Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

with this new Trump EPA, would not be surprised if they said nuclear waste was not a pollutant

 

No, it most certainly would not. 10C is less than the difference between Singapore and Tokyo. Tokyo is quite civilized, thank you.

No, that's just nonsense, as the Pleistocene glaciation cycle proves. You're just spewing garbage with no basis in fact.

 

clearly you do not comprehend what a 10c global average increase means...

the Pleistocene glaciation would only require a 5c-10 drop in temp from where are today so you wanna tell me again how the 10c temp difference between any two cities makes that garbage.

what's clear here is your total failure to understand what your talking about...and why there are so many issues with solving climate change, scientific illiteracy

 

No it isn't. It's not enough to have any measurable effect on temperature.

There's no mechanism that could cause it.

No it hasn't. The temperature data have been systematically falsified, and the principal influence has been solar activity, not CO2.

Find someone who remembers the 1930s and 1940s, and they will tell you it was warmer then.

 

yikes!

4%, yeah it has to have an effect...it's physically impossible to change the percentage of gas mixture and not change it's properties, absolutely impossible! this basic science man! If you increase the amount of GHG's it must get warmer, it can do nothing else!

solar activity can be and has been measured and it has been abnormally low for the last 30-35 yrs, it has absolutely been ruled out as a cause for the rise in temps.

60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...yeah its absolutely getting warmer, whenever I get the chance to talk to the people who notice temps the most in their everyday lives 'farmers' I get the same answer. "it's not as cold as it used to be"

 

No. YOU do not understand what "ending civilization" means.

It makes it garbage because people obviously survived MULTIPLE ice ages with PALEOLITHIC technology.

 

But not measurably. The temperature variance is an order of magnitude greater than any possible effect of a 4% increase in H2O vapor.

Baldly false. It's only been low for the last 20 years -- exactly the time of the hiatus in warming.

Baldly false. All your lying scumbags do is concoct a dozen different indexes of solar activity, then pick the one that has the lowest correlation with temperature and claim it's "the" index of solar activity.

Not as cold as it used to be in the 70s. I'm talking about people, including farmers, who remember the 30s and 40s because they are now in their 90s.

 

If by "actual effect" you mean the net effect of all influencing elements both natural and anthroprogenic then Arrhenius's CO2 isolated figure is pretty close. Remember, natural components (like the Sun) and anthroprogenic components (like aerosols) produce a pretty significant cooling affect that is cancelling a huge percentage of the CO2 isolated effect. Again, the CO2 isolated effect is greater than the net effect because non-CO2 components are working to cool the Earth. Arrhenius's number is actually pretty close. Had Arrhenius known about solar and aerosol influences he might have been able to predict the combined total effect as well. Note that the warming observed since 1960 is 0.16C/decade, since 1980 is 0.19C/decade, and since 2000 is 0.22C/decade.

I have no idea what you mean by that last part. That's not what Arrhenius' figure implies at all. You can read his paper here for details on the calculations.

 

This is ridiculous. I've gone over this with you multiple times. There is exactly zero datasets which compute a global mean temperature that falsify the dozens that show the 0.15C/decade or higher rates of warming since 1960 and which have accelerated to almost 0.25C/decade that we see today. And solar activity has been in a secular decline since 1960. The Sun is cooling and has been cooling for 60 years yet the Earth continues to warm.

Like they say...put up or shut up. Show me that the global mean temperature was higher in the 30s and 40s than it is today. Also, keep in mind that there was very little (relatively speaking) anthroprogenic contributions to the global mean temperature in the early 1900's. The anthroprogenic effects are most apparent after 1960.

 

No it's not.

So now the sun cools the earth...

No, that's absolute garbage. Warming was rapid 1970-1998, and has effectively stopped since then.

Yes, it most certainly does.

I've read it. If doubling CO2 increases temp by 5C, halving it reduces temp by 5C. Ten halvings is a 1000-fold reduction. 50C cooler is colder than the moon.

 

It has warmed 0.3C from 1998 to 2017. And that's with 1998 being an El Nino year and 2017 being an La Nina year. In other words, the last 20 years just happen to maximize your position and it still warmed by 0.3C! And furthermore, the solar activity peak at the grand maximum in 1958 and has been declining ever since with the most dramatic declines happening since 1990 from the peak of cycle 22.

Seriously? You cherry pick a El Nino year at the start and La Nina at the end of your period and it still doesn't match your claim.

 

Are you denying the greenhouse effect, or denying that warmer air holds more water vapor? You deny so much basic physics, it's hard to keep track.

Ah, a flat earther. Or a global warming denier. All conspiracy cultists sound alike.

Obviously false, being that solar activity and temperature have gone in opposite directions.

The "global" thing mystifies most deniers. Second graders can easily grasp it, but not deniers.

"Clouds are white". If only scientists had known. Someone contact the Nobel committee. We've got a sure winner here. He doesn't need to do any stupid research. After all, those egghead liberal scientists don't know 'nuffin. He knows clouds are white, and that settles it.

Consider Occam's Razor. What's the simpler theory, and thus the more probable one?

A. A globe-spanning secret socialist conspiracy involving millions of people and entire nations is being directed against you.

B. You screwed up.

 

Absolutely. Just because humans are influencing the climate doesn't mean the Sun stops it's influence. It still produces both upward and downward pressure on the global mean temperature in response to the grand cycles. It just so happens that the solar influence is a small fraction of the anthroprogenic influence so it's effect is being dwarfed right now.

Maybe, if you cherry pick the UAH dataset produced by two of the most well known climate deniers. By the way, their UAH datasets are known for having a lot of problems and are generally regarded as being inaccurate. Spencer and Christy once claimed they were accurate to 0.01C and then posted a new version that increased the warming trend by a whopping 0.10C/decade after accounting for orbital decay in 1998. And the way they handle orbital decay has been a thorn in their side ever since because everyone thinks they're doing it wrong and continue to do it wrong. Even now their 6.0 version has been in beta since 2015 because many issues have been raised about it. And keep in mind that UAH is one among two dozen datasets that compute a global mean temperature and it happens to be an outlier to them all. Do you really want to put all of your eggs in this one basket?

Read it again.

 

a 10c rise will end civilization as we know it, a mass extinction event that will take civilization with it, you have no concept of what a 'civilization' is...the HGs of the paleolithic were not a civilization.

people of the paleolithic were hunter gatherers that retreated before ice age events, they were very few in number and at any one time on verge of extinction it was a precarious existence...

 

and this clouds BS...while clouds have an albedo effect with incoming sun light they also retain planetary surface heat...it's the reason a desert can be scorching hot in the day time but below freezing at night, the surface heat isn't retained in darkness...even in the arctic winter, cloudless days are colder than cloudy days.

 

I think he's denying both. I'd especially like his explanation for how the laws of physics (namely quantum mechanics) work on everything and everywhere except with the CO2 molecule here on Earth.

 

Oxygen deprivation in an enclosed environment does not make C02 a pollutant.

 

it's also a toxicant in sufficient quantity CO2 will kill cause instantaneous unconsciousness and death in as little as a minute...but those stupid MDs didn't consult you so what do they know...

O2 and water are essential to our living but pure O2 is also toxic to the body, drink too much water and you can die from hyponatremia...

but hey what do scientists know, it's obvious to everyone that you know know it all.

 

Put your head in a garbage bag and tighten it firmly around your neck. Soon you will die but it's not because of C02 being a pollutant it's because you have no oxygen. To claim otherwise is dishonest and or stupid.

 

FALSE!

From Wikipedia

Toxicity

"CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling.[109] Concentrations of 7% to 10% (70,000 to 100,000 ppm) may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour."

 

The EPA made that insane pollution claim because they were under pressure to find a reason to regulate it. There is no other reason because it is well known that much higher CO2 levels in the past earths history was good for the life on the planet.

The planet is happy with the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, as shown by the increasing greening of the planet.

Even if it is at 1,000 ppm, humans will not suffer at all.

 

And no doubt those datasets would continue to show accelerating warming if the glaciers were a mile deep on Manhattan...

Wrong. 1960 was the strongest known sunspot cycle, but historically strong cycles continued until 2000.

The sun has been less active for about 20 years, the same period when warming has paused.

So somehow, all previous ~1Ky climate cycles were caused by the sun, but this one, right in time with the previous ones, isn't?

Once was enough.

 

Cloudless days are colder than cloudy days in the arctic because cold air can't hold moisture. It precipitates out. The notion that clouds could cause heating is ABSURD. They can cause nights to be warmer, but the days will be much cooler. The heat balance over a year will always favor cloudless skies.

 

I'm denying that a modest increase in water vapor could have a large effect on temperature.

<sigh> I have debunked that garbage so many times....

Put a pot of Little Ice Age water on the stove. Turn the element to "High." The water gets warmer. Now turn the element down to "Medium." The water continues to get warmer, even though the element has got cooler. Element temperature and water temperature moving in opposite directions, which you claim is impossible.

GET IT???

There is now so little that can be trusted in the instrument record that personal experience is the best guide.

And unlike AGW CO2 screamers, I know what that implies about clouds.

I said nothing about socialists or millions of people or entire nations. A small number of people with a lot of money at their disposal is quite sufficient.

 

I don't know what you're looking at. Everything I'm seeing, and I did a pretty thorough search, shows that 2000 had sunspot activity that was about 75% that of 1990 and about 60% that of 1960. And note that 1990 itself was lower than 1960. The fact is that the grand maximum peaked around 1960.

Warming has not paused. Over the last 20 years warming has been 0.15C/decade and that's cherry picking an El Nino start and La Nina end. And over the last 10 years the warming is a staggering 0.4C/decade.