Remember me
▼ Content

Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i



Page 2 of 2<12
16-10-2016 18:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, okay. Quantity determines whether pollution is significant or not, but not whether a substance pollutes or not.


Whether or not something is called pollution is beside the point, then. What's important is if something has a significant detrimental effect on the environment.


Can we get back to this?


This particular point, too, has a few difficulties:

First off, deciding whether something is 'significant' is a rather subjective term. There is no hard number to work with that isn't one personally assigned by the observer in some way.

Secondly, what harms one thing often benefits another. Something that devastates mosquitoes, for example, has a great benefit for man who is freed of the annoyance and disease spread by them.

Detergents reaching an ocean reef may harm coral, but it does help the grasses and algae. Fish that feed off of coral may be harmed, but the grasses and algae provide excellent cover for other kinds of fish as well as food for turtles and certain kinds of fish like like to eat algae.

Oftentimes, a pollution or a habitat destruction may have almost no effect in the end anyhow. Here in the Pacific Northwest, the logging of 'old growth' forests were blamed for the destruction of the spotted owl's habitat.

The owl is still here and doing just fine. It turns out that the owl likes to live near younger forests, but on taller trees if it can find them (the old growth part). Old growth forests are dead forests. There is very little animal life there. Younger forests and even logged areas are where the mice are that the owl favors. The younger forest and logged areas are its food supply. They just like to live in taller trees to get away from predators. They can live in any tree.

So the 'pollution' of logging a forest (an activity that supposedly harms the environment) isn't the 'pollution' that everybody was told it was by the media, which after all, is in the business of selling news. Bad news sells best, and the media knows it.


The Parrot Killer
16-10-2016 19:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.
16-10-2016 21:33
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
jwoodward48 wrote:But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


What is your proof of this? I do not think the effects are known at this point.
17-10-2016 00:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
For the rising sea levels, we have this:



And this:



And this:



For AGW in general, we have the following evidence: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events such as high temperatures and intense rainfall, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover, just to list a few.
17-10-2016 07:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


We can't measure the sea level any more than measure the global temperature.

The problem with sea level measurement faces not only the same statistical problems the global temperature faces, but also is devoid of any reliable reference.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 07:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
For the rising sea levels, we have this:



And this:



And this:



For AGW in general, we have the following evidence: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events such as high temperatures and intense rainfall, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover, just to list a few.


For each of these graphs, the data is basically manufactured the same way (they are just echos of each other).

We have little instrumentation for measuring sea level other than tidal stations and a satellite system that has faults in its design for this purpose (the Colorado data).

Tidal stations are referenced against a moving land mass. So is the satellite data. We do not know how high or low or how tilted the land mass is.

In addition, sea level varies from place to place depending on local air pressure, local water temperature, earth movements, etc. There is no one sea level.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 12:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
jwoodward48 wrote:But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.

Worded another way:

jwoodward48's quote reworded: But in the case of CO2, the physics-violating results that cannot occur nonetheless seem to me to far outweigh any benefits, which I acknowledge include added plant growth globally.


Would you care to guess what the problem is with your position?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2016 16:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


We can't measure the sea level any more than measure the global temperature.

The problem with sea level measurement faces not only the same statistical problems the global temperature faces, but also is devoid of any reliable reference.


Why can't we measure the sea level? If we have enough observation points, we could notice the difference in trends between different sites, and eliminate some of the error that way.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-10-2016 16:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For the rising sea levels, we have this:



And this:



And this:



For AGW in general, we have the following evidence: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events such as high temperatures and intense rainfall, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover, just to list a few.


For each of these graphs, the data is basically manufactured the same way (they are just echos of each other).

Manufactured? You think that they fabricated this data?
We have little instrumentation for measuring sea level other than tidal stations and a satellite system that has faults in its design for this purpose (the Colorado data).

"Faults... for this purpose"? You think that they are intentionally introducing errors into the measurements?
Tidal stations are referenced against a moving land mass. So is the satellite data. We do not know how high or low or how tilted the land mass is.

But if we have many stations, we can reduce the error.
In addition, sea level varies from place to place depending on local air pressure,

Inverse barometer effect. This is accounted for.
local water temperature, earth movements, etc. There is no one sea level.

But there is an average.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-10-2016 16:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.

Worded another way:

jwoodward48's quote reworded: But in the case of CO2, the physics-violating results that cannot occur nonetheless seem to me to far outweigh any benefits, which I acknowledge include added plant growth globally.


Would you care to guess what the problem is with your position?


.


If the Earth heats up, that could more than outweigh the benefits - even just looking at plants!


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-10-2016 18:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
jwoodward48 wrote: If the Earth heats up, that could more than outweigh the benefits - even just looking at plants!

Exactly.

If [FALSE] then [it doesn't matter].


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-10-2016 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


We can't measure the sea level any more than measure the global temperature.

The problem with sea level measurement faces not only the same statistical problems the global temperature faces, but also is devoid of any reliable reference.


Why can't we measure the sea level? If we have enough observation points, we could notice the difference in trends between different sites, and eliminate some of the error that way.


No, you can't eliminate error that way. Trends are the results of absolute measurements, not the other way around.

One thing we do know, stations along the southern coast of the North American plate are show 'increased' sea level while stations along the northern coast of the same plate are showing 'decreased' sea level. The drop seems to be a tad larger than the rise shown in southern stations. All this tells me is the North American plate is possibly tilting toward the south, and somewhat rising.

Meh.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 21:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


We can't measure the sea level any more than measure the global temperature.

The problem with sea level measurement faces not only the same statistical problems the global temperature faces, but also is devoid of any reliable reference.


Why can't we measure the sea level? If we have enough observation points, we could notice the difference in trends between different sites, and eliminate some of the error that way.


No, you can't eliminate error that way. Trends are the results of absolute measurements, not the other way around.

One thing we do know, stations along the southern coast of the North American plate are show 'increased' sea level while stations along the northern coast of the same plate are showing 'decreased' sea level. The drop seems to be a tad larger than the rise shown in southern stations. All this tells me is the North American plate is possibly tilting toward the south, and somewhat rising.

Meh.


Ah. But what if we put it on different continents?

No, no, that wouldn't work, we have nothing to calibrate it with. Meh.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
17-10-2016 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
For the rising sea levels, we have this:



And this:



And this:



For AGW in general, we have the following evidence: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events such as high temperatures and intense rainfall, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover, just to list a few.


For each of these graphs, the data is basically manufactured the same way (they are just echos of each other).

Manufactured? You think that they fabricated this data?
We have little instrumentation for measuring sea level other than tidal stations and a satellite system that has faults in its design for this purpose (the Colorado data).

"Faults... for this purpose"? You think that they are intentionally introducing errors into the measurements?
Tidal stations are referenced against a moving land mass. So is the satellite data. We do not know how high or low or how tilted the land mass is.

But if we have many stations, we can reduce the error.
In addition, sea level varies from place to place depending on local air pressure,

Inverse barometer effect. This is accounted for.
local water temperature, earth movements, etc. There is no one sea level.

But there is an average.

Yes...they've manufactured the data. Tidal stations located along the same shore can easily be moving together. They're fine for local stuff like determining shellfish movements, but as a general indicator of sea level they suck.

There is no way to measure average sea level. See the global temperature problem.

The satellite system does not measure absolute sea level. It measures changes in sea level as it passes, using sea level itself as the reference. It can draw a profile of high and low spots in the ocean, but that is only during that pass, only along the path of that pass, and there is no way to relate the profile to any average height.

A height is determined by referencing the station in Colorado as it passes, but that station has the same problem as the tidal stations. It uses the sea itself as the reference for the altitude of that station. Unfortunately, that's what you would be trying to measure with such a system to get an absolute sea level.

Now the people who operate the satellite system dutifully report the numbers. Fine. The manufactured part is when people assign a different meaning of those numbers than actually exists. It is then compounded again when run through statistical analysis (remember the random selection requirement?), and posted as the graph you referenced here.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Indeed, in such a chaotic system as nature, it is often impossible to know the full effects of any action, let alone the "goodness" of such an action. And tending toward "let's not affect anything" has its flaws, too - how much should we work toward reducing our Chemical X "pollution" if it doesn't even affect anything?

But in the case of CO2, the increased temperature and rising sea levels seem to me to far outweigh any benefits for plant growth, if such benefits even exist.


We can't measure the sea level any more than measure the global temperature.

The problem with sea level measurement faces not only the same statistical problems the global temperature faces, but also is devoid of any reliable reference.


Why can't we measure the sea level? If we have enough observation points, we could notice the difference in trends between different sites, and eliminate some of the error that way.


No, you can't eliminate error that way. Trends are the results of absolute measurements, not the other way around.

One thing we do know, stations along the southern coast of the North American plate are show 'increased' sea level while stations along the northern coast of the same plate are showing 'decreased' sea level. The drop seems to be a tad larger than the rise shown in southern stations. All this tells me is the North American plate is possibly tilting toward the south, and somewhat rising.

Meh.


Ah. But what if we put it on different continents?

No, no, that wouldn't work, we have nothing to calibrate it with. Meh.


Exactly. All of our references go back to a thing called a 'mean sea level', the thing we are trying to measure.

When flying an aircraft, an altitude at X thousands of feet above MSL +- 100ft is perfectly acceptable. These assignments are calibrated using the adiabatic pressure drop as you rise in the sky. This profile is well known and stable, and aviation calibrates their altimeters to that profile.

Radar altimeters in aircraft can't measure MSL. They can only measure AGL (above ground level), referencing a ground that is above the sea.


The Parrot Killer
12-11-2016 00:07
Myleader73
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.


C02 is a heavy gas that is sprayed upon us night and day and all over our last few species of wildlife by highly destructive jet engines fitted to the wings of aircraft leased by Mr Richard Branson and others in the air pollution business.
12-11-2016 00:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Myleader73 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The "is a given substance a pollutant" doesn't determine whether it's harmful - it's the other way around! If it is harmful, then it is a pollutant. You can argue that it's not harmful, but saying that it can't be harmful because it's not a pollutant is just a circular argument.

It's like saying that you can't drown, because people need to drink water.


C02 is a heavy gas that is sprayed upon us night and day and all over our last few species of wildlife by highly destructive jet engines fitted to the wings of aircraft leased by Mr Richard Branson and others in the air pollution business.


A jet engine at altitude is the most efficient engine ever built by man.

CO2 is not a destructive gas.

There are literally uncounted species of wildlife, with hundreds more being discovered every year.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Manage Co2 wisely06-11-2017 12:18
Arvind
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is major green house gas that is responsible for ongoing climate changes.
Certainly! Time has reached to have better understanding of carbon dynamics
read more....http://www.watershedpedia.com/carbon-management-in-watershed-management/
06-11-2017 19:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Arvind wrote:
Carbon in the form of carbon dioxide is major green house gas that is responsible for ongoing climate changes.
Certainly! Time has reached to have better understanding of carbon dynamics
read more....deleted Holy Link...


Carbon dioxide has no properties capable of warming the Earth at all. There is no gas or vapor that does. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.

Why don't you start with defining 'climate change' without resorting to circular definitions.

You should also study the carbon cycle quite a bit more.


The Parrot Killer
06-11-2017 19:51
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Carbon dioxide has no properties capable of warming....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" has no properties of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, capable of determining any AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants".
Edited on 06-11-2017 19:51
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Those who argue that "CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's necessary for life" are going about i:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 07:12
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 18:07
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 18:16
How do you argue with someone who believes all the evidence for climate change is fabricated?6513-06-2018 15:31
When (if at all) did human co2 emissions begin to affect the climate?915-05-2018 00:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact