4 ms·

Pollution is not co2, right? (The OP says co2, not pollution.) We also have both claims here - global warming and global cooling. Can't we also say, from bro

Pollution is not co2, right? (The OP says co2, not pollution.) We also have both claims here - global warming and global cooling. Can't we also say, from broad claims such as the ones you hi light, that a sort of generic scientific alarmism has existed a long time? Scientific alarmism in itself justifies the valuable work those scientists raising the alarm do, of course...

Retric 3y ago
Both global warming and cooling happen, just at different timescales. In the early Industrial Revolution when coal use was exploding exponentially due to cheaper mining and transportation the sort term net effect was cooling due to particulate emissions having a larger short term impact than CO2. However, the exponential growth slowed down as people didn’t need unlimited heating for their homes so the cooling leveled off as CO2 accumulated. Thus people in 1900 saw net heating from the exact same coal burned in 1800 that produced cooling back then. The same thing happened again with the explosion of automobile use globally before that growth curve slowed down. And it’s even part of climate models where if you stop all fossil fuel emissions you get a few years of additional warming before things stabilize.
reaperman 3y ago
For that passage the authors were talking about hydrogen, marsh gas, and ethylene. They state "those have the property of a very high degree of absorbing and radiating heat, and so much so that a very small proportion, of only one thousandth part, had very great effect." Whether CO2 is referred to as "pollution" or not depends on the context. In this case they were talking about other industrial greenhouse gases.
- antod 3y ago
  Anything can be a toxin at a high enough dose, likewise a pollutant depends on the concentration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison
CodeWriter23 3y ago
No true Scotsman would say anything like that @verisimi
- verisimi 3y ago
  I know the fallacy, but I'm confused! Whose is the fallacious reasoning then, in your opinion? Is it the OP who interprets pollution to be co2, or mine as you interpret me to be narrowing the scope somehow?
  - CodeWriter23 3y ago
    Not yours, bro. :) They would claim you are not a True Scotsman because you do not blindly accept the C02 hypothesis.
  - baxtr 3y ago
    I didn’t interpret anything tbh. I just found the passage to be interesting. It’s dangerous to have an opinion on this topic on HN ;)
    - verisimi 3y ago
      It is impossible to have an opinion on this topic without being personally scorched (as opposed to being 'globally warmed'). I appreciated the research you and the OP did. I pointed out the ideas that co2 was fingered as the cause was not supported by the quote you posted. I also pointed out that a totally opposed position was also possible from the same info - that the the idea of climate alarmism. Ie you could say 'climate alarmism' has been around for a long time in order to raise fear to get the masses to move in a particular way, and that the historical facts are re-interpreted for the present day - ie that 'pollution' is the same as 'co2'.

Retric 3y ago

Both global warming and cooling happen, just at different timescales. In the early Industrial Revolution when coal use was exploding exponentially due to cheaper mining and transportation the sort term net effect was cooling due to particulate emissions having a larger short term impact than CO2. However, the exponential growth slowed down as people didn’t need unlimited heating for their homes so the cooling leveled off as CO2 accumulated. Thus people in 1900 saw net heating from the exact same coal burned in 1800 that produced cooling back then. The same thing happened again with the explosion of automobile use globally before that growth curve slowed down. And it’s even part of climate models where if you stop all fossil fuel emissions you get a few years of additional warming before things stabilize.

reaperman 3y ago

For that passage the authors were talking about hydrogen, marsh gas, and ethylene. They state "those have the property of a very high degree of absorbing and radiating heat, and so much so that a very small proportion, of only one thousandth part, had very great effect." Whether CO2 is referred to as "pollution" or not depends on the context. In this case they were talking about other industrial greenhouse gases.

antod 3y ago
Anything can be a toxin at a high enough dose, likewise a pollutant depends on the concentration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison

CodeWriter23 3y ago

No true Scotsman would say anything like that @verisimi

verisimi 3y ago
I know the fallacy, but I'm confused! Whose is the fallacious reasoning then, in your opinion? Is it the OP who interprets pollution to be co2, or mine as you interpret me to be narrowing the scope somehow?
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  Not yours, bro. :) They would claim you are not a True Scotsman because you do not blindly accept the C02 hypothesis.
- baxtr 3y ago
  I didn’t interpret anything tbh. I just found the passage to be interesting. It’s dangerous to have an opinion on this topic on HN ;)
  - verisimi 3y ago
    It is impossible to have an opinion on this topic without being personally scorched (as opposed to being 'globally warmed'). I appreciated the research you and the OP did. I pointed out the ideas that co2 was fingered as the cause was not supported by the quote you posted. I also pointed out that a totally opposed position was also possible from the same info - that the the idea of climate alarmism. Ie you could say 'climate alarmism' has been around for a long time in order to raise fear to get the masses to move in a particular way, and that the historical facts are re-interpreted for the present day - ie that 'pollution' is the same as 'co2'.