Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Josephwalker, Feb 12, 2018.

  1. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Political science is not found in the science department. It’s called political science because..> Political science attempts to claim the rubric of science because of its systematic study of politics<
    In other words, science is also a system of study.
     
  2. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are 8 schools in the Ivy League. MIT is not one of them.
    But they do have a robust program supporting man made climate change.
    https://globalchange.mit.edu/
     
  3. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63

    None of the believer in CO2 warming effect, whether he argues for, or against or in the middle of AGW, including you, cannot distinguish between science and religion and he, and that includes you, will die never knowing and never even been interested in knowing the difference, will die as a religious fanatic.

    As you repeatedly demonstrate.
     
  4. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
  5. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Are Bible studies included and why not?.
     
  6. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Does Political sciences department participate in the synopsis or it does not?

    Does it require evidence or does not?

    Start answering questions or go away.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2018
  7. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you asked questions that made any sense. Now you’re the internet police ?
    You seem to think anything with science in it is part of the science department at a university. Invest in a dictionary. .
     
  8. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean cult studies don’t you ?
     
  9. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well we’ve established several things.
    You think you’re the internet police.
    You think a Bible studies is a science.
    And, you like to use MIT as an Ivy League school reference, which it isn’t. You need to start posting facts instead of BS if you want to be taken seriously.
     
  10. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Since you have accepted that everything you have said is false except for your statement that there is no Ivy league school which agrees that CO2 is not a pollutant (the premise of this thread) I will give you a chance to post links proving that your statement is true.

    The condition is that it cannot be a department which in your own view is not a science.

    Go.
     
  11. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is what Science says about CO2

    >Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.<

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
     
  12. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Any studies which fit your definition of science, Bible, cult, satan, dark matter, black holes, vacuum fluctuations, flying spaghetti monster, multidimensional universe, whatever, as long as it fits your definition of science.
     
  13. _Inquisitor_

    _Inquisitor_ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And that is all institutions of higher learning, MIT, Ivy Schools...

    Have to go...

    But thank you for putting me in a good mood...
     
  14. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You’re failing miserably at sounding smart. Please, go.
     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. It's not. The biggest driver of the T is solar radiation. But, solar radiation is relatively stable. When solar radiation is reduced by half the Earth turns into a snowball in models very quickly. When solar radiation is doubled the Earth turns into roasting planet in models quickly. However, CO2 is the biggest driver of the ΔT. There is a difference between T and ΔT. When CO2 is removed from models the ΔT is much closer to zero.

    Hmm...the conclusion of that article is "This work by Soden et al. provides the clearest evidence yet that GCMs are properly representing water vapor feedback."
     
  16. dagosa

    dagosa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    22,147
    Likes Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ooops !
    You just crossed the barrier and may have lost him. “ change” in anything is something these guys can’t handle well.
    It’s not like our species can’t handle the change over time and adapt, but it’s happening too rapidly for not only our species to handle, but maybe our technology as well. Deniers really can’t handle that this part of the discussion is key to determining where CO2 is a pollutant. Hey, if we were amphibious reptiles or deer ticks, the change could do us “ good.” But then, there goes the deniers concept of evolution which just becomes another battle.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always get a laugh out of your charts and graphs but you have outdone yourself this time using one to chart the way I feel. Hysterical!
     
  18. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"
     
  19. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,422
    Likes Received:
    2,186
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Unsupported handwaving on your part, flatly contradicted by the actual evidence.

    That's a vague nonsense statement on your part. Models point out that many factors drive climate. At the moment, the primary factor driving the increase in temperature increase is the change in CO2 levels.

    "CO2 is the primary driver" is a model output, not a model input. It's not assumed. The models inputs are the laws of physics and initial conditions, which don't assume anything in regards to what is driving climate.

    So, your own link demonstrates how good the models have been. Thank you for proving our point.

    ---
    Satellite observations of atmospheric water vapor are found to agree well with moisture predictions generated by one of the key GCMs, showing that these feedback effects are being properly handled in the model, which eliminates a major potential source of uncertainty.
    ---

    One wonders why you're so obsessed with models. After all, if no models existed, AGW theory would still be proven, just by the direct evidence. The stellar success of the models is merely icing on the cake.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018
  20. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you see the flat blue lines or the positively sloped red line when looking at the global mean temperature? Anyway, my point is that ENSO cycles contribute to the random walk above and below the red, but the red line is still quite clearly up. The red line has a positive slope because of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) instead of a neutral slope like you would expect without CO2. Your claim that the blue lines prove that CO2 cannot be responsible for the change in temperature is misguided.
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are also no Ivy League schools that are not all in on neoclassical economics. But we know neoclassical economics is a bunch of stupid, dishonest garbage with no predictive power (not ONE SINGLE neoclassical economist predicted the GFC) that exists to serve the greedy, privileged, parasitic elite. Pretty much like AGW theory.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean a pal-reviewing journal, don't you?
    They overlook clouds, the sun, and all other factors that show AGW theory is garbage.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018
  23. Beer w/Straw

    Beer w/Straw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    339
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Female
    Nope:
    "Peer-reviewed" (or "refereed," "academic" or "scholarly") refers to the policy of having experts in the field examine a submitted article before accepting it for publication. The peer review (or referee) process insures that the research described in a journal's articles is sound and of high quality.
    https://uwaterloo.ca/library/find-and-use-resources/peer-reviewed-journals

    ResearchGate is like Facebook in comparison.

    Nope:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    And there's a lot more information in the link. However, since it's NASA you already know it's bogus, right?
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018
    Cosmo likes this.
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's just a bald fabrication from you. There is no such contradiction. The contradiction is in claiming that very modest increases in CO2 during the Pleistocene transitions from glacials to interglacials had a large feedback effect on temperature when the vastly larger increase in CO2 over the last -100y has shown no such effect.
    No, AGW models edit the fact that many factors DO drive climate down to one factor driving climate: CO2.
    No, that is ASSUMED by AGW models, but it is not the case.
    BWAHAHHAAA!! It is most definitely assumed in the models' equations. GIGO.
    No, that is utter garbage. The equations the models use ASSUME various relationships that have not been demonstrated empirically.
    <sigh> Wrong.
    That's only ONE part of how they handle water vapor.
    No models, no AGW screaming.
    No, that is just utter garbage. There is no such evidence. The evidence for AGW theory is actually very poor. You could as well claim evidence for the theory that global temperature is driven by the production of thermometers.
    The models uniformly failed to predict the hiatus, so now the data are being altered to match the models.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2018
  25. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,398
    Likes Received:
    3,010
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the models simply ASSUME that it is UNVARYING.
    In the models' assumptions.
    Because their ASSUMPTION that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature is built into their equations.
    But as in most such cases, the actual data do not support the conclusion.
     

Share This Page