Attempt to look at CO2 in a realistic manner:

#1

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#1
CO2 is an essential life ingredient, both for flaura
and fauna, it is NOT a pollutant.



CO2 is Plant Food (Clean Coal, Say WATT?) | Watts Up With That?

Plants live on CO2.
They are made of carbohydrates (carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen). They get their carbon from the CO2 in the
atmosphere. It is a fact that the best food crop yields
occur when plants are grown in atmospheres that are
triple or quadruple current CO2 levels. That proves
current CO2 levels are way below most of the period
of plant life evolution and adaptation on Earth.
 
#2

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#2
CO2 is an essential life ingredient, both for flaura
and fauna, it is NOT a pollutant.
I feel like IPO has gone over this before, but I'll just chime in for consistency.

Simply because something is essential does not mean it cannot also be a pollutant. Water is essential for life as well, but too much water is a pollutant; it renders the soil uninhabitable.

Have you never over-watered a house plant and had it die?
 
#3

droski

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
21,914
Likes
1
#3
yes and the last time we had no ice caps plants did very well then as well. not sure what your point is? aren't we more concerned about the effect on humans?
 
#4

utgibbs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
7,394
Likes
0
#4
yes and the last time we had no ice caps plants did very well then as well. not sure what your point is? aren't we more concerned about the effect on humans?
Plants didn't have close to the same biodiversity then as they do now.

Last time we didn't have ice caps, we didn't have humans. Mammals, in fact, were furtive little burrowers who only dared come out at night lest they piss off the reptiles who ruled the Earth.
 
#5

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#5
I feel like IPO has gone over this before, but I'll just chime in for consistency.

Simply because something is essential does not mean it cannot also be a pollutant. Water is essential for life as well, but too much water is a pollutant; it renders the soil uninhabitable.

Have you never over-watered a house plant and had it die?
Warming Trend: PDO And Solar Correlate Better Than CO2


Joe D’Aleo, an AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist,
one of the founders of The Weather Channel and who
operates the website ICECAP took it upon himself to
do an analysis of the newly released USHCN2 surface
temperature data set and compare it against measured
trends of CO2, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and Solar
Irradiance. to see which one matched better.

It’s a simple experiment; compare the trends by running
an R2 correlation on the different data sets. The result
is a coefficient of determination that tells you how well
the trend curves match.
-------------------------------

Clearly the US annual temperatures over the
last century have correlated far better with
cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon
dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide
seems to have vanished or even reversed in
the last decade.


Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic
and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate
given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate
downwards shortly.





Plants didn't have close to the same biodiversity then as they do now.

Last time we didn't have ice caps, we didn't have humans. Mammals, in fact, were furtive little burrowers who only dared come out at night lest they piss off the reptiles who ruled the Earth.
So the Horned Frogs won the Rose Bowl because
of atmospheric CO2??
 
#8

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#8
Your response has nothing to do with mine, so why exactly did you bother to quote mine?
Oh wait, you were talking about watering your
house plants, my bad, I didn't mean to disturb
you.

Let's start over;

pollutant; Something that pollutes, a waste material
that contaminates air, soil or water.

American Heritage Dictionary
Second College Edition p. 960



Watts up with that?
Cliff notes:

The fact of the matter is that we can have five
times as much CO2 in the atmosphere and be
several degrees warmer here on Earth and not
be any worse off.

Actual temperatures don't correspond well with
actual CO2 levels but do correspond well with
solar activity and oceanic currents.

Ergo, shutting down American coal production and
usage makes even less sense that preventing the
USA from drilling oil wells and building refineries for
the past forty years.
 
#9

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#9
Oh wait, you were talking about watering your
house plants, my bad, I didn't mean to disturb
you.

Let's start over;

pollutant; Something that pollutes, a waste material
that contaminates air, soil or water.

American Heritage Dictionary
Second College Edition p. 960
And you said CO2 isn't a pollutant, meaning that it isn't a contaminate in the air correct?

Or are you falsely claiming it isn't a pollutant, and then stating under your breath "at X concentration?"

Because if you are claiming that it isn't a pollutant, at all, in any amount, I have a little test we could perform...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#10
And you said CO2 isn't a pollutant, meaning that it isn't a contaminate in the air correct?

Or are you falsely claiming it isn't a pollutant, and then stating under your breath "at X concentration?"

Because if you are claiming that it isn't a pollutant, at all, in any amount, I have a little test we could perform...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
I'm claiming CO2 IS NOT a pollutant in Earth's
atmosphere!

Nothing is false about that.

Try to be realistic.
 
#11

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#11
I'm claiming CO2 IS NOT a pollutant in Earth's
atmosphere!

Nothing is false about that.

Try to be realistic.
CO2 is a pollutant in the Earth's atmosphere. The O2 you breath has a concentration that is measured in the atmosphere. If that value decreases globally, global concentration of O2 decreases.

You are aware of what happens when you lack O2, right?

Well, if atmospheric CO2 increases, global CO2 increases, and that would be the equivalent of you standing in a room with increased CO2, and then dying.

So, would you like to take the CO2 as a pollutant challenge? Or do you concede that CO2 is a pollutant, anywhere, depending on the concentration?
 
#12

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#12
CO2 is a pollutant in the Earth's atmosphere. The O2 you breath has a concentration that is measured in the atmosphere. If that value decreases globally, global concentration of O2 decreases.

You are aware of what happens when you lack O2, right?

Well, if atmospheric CO2 increases, global CO2 increases, and that would be the equivalent of you standing in a room with increased CO2, and then dying.

So, would you like to take the CO2 as a pollutant challenge? Or do you concede that CO2 is a pollutant, anywhere, depending on the concentration?
You must have missed the part where I said;
'TRY to be realistic.'

At present we have under 400 ppm CO2 in the
atmosphere and that isn't likely to rise to any
dangerous level within the next century or so
given the scientific history we know to be fairly
accurate.

Greenhouses routinely have 1,500 ppm CO2 levels
on purpose with no side effects to workers.



CO2 not a pollutant - Atmospheric CO2 is essential
to life on earth and is directly responsible for the
food we eat and the oxygen we breathe. Plants
feed on CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste gas, and
humans and animals breathe oxygen and exhale CO2.

CO2 non-threatening at 10,000 ppm - CO2 is not
a threat to humans unless it reaches 50,000 ppm
(exhaled breath is about 45,000 ppm).

Sailors in U.S. submarines experience no harmful
effects while routinely working in spaces where
CO2 concentrations reach 8,000 ppm.

Concert-goers in a packed auditorium are steeped
in 10,000 ppm. The recommended level in workspaces
for an eight-hour day is 5,000 ppm, and the typical
officer worker inhales air containing up to 2,500 ppm.

The most important consideration of all is that increasing
CO2 levels is no going to lead to runaway global warming.

Rising CO2 is natural - Atmospheric CO2 has risen
steadily for the past 18,000 years - long before fossil-
fuel-burning factories and power plants dotted the landscape.

Human-generated greenhouse gases account for roughly
0.28 percent of the greenhouse effect.

Man-made CO2 comprises about 0.117 percent
of this total.

The residence time of bulk atmospheric CO2 is roughly
five years, a fact previously acknowledged by former
IPCC Chairman Dr. Bert Bolin.

This figure is steadfastly ignored or disputed by
scientists who base their findings on carbon-cycle
computer models that project theoretically longer
lifetimes - 50 to 200 years, or longer - than those
actually measured in the real world.

Trying to say that CO2 is a pullutant in the real
world is asinine.
 
#13

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#13
You must have missed the part where I said;
'TRY to be realistic.'
gsvol said:
CO2 is an essential life ingredient, both for flaura
and fauna, it is NOT a pollutant.
gsvol said:
CO2 not a pollutant - Atmospheric CO2 is essential
to life on earth and is directly responsible for the
food we eat and the oxygen we breathe.
gsvol said:
Trying to say that CO2 is a pullutant in the real
world is asinine.
So, you are willing to take the CO2 challenge? You have, of course, heard of hypercapnia, correct?

If CO2 isn't a pollutant, you'll have nothing to worry about gs. Nothing at all, if CO2 isn't a pollutant...

Of course, if CO2 is a pollutant, you'll die.

But as it isn't... no fear, right?
 
#14

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#14
So, you are willing to take the CO2 challenge? You have, of course, heard of hypercapnia, correct?

If CO2 isn't a pollutant, you'll have nothing to worry about gs. Nothing at all, if CO2 isn't a pollutant...

Of course, if CO2 is a pollutant, you'll die.

But as it isn't... no fear, right?
If you want to talk about realistic CO2 levels
in our planet's atmosphere, then yes.

Methinks your science is more hyperbole
than anything, try not to hyperventilate.
 
#15

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,529
Likes
6
#15
Warm water discharged into a mountain stream is a pollutant. This is a matter of gsvol not comprehending the term "pollutant."


Pollutant | Define Pollutant at Dictionary.com
Science Dictionary
pollutant (pə-l t'nt) Pronunciation Key
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
 
#16

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,529
Likes
6
#16
Also, the increased crop yields listed in the OP assume proper soil moisture and nutrients- which are quickly consumed outside of a greenhouse until growth falls back into an equilibrium with pre-CO2 elevation growth rates. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in experiments. There will be no "crop surplus" due to increasing concentrations of CO2.


gsvol, do you deny that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Do you deny that human activity is the source? Just curious.
 
#17

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#17
If you want to talk about realistic CO2 levels
in our planet's atmosphere, then yes.

Methinks your science is more hyperbole
than anything, try not to hyperventilate.
Methinks your stance is manipulation and lies. Unless you qualify your response as saying CO2 is not a pollutant, at physiologic conditions.

Qualify your stance, or keep lying your tail off. You remember what your momma said about liars right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#19

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,529
Likes
6
#19
And apparently IP doesn't understand that
present levels of CO2 emission by using fossil
meets the criteria to call that pollution.
Yes it does. It is elevated enough to change the amount of long wave radiation that escapes into space. Thus, it is behaving as a thermal pollutant.

Besides, your original argument was that it can't be a pollutant because it's a naturally-occurring substance. Now you are changing your tune as to why you think it isn't-- as usual. Just move the goal posts around every time you lose the battle.
 
#20

gsvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
14,179
Likes
4
#20
Also, the increased crop yields listed in the OP assume proper soil moisture and nutrients- which are quickly consumed outside of a greenhouse until growth falls back into an equilibrium with pre-CO2 elevation growth rates. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in experiments. There will be no "crop surplus" due to increasing concentrations of CO2.


gsvol, do you deny that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere? Do you deny that human activity is the source? Just curious.
I plainly state that CO2 is increasing an show plenty of evidence that this is a natural occurance.

Crop increases will occur with higher CO2 levels, you can't possibly trying to deny that??




Methinks your stance is manipulation and lies. Unless you qualify your response as saying CO2 is not a pollutant, at physiologic conditions.

Qualify your stance, or keep lying your tail off. You remember what your momma said about liars right?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
SCREW YOU!!! :finger3:

If there is a liar in this conversation it is you.

I am saying that CO2 is NOT a pollutant when you consider the Earth biosphere.

Your pedantry is misplaced.

If you consider the real physiological condition of our planet's biosphere then you admit that your argument is out of place.
 
#23

fl0at

studyin' like heck
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,865
Likes
0
#23
If there is a liar in this conversation it is you.

I am saying that CO2 is NOT a pollutant when you consider the Earth biosphere.

Your pedantry is misplaced.

If you consider the real physiological condition of our planet's biosphere then you admit that your argument is out of place.
And what have I lied about?

CO2 is a pollutant, plain and simple. In increases above physiologic conditions, it can KILL you. Period.

If you don't think it is a pollutant, at current levels, qualify that statement as such. Stating that it isn't a pollutant as if that is a fact is a bold faced lie.

It is a pollutant, and at certain levels, it will kill you dead. Period.

Whether we see those levels on this planet is debatable. Your fantasy of belief that it isn't a pollutant because it isn't CURRENTLY killing off plants and animals is not only ingorance, but is lies and manipulation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#24

IPorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
25,529
Likes
6
#24
I plainly state that CO2 is increasing an show plenty of evidence that this is a natural occurance.

Crop increases will occur with higher CO2 levels, you can't possibly trying to deny that??
Again, crop yield increases will not occur because of the limiting factors of the soil out in the world. Critical nutrients will be exhausted by the initial increase in growth rate, then growth will continue as nutrients and moisture allow.

The boost to crop yield, if it were going to happen, would have already occurred and it hasn't. We're cruising at 390 ppm right now, which is quite high for recent geologic history (spare me your graph stretching back 600 million years ago before there were dinosaurs, flowers, or flying insects). It's certainly much higher than it was just 200 years ago-- in fact the increase is unprecedented, as far as we can tell.




BUT-- You said the increase in CO2 was from natural causes. I was hoping you would say that.

We can tell what a CO2 molecule's source is, as CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels and such has a different isotopic value than from other sources. So we KNOW it isn't from "natural causes."

How Do We Know that the Atmospheric Build-up of Greenhouse Gases Is Due to Human Activity? From Common Questions about Climate Change


Sorry, human activities are certainly the source. It's a matter of chemistry.
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top