Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

All climate change is temporary, try again.

 

You need to read through the thread again. Many have claimed C02 is a pollutant because too much of it's toxic and we have reached or are reaching that point in the atmosphere

 

So is everything....I am discussing the time line our current climate change is following as it is abnormal in historical/geologic records.

 

By many, I take it you mean none.

 

Nosuch thing as a normal climate, that's what the cult can't get through their heads

 

You for one.

 

I just want to put some hard numbers on "temporary" here. The delay required for Earth's biosphere to achieve the equilibrium temperature given a specific and unchanging CO2 (plus the other GHGs) is on the order of a couple decades. Then on top of that the inertial lag between the atmosphere and ocean uptake of heat is on the order of 3 decades for the first 200m or so of the ocean. So if the ocean stopped warming today the atmosphere would continue to warm for another 3 decades. This puts us at a minimum of 50 years of future warming of the atmosphere even if ceased all CO2 emissions immediately. Then on top of that the cooling happens exponentially slower than the warming because CO2 residence times in the atmosphere are measured in centuries. So the Earth would not return to pre-industrial temperatures for several hundred years. So "temporary" here is several hundred years.

Maybe so, but keep in mind that this whole thread was created because a couple of deniers (Wallace and D'Aleo) defined "pollutant" in terms of an agent that causes the Earth to warm. Their concern was not one of whether such a "pollutant" was biologically toxic, but one in which would cause the biosphere to warm. Their argument, which is completely wrong, is that CO2 is not a "pollutant" because it has not produced a warming effect here on Earth and as such the EPA should not be allowed to regulate it. Note, that their argument isn't focused on whether the EPA should regulate GHGs, but on the mistaken belief that CO2 isn't a GHG. The implication I get from their argument is that they are not opposed to the EPA regulating GHGs.

By the way, who is the OP of this thread?

That's a pretty ironic statement because I've never seen an AGW supporter on here ever ask a denier what is "normal" in regards to the climate. But, I field this question from deniers on a continual basis. They think they're trapping supports by simply asking the question. So again, this is a strawman your building up.

 

So true. And we know why. Because there isn't a "normal" that the AGW folks find attractive that is defensible. So, it is slightly disingenuous to call this out, knowing that the basic premise is so unsupportable to begin with, but, you did. So, here's the real question then. If "normal" was the average global temp in say 1865 as the IPCC, et al have asserted, why did so many people die, from exposure, or the cold in general? Why was food production so impacted as to be marginal or predictable for human consumption.

I mean, lets here it. Why was that the "best" or the most "normal" or whatever other BS you want to assert now that justifies your smug here?

 

Can you point to the context in which the IPCC labeled a specific period of time as "normal"?

Note that "normal" has a different meaning depending on who you talk to. Can you precisely define what you consider "normal" so that we have common ground on which to discuss?

And for what it's worth I do not think there is a "normal" temperature for Earth in the broadest sense. When I discuss weather with people I switch to using the official WMO definition which is the arithmetic mean of the daily highs and lows for the previous 30 year period at a specific site. But, I in no way equate that to a temperature that the Earth "should" be at. I do acknowledge that there is a temperature that would maximize Earth's carrying capacity for humans, or the world GDP, or the net total of all biomass, or whatever and that each one of those may have a different temperature that maximizes that particular variable and those may (and likely are) mutually exclusive. In other words, what is "normal" to maximize the positive effect of one variable may have a negative impact on another. So "normal" in this broad sense is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Common sense tells you that CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants absorb it and give off oxygen. We absorb oxygen and give of CO2. Losing either one would spell the end of life on earth.

 

Actually...yes there is but I do not wish to argue this with you because it no longer matters anyway.

Have A Nice Day

 

I take it context is not your strong point and comprehending sentences is difficulty.

 

When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser.

 

All climate is temporary.
The term "denier" smacks of religion not science
"Not normal" is a term often used by alarmist

 

Clearly.

 

"I take it context is not your strong point and comprehending sentences is difficulty."

Clearly

 

Wow. So now you're Kreskow. Good to know. Perhaps I'll fly you to Vegas and we can go gambling....

So, for example, what is the "temperature that would maximize Earth's carrying capacity"? And how many places on the planet would this then be demonstrable? Would this temp that you find "normal" then be available generally? or only in specific regions? Would being outside of this "normal" then equate into non habitation zones from which no one would be able to live?

And the answer is, ..........

 

Sorry, I don't know a Kreskow. I tried googling but the results were not conclusive.

Just to clarify...are we talking about humans or polar bears here. Obviously polar bears would thrive better in a cooler climate. Either way I don't know the answer. Based on first principal reasoning we could assume (with high confidence) that for humans it would likely be between 5C and 25C, but beyond that I really don't know. I'm sure someone has a better answer. That person isn't me though.

We are talking about a global mean temperature so every place on Earth has to be considered equally. That's the point of an arithmetic mean.

Ah...yes...you're trying to spring the trap here. I don't find any temperature "normal" under any meaning that I surmise you are implying here. There is no "normal" temperature for Earth that maximizes the positive benefit for all variables. But, even if there were it would not be available everywhere because the temperature of Earth is not homogeneous.

It depends on what you mean by "normal". Do you mean a temperature at which humans are physically capable of surviving due solely to our biology? Or do you mean the temperature at which Earth's carrying capacity for humans is maximized even if that comes at the expense of reduced GDP? Or do you mean the temperature at which the world GDP is maximized even if that comes at the expense of reduced carrying capacity?

Again, you're the one that is hung up on this "normal" thing so you're going to have to define what you think/want it to mean.

 

Admittedly I'm being pedantic here, but climate in general is indefinite for any planet with an atmosphere. I think what you meant to say was a specific climate is temporary. The tighter you define "specific" the tighter the temporal meaning of temporary will become and vice-versa. In other words, if specific means exactly 15.0C then temporary will be very short, but if specific means 13.0-17.0C then temporary spans a much larger temporal domain.

I use denier as a label for someone that rejects any and all evidence favoring AGW. This rejection requires the wholesale denial of all scientific disciplines and then usually leads to claims of fraud and conspiracy in an ill conceived attempt to sidestep logical inconsistencies with their position. Do you take offense with this label? If so can you recommend another word I could use instead to mean the same thing? Note that skeptic is already taken. Skeptic is the label I give to someone that uses science to challenge the consensus on AGW.

It's also used by mainstream AGW supporters in reference to the rate of change of the global mean temperature. While most AGW supporters reject the idea that there is a "normal" temperature many acknowledge a "normal" for the rate of change dT/dt for the temperature. "Normal" in that context is dT/dt = 0 because that would maximize the biosphere's ability to adapt to a specific temperature whatever it happens to be.

 

Nah, You claimed, in the post quoted, that you could tell us what the right temp to "carry humanity" was. Still waiting for that. And since you brought it up, I guess I was mistaken that you could actually quantify this. So, you equivocate. You backpedal into this "range" that clearly isn't "optimal" in any real way. So, for you, 5C to 25C is the "average that we're trying to fit under, right? So anywhere that today is outside of that is somehow "unnatural" or abnormal, and thus what? unlikely to create a habitable place that can carry humanity? I'd point to the so many places in the world where your range doesn't actually apply. Given your theory, the temp can't go beyond 77F? That seems unlikely. I suppose that the several billion folks in S Asia who live well above that are what? Abnormal? Golly. What will they think?

 

I never claimed that I know what the optimal temperature is for the carrying capacity for humans. I only claimed that there is one. I have no idea what it is. But, based on first principal reasoning I can give you a range. Obviously the carrying capacity is going to be low at both -100C and +100C and that our current carrying capacity is higher than either of those two extremes. Therefore it is necessarily the case that there is a temperature between those two extremes that maximizes the carrying capacity. I just don't know what it is. Someone else probably does though.

And, no the range 5-25C is not the average that we're trying to fit under. It's just a more narrow range than the above which I came up with off the top of my head by working backwards from the current 15C global mean surface temperature and adding/subtracting 10C on both sides and taking into account other factors like human's ability to survive in lower temperatures (ice age style) and our food stock's (agriculture) ability to thrive in higher temperatures (eocene style). Again, I don't know the optimal carrying capacity temperature. I just know there has to be one and it's very likely to be somewhere in the 5-25C range.

And furthermore, when denier's throw around words like "normal" the implication is that there is one and only one temperature that maximizes the positive effect of all variables. And I'm telling you that's not the case. If you want to maximize Earth's carrying capacity for humans it might come at the expense of the per capita GDP and vice versa. That's why I and most other AGW supports are telling you that there is no such thing as "normal" in the context that you're referring to.

So again I ask. What do you mean when you say "normal"? What is "normal" for you? Is it the temperature that maximizes per capita GDP? Or is the temperature that maximizes world population? Or is it the temperature that maximizes the sum total of all biomass? Or is it the temperature that maximizes the population of polar bears?

Do you see where I'm going with this? There is no such thing as a broadly defined "normal" temperature.

 

So this is the meat of it, right? The absence of accountability. The inherent, golly there's a huge problem, and the unwillingness to define exactly what the problem really is, and where we veer wildly off the tracks. I have been pointing out exactly this. That there isn't a definition for what "normal" is. That the AGW crew assert that even not knowing what "normal" means, they are able to thrust catastrophic impacts at us and never be accountable for them. Which, frankly, is why folks are unwilling to lend a lot of credence any more to this kind of hyperbole.

No, there isn't an "optimal" temp then. So, stop with the hyperventilation is we move the needles half a degree or so over a century. It simply doesn't make sense if you cannot support an actual value that you're working against. It's like saying, everyone who goes over the speed limit will die. And yes, they will eventually, but the vast majority of them won't because of their speeding. This is the fundamental dishonesty that is involved in this climate conversation. For everyone like you who professes their "acceptance" of it, there are just as many of us who also recognize that climate does in fact change over time. It does. There is no denying this, and frankly there is no reason to ever deny this.

What isn't frankly supported, though, is the hyperventilation that is expressed on some unsubstantiated, as you point out, understanding of what "optimal" or "normal", or value at which the end becomes nigh. It's laughable. This is the everlasting gobstopper for scientists because it never requires them to actually put any skin in the game. They can, and do, protest that the average global temp increased, and cannot ever produce an actual impact that is directly associable to it. The temp goes up, world GDP explodes upwardly with it. Demonstrable. Provable. World food supplies expand, rapidly, demonstrable. provable.

And yet, there is an insistence that if only we simply "trust" the "smart" people, we should transfer huge swaths of our personal wealth to develop yet less developed portions of the world to improve their GDPs and life styles, all in conflict with the initial premise that the warming is bad, that more development is bad, and that bad is the utter ruination of our species. It's conflicted. It's laughable. And you have admirably demonstrated this point today. Brava...

 

Yes any specific climate is temporary and there is no such thing as normal climate or normal rate of change.
The term denier is meant to be derogatory to anybody not a full fledged believer that we are having a dramatic effect on the climate and must make radical changes or all is lost.

 

I'm not interested in political statements.

I have given them where appropriate.

BWAHAHAHAAAA! My clients pay me well for my skills with the English language. So speaking of illiterates:

I see three examples of incorrect use of punctuation and one of incorrect word formation: it's "supposed to," not "suppose to." You're welcome for the literacy lesson.

 

No, the higher the concentration of CO2, the less likely it is to be a pollutant. You can't pollute Venus's atmosphere by adding CO2 because the concentration is already thousands of times greater than on earth.