CO2 to Became Public Danger

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.

But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.

I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”

In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.

42

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.

But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.

I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”

In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.[/quote]

You said along the lines of “no difference of any kind has been measured at all”, when in fact there would be differences in molecular weights. And don’t worry, I’m just busting your balls by pointing out stupid technicalities, people that think that chemicals have “magic” properties based on the process that makes them need to stop injecting their viewpoints into scientific discussions.

43

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Since you’re saying it again even after I made a point of it, your standard then is that a thing man is doing must be beneficial to the environment or it should not be done: the cost-benefit ratio is irrelevant.
[/quote]

Not quite as simply as you are saying it.

But the point here now is that you’re using gross generalizations to apologize for civ. Obviously life feeds on life. Obviously destruction/death is necessary for new life. But this is most definitely NOT what civ. does.

Here are two examples:

One.

Indigenous tribes and non-humans lived on and off this same land for at least several millennia without significant damage (read many of the diaries and writings from those who invaded and listen to the oratory history from many still-living tribes to be introduced to stories of what this land looked like prior to civ.).

Two.

The same culture who produced civ. and pushed it outward was the same ones who basically made Easter Island into a moonscape. There are numerous other examples of civ. or civ-like societies that lived in an unsustainable way, only to see their collapse.

Fine with me. Need help?

See above.

This is what real sustainability looks like (respect for the land that sustains you and your community’s life). Not that shit you see peddled by ad men and the State. The land-base doesn’t need us…but we need it.

[quote]
It’s not necessary to show benefit to CO2 to argue against costs of trillions to reduce emissions.

Though there is some benefit to agriculture and to plant life in general. But that is not the point and should not be.

On the pollution issue: CO2 at levels such as are in the atmosphere or even quite substantially higher are not toxic to man, plant, or any animal and therefore should not be classed as “pollution” by the EPA. They are doing so out of wanting to impose global-warming dictates without needing legislation to do it.[/quote]

As I said before, it’s not just the issue with CO2. If that’s all civ. produced, that would be a fucking miracle. But it’s not.

44

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I would say that the structure is not the same, if speaking very precisely instead of broadly. It is perfectly ordinary to write a structure to show where a different isotope is used.

But you’re right on the technicality that the structure is often called the same regardless of isotopic composition, though in fact the arrangement of atoms is different.

I understand “same structure” to mean “same arrangement of atoms.”

In practice though, one doesn’t worry where carbon isotopes might be randomly different within a structure. It would make a difference in the carbon NMR and the mass spec, or a truly tiny difference in diffusivity, but not any other property that I can think of. (Doesn’t affect chemistry except maybe to the 9th decimal place or something.) So in that sense yes, people do wind up calling them the same structure.[/quote]

You said along the lines of “no difference of any kind has been measured at all”, when in fact there would be differences in molecular weights. And don’t worry, I’m just busting your balls by pointing out stupid technicalities, people that think that chemicals have “magic” properties based on the process that makes them need to stop injecting their viewpoints into scientific discussions.
[/quote]

Yes, but you’re assuming that when I wrote “same structure” I meant “same arrangement of elements” rather than “same arrangement of atoms.”

I will agree that I was not sufficiently precise in my writing, but I did in fact mean same arrangement of atoms. I am aware of isotopic difference making a difference. For example, if you drank D2O (heavy water) it would kill you in relatively modest quantities. (Exactly how much I don’t know: I would fear a liter of it, but not a microliter.)

45

Bill,

It’s obvious that we are in two different places that run parallel to each other, hence, we probably will never see eye to eye (or even get remotely close). It’s fine. There’s no hard feelings on my side.

Let’s move on to something else.

46

No problem! :slight_smile:

47

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]
Once again you can not prove that CO2 does anything.[/quote]

It’s a greenhouse gas.[/quote]

And what does it do? We can see it doesn’t raise temperatures because if it did the “scientists” wouldn’t have had to create a bunch of fake data.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re denying. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That it asorbs and re-emitts radiation? If we can’t deny that, then we know it has an effect. And, if we know we contribute CO2…

Higher life forms have benefited from this effect, really. It wouldn’t be nearly as cozy a planet if you were correct. The real question is if we humans, with our cleverness and industry, are capable of freeing up enough CO2 (amongst other contributions) to make life rather unpleasant on the whole. But, to say CO2 has no effect? I think the argument is lost right there.

Can it trend colder while CO2 levels rise? Sure, makes sense to me. I don’t think greenhouse gases are the only factor. But, I don’t think anyone claims such a thing. However, might it’ve been colder? When it trends warmer, will it be even warmer? Not to mention the debate over the existence of a cooling trend from 1998, as we always hear about.

I wouldn’t call myself an enviromentalist, for sure. Far too much leap before you look going on in that camp. Maybe a conservationist suits better. So, while I’m skeptical, I’m not a denier. I am very skeptical of how much we contribute (not that we don’t), and what we’d actually be able to do about a long term warming trend in the present, without bringing economic harm to ourselves. [/quote]

The planet has been doing alright so far. I too am an conservationist, I don’t think we should be dumping stuff into our water or anything like that. I believe that if we cut down a tree we should replant it. But the thought that CO2 is a public danger is fucking retarded.

We should all be able to agree on that point. Isn’t it pretty convenient that the one “kind” of CO2 that is harmful to the planets is made from factories and businesses? And look the big nice government is here to help. They don’t have any interest of messing with businesses, they just want to help the environment. I know a scam when I see one.

48

Don’t worry. This is just the beginning. Human Co2 Emissions will be next. Taxes will be levied on countries with the largest populations. Their population will be calculated to have pumped millions of tonnes of co2 just through breathing and exhaling air.

49

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.

50

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.

51

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.

To give you a similar example, it would be ironic if 10% of crime (I’m making this stat up) was committed by cops. Now, cops may be crime neutral, or even crime “negative”, but that doesn’t make it not ironic.

52

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.

To give you a similar example, it would be ironic if 10% of crime (I’m making this stat up) was committed by cops. Now, cops may be crime neutral, or even crime “negative”, but that doesn’t make it not ironic.
[/quote]

Cops commit plenty of crime. 10% may be right anyway.

But any who, A plant will consume CO2 for decades. Sometimes hundreds and sometimes thousands of years for some particularly long lives species. So when they die and decompose, they will nurture the ground for the next crop of trees and plants. The co2 emissions here are a miniscule fraction of one tenth of one percent, especially when you compare what the plant Gave us during it’s ENTIRE life cycle.

It’s like blaming a giver, a true GIVER for not giving enough.

53

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.

To give you a similar example, it would be ironic if 10% of crime (I’m making this stat up) was committed by cops. Now, cops may be crime neutral, or even crime “negative”, but that doesn’t make it not ironic.
[/quote]

Cops commit plenty of crime. 10% may be right anyway.

But any who, A plant will consume CO2 for decades. Sometimes hundreds and sometimes thousands of years for some particularly long lives species. So when they die and decompose, they will nurture the ground for the next crop of trees and plants. The co2 emissions here are a miniscule fraction of one tenth of one percent, especially when you compare what the plant Gave us during it’s ENTIRE life cycle.

It’s like blaming a giver, a true GIVER for not giving enough.

[/quote]

So you’re against holding cops accountable? because after all, they prevent crimes too.

And I’m not blaming anything, just noting a simple irony. In addition the death of a plant isn’t the only time it contributes to co2 emissions. For instance any time something falls off a tree it decays and releases co2. leaves/needles, fruit, nuts, ect.

54

So does this make running illegal…after all…I’ll be putting out more CO2? Someone tell the army!

55

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]

…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…

56

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]

…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…[/quote]

If we are worrying about plants absorbing co2, maybe we should look to the earth’s oceans. Plankton are a lot more important in that respect that rain forests. If we are trying to save the plankton, I would think ask myself, “what kills plankton?” The damn whales. If co2 is so dangerous, maybe we should think about taking up whaling again. Save the earth, kill the whales!

57

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]

…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…[/quote]

If we are worrying about plants absorbing co2, maybe we should look to the earth’s oceans. Plankton are a lot more important in that respect that rain forests. If we are trying to save the plankton, I would think ask myself, “what kills plankton?” The damn whales. If co2 is so dangerous, maybe we should think about taking up whaling again. Save the earth, kill the whales![/quote]

I’d also like to point out that the largest forest in the world and it’s not even close the Taiga/Boreal is the leading consumer of CO2 and producer of oxygen. It’s the northenmost forest and since it has a high percentage of conifers, it has the ability to repirate 365 days a year. Here is the catch. They only respirate when it gets above freezing (obviously frozen water cannot be transported for respiration to take place). The average temperature of the forest is 1 degrees C, which means almost exactly half of the year it is not respirating. If the temperateure of the earth were to increase because of greenhouse emissions, this forest would be warm more days per year and essentially scrub even more co2 out of the air, making it a natural buffer for the greenhouse gas co2. Also some estimates indicate the forest itself has increased in density by 33% over the last 15 years and is increasing in size (moving further north) at 3 meters per year. Just some food for thought.

V

58

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

59

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]

…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…[/quote]

If we are worrying about plants absorbing co2, maybe we should look to the earth’s oceans. Plankton are a lot more important in that respect that rain forests. If we are trying to save the plankton, I would think ask myself, “what kills plankton?” The damn whales. If co2 is so dangerous, maybe we should think about taking up whaling again. Save the earth, kill the whales![/quote]

…you’d be glad to know that in a couple of decades that may be reality…

60

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…once again; destroying our rainforests does not help earth to deal with CO2 levels…

[/quote]

Actually, ironically, plant decay is a leading co2 emitter.
[/quote]

False. They are Carbon Neutral.
[/quote]

Perhaps you misread what I said. Plant decay releases a shit ton of co2. That is a fact. One that is ironic. Plants, like the ones you see in rain forests, may infact be carbon neutral in their life cycle. That isn’t what I was commenting on. However, as you note, even if they are carbon neutral, destroying them would have no effect on co2.[/quote]

…except that the destruction of rainforests undermines the planet’s ability to [re]absorb CO2 into the system causing a cascade effect of ever increasing CO2 levels. Ironically, plants benefit from increased CO2 levels, but grass may grow tall overnight, a 100 foot forest giant takes a little while longer…[/quote]

If we are worrying about plants absorbing co2, maybe we should look to the earth’s oceans. Plankton are a lot more important in that respect that rain forests. If we are trying to save the plankton, I would think ask myself, “what kills plankton?” The damn whales. If co2 is so dangerous, maybe we should think about taking up whaling again. Save the earth, kill the whales![/quote]

I’d also like to point out that the largest forest in the world and it’s not even close the Taiga/Boreal is the leading consumer of CO2 and producer of oxygen. It’s the northenmost forest and since it has a high percentage of conifers, it has the ability to repirate 365 days a year. Here is the catch. They only respirate when it gets above freezing (obviously frozen water cannot be transported for respiration to take place). The average temperature of the forest is 1 degrees C, which means almost exactly half of the year it is not respirating. If the temperateure of the earth were to increase because of greenhouse emissions, this forest would be warm more days per year and essentially scrub even more co2 out of the air, making it a natural buffer for the greenhouse gas co2. Also some estimates indicate the forest itself has increased in density by 33% over the last 15 years and is increasing in size (moving further north) at 3 meters per year. Just some food for thought.

V[/quote]

…so global warming is fact?