Kevin Christensen Posted March 14, 2017 Posted March 14, 2017 30 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: So I should not take God at his word if his words come through man? I'm saying that you should not uncritically assume that you have interpreted those words in a God-like manner and that no further inquiry and contextualization could or should make a significant difference. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA 1
Stargazer Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 17 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The simple fact is that plants store some excess Oxygen for metabolism at night. See http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860 CO2 is a persistent gas. It takes about 200 years to break down. SEE https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain-air Believe it or not breathing in too much C02 definitely interferes with normal functioning, and that is at nowhere near 100% concentrations. Are you still holding your breath. If not why not? It isn't just my definition it is a pollutant in the standard definition in dictionaries and encyclopedias. CO2 also traps heat. The more CO2 trapped the hotter it gets. SEE https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm You know, I don't see your point, if there is one. Of course plants store some excess oxygen for metabolism at night. What on earth does this have to do with the subtopic, "carbon dioxide is a pollutant"? It's a total non-sequitur. Even if you try to pair it with the fact that plants take in carbon dioxide during the day and emit oxygen during photosynthesis. I don't dispute your assertion about storage of oxygen. I simply don't see that it's relevant to the present discussion. Oxygen is a persistent gas, too. What bloody difference does it make? The atmosphere is SUPPOSED to have carbon dioxide in it! It's not a superfluous component of the atmosphere. So what if too much carbon dioxide isn't good for you? Too much water isn't good for you, and too much food isn't good for you. That does not make any of these things "pollutants". And will you stop telling me to hold my breath? I am also not trying to dispute that carbon dioxide is an element of heat-trapping (and so is water vapor). Sure as day follows night, if we had too much carbon dioxide we'd be in trouble, and that's not what I am disputing. I am telling you that calling carbon dioxide a "pollutant", no matter what some dictionary says, is wrong. If it is a pollutant, then by golly, guess what, thesometimesaint is a polluter and must be suppressed. Because you emit this gas as a normal part of your "hot air", night and day, 365+ days per year. Do you have a permit for this? Do you feel it necessary to buy carbon credits for yourself, so you can continue to breathe in good conscience? Better open a window. Is oxygen a pollutant? Is water vapor a pollutant? And maybe I am in the end disagreeing with some politically-correct or generally accepted association of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and if so, then there we are. I just don't accept that something that is supposed to be part of the atmosphere, that's part of the normal geobiological cycle, can be labelled a "pollutant". The day we have no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the day we will all be dead. And, yes, the day the atmosphere is more than 5,000 ppm carbon dioxide we will be in trouble, too. In the correct proportions, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are normal components of the atmosphere, and I will continue to resist calling any of them pollutants. Otherwise, when I go camping in the clear, fresh air of the Rocky Mountains, when I wake up in the morning, exit my tent and take a big breath, I will have to say, "Man, the air sure is polluted today!" Perhaps the vacuum of space is unpolluted -- it has no carbon dioxide to speak of. I don't think I want to breathe it, however.
Stargazer Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 12 hours ago, Gray said: You're missing the point. We do have an overabundance of CO2, to the point where it's acting like a pollutant. Just like too much water or too much beta carotene. No, I'm not missing the point. I can easily agree that excessive carbon dioxide is a potential problem (I'm not so sure the present level is that much of a problem, however, but that's another matter). I merely resist labelling carbon dioxide as a "pollutant". Look, we can have a discussion about whether an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes warming, and if it does, is it a good or a bad thing. And if you like, you can say that CO2 is "acting like" a pollutant, but all I am saying is that it isn't a pollutant. Like I've said to Tss, it is SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere. If it is a pollutant, then the ideal case would be to have NONE of it there. But the health of the planet's living environment requires that we have some present. That, in my opinion, removes CO2 from being properly designated as a pollutant.
Gray Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 10 hours ago, Stargazer said: No, I'm not missing the point. I can easily agree that excessive carbon dioxide is a potential problem (I'm not so sure the present level is that much of a problem, however, but that's another matter). I merely resist labelling carbon dioxide as a "pollutant". Look, we can have a discussion about whether an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes warming, and if it does, is it a good or a bad thing. And if you like, you can say that CO2 is "acting like" a pollutant, but all I am saying is that it isn't a pollutant. Like I've said to Tss, it is SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere. If it is a pollutant, then the ideal case would be to have NONE of it there. But the health of the planet's living environment requires that we have some present. That, in my opinion, removes CO2 from being properly designated as a pollutant. pollutant in Science pollutant (pə-l t'nt) A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
thesometimesaint Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 13 hours ago, Stargazer said: You know, I don't see your point, if there is one. Of course plants store some excess oxygen for metabolism at night. What on earth does this have to do with the subtopic, "carbon dioxide is a pollutant"? It's a total non-sequitur. Even if you try to pair it with the fact that plants take in carbon dioxide during the day and emit oxygen during photosynthesis. I don't dispute your assertion about storage of oxygen. I simply don't see that it's relevant to the present discussion. Oxygen is a persistent gas, too. What bloody difference does it make? The atmosphere is SUPPOSED to have carbon dioxide in it! It's not a superfluous component of the atmosphere. So what if too much carbon dioxide isn't good for you? Too much water isn't good for you, and too much food isn't good for you. That does not make any of these things "pollutants". And will you stop telling me to hold my breath? I am also not trying to dispute that carbon dioxide is an element of heat-trapping (and so is water vapor). Sure as day follows night, if we had too much carbon dioxide we'd be in trouble, and that's not what I am disputing. I am telling you that calling carbon dioxide a "pollutant", no matter what some dictionary says, is wrong. If it is a pollutant, then by golly, guess what, thesometimesaint is a polluter and must be suppressed. Because you emit this gas as a normal part of your "hot air", night and day, 365+ days per year. Do you have a permit for this? Do you feel it necessary to buy carbon credits for yourself, so you can continue to breathe in good conscience? Better open a window. Is oxygen a pollutant? Is water vapor a pollutant? And maybe I am in the end disagreeing with some politically-correct or generally accepted association of carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and if so, then there we are. I just don't accept that something that is supposed to be part of the atmosphere, that's part of the normal geobiological cycle, can be labelled a "pollutant". The day we have no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the day we will all be dead. And, yes, the day the atmosphere is more than 5,000 ppm carbon dioxide we will be in trouble, too. In the correct proportions, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are normal components of the atmosphere, and I will continue to resist calling any of them pollutants. Otherwise, when I go camping in the clear, fresh air of the Rocky Mountains, when I wake up in the morning, exit my tent and take a big breath, I will have to say, "Man, the air sure is polluted today!" Perhaps the vacuum of space is unpolluted -- it has no carbon dioxide to speak of. I don't think I want to breathe it, however. Anything in excess is what a pollutant is. SEE http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pollutant Your idiosyncratic definitions aren't real helpful. I'm perhaps the most unPC you'll ever meet on the internet. I have no problem with calling people on their incorrect statements. I produce all my electrical needs from the solar electrical collector panels on my roof. In fact last month the electric company paid me a little over $14 for the excess electricity I generated and fed back into the Grid.. BTW I do open my windows on nice days and cool nights. Yes I and you are polluters. We exhale(get rid of) the excess CO2 our bodies produce by burning fuel(food). Yours is a Red Herring. I've never said remove all sources of CO2. I said we need to limit them. IE;There are speed limits posted on roads, and highways. That doesn't mean to stop entirely. It just means to not have speed in excess of that posted. Yes; Oxygen is a pollutant when in excess. After the loss of life of three American astronauts on Apollo 1 we went to compressed air with normal concentrations of Oxygen. You know why? Because Oxygen promotes combustion which includes respiration. Yes; water is a pollutant in excess. Drinking too much water will destroy the balance of electrolytes in your body (hyponatremia) potentially causing death. CO2 traps heat. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the hotter it gets. That was established in the 19th Century, and proven in the mid 20th Century. Enjoy your camping trip, but I would avoid breathing in too much of your campfire's CO2. You can't breathe a vacuum.
thesometimesaint Posted March 15, 2017 Posted March 15, 2017 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: No, I'm not missing the point. I can easily agree that excessive carbon dioxide is a potential problem (I'm not so sure the present level is that much of a problem, however, but that's another matter). I merely resist labelling carbon dioxide as a "pollutant". Look, we can' have a discussion about whether an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide causes warming, and if it does, is it a good or a bad thing. And if you like, you can say that CO2 is "acting like" a pollutant, but all I am saying is that it isn't a pollutant. Like I've said to Tss, it is SUPPOSED to be in the atmosphere. If it is a pollutant, then the ideal case would be to have NONE of it there. But the health of the planet's living environment requires that we have some present. That, in my opinion, removes CO2 from being properly designated as a pollutant. CO2 traps heat. A certain amount of heat is necessary for life as we know it. Too little CO2 and we become very cold, too much CO2 and we become very hot. All types of "fun" things happen when it there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. SEE https://phys.org/news/2009-10-carbon-dioxide-high-million-years.html
Recommended Posts