Is CO2 a pollutant?

[mamooth]

You understand why it's such a stupid video, right? Even a dim third grader would understand. Are you saying you don't?

I can put a drop of black ink in a glass of water, and the water turns black, blocking all visible light. The ink concentration is only a few hundred ppm, same as CO2.

Sccording to Skook's moron theory, a trace can't block radiation. But it clearly does. Hence, skook's moron theory is obviously the gheyest fraud ever.

Any response to that, skook, or will you just do your usual mincing sissyboy retreat?

 

[westwall]

You understand why it's such a stupid video, right? Even a dim third grader would understand. Are you saying you don't?

I can put a drop of black ink in a glass of water, and the water turns black, blocking all visible light. The ink concentration is only a few hundred ppm, same as CO2.

Sccording to Skook's moron theory, a trace can't block radiation. But it clearly does. Hence, skook's moron theory is obviously the gheyest fraud ever.

Any response to that, skook, or will you just do your usual mincing sissyboy retreat?

Still waiting for you to post up your support for that assertion, admiral...

 

[jon_berzerk]

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Without CO2

we all would be dead

 

[Politico]

That.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You understand why it's such a stupid video, right? Even a dim third grader would understand. Are you saying you don't?

I can put a drop of black ink in a glass of water, and the water turns black, blocking all visible light. The ink concentration is only a few hundred ppm, same as CO2.

Sccording to Skook's moron theory, a trace can't block radiation. But it clearly does. Hence, skook's moron theory is obviously the gheyest fraud ever.

Any response to that, skook, or will you just do your usual mincing sissyboy retreat?

Still waiting for you to post up your support for that assertion, admiral...

so according to the lefties

ink is the same same as Co2

however the C02 on Mars is different then the C02 on Earth

--LOL

 

[mamooth]

Still waiting for you to post up your support for that assertion, admiral...

That's a fine a senseless sentence.

Are you claiming a drop of ink in water will not turn a glass of water black? Are you claiming the ink concentration would not be a few hundred ppm? Or are you making some other claim?

Please be clear. I can't refute your claim until I know what your claim is.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You understand why it's such a stupid video, right? Even a dim third grader would understand. Are you saying you don't?

I can put a drop of black ink in a glass of water, and the water turns black, blocking all visible light. The ink concentration is only a few hundred ppm, same as CO2.

Sccording to Skook's moron theory, a trace can't block radiation. But it clearly does. Hence, skook's moron theory is obviously the gheyest fraud ever.

Any response to that, skook, or will you just do your usual mincing sissyboy retreat?

There are 98 drops to a teaspoon and 768 teaspoons in a gallon, so you're talking about one single drop of black ink in a pint to have the same Majikal 120PPM ratio.

Clearly, you've never actually worked with black ink as a one drop in a pint will not make the water turn black

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes or no.

If yes, how?

If no, why not?

Since CO2 is essential for life on Earth as we know it, it certainly is not a pollutant any more than Vitamin A or Vitamin D or any of the naturally occurring elements on Earth are pollutants. Our bodies need vitamins, CO2, magnesium, iron, calcium, and other trace minerals. But in too large quantities, any of these things and many more that we need can be harmful, even fatal to us and other living things on Earth. Humans must have oxygen to survive, but pure oxygen will kill most living things within a couple of days and nobody suggests it is a pollutant.

Cerrtainly volcanic activity can release enough CO2 into the atmosphere in such concentrated form to kill plants and wildlife in a relatively concentrated area. Humans confined to small unventilated places--think the space capsule on Apollo 13--can exhale enough CO2 to be fatal.

But naturally unconcentrated CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly not a pollutant and the more of it there is, the healthier and more robust the plant life that benefits from it will be while there is no known downside for humans or other animal life that also requires CO2 to live.

 

[mamooth]

Clearly, you've never actually worked with black ink as a one drop in a pint will not make the water turn black

It doesn't have to be black. It just has to be dark. And it will be.

The point of the analogy is to show that a trace amount of something can absorb a significant fraction of light passing through it. If a trace of ink can absorb a significant fraction of visible light, then a trace of CO2 could absorb a significant amount of infrared.

And thus, the whole "but a trace can't do anything" argument collapses.

 

[Foxfyre]

Clearly, you've never actually worked with black ink as a one drop in a pint will not make the water turn black

It doesn't have to be black. It just has to be dark. And it will be.

The point of the analogy is to show that a trace amount of something can absorb a significant fraction of light passing through it. If a trace of ink can absorb a significant fraction of visible light, then a trace of CO2 could absorb a significant amount of infrared.

And thus, the whole "but a trace can't do anything" argument collapses.

I don't see it as a question of whether a trace can do something. Of course it can. Our bodies as do other life forms need trace elements of numerous things and we cannot be fully healthy without them. So trace elements obviously do something.

The question, however, is whether the black (or any other color) ink in the water is toxic. If it is not, then the water remains potable and can sustain life to pretty much the same degree as if it had not been colored.

CO2 is not toxic to us or anything else in small quantities in the atmosphere.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Clearly, you've never actually worked with black ink as a one drop in a pint will not make the water turn black

It doesn't have to be black. It just has to be dark. And it will be.

The point of the analogy is to show that a trace amount of something can absorb a significant fraction of light passing through it. If a trace of ink can absorb a significant fraction of visible light, then a trace of CO2 could absorb a significant amount of infrared.

And thus, the whole "but a trace can't do anything" argument collapses.

OK, they why is the lab so cruel and sadist to your theory?

If a drop makes a difference, why in lieu of lab work does your side trot out "CO2 and temperature" charts that don't even have a temperature axis?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe CO2 can be of great use in commercial grows.

 

[depotoo]

It's amazing they are just catching on that climate has not been'stable' or static over the eons.

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

 

[Foxfyre]

It's amazing they are just catching on that climate has not been'stable' or static over the eons.

Without CO2 in our atmosphere, the oceans would be frozen down to the equator. By increasing the amount of CO2 and other GHG's in our atmosphere at a very rapid rate, we destabalize the climate. If you mean, is CO2 and outright poison like lead or mercury, no. But if you mean something that can harm us, yes.

Rather than argue the semantics, look at what happens if we increase the temperature of the earth at a rapid rate. The people that have studied this state that the results will be damaging at best, catastrophic at worst. But, since it looks like we are not going to stop adding GHG's to the atmosphere any time soon, we are all along for the ride.

Oh... now it's called "destabilized climate".

Let's recap:

Global Warming begets

Climate Change begets

Destabilized Climate.

If there were no Warming/Change/Destabilization and if the climate were static, would the next catch-phrase become Climate Stasis?

And it is further mind boggling that when you factor all the different things that contribute to warming and cooling of the Earth. According to the Institute of Physics at London, CO2 has increased by 9% in the last 16 years and it still constitutes less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. A tiny percentage even if it was not lower than the paleontological records suggests the CO2 levels have been in the past.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/publications/Greenhouse gas effect is bogus.pdf

So even though we know only a small percentage of that 9% was due to anthropogenic causes, and going back to the drop of ink illustration. . .

Consider a large stock pot of water with a tiny pinch of salt in it. If you add a quarter teaspoon of salt to the water you will have increased the salt in the pot by more than a hundredfold but you won't be able to taste any salt in the water, and nothing that could live in the unsalted water could not live in the water with that tiny amount of salt.

The most questionable aspect of the whole CO2 dogma re global warming or climate change is that so tiny a percentage of CO2 would have a dramatic effect while almost every other factor that warms and cools the Earth is ignored.

 

[mamooth]

I don't see it as a question of whether a trace can do something. Of course it can. Our bodies as do other life forms need trace elements of numerous things and we cannot be fully healthy without them. So trace elements obviously do something.

The question, however, is whether the black (or any other color) ink in the water is toxic. If it is not, then the water remains potable and can sustain life to pretty much the same degree as if it had not been colored.

CO2 is not toxic to us or anything else in small quantities in the atmosphere.

But since nobody said it was toxic, one wonders why you bring it up.

Increased CO2 levels cause the atmosphere to retain more heat. That is directly measured, and is not in any doubt, at least not to anyone outside of the denier cult. You can wave your hands around and declare CO2 is non-toxic, but that doesn't change the laws of physics, and the additional CO2 is still heating up the globe.

The most questionable aspect of the whole CO2 dogma re global warming or climate change is that so tiny a percentage of CO2 would have a dramatic effect while almost every other factor that warms and cools the Earth is ignored

One wonders why you tried to pass off the big honkin' lie that every other factor is ignored.

You don't have to answer, since we know the answer. Your political cult fed you that big lie, and you fell for it, because that's what good cultists do. You weren't reasoned into that crazy belief, therefore you can't be reasoned out of it, therefore it's pointless to try. Instead, we'll concentrate on the non-brainwashed people, and point out how scientists have looked at every factor in much detail for decades running, and only settled on CO2 after all other factors were ruled out.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You understand why it's such a stupid video, right? Even a dim third grader would understand. Are you saying you don't?

I can put a drop of black ink in a glass of water, and the water turns black, blocking all visible light. The ink concentration is only a few hundred ppm, same as CO2.

Sccording to Skook's moron theory, a trace can't block radiation. But it clearly does. Hence, skook's moron theory is obviously the gheyest fraud ever.

Any response to that, skook, or will you just do your usual mincing sissyboy retreat?

There are 98 drops to a teaspoon and 768 teaspoons in a gallon, so you're talking about one single drop of black ink in a pint to have the same Majikal 120PPM ratio.

Clearly, you've never actually worked with black ink as a one drop in a pint will not make the water turn black

the ink/glass of water ratio is way out of whack for a 120 ppm demonstration

roughly a 1 part to 4000 a lot closer to the atmosphere of Mars then that of some futuristic

hellish runaway greenhouse atmosphere of Earth



--LOL

 

[mamooth]

1 in 4000 is 250 ppm. You're saying 250 ppm is totally different from 120 ppm?

Let's look at the ink again.

An 8 oz glass is about 250 ml

A drop is about 0.05 ml.

0.05/250 * 1000000 = 200 ppm

That's including whatever solvent the ink is in. Without the solvent, the concentration of the pigment itself would be a lot lower than 200 pm.

Just admit it. That analogy slays the "But a trace of something can't absorb light!" argument. Let it lie there in peace.

 

[Foxfyre]

1 in 4000 is 250 ppm. You're saying 250 ppm is totally different from 120 ppm?

Let's look at the ink again.

An 8 oz glass is about 250 ml

A drop is about 0.05 ml.

0.05/250 * 1000000 = 200 ppm

That's including whatever solvent the ink is in. Without the solvent, the concentration of the pigment itself would be a lot lower than 200 pm.

Just admit it. That analogy slays the "But a trace of something can't absorb light!" argument. Let it lie there in peace.

Yup and an equivalent amount of CO2 confined to the same limited quanity would likely also have a much more significant effect. But put that drop of ink in a small fishing pond or a lake or in the ocean and see if you get the same results as you do in a relatively small container.

 

[danielpalos]

Is there any way to passively collect CO2?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there any way to passively collect CO2?

The way most of us have commonly done it is to breathe into a paper sack. But the oceans do absorb a lot of it and that seems pretty passive.