I just don't agree. Maybe we're just hashing semantics, but it seems to me that a substance that belongs there, is beneficial in the quantities that are present, and/or the quantities present are within the "normal" proportions that have been measurable over time... is not a "pollutant".
In my estimation a "pollutant" is something that does not belong there, or is in abnormal, artificially induced quantities that cause harm of some kind. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing any harm whatsoever.
I am increasingly persuaded that CO2 is an ~effect~ of climate change, not a cause. The oceans are a massive gas sink. As ocean temperatures rise, the solubility of CO2 in seawater goes down-- more gas is released into the atmosphere. When ocean temperatures decrease, more CO2 is dissolved into the water. I think the capacity of the world's oceans to alter the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere makes any effort on our part... moot.
If you think differently, I'm happy to listen.
Thanks!
See post 96. While this effect does happen, it is not nearly as significant as you think. In fact, careful measurements by oceanographers at thousands of locations in the ocean, both in the water and in the overlying atmosphere, indicate that the ocean waters are currently a net sink for CO2. If they were not, then based on estimates of industrial emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have risen much faster than has been observed. Approximately 50% of total human industrial CO2 emissions are estimated to have been absorbed by the oceans since the "dawn" of the Industrial Age.
I can provide links to some of this research, both explained in layman's terms or to the actual research papers, if you're interested. Also check out my profile, point #5, sub-point #1, and reference 8.
“In my estimation a “pollutant” is something that does not belong there, or is in abnormal, artificially induced quantities that cause harm of some kind. I remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing any harm whatsoever...”
All atmosheric science is built around anomalies, deviations from the perceived ideal or the rationalized normal; it is here that the science is picked apart, reassembled and ordered toward an understanding of the cycles, perturbations and probabilities. Now they have added consequence to the list and they have done it with the assumption that our lifetime somehow represents the ideal; consequently, any deviation may be then perceived to be harmful climate change.
A nearly perfect scheme if not exactly empirical as tradition has to be overcome in favor of prediction.