In Florida, it's now forbidden for anyone in the government to say "global warming" or "climate change". Again, the frustrated deniers have given up on science, and instead are choosing to fly their Stalinist freak flag proudly.

In Florida officials ban term climate change Miami Herald Miami Herald

Indeed, even Ted Cruz is getting into the fray, telling NASA that they ought to concentrate on Space and not Earth. Cruz is the last person on the planet that I would leave in charge of NASA (he is now the chairman of the committee that oversees NASA).

 

[orogenicman]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

And forty years ago we were on the brink of an ice age.
20 years from now it'll be something else.

Insignificant humans think they have that much sway over a planetary ecosystem

You know, that myth was old the first 1000 times I heard it. Try again.

 

[hortysir]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

And forty years ago we were on the brink of an ice age.
20 years from now it'll be something else.

Insignificant humans think they have that much sway over a planetary ecosystem

You know, that myth was old the first 1000 times I heard it. Try again.

Scroll back, sir.
There's a link with Cronkite reporting exactly what I said

 

[hortysir]

And forty years ago we were on the brink of an ice age.

The scientists were predicting warming back then. And have been proven correct, as the steady and ongoing warming demonstrates.

In contrast, deniers have been predicting cooling pretty much nonstop for 40 years, and are still doing so. Isn't 40 years of constant failure enough to demonstrate deniers always get it wrong? If not, how long will it take?

A mere five posts above this one of yours proves you wrong

 

[mamooth]

Actually, it shows you're confused enough to claim Walter Cronkite was a scientist.

We don't make that error.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is not a pollutant, but it can act as a forcing factor for increased warming.

Also,

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2

Please provide proof of this allegation. Current empirical evidence shows a dampening effect, which has stopped any warming whatsoever over the last 155 years, that could be attributed to CO2.

Your paper gives no evidence of such warming and only stated conjecture.

See the NAS final report:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

i.e., the section that discusses CO2 as both a feedback and forcing factor.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'd like to refute some bad denier pseudoscience, but it's getting hard to find any of it (Billy's insanity doesn't qualify). The deniers used to fake trying science, but they've given up even that pretense. Failing so hard at the science and being humiliated over and over must have taken its toll on their poor little minds, so they don't try anymore. Now it's just 24/7 power sulking about the VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy and how meeeeeeaaaaaaaaan those awful liberals are.

Here's a tactic the deniers here will all approve of. In Florida, it's now forbidden for anyone in the government to say "global warming" or "climate change". Again, the frustrated deniers have given up on science, and instead are choosing to fly their Stalinist freak flag proudly.

In Florida officials ban term climate change Miami Herald Miami Herald

The fruit-loop spews a pile of shit without credibility... Wow...why am i not surprised...

 

[hortysir]

Actually, it shows you're confused enough to claim Walter Cronkite was a scientist.

We don't make that error.

Interpretation: Well, err, umm

Walter was reporting on a study, hardheads. It wasn't his claim

 

[Billy_Bob]

Actually, it shows you're confused enough to claim Walter Cronkite was a scientist.

We don't make that error.

RIghtttttttttt.... Your masters have taught you well...Drone...

 

[Billy_Bob]

CO2 Fraction in the atmosphere is declining.. yet we have not decreased our output... Mother Nature is fixing the problem in its own time and we will never have a climate that will "runaway". The earth is responding as it has to every other condition it has seen in its existence. Man is a fool if he thinks he is controlling anything.

Randall J. Donohue et. al. – 31 May, 2013
Abstract
CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments

[1] Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. …….Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.…..

Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe s warm arid environments - Donohue - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Abstract – May 2013
A Global Assessment of Long-Term Greening and Browning Trends in Pasture Lands Using the GIMMS LAI3g Dataset

Our results suggest that degradation of pasture lands is not a globally widespread phenomenon and, consistent with much of the terrestrial biosphere, there have been widespread increases in pasture productivity over the last 30 years.

Remote Sensing Free Full-Text A Global Assessment of Long-Term Greening and Browning Trends in Pasture Lands Using the GIMMS LAI3g Dataset

Abstract – 10 APR 2013
Analysis of trends in fused AVHRR and MODIS NDVI data for 1982–2006: Indication for a CO2 fertilization effect in global vegetation

…..The effect of climate variations and CO2 fertilization on the land CO2 sink, as manifested in the RVI, is explored with the Carnegie Ames Stanford Assimilation (CASA) model. Climate (temperature and precipitation) and CO2 fertilization each explain approximately 40% of the observed global trend in NDVI for 1982–2006……

Analysis of trends in fused AVHRR and MODIS NDVI data for 1982 2006 Indication for a CO2 fertilization effect in global vegetation - Los - 2013 - Global Biogeochemical Cycles - Wiley Online Library

Abstract – May 2013
…….However, this study hypothesizes that the increase in CO2 might be responsible for the increase in greening and rainfall observed. This can be explained by an increased aerial fertilization effect of CO2 that triggers plant productivity and water management efficiency through reduced transpiration. Also, the increase greening can be attributed to rural–urban migration which reduces the pressure of the population on the land…….
doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0473-z
______________________
Abstract – 2013
“…..,.,.the increase in gross primary productivity (GPP) in response to a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial values is very likely (90% confidence) to exceed 20%, with a most likely value of 40–60%…..”
doi:doi:10.5194/bg-10-339-2013

 

[Billy_Bob]

So how is the earth responding to the increase of CO2? It is removing the excess in direct correlation to the increase rate of rise.

 

[Crick]

Removing? To where? And speaking of "where", where did you get that graphic?

 

[Crick]

Never mind. Here is the original with its caption.

Fig. 2. Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions (top curve). Measured CO2 increase in air is yellow area. The 7-year mean of CO2 going into the ocean, soil and biosphere is blue (5-, 3- and 1-year means at the end; dark blue line is annual).

Assuring Real Progess on Climate Climate Science Awareness and Solutions

CO2 gone into the ocean, the soil and the biosphere, has not "disappeared". And that it should increase as a solute when it increases in atmospheric partial pressure is high school chemistry.

 

[MaryL]

Leading question, I motion to strike. Oxygen can be toxic in huge amounts. We are ALL Carbon based, nothing wrong with that. CO2 produced in huge amounts by our industries, ( seen any footage of Beijing smog) will leave little doubt. It isn't a Solar issue. It's human overpopulation making lots of poo poo that is tipping the scales here. Pain pure and simple.

 

[Crick]

So, Billy Boy, when did you conclude that James Hansen was a reliable source of climate information? That graphic and the page it came from is his.

 

[Crick]

Leading question, I motion to strike.

Well, I don't know about leading, but it's certainly pointless. As far as I know, the only people who EVER call CO2 a pollutant are the deniers who ask the lead post's question.

Oxygen can be toxic in huge amounts.

It becomes toxic at 2 ATM absolute. If you hooked a scuba regulator to tanks of oxygen and headed down, at 33 feet you would go into convulsions and, if not retrieved, die.

We are ALL Carbon based, nothing wrong with that. CO2 produced in huge amounts by our industries, ( seen any footage of Beijing smog) will leave little doubt. It isn't a Solar issue. It's human overpopulation making lots of poo poo that is tipping the scales here. Pain pure and simple.

Global warming and smog aren't quite the same phenomenon, but, as you say, it is CO2 and it is not solar. I'm not sure, however, what you mean by "pain, pure and simple".

 

[ralfy]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

No, only the ones involved in the fraud of AGW. A very small number of actual scientists. But never let a real fact get in the way of an olfraud meme.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

It is not a pollutant, but it can act as a forcing factor for increased warming.

Also,

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2

Please provide proof of this allegation. Current empirical evidence shows a dampening effect, which has stopped any warming whatsoever over the last 155 years, that could be attributed to CO2.

Your paper gives no evidence of such warming and only stated conjecture.

See the NAS final report:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

i.e., the section that discusses CO2 as both a feedback and forcing factor.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

 

[Billy_Bob]

So says Billy Boob, and only every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University disagrees with him. But, obviously, Billy Boob is right.

ALL of whom generate their funding by perpetuating the fraud. Funny how you can point to that behavior when it's a repub douche doing it but are absolutely blind to it when it's a progressive.

So, we have someone claiming to be a Phd scientist claiming that all the other scientists in the world are engaged in fraud for money. No matter what nation, political group, or culture they belong to. Now that is one hell of a conspiracy theory. All the scientists in the world are lying jackasses.

Might be a lot more logical to believe that the person making the accusation is a lying jackass.

No, only the ones involved in the fraud of AGW. A very small number of actual scientists. But never let a real fact get in the way of an olfraud meme.

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

It is not a pollutant, but it can act as a forcing factor for increased warming.

Also,

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2

Please provide proof of this allegation. Current empirical evidence shows a dampening effect, which has stopped any warming whatsoever over the last 155 years, that could be attributed to CO2.

Your paper gives no evidence of such warming and only stated conjecture.

See the NAS final report:

America s Climate Choices Final Report Climate Change at the National Academies

i.e., the section that discusses CO2 as both a feedback and forcing factor.

The report is factually incorrect. Empirical evidence clearly shows that it is incorrect.. Now why would a political agency write a report to support its political goals and forget the empirical evidence? BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

The evidence used in the report is empirical.

Also, it's not a political agency.

Finally, an independent study supported by skeptics confirms the same:

Bombshell Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution ThinkProgress

Even a paper written by skeptics confirms the consensus:

Climate contrarians accidentally confirm the 97 global warming consensus Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

Qouting Nutter-Cellie...???? OMG to funny.. One of the original nuts who made up the lie... Circular Review of Claims... You seriously posted this as proof of the lie? One of the liars proving his own lie.....

 

[MaryL]

Leading question, I motion to strike.

Well, I don't know about leading, but it's certainly pointless. As far as I know, the only people who EVER call CO2 a pollutant are the deniers who ask the lead post's question.

Oxygen can be toxic in huge amounts.

It becomes toxic at 2 ATM absolute. If you hooked a scuba regulator to tanks of oxygen and headed down, at 33 feet you would go into convulsions and, if not retrieved, die.

We are ALL Carbon based, nothing wrong with that. CO2 produced in huge amounts by our industries, ( seen any footage of Beijing smog) will leave little doubt. It isn't a Solar issue. It's human overpopulation making lots of poo poo that is tipping the scales here. Pain pure and simple.

Global warming and smog aren't quite the same phenomenon, but, as you say, it is CO2 and it is not solar. I'm not sure, however, what you mean by "pain, pure and simple".

Ok, I got carried away, sue me.

 

[hortysir]

Leading question, I motion to strike.

Well, I don't know about leading, but it's certainly pointless. As far as I know, the only people who EVER call CO2 a pollutant are the deniers who ask the lead post's question.

Oxygen can be toxic in huge amounts.

It becomes toxic at 2 ATM absolute. If you hooked a scuba regulator to tanks of oxygen and headed down, at 33 feet you would go into convulsions and, if not retrieved, die.

We are ALL Carbon based, nothing wrong with that. CO2 produced in huge amounts by our industries, ( seen any footage of Beijing smog) will leave little doubt. It isn't a Solar issue. It's human overpopulation making lots of poo poo that is tipping the scales here. Pain pure and simple.

Global warming and smog aren't quite the same phenomenon, but, as you say, it is CO2 and it is not solar. I'm not sure, however, what you mean by "pain, pure and simple".

"The only people that call CO2 a pollutant" is the SCOTUS when it ruled that the EPA can regulate it.
Supreme Court Rules the EPA Can Regulate CO2 Emissions EcoWatch