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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?


.

jwoodward48 wrote: If the Earth heats up, that could more than outweigh the benefits - even just looking at plants!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"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....