Printable View
Global warming has nought to do with environmental damage, pollution etc.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It has not been proven to raise the earth's temperature, and temperature fluxes have occurred before in earth's history.
Global warming via man is not proven, and is used as an excuse to impose socialistic regulations on the economy.
CR
CO2 is recognized as a green house gas, so it is safe to assume that increased amounts of CO2 leads to increased temperatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Increased presence of CO2 is the leading theory to explain the global warming that we can discern from looking at the temperature recordings from more than a hundred years back in time. By continuing the releases of CO2 we are conducting an experiment on our own atmosphere, and ulitimately upon ourselves, whose final outcome we have only vague ideas of.
*Hides under the table*Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Which conservative is willing to take the bait?
~:rolleyes:Quote:
CO2 is not a pollutant.
CO2 is a pollutant , simple as that:yes:
(or would you like the less simple version that shows you are competely wrong ?):laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Ah, that must be why plants need it to live.
CR
So because plants need it to live you think it isn't a pollutant :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Ah, that must be why plants need it to live.
Oh dear Rabbit you really should think before you try and make silly claims .
Yes it is :yes:Quote:
CO2 is not a pollutant.
"Warming Period of the Middle Ages" anyone? Despite what you may try and dig up, I doubt you'll be able to find a shred of evidence that the people of the Middle Ages were major produces of greenhouse gases.
There are many factors that can lead to climate changes. The greenhouse effect is one of them; you cannot dispute that simple fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Plants also need light but that does not prevent us from having terms like Light pollution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If the scientists are indeed correct about its impact then its certainly fair to call CO2 a pollutant.
CBR
Then very breathing animal is a polluter since we all release CO2 as part of the breathing process.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Yes CR CO2 released by factories is considered a pollution because its far beyond the normal process of life.
One important factor for the stock market increase is inflation. So can we have inflation and a stock market decrease?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You're aware that there's multivarible analysis tools these days right? :inquisitive:
FYI, CO2 is poisonous in higher concentrations. Admittably, reaching those concentrations in the atmosphere is pretty hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Did you know that CO2:s greenhouse effect was discovered in 1859 and that the estimations on man made CO2 increase by 100% (2x more CO2 than from the start) at 1896 was 5-6 degrees warmer climate?
See, those socialists have worked with this cunning plan for over 100 years :laugh4:
A simple experiment should be sufficient to show correctness of the thoughts on CO2 ....what happens if you increase CO2 levels in a greenhouse ?Quote:
If the scientists are indeed correct about its impact then its certainly fair to call CO2 a pollutant.
Or to take it further , use this....and ask what is the effect of increased CO2 levels on the breathing process of animals ?(you could use the greenhouse example again:idea2: )Quote:
Then very breathing animal is a polluter since we all release CO2 as part of the breathing process.
and finish by taking this...and asking what are the regulations on exposure to CO2 in factories and during industrial processess that produce CO2 ?Quote:
Yes CR CO2 released by factories is considered a pollution because its far beyond the normal process of life.
why are there limits if it isn't a pollutant ? after all its good for plants so it can't be bad .
Soooooo.......yes it is a pollutant Rabbit , simple as that :yes:
Really, apart from global warming, the big reason why CO2 can be considered a pollutant is because if mixed with water, it forms H2CO4 (carbonic acid). Increased atmospheric consetrations means this reaction will become more common and that the ocean will thus get lower a pH, which is certainly not a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
It's H2CO3*, but yeah that's one effect that will happen and is already happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I suspect that's the thing that kills you of CO2 poisoning aswell, but haven't seen anything more than that it isn't the O2 loss that's lethal.
I will paraphrase off of this and say that people might be mixing up weather and climate. Warming during an inter-glacial period does not mean we will get searing hot winters and be able to sit on the terrace with a parasol over us on Christmas Day in Quebec (sorry, couldn't resist :laugh4:). Likewise, it doesn't mean we can't still get freak weather and be putting the family jewels into cryo-genic stasis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Weather cycles won't change so much to create either of these circumstances, and freak weather still happens. If they did change this much, though, we'd be screwed anyway. Over 250,000,000 years ago, we had Pangaea - the supercontinent. And we had the Permian-Triassic extinction. Pangaea was a massive desert at that point, and although some life survived there, a lot died due to massive global warming. 90% or so. I'd quote Wikipedia, but it's not the best source...and I don't have any books at hand. A large amount of life died out, though, if we skip figures.
If we had winters where it was 30 degress Celsius and more, then we probably wouldn't actually be having this debate. Such extremes can't simply happen just like that. There are all so many factors. Politicians, the media, and scientists like sensationalising the issue for their own vested interests. Me? I'd like Humanity to behave for once and stop messing about with the planet like it's a toy, I don't care for monetary wealth or power.
I think all Humanity really needs to do is stop polluting this planet, regardless of whether we are increasing warming. Then, we need to accept we are over-populated. Then, we also need to accept that global warming and cooling happens, regardless of whether we want it to or not. Ice ages and inter-glacial periods are the way of the world, vital to the cycle of life and death. I'd go as far as saying that we shouldn't try to affect the course of either of these events beyond any contribution we might be making - we don't know what we're messing with, and we'll probably screw something up in the long term if not the short. People always have to peck away and mess with things...
Oi, that is correct; H2CO4 is purely hypothetical. The reaction is already happenening, that's what I ment by it becomming more common; though that is an unaccurate term. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Lowered body pH? :inquisitive:Quote:
I suspect that's the thing that kills you of CO2 poisoning aswell, but haven't seen anything more than that it isn't the O2 loss that's lethal.
In the "famous" accident in Lake Nyos in Cameroon, the CO2 released from the lake replaced the normal air since it is heavier, thus leaving no oxygen left.
Then it should be H4CO4. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Your blood uses CO2 as a pH-buffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
The nausea caused by hyperventilation and holding your breath is because of the changed CO2 levels BTW, not oxygen content.
Too much CO2 in the blood is called hypercapnia, hypercarbia and the acidic blood due to this is called respiratory acidosis. Better google-fu this time.
7-10% is lethal (no matter the oxygen content), while above 1-2% will start to be increasingly uncomfortable.