^^ Ha-ha! You know you want to.

^ >.<

PS: 41

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 4:55:56 PM

Quote :

"you already bit when you posted the owl pic and the retarded classification of CO2 as a pollutant"

No, sorry, I was just stating a fact for the ignorant.

Quote :

"^^ Ha-ha! You know you want to. "

While I wouldn't mind a spirited discussion pertaining to my views of the relationship between humans and nature a commitment to doing so would be a detraction from this thread.

3/14/2008 5:05:43 PM

so you agree with the "fact" that CO2 is a pollutant?

If so what should we do about all the plants and animals who emit CO2? Should we find a clean renewable energy that people can exhale?

I don't think answering either of these questions would detract at all from the thread

3/14/2008 5:07:51 PM

There is no need for cutsie little "quotation marks" around the word fact. As much as you want to keep your head in the sand about this a Bush-packed Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. I have not read the ruling thoroughly but hopefully they clarified the difference between naturally occurring CO2 from things like respiration and volcanoes and that of human-induced CO2 from cars, factories and general use of fossil fuels. But please keep being silly about this.

3/14/2008 5:14:01 PM

Quote :

"you already bit when you posted the owl pic and the retarded classification of CO2 as a pollutant"

Beat me to the punch. HockeyRoman, don't be rediculous. First off we're all aware of the retarded ruling of the Supreme Court. But please answer the question of what to do with all the humans and animals exhaling CO2. The amount emitted by ants alone must be crazy!

Good thing plants use it to live and grow...

3/14/2008 5:21:50 PM

Quote :

"solution: lets always work to lower the amount of pollution we put into the planet. this will always be a good thing. at the same time, lets not lose our fucking minds over changing patterns in weather. there is no way we can tell if we are the cause because we only have data stretching hundreds of years, no where near the sample needed to draw conclusions. end of thread."

I'm of the same mindset. The climate is a complex thing and I'm not convinced that climate change is a direct result of human activity. Regardless I feel that we should treat it as a certainty and do what we can to be environmentally smart about what we do. Even if we're wrong about it we'll be helping ourselves out in the long run.

3/14/2008 5:31:08 PM

^I agree. And there are almost countless things that can be done on a government level to reduce pollution without placing more regulations on the general population. But they don't want that...

3/14/2008 5:35:00 PM

Quote :

"TKE-Teg: First off we're all aware of the retarded ruling of the Supreme Court."

Then why did you post V ?

Quote :

"TKE-Teg:^^agreed, but CO2 isn't a pollutant."

Either you are lying or you just really are that stupid.

As for the ruling being "retarded", as you say, I don't think the SCOTUS really gives a damn what you think.

Quote :

"But please answer the question of what to do with all the humans and animals exhaling CO2."

This was covered in my previous post. Just because you regurgitated Twista's nonsensical argument against naturally occurring CO2 doesn't make it anymore true. In fact, it's quite sad.



[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 5:38:37 PM

What is the difference between naturally occuring CO2 and anthropomorphic CO2? Is there a different chemical composition? Do they affect the atmosphere and climate differently? Sounds like the only people being silly are the ones claiming the gas that every living breathing creature exhales is a pollutant

And how come the Supreme Court didn't specify what type of CO2 they considered a pollutant? Seems to me if they only meant anthropomorphic CO2 they would specify that

3/14/2008 5:44:09 PM

Quote :

"In one of the most important decisions in environmental law, the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant and that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the right to regulate CO2 emissions from new cars."

So from the article that I posted (which you obviously neglected to read) the SCOTUS ruling established CO2 as a pollutant so that new car emissions could be regulated by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. This has NOTHING to do with plants nor animals. And like I have previously stated in other threads the ineptitude of W.'s Environmental Puppet Agency is so appalling that it'd be remarkable if they acted on this at all.

Look, when the EPA starts regulating breathing I will buy you a chicken dinner.

3/14/2008 6:16:14 PM

so they essentially lied in their classification of CO2 as a pollutant just so they could control the emissions? they couldnt have controlled the emissions any other way? i'm still shocked that they classified it as a pollutant honestly...the only way it would make any sense would be if there were dangerously high concentrations...but if that were the case water vapor would be a pollutant since its a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2...but then you'd say something about "naturally occuring water vapor" and act like it made perfect sense for a government agency to classify water vapor as a pollutant

3/14/2008 6:33:05 PM

Who are "they" and how did "they" lie?

3/14/2008 6:59:56 PM

Quote :

"the US Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant"

the US Supreme Court is they

they lied by classifying CO2 as a pollutant

3/14/2008 7:07:09 PM

Well either take it up with them or change your tampon.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 7:17:43 PM

^^Thats stupid. They didn't lie. They made a judgement call that large-scale emissions of CO2 pose a risk to humans and nature.

Like carbon dioxide, there are many pollutants which are emitted naturally. Nitrous oxides, sulfur and carbon monoxide are all released in volcanic eruptions.

Also, there are pollutants which, like CO2, aren't poisonous but pose a long-term risk. CFC's are harmless to people but they destroy the ozone layer.

Water vapor is not classified as a pollutant because the vapor in the air is naturally occuring and does not have the atmospheric life that CO2 does. Water vapor condenses in clouds and falls back to the earth within days or weeks, while carbon dioxide lasts several thousands of years in the air once released. Also the amount of water vapor contributed by human emissions is less than miniscule.


[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:22 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 7:17:55 PM

but about water vapor...water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than co2, and therefore in high concentrations would be even more dangerous than co2...i'll save the variance of localized and regional water vapor concentrations and their difficult-to-accurately-measure effects on climate change for another time but water vapor has the potential to heat the earth a lot faster than co2, even though there is less of it currently

many of the clean fuel sources emitted a decent percentage of water vapor in their exhaust which could certainly be a problem long term, a much larger problem than current co2 vapor concentrations

but the point is, neither co2 or h20 in its gas form is harmful by nature...why do they feel the need to get the Supreme Court to write into law that the same gas we exhale is technically a pollutant? why can't they regulate emissions without deceiving the public perception of some ignorant average joe's who now think that co2 is inherently dangerous?

3/14/2008 7:23:58 PM

Once again, it is the scientific community's view (at least the vast majority anyway) and the Supreme Court's view that current carbon dioxide emissions pose a threat to humanity, and thusly are classified as a pollutant. Just like CFC's, they aren't harmful to people, but they are harmful to the environment and thusly pose a risk to us.

Water vapor is nothing like carbon dioxide. It exists naturally in the air due to the evaporation / condensation cycle, and any human contributions are extremely tiny. On the other hand, carbon dioxide is a trace gas and we have more than doubled it's amount in the air through man-made emissions. The carbon dioxide we have added to the atmosphere will be there for thousands of years, while any momentary boost in water vapor will condense and fall back to earth in a matter of days. You can't even compare the 2, unless you are being purposefully naive.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:35 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 7:31:48 PM

If water vapor were present in such quantities in the atmosphere that it were causing significant problems, then, yes, it would be a pollutant. If that were the case we would have to do something to regulate it.

3/14/2008 7:34:10 PM

^^i'll mention that CO2 also naturally exists in the atmosphere...its one of the 4 primary gases in the atmosphere...and like i said water vapor varies by location and time so its difficult to accurately measure the fluctuations in water vapor and subsequently its effect on climate change

but you can definitely compare the two considering they are both greenhouse gases

you also might want to acknowledge that "Greenhouse gases include, in order of relative abundance: water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."

in addition i challenge you to realize that "Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect"

in regards to concentrations, i acknowledged that water vapor currently doesnt have the concentration from human emissions to be a problem..."Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields)."

Like I already said, some of the new clean fuel alternatives have a higher concentration of water vapor...if one of those fuel alternatives were to become the new standard, "the new gasoline", and power all of our cars, you can bet the localized greenhouse effect would be higher than the current co2 effect

source

considering the impact on the greenhouse effect i'm wondering how you seem to be so ignorant of the major role water vapor plays in the climate

3/14/2008 7:39:21 PM

^^^ Not true. Water vapor is by far the most significant greenhouse gas--and its effects are often underestimated.

Now, just about anything in massive quantities can be harmful--just as CO2 was with the massive Lake Nyos release that killed almost 2000 people. But even, say, Gatorade could be harmful if too much is released--but that doesn't make it an actual pollutant.

You need to take another look at water vapor--and methane, for that matter.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:40 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2008 7:39:51 PM

^^^LOL, is the Supreme Court going to regulate the laws of physics and chemistry? Because there is much more water vapor in the air due to evaporation than humans could ever hope to contribute via emissions.


There is approximately 100 times more water vapor in the air than carbon dioxide, and it's constantly fluctuating via the evaporation / condensation cycle. Just try to imagine the scale of emissions needed to significantly impact the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere.


In contrast, the rise in carbon dioxide over the last few centuries is directly attributable to man. If it is indeed causing the rise in temperatures we've seen lately, then it can and should be classified as a pollutant.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:46 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 7:43:38 PM

Quote :

"Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect"

tell me again why CO2 is currently a bigger problem than water vapor?

3/14/2008 7:45:13 PM

Because we have virtually no control over water vapor. How hard is that to understand?

3/14/2008 7:47:53 PM

Quote :

"Just try to imagine the scale of emissions needed to significantly impact the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere"

well there are over 700,000,000 automobiles in the world for starters

let alone any plants or factories that decided to switch to a new energy source resulting in more water vapor emissions

and how significant of an impact would we really need? its already the most influential greenhouse gas...it already has the biggest impact on climate change (between h2o and co2, even though you hardly ever hear about it when people discuss climate change)...you're quick to acknowledge the potential problems in the future with co2 emissions but you're dismissing any potential problems from a more dangerous gas in high concentrations? that makes no sense

3/14/2008 7:48:26 PM

Goddamn you're stupid.

Water vapor is not more dangerous. It is not a more powerful greenhouse gas. It just exists (naturally I might add) in the environment in much higher concentrations.

While CO2 comprises about .0383% of the atmosphere, water vapor is about 1-4%. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE there.

Also, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, while water vapor condenses and falls back to earth in days or weeks. I'm tired of repeating this fact. How can you not grasp it? Are you dumb? Or just trolling? Please tell me...

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 7:56:16 PM

so if water vapor was the primary emission of 700,000,000 automobiles it wouldnt have any effect?

hey look heres a car whose only emission is water vapor http://current.com/items/88610031_honda_s_fcx_s_only_emission_is_water

Quote :

"It just exists (naturally I might add) in the environment in much higher concentrations."

which in turn causes it to have a bigger impact on climate...why cant you understand that water vapor has the bigger impact on climate change?

3/14/2008 7:58:48 PM

I know that water vapor is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse gas effect. Everybody in this thread knows as much. It is common knowledge, and I thought it went without saying.

That said, 700 million hydrogen cars would have a negligable impact on the amount of water vapor in the air? Why? 2 reasons:

1: 700 million cars, millions of factories, etc have raised the amount of CO2 from .02% to .038% over the last 300 years. How the fuck are we gonna raise the amount of water vapor significantly if there is 100 times more water vapor in the air than carbon dioxide? Build 700 billion hydrogen cars?

2: BECAUSE IT RAINS, YOU DUMB SHIT! Any water vapor spewed into the air would be gone within weeks, unlike CO2 which stays in the air for thousands of years. Think about that for a minute. Every day it rains thousands (millions?) of tons of water back to the earth. Correspondingly, thousands or millions of tons of water evaporate into the air. Do you honestly think human contributions could come anywhere close to the millions of tons of water that already evaporates on a daily basis?



[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 8:10 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 8:07:27 PM

Quote :

"700 million cars, millions of factories, etc have raised the amount of CO2 from .02% to .038% over the last 300 years. How the fuck are we gonna raise the amount of water vapor significantly if there is 100 times more water vapor in the air than carbon dioxide?"

the temperature has risen 2 degrees in the last 300 years from all that CO2, and water vapor still controls the climate more than CO2

3/14/2008 8:10:47 PM

The Sun controls climate more than both of them, lets regulate that bitch.

The reality is that water vapor occurs naturally in the air at concentrations much higher than we could ever hope to contribute. The same is not true for CO2.

3/14/2008 8:13:19 PM

Quote :

"Every day it rains thousands (millions?) of tons of water back to the earth. Correspondingly, millions of tons of water evaporates into the air"

~90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is transferred between the atmosphere and ocean DAILY...dont act like water vapor is completely natural and co2 is all anthropomorphic...carbon sinks in the ocean have a much huger impact on co2 concentrations than any cars or factories...yet water vapor, which surprise, also gets transferred between the ocean and atmosphere more than terrestrial rains, still has a bigger impact on climate change

Quote :

"The Sun controls climate more than both of them"

the Sun, much like water vapor, is often left completely out of climate change discussions...why is it the two main contributors (or at least 2 things that contribute much more to climate change than CO2) always seemed to get left out of the discussion?

3/14/2008 8:14:30 PM

Quote :

"~90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is transferred between the atmosphere and ocean DAILY"

90%? Daily? I might have to check on that one. But yeah, our oceans are getting very carbonic.

Quote :

"the Sun, much like water vapor, is often left completely out of climate change discussions...why is it the two main contributors (or at least 2 things that contribute much more to climate change than CO2) always seemed to get left out of the discussion?"

Most scientists believe that the Sun and water vapor are constants that cannot be regulated.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 8:17 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 8:15:57 PM

Quote :

"Most scientists believe that the Sun and water vapor are constants that cannot be regulated."

but don't you think its dishonest though that the Sun isn't hardly ever even MENTIONED when discussing the climate? it seems if the layperson watches something on climate change, all they come away with is that CO2 is bad and its the sole reason and contributor to our climate getting hotter

3/14/2008 8:16:43 PM

The Sun isn't getting any brighter or dimmer. It fluctuates some, but I think it's pretty constant over long periods of time. Likewise with water vapor. The variable that seems to be driving the recent high temperatures is carbon dioxide.

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 8:19 PM. Reason : 2]

3/14/2008 8:18:51 PM

'seems' being the key word

the simple facts that the sun and water vapor have as much impact on the climate as they do makes it seem like a small fluctuation could have quite noticeable effects...i've seen graphs that show a decent correlation between solar radiation and temperature, albeit a lag for the ~93,000,000 mile distance difference

[Edited on March 14, 2008 at 8:34 PM. Reason : where did i get 44,000,000 from??]

3/14/2008 8:20:37 PM

dude. The problem w/ the Sun is NOT its brightness. It has everything to do w/ its magnetic field and how that field effects Earth. The fact is, many people knew about this in the 70s, and based on that they predicted that we would have a dramatic warm period around the end of the century. But, we ignore them, because CO2 is a much sexier explanation and, as you mentioned before, can be regulated. The nice thing about regulations is that they can be distorted to affect economies and make people lots of money.

And, for the record, the jury is still out on CFCs and whether or not they ever had any effect on the ozone layer. It is quite coincidental that the CFC scare came about right around the time DuPont's patents expired for those materials.

3/14/2008 9:35:51 PM

Quote :

"In contrast, the rise in carbon dioxide over the last few centuries is directly attributable to man. If it is indeed causing the rise in temperatures we've seen lately, then it can and should be classified as a pollutant"

Of course that would make perfect sense if there was any concrete proof that CO2 is responsible. But it isn't, so there never will be.

3/14/2008 10:30:45 PM

Quote :

"And, for the record, the jury is still out on CFCs and whether or not they ever had any effect on the ozone layer. It is quite coincidental that the CFC scare came about right around the time DuPont's patents expired for those materials."

Not true. The hole that was developing in the ozone layer is already starting to fix itself and it's due solely to the fact that CFCs are no longer used.

3/15/2008 12:09:29 PM

Not to mention that the chemical reaction that holds CFCs responsible is known and demonstrable in a lab experiment.

3/15/2008 12:35:31 PM

Remind me again. How many air conditioners do we have in antarctica? You know, where the fucking hole was? and then, let's remember that CFCs don't react w/ ozone. Chlorine does. Wonder where we might find a bunch of chlorine... Maybe... OUR FUCKING OCEANS? naaaaaaah. that's crazy talk.

[Edited on March 15, 2008 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ]

3/15/2008 3:28:36 PM

do you even know what a CFC is?

chlorofluorocarbon

oh, and there's thing called weather. takes air and shit from one part of the world to another

3/15/2008 6:23:12 PM

yes, I'm aware that CFCs have chlorine in them. BUT, a CFC has to be broken apart before the chlorine can do any damage...

AND, it seems quite implausible that all of the CFCs would be shifted to the south pole and cause a ruckus there, don't you think?

3/16/2008 1:12:21 AM

^ are you serious? CFCs get broken apart by lighting/stellar radiation. I'm pretty sure they taught this to you back in middle school.

The antarctic is particularly susceptible to excess chlorine-based chemicals because of its greater exposure to stellar radiation, as well as being so cold (which actually is in a positive feedback loop for each other). The antarctice ozone hole is pretty well studied, as well as the chemical interactions of CFCs and the atmosphere. It's one thing to reject climate change science, but rejecting CFCs as being bad for the ozone is pretty out there.

3/16/2008 1:23:35 AM

Dude, there isn't a large amount of chlorine in the oceans. Chlorine is what people put in pools to make sure shit can't survive in there. You're an idiot.

3/16/2008 1:24:56 PM

and so, again, all of those air conditioners down in the antarctic caused all of that. gotcha think about what you are saying.

3/16/2008 6:28:38 PM

Quote :

"oh, and there's thing called weather. takes air and shit from one part of the world to another"

You're still an idiot.

3/16/2008 8:10:43 PM

SOLAR DATABASES FOR GLOBAL CHANGE MODELS

Quote :

"The complicated internal processes that couple the atmosphere, the oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems are not well understood. NOAA scientists recently found that clouds absorb more of the Sun's radiation than previously believed -- 15% versus the 4% currently accepted theories predict. Thus, less solar radiation reaches the Earth's surface in cloudy areas (39% versus 50% traditionally assumed) (Cess et al., 1995). Other NOAA scientists recently found a significant increase in the levels of water vapor in the atmosphere from 1981-1994 which could lead to global warming and a greater ozone loss (Oltman et. al, 1995). A 1% drop in ozone levels causes a 2% increase in skin cancer [emphasis added]."

Quote :

"There are many uncertainties in our understanding of the internal processes. It is to the benefit of mankind to study the Sun-climate system and to understand the consequences of our impact on this system."

Quote :

"Several investigations have shown positive correlations of solar influences on climate change. The hydrological system is a major player in the weather system because 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water. Dr. George Reid, senior NOAA scientist, examined the sea surface temperature record for the last 130 years and found an interesting correlation with the 11 year running mean sunspot number (Reid, 1987, 1991). Though not identical, the two time series have several features in common, including a prominent minimum during the early 1900s, a steep rise to maximum in the 1950s, a drop in the 1960s and early 1970s, and then a rise that continues to date. Sea surface temperature data are from the British Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. An updated improved version of these data will be provided soon and will reside in our ftp anonymous account under the GLOBAL_CHANGE subdirectory."

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

You fucking know-it-alls need to take a class or something and begin to apply some critical-thinking skills. Stop just scarfing down the shit that's being spoon-fed to you by certain left-wing alarmists.

3/16/2008 11:09:58 PM

^^ that still doesn't explain why we have a big fucking hole in one place only. and in a place where there are no CFCs to begin with...

^ hell, the "scientists" need to take some classes and remember what the fuck the scientific method actually is. Namely that you draw conclusions from data, not find data to fit your pre-formed conclusions

3/17/2008 12:35:24 AM

^ Indeed.

3/17/2008 12:44:40 AM

oh shit. It's cooling off!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home

3/29/2008 11:03:41 PM

it's cooling off. lol

lol @ 41 pages of BS

3/30/2008 3:30:36 PM