Trump Declares in EO that CO2 Is Not Pollution..

and when CO2 levels reach a level not seen in 3 million years-yup we're there already-when the planet was a helluva lot hotter, what then? still fine and dandy, i gather?..

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...&highlight=CO2 Originally Posted by pxmcc

What was the level of Co2 in the atmosphere Three Million Years ago to consider it a pollutant and what's the correlation of today's levels?

What was the level of Co2 in the atmosphere Three Million Years ago to consider it a pollutant and what's the correlation of today's levels? Originally Posted by Levianon17

422.7 ppm in the atmosphere today and 3 million years ago.

the earlier # was from natural volcanic activity. today's value is anthropogenic, post Industrial Revolution.

once all the positive feedback loops catch up, we're fucked already. and then, there's Trump, piling fuel on a fire already out of control..

When he pushing up daisies, the daisies will grow better in a high CO2 environment.

422.7 ppm in the atmosphere today and 3 million years ago.

the earlier # was from natural volcanic activity. today's value is anthropogenic, post Industrial Revolution.

once all the positive feedback loops catch up, we're fucked already. and then, there's Trump, piling fuel on a fire already out of control.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

So excessive emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface to the point of catastrophic proportions? So, let's just start from the basics there is only three ways in which to warm a surface, Convection, Conduction and Solar Radiation. Scientists know that but they aren't explaining how Co2 correlates with any one of these modes of warming. They just come up with anecdotal evidence to skirt the actual truth. They don't know how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 3 million years ago. There is no way of knowing so much of what they try to explain is mere speculation. Global Warming has become a Political Phenomenon and it's ridiculous. It's constantly being talked about but never a real solution.

So excessive emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface to the point of catastrophic proportions? So, let's just start from the basics there is only three ways in which to warm a surface, Convection, Conduction and Solar Radiation. Scientists know that but they aren't explaining how Co2 correlates with any one of these modes of warming. They just come up with anecdotal evidence to skirt the actual truth. They don't know how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 3 million years ago. There is no way of knowing so much of what they try to explain is mere speculation. Global Warming has become a Political Phenomenon and it's ridiculous. It's constantly being talked about but never a real solution. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Here’s how it works:

Sunlight reaches Earth – Energy from the Sun passes through the atmosphere and warms the planet’s surface.

Earth emits heat – The warmed surface releases energy back toward space as infrared radiation.

CO₂ traps heat – Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate some of this heat, preventing it from escaping into space.

Temperature rises – As CO₂ levels increase, more heat is trapped, causing global temperatures to rise.


Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO₂ levels have increased dramatically.

📊 Then vs. Now

Pre-industrial level (around 1750): ~280 parts per million (ppm)

Today (2020s): ~420+ ppm

📈 Total Increase

An increase of about 140 ppm

That’s roughly a 50% rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration

This increase is primarily due to:

Burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas)

Deforestation

Cement production

Industrial processes

For context, ice core records show that before the Industrial Revolution, CO₂ levels had remained relatively stable between about 180–300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. The rapid rise over the past 200+ years is unprecedented in that long-term record.

Ice cores allow measurement going back 800,000+ years.
That’s how we know CO₂ stayed near 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and has rapidly risen since.

When he pushing up daisies, the daisies will grow better in a high CO2 environment. Originally Posted by Ripmany

hilarious sir..

So excessive emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface to the point of catastrophic proportions? So, let's just start from the basics there is only three ways in which to warm a surface, Convection, Conduction and Solar Radiation. Scientists know that but they aren't explaining how Co2 correlates with any one of these modes of warming. They just come up with anecdotal evidence to skirt the actual truth. They don't know how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 3 million years ago. There is no way of knowing so much of what they try to explain is mere speculation. Global Warming has become a Political Phenomenon and it's ridiculous. It's constantly being talked about but never a real solution. Originally Posted by Levianon17

your 1st question answered:

Scientists determine past levels primarily through direct measurements from ice cores for recent geological history and geochemical proxies for more ancient eras.

Analyzing Ice Cores

First, For the last 800,000 years, scientists use ice cores drilled from ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. As snow falls, it traps tiny air bubbles. When the snow compresses into ice, these bubbles become "time capsules" of the ancient atmosphere. Scientists crush the ice in a vacuum to release the gas and measure the concentration of carbon dioxide directly using mass spectrometry.

Step 2: Studying Stomatal Density
For older periods, researchers examine fossilized leaves. Plants exchange gases through microscopic pores called stomata. There is an inverse relationship between atmospheric and stomatal density: when levels are high, plants require fewer stomata to obtain the necessary carbon for photosynthesis. By counting stomata on fossil leaves, scientists can estimate ancient concentrations.

Step 3: Utilizing Geochemical Proxies
When ice cores are unavailable, scientists use chemical signatures in marine sediments:
Boron Isotopes: The ratio of boron isotopes in the calcium carbonate shells of ancient marine organisms (foraminifera) depends on ocean pH. Since ocean pH is controlled by atmospheric CO2, this ratio serves as a proxy for gas levels.

Alkenones: These are organic molecules produced by certain algae. The carbon isotope fractionation within these molecules changes based on the amount of dissolved C02 available in the water during photosynthesis.

and your 2nd question answered:

Carbon dioxide causes global warming by acting as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It absorbs infrared radiation (heat) emitted from the Earth's surface and re-emits it in all directions, including back toward the surface, preventing it from escaping into space. Increased concentration from human activity strengthens this natural effect.

The Mechanism:

Molecules absorb infrared energy at specific wavelengths (2,000–15,000 nm). Upon absorption, the molecules vibrate and release the energy as heat.

The "Blanket" Effect: While CO2 is a small fraction of the atmosphere, it functions like an insulating blanket. As human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, increase concentrations, this blanket becomes thicker.

Energy Balance: The Earth absorbs energy from sunlight and emits it back as infrared, which traps heat. More CO2 means less heat escapes, leading to an increased average global surface temperature.

Responsible for Warming:

CO2 is the most important long-lived greenhouse gas, responsible for roughly 80% of the heating influence from human-produced gases since 1990.

any more questions..

So excessive emissions of Co2 into the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface to the point of catastrophic proportions? So, let's just start from the basics there is only three ways in which to warm a surface, Convection, Conduction and Solar Radiation. Scientists know that but they aren't explaining how Co2 correlates with any one of these modes of warming. They just come up with anecdotal evidence to skirt the actual truth. They don't know how much Co2 was in the atmosphere 3 million years ago. There is no way of knowing so much of what they try to explain is mere speculation. Global Warming has become a Political Phenomenon and it's ridiculous. It's constantly being talked about but never a real solution. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Ignore the last 3 million years or so. You'd have to go back over 250 million years to find a time when temperatures are as low as they are today.

https://www.climate.gov/media/16817

Hi Pxmcc, see red text below

the impacts are many and serious. here are just a few:

Declaring carbon dioxide (CO2) not a pollutant involves reversing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2009 "endangerment finding," which legalizes the removal of federal oversight on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, power plants, and industrial sources. Based on reports from early 2026, the potential negative effects of this policy include:

Carbon dioxide and CH4 are not toxic in normal quantities. They're a natural product of photosynthesis and digestion. So are they pollutants? Not by my definition.

Other products of coal combustion, like particulates, SO2, CO and NOx are. So if the EPA wants to regulate pollutants from coal, or for that matter oil, why don't they just clamp down on those products? Well, you provide the answer below:

Regulatory Chaos and Lawsuits: The action is expected to trigger a barrage of lawsuits, potentially creating a "patchwork of systems" where some states regulate emissions while others do not.

Economic Disruption: Projections suggest these changes could cost states billions in damages, with one estimate indicating Michigan could lose $5.5 billion in GDP by 2035

The Obama administration knowingly or unknowingly provided a sop to the plaintiff's bar by calling greenhouse gases pollutants and an existential threat to humanity. This is like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. helping himself and his lawyer buddies with his cautions and restrictions on vaccines.

Big Oil is a much bigger target target than Big Tobacco or Asbestos or silicone breast implants or light aircraft or vaccine makers.

.

Environmental and Climate Consequences

Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Repealing the endangerment finding could increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 10% over the next 30 years, as limits on fossil fuel emissions are removed.

The USA accounts for 11% to 14% of CO2 emissions today. In 30 years its projected to account for 6% to 10%. So what kind of difference is a 10% cut going to make? That's a reduction of 0.6% to 1.4% in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions over 30 years. The future of GHG emissions is in the hands of the Chinese, the Indians and others. The USA is a bit player.

Worsened Climate Change Impacts: Reduced regulation is projected to lead to more severe heat waves, drought, wildfires, and intense flooding, as CO2 continues to drive global temperature increases.

Again, given the USA's small % of GHG emissions going forward, how much of a difference can we make? What are the costs versus the benefits? As Bjorn Lomborg points out, we're much better off spending money on mitigation instead of trying to reach "0" net carbon emissions in short order.

Increased Coal/Oil Pollution: Repealing Section 111 standards could allow some of the largest power plants to release nearly seven times as much carbon dioxide.

That's not very specific. What does it mean? If you close a coal fired power plant, emissions go to zero.

Health and Safety Risks

Public Health Hazards: Removing these protections is linked to higher rates of asthma, heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, and premature deaths.

Those effects are not from CO2 or CH4. They're from other pollutants. And emission of those pollutants is minimal with natural gas and emission controls on petroleum products.

Rise in Heat-Related Deaths: As climate change fuels higher temperatures, the loss of emission controls is expected to increase heat-related illnesses and fatalities.

That's speculative. There are more deaths from excessive cold than heat. Furthermore, if you, for example, were to make air conditioning in Mumbai too expensive by placing restrictions on carbon fueled power generation, you might just end up with more deaths in apartment blocks.

Reduced Air Quality: The policy may allow for higher levels of toxic pollutants, including mercury, to be emitted from power plants.

Yeah, we don't want to end up with air quality like large Asian cities. So regulate the metals, particulates, etc. Again, CO2 and CH4 are nontoxic in normal concentrations

Economic and Legal Impacts

Loss of Vehicle Efficiency Standards: The move eliminates federal standards for fuel efficiency, which could lead to more gas-guzzling vehicles and higher gasoline costs for consumers.

Better done with a reasonable carbon tax, at the point of combustion, than government mandates IMO, provided the carbon tax is used to close the deficit or reduce other taxes.

Automaker Competitiveness Risks: While intended to help the U.S. auto industry, the shift away from electric vehicle (EV) standards may leave U.S. automakers behind competitors in China and Europe that are shifting toward cleaner, more efficient technology.

We were far, far behind the Chinese in EV's at the end of the Biden administration. We'll probably never catch up, regardless of which party controls government.




Long-Term Policy Reversal

Blocking Future Action: The primary goal of this move is to prevent future administrations from easily reestablishing regulations to tackle climate change.

Why can't a Democratic administration just overturn Trump's EO's?

Eroding Scientific Basis: The action disregards scientific consensus that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels threaten public health, treating climate change action as a "scam".

and about those homeowners' insurance policies availability and affordability..

Climate change isn't a scam. But McKinsey estimates the worldwide cost would be $275 trillion worldwide to get to net zero by 2050. Think what the world could do with $275 trillion, or rather what it would have to do without if it has to spend $275 trillion. This is why Lomborg has said for a long time we've got to use common sense. Bill Gates appears to be coming around to that too now.

what say you all.. Originally Posted by pxmcc

How about everyone who thinks plant food is going to be the downfall of civilization put their money where their mouths are, go live in a mud hut and ride a bicycle anywhere they need to go. Not only will they be saving the world, but also drive down housing costs for these youngins who are looking at 400k minimum for anything decent to start a family in. Two birds, one stone.

How about everyone who thinks plant food is going to be the downfall of civilization put their money where their mouths are, go live in a mud hut and ride a bicycle anywhere they need to go. Not only will they be saving the world, but also drive down housing costs for these youngins who are looking at 400k minimum for anything decent to start a family in. Two birds, one stone. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmbZwxEnAFc

Ch4 national gas CO2 however is pullation natural and with reason but pollution unless you a plant Originally Posted by Ripmany

you forget. humans exhale CO2.

BTW, plants exhale CO2, breathe O2 at night whereas they exhale O2, breathe CO2 at day.

climate change is biggest scam ever. its purpose is to make things more expensive. It provides an excuse to over-regulate everything in order to cripple the america's economy. as a result, alot of devices aren't working properly.

China maybe headlining the EV market, but they are building lots of coal burning plants. they know climate change is bogus. I think India knows that too.

I don't know about how hot it was 3 million years ago, it certainly was very hot 100 million plus years ago.

the endangerment finding was a Bush EPA document and is fraudulent. it was based on data that was "massaged" to get the result they (holdovers from the clinton administration) wanted. lawsuits based on this document took place in 2009.

oh btw I, Michael Mann, author of the infamous hockey stick chart, lost his lawsuit and is discredited.

oh btw II, CO2 is not the number one green house gas. Its just #2 in terms of volume in the atmosphere.

Ignore the last 3 million years or so. You'd have to go back over 250 million years to find a time when temperatures are as low as they are today.

https://www.climate.gov/media/16817

Hi Pxmcc, see red text below

Carbon dioxide and CH4 are not toxic in normal quantities. They're a natural product of photosynthesis and digestion. So are they pollutants? Not by my definition.

Other products of coal combustion, like particulates, SO2, CO and NOx are. So if the EPA wants to regulate pollutants from coal, or for that matter oil, why don't they just clamp down on those products? Well, you provide the answer below: Originally Posted by Tiny

This is a losing argument in my opinion. Many elements and chemicals are part of the natural world. It’s human processes that take these elements and places them unnaturally into our environment. The burning of fossil fuels is a human created process that places huge quantities of CO2 and Methane into the environment. IE It could easily be classified as a pollutant.

Fossil fuel burning adjacent. The long term goal of restricting fossil fuels and the pollution that they produce will have a number of benefits to society in general. Read the full article at the link below.


https://abcnews.com/US/air-pollution...y?id=130220279

Air pollution emerges as a direct risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: Study

In a study of nearly 28 million older Americans, long-term exposure to fine particle air pollution raised the risk of Alzheimer’s disease. That link held even after researchers accounted for common conditions like high blood pressure, stroke and depression.

Fine particle air pollution, known as PM2.5, consists of tiny particles in the air that come from car exhaust, power plants, wildfires, and burning fuels, according to the American Lung Association. They are small enough to travel deep into the lungs and even reach the bloodstream.

The research, conducted at Emory University and published in PLOS Medicine, tracked health data over nearly two decades to explore whether air pollution harms the brain indirectly by causing high blood pressure or heart disease, which, in turn, leads to dementia.

However, these "middleman" conditions accounted for less than 5% of the connection between pollution and Alzheimer’s, the research found.

The researchers say this suggests that over 95% of the Alzheimer’s risk comes from the direct impact of breathing in dirty air, likely through inflammation or damage to brain cells.

…

Because this is such a large study, following nearly 3 million Alzheimer’s cases, Steenland said that it strengthens the case for improving air quality as a meaningful way to prevent dementia, especially for people in lower-income areas.

you won't get any argument from me if its air pollution. clean air is healthy for everyone.

this is the issue of over-regulation many chemical companies are over-regulated as many of them are zero emissions. problem is how they define zero emissions. the emissions they produce is basically 0.0004711 for example. something like that. its four thousand seven hundred eleven ten-millionths.

you forget. humans exhale CO2.

BTW, plants exhale CO2, breathe O2 at night whereas they exhale O2, breathe CO2 at day. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

no one denies that CO2 is fine in small amounts. the problem comes from CO2 emissions at industrial, planet-altering scales; that's the point at issue.

and it's not the case that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the happier plants are. one study showed that excess CO2 prevented gymnosperms (pines) from being able to absorb enough nitrogen, limiting their growth and thus capping their ability to act as carbon sinks.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/...022980.article