Conservative Ottawa MPP candidate doesn't understand difference be

[Mighty AC]

Under your scenario anything can be classified as a pollutant. Absurd.

If the addition of a substance into a system is contaminating it and causing harm then yes, that substance, no matter what it is, would be considered a pollutant to that system.

Again, what word would you use to describe arsenic being dumped into ground water thus causing harm? Would the arsenic be a pollutant or do you have a magical word to explain it away...like externality.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mighty AC

[waldo]

Under your scenario anything can be classified as a pollutant. Absurd.

a/the key is endangerment... harmful effects. In regards CO2, in my earlier reply to you I made a broad reference to how Environment Canada positions CO2 and I pointed you to the U.S. Supreme Court decision and the subsequent U.S. EPA Endangerment Finding that aligns with the U.S. Clean Air Act. More specifically to Canada, see the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Schedule 1 - CEPA 1999). CO2 was added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 in November 2005 in order to enable the Canadian Government the use of a variety of preventive or control actions. "Under subsection 90(1) of CEPA 1999, a substance that meets the criteria set out in section 64 of CEPA 1999 can be added to Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999 by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the ministers. It must be determined that a substance is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that:

- have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity;

- constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or

- constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health."

.

[-1=e^ipi]

CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of our atmosphere.

Except in most of the past 600 million years there has been much more CO2 in our atmosphere. Often 10 or 20 times current levels. The Pleistocene (past 2.5 million years) has the coldest temperatures and lowest CO2 levels for the past 600 million years during which multicellular life has flourished on Earth. The low CO2 levels are the reason why recently C4 plants such as corn have been favoured in recent evolution history.

Explain how dumping arsenic is somehow different than dumping CO2?

Except for a few bacteria in Mono Lake in California, arsenic is poisonous to life.

http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-phosphorus-after-all-1.11520

CO2 on the other hand is a gas that is essential for life on Earth. If CO2 levels were to drop to 150 ppm, most plant life on Earth would die.

[-1=e^ipi]

If the addition of a substance into a system is contaminating it and causing harm then yes, that substance, no matter what it is, would be considered a pollutant to that system.

So you claim that in order for something to be a pollutant, it must be harmful? Okay, can you prove that marginally increasing atmospheric CO2 is harmful to life on Earth?

[waldo]

Except in most of the past 600 million years there has been much more CO2 in our atmosphere. Often 10 or 20 times current levels. The Pleistocene (past 2.5 million years) has the coldest temperatures and lowest CO2 levels for the past 600 million years during which multicellular life has flourished on Earth. The low CO2 levels are the reason why recently C4 plants such as corn have been favoured in recent evolution history.

which... again... and again... and again... has no bearing and relevance on today's relatively recent warming and accelerated level of atmospheric CO2... and what that means for today's and the relatively near future inhabitants of today's and the relatively near future earth - not the earth of your 2.5-to-600 million years ago.

CO2 on the other hand is a gas that is essential for life on Earth. If CO2 levels were to drop to 150 ppm, most plant life on Earth would die.

given that you recently advocated for 1200 ppm... and getting there "the sooner, the better", do you actually (now) envision a likelihood of levels dropping to 150 ppm? And, if so, in what presumed timeframe?

[waldo]

So you claim that in order for something to be a pollutant, it must be harmful? Okay, can you prove that marginally increasing atmospheric CO2 is harmful to life on Earth?

you didn't seem to fair too well with your position that effectively holds to "CO2 being nothing more than plant food... ala your claims that overall increased CO2 "will be a good thing"... that it will lead to, for example, a "global increase in crop yields". Oh wait, there may be some nuance here as you were forced to relent and eventually offer a partial derivative qualification to your global crop yield claim. Which context derivative are you asking your question in - partial or full?

[-1=e^ipi]

which... again... and again... and again... has no bearing and relevance on today's relatively recent warming and accelerated level of atmospheric CO2... and what that means for today's and the relatively near future inhabitants of today's and the relatively near future earth - not the earth of your 2.5-to-600 million years ago.

You can keep making this nonsense claim over and over again. It will not make it any more true.

The conditions under which life evolved on Earth is very relevant especially when trying to understand the effects on life when the Earth's climate changes due to increased CO2.

Some traits can be evolved in 2.5 million years and adapt to the low CO2 and low temperature climate, but other traits, especially when it comes to basic biological mechanisms (specifically photosynthesis) take much longer (the evolution of the C4 cycle is a good example of significant adaptation). Plant life is optimized to an Earth with higher atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and since the vast majority of life on earth ultimately depends on the ability of primary producers to photosynthesize, it is reasonable to expect life to perform better under a marginal increase to CO2 levels.

given that you recently advocated for 1200 ppm...

No, what I said is that if you only look at the CO2 fertilization effect, it is positive until at least 1200 ppm.

do you actually (now) envision a likelihood of levels dropping to 150 ppm? And, if so, in what presumed timeframe?

No, I never made such an absurd claim.

[-1=e^ipi]

you didn't seem to fair too well with your position that effectively holds to "CO2 being nothing more than plant food..

Oh look, the same strawman argument... again. What is this, like the 50th time you've tried this?

[waldo]

You can keep making this nonsense claim over and over again. It will not make it any more true.

The conditions under which life evolved on Earth is very relevant especially when trying to understand the effects on life when the Earth's climate changes due to increased CO2.

Some traits can be evolved in 2.5 million years and adapt to the low CO2 and low temperature climate, but other traits, especially when it comes to basic biological mechanisms (specifically photosynthesis) take much longer (the evolution of the C4 cycle is a good example of significant adaptation). Plant life is optimized to an Earth with higher atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, and since the vast majority of life on earth ultimately depends on the ability of primary producers to photosynthesize, it is reasonable to expect life to perform better under a marginal increase to CO2 levels.

the nonsense claim is your repeated attempts to claim the distant past has relevance to today's relatively recent warming and accelerated atmospheric CO2 levels. Again, other than looking at the past for insight into climate sensitivity (relative 'high versus low'), resident life in 20 times today's CO2 level some 2.5 million years ago, has no direct and immediate relevance to today.

No, what I said is that if you only look at the CO2 fertilization effect, it is positive until at least 1200 ppm.

if you persist, I'll gladly re-quote exactly what you stated. The problem with you continuing to scramble for your... cya partial derivative, is that at some point you will be forced to acknowledge your global claim of increased crop yields must be one that aligns with reality, with the real world... not your non-real world study confines within an enclosure greenhouse, one isolated from the effects of crop-limiting factors.

No, I never made such an absurd claim.

then why bring it forward? Thanks for acknowledging your mentioning 150 ppm CO2 has no relevance.

[waldo]

Oh look, the same strawman argument... again. What is this, like the 50th time you've tried this?

hardly a strawman! Not when you make such grandiose (unsubstantiated) claims that... overall increased CO2 will be a good thing... that it will lead to increased global crop yields. Not when you had the related topic audacity to link, reference and quote from the renowned denier's of denier's... the Idso clan. No, hardly a strawman at all... you clearly align with the "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" meme!

[-1=e^ipi]

the nonsense claim is your repeated attempts to claim the distant past has relevance to today's relatively recent warming and accelerated atmospheric CO2 levels. Again, other than looking at the past for insight into climate sensitivity (relative 'high versus low'), resident life in 20 times today's CO2 level some 2.5 million years ago, has no direct and immediate relevance to today.

Yeah, what's with all those scientists thinking the past is relevant? What with all of their paleoclimatology studies and all: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf Certainly the basis of the 2C target has nothing to do with antarctic glaciation or anything. *sarcasm*

Waldo, please provide evidence that the rate of evolutionary convergence (specifically for fundamental processes such as photosynthesis) is on the order of 2.5 million years or faster. I've certainly provided evidence to the contrary.

not your non-real world study confines within an enclosure greenhouse, one isolated from the effects of crop-limiting factors.

Why do you continue to reject the scientific principle of Occam's Razor?

then why bring it forward? Thanks for acknowledging your mentioning 150 ppm CO2 has no relevance.

Because it gives people more information as to exactly how low Pleistocene atmospheric CO2 and temperatures are.

[waldo]

the nonsense claim is your repeated attempts to claim the distant past has relevance to today's relatively recent warming and accelerated atmospheric CO2 levels. Again, other than looking at the past for insight into climate sensitivity (relative 'high versus low'), resident life in 20 times today's CO2 level some 2.5 million years ago, has no direct and immediate relevance to today.

Yeah, what's with all those scientists thinking the past is relevant? What with all of their paleoclimatology studies and all: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

so sad your comprehension has failed you, once again! Even after you quote my related statement (as I've bold-highlighted for you)... you still don't get it. Yes, as I stated/emphasized (now several times for you in an assortment of posts), that distant past is looked upon for insight into climate sensitivity, which inherently presumes upon feedbacks in its determination. Tell me, in your linked paper, do you not read Hansen and his co-authors looking at the paleo historical record in regards climate sensitivity and affecting feedback mechanisms?

[-1=e^ipi]

so sad your comprehension has failed you, once again!

Whoops, wrong paper. I meant to do a different James Hansen paper.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

[waldo]

Whoops, wrong paper. I meant to do a different James Hansen paper.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

what a poser! I'll stop at the abstract that speaks to the same climate sensitivity and feedback mechanisms that I highlighted in the past post. Clearly, you're simply winging it! But hey, good to see you bringing forward the denier's preeminent claimed alarmist, Hansen - twice now!

[-1=e^ipi]

what a poser! I'll stop at the abstract

Of course you do. Reading scientific papers is hard. Much easier just to repeat the same dogma over and over again.

And your claim that the paleoclimatology is only relevant to look at climate sensitivity is disproven by the James Hansen paper I provided since it explains its relevance in understanding polar deglaciation.

[waldo]

Of course you do. Reading scientific papers is hard. Much easier just to repeat the same dogma over and over again.

And your claim that the paleoclimatology is only relevant to look at climate sensitivity is disproven by the James Hansen paper I provided since it explains its relevance in understanding polar deglaciation.

you mean where he's speaking to slow feedbacks, fast feedbacks and climate sensitivity... like that? Sorry, try again!

given you tried to flog the long distant past in terms of determining the "optimal and/or acceptable" life conditions for today, I would have thought you might try to support that line of pursuit with studies in that regard... rather than showcasing (2) Hansen studies that align with the climate sensitivity 'caveat' that I highlighted - go figure! I'm particularly taken with this lil' snippet from one of your linked papers: "The fact that Antarctic (and Greenland) temperatures were warmer than the Holocene in some prior interglacial periods by as much as a few degrees has contributed to the misconception that human-made global warming of 2°C may be acceptable to humanity and have a tolerable impact on nature. In fact, prior interglacial periods were less than 1°C warmer than the Holocene, on global average. We must go back at least five million years to find global warming of 2°C". Oh my... you bust yourself with your own link! Well done... carry on!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

...That quotation does nothing to support your claim that the Earth's geological past is not relevant beyond climate sensitivity. But again, you want to perform your distraction tactic.

And yes, I'm aware that James Hansen is a climate alarmist. But at least he understands the relevance of the geological record. I was hoping you would listen to another climate alarmist. Oh well...

[waldo]

...That quotation does nothing to support your claim that the Earth's geological past is not relevant beyond climate sensitivity. But again, you want to perform your distraction tactic.

talk about YOUR strawman. The context was your unsubstantiated claims concerning "optimal" life conditions for today/near future relative to the long distant past (i.e., your 2.5-to-600 million years ago references). And yes, in that context, looking at that long distant past in terms of your CO2 ppm levels and your temperature focus means nothing in terms of presuming to define "optimal" life conditions for today/near future. And yes, I highlighted the real significance the paleo record brings forward in terms of climate sensitivity... as you unwittingly showed with both your provided links. Again, well done! This does not, of course, usurp the actual paleo focus itself... the reason reconstructions are done... an area I've long discussed through an assortment of prior MLW threads.

And yes, I'm aware that James Hansen is a climate alarmist. But at least he understands the relevance of the geological record. I was hoping you would listen to another climate alarmist. Oh well...

no - try again. Again, both those papers speak to climate sensitivity and fast/slow feedbacks as affects that sensitivity.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - try again. Again, both those papers speak to climate sensitivity and fast/slow feedbacks as affects that sensitivity.

Sigh, climate sensitivity is only concerned with the temperature. However, large scale deglaciation is relevant beyond it's effect as a positive feedback mechanism to change temperature because significant changes to sea levels are a relevant impact all on their own.

The context was your unsubstantiated claims concerning "optimal" life conditions for today/near future relative to the long distant past (i.e., your 2.5-to-600 million years ago references).

So unsubstantiated that I provided numerous pieces of evidence that showed that plants could benefit significantly from the CO2 fertilization effect and increased growing season. *sarcasm*

If evolution were as fast as it would need to be for the geological record before 2.5 million years ago to not be relevant at predicting how life will perform under different climates, then the vast majority of plant life would have evolved the C4 cycle by now, maybe something even stronger.

[waldo]

Sigh, climate sensitivity is only concerned with the temperature. However, large scale deglaciation is relevant beyond it's effect as a positive feedback mechanism to change temperature because significant changes to sea levels are a relevant impact all on their own.

keep sighing. Again, you're simply emphasing the same caveat I applied concerning climate sensitivity (and inherently, related feedbacks, slow and fast). Notwithstanding, as I highlighted, paleo reconstructions and what they bring forward as a knowledge base.

So unsubstantiated that I provided numerous pieces of evidence that showed that plants could benefit significantly from the CO2 fertilization effect and increased growing season. *sarcasm*

no, sorry - your isolated, artificial greenhouse enclosure 'bubble-world' isn't reality... regardless of your cya derivative act!

.

If evolution were as fast as it would need to be for the geological record before 2.5 million years ago to not be relevant at predicting how life will perform under different climates, then the vast majority of plant life would have evolved the C4 cycle by now, maybe something even stronger.

talk about deluded! You presuming on CO2 and temperature levels from 2.5 million years ago (uhhh... did you just decide to drop your 600 million years ago timeline???) in an attempt to steer us toward your favoured CO2 1200 ppm level, just won't cut it! What was it you said about 1200 ppm... something about getting there "the sooner the better"! Oh my!

.

[-1=e^ipi]

keep sighing. Again, you're simply emphasing the same caveat I applied concerning climate sensitivity (and inherently, related feedbacks, slow and fast). Notwithstanding, as I highlighted, paleo reconstructions and what they bring forward as a knowledge base.

I get it, you have your dogma, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise about the relevance of the evolutionary history of the planet when discussing the impacts of climate change to life on Earth.

So does that mean that the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is not relevant to you either?

no, sorry - your isolated, artificial greenhouse enclosure 'bubble-world' isn't reality... regardless of your cya derivative act!

You continue to reject Occam's Razor. How very scientific of you...

[waldo]

I get it, you have your dogma, and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise about the relevance of the evolutionary history of the planet when discussing the impacts of climate change to life on Earth.

So does that mean that the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event is not relevant to you either?

look, I get it... I've already acknowledged (several times now) your burning desire to look back 2.5-to-600 million years ago in order for you to project upon "current/near future optimal conditions for life"... I mean, after all, it fits with your pining over getting to 1200 ppm (as you said, "the sooner, the better")! I've spoken to where I place interpreted significance in looking at paleo history... in terms of climate sensitivity and what the paleo record/reconstruction affords itself. I'm somewhat taken back with your raised emphasis concerning mass extinction... usually when that gets played around here, the alarmist labeling comes quite fast, quite strong.

.

You continue to reject Occam's Razor. How very scientific of you...

given how often and how fast you keep drawing upon that razor... I trust you won't cut yourself, hey! For that matter, I don't actually ever recall you applying detailed qualification to your razor... you just keep pulling it out in some presumptive "ta da"! Go figure.

.