In a landmark study that combines two modern obsessions in one seminal paper, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts have concluded that global warming is linked to obesity.
*A natural component of the atmosphere recently reclassified by the EPA as a pollutant.
"Population fatness has an environmental impact," said Phil Edwards, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "We're all being told to stay fit and keep our weight down because it's good for our health. The important thing is that staying slim is good for your health and for the health of the planet."It seems fat people emit more CO2* than thin people. Who would have ever guessed?
*A natural component of the atmosphere recently reclassified by the EPA as a pollutant.
*A natural component of the atmosphere recently reclassified by the EPA as a pollutant.Well, actually no, but close enough. But why does it matter if it's a natural component of the atmosphere? Radon, Sulfur Dioxide, low atmosphere Ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide are all natural parts of the atmosphere and all are considered pollutants. The Natural = Good mantra is a bit more new-agey than conservative isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf scientists were truly concerned about global warming they would dissolve their climate change committees (which require travel to get to) and stop publishing to save the trees....but that would mean less promotion and no forum...hang on...
ReplyDeleteBut why does it matter if it's a natural component of the atmosphere? Using the term natural denotes that we expect to see it in the atmosphere, as "naturally occurring."
ReplyDeleteIt's worth making the distinction because the recent attempt at reclassification is ridiculous.
IMHO.
Well, first there is a third more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than there was at the start of industrial revolution. And second we expect to see background levels of sulfur dioxide and Nitrogen's oxides but no one argues that they are not pollutants.
ReplyDeleteYep. Suppose so.
ReplyDeleteNow we have 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 1% everything else.
So whatever proportion of 1% it is, its now bigger, and the rounding error is applied to oxygen?
Once upon a time, the atmosphere was mostly CO2. My how times have changed. It seems the pollutant CO2 was plant food. Still is. It seems strange to call plant food a pollutant.
A lot of it has dissolved into the oceans, and of course, we are burning it out of the fossil fuels.
It's obviously important for the global warming / climate change lobby to call it a pollutant. It makes the case easier to horrify people that what humans excrete from their lungs to mouth is just as bad as the other end...
All this constant reframing of words. Global Warming now Climate Change, and CO2 now pollutant. Or do we skip ahead a few years and call it poison?
I'm just over it.
People: do your research. The so called science Al-the-idiot-Gore promotes actually shows higher levels of CO2 occur as the planet naturally warms. Noone has 'proven' man has had ANYTHING to do with causing global 'warming'. This is a myth USA and other governments use to try and scare populations and TAX you further to line their coffers. Don't believe it! Gore and friends refuse to debate the facts they made up. check this out: http://www.demanddebate.com/
ReplyDeleteI think we can safely ignore Lisa, but Zen, before we get to the details of your comment here is the crux of the matter. Are C02 and the other greenhouse gases (GHG) chemicals that, when released into the atmosphere do damage to ecosystems and/or endanger peoples health. There is no doubt that they force climate and there is very little doubt that pumping more GHGs into the atmosphere will damage ecosystems endanger people (you might not be worried about 1m of sea level but think about what happens when the surge from a cyclone in the Bay of Bengal starts 1m higher...). So, CO2 is a pollutant.
ReplyDeleteNow, for a few of your points. CO2 has never constituted as much as 1% of the atmosphere, not half of it.
Yes, plants fix carbon from CO2 into carbohydrates, in fact this reaction is the source of all the carbon dioxide you breath out Presuming you aren't eating the results of slash and burn agriculture breathing is carbon neutral. It's the introduction of carbon that has been locked away from the carbon cycle for millions of years that is *ahem* unnatural.
Calling a greenhouse gas "plant food" is a strange move from someone that objects to attempts to reframe words. Climate change is not some weasel word to avoid falsification - the globe is warming - it just happens the effects of that warming are much wider than having more beach days. Similarly calling CO2 a pollutant is not a part of a PR war, its a (political to be sure) way of legally requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to, you know, protect the environment. Under Bush they squirmed as much as the could (even in the face of the Supreme Court) and now they seem to be taking it seriously.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNow, for a few of your points. CO2 has never constituted as much as 1% of the atmosphere, not half of it.I understood the current makeup in atmosphere has been this way for round 200 million years. I also understood that after the first billion years or so of the planet's life, the atmosphere was mostly nitrogen and CO2, and the mix started changing ever since...
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you pump enough Oxygen into the atmosphere, ie up it's percentage, it too will soon be called a pollutant.
Every gas can be therefore called a pollutant, which is word smithing. I think something along the lines of describing an 'imbalance' is more accurate than calling CO2 a pollutant, but each to his own.
At least I'm fairly sure it can also be termed "plant food", even if that upsets some people. Marketing wise, that would be a good term, as it would help people to see the value in planting more plants (or saving the forests).
David;
ReplyDeleteyour concept of the carbon cycle is correct only in the first approximation and naive.
Indeed there are carbon emitters and Carbon sinks and this has been so since before the cambrian explosion but they never have been in "balance" and never will.
One obvious sink is peat bogs, another, entirely neglected, is sea shells and the like. Indeed it is almost certain that overall the atmospheric CO2 has dropped significantly since the cambrian, and what we are observing today is a temporary upward blip in a general decline. Nobody knows.
Andrei,
ReplyDeleteDoes releasing carbon that would not otherwise have been released into the atmosphere trap more heat there, and as such damage eco-systems etc etc? Does anything else matter in this debate?
, and what we are observing today is a temporary upward blip in a general decline. Nobody knows.Anyone who cares to read about it knows with as close to certainty as you are going to get that the recent increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is almost exclusively the result of burning fossil fuels.
"I think we can safely ignore Lisa.."
ReplyDeleteWe can? Why? Are you suggesting she's wrong?
As for the carbon cycle, Your remark that "anyone who cares to read about it knows..." is laughable.
Anyone who cares to read about it knows the earth is in fact cooling, and knows that hundreds of Russian temperature-monitoring stations were conveniently dropped from the calculations used to promote the AGW myth, because they were too cold!It would be tedious to list all the lies and distortions the global warming religionists are guilty of. Suffice to say the tide of public opinion is turning as thousands of reputable scientists are making their voices heard.
In short--who gives a shit what warming nutters think? Time for another sausage roll...:-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid;
ReplyDeleteThere is never any certainty in science and any slight changes in the composition of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution and the origins (which are multi-factorial and linked in non linear ways) of these are very uncertain.
And if an ecosystem is so fragile that an increase in average annual temperature of 0.6c or so 'damages' it, I put it to you that that it is on its way out regardless of any human activity.
Fundamentally the earth's atmosphere and ecosystems are not now nor ever have been stable. And no political initiative will ever make them stable. We live in an evolving environment.
There is never any certainty in scienceOh, I see this thread is over, I'll get my coat then...
ReplyDelete"There is never any certainty in science.."
ReplyDeleteWhich fact particle physics demonstrates perfectly. :-)