How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

[Dagosa]

Babbling truths you can’t argue against!!!

Books say….man and woman ? That’s suppose to make sense?

 

[abu afak]

CO2 is not a pollutant

Neither is Oxygen, but we don't want it go up 50% as CO2 has.. Or be on it's way to 100%.

`

 

[Dagosa]

Neither is Oxygen, but we don't want it go up 50% as CO2 has.. Or be on it's way to 100%.

`

The correct answer is
“CO2 is a naturally occurring gas but its concentration has gone up due to human activities, which is why CO2 is considered a pollutant.”

Oxygen is also a naturally occurring gas. When it occurs in the make up in ozone layer and filters sunlight, it is not. When it occurs in the ozone layers at lowered levels, it is. When it occurs in excessive amounts or at higher pressures, it is also a pollutant.
Its the location, concentration or relationship to other substances in our environment that determines whether a substance is a pollutant. So, CO2 IS A POLLUTANT in our atmosphere whether it has positive effects in some instances or not.
No different then a plethora of other gasses that may or may not be depending upon their location, concentration or relationship to other substances.

 

[Cougarbear]

Not with you. You’re insane.

Another stupid remark showing how illiterate you are.

Contrary to to everyone with a brain north of a mature cucumber….not you bozos.

you have no reference….not a one .

Dufus, you got tired of your lot in life ?

I gave you one. I can give you a hundred references. You gave me none. so, who's the Bozo, Bozo?
No, you have no clue how to debate or even have a discussion. You are a libertard and incapable of such things.

 

[abu afak]

The correct answer is
“CO2 is a naturally occurring gas but its concentration has gone up due to human activities, which is why CO2 is considered a pollutant.”

Oxygen is also a naturally occurring gas. When it occurs in the make up in ozone layer and filters sunlight, it is not. When it occurs in the ozone layers at lowered levels, it is. When it occurs in excessive amounts or at higher pressures, it is also a pollutant.
Its the location, concentration or relationship to other substances in our environment that determines whether a substance is a pollutant. So, CO2 IS A POLLUTANT.
No different then a plethora of other gasses that may or may not be depending upon their location, concentration or relationship to other substances.

There are many "correct answers." Mine was more clever/illustrative.
`

 

[Dagosa]

There are many "correct answers." Mine was more clever/illustrative.
`

As long as you agree that the correct definition of pollution or pollutants is determined by more than just the gas being discussed. If we are in a discussion of climate change, the answer is yes for CO2
Oxygen is tricky because it’s an element and found in a variety of compounds, substances etc. and each case is local..

 

[Dagosa]

I gave you one. I can give you a hundred references. You gave me none. so, who's the Bozo, Bozo?
No, you have no clue how to debate or even have a discussion. You are a libertard and incapable of such things.

The only references I’ve seen, are hilariously invalid and contradict you. But move on and pretend you have if it makes you feel better. 100s ? Well that‘s bullshit.

 

[Cougarbear]

The only references I’ve seen, are hilariously invalid and contradict you. But move in a pretend you have if it makes you feel better.

I put out the reference on my original post. But, you won't read it because you think your way is the only way. And, if someone disagrees with evidence, it doesn't matter. Shout them down, call them names and try to ridicule them. Techniques of tyranny. Go back and read the article I posted. It's clear that CO2 is not a pollutant.

 

[jc456]

You are….

CO2 isn’t

 

[jc456]

Books say….man and woman ? That’s suppose to make sense?

To normal human life

 

[jc456]

Neither is Oxygen, but we don't want it go up 50% as CO2 has.. Or be on it's way to 100%.

`

We need borh

 

[multivita-man]

CO2 is Not a Pollutant: Debunking a Global-Warming Myth

*Anything* can be a pollutant if there's too much of it. If you drink too much water in a short period of time, you'll throw off your electrolyte balance and go into shock. Yet you can't go without it for more than a few days.

There's too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. The oceans take in about 90% of it, but it can only do so much. Past extinction events correlate with CO2 levels, except for the first-ever mass extinction of single-cell organisms in what is referred to as the "snowball Earth" period, when our biosphere got its first dose of massive amounts of oxygen.

 

[jc456]

*Anything* can be a pollutant if there's too much of it. If you drink too much water in a short period of time, you'll throw off your electrolyte balance and go into shock. Yet you can't go without it for more than a few days.

There's too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. The oceans take in about 90% of it, but it can only do so much. Past extinction events correlate with CO2 levels, except for the first-ever mass extinction of single-cell organisms in what is referred to as the "snowball Earth" period, when our biosphere got its first dose of massive amounts of oxygen.

And?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

*Anything* can be a pollutant if there's too much of it. If you drink too much water in a short period of time, you'll throw off your electrolyte balance and go into shock. Yet you can't go without it for more than a few days.

There's too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. The oceans take in about 90% of it, but it can only do so much. Past extinction events correlate with CO2 levels, except for the first-ever mass extinction of single-cell organisms in what is referred to as the "snowball Earth" period, when our biosphere got its first dose of massive amounts of oxygen.

There's too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

What's "too much"? How do you know?

 

[multivita-man]

There's too much CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere.

What's "too much"? How do you know?

Homo sapiens have existed as a species for around 300,000 years. We were "human" probably 2-3 million years before. During this time, carbon levels were never above 300 ppm. We're now at 425 ppm and we were at 400 ppm only 13 years ago. You'd have to go back about 2-3 million years to find carbon levels where they're at now.

If CO2 levels were to remain where they are now, that would be one thing, but they're surging. CO2 levels approaching 1000 ppm is a mass-extinction event, guaranteed, and at this rate, we are well on our way there.

 

[EMH]

CO2 levels approaching 1000 ppm is a mass-extinction event, guaranteed

Laughable. You have NO EVIDENCE that increasing atmospheric Co2 warms anything.

Sincerely,

Highly correlated satellite and balloon data


We could increase atmospheric Co2 10 fold and IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING

 

[EMH]

Past extinction events correlate with CO2 levels

Laughable BS. Just don't notice volcanos or asteroid hits...

 

[multivita-man]

Laughable BS. Just don't notice volcanos or asteroid hits...

Which have induced CO2. What's your fucking point again, tard?

 

[multivita-man]

Laughable. You have NO EVIDENCE that increasing atmospheric Co2 warms anything

We have evidence this century it does, cum-wipe.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Homo sapiens have existed as a species for around 300,000 years. We were "human" probably 2-3 million years before. During this time, carbon levels were never above 300 ppm. We're now at 425 ppm and we were at 400 ppm only 13 years ago. You'd have to go back about 2-3 million years to find carbon levels where they're at now.

If CO2 levels were to remain where they are now, that would be one thing, but they're surging. CO2 levels approaching 1000 ppm is a mass-extinction event, guaranteed, and at this rate, we are well on our way there.

During this time, carbon levels were never above 300 ppm. We're now at 425 ppm and we were at 400 ppm only 13 years ago. You'd have to go back about 2-3 million years to find carbon levels where they're at now.

So what?

CO2 levels approaching 1000 ppm is a mass-extinction event, guaranteed,

Why do you feel that way?

and at this rate, we are well on our way there.

How many new nuclear reactors should we build?