And POOF, it was gone....

[westwall]

The only reason why you claim that abundant CO2 is bad is so you can make money off of its control.

I? I am making money off carbon control? Can you point me to the bank account of mine where that windfall accrues? I'd really like to know.

All the while the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that mankind produces less than 5% of the entire global budget of CO2.

What does that prove? Let me tell you, nothing at all. During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away. Humankind changed that, not only by burning FFs, but also by greatly reducing carbon sinks, such as rain forests, which results in the exploding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It's like a bath tub that loses just as much water as is added. Increase the water flow just a little, just 5%, and it will eventually flow over. And that's not even accounting for the tipping points towards which we're heading, such as the evaporation of the methane deposits in the Siberian permafrost or in the northern oceans, which might cause run-away, disproportionate climate change. You know all that, don't you? But still, in order to uphold your paranoid, "They are after our pocketbooks! They're into controlling the population!", you have to play SSDD.

Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization. A more laughable claim I think I have never heard. How many "tipping points" are you going to claim this time around? Last decade I can remember at least five tipping points that all came and went and nothing happened. You are quite literally the "boy who cried wolf". The wolf never came, nor will he ever. It is a scam. Always has been. Always will be.

 

[Olde Europe]

Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas.

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

That's carbon monoxide...

 

[Dr Grump]

[


So, you agree that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and shouldn't be regulated?

Depends. Is it having an affect on greenhouse gases?

No



Water vapor is THE dominant GHG. Is it a pollutant?

 

[westwall]

Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?

That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows. For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day. Try again.

 

[westwall]

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas.

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

That's carbon monoxide...

CO is a lesser byproduct. My car emits none.

 

[jc456]

Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?

well you do know it was higher before that right? So how do you know it isn't normally rising back to where it once was?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?

Here let National Geographic educate you.

Air Pollution Causes, Effects, and Solutions

Though living things emit carbon dioxide when they breathe, carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when associated with cars, planes, power plants, and other human activities that involve the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas.

Obviously, because of the huge difference between CO2 from my lungs and CO2 from my car.....wait.....they're identical? LOL!

That's carbon monoxide...

The carbon dioxide produced by my car is carbon dioxide.

 

[Olde Europe]

That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows. For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day. Try again.

That's ridiculous. Here's my text again:

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?​

That seems precisely "what the Vostock ice core data shows."

Currently, CO2 stands at around 404ppm.

 

[westwall]

That's not what the Vostock ice core data shows. For most of that 400,000 year period the CO2 levels have been equal or ABOVE the present day. Try again.

That's ridiculous. Here's my text again:

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?​

That seems precisely "what the Vostock ice core data shows."

Currently, CO2 stands at around 404ppm.

Then you don't know how to read a graph. Not surprising. The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing. Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day. TWICE! That makes your entire statement false. Like I said. Best try again.

 

[SSDD]

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of what the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

It was, according to you an accurate representation of the fundamental mechanism of the greenhouse effect...now your claim is that it was something else entirely...and it is clearly titled "energy balance at the earth's surface...not the temperature of the earth with no atmosphere...lies upon top of lies topped off with a great big cherry of ignorance....you still don't have a clue...

 

[SSDD]

In case you didn't notice, those who you think understood the equation didn't even know where the temperatures were coming from...they don't know how to plug numbers into the Stefan Boltzman equation and convert radiation of X wm2 into a radiating temperature...in short, they don't have the first idea of even where the numbers come from...much less what the equation is saying..

That was because your "computation" was so inane that any logical person would not stoop that low in their thinking. Your "computation" had nothing to do with the GHE. It was a simple calculation of the temperature the earth would be if there was no atmosphere at all. That's hardly relevant.

it's not his computation. Please for fk sake get it right. It was from a link at a university citing it as an equation to find surface temps. By old socks. How is it his when most all of us you've been arguing with have stated it came from the link at the university? Are you just trying to be an a-hole?

All they have at this point is a bunch of hooting like baboons..nothing more...nothing less...

 

[Olde Europe]

Then you don't know how to read a graph. Not surprising. The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing. Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day. TWICE! That makes your entire statement false. Like I said. Best try again.

Twice through the last 400k years (290 and 300 ppm, respectively), the CO2 concentration was above the pre-industrial average of 280ppm. Still that is way below current-day 404ppm. I haven't claimed that during that time it was below 280ppm, but that it didn't rise above 300ppm.

You really want to go with accusations of "scientific illiteracy"? My statement was entirely correct - excepting that I referred to the historical record, which was breached just during the last decades.

 

[SSDD]

Care to provide evidence that the CO2 was "in balance" prior to industrialization.

For at least 400k years, the CO2 concentration hasn't risen above 300ppm, while CO2 has been constantly produced. What does that tell you?

Go back to the beginning of the ice age that the earth is presently in and you will find CO2 levels in excess of 1000ppm...at the point that the temperature started dropping...the claim of CO2 causing warming falls flat in the face of that fact..

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay...

"During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

... let me rephrase that:

"During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was dynamically self-correcting to keep the CO2 concentration between 180 and 300ppm, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink of roughly equal size, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

Industrial nations changed that into an out-of-balance system of continually increasing CO2 concentrations, with the impact on the climate one would expect with increasing greenhouse gasses, that is, rising temperatures.

 

[westwall]

Then you don't know how to read a graph. Not surprising. The scientific illiteracy of you AGW supporters is astonishing. Twice in the last 400,000 years the CO2 levels have been higher than the present day. TWICE! That makes your entire statement false. Like I said. Best try again.

Twice through the last 400k years (290 and 300 ppm, respectively), the CO2 concentration was above the pre-industrial average of 280ppm. Still that is way below current-day 404ppm. I haven't claimed that during that time it was below 280ppm, but that it didn't rise above 300ppm.

You really want to go with accusations of "scientific illiteracy"? My statement was entirely correct - excepting that I referred to the historical record, which was breached just during the last decades.

It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.

 

[SSDD]

Okay...

"During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was in balance, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

Since for the vast bulk of earth history, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been way in excess of 1000ppm, the claim that 300 ppm was somehow balanced is bullshit....even the 400ppm that we currently have is CO2 starvation insofar as the "normal" level in the atmosphere is...

During pre-industrial times, the carbon cycle was dynamically self-correcting to keep the CO2 concentration between 180 and 300ppm, hence for every ton of CO2 produced, there was a carbon sink of roughly equal size, forests and so on, catching CO2 out of the air and storing it away."

again..bullshit.. CO2 levels have been low because the oceans have been cooler...after all, the industrial revolution started at the end of the little ice age...cold oceans sequester more CO2 than warm oceans...warming out of the little ice age released a great deal of CO2 from the oceans that the colder water was capable of holding...

 

[Olde Europe]

It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.

I am missing your retraction of your false accusations - not able to read a graph, scientific illiteracy. I am also missing you acknowledging your falsehood that 300ppm is above the current level of CO2 concentrations (404ppm). The historical record of relatively steady CO2 concentrations is the result of causation, namely, production roughly in line with storage, not correlation.

Okay then.

 

[Olde Europe]

Since for the vast bulk of earth history, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been way in excess of 1000ppm

Yeah, with a cooler sun, another distribution of continents, other types of flora and fauna, adapted to those climates, it worked. With our flora and fauna, and a considerably hotter sun, it wouldn't. But you don't know that, because all you have is denialist nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

It was? Hmmm. I don't think so. And once again for the learning impaired, CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Everything you have presented is simple correlation. Correlation that stopped 18 years ago.

I am missing your retraction of your false accusations - not able to read a graph, scientific illiteracy. I am also missing you acknowledging your falsehood that 300ppm is above the current level of CO2 concentrations (404ppm). The historical record of relatively steady CO2 concentrations is the result of causation, namely, production roughly in line with storage, not correlation.

Okay then.

404 as measured by instruments on top of an active volcano....it is to laugh...you really don't have any idea what is going on..do you? You have bought the biggest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated on humanity hook line and sinker...history is going to laugh its ass off at you and everyone like you.