@TMTisFree

Quote:

CO² is a fundamental a 'brick' of life, as is O² and H²O. Treating it like a pollutant is no better that treating human like virus by eco-fascists

All plants and animals have limits of exposure to the 'natural' chemicals on the planet. Just because something is natural does not mean it is good.

A pollutant is a substance put into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of natural resources. Deniers will of course not accept CO2 is a pollutant because they are convinced the science shows CO2 levels have no impact, at worst, to an improvement, at best, and therefore CO2 is not deterimental.

@BrianK

Quote:

Deniers will of course not accept CO2 is a pollutant because they are convinced the science shows CO2 levels have no impact, at worst, to an improvement, at best, and therefore CO2 is not deterimental.

Vs the scammers who are trying to steal money from us on a bogus scheme.

_________________
Dammy

@BrianK

Quote:

There was a cartoon where a kid asked his Dad why all the Black and White pictures

Of course, Calvin being the clever kid he was (Hobbes taught him well :), he then wondered why the paintings from back then were in colour.

Calvin's dad's reply was roughly as convincing as some of the arguments put forward in this thread.

@damocles

Quote:

damocles wrote: @BrianK Quote: Deniers will of course not accept CO2 is a pollutant because they are convinced the science shows CO2 levels have no impact, at worst, to an improvement, at best, and therefore CO2 is not deterimental. Vs the scammers who are trying to steal money from us on a bogus scheme.

The discussion was about definining CO2 as not, or as, a pollutant.

Scammer's personal opinion on the science doesn't come into play. The scammer's job, as you stated, is to steal money from people. The way they do this relies on their ability to convince others to trust them. They could use some other prop that's not CO2. Certainly no matter the classifications there are grifts they can play using either a non-pollutant or pollutant outcome. This is why I say the scammer;s personal acceptance of the pollution classification of CO2 doesn't matter.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Jul-2009 at 06:31 PM.

@umisef

Quote:

Calvin being the clever kid he was (Hobbes taught him well :), he then wondered why the paintings from back then were in colour.

Thanks. I thought perhaps it was Calvin & Hobbes. But, wasn't sure.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

As I said above, 1000 ppm CO² is common in offices and closed buildings (thus at work). Note that in most studies, it is the concomitant reduction in O² concentration that has been pointed as responsible of problems. Anyway you can always open windows, heh?

Many of the well designed buildings bring in fresh air (intake). Transfer the heated or cooled air into the intake of building for circulation. At the transfer station stale air is exhausted.

Best way to make an office/home more comfortable is the "house plant"

Last edited by Interesting on 26-Jul-2009 at 08:15 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

Data to those wondering how much science is out there to address the question of Climate Change... Taken from Seed Magainze, June 2009, Issue #22. In 2008 there were 50,000 papers published concerning Climate Change.

papers mean zip IMHO,

someone puts a "science" label on some "opinion" and right away its fact? Remember what they say about opinions.



@Hammer
Quote:

A rhetorical question i.e. why does the body expel the CO²?

let me add to this question. If the "science" is so Factual regarding climate change why don't we treat this CO2 problem very seriously. For example: why do we manufacture CO2 and place it in our soft drinks (soda) and consume such? This might be adding to the climate change problem no?

How about us all giving up our drink of choice that all produce CO2 in the manufacture? No more beer, wine etc.

Want to take this question to the very extreme? How about the manufacturing or home baking process, regarding breads and baked goods? They produce CO2 don't they?

These questions might sound silly, or stupid but they are not. Studies have been done on farts of Animals, no less.

Last edited by Interesting on 26-Jul-2009 at 08:16 PM.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

Quote: damocles wrote: @BrianK Quote: Deniers will of course not accept CO2 is a pollutant because they are convinced the science shows CO2 levels have no impact, at worst, to an improvement, at best, and therefore CO2 is not deterimental. Vs the scammers who are trying to steal money from us on a bogus scheme. The discussion was about definining CO2 as not, or as, a pollutant.

Why would it even be up to debate when it's a critical compound in our ecosystem? So far in the past ten years, the entire AGW/CC scam has failed to raise the temperature in ratio to CO2 increases. The AGW/CC scam models have failed to show what has happened since 1998 and you want to tag what is increase crop production not to mention what every person generates as a pollutant?

Quote:

Scammer's personal opinion on the science doesn't come into play.

But it does as geopolitical movements are using the debunked crises as a method of control of our daily lives via cap and tax. Not too mention more money for more studies that generate more claptrap to gain more funding. So there is indeed bias, and lots of money to promote even more bias.

_________________
Dammy

@Interesting

now you're being ridiculous.

Farm animals today are releasing higher quantities of methane gas into the atmosphere than wild animals and earlier farm animals largely because man has changed their diet to produce more beef and milk.

How can this not affect the atmosphere? You really believe that NOTHING man does changes the planet?

As for yeast, we're talking grams per person per day here. Like, if you stopped eating bread and kept driving to work you've reduced the CO2 emission by what, 1 percent? Nice going.

Also, the CO2 we breathe out and produce from yeast comes from sugar and other natural substances in the first place, so it's EASILY shown that this has no net effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's just a carbon transport from sugar producing areas to moonshine producing areas

Oil we take out of the ocean bed is however an added amount of carbon that needs to be absorbed in some form by some medium. Currently mostly the atmosphere.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@damocles

Quote:

Why would it even be up to debate when it's a critical compound in our ecosystem?

Often too much of a good thing has bad results.

Quote:

So far in the past ten years, the entire AGW/CC scam has failed to raise the temperature in ratio to CO2 increases

I'd agree the predictions aren't exact. For example, Arctic Sea Ice lost was underestimated by the IPCC. However, this doesn't prove the other side is doing it right. What we need to see is if the model created by anti-GW scientists produce more accurate predictions. Overall what this says is investment should continue in the study to better understand all the factors at play. We have but 1 planet I'd say it behoves us to do our best to understand how it works.

Quote:

So there is indeed bias, and lots of money to promote even more bias.

Certainly there's lots of money on both sides funding science and politics that support either point of view. Funding by itself neither proves nor disproves the science.

@BrianK

Quote:

Often too much of a good thing has bad results.

And the last time CO2 was critical high was during what, an Ice Age?

Quote:

I'd agree the predictions aren't exact. For example, Arctic Sea Ice lost was underestimated by the IPCC.

More like Epic Failure actually. Of course we are slowly losing Arctic Sea Ice, we have been on the average warming up since the Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age about 1C-1.2C every hundred years. Not only has the AGW-CC failed to do anything since the peak of Solar Cycle 23, we've are now breaking record lows (3,000) in the US during July and what do you know, we are in (which I hope is a very short) Solar Minimum as Solar Cycle 24 has failed, for another year, to appear. One would think the Uber IPCC model would work in reverse, right? So what does it show for CO2 PPM during the Medieval Warm Period which the Earth has failed to reach during this massive CO2 increases? We haven't reached the Medieval Warming Period average temperature yet CO2 is higher, why is that? How does driving the IPCC in reverse show CO2 caused the Little Ice Age, that works, doesn't?

Talk to the geophysicist, they can explain to you the nature of the Earth's heating and cooling over hundreds of millions of years and how laughable this CO2 business really is when compared to the high CO2 the Earth has seen. That is if you can pry them away from their studies to talk about it.

Quote:

Certainly there's lots of money on both sides funding science and politics that support either point of view. Funding by itself neither proves nor disproves the science.

Except that is not true since the US Government since 1989 has spent $79 Billion dollars on, "...policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, propaganda campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks." vs Exxon-Mobil's $23M. Now imagine what all the other countries trying to form this $1T-$2T Cap and Tax Scam have spent besides the US Government? I say we need equal funding, don't you?

_________________
Dammy

@damocles

Quote:

And the last time CO2 was critical high was during what, an Ice Age?

Depends what you mean here. For example, there has been 2 cases of 'snowball earth' in the history of the planet. The CO2 during these periods rose at the end of the period. Leading the charge into warming and melting the ice.

Quote:

So what does it show for CO2 PPM during the Medieval Warm Period which the Earth has failed to reach during this massive CO2 increases?

This statement and the first one are looking for results of different questions. GW says that the current leading factor in the warming of the planet is CO2. Note 'current leading'. This does not mean that CO2 has always been the leading factor. Certainly climate is a complex system. As such the leading factors of change during different period have come from different sources. For example, change of planet in relation to the sun was found to play a role. Just becase a certain period in the past was not CO2 driven does not disprove we are presently not being CO2 driven.

Quote:

More like Epic Failure actually.

Various predictions are changing faster than IPCC predictions. So again I agree not prefectly accurate. How did these same factors do in relation to the anti-gw models?

Quote:

One would think the Uber IPCC model would work in reverse, right?

Not sure why you think it doesn't. There are predictions about what the planet will do if the levels of CO2 don't rise as high. This is a 'reverse' of sorts.

Quote:

we've are now breaking record lows (3,000) in the US during July and what do you know

What I know is while NYC was breaking their record coldest high temperature, previously set in 1939, Texas was experiencing record highs. Currently the South is experiencing a nearly a month of record highs. link However, a single data point doesn't break or establish the GW theory. Climate Change is predictive of change over time. GW shows a growth of temperatures over time. It doesn't say that the cyclic nature weather is overridden. If that were the case things would be even worse.

Quote:

We haven't reached the Medieval Warming Period average temperature yet

Yes and no.. The MWP is still being understood. There were no thermometers there. Instead the data is being established based upon tree rings, corals, etc. along with European one's taken from descriptions based on journals. The modeling has a large error boundary. It's true that the temp at the high end of boundary are about where we are today. However, it's also true that the temp at the low end of the boundary are much lower than today.

Quote:

I say we need equal funding, don't you?

I think this is a gross over simplification.

It seems to me that anti-GW treat the science as a binary option. I've yet to see any anti-GW present their models and prove they have a deeper and better understanding of climate. Instead what I see, even in your statements, is the IPCC isn't prefect therefore we must conclude I'm right. Again binary and not the way science works.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Jul-2009 at 03:52 PM.

@olegil

Indeed.
Impressive (the trips that is)...

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

All plants and animals have limits of exposure to the 'natural' chemicals on the planet. Just because something is natural does not mean it is good.

Trivially correct. CO² is no better than H²0, or every compound I can think of. That is why I quoted Paracelsus. It is basic toxicology and pharmacology. As an other example, when one considers NO (nitric oxyde), a pollutant of e.g. smoke, is a key physiological mediator in central nervous system, one should relativise what is a pollutant and what is not according to the context.

Quote:

A pollutant is a substance put into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of natural resources. Deniers will of course not accept CO2 is a pollutant because they are convinced the science shows CO2 levels have no impact, at worst, to an improvement, at best, and therefore CO2 is not deterimental.

A restrictive definition of pollutant excluding human. Decades of experimentations and observations of past suggest so: CO² effects are rather beneficial. But anyone can always convince himself the contrary is right because it fits his ideology...

Anyway, as usual, all these discussions are only interesting if the causation link between CO² and climate is established. Which at this time is not.

Edit: a typo.

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 27-Jul-2009 at 06:12 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

For example, there has been 2 cases of 'snowball earth' in the history of the planet. The CO2 during these periods rose at the end of the period. Leading the charge into warming and melting the ice.

Could you precise the exact periods you refer to? I have some new papers dealing with CO² and end of ice ages...

Quote:

Various predictions are changing faster than IPCC predictions.

Predictions are so off range that alarmist researchers are forced to resort to statistical twists not validated by IPCC itself just to have again predictions statistically following the reality. The contrast with, at the same time, followers eructating their alarmist rhetoric: "unprecedented put-here-your-most-scary-variable", "worse than we though", is funny, at least.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

A restrictive definition of pollutant excluding human.

On the contray my statement is one where humans are included.


Per your request about the relation of CO2 and breaking the earth out of the Snowball phase LINK is one paper. Please make your new papers available, love to read them.


Quote:

Predictions are so off range that alarmist researchers...

Marking an analysis of how well a prediction is doing, is important. It denotes the weakness in the models and areas to improve. However criticisms of opponents is not support that your view is right.

What I'm seeing here is the pseudoscience logic used by Creationists. Creationists say - "Your model of evolution can't explain this point here, therefore God". Quite a bit of stuff on this thread has been -- "Your model of GW can't explain this point here, therefore Nature."

A hole in a model of science doesn't mean we immediately accept opposition. Instead we approach the hole in an intelligent way making observations and then seeing how it fits, or not, into existing models. When the hole is answered it invariably provides more evidence for an improved model. For example -- Evolutionists now have more details of their theory than they did decades ago. Partly this is to due to Creationists pointing out areas left unanswered and scienists responding to their criticisms have filled in the missing science. The eyeball is one great example of this.

We've seen lots of responses criticizing IPCC models. What I have not seen is a denialist researcher model. How about something created pre-1995 along with it's relationship to how well its predicted 1998-present? We'd like to know are the denialist models any more accurate? If so then which models should we be following and why are they more accurate?

@olegil

Quote:

now you're being ridiculous.

not ridiculous if the threat is as great as claimed.

Besides, I wasn't the person(s) who got paid to do the study about "farts". Think about it, this is about money and control of people (power) not Climate change.
CC has become an ideology and that can be very dangerous.

Some of the extreme thinking is dangerous to humans. This "carbon footprint for example". How long before humans will become too harmful to the planet? Maybe all countries should adopt a one child per family progam like China?

Once an ideology becomes new law its hard to stop. I heard recently one the US Presidents men believes in not giving the best medical care to people once they reach some age. It's not a far streach these older people will become harmful to the planet as Carbon Polluters etc. So what's the next step death camps? Don't even think it can't happen. World War II should have taught you that.

Just look at some of the actions of some of the extreme green people over the years!

We can all loose our freedoms if power is taken in the name of "science"
So what might seem ridiculous, can become dangerous with this new ideology.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

On the contray my statement is one where humans are included.

OK.

Quote:

Per your request about the relation of CO2 and breaking the earth out of the Snowball phase LINK is one paper.

From your link I read the following at the end of the abstract: Quote:

In my simulations, the system remains far short of deglaciation even at atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 550 times the present levels (0.2 bar of CO2). I find that at much higher carbon dioxide levels, deglaciation is unlikely unless unknown feedback cycles that are not captured in the model come into effect.

I note that there is no evidence provided, only a model-based study that failed to support your claim (and the misleading title of the paper, btw).

Quote:

However criticisms of opponents is not support that your view is right.

What about a real world example then? Quote:

May 29, 2009: An international panel of experts led by NOAA and sponsored by NASA has released a new prediction for the next solar cycle. Solar Cycle 24 will peak, they say, in May 2013 with a below-average number of sunspots. “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,” says panel chairman Doug Biesecker of the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. It is tempting to describe such a cycle as “weak” or “mild,” but that could give the wrong impression. “Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather,” points out Biesecker. “The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013.”

Source.

This sounds authoritative. What about the prediction before the one above? Quote:

The latest forecast revises an earlier prediction issued in 2007. At that time, a sharply divided panel believed solar minimum would come in March 2008 followed by either a strong solar maximum in 2011 or a weak solar maximum in 2012. Competing models gave different answers, and researchers were eager for the sun to reveal which was correct.

This is yet another blow to the notion of 'consensus' in Science. Last time (only two years ago) the panel was divided as to the strength of the maximum and the start of the next solar cycle, based on a lot of competing models which 'predicted' the next solar cycle. All of them were wrong: no 'ensemble' forecast, combining all of the models, would have saved them. They were all wrong. What said NASA scientist about that: Quote:

"It turns out that none of our models were totally correct, the sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way."

- Dean Pesnell, Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA

Which can be translated in normal language as: Quote:

We were totally off marks. We don’t know what’s going on."

Quote:

What I have not seen is a denialist researcher model.

This sole fact should point you to the futility of doing so.

Btw it seems you don't understand the difference between or are confused about denier and skeptic terms: a denier is someone who refuses to accept reality when confronted with unassailable fact while a skeptic is one who questions the veracity of an assertion until unambiguous evidence is presented.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

What about a real world example then?

I fail to see an example of the Sun's weather proving a definitive everything is natural. Nor have you demonstrated denialist predictions are more accurate.

Quote:

This is yet another blow to the notion of 'consensus' in Science.

You've repeated this logical problem more than a few times. There are 2 notions here. One notion is For all X: therefore Y. I believe this is the V with a line through it mathematicaly. Showing 1 case where this relationship doesn't exists proves the statement is false. The other notion is For some X: therefore Y. I believe this is the backwards E mathematically. Showing 1 case where this relastionship doesn't exist does not disprove the statement. Instead one must show For all X: therefore !Y is the truth.

Getting to your statement saying there exists consensus within Science is saying For some Science: there exists a consensus. Showing 1 case doesn't disprove this.

Quote:

Quote: What I have not seen is a denialist researcher model. This sole fact should point you to the futility of doing so

Ahh yes the logical futility of Creationists rears it's head. They say creation is simply too complex for our feable human minds to understand therefore God. You say climate is simply too complex for our feable human minds to understand therefore Nature. The only difference here is where each group has placed the goal post. In science we make predictions and observe how the events play out. Each of you is making the excuse to not make the predictions and by doing so in no way can show that your view is more accurate and therefore are failing to do science.... While you each boister the 'truth' with pseudoscience...

@BrianK

Quote:

Each of you is making the excuse to not make the predictions and by doing so in no way can show that your view is more accurate and therefore are failing to do science.... While you each boister the 'truth' with pseudoscience...

Way to go, you smacked it right on the head. IMHO the same can be said about the whole argument and proponents of each side in general. The science seems to get lost some where and emotional content takes over as the audience begins to filter information base on personal preference over hard fact.

Then in even a more devious move "hard facts" are manufactured to fit the preferences. Sorry for the over simplification here, but no time to do deep examples. Just to say that often "Study A" says that 'when variable X changes, output Y changes, there fore X must be the culprit and reason for the change in ouput'. "Study A" convieniently leaves out facts about variables A-W or minimizies them if they seem counter productive to the intended impact of the argument.

Quote:

Ahh yes the logical futility of Creationists rears it's head. They say creation is simply too complex for our feable human minds to understand therefore God.

I say the universe is vast enough for many possibilities including "God". And yes current human knowledge is flawed and limited and cannot possibly understand all things... maybe some day, maybe never. . However, I don't agree with the general theme that seems to prevail in spiritual and scientific camps. To me God does not cancel science and science does cancel God.


Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 28-Jul-2009 at 03:54 AM.