Climate Change is a fad.

Mar 2015
30,370
15,765
Mad Prophet
Co2 is NOT a pollutant.
It's a pollutant, it is being omitted by the burning fossil fuels so yes, it's a pollutant. Not all pollutants are poisonous chemicals.

If you introduced enough of this "non-pollutant" into the atmosphere, would it be harmful?

Would it effect the earths temperature?

 
Last edited:
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
I'm guessing THIS is your idea of rational discussion?
Oh, you mean telling people that disagree with you are "climate deniers" (a reference to the crime of holocaust denial), shills for oil companies, and worse is rational?

The AGW topic is fundamentally irrational.

The objectively reproducible aspect of AGW ends when you go beyond the fact that 2 bottles left in the sun where the only difference is co2 concentration, the co2 bottle will get warmer than the other.

Even the energy transfer that can be observed with FLIR footage of an actual greenhouse disproves the AGW theory by proving that the energy transfer does not even match what the AGW theorists claim.

In other words, the climate alarmists are not even describing how a greenhouse works accurately, nevermind the issues that arise when trying to scale up to a global "greenhouse".

... By labeling people who recognize global warming "cultists?" Do YOU like being called a cultist? I would imagine that you don't, I wouldn't.
The point is to be offensive so that it forces people to think.

However, it is fact that the AGW models use a flat earth model with a height map to represent the atmosphere. It IS NOT a model of a ball spinning in space, spinning around a sun. I don't expect you to like it, I expect you to deny it kicking and screaming rather than finding out that AGW is based on a flat earth.

Excess carbon in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. This is irrefutable, but my guess is that you are arguing that it isn't a huge problem and that it isn't the actual cause of the earth warming and that the earth warming is indeed temporary? Again, not arguing with you right now, just attempting to understand your position.
No, it is CALLED irrefutable so that the people that refute it can be labelled as "climate deniers." Water vapour has a stronger impact on temperatures orders of magnitude greater than CO2, to the degree that when charting it out, CO2 is negligible. It is treated as a 0 in the equations.

The problem is that water vapour is a function of relative temperatures, barometric pressure and available water, therefore cannot be blamed on human activity. Co2, on the other hand, is a nutrient required for life. Meaning that control over co2 becomes control over all human activity.

If you want to understand my position, you may need to brush up on physics since my position is rooted in physics.

How does my position make me a flat-earther? Because I believe in Science? That's a pretty weak argument.
It makes you a (unknowing) flat earther because AGW theory requires a flat earth model to create its predictions (which have a 40+ year track record of failures). You don't "believe in science" that's religious talk, like "I believe in God" belief is irrelevant. What matters is objective data, hard facts, replicable formulas, instead of the "science" you "believe" which is a closed book, you can't get the source code for the models. Those wanting to find out how their math works have to get textbooks on the subject and test the equations with available data (which the groups involved have been caught numerous times manipulating).
 
Mar 2015
30,370
15,765
Mad Prophet
Oh, you mean telling people that disagree with you are "climate deniers" (a reference to the crime of holocaust denial), shills for oil companies, and worse is rational?

The AGW topic is fundamentally irrational.

The objectively reproducible aspect of AGW ends when you go beyond the fact that 2 bottles left in the sun where the only difference is co2 concentration, the co2 bottle will get warmer than the other.

Even the energy transfer that can be observed with FLIR footage of an actual greenhouse disproves the AGW theory by proving that the energy transfer does not even match what the AGW theorists claim.

In other words, the climate alarmists are not even describing how a greenhouse works accurately, nevermind the issues that arise when trying to scale up to a global "greenhouse".


The point is to be offensive so that it forces people to think.

However, it is fact that the AGW models use a flat earth model with a height map to represent the atmosphere. It IS NOT a model of a ball spinning in space, spinning around a sun. I don't expect you to like it, I expect you to deny it kicking and screaming rather than finding out that AGW is based on a flat earth.
You are posting nonsense. There is no reason for you to label anyone a "cultist" beyond your own underwhelming ignorance.

No, it is CALLED irrefutable so that the people that refute it can be labelled as "climate deniers." Water vapour has a stronger impact on temperatures orders of magnitude greater than CO2, to the degree that when charting it out, CO2 is negligible. It is treated as a 0 in the equations.
WHAT?!? Treated as zero by whom?

The problem is that water vapour is a function of relative temperatures, barometric pressure and available water, therefore cannot be blamed on human activity. Co2, on the other hand, is a nutrient required for life. Meaning that control over co2 becomes control over all human activity.
Co2 is readily found in the exhaust of fossil fuels. Why are you denying that it is produced by human activity and claiming that the effect of co2 is negligible? That's both contradictory and wrong by all accounts.

If you want to understand my position, you may need to brush up on physics since my position is rooted in physics.
You aren't a physicist so why are you making this is a stipulation to having a discussion? I need to brush up on physics? No, you do, because co2 IS produced by man and yes, it does cause a greenhouse effect when too much of it is pumped into the atmosphere, Mr. Einstein.

It makes you a (unknowing) flat earther because AGW theory requires a flat earth model to create its predictions (which have a 40+ year track record of failures). You don't "believe in science" that's religious talk, like "I believe in God" belief is irrelevant. What matters is objective data, hard facts, replicable formulas, instead of the "science" you "believe" which is a closed book, you can't get the source code for the models. Those wanting to find out how their math works have to get textbooks on the subject and test the equations with available data (which the groups involved have been caught numerous times manipulating).
LMAO. Yes, I'm a flat-earther. Correct.

I DO NOT believe that science is a closed book, it's an open book subject to new data and research that continually demonstrates whether theories are valid. Laws of physics are not theories, they are LAWS.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
It's a pollutant, it is being omitted by the burning fossil fuels so yes, it's a pollutant. Not all pollutants are poisonous chemicals.
No, BY DEFINITION Co2 is NOT a pollutant. You can redefine words, doesn't change anything though. It's just lying to yourself.


If you introduced enough of this "non-pollutant" into the atmosphere, would it be harmful?
I gave the numbers, 50X current Co2 levels and it would become a "pollutant." Of course, by the time you got half way there, plants would be growing many times their current size and absorbing the CO2 even faster.

Would it effect the earths temperature?
The earths climate is a complex and interdependent system, can't give a simple yes / no.


See, even in this video, that is NOT how energy transfer works in a greenhouse.

Solar rays enter, yes. A fraction of that energy bounces back, yes.

The main heating process is the solar rays hit the surface, the energy NOT reflected is absorbed into the material making it warmer. That warming surface then through conduction heats the air and contacting materials. The warmed air then starts convecting as warm air rises and cooler air takes its place. Since the inside air is locked inside, this process warms the inside air more than the outside air.

Like I said, even the energy flow that can be observed with FLIR footage is contradicted by AGW theory.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
This is Tetrafluoroethane:

View attachment 27652

It is a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) and haloalkane refrigerant with thermodynamic properties similar to R-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane) but with insignificant ozone depletion potential and a significantly lower global warming potential (1,430, compared to R-12's GWP of 10,900).[2] It has the formula CH2FCF3 and a boiling point of −26.3 °C (−15.34 °F) at atmospheric pressure.

This is Chlorodifluoromethane or difluoromonochloromethane:

View attachment 27653

It is a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC).

R-22 is prepared from chloroform:

HCCl3 + 2 HF → HCF2Cl + 2 HCl


These two chemicals have different properties even though they have similar composition.
Right, but most are not that savvy. Look at the aerosol sprays, not dupont, even if dupont is funding this whole thing.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
You are posting nonsense. There is no reason for you to label anyone a "cultist" beyond your own underwhelming ignorance.
Weren't you claiming to want a rational discussion? Hard to do when you deny the objectively verifiable elements of your theories.

What part am I ignorant on? Come on, don't just make empty claims as veiled insults, prove your case.

WHAT?!? Treated as zero by whom?


Engineers, scientists who take the measurements that build into the psychometric charts. It's actually so close to negligible that even in special cases, like mining operations, it's more accurate to just create a chart for the increased CO2 than it is to apply a corrective factor.

Co2 is readily found in the exhaust of fossil fuels. Why are you denying that it is produced by human activity and claiming that the effect of co2 is negligible? That's contradictory.
You are conflating multiple issues to make your point.

You aren't a physicist so why are you making this is a stipulation to having a discussion? I need to brush up on physics? No, you do, because co2 IS produced by man and yes, it does cause a greenhouse effect when too much of it is pumped into the atmosphere, Mr. Einstein.
No, I'm just an engineer, describing to you the physical processes.

You do not understand the physics involved and so you are repeating the propaganda.

LMAO. Yes, I'm a flat-earther. Correct.

I DO NOT believe that science is a closed book, it's an open book subject to new data and research that continually demonstrates whether theories are valid. Laws of physics are not theories, they are LAWS.
Then why do you label those who try and open the book as "deniers"?
 

Blueneck

Former Staff
Jun 2007
55,603
43,404
Ohio
I'm going to start at the end, you called my words "garbled" as a way to act dismissive when you cannot address the argument. So, I checked the spelling and grammar, there was a singular grammatical error noted. So, don't project your illiteracy onto other people. Pretending to be stupid is NOT the way to try and look smart, it has the opposite effect.
You are failing at making your case that reining in on other kinds of pollution is a separate issue.

It's all connected. The problem with coal, for example, isn't just the amount of carbon it creates when burned for fuel. It's creates "regular" pollution when it's mined, processed, burned and the leftover ash is toxic AF. All good reasons for it to be replaced by cleaner energy sources.

What is your basis for this position?
I grew up in SoCal and I remember going to visit relatives in LA and they lived right next to mountains, but you couldn't see them because the smog was so thick. Government regulations on emissions and enforcement of those regulations lead to air quality improving greatly. Scrubbers mandated by governments on coal fired power plants cut the advance of acid rain. Also seat belt laws saved lives, incentives for people to buy fuel efficient and electric vehicles lead to more of them being on the road and to the technology of batteries improving because auto makers invested in a market they knew would be there.

People on the right think if they just lower their expectations of corporate standards in creating change that eventually they will decide to be good citizens all by themselves, but it's all of our right to speed the process up to mitigate the damage they cause while waiting for technology to advance where we no longer rely on filthy, non-renewable energy.

The only truth in this is if you are explicitly referring to military innovation.
What's good for the military isn't necessarily good for the environment, but yes, there are times when they stumble on to beneficial things while researching improving the death machine. Drones are used for good as well as evil.

If you are going to try and insult me, at least have the integrity to read what you are insulting first.

Co2 is NOT a pollutant. NOT a pollutant. It is a NUTRIENT. The LC50 for co2 is around 20 000 ppm, atmospheric average is around 400 ppm. That's 50 times the atmospheric concentrations. For perspective with all CO2 machines have produced, the last 120 years we have added about 60 ppm that's a 15% change when the change you are implying requires 5000% change.
And you're ignoring my point entirely. If you just focused on limiting regular pollution, it would wind up lowering carbon emissions as well. The two things are not exclusive.

Yes, fossil fuels ALSO contain some pollution; the sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, heavy metals, etc... the interesting thing is that facilities are required to filter those things out to the best the technology will allow (most smoke stacks are really only pumping out water vapour and CO2)
You're talking about coal? See:

Coal Power Impacts

It's the developing world that produces many times the actual pollution and releases it in the atmosphere, by actual pollution AND in terms of CO2. The solution would be to industrialize the third world, not return the first world to third world status.
Or we could limit tax breaks to US companies that insist on "developing" countries by building coal fired power plants, etc. Also, I'm pretty sure that per capita, the US still has the biggest energy suckage, but I'm not going to argue with you. Also you're not addressing that countries like China and India are moving much quicker than the US in transforming into greener economies.

You know those fancy light bulbs that save energy, they each contain a lethal dose of mercury. As in, you break the bulb, environmental standards call for a hazmat team for cleanup.
You're talking about CFL bulbs, LED contains no mercury:

LED (light emitting diode) lighting does seem to be the wave of the future right now, given the mercury content and light quality issues with the current king-of-the-hill of green bulbs, the compact fluorescent (CFL). LEDs use significantly less energy than even CFLs, and do not contain mercury. And they are becoming economically competitive with CFLs at the point of purchase while yielding superior quality lighting and energy bill savings down the line.
The article does go on to state :

But LEDs do have a dark side. A study published in late 2010 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology found that LEDs contain lead, arsenic and a dozen other potentially dangerous substances. LEDs are touted as the next generation of lighting,” says Oladele Ogunseitan, one of the researchers behind the study and chair of the University of California (UC)-Irvine’s Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention. “But as we try to find better products that do not deplete energy resources or contribute to global warming, we have to be vigilant [about] toxicity hazards….”
But it's an article from 2012, so I don't know if that issue has been addressed or not. But honestly if a light bulb lasts ten years, the amount of pollution contained within it would have little impact on the environment.

The Dark Side of LED Lightbulbs

Yes, I was in school at the time. It wasn't until years later where I found out that that had more to do with Dupont. Their patent on the R-22 refrigerant was expiring and they needed to modify the laws to prevent competitors from using their chemical formula, so they could get their patent on R-134 created. Which actually contains the same chemicals that are damaging to the ozone...
From National Geographic:

Recognition of the harmful effects of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances led to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987, a landmark agreement to phase out those substances that has been ratified by all 197 UN member countries. Without the pact, the U.S. would have seen an additional 280 million cases of skin cancer, 1.5 million skin cancer deaths, and 45 million cataracts—and the world would be at least 25 percent hotter.

More than 30 years after the Montreal Protocol, NASA scientists documented the first direct proof that Antarctic ozone is recovering because of the CFC phase-down: Ozone depletion in the region has declined 20 percent since 2005. And at the end of 2018, the United Nations confirmed in a scientific assessment that the ozone layer is recovering, projecting that it would heal completely in the (non-polar) Northern Hemisphere by the 2030s, followed by the Southern Hemisphere in the 2050s and polar regions by 2060.
And the effect on people's lifestyles was minimal. See how this works? You recognize a problem, analyze it, and put into practice solutions and the next thing you know you're making progress. Conservatives complain about any imposition on their lifestyle and blow it completely out of proportion while saying "It won't do any good anyway". It's never worth it to you guys. Thank God modern day conservatives weren't running shit back when the Dust Bowl was ravaging the country. We'd all be sitting under a huge mountain of dirt right now. :rolleyes:


Yes, and LED lights are now being produced AT the theoretical maximum efficiency. However, that's a third topic now. AGW, pollution and energy efficiency. And as noted, it's not without its own set of problems.
It's not a third topic. It's all the same topic, why don't you get that? Energy efficiency is a good idea for a thousand OTHER reasons besides climate change, so why can't we just pretend we're just attacking those OTHER problems and you won't have to dig your heels in so hard because you don't want Al Gore to win.

Until the solar energy conversion rate reaches over 60% for panels at the same cost as today, solar power is not suitable except for on an individual level where a person can invest in 5k worth of car batteries to hold enough power to last overnight (based on averages, and applicable across the globe, not just in geographically specific regions).
And ten years ago, was it better or worse? It's called progress and if we give up we'll never see the advances that could be made and the benefits it could reap. I'm sure every patient who's volunteered for experimental treatments for any disease you could think of was told by some well meaning people to not bother because the chance of a cure was too far in the future and the side effects weren't worth it.

Science will make advances only if we allow it to. So relax and let these people do their work and quit railing against people who are looking to make the future a cleaner place.

I'm not, that's something you've been programmed to believe, that anyone who wants a responsible energy policy is just a shill for the oil companies. Sorry, but I have a realistic perspective on the pros and cons of these technologies, and if the agw cult had their way, their solutions would cause the deaths of billions because of their short-sightedness.
Or maybe you're just programmed to be cynical by these kinds of people:



And keep in mind the rollbacks on pollution Trump has achieved are us going backwards. I don't want drastic changes to my lifestyle, but for crying out loud can stop going the wrong direction?