Think Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant?

[elektra]

Yes.



Strawman argument. It is not a misuse, redefinition or an obfuscation to call a pollutant a pollutant.

Strawman argument? I was not debating,

Actually, you were asking a question but forgot to add the question mark at the end. But your question assumes that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is incorrect.



While it is true that the manufacturing process requires energy, it doesn't not require that energy derived from carbon be that source.



On the contrary, solar power have never been less expensive, and will only become cheaper as more facilities come online. Moreover, it will ALWAYS be less polluting than any other source, and that is something you apparently choose to ignore.



Not really. The energy source is free, and doesn't pollute.



Using coal and oil as an energy source, though convenient, has always be extremely wasteful and polluting. There are far better uses of these products than energy production.



What is pure nonsense, and stupid is the notion that we must use fossil fuel-derived energy to make solar panels. The energy can come from any source, such as hydroelectric, wind, or even - wait for it - solar panels.

We are suppose to ignore all the CO2 wasted making Solar Panels?

What you willfully ignore is the fact that solar panel energy production produces little, if any, CO2 emissions, and can be made virtually CO2 - free by taking carbon energy completely out of the production cycle.

Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.

You are confusing what we do with what you are doing. Why am I not surprised?

I did not forget a question mark, nowhere is it required that a question mark be utilized while writing a question, if that is what you think it is easy to see how you became confused. A question can be a statement,

You state we can use any source including solar power to make solar panels yet we do not, Solar Power just does not create the sustainable energy at a great enough level. That simple fact is admitted by the scientists and producers of Solar Energy, I guess nobody got around to cut/pasting for you to understand.

Further, it not only takes Fossil fuel energy but it takes chemicals that only come from Petroleum, how do you propose deriving chemicals from Solar Panels? It can not be done.

Seriously, your dim-witted attack on me simply proves you have zero facts to support your belief.

 

[elektra]

Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller.

How is it in the world of Green Energy the worlds largest in physical size solar plant can be stated that it is somehow using less natural resources than a conventional electrical power plant that is a fraction in size.

It is astonishing to think that people can ignore so much to make such absurd claims. But hell, you read it in the newspaper so it has to be true, right?

 

[Abraham3]

Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller.

How is it in the world of Green Energy the worlds largest in physical size solar plant can be stated that it is somehow using less natural resources than a conventional electrical power plant that is a fraction in size.

It is astonishing to think that people can ignore so much to make such absurd claims. But hell, you read it in the newspaper so it has to be true, right?

It is astonishing. How about a link to your reference? I'm curious what fixed quantity of electricity they think comes out of a solar panel.

 

[daveman]

But then, actual changes in extreme precipitation events is only a part of what most long-term climate models are intended to reproduce/predict. And knowing the limitations of models is not a bad thing - it is the only way we can improve them. Moreover, the author seems to believe that models that were intended to represent broad global changes over the long-term should somehow be accepted for regional short-term "nationwide change” studies? Really? Are you sure about that?

You'll have to ask the real scientists who did the study, not the dumbass progs you get your cult talking points from.

So you are saying that you don't know. I could have told you that. All you had to do was ask.

And neither do you know. Nor will you be digging deeper into the study, because it's heresy.

Run along back to your echo chambers for comfort now.

 

[Kosh]

It is amazing to see how the AGW crowd just does not get it.

Plastics are made from petroleum.
Solar Cells are made from petroleum.
Both solar and Wind power can not create the energy needs to run the manufacturing sector.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy.

James Hanson is a very Biased scientist and uses voodoo science for activism.

 

[elektra]

Solar Panel Production creates more CO2 than using Coal to directly to produce electricity, to manufacture a Solar Panel first you need a coal plant to provide the massive amount of energy it takes to make Solar Panels, than you need cars and trucks and ships to transport the Solar Panels to the site, than you must start building the worlds largest in physical size Solar Electrical Power plant that produces just a tiny fraction of the electricity of a conventional electrical plant that is 10,000 times smaller.

How is it in the world of Green Energy the worlds largest in physical size solar plant can be stated that it is somehow using less natural resources than a conventional electrical power plant that is a fraction in size.

It is astonishing to think that people can ignore so much to make such absurd claims. But hell, you read it in the newspaper so it has to be true, right?

It is astonishing. How about a link to your reference? I'm curious what fixed quantity of electricity they think comes out of a solar panel.

Solar Panel manufacture is pretty complicated, one has to research CVD reactors.

Chemical Vapor Deposition

An inert gas such as hydrogen is bubbled through the liquid and by calculating the vapor pressure of the reactant and monitoring the flow rate of the hydro

So Hydrogen is used to make Solar Panels, who would of thought, and all our industrial Hydrogen gas comes from Petroleum production/natural gas.

Solar Panels can not be made without first using Fossil Energy, either for the electricity required in the process or for the gases required in CVD reactors.

Hydrogen gas is not accounted for when determining if and when a Solar Panel pays back the energy required to make said Solar Panel.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

CO2 a pollutant?

Why must Green Energy advocates and Global Warming advocates misuse, redefine or obfuscate the meaning of words.

Perhaps because they would have to then begin being honest about the rest of their rather communistic political agenda?

Just a guess.

 

[PredFan]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

Anyone stupid enough to post this nonsense is stupid enough to believe in made made global warming.

 

[elektra]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

It is not the Carbon Dioxide that will kill you, its the lack of Oxygen.

It amazing how people can live in an atmosphere that lacks intelligence.

 

[PredFan]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

It is not the Carbon Dioxide that will kill you, its the lack of Oxygen.

It amazing how people can live in an atmosphere that lacks intelligence.

Awesome!

 

[Old Rocks]

Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress

“There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.” That’s from a 2010 special issue on climate change and biodiversity from the UK’s Royal Society.
In 2011, a Nature Geoscience study found humans are spewing carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster now than 56 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a time of 10°F warming and mass extinction.
An even more ancient extinction is the subject of a new study in Science (subs. req’d), with the tongue-twister title, “Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province.”
As the MIT News release puts it:
Some 200 million years ago, an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming that killed off 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species on Earth.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

ThinkProgress.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.geobiology.net.cn/chaen/photo/2012-11-21/20121121161710991099.pdf

The smoking gun revealing the secrets of the end-Permian mass mortality is a unique 1-2-m-thick layer consisting of 5–20- cm-long crystals of calcite that occurs precisely at the Permian–Triassic boundary (PTB) in Iran, Armenia, Turkey, and China. This layer is interpreted as synsedimentary, abiotic, seafloor cement indicative of precipitation from a highly carbonate supersaturated seawater. Its d13C composition (d13C=0xPDB) is 4xto 5xPDB lower than the typical Upper Permian values (4xto 5xPDB), suggesting the involvement of massive amounts of gas hydrate CH4 (d13C=
60xPDB). The temporal coincidence of the cement layer with the PTB suggests that the process that promoted seafloor cementation was also responsible for the biological crisis. A cementation model is developed based on accumulation–dissociation cycle of gas hydrates which also explains the mass extinction at the PTB.

The Upper Permian accumulation period of gas hydrates ended abruptly adjacent to the PTB and the dissociation event began releasing 3.2 to 4.71018 g CH4 into the ocean. Oxidation of CH4 in the water column created a seawater that was charged with CO2 (an oceanic acid bath) and had lower than normal O2 content (but not anoxic). This oceanic acid bath first dissolved suspended fine-grained carbonate particles and small calcareous organisms, followed by extensive dissolution of platform carbonates raising Ca2 + and HCO3
concentrations of seawater. When the release of CH4 declined, the acid-bath ocean became a soda ocean precipitating massive amount of seafloor cements observed
globally at the PTB.

The study suggests that prior to cement precipitation, the PTB ocean was charged with CO2, warm, had low oxygen, high Ca2 +, and high HCO3
concentrations. These conditions collectively created stressful conditions causing the marine mass mortality. The leakage of CH4 to the atmosphere produced a super-hot climate resulting in the biological devastation on land. The proposed kill mechanism is developed on the basis of the physical clue—the cement layer—left behind by the killing process—the change in ocean chemistry.

 

[Old Rocks]

The end?Permian mass extinction: A rapid volcanic CO2 and CH4?climatic catastrophe - Chemical Geology - Tom 322-323, Numer Complete (2012) - Biblioteka Nauki - Yadda

Abstrakty
EN
The end of the Permian was a time of crisis that culminated in the Earth's greatest mass extinction. There is much speculation as to the cause for this catastrophe. Here we provide a full suite of high-resolution and coeval geochemical results (trace and rare earth elements, carbon, oxygen, strontium and clumped isotopes) reflecting ambient seawater chemistry and water quality parameters leading up to the end‐Permian crisis. Preserved brachiopod low-Mg calcite-based seawater chemistry, supplemented by data from various localities, documents a sequence of interrelated primary events such as coeval flows of Siberian Trap continental flood basalts and emission of carbon dioxide leading to warm and extreme Greenhouse conditions with sea surface temperatures (SST) of ~36°C for the Late Permian. Although anoxia has been advanced as a cause for the mass extinction, most biotic and geochemical evidence suggest that it was briefly relevant during the early phase of the event and only in areas of upwelling, but not a general cause. Instead, we suggest that renewed and increased end‐Permian Siberian Trap volcanic activity, about 2000years prior to the extinction event, released massive amounts of carbon dioxide and coupled with thermogenic methane emissions triggered extreme global warming and increased continental weathering. Eventually, these rapidly discharged greenhouse gas emissions, less than 1000years before the event, ushered in a global Hothouse period leading to extreme tropical SSTs of ~39°C and higher. Based on these sea surface temperatures, atmospheric CO 2 concentrations were about 1400ppmv and 3000ppmv for the Late and end‐Permian, respectively. Leading up to the mass extinction, there was a brief interruption of the global warming trend when SST dropped, concurrent with a slight, but significant recovery in biodiversity in the western Tethys. It is possible that emission of volcanic sulfate aerosols resulted in brief cooling just after the onset of intensified warming during the end of the Permian. After aerosol deposition, global warming resumed and the biotic decline proceeded, and was accompanied by suboxia, in places of the surface ocean which culminated in the greatest mass extinction in Earth history

 

[Old Rocks]

ThinkProgress.

The article quoated real scientific sources, unlike the conservative publications that quote frauds like Monkton and Watts.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Knowing how ThinkProgress rolls, the linked piece more than probably cherry picks, to peddle its clearly obvious socialist politics.

You may now resume your Spamming marathon.

 

[westwall]

Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species | ThinkProgress

“There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record.” That’s from a 2010 special issue on climate change and biodiversity from the UK’s Royal Society.
In 2011, a Nature Geoscience study found humans are spewing carbon into the atmosphere 10 times faster now than 56 million years ago, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a time of 10°F warming and mass extinction.
An even more ancient extinction is the subject of a new study in Science (subs. req’d), with the tongue-twister title, “Zircon U-Pb Geochronology Links the End-Triassic Extinction with the Central Atlantic Magmatic Province.”
As the MIT News release puts it:
Some 200 million years ago, an increase in atmospheric CO2 caused acidification of the oceans and global warming that killed off 76 percent of marine and terrestrial species on Earth.

And not one shred of physical evidence to support that theory. Plenty to show that cold did it. But none to show that CO2 had a damned thing to do with it. Think Progress. What a farce.

It is illustrative that you would link to a NAZI supporting group to push your climate BS though. Progressives, like the NAZI's they supported, are all about the control of people......usually by killing them. They're real easy to control then...

 

[westwall]

ThinkProgress.

The article quoated real scientific sources, unlike the conservative publications that quote frauds like Monkton and Watts.

Bullshit. they source "studies" that are exclusively generated by computer models. That's not science, that's science fiction.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

A lot of global warming deniers claim Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

I've got an experiment I'd like them to try.

I really want them to try this.

Put your head in a plastic bag and seal it off.

See how long you can live in an atmosphere of Carbon dioxide.

A very dumb "argument." Crystal clean clear pure water is a pollutant by that "logic," since if you breathe it you will die.

Or, maybe you'll say it isn't a "gas," as we don't breathe water, we drink it. Ok. Then just drink it and drink it and drink it. Eventually, you will die.

Too much of a good thing.

CO2 is a completely natural and VERY necessary atmospheric gas. But no, too much of it can injure us.

So, smileydon's "suggestion" remains nothing but stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

Strawman argument? I was not debating,

Actually, you were asking a question but forgot to add the question mark at the end. But your question assumes that CO2 is not a pollutant, which is incorrect.



While it is true that the manufacturing process requires energy, it doesn't not require that energy derived from carbon be that source.



On the contrary, solar power have never been less expensive, and will only become cheaper as more facilities come online. Moreover, it will ALWAYS be less polluting than any other source, and that is something you apparently choose to ignore.



Not really. The energy source is free, and doesn't pollute.



Using coal and oil as an energy source, though convenient, has always be extremely wasteful and polluting. There are far better uses of these products than energy production.



What is pure nonsense, and stupid is the notion that we must use fossil fuel-derived energy to make solar panels. The energy can come from any source, such as hydroelectric, wind, or even - wait for it - solar panels.



What you willfully ignore is the fact that solar panel energy production produces little, if any, CO2 emissions, and can be made virtually CO2 - free by taking carbon energy completely out of the production cycle.

Misuse of words, obfuscating facts, outright lies, fraud, all to convince Americans that CO2 is a pollutant and Green Energy does not stink.

You are confusing what we do with what you are doing. Why am I not surprised?

I did not forget a question mark, nowhere is it required that a question mark be utilized while writing a question, if that is what you think it is easy to see how you became confused. A question can be a statement,

I see you failed grammar in school. Be that as it may, you are right about one thing - it wasn't a real question. It was a meaningless rhetorical question that didn't really require a response. I just thought I would point that out.

You state we can use any source including solar power to make solar panels yet we do not,

Well, dear, considering that the industry is still very young, I'd say stay tuned.

Solar Power just does not create the sustainable energy at a great enough level. That simple fact is admitted by the scientists and producers of Solar Energy, I guess nobody got around to cut/pasting for you to understand.

No one is denying that it takes a mix of energy sources to power an efficient energy grid (no one but the pro-carbon folk, that is).