Heartland Institute attacks Pope's position on Climate Change

[bshole]

What does make something a pollutant, specifically?
.

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change

The big argument is whether CO2 is causing ADVERSE change or just change. There has been much study in attempts to show that CO2 is causing change. There is a decidely gaping hole in attempts to show the effects are a net benefit or a net detriment globally. One would have balance the net benefits (transportation, communication, planet greening, increased crop yields, etc...) against the net detriments (whatever the hell they are). How in the hell one could prove it a net negative/positive would seem to boil down to a simple matter of opinion.

It is certainly different than a river of shit or air you can cut with a knife. Breathing our CO2 "polluted" air causes no ill effects on living animals and benefits plants.

 

[fskimospy]

Since the EPA pretty much defines a pollutant as anything they deem to be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act it is ridiculous to use the EPA's completely self serving and circular definition of a pollutant.

Also, under their definition, we all potentially pollute just by being alive and breathing.

So? Human waste of many types can be considered pollutants, yet those are all things we make simply by being alive. Presumably if a local river was filled with human shit you would consider it polluted despite the fact that we all would then be 'polluting' just by being alive.

The fact that humans emit something as a byproduct of life means nothing as to whether or not it is a pollutant. The EPA and SCOTUS both agree that CO2 meets the standard.

 

[Subyman]

Wow, so now the discussion is about CO2 being a pollutant or not? Who cares? It doesn't change the core climate change discussion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why are you concerned? I love you and see in you a person of the highest moral character. And yet you seem to chafe under the moral load that is given to all who are virtuous to bear. All of that is symbolized by the cross and crucifixion. Yet you seem so angry and call others dishonest. Why? Why do you complain of exhaustion? What are the motives that drive you. What does it matter if the LBD has created an altered reality where death by man made pollution destroying the world is a total fiction. Should you be angry that you can't awaken these sleepers from their sleep. Is that your job and your responsibility? How did such a yoke get placed around your neck?

I’m not angry that I can't awaken these sleepers from their sleep, just increasingly tired of trying. Motives are a curious thing, and frankly, I don’t trust myself to objectively decipher them. But I do thank you for your kind words…however, as a man of a thousand regrets, I can only cringe at the reality of my moral character. Your questions regarding motives reminds me that I’ve been questioning my participation in this forum lately. It seems that I have nothing to say to many of these people anymore. Sometimes I find do humor in what they say, but this typically turns quickly to sadness at their depraved condition. How’s that for high moral character, condescension coming from some sad fuck like me? I can only laugh at myself, and wonder why the yoke seems so damn heavy.

 

[xBiffx]

So? Human waste of many types can be considered pollutants, yet those are all things we make simply by being alive. Presumably if a local river was filled with human shit you would consider it polluted despite the fact that we all would then be 'polluting' just by being alive.

The fact that humans emit something as a byproduct of life means nothing as to whether or not it is a pollutant. The EPA and SCOTUS both agree that CO2 meets the standard.

You missed a subtle but important detail. I have to put my shit in the river in order to pollute it, a secondary and voluntary act on my part. With CO2, I don't have to do anything voluntary. No, I simply have to be alive. Unless you want to argue that breathing is somehow a choice now?

 

[First]

He, to the best I can determine, never became a solar physicist. he had some training, but appears to never have completed.

Since he described himself as a cartoonist, it would seem to me that would be an appropriate way to refer to him.

I would stay away from Cook as he has reportedly had a tendency to edit comments from skeptics on his blog site to say something not always intended.

By trade and by education are different things. He has a degree in physics.

 

[xBiffx]

Wow, so now the discussion is about CO2 being a pollutant or not? Who cares? It doesn't change the core climate change discussion.

It kinda does. The argument is what extent humans, via CO2 mostly, are adding to warming. If CO2 in much larger quantities doesn't change the climate a great deal then classifying it at a pollutant is incredibly retarded.

 

[fskimospy]

You missed a subtle but important detail. I have to put my shit in the river in order to pollute it, a secondary and voluntary act on my part. With CO2, I don't have to do anything voluntary. No, I simply have to be alive. Unless you want to argue that breathing is somehow a choice now?

People would likely consider it a pollutant if you dropped your shit in the overwhelming majority of places around where you live. The only place they likely wouldn't view it as such is if you make a conscious effort to deposit it somewhere that it is taken away and treated to detoxify it. (here's hoping that's the case!) If anything, shitting generally requires a secondary, voluntary act to render it NOT a pollutant.

I'm really glad we got a chance to talk about this, btw. Haha.

 

[xBiffx]

People would likely consider it a pollutant if you dropped your shit in the overwhelming majority of places around where you live. The only place they likely wouldn't view it as such is if you make a conscious effort to deposit it somewhere that it is taken away and treated to detoxify it. (here's hoping that's the case!) If anything, shitting generally requires a secondary, voluntary act to render it NOT a pollutant.

I'm really glad we got a chance to talk about this, btw. Haha.

Again, making a choice and a voluntary action on my part is causing it to be considered a pollutant. Simply being alive isn't. Not the case with CO2.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, making a choice and a voluntary action on my part is causing it to be considered a pollutant. Simply being alive isn't. Not the case with CO2.

Defecation is not a voluntary act any more than breathing is. Absent you making a specific choice to defecate in a location where it can be treated, you would be polluting the environment. Defecation in one of those specified areas is not the default, it is the result of a conscious, voluntary choice. There's no way around this. There are also steps you could take to limit your breathing CO2 pollution, such as breathing into a scrubber or something. Just because that alternative exists does not make CO2 not a pollutant.

The whole thing is silly anyway. The fact of whether something comes out of people or not is in no way a determining factor as to whether it is a pollutant. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[xBiffx]

Defecation is not a voluntary act any more than breathing is. Absent you making a specific choice to defecate in a location where it can be treated, you would be polluting the environment. There's no way around this. There are also steps you could take to limit your breathing CO2 pollution, such as breathing into a scrubber or something. Just because that alternative exists does not make CO2 not a pollutant.

The whole thing is silly anyway. The fact of whether something comes out of people or not is in no way a determining factor as to whether it is a pollutant. It's entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Where you defecate is a voluntary act (hopefully D: ). That's the point. Sorry you keep missing that.

No, according to the EPA anything they want to regulate can be classified as a pollutant. So we have an even sillier definition for it. One that you seem to think is OK.

 

[fskimospy]

Where you defecate is a voluntary act (hopefully D: ). That's the point. Sorry you keep missing that.

Exactly my point! Defecation happens no matter what. If you take absolutely no action it will happen sooner or later. Only by a voluntary choice are you able to prevent it from polluting your environment unless you happen to live in or directly above a sewage treatment tank I guess, in which case you have my sympathies.

No, according to the EPA anything they want to regulate can be classified as a pollutant. So we have an even sillier definition for it. One that you seem to think is OK.

That is not correct and that's not how the courts have interpreted it either. While Congress has ordered the EPA to determine if something is a pollutant or not, their determination must be based on science and cannot be arbitrary as you describe.

In fact, under Bush the EPA refused to classify CO2 as a pollutant until SCOTUS ordered them to do so (or provide a science based justification as to why they wouldn't) The law not only empowers them to determine what pollutants are, it also imposes duties on them.

 

[xBiffx]

That is not correct and that's not how the courts have interpreted it either. While Congress has ordered the EPA to determine if something is a pollutant or not, their determination must be based on science and cannot be arbitrary as you describe.

In fact, under Bush the EPA refused to classify CO2 as a pollutant until SCOTUS ordered them to do so (or provide a science based justification as to why they wouldn't) The law not only empowers them to determine what pollutants are, it also imposes duties on them.

Not sure how any of that refuted what I said previously. If a definition can be ordered or determined by the EPA, SC, or otherwise, how is that objective and scientific? How is that not exactly what I said how the EP is doing it already?

If they want to call something a pollutant, they can. If they are ordered to call something a pollutant, they will. Same difference. That doesn't make the definition any more sound.

Fact is, classifying CO2 as a pollutant is rooted in politics, not science as you showed.

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure how any of that refuted what I said previously. If a definition can be ordered or determined by the EPA, SC, or otherwise, how is that objective and scientific? How is that not exactly what I said how the EP is doing it already?

If they want to call something a pollutant, they can. If they are ordered to call something a pollutant, they will. Same difference. That doesn't make the definition any more sound.

Fact is, classifying CO2 as a pollutant is rooted in politics, not science as you showed.

No, it comes from both. Legislation defines what a pollutant is, and the science determines whether or not that definition is met.

1. Pollution is generally defined as the introduction of something into the environment that has harmful effects.
2. Science shows emitting CO2 into the environment in the concentrations we are emitting it has harmful effects. Q.E.D.

 

[thraashman]

There's far too many people in this thread that will come up with any sort of crazy shit in order to turn a blind eye to the destruction of the environment. Funny to think the EPA was created by the executive order of a Republican, and now the Republicans have moved so crazy ass far right that they think of the EPA as a socialist agency.

 

[xBiffx]

No, it comes from both. Legislation defines what a pollutant is, and the science determines whether or not that definition is met.

1. Pollution is generally defined as the introduction of something into the environment that has harmful effects.
2. Science shows emitting CO2 into the environment in the concentrations we are emitting it has harmful effects. Q.E.D.

When your definition is not rooted in science, but rather politics as you just agreed then please tell me why its wrong to question something falling under than definition in a scientific debate? In other words, we can scientifically determine what fits a political definition.

Sorry, but 2. has yet to be determined. That is the point of this whole CO2 as a pollutant discussion. One word, Venus.

 

[fskimospy]

When your definition is not rooted in science, but rather politics as you just agreed then please tell me why its wrong to question something falling under than definition in a scientific debate? In other words, we can scientifically determine what fits a political definition.

Science does not have a definition of pollution that I am aware of, nor could I think of a reason why it would. Science tells us that increasing CO2 concentrations have harmful effects, and we've decided to call harmful emissions pollutants.

Sorry, but 2. has yet to be determined. That is the point of this whole CO2 as a pollutant discussion. One word, Venus.

The science is pretty unequivocal on #2. You're going to have to explain why Venus having high concentrations of CO2 means that Earth isn't negatively affected by increasing concentrations of CO2.

 

[xBiffx]

Science does not have a definition of pollution that I am aware of, nor could I think of a reason why it would. Science tells us that increasing CO2 concentrations have harmful effects, and we've decided to call harmful emissions pollutants.

Only we haven't restricted it to harmful emissions. Herp derp.

The science is pretty unequivocal on #2. You're going to have to explain why Venus having high concentrations of CO2 means that Earth isn't negatively affected by increasing concentrations of CO2.

No, it isn't. That's where the debate sits today. Venus has an atmosphere comprised of 96% CO2 as opposed to Earth's 0.04%. Because of that, it reflects most of the energy from the sun. In fact, there is no difference in surface temperature between night and day because of this. So how is it that increasing concentrations of CO2 on earth is going to increase warming, even by minor amounts?

Maybe I should have mentioned Mars as well. It's atmosphere is over 90% CO2 yet its an ice block. Granted there are more significant reasons for that but with 90% CO2 it should be a pressure cooker (sarcasm).

CO2 isn't the problem or the major contributor to any global warming. If we are looking to our atmosphere, we can blame water vapor far more than CO2 for that. Time to classify water vapor as a pollutant....

 

[fskimospy]

Only we haven't restricted it to harmful emissions. Herp derp.

Not sure what that means.

No, it isn't. That's where the debate sits today.

There really isn't much of a debate on it.

Venus has an atmosphere comprised of 96% CO2 as opposed to Earth's 0.04%. Because of that, it reflects most of the energy from the sun. In fact, there is no difference in surface temperature between night and day because of this. So how is it that increasing concentrations of CO2 on earth is going to increase warming, even by minor amounts?

Maybe I should have mentioned Mars as well. It's atmosphere is over 90% CO2 yet its an ice block. Granted there are more significant reasons for that but with 90% CO2 it should be a pressure cooker (sarcasm).

No it shouldn't. In fact I remember awhile back I said something incorrect about this and you helped me understand it better. (that Venus's temperatures were due mostly to atmospheric pressure, not atmospheric composition)

You appear to be saying that you do not believe increasing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will lead to overall warmer temperatures. Is this correct? If so, this is pretty obviously wrong.

CO2 isn't the problem or the major contributor to any global warming. If we are looking to our atmosphere, we can blame water vapor far more than CO2 for that. Time to classify water vapor as a pollutant....

This is a faulty understanding of the role of water vapor. Here's the ACS on the matter:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain.

...

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

Water vapor is an effect, not a cause.

 

[Paratus]

Only we haven't restricted it to harmful emissions. Herp derp.



No, it isn't. That's where the debate sits today. Venus has an atmosphere comprised of 96% CO2 as opposed to Earth's 0.04%. Because of that, it reflects most of the energy from the sun. In fact, there is no difference in surface temperature between night and day because of this. So how is it that increasing concentrations of CO2 on earth is going to increase warming, even by minor amounts?

Maybe I should have mentioned Mars as well. It's atmosphere is over 90% CO2 yet its an ice block. Granted there are more significant reasons for that but with 90% CO2 it should be a pressure cooker (sarcasm).

CO2 isn't the problem or the major contributor to any global warming. If we are looking to our atmosphere, we can blame water vapor far more than CO2 for that. Time to classify water vapor as a pollutant....

Biff I have to clear up a few things because your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on how planets are warmed by the sun and the greenhouse effect.

Let's take Venus. The surface temperature of Venus averages 860F. Venus is farther away from the sun than Mercury, yet Mercury which recieves 3.5 times more energy from the sun than Venus has an average surface temperature of 800F.

Secondly the CO2 in the atmosphere in no way reflects sunlight. It is transparent. If it wasn't you'd be able to see it every time you exhaled. CO2 is however opaque to certain wavelengths of infrared or heat radiation which is why it is a greenhouse gas.

Without the greenhouse effect Venus does not receive enough energy to maintain its temperature or pressure.

Venus is the poster child for the runaway greenhouse effect as caused by CO2

As for Mars, it's a small world that's lost most of its atmosphere. It has less than 1% the pressure of Earths atmosphere let alone Venus. If you remember a cubic meter of hot dense gas has many more molecules than a cold thin gas. Mars simply doesn't have enough CO2 molecules to raise the global temperature even though the thin atmosphere is made of mostly CO2.

 

[xBiffx]

Biff I have to clear up a few things because your post demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding on how planets are warmed by the sun and the greenhouse effect.

Let's take Venus. The surface temperature of Venus averages 860F. Venus is farther away from the sun than Mercury, yet Mercury which recieves 3.5 times more energy from the sun than Venus has an average surface temperature of 800F.

Secondly the CO2 in the atmosphere in no way reflects sunlight. It is transparent. If it wasn't you'd be able to see it every time you exhaled. CO2 is however opaque to certain wavelengths of infrared or heat radiation which is why it is a greenhouse gas.

Without the greenhouse effect Venus does not receive enough energy to maintain its temperature or pressure.

Venus is the poster child for the runaway greenhouse effect as caused by CO2

As for Mars, it's a small world that's lost most of its atmosphere. It has less than 1% the pressure of Earths atmosphere let alone Venus. If you remember a cubic meter of hot dense gas has many more molecules than a cold thin gas. Mars simply doesn't have enough CO2 molecules to raise the global temperature even though the thin atmosphere is made of mostly CO2.

Venus is so hot simply because of the pressure of the atmosphere.

If the sun's energy played a major factor in Venus' temperature, you would see a difference in temperatures between day and night (243 earth days). It's albedo is almost double that of earth.

 

[Paratus]

This should go well.

Alas we probably won't have that discussion. As he already said, he won't consider discussing the causes of global warming with me until I reconsider my "intellectual dishonesty" about his position on the 97%.


On a slightly different subject, I don't know if you clicked the link on Judith Curry from that site, but holy crap. He calls her a "hurricane alarmist".

Judith Curry is not a skeptic but a hurricane alarmist who had an alleged epiphany after Climategate and now seeks to be some sort of arbiter of scientific integrity. Her history of trust building includes accusing world leading hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray of "brain fossilization" and that, "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say" for his objections to her alarmist position on hurricanes. Curry has derided skeptics as "deniers" in both a testimony to congress and in the peer-reviewed literature, apparently in attempts at building "trust".

This is like stating Glen Beck is just to socialist to listen to.

 

[Paratus]

Venus is so hot simply because of the pressure of the atmosphere.

If the sun's energy played a major factor in Venus' temperature, you would see a difference in temperatures between day and night (243 earth days). It's albedo is almost double that of earth.

Absolutely incorrect.

While the planet does have a 243 earth day cycle the Atmosphere does not. It circles planet in about four earth days averaging the temperatures across the planet.

The most detailed record of cloud motion in the atmosphere of Venus chronicled by ESA’s Venus Express has revealed that the planet’s winds have steadily been getting faster over the last six years.

Venus is well known for its curious super-rotating atmosphere, which whips around the planet once every four Earth days. This is in stark contrast to the rotation of the planet itself – the length of the day – which takes a comparatively laborious 243 Earth days.

The high albedo comes from the opaque clouds of sulfuric acid droplets not the CO2.

As for the pressure, dense hot gasses naturally want to expand and cool. On a planet that happens by radiating out into space. As you said yourself very little energy reaches the surface to maintain that pressure. The only reason that pressure is maintained is because very little of the energy that does reach the ground escapes back to space because of the 96% of the atmosphere that is CO2.

Venus receives less energy than Mercury. Barely any of the energy it does receive reaches the surface due to the clouds, yet it is hotter than Mercury a planet that receives almost 4 times as much energy.

 

[fskimospy]

Alas we probably won't have that discussion. As he already said, he won't consider discussing the causes of global warming with me until I reconsider my "intellectual dishonesty" about his position on the 97%.

On a slightly different subject, I don't know if you clicked the link on Judith Curry from that site, but holy crap. He calls her a "hurricane alarmist".

This is like stating Glen Beck is just to socialist to listen to.

The whole site is a gold mine of crazy.

 

[xBiffx]

Absolutely incorrect.

While the planet does have a 243 earth day cycle the Atmosphere does not. It circles planet in about four earth days averaging the temperatures across the planet.



The high albedo comes from the opaque clouds of sulfuric acid droplets not the CO2.

As for the pressure, dense hot gasses naturally want to expand and cool. On a planet that happens by radiating out into space. As you said yourself very little energy reaches the surface to maintain that pressure. The only reason that pressure is maintained is because very little of the energy that does reach the ground escapes back to space because of the 96% of the atmosphere that is CO2.

Venus receives less energy than Mercury. Barely any of the energy it does receive reaches the surface due to the clouds, yet it is hotter than Mercury a planet that receives almost 4 times as much energy.

How on Venus (he he) does the atmosphere circle the planet every 4 days. That would require wind. Wind requires temperature changes. The temperature doesn't change on Venus.

It doesn't matter where the high albedo comes from. What matters is that it negates the fact that Venus is closer to the sun and therefore receives more energy from the sun, at least at the top of the atmosphere that is.

Just a quick question. Why is the temperature at the top of Everest so much colder than at the base? I'll give you a hint: pressure.