And yes, CO2 is pollution, look up the definition:
according to Merriam-Webster dictionary: the action of polluting especially by environmental contamination with man-made waste;
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollution
according to Wikipedia: Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution
Sorry, Bart. You need to hone your logical thinking skills. It's understood that any ingredient taken in excessively large quantities can be harmful. Drinking too much water, after an exhaustive marathon, has been known to kill people. To therefore describe pure and clean water as a pollutant is absurd. If water is a pollutant, and CO2 is a pollutant, then there is nothing that is
not a pollutant, that I can think of. Perhaps you can enlighten me. What substance is not a pollutant?
The following article provides an interesting overview of the health effects of CO2 concentrations.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectsco2.php"Very high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 can produce a state of hypercapnia or an excessive amount of CO2 in the blood (Nahas et al., 1968; Brackett et al., 1969; van Ypersele de Strihou, 1974), which typically results in acidosis, a serious and sometimes fatal condition characterized in humans by headache, nausea and visual disturbances (Poyart and Nahas, 1968; Turino et al., 1974). However, these phenomena do not impact human health until the atmosphere's CO2 concentration reaches approximately 15,000 ppm (Luft et al., 1974; Schaefer, 1982), which is approximately 40 times greater than its current concentration. Hence, we do not have to worry about any direct negative health effects of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
But what about positive health effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment? Is there any evidence the historical rise in the air's CO2 content has been good for us?
In a lengthy review of research directly related to this question, Idso and Idso (2001) note that elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have been shown to increase the concentrations of vitamins A and C in various fruits and vegetables. They also note that atmospheric CO2 enrichment increases the concentrations of several disease-fighting substances in certain medicinal plants. In experiments with the woolly foxglove (Digitalis lanata), for example, in addition to increasing plant biomass by 63 to 83%, a near-tripling of the air's CO2 content increased the concentration of heart-helping digoxin by 11 to 14% (Stuhlfauth et al., 1987; Stuhlfauth and Fock, 1990). Likewise, in the tropical spider lily (Hymenocallis littoralis), in addition to increasing plant biomass by 56%, a mere 75% increase in the air's CO2 content increased the concentrations of five different substances proven effective in treating a number of human cancers (leukemia, melanoma, brain, colon, lung, ovarian and renal), as well as several viral diseases (Japanese encephalitis and yellow, dengue, Punta Tora and Rift Falley fevers) by 6 to 28% (Idso et al., 2000)."And no, it hasn't been accelerating like that for 800,000 years, and yes, it's due to manmade pollution with CO2.
Wow! Should we now bow down to the God, BartvanderWolf? How is he so certain about this?
Let's look at the evidence from mere mortals. The following site provides what seems to me to be a balanced overview.
https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/"Three common ways to estimate pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations (before instrumental records began in 1959) are:
1) Measuring CO2 content in air bubbles trapped in ice cores.
2) Measuring the density of stomata in plants.
3) GEOCARB (Berner et al., 1991, 1999, 2004): A geological model for the evolution of atmospheric CO2 over the Phanerozoic Eon. This model is derived from “geological, geochemical, biological, and climatological data.” The main drivers being tectonic activity, organic matter burial and continental rock weathering.
The problems with the ice core data are (1) the air-age vs. ice-age delta and (2) the effects of burial depth on gas concentrations.
It appears that the ice core data represent a long-term, low-frequency moving average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration; while the stomata yield a high frequency component.
The stomata data routinely show that atmospheric CO2 levels were
higher than the ice cores do. Plant stomata data from the previous interglacial (Eemian/Sangamonian) were higher than the ice cores indicate…
The GEOCARB data also suggest that
ice core CO2 data are too low… Thus it is concluded that:
(1) CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the ice cores suggest.
(2) The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.
(3) The carbon cycle
lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.(4) The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a
temperature-driven carbon cycle.(5) The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential."
And lastly, for those interested in the media's response to glaring inconsistencies in the AGW alarmist position, the following article addresses the embarrassing and inconvenient 'truth' that the ice-core data show that rises in CO2 levels always follow rises in temperature, implying that CO2 rises do not necessarilly cause rises in global temperatures.
That's a very inconvenient truth that the media tends to gloss over.
http://www.hirhome.com/climate_change/global_warming04.htm
