Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global Warming

Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 7:43:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since this website doesn't have a fairy tale section, I decided that I would post this here. Someone give me a good reason that global warming is real, and if it is real, that you can prove we are causing it. Using Al Gore's movie doesn't count as evidence since he says a lot of stuff that is incorrect in the movie.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 9:03:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now this is a story all about how
environmentalism got flipped-turned upside down
And I liked to take a minute just sit right there
And tell you how people got worried about a load of hot air

External force is the first point I'd like to raise
Greenhouse gases have been used for most of my days
Water vapour, CFCs, you may think are cool,
Just remember what you were taught inside of school
When a couple of guys who were up to no good
Started using CFCs in my neighborhood
The gases rise up and form one thick layer
And scientists say "Dis gonna' heat up dat atmosphere"

We Begged and pleaded with them day after day,
But they showed us the data and sent us on our way
We thought real hard and said "hey thats the ticket"
"What if it wasn't us dudes who did it?"

Anthropogenic, yo this is bad
Stop just minute lets not get mad
Can we blame this hot air on some other sh1te?

Hmm that may be allright
But wait I hear solar variation and all that
Is this the kinda argument we sshould use to be phat?
Nerds say, no man you gotta prepare
They hope we're ready for a load of hot air

Well ah thebomb shell and when the people came out
And said "too hard to something, I'd rather do nowt"
Environmentalist were whiners when they first got here
Lets say its just bogus, then they'll dissapear
We threw up our hands and said the solutions near
So they went for the ad hominum, and called us queer
If anything I can say this farce isn't rare
But I thought naw forget its a load of hot-Air

and so I have SUVs, about 7 or 8
And I don't think I have time for this stupid ddebate
I looked at my country, It was finally there
Our lives had been ruined by a load of hot air

(This took me half an hour, buts haters feel free to hate)
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 3:07:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know this probably doesn't pertain too much to this discussion but...

Global warming or not, if you don't think we should be concerned with the environment that we are forced to live in, you are probably a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

At the same time, if you need global warming to scare you into being concerned about the environment you live in, you are probably also a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

Things have only gotten better since coal plants stopped pumping soot all over the place and into our lungs... Our lakes are a lot more fun to swim in, and safer to drink from since they stopped dumping waste into them(don't drink from Lake Michigan unless it has been filtered, or your IQ will probably go down 5 points).. Our air is a lot nicer to breathe when we started regulating the emission of vehicles.

So global warming or not, I'm all for making our environment a less lousy place to live by being a little greener in our activities.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2011 7:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
lol @ this thread.

extremely_far_right are you supposed to be a parody of some kind or are you just that stereotypical?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:09:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 9:03:47 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Now this is a story all about how
environmentalism got flipped-turned upside down
And I liked to take a minute just sit right there
And tell you how people got worried about a load of hot air

External force is the first point I'd like to raise
Greenhouse gases have been used for most of my days
Water vapour, CFCs, you may think are cool,
Just remember what you were taught inside of school
When a couple of guys who were up to no good
Started using CFCs in my neighborhood
The gases rise up and form one thick layer
And scientists say "Dis gonna' heat up dat atmosphere"

We Begged and pleaded with them day after day,
But they showed us the data and sent us on our way
We thought real hard and said "hey thats the ticket"
"What if it wasn't us dudes who did it?"

Anthropogenic, yo this is bad
Stop just minute lets not get mad
Can we blame this hot air on some other sh1te?

Hmm that may be allright
But wait I hear solar variation and all that
Is this the kinda argument we sshould use to be phat?
Nerds say, no man you gotta prepare
They hope we're ready for a load of hot air

Well ah thebomb shell and when the people came out
And said "too hard to something, I'd rather do nowt"
Environmentalist were whiners when they first got here
Lets say its just bogus, then they'll dissapear
We threw up our hands and said the solutions near
So they went for the ad hominum, and called us queer
If anything I can say this farce isn't rare
But I thought naw forget its a load of hot-Air

and so I have SUVs, about 7 or 8
And I don't think I have time for this stupid ddebate
I looked at my country, It was finally there
Our lives had been ruined by a load of hot air

(This took me half an hour, buts haters feel free to hate)

Naw homes, smell you later...
no comment
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:12:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Evidence for first claim. Spring comes after Winter.

Evidence of the second claim is a bit more problematic.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:14:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
waitaminnit, that's hemiglobal warming. Ah well, global warming can use the damn graphs. Causation still can't tho.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 1:23:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 3:07:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know this probably doesn't pertain too much to this discussion but...


Global warming or not, if you don't think we should be concerned with the environment that we are forced to live in, you are probably a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

At the same time, if you need global warming to scare you into being concerned about the environment you live in, you are probably also a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

Things have only gotten better since coal plants stopped pumping soot all over the place and into our lungs... Our lakes are a lot more fun to swim in, and safer to drink from since they stopped dumping waste into them(don't drink from Lake Michigan unless it has been filtered, or your IQ will probably go down 5 points).. Our air is a lot nicer to breathe when we started regulating the emission of vehicles.

So global warming or not, I'm all for making our environment a less lousy place to live by being a little greener in our activities.

That's pretty much how I look at it - although there is no reason to doubt the science behind GCC at this point, there is every reason to believe that
a) we are damaging the environment.
b) we do not understand the full implications of our combined mass effects on the planet and they are only shown to be worse than we expected at every new level of realization.

Most GCC mitigation involves things we should be doing anyway.
no comment
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 4:22:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 7:28:42 PM, belle wrote:
lol @ this thread.

extremely_far_right are you supposed to be a parody of some kind or are you just that stereotypical?

I figured a parody, hence my response.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 11:24:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 7:28:42 PM, belle wrote:
lol @ this thread.

extremely_far_right are you supposed to be a parody of some kind or are you just that stereotypical?

Yes, I am actually that far right, with some exceptions to abortion and that is about it.
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 11:27:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
no...hes real.....trust me
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 11:33:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 1:23:47 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/17/2011 3:07:29 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I know this probably doesn't pertain too much to this discussion but...


Global warming or not, if you don't think we should be concerned with the environment that we are forced to live in, you are probably a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

At the same time, if you need global warming to scare you into being concerned about the environment you live in, you are probably also a wanker, and Captain Planet would not be amused.

Things have only gotten better since coal plants stopped pumping soot all over the place and into our lungs... Our lakes are a lot more fun to swim in, and safer to drink from since they stopped dumping waste into them(don't drink from Lake Michigan unless it has been filtered, or your IQ will probably go down 5 points).. Our air is a lot nicer to breathe when we started regulating the emission of vehicles.

So global warming or not, I'm all for making our environment a less lousy place to live by being a little greener in our activities.

That's pretty much how I look at it - although there is no reason to doubt the science behind GCC at this point, there is every reason to believe that
a) we are damaging the environment.
b) we do not understand the full implications of our combined mass effects on the planet and they are only shown to be worse than we expected at every new level of realization.

Most GCC mitigation involves things we should be doing anyway.

First, you are unclear on the specifics on how we are exactly damaging the environment.
Second, who is to say that everything we do to the environment is bad? Yes, it is true that we don't understand the full implications of our combined mass effects on the planet as you said, but on the other hand, its also true that we do not know everything about the atmosphere. You also mentioned that "they are only shown to be worse than we expected at every new level of realization." Some scientists have said that given the very nature of global warming and what its effects do, it will actually make the Earth more green. What do plants need to grow? Sunlight correct? If global warming is indeed real, then that would accelerate plant growth by nearly up to 40% in certain areas.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My stance on Global Warming isn't strong in either direction, due to how politicized it is, but I tend to be skeptical of the alarmist position. It's difficult to find an objective voice to trust. I will say, however, that the whole "carbon credits" (i.e. tithing for the sins against Mother Nature) is one of the most hypocritical scams employed by the profiteers who publicly denounce predatory capitalism, while silently approving of it.

I will also say that Al Gore is a scumbag piece of sh*t who nefariously misrepresented data. He's not alone in that, either.

I believe there is probably some room to argue that a measure of anthropogenic global warming is due to humans, but that it is grossly overstated. It might be a completely natural and cyclical occurrence and it might be anthropogenically related. Either way I would say, in defense of global warming alarmists, that caring for the enivronment isn't, in and of itself, a bad idea.

I, like most of you, just want the truth on the matter, and it is a shame that it's been so polarized.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 3:03:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Since the 90s the IPCC guys have cited some 20+ computer models that predict global warming. We are now about six degrees below the median prediction. Temperatures have been bouncing along at the bottom edge of the range of predictions, sometimes within the lower bound, sometimes below it.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it is causing some warming. I don't know of any skeptical scientist who doubts that piece of physics. The global warming "crisis" was predicted using a multiplying effect from warming putting more water vapor into the atmosphere. Water vapor has always been the dominant green house gas. The multiplication is the part that doesn't seem to be holding up. Global temperature s very sensitive to cloud cover, and a mere 3% reduction in cloud cover would account for all the global warming. Similarly, a small increase in cloud cover would offset it.

My perception is that most climate scientists now agree it's best to go back to the drawing boards and try to figure out how climate really works.

Global warming is an issue independent of concerns over pollution. I haven't heard anyone claim that acid rain is in doubt or a good thing.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 3:08:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 9:03:47 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Now this is a story all about how
environmentalism got flipped-turned upside down
And I liked to take a minute just sit right there
And tell you how people got worried about a load of hot air

External force is the first point I'd like to raise
Greenhouse gases have been used for most of my days
Water vapour, CFCs, you may think are cool,
Just remember what you were taught inside of school
When a couple of guys who were up to no good
Started using CFCs in my neighborhood
The gases rise up and form one thick layer
And scientists say "Dis gonna' heat up dat atmosphere"

We Begged and pleaded with them day after day,
But they showed us the data and sent us on our way
We thought real hard and said "hey thats the ticket"
"What if it wasn't us dudes who did it?"

Anthropogenic, yo this is bad
Stop just minute lets not get mad
Can we blame this hot air on some other sh1te?

Hmm that may be allright
But wait I hear solar variation and all that
Is this the kinda argument we sshould use to be phat?
Nerds say, no man you gotta prepare
They hope we're ready for a load of hot air

Well ah thebomb shell and when the people came out
And said "too hard to something, I'd rather do nowt"
Environmentalist were whiners when they first got here
Lets say its just bogus, then they'll dissapear
We threw up our hands and said the solutions near
So they went for the ad hominum, and called us queer
If anything I can say this farce isn't rare
But I thought naw forget its a load of hot-Air

and so I have SUVs, about 7 or 8
And I don't think I have time for this stupid ddebate
I looked at my country, It was finally there
Our lives had been ruined by a load of hot air

(This took me half an hour, buts haters feel free to hate)

I enjoyed this a lot. Anything put to the tune of the Fresh Prince is automatically convincing.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 8:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 12:25:42 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
My stance on Global Warming isn't strong in either direction, due to how politicized it is, but I tend to be skeptical of the alarmist position. It's difficult to find an objective voice to trust. I will say, however, that the whole "carbon credits" (i.e. tithing for the sins against Mother Nature) is one of the most hypocritical scams employed by the profiteers who publicly denounce predatory capitalism, while silently approving of it.

I will also say that Al Gore is a scumbag piece of sh*t who nefariously misrepresented data. He's not alone in that, either.

I believe there is probably some room to argue that a measure of anthropogenic global warming is due to humans, but that it is grossly overstated. It might be a completely natural and cyclical occurrence and it might be anthropogenically related. Either way I would say, in defense of global warming alarmists, that caring for the enivronment isn't, in and of itself, a bad idea.

I, like most of you, just want the truth on the matter, and it is a shame that it's been so polarized.

That is actually very close to my stance on global warming, this warming that is occurring right now, could merely be another heat wave that we have seen in the past before.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 10:45:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Roy said:

Global warming is an issue independent of concerns over pollution.

The first thing to understand about pollution is the very opposite of this. The world is one system, with every part interrelated in ways we may never fully understand. Every time we do as you say and isolate a pollutive effect in order to be neatly figured out in some capitalistic cost-benefit analysis, we are able to arrive at our numbers precisely by eliminating costs that escape our narrow constraints on time and space.
no comment
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:44:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll take anyone up on a debate about global warming is real.

resolution: The early stages of global warming are happening, and are more likely then not accelerated by the actions of mankind.

mankind - the human race as a whole, not individuals, or small groups.

global warming - the heating of the earth's average tempurature over an extended period of time. Can be caused by several different causes. For this debate, would be going off of the effects of green house gases.

accelerated - increasing the speed or rate of which something happens. In this case, refering to increasing, though the mathematical term "accelerate" actually applies to both increasing speed and decreasing speed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:15:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 10:45:55 AM, Caramel wrote:
Roy said:

Global warming is an issue independent of concerns over pollution.

The first thing to understand about pollution is the very opposite of this. The world is one system, with every part interrelated in ways we may never fully understand. Every time we do as you say and isolate a pollutive effect in order to be neatly figured out in some capitalistic cost-benefit analysis, we are able to arrive at our numbers precisely by eliminating costs that escape our narrow constraints on time and space.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for plant growth and hence necessary for all life. Plants grow better with more CO2, and humans and animals are not affected until levels much higher than would be the case if all the carbon in the world were in the atmosphere.

The everything-affects-everything argument is true in some abstract way, but it does say a thing about what is significant. If you open your front door, there is no doubt some theoretical affect from that action on penguins in the Antarctic, but it's negligible. The only way to escape cost-benefit analysis is to remove all the humans -- but wait, that also eliminates the benefits potentially accrued by saving species from purely natural environmental change. Lack of humans didn't stop dinosaurs from going extinct.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:33:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/17/2011 9:03:47 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Now this is a story all about how
environmentalism got flipped-turned upside down
And I liked to take a minute just sit right there
And tell you how people got worried about a load of hot air

External force is the first point I'd like to raise
Greenhouse gases have been used for most of my days
Water vapour, CFCs, you may think are cool,
Just remember what you were taught inside of school
When a couple of guys who were up to no good
Started using CFCs in my neighborhood
The gases rise up and form one thick layer
And scientists say "Dis gonna' heat up dat atmosphere"

We Begged and pleaded with them day after day,
But they showed us the data and sent us on our way
We thought real hard and said "hey thats the ticket"
"What if it wasn't us dudes who did it?"

Anthropogenic, yo this is bad
Stop just minute lets not get mad
Can we blame this hot air on some other sh1te?

Hmm that may be allright
But wait I hear solar variation and all that
Is this the kinda argument we sshould use to be phat?
Nerds say, no man you gotta prepare
They hope we're ready for a load of hot air

Well ah thebomb shell and when the people came out
And said "too hard to something, I'd rather do nowt"
Environmentalist were whiners when they first got here
Lets say its just bogus, then they'll dissapear
We threw up our hands and said the solutions near
So they went for the ad hominum, and called us queer
If anything I can say this farce isn't rare
But I thought naw forget its a load of hot-Air

and so I have SUVs, about 7 or 8
And I don't think I have time for this stupid ddebate
I looked at my country, It was finally there
Our lives had been ruined by a load of hot air

(This took me half an hour, buts haters feel free to hate)

Massive WIN!!!!!!!!!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 3:03:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 1:15:27 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 2/22/2011 10:45:55 AM, Caramel wrote:
Roy said:

Global warming is an issue independent of concerns over pollution.

The first thing to understand about pollution is the very opposite of this. The world is one system, with every part interrelated in ways we may never fully understand. Every time we do as you say and isolate a pollutive effect in order to be neatly figured out in some capitalistic cost-benefit analysis, we are able to arrive at our numbers precisely by eliminating costs that escape our narrow constraints on time and space.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is necessary for plant growth and hence necessary for all life. Plants grow better with more CO2, and humans and animals are not affected until levels much higher than would be the case if all the carbon in the world were in the atmosphere.

excess CO2 is.

pollutant - "•waste matter that contaminates the water or air or soil"
contaminate - "•Contamination is the presence of a minor constituent in another chemical or mixture, often at the trace level. •To introduce impurities or foreign matter."

An impurity is really anything which is not desired, in the broad sense, though it has various specific definitions for when being applied to water, or gems, or even fertilizer.

Also, there is...

5.291*10^14 kg of carbon in our Atmosphere
3.7644*10^21 kg of carbon in our Oceans
2.73*10^22 kg of carbon in the Earth's Crust.

So the carbon in the atmosphere is not even 0.0001% of all the carbon on Earth

http://www.eoearth.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, when CO2 reaches a level of about 5,000 ppm (about 13 times what we currently are at) we experience mild discomfort (it is at this level, it is considered "toxic"), at about 50,000 ppm (129 times our current level) it is fatal. There is easily enough carbon on Earth to reach well beyond these levels.


The everything-affects-everything argument is true in some abstract way, but it does say a thing about what is significant. If you open your front door, there is no doubt some theoretical affect from that action on penguins in the Antarctic, but it's negligible. The only way to escape cost-benefit analysis is to remove all the humans -- but wait, that also eliminates the benefits potentially accrued by saving species from purely natural environmental change. Lack of humans didn't stop dinosaurs from going extinct.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 8:17:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
CO2 is not a "contaminant." Plants appear to have evolved when CO2 was at much higher levels, so most grow better at higher CO2 levels. Commercial greenhouse owners boost the CO2 levels to spur growth.

You are right about the total amount of carbon in the world. I should have said that the carbon available in fossil fuels is not enough to be toxic. Most of the carbon is locked up in limestone and deep ocean dissolved carbonates, which are not in play.

Whether anyone likes it or not, we are in the last century of major fossil fuel use. We will run out way before reaching toxic levels.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 11:03:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 8:17:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
CO2 is not a "contaminant." Plants appear to have evolved when CO2 was at much higher levels, so most grow better at higher CO2 levels. Commercial greenhouse owners boost the CO2 levels to spur growth.

Just because some plants do better with higher levels of, does not mean that it is not a contaminant or a pollutant. There are some creatures that live off arsenic, doesn't mean that arsenic is no longer a contaminant. If it is your water, you'll still get sick and possibly die. Heck, even air is a contaminate if there is too much in your blood (air bubbles), or water in your lungs (drowning).

Anything other then the natural status quo is considered a contaminate, even if some things do better because of it, and some things do worse because of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:04:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 11:03:45 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 8:17:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
CO2 is not a "contaminant." Plants appear to have evolved when CO2 was at much higher levels, so most grow better at higher CO2 levels. Commercial greenhouse owners boost the CO2 levels to spur growth.

Just because some plants do better with higher levels of, does not mean that it is not a contaminant or a pollutant. There are some creatures that live off arsenic, doesn't mean that arsenic is no longer a contaminant. If it is your water, you'll still get sick and possibly die. Heck, even air is a contaminate if there is too much in your blood (air bubbles), or water in your lungs (drowning).

Anything other then the natural status quo is considered a contaminate, even if some things do better because of it, and some things do worse because of it.

Some things are dangerous in large quantities that are essential in small quantities, you are right that far. Vitamin D and salt are toxic in high concentrations. However, CO2 is not toxic in any quantity that can be achieved by burning fossil fuels. That plants grow better with double the CO2 demonstrates that it is not toxic at those levels. CO2 levels indoors in office buildings are often more than double that outdoors, and it's not harmful. CO2 is detected by the body to signal an oxygen shortage, whether or not there actually is an oxygen shortage. So levels about five times the atmospheric level cause people to seek fresh air, even though the CO2 is not toxic. The 5x level is way above what could result from fossil fuel burning. (Incidentally, the air in airline cabins can exceed 5X, causing discomfort.)

It not true that anything added to the "natural status" is a contaminant. Vitamin D is added to milk, iodine to salt, and fluoride to water -- all to provide proven beneficial effects.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:06:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Even water is toxic to the human body in large enough amounts. Roy, I don't think you will succeed in being able to take one substance and simply refuse to allow it to be labeled a pollutant/contaminant. Anything can be pollutive or contaminating. I can go buy a bunch of cool stuff from Pier One and decorate my home, but if I don't stop buying it and filling up my house then at some point it will all become clutter. Salt and sugar are great in some dished, but if overused... You get the point. In this example we have C02 which is soon to be 400 PPM in the air up from <300 PPM before the industrial revolution. It is highly doubtful we will get it under control before 500 PPM and in all likelihood will increase beyond that. No one knows for sure what the effects of this are. Perhaps GCC theorists are indeed wrong. But we can't even tell if their wrong on the side of being overly cautious, or wrong on the side of not being cautious enough! Every new study seems to indicate GCC is occurring faster and more pronounced than once thought.
no comment
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 12:37:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 12:04:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 2/23/2011 11:03:45 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/23/2011 8:17:33 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
CO2 is not a "contaminant." Plants appear to have evolved when CO2 was at much higher levels, so most grow better at higher CO2 levels. Commercial greenhouse owners boost the CO2 levels to spur growth.

Just because some plants do better with higher levels of, does not mean that it is not a contaminant or a pollutant. There are some creatures that live off arsenic, doesn't mean that arsenic is no longer a contaminant. If it is your water, you'll still get sick and possibly die. Heck, even air is a contaminate if there is too much in your blood (air bubbles), or water in your lungs (drowning).

Anything other then the natural status quo is considered a contaminate, even if some things do better because of it, and some things do worse because of it.

Some things are dangerous in large quantities that are essential in small quantities, you are right that far. Vitamin D and salt are toxic in high concentrations. However, CO2 is not toxic in any quantity that can be achieved by burning fossil fuels. That plants grow better with double the CO2 demonstrates that it is not toxic at those levels. CO2 levels indoors in office buildings are often more than double that outdoors, and it's not harmful. CO2 is detected by the body to signal an oxygen shortage, whether or not there actually is an oxygen shortage. So levels about five times the atmospheric level cause people to seek fresh air, even though the CO2 is not toxic. The 5x level is way above what could result from fossil fuel burning. (Incidentally, the air in airline cabins can exceed 5X, causing discomfort.)

From the fossil fuels, perhaps (I'll take your word for it, I have not looked up the numbers myself), but from other factors if warming occurs. As tempurature increases, the solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases (i.e. CO2 in water), meaning that CO2 would be released from the ocean (however, with greater concentration of CO2, that will naturally push CO2 into the oceans, which force, to push in or push out, is greater, I don't know).


It not true that anything added to the "natural status" is a contaminant. Vitamin D is added to milk, iodine to salt, and fluoride to water -- all to provide proven beneficial effects.

If I take distilled water and add fluoride to it, it would be considered contaminated. If I took a bunch of fluoride and dumpped it into a lake, that would be contaminating it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 1:40:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To contaminate is "To make impure or unclean by contact or mixture." You propose a definition that adding anything is a contaminant. So, for example, adding chlorine to water by your definition contaminates it, even though it improves the water by making it drinkable. Your definition may be an alternative definition in some dictionary, although I didn't come across it. It's not the relevant definition with regard to pollution. If it were the definition, then the EPA should be banning chlorination.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 2:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/23/2011 1:40:21 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
To contaminate is "To make impure or unclean by contact or mixture." You propose a definition that adding anything is a contaminant. So, for example, adding chlorine to water by your definition contaminates it, even though it improves the water by making it drinkable. Your definition may be an alternative definition in some dictionary, although I didn't come across it. It's not the relevant definition with regard to pollution. If it were the definition, then the EPA should be banning chlorination.

except that "unclean" implies an undesirable presence. thats the main idea behind contamination. so the same chemical can be considered a contaminant in one context and desirable in another context. chlorine in pools for example... not really a contaminant because it doesn't do damage and was placed there for a useful purpose. chlorine in your food? that sounds more like a contaminant, especially if theres an appreciable amount. you're arguing as if being a contaminant is an absolute property when in reality it is relative to human goals and well being.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2011 2:48:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can we agree at least it is not TOXIC?

I think the EPA needs to focus on toxins in the environment, like acid rain, first before farting around (no pun intended) with Co2