Attempt to look at CO2 in a realistic manner:

[gsvol]

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

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, plain and simple.

Carbon dioxide makes up, at most, .04% of the
Earth’s atmosphere (that’s 4/100 of 1 percent).

What do you consider 'physiologic conditions?'

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause
only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect.

Can you name some of these plants and animals
being killed by CO2??

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.

Duh, fertilizer has been invented, so has crop rotation.

How do you suppose CO2 was present in even higher
levels than today before there was any use of fossil
fuels??

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide increasing?

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human
activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but
is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial
ecosystems.
-----------------------------------

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed
increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth
Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available
atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since
1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds
that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has
not increased either during the past 150 years or
during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research
Letters.

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist - Portland civil rights | Examiner.com

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a
paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating
by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere.

Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in
to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system
to date can account for.
----------------------------------

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed
work states “we now know that
the effect of CO2 on temperature is
small, we know why it is small, and
we know that it is having very little
effect on the climate.”

Radiochemistry is a myth.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Is that your voodoomonkey impersonation??

If so, not bad.

Why talk about global warming when we are in
fact experiencing global cooling??

 

[fl0at]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant, plain and simple.

Carbon dioxide makes up, at most, .04% of the
Earth’s atmosphere (that’s 4/100 of 1 percent).

What do you consider 'physiologic conditions?'

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause
only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect.

Can you name some of these plants and animals
being killed by CO2??

Humans:
Pa. monument to honor firefighters, paramedics killed in CO2 accident

Physiologic CO2 is 20-29 mEq/L.

So you don't think CO2 can kill a human?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

I can't follow all of gsvol's posts, but from what I've gathered in other people's responses, I'll try to address a few points:

1. We know EXACTLY where the sources of CO2 are coming from based on the isotopic ratios. Fossil fuels have ZERO 14-Carbon isotopes since they have a half-life of 5730 years. Deforestation is heavy in 13-C isotopes. Anthropogenic CO2 is filling the atmosphere now.

2. IPOrange has been correct in all of his points regarding "crop productivity."

3. I would also add studies have been done on supercharging crops with CO2. Plants in enriched CO2 environments tend to have reduced nutritional value, tougher leaves, and higher concentrations of defensive chemicals (tannins and phenolics).

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Forget all of this. We don't need any charts or diagrams for this debate. The fact is that the debate is nonsensical from the start. Why in the hell is CO2 even considered to be a pollutant in the first place?!??!!

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

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

Let me answer this.

It very well could be increasing... and we may be the cause of it, So what? CO2 should never be considered a pollutant to begin with. And furthermore, we are only talking about half a percent of the atmosphere.

 

[utgibbs]

Let me answer this.

It very well could be increasing... and we may be the cause of it, So what? CO2 should never be considered a pollutant to begin with. And furthermore, we are only talking about half a percent of the atmosphere.

I can't tell you how wrong you are, brother. This opinion might well be shared by just you and gsvol in the whole world.

That 0.5% of the atmosphere is the difference between now and a mile of ice over Cleveland.

It matters. It matters a whole helluva lot.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I can't tell you how wrong you are, brother. This opinion might well be shared by just you and gsvol in the whole world.

That 0.5% of the atmosphere is the difference between now and a mile of ice over Cleveland.

It matters. It matters a whole helluva lot.

Is that an indication of global cooling??? :unsure:

 

[Voodoomonkey]

Is that your voodoomonkey impersonation??

If so, not bad.

Not sure why im being brought up at all but does this mean im famous or even better yet that you can't get me off of your mind? Either way... me likey.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

Is that an indication of global cooling??? :unsure:

Less CO2 would indicate global cooling?

Either way, UTGibbs is :loco:

 

[NEO]

Humans:
Pa. monument to honor firefighters, paramedics killed in CO2 accident

Physiologic CO2 is 20-29 mEq/L.

So you don't think CO2 can kill a human?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Too much oxygen can kill you too?

What's your point. Too much of anything can kill you.

 

[Voodoomonkey]

Too much oxygen can kill you too?

What's your point. Too much of anything can kill you.

Too much cuddling with puppies?

 

[gsvol]

I can't follow all of gsvol's posts, but from what I've gathered in other people's responses, I'll try to address a few points:

1. We know EXACTLY where the sources of CO2 are coming from based on the isotopic ratios. Fossil fuels have ZERO 14-Carbon isotopes since they have a half-life of 5730 years. Deforestation is heavy in 13-C isotopes. Anthropogenic CO2 is filling the atmosphere now.

2. IPOrange has been correct in all of his points regarding "crop productivity."

3. I would also add studies have been done on supercharging crops with CO2. Plants in enriched CO2 environments tend to have reduced nutritional value, tougher leaves, and higher concentrations of defensive chemicals (tannins and phenolics).

IP is a well trained parrot.

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data
that has been doubled from observed data, it is
overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether.
----------------------------------------------

All of this data leads to the conclusion that the
UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so
far off the mark as to be
laughable.

The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly
do not match the IPCC theory, which means that
the theory is incorrect.
----------------

The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a
result that allow them to tell Nation States they
must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s
climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F.

When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out
into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a
computer model) PROVES.
-----------------------------------

There are only a couple of conclusions to be made
of this. Either the world has been misled by
scientists working for the UN and IPCC due
to faulty science, or faulty science has been
deliberately used in a global scheme to generate t
ax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap
and Trade Taxation policies.

Either way, the world has been the victim of some
very bad science. The results of which can be seen
in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap
and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease
in standard of living for those citizens living there,
all with little or no effect on emissions globally.

Forget all of this. We don't need any charts or diagrams for this debate. The fact is that the debate is nonsensical from the start. Why in the hell is CO2 even considered to be a pollutant in the first place?!??!!

Politics and political power and control
over energy sources.

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

Your sophistry is only exceded by your rudeness.

Did yo momma ever mention politeness and good
manners at any time during your upbringing?

Let me answer this.

It very well could be increasing... and we may be the cause of it, So what? CO2 should never be considered a pollutant to begin with. And furthermore, we are only talking about half a percent of the atmosphere.

Considering CO2 to be a pollutant is so far fetched
as to be called completely daft but that is completely
lost on those who are so completely indoctrinated that
they won't even stop for one second to consider the
real facts of the matter.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So what are we trying to prevent? Global cooling or global warming?

 

[gsvol]

I can't tell you how wrong you are, brother. This opinion might well be shared by just you and gsvol in the whole world.

That 0.5% of the atmosphere is the difference between now and a mile of ice over Cleveland.

It matters. It matters a whole helluva lot.

Are you saying Viking vinyards in Greenland is a dangerous thing??

Not sure why im being brought up at all but does this mean im famous or even better yet that you can't get me off of your mind? Either way... me likey.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Or infamous as the case may be.

Less CO2 would indicate global cooling?

Either way, UTGibbs is :loco:

Utgibbs is :crazy:

Too much cuddling with puppies?

Or cozying up with kitties ala utwillis?

Humans:
Pa. monument to honor firefighters, paramedics killed in CO2 accident

Physiologic CO2 is 20-29 mEq/L.

So you don't think CO2 can kill a human?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Not in any reasonable projection of CO2 levels on Earth.

Can you say otherwise?

 

[fl0at]

Too much oxygen can kill you too?

What's your point. Too much of anything can kill you.

Exactly. That is the point. Which is why I spoke of over watering house plants. Good catch... or late catch, who knows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[fl0at]

Not in any reasonable projection of CO2 levels on Earth.

Can you say otherwise?

Current levels, no. Which is why we want to keep them low.

But when people believe it "isn't a pollutant," they won't care if CO2 levels increase to the point of poisonous levels.

It is a pollutant, and a waste product of respiration.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

gsvol, you just called me a well trained parrot as you posted the same link twice in five hours.

I just thought you should know.

 

[IPorange]

It's silly to argue that CO2 is a pollutant because it is potentially harmful to human health, when we are debating as to whether it is a pollutant in the context of it changing the energy balance of the Earth. It's two separate things.

 

[gsvol]

Exactly. That is the point. Which is why I spoke of over watering house plants. Good catch... or late catch, who knows.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So if your cat defacates in your potted plant that is a problem?

Current levels, no. Which is why we want to keep them low.

But when people believe it "isn't a pollutant," they won't care if CO2 levels increase to the point of poisonous levels.

It is a pollutant, and a waste product of respiration.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No realistic projection has CO2 levels reaching poisonous levels.

Do you also claim that the release of oxygen by plants is a pollutant and poisonous???

 

[NEO]

Too much cuddling with puppies?

Depends on the breed of puppy.

 

[gsvol]

gsvol, you just called me a well trained parrot as you posted the same link twice in five hours.

I just thought you should know.

Scwak scwak, how do you say that in Urdu?

It's silly to argue that CO2 is a pollutant because it is potentially harmful to human health, when we are debating as to whether it is a pollutant in the context of it changing the energy balance of the Earth. It's two separate things.

PotentiallY?

And the two separate things would be???

 

[utgibbs]

So what are we trying to prevent? Global cooling or global warming?

Are y'all serious? That goes for you too VOLatile.

A tiny swing lower in CO2 concentration puts a mile of ice over Cleveland.

The current huge swing (nearing 50% increase since pre-industrial time) is wreaking havoc on the Arctic and Clarksville, Tennessee.

 

[IPorange]

PotentiallY?

And the two separate things would be???

Pollution of the atmosphere causing an increase in global temperature is the problem. We're not anywhere near the levels necessary to be concerned directly with human/animal health.

See, he meant well but unwittingly went down a red-herring path that you have latched onto.

 

[IPorange]

Are y'all serious? That goes for you too VOLatile.

A tiny swing lower in CO2 concentration puts a mile of ice over Cleveland.

The current huge swing (nearing 50% increase since pre-industrial time) is wreaking havoc on the Arctic and Clarksville, Tennessee.

CO2 concentration was not the driver of the last ice age. The low concentration was due to a colder ocean acting as an even stronger CO2 sink, thus low CO2 was just a positive feedback mechanism in the cooling period, much like the increased ice and snow cover reflecting more solar radiation was not the cause of the ice age, but rather a positive feedback mechanism. The last glacial maximum was more due to orbital factors such as the Milankovitch Cycle.

 

[utgibbs]

Did yo momma ever mention politeness and good
manners at any time during your upbringing?

No one has any platform to stand-on suggesting I'm rude. I am actually very civil, although somewhat bombastic, to everyone. And I believe everyone has the right to voice their opinion - one unfortunately not shared by the vast majority of Americans on VN, if you believe their posts here.

But I love rolling out Lindzen. Shall we line him up against Hansen?

Observed Global Warming:
Lindzen 0.1 +/- 0.3C

Hansen: 0.5-0.75 past century (Hansen wins)

Climate Sensitivity (to doubling CO2)

Lindzen: < 1C

Hansen 3+/- 1C (Hansen wins)

When will global warming and climate change be obvious

Lindzen: "I personally feel the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small" MIT Tech Talk, Sep 27, 1989.

Hansen: 1988, "99% certain" global warming is visible in the data (Hansen wins).

Take heart, Lindzen believes there is no corollation between smoking and lung diseases! lol: