# CO2 is used to keep things COLD



## elektra (Dec 26, 2014)

I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas. 

CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant? 

Flour Dough Cooling Systems for the Baking Industry Praxair Inc.



> *FLOUR & DOUGH COOLING SYSTEMS FOR THE BAKING INDUSTRY*
> 
> Share
> 
> ...


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> 
> CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant?
> 
> ...




Ok....A show of hands.... How many students in any junior high science class can explain why the OP is making a stupid comparison between pressurized CO2 use in this application and the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere? All of them? Good .


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2014)

Yep.

Good lord, Ms Elektra, did you not consider checking the sanity meter before posting that one?  As bad as is the idea that CO2 will cool the Earth, the idea that we will all starve from lack of bread if we reduce emissions, I find even worse.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> ...


Ha, Ha, your Junior High class? Any day, explain away, go ahead, explain the magic that can not be observed in our atmosphere, go ahead and explain how its fact, not some "theory", by a minority of "scientists".

Go ahead, tell us how you Jr. High class took theory and taught you it as fact.

It will be a first in these threads, a first in the World, so go ahead.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yep.
> 
> Good lord, Ms Elektra, did you not consider checking the sanity meter before posting that one?  As bad as is the idea that CO2 will cool the Earth, the idea that we will all starve from lack of bread if we reduce emissions, I find even worse.


Ahhh, Facts hurt, huh Crick?

Crick, Industry is used to manufacture our food, how about telling us how we can eat without Industry?
Yes, CO2 cools things, even in our atmosphere, of course there is Crick's unproven theory with zero experiments, but still, Crick, your idea that we could feed the planet without industry is pure nonsense.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2014)

CO2 is used to cool things, never to heat things, never to keep things warm, never. 

Buy Liquid Carbon Dioxide or Compressed Carbon Dioxide Gas CO2 Praxair Inc.



> *Food & Beverage*
> Carbon dioxide (CO2) is used as a key cryogenic agent in cooling, chilling and freezing applications — protecting the taste and texture of your food products by maintaining proper temperature control. CO2 also reduces the need for preservatives in packaged products, and is an essential ingredient in carbonated beverages.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




OK....First, the cooling gained by injecting CO2 is gained from the venture effect of the injection nozzle, and not by any specific property of the CO2.  The passive cooling part of this link should help you.
Ventilation passive cooling ventilation strategies wind tower venturi effect stack effect Manimegalai Arch - Academia.edu
Thermal effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are well known as well. Perhaps you have heard of  The Greenhouse Effect
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


Just because you are not aware of these things that have been well known for a very long time, doesn't mean they are not very well known.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Help yourself, do more google searches, its obvious you had to turn to google just to reply, so what exactly do you understand, without a google link, and if your links only link to your preconceived idea, in which you googled, of course your, illogical conclusion, is reinforced. 

With a bit more of an education, and a lot more logical thinking, you would of provided me the .pdf of Tyndall's work. A far more interesting and relevant post. 

Did Tyndall study CO2 in the atmosphere as you unwittingly believe, the answer is no. I say unwittingly because you most likely fail to realize the faults in which your understanding is based on. 

First and foremost, is Tyndall did not study CO2 in the atmosphere, as it exists in the, "ether". 

So how about explaining to us how electromagnetic waves travel through the, "ether". After all, this is what Tyndall based his work on. 

So many faults in which the unproven, global warming Theory is based on. 

Theory is not fact, look it up in google.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 27, 2014)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You are pretty far out there. I did do a little google search to find a couple of simple explanations  you might understand, but that information is pretty much common knowledge among anyone who has ever opened a book anyway.  Obviously, your mind is made up, so I won't confuse you with facts anymore. Believe what you want. Just get used to being called an idiot when you spout your silly ideas. I have always believed that a mind is a terrible thing to waste, but in your case, I'll go with W's famous take on that phrase
It's terrible to loose ones mind.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Yep.
> 
> Good lord, Ms Elektra, did you not consider checking the sanity meter before posting that one?  As bad as is the idea that CO2 will cool the Earth, the idea that we will all starve from lack of bread if we reduce emissions, I find even worse.





s0n.....CO2 has nothing to do with the earth warming........that'd be the sun. Take a quick gander over to check out the new thread on the sun..........a research paper that is a direct kick to the nut sack of the AGW religion.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 27, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.
> ...




So you think one research paper that hasn't been peer reviewed yet is the magic piece of paper to disprove climate change? What an idiot.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2014)

Elektra, why don't you ask Westwall or SSDD or IanC to explain

p1V1/T1 = p2V2/T2


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yep.
> ...



You could always grow your friggin own.  People do it every day.


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> 
> CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant?
> 
> Flour Dough Cooling Systems for the Baking Industry Praxair Inc.



If you hang out in enough GW threads you read deniers going on about how water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Water, you know, the stuff that ice is made of. Perhaps you can educate them about how wrong they are about H2O and its ability to warm. It's a proven fact it's used for cooling, notably in your drink at the restaurant for example.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


So what, if you could take your head out of the sand, you would realize that the people who live in cities could not grow their own food. 

Get it, the world needs industry to supply food. We are speaking of something a little bigger than what one individual can do, we are speaking of what is needed today, to supply food to people who live in cities. 

Now if you are speaking of me individually, that I could grow my own food on the 168 acres I sit on, I would have to tell you that you are ignorant. I can not grow my own food, I work supplying you with ELECTRICITY so I am not home in the spring, I have a job that you depend on, unless of course you found a magic way to supply your needs of electricity, without any industry.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

Matted Joybeard said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> ...


What is your point? 

Water is a moderator, in many ways, like in a nuclear power plant, we use water to shield us from deadly levels of radiation. Hydrogen absorbs Neutrons, naturally, literally, helping to control the process of fission. 

Much different than CO2, we do not use CO2 to absorb radiation.

So, honestly, I do not understand the point you made, maybe you could rephrase your statement, no biggie either way.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Elektra, why don't you ask Westwall or SSDD or IanC to explain
> 
> p1V1/T1 = p2V2/T2



Crick, why don't you explain why there is no way to measure heat emitted from CO2 in the atmosphere, hence there is no way to prove the theory of Global Warming being driven by CO2.

Hell, last I checked there is zero experiments which used a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, where they measured an increase in temperature within the concentration of CO2. 

Seems simple, why have the great Scientists not done this simple experiment.

Hell, why does Duke University exclude the temperature data from experiments with elevated levels of CO2? 

How come Industry does not use CO2 to heat things? Or why do we not insulate with CO2? 

CO2 likes to be cold, CO2 is not hotter than the environment it finds itself in.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Elektra, why don't you ask Westwall or SSDD or IanC to explain
> ...


Man, ya just gotta love this kind of magnificent understanding of basic science! CO2 likes to be cold. By God, that is absolutely classic.


----------



## Crick (Dec 28, 2014)

Elektra, sorry man, but god are you stupid.


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> So, honestly, I do not understand ...



Problem identified.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> Elektra, do you see any of your buddies joining in?



Crick, I obviously need no help replying to your post. 

Crick are you stating Praxair does not sell CO2 systems used for cooling? 

Crick are you denying Dry Ice is pure CO2.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

Matted Joybeard said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So, honestly, I do not understand ...
> ...


Yea, problem identified, Matted Joybeard is nothing more than a liar and a troll, how about it cherry picker, seems there are rules against hacking a quote thus attributing something to someone that they did not say, how about I flag your comment as to against the rules and have a mod come over and give you a nice warning.

"So, honestly, I do not understand the point you made, maybe you could rephrase your statement, no biggie either way."

I guess you simply ain't got the brains to join a conversation. 

CO2 is used to cool, CO2 is Dry Ice. You can not live without CO2, I know, facts are hard to argue with, are they not.


----------



## elektra (Dec 28, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Old Crock, at least you understand your intelligence limitation thus limit your posts to flaming and trolling.

Dry Ice is CO2, how come?


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> Matted Joybeard said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Just pointing out the most salient point you've made this thread.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 28, 2014)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 


Of course, we need modern ways to produce our food, but that's not what this thread is about. You made a silly claim about CO2 supposedly cooling our environment. That was wrong, and you should just admit you read some little bit of information and took the wrong conclusion from it. We've all done that, but only an idiot would just keep defending an indefensible post after all the corrections you have received. This is why people laugh at right wingers and say they are dumb.  Grow up and quit embarrassing yourself.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Oh dear.  You didn't get the memo?  Many people in cities DO grow their own food.  And have for quite a while.  I never said that they are independent of the market.  Industrial farms, particularly in the Midwest, grow primarily feed grains, such as corn fodder, the bulk of which is nearly indigestible to the animals for which they were intended, but does fatten them up for the market rather nicely right before it burns a hole in their guts and they die horrible deaths.  And the bottom line is, after all, the primary goal of your industrial farms, not feeding the world.


----------



## elektra (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


Oh my, you did not get a brain? You believe Manhattan or Los Angeles can and do grow all the food they need? You believe this is possible? 

Corn fodder? You do not know what you are talking about, its called Silage, its what those big SILOs are used for. 

The primary goal of the industrial farms is not to feed the World? I guess them cows is just for looking at, and the corn used in corn flakes comes from the corn fairies. And where does rice come from? Or milk? I guess they grow rice on the rooftops in China Town? Right?

The bottom line, your post is pretty good, fodder!


----------



## elektra (Dec 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


I made no such claim, CO2 is used to keep things cool, this thread is specifically about the Industrial use of CO2. The example I used was in the industrial production of Bread. CO2 is used as Cryogenic. That means extremely cold. 

Anyhow, if you think its too hot you could sit on a block of CO2, they sell it as DRY ICE!

The only people that laugh at us, are idiots, morons, political hacks, you are no different than those people in the past who laughed and made fun of black people. You are the same person that called black people dumb. You see, your type never goes away, they just find something new to hate. Bigots never disappear, as you prove. The OP is clearly about CO2 being used in industry because its cold. 

So political you are, so full of ideology, so stupid and foolish, you did not even take the time to read the OP, saying something good about CO2 must be stopped at all costs yes? Too bad you can't still hang people from under the cover of a White Sheet. I believe you would.

Fact is, CO2 is some super cold stuff.


----------



## elektra (Dec 29, 2014)

Matted Joybeard said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Matted Joybeard said:
> ...


no, you are just some idiot, nothing more, which is the problem as you demonstrate, got no way to argue the facts, so sad your side is.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



What part of "I never said that they are independent of the market" escaped your notice?


----------



## Boss (Dec 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> I made no such claim, CO2 is used to keep things cool, this thread is specifically about the Industrial use of CO2. The example I used was in the industrial production of Bread. CO2 is used as Cryogenic. That means extremely cold.



Actually, it is liquid nitrogen which is used as cryogenic because it is so much colder.  Nitrogen is the most common element in our atmosphere. The problem I have with your argument is the failure to understand the nature of elements and compounds in general. Yes, CO2 can be used to cool things, just as nitrogen, freon, oxygen or just plain old air. This does not mean these elements or compounds once released into the atmosphere, are out there continuing to make things cool. Their state changes, carbon dioxide becomes a gas at a certain temperature. 

The argument for climate change is centered around the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which does contribute to the greenhouse effect. However, we need the greenhouse effect, without it there would be no life on earth. It enables our relative air pressure and temperature. The fear of the warmers is that CO2 is causing too much of the greenhouse effect.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 29, 2014)

I made bread yesterday without cooling the dough. 

This is perhaps the most retarded thread in existence.


----------



## Politico (Dec 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok....A show of hands.... How many students in any junior high science class can explain why the OP is making a stupid comparison between pressurized CO2 use in this application and the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere? All of them? Good .


Bad analogy. Most junior high students can't count change without a calculator.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2014)

Do you agree with Elektra?

Does ANYONE out there agree with Elektra?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I made no such claim, CO2 is used to keep things cool, this thread is specifically about the Industrial use of CO2. The example I used was in the industrial production of Bread. CO2 is used as Cryogenic. That means extremely cold.
> ...




*CO2 in the atmosphere, which does contribute to the greenhouse effect.*

maybe 

most likely not 

CO2 is a great conductor of heat 

if you are looking for the great blanket in the atmosphere 

that keeps us warm look at the poor conductors great insulators 

like nitrogen and H2O for example


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 who is calling him an idiot other than those who have no idea the facts of CO2?  So your only argument to use is to call names! typical leftist position when the facts are missing.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I made no such claim, CO2 is used to keep things cool, this thread is specifically about the Industrial use of CO2. The example I used was in the industrial production of Bread. CO2 is used as Cryogenic. That means extremely cold.
> ...


 so do you have an experiment that shows that an increase of CO2 does anything to temperature?  Just one that whows adding CO2 increases temperatures?  One?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 29, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> CO2 is a great conductor of heat



No, CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than air, nitrogen or water vapor.

Air -- 0.024 W/m*K

Nitrogen -- 0.024 W/m*K

Water Vapor -- 0.016 W/m*K

CO2 -- 0.0146 W/m*K

Thermal Conductivity of some common Materials and Gases


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




OK. Then you say this thread is only about the fact that CO2 is sometimes used to cool things. Perhaps I was thrown off by your statement



elektra said:


> From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.



Of course CO2 has an effect on raising the temperature of the earth. Only an idiot would say differently. I can't see any problem with your claim that it is sometimes used for small scale cooling as well.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 29, 2014)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




OK. Then you say this thread is only about the fact that CO2 is sometimes used to cool things. Perhaps I was thrown off by your statement



elektra said:


> From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.



Of course CO2 has an effect on raising the temperature of the earth. Only an idiot would say differently. I can't see any problem with your claim that it is sometimes used for small scale cooling as well.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 of course?  How can you prove it?  Show an experiment that shows that adding CO2 changes temperatures.  Just one, please, since you can write this statement.  Just one factual experiment.  Please!


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Well, I expect a teabagger as yourself will just claim Obama ordered NASA to publish this, but the sane world will accept it as credible.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Evidence
All branches of the military as well as most of the rest of the world have accepted it as fact, even though many of the countries haven't done anything about it yet. Sadly a few people, like you, are stuck with a flat earth mentality, and


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


What is the purpose of the military, to be climate experts, or security experts?  What a stupid statement to use as an argument. It is obvious you can't prove it.  Can you?  Just admit you can't prove it and move forward.  Don't give me stupid that is hearsay of something never proven.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

You know what?  If you had any smarts, you'd delete the duplicate posts you keep posting.  But, eh, that's too simple for you.  See you have no proof.  Bulldog, just remember that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> You know what?  If you had any smarts, you'd delete the duplicate posts you keep posting.  But, eh, that's too simple for you.  See you have no proof.  Bulldog, just remember that.



Thanks for mentioning the duplicate posts. I'm not sure why that is happening. There is plenty of proof of CO2 effecting climate change, but I will admit I will never convince you because you just don't care about facts. As far as your previous question about why the military would be concerned about climate change, this is how they explained it
http://www.newsweek.com/pentagon-re...e-change-immediate-threat-could-foster-277155
If you don't understand why they might be concerned with security, then you're an idiot.
.


----------



## Boss (Dec 29, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Please do not misinterpret my quote. I did not say that CO2 contributes to climate change. There is no question it contributes to the greenhouse effect, along with numerous other gases as well as water vapor. CO2 is a natural element. Mother nature produces more CO2 each year than humans. It's a good thing, this is what all plants need to grow. 

The Warmers make a lot out of the climate scientists claims but the botanical scientists say something different. Up until about 600 years ago, our plants and trees were starving for CO2. Commercial greenhouses have often pumped in CO2 to help plants thrive. I suppose this practice will end as Liberals have discovered that when we pay government carbon offset tax, that somehow neutralizes our 'devastating' effect.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



No problem.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2014)

Very nice.  I suspect we will see claims that the pressure in the seltzer-water bottle elevated from the pressurization it experienced from the AlkaSeltzer bubbles.  He should have waited till it was all dissolved before corking that bottle.  He made the global warming scam too obvious.  Some of these denier fools are going to catch on that we're making it all up to get rich.

You rich yet?

I'm still waiting for my check.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


hahahahahaahahahahahhaha.  I'm not wasting my time with this one.  the one, the one that has been requested, is the one that proves adding CO2 changes temperatures.  Not filling a bottle up and then saying it's a greenhouse gas. 

Again, Herr Koch, 1901.


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The question was whether CO2 changes temperatures.  Did you not see the temperature change in the bottle that contained the CO2?  Crick got it right.  You people are morons, hands down.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 that isn't the question or the argument.  CO2 is logarithmic.  And the potential is greatest at the first 20 PPM after that, not so much.  So any added CO2 will not increase temperature.  So, show that experiment.  The one that shows that adding CO2 to existing control makes a difference in temperature.  You won't be able to, because it doesn't.  herr Koch 1901!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I take it you failed to read Crick's post on Koch.  That would explain why you continue to cite his flawed work in your argument.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


yes, I read it, I also asked him to disprove it with an experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.  it's easy to just say it isn't valid, but then provide one that is.  See, his experiment was done with the options that was asked of him.  So his test is therefore not invalid.  So, just provide the one that does what he was doing proving added CO2 to temperatures. Just one!!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No one has to disprove Koch's claims.  It was for him to validate them.  He didn't do that.  And no one has since.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 he did validate it!!!!!!!! prove his test wrong if you don't like the results.  That would mean a test that shows adding CO2 does indeed change temperature.  Sorry fail!!!!


----------



## orogenicman (Dec 29, 2014)

jc456 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No sir he did not.  This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.  What's more, repeatedly demanding test results that also have been given to you on numerous occasions is insane.  The fact that you are in denial is meaningless to the issue of global warming, which, I assure you is very real, and has a significant human-induced component. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



> The assistant ("Herr J. Koch," otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little (7*)
> Angstrom
> Still more (8)
> These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.



Sorry, YOU fail, and on every level.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


 again, that means absolutely nothing.  So again, someone merely stating it is not evidence man!!! Angstrom doesn't just get to make a statement like I said.  Man up and post the one that disproves him!!!!


----------



## elektra (Dec 29, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > orogenicman said:
> ...


You made the claim that farms do not provide food to people, you made the claim that people in cities can grow their own food and do not need farms. 

If you did not say that, what in the hell are you saying? You took issue that farms and industry provide food and tried to make a point that farms and industry do not or are not needed to feed billions of people. 

CO2, you take issue that CO2 is good and needed in our modern society. 

If what I say is not true, what in the hell do you have a problem with?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is a great conductor of heat
> ...



the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8


----------



## Indofred (Dec 30, 2014)

elektra said:


> but CO2 is used to Cool things



Liquid CO2, dear chap.
Your stupidity is about the same as claiming boiling water won't burn you because ice is cold.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 30, 2014)

Indofred said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > but CO2 is used to Cool things
> ...




true 

it is an interesting pick using co2 as a coolant 

because of its great heat transfer ability


----------



## Indofred (Dec 30, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> because of its great heat transfer ability



And heat retention ability.

CO2 retains heat a high school experiment


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 30, 2014)

Indofred said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > because of its great heat transfer ability
> ...




that is not accurate what so ever 

if it retains heat it would be a poor choice to use as a coolant 

in forced cooling the gas has to be able to easily throw off the heat it picks up 

just sayin 

co2 picks up heat fast and throws off heat fast


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2014)

Indofred said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > because of its great heat transfer ability
> ...


So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more?  This is the stuff that lies come from.  Uncontrolled tests and swear by the test.  How long did it take to heat it up?  Did you happen to take log that time?  Why didn't it get warmer, or are you not one that believes CO2 makes the air warmer?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8



Specific heat or heat capacity (how much heat something holds) is a totally different thing than heat conductivity (how fast it transfers heat). Posting numbers for heat capacity doesn't make your claim about heat conductivity less wrong.

CO2 has a lower heat conductivity than air. Of course, that doesn't matter, since lower conductivity is not what makes it a greenhouse gas.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more?



Because it would only take one bubble to double 400 ppm, and the bottle was bubbling merrily.



> This is the stuff that lies come from.



You're extremely deficient in common sense and practical knowledge of how the world works.

And in Dunning-Kruger fashion, you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.

Nobody is lying. You're just an idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > So curious, if you didn't have a meter to read the amount of CO2 in the bottle, how do you even know you had more?
> ...


 nobody does a test without a control test.  I guess high school lab tests are good for you and perhaps why you lack the ability to see the truth.  But alas, it is obvious that you lie most everyday on here. You lack class.  The day they handed out class, you went the complete opposite way.    congrats!!!!


----------



## Boss (Dec 30, 2014)

You guys and these experiments are playing around with phase transition of CO2. Keep in mind... ALL phase transition is done through heat transfer, regardless of element or compound. This is basic thermodynamics. What does this have to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere? 

The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse. 

We have to remember, the greenhouse effect is _*vitally*_ important to us. Without it, along with air pressure, we would freeze to death at night as temperatures on our planet plunge to hundreds of degrees below zero and we would routinely have 300-degree days. Our atmosphere with our greenhouse effect work to keep our planet temperatures stable. CO2 is one of the most abundant natural compounds in the universe. Whether it is increasing in our atmosphere or whether this is helping to create more warming, it is not evidence that man-caused CO2 emissions are a significant contributing factor. 

We know that our planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. This is nothing new. We've had periods of much warmer and cooler temperatures, LONG before human industrialization. The climate of our planet has changed so dramatically that we've had mass extinction events. But this beautiful amazing place has a seemingly mystical ability to readjust, to bring things back to normal again over time, and it has done so countless times.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2014)

jc456 said:


> nobody does a test without a control test.



Which would be why the other bottle without elevated CO2 was there.

Again, nobody is lying. You're just profoundly stupid.


----------



## Matted Joybeard (Dec 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.



Well the heat is not coming from space, its coming from the Earth, which radiates heat from the incoming solar radiation that CO2 is transparent to. Yes, CO2 absorbs and emits this heat in all directions, but the fact that it is not 100% away from the planetary surface means there's a residual warming, which you touch on this in the latter part of your post.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > nobody does a test without a control test.
> ...


 How long did it take to heat up for both scenarios?


----------



## Boss (Dec 30, 2014)

Matted Joybeard said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that supposedly makes CO2 "bad" has nothing to do with phase transition. The arguments I've heard are surrounding the compound's ability to reflect heat. Now, it's true that CO2 does reflect heat, but it doesn't simply work in one direction. That's where I have a problem with the theory. As the CO2 is reflecting heat back in to earth it is also reflecting heat back out into space. While it's working to keep heat in the greenhouse, it is also working to block heat from entering the greenhouse.
> ...



I disagree, the bulk of Earth's energy comes from the Sun, not the Earth. Heat is energy, according to the laws of physics and thermodynamics. So we can assume the vast amount of energy (or heat) is being produced by the Sun. Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation. Solar radiation is heat energy itself, so the laws of physics still apply to carbon dioxide  with regard to incoming energy. This is what enables our atmosphere to form a protective shell, which is the same thing that causes greenhouse effect. 

Look... the key thing here is this, there is nothing wrong with having a vibrant greenhouse effect. Have you ever seen _*lifelessness*_ in a greenhouse? Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes all plant life to thrive and grow more vigorously. It enables cells in plants and trees to retain water longer, and there is nothing else in nature that does this better. 

This is what is so hilarious to me about this debate... The Tree Huggers are all on board with this war on CO2! Did you _ALL_ fail science or something? 

Now.... Smarty-pants will argue; *whadda we do when all the glaciers melt and flood the coast? *And I say, by the time that happens, the melting ice in the ocean will have disrupted the natural convection cycles in our oceans and all the sea life will be dead. So... bigger 'fish to fry' than coastal flooding, pardon the pun. Earth's Nature is not in our ability to control, and that is really what the issue is here. Some think that it is and others realize it's not. I think this planet can destroy us before we ever come close to destroying it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2014)

I have seen lifelessness in a greenhouse.  We had one on our roof in Kansas when I was a kid.  The temperature there on a summer day would be over 130.  It roasted even cacti we tried to grow.  Bad design.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Matted Joybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Virtually all the earths surface energy comes from the sun. And much of it gets reflected or reradiated back into space. Change the amount that is reflected or reradiated back into space, and you change the amount of heat on the surface of the earth. Since CO2 is a GHG, then increasing the amount in the atmosphere by 40% is going to increase the amount of heat on earth. Simple as that.

As for the rest of your arguements, argue that with a biologist. Most I have discussed the issue with, state that it is a very mixed bag, as far as human agriculture is concerned.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation.



Yes, it basically is. You're getting the science wrong.

Most of the energy in solar radiation is in the visible light spectrum. CO2 is transparent to that. Thus, most of the sun's energy passes through the atmosphere and hits the earth, unless clouds or aerosol particles block it.

That energy is converted to heat and leaves the earth as infrared radiation. And CO2 does block that. Hence, it only holds heat in. It does not block incoming energy. The atmosphere does not form a "protective shell", period.


----------



## Boss (Dec 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Carbon dioxide is certainly not "transparent" to solar radiation.
> ...



No, basically it's not. I'm not getting the science wrong. CO2 doesn't care if something is in the visible light spectrum. It reflects all heat energy equally. Yes, most of the Sun's energy passes through our atmosphere and hits earth, unless it is blocked by clouds or by the ozone layer, as well as our thick stratosphere, where the greenhouse gases reside. Our atmosphere is a system, and yes it does provide a "protective shell" against solar radiation, if it didn't, everything would die. Now, maybe you're taking exception with terminology when I say "shell" and you'd rather hear something like "layer" instead? I don't know, but we are protected by the atmosphere, of which carbon dioxide is a part of. 

There are many other factors as to how earth obtains heat energy from the Sun, most notably, the physical activity of the Sun itself. Humans have no control over this but we know that the amount of energy the Sun puts out is not a constant. This means that at any given period, our planet may encounter a warming or cooling that is totally unrelated to the atmosphere. In addition, there are a myriad of earthly (natural) phenomenon which can contribute massively to the levels of greenhouse gas in relatively short periods of time. An average volcano erupting will generate more CO2, along with methane, water vapor, sulfur, sulfur dioxide, raw carbon ash, etc. into the atmosphere, than man could produce if he worked 24/7/365 for 2k years. It's just mind-boggling at the amount of CO2 which is dispersed into the atmosphere from mother nature alone. The oceans produce CO2, but they also retain it as well. 

We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2. The whole entire thing is a scam to empower more government control over capitalism. Paying government agents a carbon offset tax does not one thing about the nature of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. To put this bluntly, it's a Socialist con game.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2014)

Boss, do you understand this diagram?






Mamooth is correct.  CO2 IS transparent to visible light but absorbs parts of the infrared spectrum.  Visible light comes through the atmosphere (except for aerosols and clouds, which reflect it back up to space) and is absorbed by the surface (land or sea).  The surface gets warmed which increases the energy it radiates upward in the infrared spectrum.  CO2 absorbs parts of that - the peaks in its absorption spectrum above, particularly the two highest that aren't fully absorbed by water vapor - which increases it's temperature.  That's how greenhouse warming works.

Anthropogenic global warming is not a socialist con game.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Indofred said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...




yeah --LOL in the mythbusters "test" co2 was greater then 7 percent of the atmosphere 

--LOL

which is closer to mars then earth but who cares when advancing man made global warming 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > the specific heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8
> ...




other then the fact that co2* heats and cools faster* then air which btw is transferring heat 

just think about it for a second pudding head --LOL


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2014)

The Myth-Busters video clearly states that they reproduced atmospheric conditions.  They used a certified gas engineer to establish the setup and named him and his employer.  They would not have allowed their names to be used on television with a fraudulent setup.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



You've never taken thermo, have you.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




if anything warmed co2 rises and dumps the heat into space 

it certainly is not retaining the heat 

--LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2014)

And all of the physicists worldwide state that you are wrong.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body

 i do not know which physicist

would disagree with that and then 

claim to be a physicist with a straight face 

--LOL


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2014)

I know of no physicists that would reject the greenhouse effect, which is precisely what you are attempting to do.

Look, it's quite obvious that you know almost nothing of physics, chemistry or thermodynamics, while a number of other posters here do.  You know that and so does everyone else.  So, why do you bother with this?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

the green house effect and man made global warming are two different things 

--LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2014)

OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages. 

Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2014)

I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> No, basically it's not. I'm not getting the science wrong. CO2 doesn't care if something is in the visible light spectrum. It reflects all heat energy equally



Crick covered your fundamental physics error here in detail, so no need to go over that part again.



> There are many other factors as to how earth obtains heat energy from the Sun, most notably, the physical activity of the Sun itself. Humans have no control over this but we know that the amount of energy the Sun puts out is not a constant.



The sun has been cooling a bit lately. That proves changes in solar output are not driving the current warming.



> An average volcano erupting will generate more CO2, along with methane, water vapor, sulfur, sulfur dioxide, raw carbon ash, etc. into the atmosphere, than man could produce if he worked 24/7/365 for 2k years.



No. Just wrong. All the world's volcanoes combined only emit about 1% as much CO2 as humans do.



> We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2.



The science simply disagrees with you.



> The whole entire thing is a scam to empower more government control over capitalism. Paying government agents a carbon offset tax does not one thing about the nature of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. To put this bluntly, it's a Socialist con game.



What's more likely?

A. A vast global socialist conspiracy exists, and you're one of the elite few critical thinkers who recognizes the RealTruth.

B. Your understanding is lacking.

Non-paranoid and non-narcissistic humans will pick "B", realizing that they themselves making an error is much more likely than there being a secret global conspiracy directed against them. If you answered "A", you place yourself firmly in the category of "conspiracy theorist".


----------



## Boss (Dec 31, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, basically it's not. I'm not getting the science wrong. CO2 doesn't care if something is in the visible light spectrum. It reflects all heat energy equally
> ...



There's no error. Crick double-clutched and shifted gears to another argument which wasn't being had. My argument was that CO2 doesn't cause only bad things to happen in only one direction. All the graphs and charts in the world can't change that fact.



> > There are many other factors as to how earth obtains heat energy from the Sun, most notably, the physical activity of the Sun itself. Humans have no control over this but we know that the amount of energy the Sun puts out is not a constant.
> 
> 
> 
> The sun has been cooling a bit lately. That proves changes in solar output are not driving the current warming.



Again, sun output is not a constant. It changes all the time. What do you mean by "cooling lately?" Because median global air temps have only risen 1 degree in 100 years. Here's the facts... The sun could shoot out a solar flare and cause more global warming than we could eliminate by closing every CO2-producing factory in the world.



> > An average volcano erupting will generate more CO2, along with methane, water vapor, sulfur, sulfur dioxide, raw carbon ash, etc. into the atmosphere, than man could produce if he worked 24/7/365 for 2k years.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Just wrong. All the world's volcanoes combined only emit about 1% as much CO2 as humans do.



Well, all the world's volcanoes are not erupting, so you can't make this argument. I can go find statistics from Mt. St. Helen which shows how many metric tons of crap went into the atmosphere, but you've obviously been brainwashed against this.



> > We can't affect any change in climate through trying to manipulate man-made CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> The science simply disagrees with you.



No, science does not disagree with me. Show us the evidence which suggests that our efforts to manipulate man-made CO2 has resulted in actual change in climate, and I'll have a look.



> > The whole entire thing is a scam to empower more government control over capitalism. Paying government agents a carbon offset tax does not one thing about the nature of a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere. To put this bluntly, it's a Socialist con game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not a conspiracy, it's an outright assault on free market capitalism. Most thinking and rational people realize this, or they should. You're among the NON-critical thinkers who is running around carrying the water for Socialists because you're a socialist.


----------



## Boss (Dec 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.



Most people realize they are two different things because of the different terms. The greenhouse effect has been happening for over 3 billion years. It's what keeps our environment relatively stable, protecting us from solar radiation, enabling air pressure, enabling a weather system, allowing the evaporation process and climate to function. AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a recent theory that man-made contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere is causing substantial global warming. Keyword here is Anthropogenic.... means it's cause by human activity.


----------



## Boss (Dec 31, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.
> 
> Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.



There is no change taking place in a short period of time. Relative surface air temperatures have only risen 1 degree in 100 years. This 'alarming' change is what we are spending trillions of dollars on and seeking trillions more from capitalism and industry in imposing more stringent guidelines.

More greenhouse effect is not a bad thing.  It increases plant life which means more people can be fed per acre of farmland. Over time, deserts can even become grasslands. Forests become thicker and more lush. These are hardly results which are detrimental to humans.


----------



## Tuckwolf (Dec 31, 2014)

elektra said:


> I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> 
> CO2 is used in industry to control the quality while making breads, which gives us better food, meaning we can feed more people. Democrats in California have taxed the use of CO2, as a pollutant?
> 
> ...


How old are you, 9?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2014)

boss said:
			
		

> The sun could shoot out a solar flare and cause more global warming than we could eliminate by closing every CO2-producing factory in the world.



Um, no. Solar flares do not significantly heat the earth; they send out high-energy subatomic particles. Across a wide array of science topics, you don't know what you're talking about.



> Well, all the world's volcanoes are not erupting, so you can't make this argument. I can go find statistics from Mt. St. Helen which shows how many metric tons of crap went into the atmosphere, but you've obviously been brainwashed against this.



No, you can't, because that's a steaming pile. I'm calling your bluff on it now. And you're going to cut and run.

We've been patient with you Boss, but your belligerent ignorance is getting too much to bear. A bright sixth grader is better informed than you on this topic. Our attempts to educate are wasted on you. You want to be stupid, because non-stupid people are booted from your fringe political cult, and nothing matters more to you than your status in that herd.

It's a tragedy, sort of. Your BS meter is busted, so you had no mental defenses against being sucked in by a conspiracy cult. Another mind lost to superstition and psuedoscience. I hope the emotional gratification that your cult affiliation gets you will make enduring the resulting lifetime of ridicule worth it.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.
> 
> Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulnerable to changes in temperature and precipitation.






*When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. *

there is no proof in the record that in the past co2 caused the warming 

the record looks like co2 lagged behind the warm periods 

*Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself.*

no it is not bad the development of man has always done better in warm periods 

vs cold periods 


*having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing.*

it is not really warming not so  in the past 15 or so years and certainly 

not like the models predicted


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'd back up a bit. Please explain why you believe AGW and the greenhouse effect to be two different things.



i am quite surprised you would ask such a question


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2014)

Wrong answer there, Jon. Explain just how the Greenhouse effect is differant from AGW.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2014)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.
> ...


Look, Boss, apparently you think that the deniar nuts have the science right on this. They most certainly do not. First, until 2000, they stated that there was no warming happening, in spite of the obvious evidence there was. Now they are claiming that adding an additional 40+% of CO2 to the atmosphere, an additional 250% of CH4, and many industrial gases that have no natural analogs, and are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2 is not increasing the heat that the atmosphere retains.

You want to know the real facts? Go to physicists, and here is the American Institute of Physics website on this very issue. 

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 31, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Wrong answer there, Jon. Explain just how the Greenhouse effect is differant from AGW.




if you dont know the difference between greenhouse effect and AGW then i am quite surprised at the both of you


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2014)

Well, are you going to keep us in suspense, or are you going to enlighten us with your brilliant hypothesis of why the greenhouse effect is differant than AGW?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 31, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> the record looks like co2 lagged behind the warm periods



That's actually very much in doubt. It's unclear whether CO2 lagged or led in the past.

If you stack the CO2 records of the ice cores up against the temperature records of the ice cores layer against layer, it looks like CO2 lags temp. However, that's not the correct thing to do.

In the ice cores, CO2 measurements come from the air bubbles in the ice, while temperature measurements come from isotope ratios in the ice itself. The problem is that the snow/ice remains air-permeable for a long time after being set down, from a thousand years to several thousand years. The air bubbles in any given layer of ice are substantially younger than the ice itself is.

This recent paper tries to resolve the age difference and correlate CO2 with temp on the correct time scale, and finds that CO2 and temperature are essentially synchronized.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
*Abstract*
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---


----------



## Boss (Dec 31, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Most recent studies show there has been no warming for over 18 years now. This has prompted your 'movement' to stop calling it "global warming" and start calling it "climate change." You may not like it that "denier nuts" are pointing out this Great Pause in global warming, in spite of all that evil CO2 up there from evil corporations, but statistics don't lie. 

I don't need links to organizations who promote climate change nonsense. I am fully aware of the billions we spend each year in research grants and subsidies for these people to continue their gravy train, so it's not surprising to find them arguing vociferously for those efforts to continue.


----------



## rdean (Dec 31, 2014)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> ...



Don't bother her.  It's merely a fine example of "GOP Science".


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Silly ass. The globe is still warming. And climate change is what global warming creates. Wider and wilder weather swings, with an overall warming. Which is exactly what we are seeing. And we have seen major effects on agriculture on every continent in the last decade. 

Of the last 18 years, during your supposed lack of warming, we have had 14 of the warmest years on record.







Climate change The hottest years on record The Economist

Now you have branded yourself as a willfully ignorant flap yapper, with a political axe to grind, and little to no knowledge of science.


----------



## Boss (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Regardless of your insults and cheeky propaganda, here is the actual temperature chart:




Now, I don't know what to tell you, if you had rather believe propaganda and hurl insults at me, then I guess that's your business. It doesn't change the fact there is not any 'global warming' happening and hasn't been for 18 years. 

*Silly ass. The globe is still warming. And climate change is what global warming creates.*

No, silly ass, the globe warms and cools and then, warms and cools, as it has for billions of years. Climate change is happening every second of every day all over earth, as it has for billions of years. What is relatively new is the liberal socialist movement to punish capitalism through fear and intimidation over a made up phenomenon that isn't actually happening.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Sorry sweetlips, but exactly what is your background in science? Just because you are aware that money is spent studying climate change doesn't give you the knowledge to interpret those results. When  almost every scientist in the field agrees with you, I'll agree with you. I'm not a scientist, so I have to go by what the extreme majority of scientists in the field say instead of some crackpot who can only point to a handful of oil company paid scientists who disagree.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2015)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

*Why yes, let us look at that graph. Look at the red line, the centered running 13 month average. Only twice since 1998 has the lowest point on the red line dipped as low as the highest point on the line prior to 1998. In fact, only twice since 1998 has the red line dipped to the zero line, and only four times before 1998 did it even barely get above the zero line. By this graph, there has been definate warming since 1998. *


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
> 
> *Why yes, let us look at that graph. Look at the red line, the centered running 13 month average. Only twice since 1998 has the lowest point on the red line dipped as low as the highest point on the line prior to 1998. In fact, only twice since 1998 has the red line dipped to the zero line, and only four times before 1998 did it even barely get above the zero line. By this graph, there has been definate warming since 1998. *




So one little chart tells you everything there is to know about global climate change.......got it.


----------



## Boss (Jan 1, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
> 
> *Why yes, let us look at that graph. Look at the red line, the centered running 13 month average. Only twice since 1998 has the lowest point on the red line dipped as low as the highest point on the line prior to 1998. In fact, only twice since 1998 has the red line dipped to the zero line, and only four times before 1998 did it even barely get above the zero line. By this graph, there has been definate warming since 1998. *



Yes, we had a warming event in 1998 which wasn't the result of carbon dioxide produced by man. Temps are slightly higher now as before the event, but this is again, the result of the event. As you can see, there is no significant increase in the warming after things stabilized at about 0.2 above normal. It's not getting warmer. 

We will have several climactic events over the course of a typical century. They may raise or lower our overall average temperatures. We may have Summers hotter than any in recorded history, we may have Winters breaking records, big storms, cataclysmic results from things like volcanoes, which mankind has absolutely NOTHING to do with. And... Arctic icebergs and glaciers may melt, stranding the poor polar bear who will starve to death.... and bleeding heart liberals will sob and cry, pretending that this is all caused by evil rich people who don't care. 

Fucking Life Goes On!


----------



## Boss (Jan 1, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD
> ...



LMAO... No.... One little chart which shows the temperatures are not getting warmer tells me the temperatures are not getting warmer. As I said, the global climate changes every second of every hour all over the world. We don't live in a Utopian universe where the climate remains perfect always and never deviates from absolute stability and perfection. Don't ask me why, ask God! It just happens to be the way it's designed and how nature works. 

For you fucking morons to believe penalizing capitalists by making them pay massive amounts of money to government is ever going to "save the planet," you're stupid beyond belief. I mean dangerously stupid.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Again, Any sane person would believe the vast majority of experts in the field before they would accept the ramblings of some idiot on a discussion board quoting results from a small group of oil company paid self appointed experts.


----------



## Boss (Jan 1, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Sorry sweetlips, but exactly what is your background in science? Just because you are aware that money is spent studying climate change doesn't give you the knowledge to interpret those results. When almost every scientist in the field agrees with you, I'll agree with you. I'm not a scientist, so I have to go by what the extreme majority of scientists in the field say instead of some crackpot who can only point to a handful of oil company paid scientists who disagree.



Well I actually have a university degree in Science, but it doesn't take this to look at a simple chart of the average temps and see there has been no 'global warming' for 18 years. It just takes having enough sense to understand how to read a graph. Now my graph isn't some concocted graph based on bogus data by a bunch of college punks on a mission to push an agenda, it's legitimate government data which is public information to all. 

I have a very close personal friend who holds a masters in Botanical Science, and she says the AGW movement is "the craziest moonbat nonsense ever!" So not ALL Scientists are on board with this. Her position, purely as a Botanist is, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial to ALL plant life. She proposed the analogy; What if something humans were doing was greatly beneficial to ALL human life? Like if factories were producing protein or oxygen.. something vital to humans for vibrant health.... would there be a movement to STOP that?


----------



## Boss (Jan 1, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



All I did was post THE graph which shows average temperature of planet Earth for the past 35 years. I think the data comes from NOAA. I don't think they are paid by the Oil Companies now, but with Obummer, who knows, right? 

Just so happens, the "vast majority of experts in the field" are all getting nice fat paychecks to remain the foremost experts in the field. They aren't interested in the facts. I've shown you the only fact you need to acknowledge, and that is, there has been no warming for 18 years. 

What is stupid is being a sheep.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Actually, you are trying to combine two different arguments. You are trying to discredit the first argument about whether global weather change even exists (a fact that has been proven so many times till it is  accepted by the vast majority of all experts in the field) so you don't have to worry about the second argument which is what do we do and how do we pay for it. As I said, the first question has been answered for all but the most actively ignorant doubters. If you want to argue that the people causing the change shouldn't have to pay for it, then feel free, but it's too late to argue whether the problem even exists or why.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



So all the climate scientists in the world are just shills out for a buck? I'm pretty sure that if that were true, the Kochs would be making a lot of those scientists very rich to change their opinions.  Even you would have to admit that if their professional opinions could be bought, there would be more deniers.


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2015)

Good point!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2015)

Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?

If you had any knowledge of the ongoing discussion, you would have recognized that graph as from the UAH site of Dr. Spencer. Thus far, I have found your posts noteably lacking in scientific knowledge.


----------



## elektra (Jan 1, 2015)

Tuckwolf said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> ...


How old am I, how about how smart are you, that is the best you can do? Seriously, what kind of person compares people to children, I guess if you are dumb, you would think children are dumb. 

Seriously, if you must compare me to a child, you are not smart, not at all, hence I doubt you really could ever understand that Dry Ice is pure CO2, and that CO2 is used in industry because its cold, cryogenic, cryogenic, that is like Science is right?


----------



## elektra (Jan 1, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > I know its an ugly fact for many of the idiots, but CO2 is used to Cool things. From what I read in the threads, people are actually arguing you can use CO2 to heat the earth, and they claim they know Science, they even claim Scientists support their bizarre ideas.
> ...


Hey, idiot, the correct term, beings that you are scientific, is that; 

I am stating the fact that CO2 is used as a CRYOGENIC, not simply as a pressurized CO2, the two are very different. The fact that you make a ridiculous comment, "pressurized CO2", shows you did not read the OP. Is it Bulldog or Bullshit, cause Junior High Science does not teach the uses of CO2  as a CRYOGENIC. 

bulldog, just think of CYROGENIC as COLD, real COLD. its not really about being PRESSURIZED.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2015)

"Seriously, if you must compare me to a child, you are not smart, not at all, hence I doubt you really could ever understand that Dry Ice is pure CO2, and that CO2 is used in industry because its cold, cryogenic, cryogenic, that is like Science is right?" Elektra. 

*Well, yes, that is kind of like science, if you haven't graduated from the third grade. No matter what the material is, it does not have a preferred temperature. It's temperature depends entirely on how much energy is put into it or how much is removed. CO2 is just a chemical compound, which has various states, solid, liquid, or gaseous depending on pressure and temperature.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2015)

You know, looking at the syntex and structure, I think Elektra, like Billy Boob is either mildly retarded, or an adolescent.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 1, 2015)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




Why don't you either let this go or at least ask someone with a little knowledge to help you?

In physics, *cryogenics* is the study of the production and behavior of materials at very low temperatures (below −150 °C, −238 °F or 123 K).

Dry ice is produced at  -78.5C ,  -109.3F, or 194.65K. Well above cryogenics temperatures.

Perhaps you should also ask someone how dry ice is made. You know, with pressure and refrigeration

How Is Dry Ice Made Dry Ice Network

Here is part of the above link
Dry ice is made of raw carbon dioxide gas (CO2). Methods for creating dry ice may differ a little for each manufacture, but the basic concepts are usually the same.
Carbon dioxide is cooled and compressed until it turns in to a liquid. The carbon dioxide needs to be compressed because liquid carbon dioxide cannot exist in a non-pressurized environment on earth. After the liquid carbon dioxide is created, it can be shipped, stored under pressure, or used in the plant to make dry ice. After the liquid CO2 is released from pressurization, most of the liquid carbon dioxide turns in to dry ice snow (some of the carbon dioxide changes back in to gas). Dry ice snow looks very much like normal snow, but as a very short shelf life. Dry ice snow (non-compressed) sublimates very quickly at normal temperatures. Dry ice snow is then pushed in to a chamber and then compressed in to a dry ice block or dry ice pellets. Dry ice pellets and dry ice blocks are the most commonly sold dry ice forms today.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> OK, Jon, demonstrate how that is so? Both depend on GHGs, primarily water vapor, CO2, and CH4. What is stated that if you increase any of those, you increase the amount of heat that the atmosphere retains. Paleontological evidence shows that to be true. When there was more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth was a warmer place. When there was less, we had ice ages.
> 
> Now having the Earth warmer is not a bad thing of itself. However, having that change take place in a short period of time is a very bad thing. Especially on an earth with over 7 billion people to feed, and an agriculture very vulneable to changes in temperature and precipitation.


you know, you keep making this statement.  I have and will continue to post the following statement until you provide it to back your statement.  Show the experiment that shows that adding 120 PM of CO2 does anything to temperature.  Duh, correlation is not causation.  why don't you man up and admit you can't prove your statement.  You haven't for eight months I've been on here.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 you educate?  hahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > the record looks like co2 lagged behind the warm periods
> ...


 again, the evidence clearly shows that CO2 lags temperatures.  It has been presented to you and others sooooooo many times here.   The one point in time that you and yours still haven't answered is 1940 to 1970.  CO2 increased and the temperatures dropped.   so please explain how if CO2 controls temperature, the temperature went cooler rather than warmer as you keep lying about?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


 which is the actual science then!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 it's only warming in the eyes of those manipulating the data.  You've been told this over and over.  I see, a new poster and you all rehash your silliness, mumbo jumbo.  abra-ca-dabra, right?  alter all of those previous years making them cooler so the present is warmer and that's your evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


I feel sorry for you then.  I am not scientist either, however, I do and can ask questions to learn.  Do you have an experiment from any of these so called science experts that actually show that adding 120 PPM of CO2 will affect temperatures?  No you don't.  And yet you believe them.  all I can ask is why?  It is a social issue and not a scientific issue.  Or haven't you figured that out either?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 nope!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 no it isn't the argument at all. You are just flat out wrong.  Fail.......................


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 no, not all.  There are many, but no not all.  such generalizations.  typical liar language.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Crick said:


> Good point!


 nope!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You know, looking at the syntex and structure, I think Elektra, like Billy Boob is either mildly retarded, or an adolescent.


 I wish you would stop insulting children!!!!


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Nope, not trying to combine anything. I posted a graph showing the actual global temperatures since 1979... we're discussing "global warming" here. I've never said weather change doesn't exist. You've offered exactly zero evidence that man can or does cause weather change. Nor have you ever proven that weather gives a shit about money or who pays for what. 

You are a very confused liberal. 

I will continue to point out the raw data from NOAA which shows we've not had "global warming" for more than 18 years. For man to be causing global warming, it would have to be happening. Since we can see that it's not happening, it is impossible that man is causing it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I guess you could be right, and as soon as you get most of the experts in the field to agree with you, you can count on me being on board. For now, they don't.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?
> 
> If you had any knowledge of the ongoing discussion, you would have recognized that graph as from the UAH site of Dr. Spencer. Thus far, I have found your posts noteably lacking in scientific knowledge.



My degree is in Psychology, but as I said, a science degree is not needed to look at a graph showing the actual temperature since 1979 and comprehend there is no global warming happening. 





Here's the chart again for those who are too lazy to go back and find it. We can clearly see that since the 1998 El Niño warming event, temps are slightly higher, but they are not rising on average as the warmers predicted. There has been no "warming" for 18 years. 

Man did not cause the El Niño event to happen, nor will man cause the next climactic event. We generally have several over the course of a century. These can cause periods of warmer average temps or cooler average temps, and this is expected in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Man cannot change laws of thermodynamics, even with carbon offset taxes.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2015)

First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.

Second, it's only air temps, and disregards the relentless ocean warming.

Third, your data wasn't NOAA. It was RSS satellite data, known by everyone to have an erroneous growing cool bias. But because it says what they want to see, deniers rely on it exclusively, not caring whether it's accurate.

You couldn't know that, of course, as your cult didn't see fit to tell you that. You'd need to look at non-cult sources to know such a thing, and the cult strongly discourages that. The pure ones are not supposed to sully themselves through contact with the outside world.

You could show some integrity and guts now, and call your cult to task for fooling your like that. Or you could run back to them and defend them, much like a battered spouse does. And you're going to choose that latter option. Deniers always do.

We can look at any other temperature data set, and clearly see the strong warming going on. Like this one, from NASA-GISS






Alas, by the rules of your conspiracy cult, any data that disagrees with the conspiracy has to be part of conspiracy, and is thus invalid.


----------



## Tuckwolf (Jan 2, 2015)

elektra said:


> Tuckwolf said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Well let me put it another since you obviously a super genius, exactly how much gravity (in g's) would be required to compress CO2 in the atmosphere to point where it actually becomes a cooling agent and how long do you suppose life will survive under those conditions.
Yes I believe you are a child or remarkably uneducated. I blame it on the CO2 you've been huffing.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Again, the "experts in the field" are all getting grant money and subsidies to continue their study. I doubt they will ever agree that we should stop paying them. So you're basically admitting that you would rather agree with charlatans than acknowledge facts of actual temperature readings.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, Boss. So, you state that you have a degree in Science. What Discipline is your degree in? Or are you just another flapyapper making silly claims like ol' Billy Boob?
> ...



And repeated posting of the same chart here won't convince the experts. I suggest you try contacting them. As soon as they are convinced, we all will agree with you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Finally you are getting to a point that might convince me. How about some proof that the majority of experts in that particular field are all charlatans.  Is it just in that field, or are all scientists charlatans?


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train. 

As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.
> 
> Second, it's only air temps, and disregards the relentless ocean warming.
> 
> ...



Yes... We can always count on a pinhead to come up with yet another "hockey stick" graph and way to manipulate the data to seemingly support their argument. Here, you are using the fact that the ocean became warmer due to the El Niño warming event as if this has something to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. 

It's also pretty funny that you credit NASA with data from 1880.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.
> 
> As I have pointed out to you, there are a lot of scientists who absolutely disagree with this AGW nonsense. It is nowhere near a consensus among all scientists, or even all climatologists. But the real point is, it doesn't matter when we have the actual raw data which shows there is no warming happening.





Of course there is a consensus among climate scientists, even if Hannity told you there wasn't.
Climate Change Vital Signs of the Planet Consensus
Again, I ask for some proof that the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man made global warming are all, or even mostly charlatans.
Sadly, I must admit ignorance of all the knowledge needed to be a climate scientist, so I must believe their majority opinion, but if you are smarter than them, then good for you, and I wish you luck in convincing your peers, but as a layman, only an idiot would pretend to know more than them.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss, do you know when the thermometer was invented? Or what proxies are?

And when I pointed that you'd simply declare all contrary data to be part of the conspiracy by definition, immediately proceeding to do just that was probably not your best choice. But thanks for instantly confirming my point.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.



No, it doesn't. It clearly shows there has been no warming trend. You can almost draw a straight line at +0.2 across the past 18 years. There was an El Niño warming event in 1998 which caused a shift in global temps, since then, there has been no significant increase. 

What it takes to deny this is apparently to be a liberal douche who is committed to carrying the water for socialists who want to destroy free market capitalism and help Al Gore sell books.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.
> ...



First of all, 97% is not a consensus. Second, you are counting among that 97%, those who simply say the global temps are getting warmer but have not said it's being caused by man. Our planet gets warmer and cooler in cycles and has been doing this for billions of years. I've never denied this, nor has anyone else that I am aware of. 

It doesn't take "being smarter" than anyone else, all it takes is looking at a graph which shows us the average global temperatures since 1979 and comprehending how to read a graph.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




Again, I wish you luck in your endeavors, but only an idiot would go against the agreement of almost every expert in the field without some extraordinary knowledge, and I just don't see your little chart as extraordinary.  Of course, if you could show some evidence on that silly charlatan claim, I'm sure many would be happy to reconsider.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.



What silly claims did I make? What other support do I need? The question is about global warming and I presented the average temperatures since 1979. You've not show where my data is in error or incorrect. The people being embarassed are those who continue to cling to this debunked myth of man-made global climate change. As more and more data is compiled we find this is simply not a phenomenon which is happening. 

Now let me just add this... I am an environmentalist. I love the environment and think we should be proactive in doing things to clean up the environment. I don't want corporations dumping mercury and other toxins into our rivers and estuaries. I think we should shut that down completely. In 1993, I led a petition drive on behalf of Friends of the Chattahoochee to stop Atlanta from dumping raw sewage in the river, so I am also an activist. 

From MY perspective, what you Warmer Nuts are doing is single-handedly destroying the environmental movement in America. It's sad for me to watch people immerse themselves in their own ignorance this way. And it all seems to be politically-centered, not really a matter of what the facts are.


----------



## elektra (Jan 2, 2015)

Tuckwolf said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Tuckwolf said:
> ...


And as I point out, it is only the MORON who can only compare someone they are denigrating to child. 

How about this, Super Idiot. It would be impossible to compress the very tiny amount of CO2 in our atmosphere into a liquid. 

Seeings how you got all the education here, by your own declarations, tell us how much CO2 would need to rise, and how much atmospheric pressure would be required to compress CO2, into a liquid. 

I would try 300 divided by 14, give or take. 

Dry Ice Making Equipment Making Dry Ice Dry Ice Machines



> *MANUFACTURING DRY ICE Machines and Storage Containers*
> 
> Dry ice manufacturing starts with liquid carbon dioxide held under pressure (300 psi) in bulk storage vessels. To begin making dry ice, the liquid C02, is sent through an expansion valve into an empty chamber where under normal atmospheric pressure it flashes into C02 gas. This change from liquid to gas causes the temperature to drop quickly. About 46% of the gas will freeze into dry ice snow. The rest of the C02 gas, is released into the atmosphere or recovered to be used again. The dry ice snow is then collected in a chamber where it is compressed into blocks,  or various sized pellets  to meet customers requirements. The denser the dry ice is, the longer it will last, the easier it is to handle, and the better it will perform when blast cleaning.


----------



## elektra (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> First, big cherrypicking fallacy on your part, Boss. Even that graph clearly shows a warming trend, and it takes willful blindness to deny it.
> 
> Second, it's only air temps, and disregards the relentless ocean warming.
> 
> ...


A simpleton graph from the politicized NASA is no way represents the complexity of the "Climate".

Seeings how mamoot is so good at the, "SCIENCE". How about posting the temperatures used to create that, "chart".

mamoot, I say you will not post the actual temperatures recorded, because that would show that there is no Global Warming, just normal weather.

mamoot, post the temperatures, not the graph from a "study".

and about calling people CHERRY PICKERS, is not a graph without the actual temperatures, CHERRY PICKING!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 so you have to have someone tell you how to read a graph.  Too bad.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Again, Bulldog... These so-called "experts" are all getting a nice big fat paycheck from Uncle Sam to study global warming. They are not compelled to wreck their own gravy train.
> ...


 nope!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.
> ...





Well, no. It's a financial centered discussion. Virtually all the dissenting voices, and there are pathetically few, are funded and directed by the oil companies, and since the oil companies own a large part of the republican party, they use politics as another tool to prevent any profit loss due to having to clean up their mess. Again, all you have to do is convince the experts you are right, and I'm sure you will have all the support you need.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 so why isn't a 100%.  Why are there climate scientist that don't agree.  BTW, do you have the list of questions that were used to get the so called consensus?  I didn't think so. 75 out 77 scientists.  that's all, bubba!!!!!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




One little graph is easy if that is all the information available. Interpreting that graph in relationship to the massive amounts of other data available on the subject is more than either you or I are capable of.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Ok Boss. This is the point where you have nothing else to add to support your silly claims, and realize you are just embarrassing yourself, so you are supposed to mumble something about summarily noting something or the other, and run away.
> ...


 notice how he has nothing to contribute?  No names of the 97%?  Where are the names, let's look them all up and see how they believe today.  Naw, they never have anything of value to add.  Just insulting little children.  and, while we're at it, ask him for that experiment that demonstrates that 120PPM of CO2 affects temperatures?  He ain't got one.  Ask him,


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 ah, but you can't deny that the data isn't altered, can you?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



You won't get 100% agreement that we went to the moon. There will always be a few who just don't see it.  Even with your small count of 75%, which is laughable, if you had 3/4 of the doctors in the country telling you that you had cancer but only 1/4 said you didn't, would you just not worry about it?


----------



## MaryL (Jan 2, 2015)

CO2 is greenhouse gas, it might be used as a refrigerant, too. Weird thing about refrigerators, you need heat in a refrigerator, (I know, got burned  on a heating element in the freezer whilst  unplugging a clogged drain tube thingy)...REALLY!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




So you want me to look up the names of 97% of all climate scientists? You are crazy, aren't you?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 why is that?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 yeah, you make the claim don't you?  Let's see the list you so boldly write about.


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



What you are saying is just not the truth. Global temperatures are not manipulated by the oil companies, we can use thermometers and measure temps with science. I have shown you the graph with the avg. temps since '79, and it indicates there is no substantial warming happening for the past 18 years. I'm not being paid by anyone, I have voted for Republicans but I am not a member of any political party. 

The sidebar financial discussion is because you fuckwit fanatics believe that punishing capitalists will stop this man-made thing from happening that isn't really happening. No, the capitalists certainly don't like that idea at all. And I think it actually reveals the true intention here. You don't really care that man isn't causing global warming, it's about sticking it to capitalists, to the oil companies, to the billionaires and the Koch brothers. It's a political thing for you.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 BTW, everyone has cancer, 100% of us all.  Bet you didn't know that, eh!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 tell him to go read the IPCC AR5 report if he can't accept it.  They believe in the pause.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I guess it could be, but you have to prove that all those experts are in on a grand conspiracy for that to work. That's right up there with the one about the guy that GM had killed because he invented a 200MPG carburetor, or the magic pill invented by a retired vacuum cleaner salesman that allows you to live to be 150 years old, but doctors won't tell you about.  Bigfoot much?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Ok. If you say so.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...





Who said oil companies manipulate global temperatures? That's just nuts. Right in line with all the other crap you believe that one little chart proves. How many times are you going to repeat your silly claim?


----------



## Boss (Jan 2, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



You said it...

_*"Virtually all the dissenting voices, and there are pathetically few, are funded and directed by the oil companies."*_ 

The one little chart is of the actual global temperatures since 1979. It clearly proves global temperatures are not rising and haven't been rising for 18 years. This is not a claim but fact of the matter, as the actual chart of actual global temperature shows. 

Now you don't want to accept the actual data because you are pushing a political agenda. You are here, like most of the leftist morons, devoting your time to the cause of social change. And this is just one of the latest schemes to accomplish those objectives. You will continue to lie and prop up the lies as long as you can, because that's what you have to do. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us are free to look at the graph and see there is no global warming happening, and nothing to be alarmed about.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I never once said that one chart was inaccurate. Only that it is far from the entire store of information available on the subject, and that the experts are the best ones to interpret what the sum of all that information means. You are certainly entitled to make up your own mind from a tiny piece of the puzzle. Teabaggers make broad decisions from less information than that quite often. Just don't expect too many thinking people to do that.


----------



## MaryL (Jan 2, 2015)

Why is it that on average, the world is getting  warmer and drier? Why is that, CO2 pollution isn't cooling off things, boyo? I think most of us notice that, and it isn't a politically correct thing.  I wish it was that  vapid and oblivious. The global warming stuff.  True.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> I have shown you the graph with the avg. temps since '79, and it indicates there is no substantial warming happening for the past 18 years.



No, that graph flat out does not show what you claim, and it's bad data to start with. You fail hard twice. But you don't care if you're babbling nonsense, because the nonsense is all you have, and your emotion-based beliefs take priority over the facts.

The whole world is not engaged in a grand conspiracy. You're just bad at the science, and rather than admit that, you invoke a conspiracy theory. Why? Could be various reasons. It allows you to rant against the dirty hippies who had all the fun and stole your girl and made you look so dumb. It lets you tell everyone that you're smarter than those eggheads, even though your knowledge level is abysmal. It gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing you're one of the select few RealPatriots who know the RealTruth. Conspiracists always have their reasons.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown you the graph with the avg. temps since '79, and it indicates there is no substantial warming happening for the past 18 years.
> ...





Only idiot who posts continually and virtually never uses a link.........calls everybody else "eggheads"


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2015)

funny about all those "conspiracy theory" folks..............

Americans Show Low Levels of Concern on Global Warming


*Oooooooooooooopsie............ *


----------



## mamooth (Jan 2, 2015)

Skook, I link all the time.

So first, you ought to apologize for being so dishonest.

Then, you should then apologize for obsessively stalking me.

Next, you should apologize for spamming the board with your love for gayness.

And last, you should apologize for being such a bedwetting metrosexual sissyboy.

Now, let's look at where the earth was hottest this year, simply to counter the "but my backyard was cold!" nutters.

Hottest Year Ever 5 Places Where 2014 Temps Really Cooked - Scientific American
---

Australia: For the second year in a row, Australians saw heat records topple from the Gold Coast to the Coral Coast. The country kicked off January with an extreme heat wave; temperatures soared higher than 120 F (49 C). Heat waves in the autumn (March to May) and spring (September to November) also drove temperatures into the record books.
Eastern Pacific Ocean: Toasty temperatures developed in the eastern Pacific Ocean, despite an El Niño that never appeared. The heat was especially notable off the western coast of the United States. Fishing boats spotted species well north of their range, such as a giant ocean sunfish offshore of Alaska. For the global ocean, the September to November sea surface temperature was 1.13 F (0.63 C) above the 20th century average of 60.7 F (16.0 C), surpassing the previous record by 0.11 F (0.06 C), according to NOAA.
Siberia: Central Siberia defrosted in spring and early summer under temperatures more than 9 F (5 C) above its 1981 to 2010 average. Ice on the Ob River began to break up two weeks earlier than normal. The heat may have unleashed methane gas trapped in previously frozen permafrost, triggering underground explosions that formed spectacularly deep holes.
California: The long-running drought in California was made worse in 2014 by record heat. The first 10 months of 2014 were the warmest in California's history since 1895, further burdening the state's water demands.
Northern Europe: The same weather pattern that froze North America in early 2014 brought an unusually warm spring to countries including Denmark, Norway and Turkey. The sultry spring was the warmest in a century or more in these countries. In addition, January to October was the warmest 10-month period on record for Central England since 1659, and the warmest such period for the Netherlands since 1706.
---


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 2, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Mr. Psychologist, you had better see a collegue for some professional courtesy, because your grip on reality is tenuous at best. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science in the world, and every major University states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So what you are stating is that there is a grand international conspiracy across national and cultural divids to fool the whole world concerng GHGs and global warming. Need more tinfoil for your hats?


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



What you are claiming is simply not true. Every scientific entity has certainly not said AGW is real and/or a clear and present danger. Even if they did, we do not operate on decree of science entities as our masters. In science, things are proven through observation and testing. Not by popular decree upon high. So... produce the science or shut the fuck up. 

There is no problem whatsoever on my grip of reality, except for my inexplicable urge to try and educate moronic pinheads like yourself on an internet message board, in the hopes it will do some good. I think I maybe need to "get real" on that one and admit it's a pipe dream at best. 

The data is there, all you need to do is look at the graph I posted earlier. The discussion (and argument) is very simple... Is man causing global warming to happen? The data shows no warming of significance for 18 years. It also shows a warming event unrelated to man in 1998, which has caused a slight increase in average temperature but has stabilized at about 0.2% above what it was before the event. No further warming has happened for 18 years. 

So even IF man is causing it, the environment is mitigating it through nature. End of argument.


----------



## IanC (Jan 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...




you are wasting your time trying to get Old Rocks off his talking points. a few years ago, before the 'Pause' was statistically significant or even named, Old Rocks was still declaring that the warming was accelerating! 

I agree with you about the satellite record. it seems to show a baseline before 1998 with variation around the mean, the 1998 event, then a slightly raised baseline afterwards with the same type of variations.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations

List of scientific organizations, worldwide, that state that the global warming we are experiancing is human caused.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2015)

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, from the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






*Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures*
Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD.

Really, Ian? The same type of variations after 1998 as before 1998? I do not see that at all. In fact, I see not one instance of plateuing prior to 1998. Point is, that no matter whose graph you use, you see a very significant rise after 1998, and, when we see the next inevitable strong El Nino, I think that we will see another upward step like we have seen since 1998.

So, for all of us, the next decade will be most interesting, and we will definately see who has their science together.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations
> 
> List of scientific organizations, worldwide, that state that the global warming we are experiancing is human caused.



Again, science is not a popularity contest. If it were, the sun would be orbiting around the flat earth. 

I will state it again.... *IF* MAN IS CAUSING IT, mother nature is mitigating it.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect, from the American Institute of Physics, a Scientific Society composed of Scientific Societies.



No one has denied the greenhouse effect exists, idiot.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 3, 2015)

You can stamp your feet and "state" things all you want, but the laws of physics are not obligated to agree with your quasi-religious belief system.

At some point, you won't be able to sustain your conspiracy any longer. When it finally collapses totally, how will you manage? Will your sanity crack outright, or will you quietly slink away and pretend you were never a denier?


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures*
> Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD.
> 
> Really, Ian? The same type of variations after 1998 as before 1998? I do not see that at all. In fact, I see not one instance of plateuing prior to 1998. Point is, that no matter whose graph you use, you see a very significant rise after 1998, and, when we see the next inevitable strong El Nino, I think that we will see another upward step like we have seen since 1998.
> ...



Yes, if mother nature gives us another warming event we can expect the overall average temperature of the planet to increase. Just as, if she gives us a cooling event, we can expect the average to decrease. Over the course of the past century, we are +1 degree. We don't know what mother nature is going to do, we may get several cooling events in a row. We may even get a major event which causes mass extinction, as has happened several times before. 

There has been no increased warming for 18 years.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You can stamp your feet and "state" things all you want, but the laws of physics are not obligated to agree with your quasi-religious belief system.
> 
> At some point, you won't be able to sustain your conspiracy any longer. When it finally collapses totally, how will you manage? Will your sanity crack outright, or will you quietly slink away and pretend you were never a denier?



The laws of physics don't say man is causing catastrophic global warming. That is YOUR statement, and one you can't back up with facts. In the future you will be likened to Chicken Little.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2015)

The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.




Give it up. There is nothing you can say to make him understand. His mind is made up and facts only serve to confuse him. If there is any truth to his claim, the majority of climate scientists will be convinced..........That is, unless you believe his theory of a world wide conspiracy of scientists.  Either way, come back in six months, and he will probably be waving that same silly chart and saying the same silly things.


----------



## Andylusion (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.



You have the right to be wrong.


----------



## Andylusion (Jan 3, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.
> ...



Yes, because we actually look at the science, instead of stating a political opinion, and cherry-picking the information to support it.

Again, science is not a popularity contest.   If 50 Million scientists say it's true in a poll, that doesn't mean that's what the scientific evidence shows.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 3, 2015)

Androw said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Got you......You don't trust scientists. I'll bet you're real popular with the other teabaggers.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

I've not made any claim that isn't supported by facts. I posted the graph which simply shows us there is no warming happening and it hasn't been happening for 18 years. I don't see anything "silly" about the graph, it's legitimate satellite readings of the average temps since 1979. If we are discussing whether or not there is global warming, I should think a graph showing the actual temps would be a perfectly reasonable and important bit of information. 

Now... all of you fuck-goof liberals can line up one after another to hurl insults at me, to denigrate my argument, to throw your little tantrums and spew your hate-filled retorts until your little hearts are content. I really don't give two shits. You haven't made your case, you're not going to make your case, because the facts show what you are claiming is just not happening.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.



No, I assure you, they do not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2015)

And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. Now who to believer, a psychologist with basically little science education, or physicists concerning the laws of physics.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And *the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise*. Now who to believer, a psychologist with basically little science education, or physicists concerning the laws of physics.



Nonsense. 

And again, you don't have to believe me or anyone else, you can look at the graph which shows the actual temperatures. Yes, I know you think that it's silly and ridiculous to look at average temps over the past 35 years and see there is no warming.... it's much better to listen to activists with an agenda and presume they know what they are talking about. 

Now.... JUST for the sake of entertaining your train(wreck) of thought on this matter... 97% of the experts on UFOs believe they are real and we have been visited by aliens. So this must be true because the experts say so, and they are smarter than the rest of us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 3, 2015)

Now that is about the most goofball arguement I have ever heard. The AGU has more people dealing with climatic effects than any other Scientific Society. And their statement is unequivical concerning AGW. Not only that, the experts span disciplines from atmospheric physics to glacialogy. Boss, you have lost any credibilty you might have had with such a redicoulous arguement.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is about the most goofball arguement I have ever heard. The AGU has more people dealing with climatic effects than any other Scientific Society. And their statement is unequivical concerning AGW. Not only that, the experts span disciplines from atmospheric physics to glacialogy. Boss, you have lost any credibilty you might have had with such a redicoulous arguement.



Well my argument is, the data showing average temperature over the past 35 years, indicates there is no catastrophic global warming happening. I posted the graph to support that statement, and you somehow think I'm making a ridiculous argument with silly charts. The ONLY counter you've had for my argument is a barrage of outrageous claims regarding what "the experts" have said.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

97% of the experts in the field of paranormal activity, believe ghosts and spirits are real.  
Hey... MUST BE TRUE, right? The experts ALL agree!


----------



## elektra (Jan 3, 2015)

Crick said:


> The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.


That is a lie, go ahead and explain, explain as in do not use google to give us some bullshit link. 

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, go!


----------



## elektra (Jan 3, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. Now who to believer, a psychologist with basically little science education, or physicists concerning the laws of physics.


AIP, wow Old Crock, the AIP uses the word PHYSICS, they must be really smart, huh.

They actually do not do Science though, do they. At best, they publish other people's stuff. But who exactly do you speak of old crock, what are their names, or is AIP all we need to believe in to follow your religion of AGW.


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

*And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. *

This is just basic LIES 101. 

AIP is a 501(c) organization founded in the '30s under FDR to encourage physics. They have about two dozen member organizations and few dozen more affiliated organizations in various specialties of science. They publish some science journals, which specifically, and from a purely ethical standpoint, eliminates the ability of their organization to formally give an opinion. 

People who write articles published in their journals may hold a particular view, this does not reflect the views of AIP or any of it's member organizations. But what the butt-hurt liberals do is read some op-ed written by one of their science geek buddies, and then claim "the whole of AIP" supports the clown. It's just simply not true.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 3, 2015)




----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 3, 2015)

Boss said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.
> ...




Damn boss, you need to let it go.
TubeChop - Disney s Frozen 00 14


----------



## Boss (Jan 3, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I'll be glad to let it go as soon as we stop this attempt to shake down capitalists for something that isn't happening. Until then, you're going to have me in your face with the thermometer readings from the last quarter century, showing you there is no "warming" happening. 

Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> *And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. *
> 
> This is just basic LIES 101.
> 
> ...


LOL. Well, Mr. Psychologist, you just graduated from skeptic to liar. And demonstrated that you are a 'Conservative' fruitloop that knows nothing of the scientific community. 

The American Geophyisical Union is a member of the AIP, now here is where you can see what their evidence, not opinion, is on this matter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>


My, my, another lying dumb fuck. No, we are sure of this because of all the scientists that are presenting evidence for it, and the lack of scientists presenting evidence that this is not occurring.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


My,my, you are so full of shit your eyes have turned brown. I have concluded from scientific observations that if you jump out that window on the 100th floor of that building that you are going to hit the ground at sufficient speed to end your days. Not only that, I have concluded that I can tell you within a few mph the speed at which you will hit the ground. Simple physics.

And the simple physics of the absorption spectra of the GHGs states that adding them to the atmosphere will drive up the temperature here on Earth. Observation from paleontological data confirms that physics. The geological record has many periods where a rapid change in GHGs in the atmosphere, up or down, created rapid temperature changes. Many times, these were periods of extinction. 

Your understanding of what science is is ridicoulous. According to what you just posted we obviously cannot use science for any kind of engineering, because that would involve basing a conclusion on the science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.
> ...


Absorption spectra of GHGs


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Bullshit!

Climate scientists told to cover up the fact that the Earth s temperature hasn t risen for the last 15 years Daily Mail Online


----------



## Boss (Jan 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Physics does not say man is causing global warming. Physics doesn't speak, it's a discipline of science and it doesn't draw conclusions on things, it continues to explore probability. MAN draws conclusions. MAN decides that "physics has spoken" when it hasn't. Once you have uttered the phrase: "Science has concluded..." then whatever is to follow is forever divorced from science because it is a faith. Science can't do anything with something concluded and believed as faith.
> ...



And this illustrates how utterly foolish and stupid you are to draw conclusions. I could indeed jump out of that 100th floor window and land safely on the ground by using a wind foil of some kind, like a hang glider or parachute. Ooops! Your conclusion was absolutely WRONG! 

Again, try to grasp the point in that little pea-sized brain... Science is what? The observation and investigation of the physical universe. Once you have drawn a *conclusion*, you are no longer *investigating* or studying *observation*, you have made up your mind on a *conclusion*. Science is done. You've stopped practicing science the instant you made your conclusion, it has no other function, can do nothing else. You are now practicing *FAITH*. 



> And the simple physics of the absorption spectra of the GHGs states that adding them to the atmosphere will drive up the temperature here on Earth. Observation from paleontological data confirms that physics. The geological record has many periods where a rapid change in GHGs in the atmosphere, up or down, created rapid temperature changes. Many times, these were periods of extinction.
> 
> Your understanding of what science is is ridicoulous. According to what you just posted we obviously cannot use science for any kind of engineering, because that would involve basing a conclusion on the science.



Simple physics states no such thing. You are making assumptions and drawing conclusions based on a small amount of scientific data while disregarding all other scientific data present and future. Previous mass extinction events had absolutely nothing to do with man-made GHGs because man wasn't here yet. In fact, I will dispute that you can prove such events were caused by GHGs at all. In the case of the mass extinction event which wiped out the dinosaurs, scientists believe this was the result of a large meteor hitting the planet near the Yucatan Peninsula. Debris from that impact filled the atmosphere, blocking the sun and heat, causing years of sub-freezing temperatures. By the way, that is not a _conclusion_, it's only what scientists believe happened. 

I've never said that man can't base a conclusion on science. I said you are no longer practicing science once you've drawn a conclusion. Engineers are not constructing buildings as science projects to observe whether or not principles of physics are true. We don't design an airplane based on theory and then put passengers on it saying... well science says it should fly! We try the idea first and observe whether it does or doesn't work. We build models, test them in various conditions, not because we don't believe the science which suggests the plane should fly, but because we can't jump to conclusions when human lives are involved. Sometimes, we may even conclude the design is sound only to find out later, after some horrific crash, that the science was flawed, there was a factor we didn't calculate or anticipate. 

Your understanding of science is dangerous and potentially detrimental to mankind. You tend to adopt faith in science that hasn't concluded anything. You tend to draw false conclusions based on limited science theory which has not been observed. Once you've adopted your faith, you are no different than the biggest bible-thumping theocrat. You've abandoned science through your hubris and arrogance. It is precisely this attitude which has hindered scientific discovery in the past. In short, you are a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger who doesn't understand what science is.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 4, 2015)

Boss, we directly measure the heat flux of the atmosphere. More heat goes in than out.

We also see the backradiation increasing, a smoking gun that greenhouse gases are the cause.

The directly measured evidence says human-caused global warming is a fact.

You fail hard at the science, and your cult has ordered you to keep failing, so that's what you'll do. You're emotionally incapable of admitting you were fooled, so you will continue to be totally wrong, forever.


----------



## elektra (Jan 4, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


old crock, you posted that CO2 vibrates in the "ether". How about explaining that before you dig a deeper hole.


----------



## Boss (Jan 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss, we directly measure the heat flux of the atmosphere. More heat goes in than out.
> 
> We also see the backradiation increasing, a smoking gun that greenhouse gases are the cause.
> 
> ...



*The directly measured evidence says human-caused global warming is a fact.*
*NONSENSE!
*
You didn't seem to like my previous graph which showed there is no warming happening, maybe you'll appreciate this one more...
*


 *
_Src: The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA) _
_Multinational European project for deep ice core drilling in Antarctica._

Here is the graph which shows both the average global temp as well as CO2 concentration and dust, over the course of the last 500k years. As we can clearly see, there have been periods of warming and cooling, and there have also been periods of high and low CO2 in the atmosphere. Curiously, we are currently at about the same exact levels from 500k years ago. 

Now, I can hardly believe the evil Koch brothers were 'polluting' the atmosphere with evil CO2 back 500k years ago. It's because it happens to be 499.5 thousand years before human industrialization. Despite the fact there were no liberal socialist pinheads screaming about the climate 500k years ago, the CO2 level managed to reduce itself to 180ppm. Then, about 350k years ago, (or 349.5k years before human industrialization) the CO2 levels spiked again, this time to near 300ppm. Again it does this 240k and 140k years ago... yet, no Kochs  churning out evil man-made CO2... humans are still thousands and thousands of years from industrialization. 

So now that we can see the sky certainly isn't falling and we are not in the midst of some unprecedented and catastrophic global warming or dangerous levels of CO2 in our atmosphere, let's look at a smaller segment of the timeline and see what we can observe...



 

Now this chart covers your evil "robber baron" times through the wicked Koch brothers and greedy capitalism. The black line represents carbon dioxide levels, mind you, the chart makes no determination on where the increase comes from, it's just showing us the raw data of how much there was in the atmosphere. We can clearly see the black line spike upward. Now look at the purple line... that is the average temps... they simply are not rising with the increased CO2 level. In fact, the trend since the most recent natural warming event seems to be cooling. 

*RUH ROH!*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

*Incredible. And you claim a degree. No, the present CO2 level is not the 280+ ppm shown on the graph, it is 400 ppm. It has not been that high for several million years.*

What Does This Number Mean The Keeling Curve

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, natural climate variations caused atmospheric CO2 to vary between about 200 ppm during ice ages and 300 ppm during the warmer periods between ice ages. At the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, around the year 1780, the CO2 concentration was about 280 ppm, so CO2 had already risen by around 40 ppm before Keeling began his measurements.  Anyone who has breathed air with less than 300 ppm CO2 is now over 100 years old!  An even longer but much less accurate record of atmospheric CO2 can be obtained using other geochemical methods.  These suggest that the last time atmospheric CO2 was over 400 ppm was at least as far back as the Pliocene, three to five million years ago, before humans roamed the earth and when the climate was considerably warmer than today.
.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


So that is how you interpret "absorption spectra of GHGs". LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

Boss said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


*δ13Corg chemostratigraphy of the Permian‐Triassic boundary in the Maitai Group, New Zealand: Evidence for high‐latitudinal methane release

Download full text
Free access
DOI:
10.1080/00288306.2000.9514868
E. S. Krulla, G. J. Retallackb, H. J. Campbellc & G. L. Lyonc
pages 21-32

Publishing models and article dates explained

Received: 18 Dec 1998
Accepted: 14 Sep 1999
Published online: 23 Mar 2010
*

*Abstract*
Carbon isotopic studies from marine organic matter of the Permian‐Triassic Maitai Group, New Zealand, reveal a significant δ13Corg shift toward more negative values within the Little Ben Sandstone Formation. These isotopic data chemostratigraphically define the previously debated position of the Permian‐Triassic boundary in the Maitai Group. The Permian‐Triassic record of the Maitai Group is also important because of its high paleolatitudinal setting and the deposition at intermediate depths in the ocean (c. 400 m) within a volcanic arc‐related basin. Marine Permian‐Triassic strata deposited at water depths deeper than shelf areas are rare. High latitude Permian‐Triassic boundary sections document a significantly larger isotopic offset across the boundary compared with lower latitude settings.

Carbon isotopic values decrease rapidly by an average of 7%0 from homogeneous values (x ‐25%0) in the Tramway and lower Little Ben Sandstone Formation to highly fluctuating and very depleted values (x ‐32%0) within the Little Ben Sandstone Formation. The lowermost Big Ben and Tramway Formations are considered to be Permian in age, based on their homogeneous and comparably heavier carbon isotopic values and supported by fossil atomo‐desmatinid bivalves. Based on the distinct δ13Corg excursion toward negative values and the concurrent onset of strong isotopic fluctuations, the Permian‐Triassic boundary is placed in the lower half of the Little Ben Sandstone Formation.

Very depleted δ13C values in the Little Ben Sandstone Formation of‐38%0 indicate a contribution from isotopically light methane. A possible methane source is clathrates, released by large submarine slides or warming‐induced melting of permafrost. The Little Ben Sandstone Formation has been interpreted as a massive event deposit from a submarine slide (Landis 1980). This hypothesised methane release could have been in part responsible for the larger Permian‐Triassic isotopic shift in high latitudes compared with low latitudes because large volumes of clathrates are trapped in continental shelves and high‐latitude permafrost.

*OK, Mr. degreed Psychologist, that is how you present evidence. You do some research and cite papers from scientists that study in that discipline. Amazing you finished college without learning that.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 4, 2015)

Now there are a many more papers confirming the very rapid rise during the PT Extinction Event. Very easy to find, just use Google Scholar, and put in "Evidence for the increase of GHGs during the PT Extinction Event". What a shame that an old millwright has to teach this to a supposedly educated man.


----------



## Boss (Jan 4, 2015)

Ooo... lots of fancy symbols and high-tech words and more papers to view! 

Look dummy, I gave you raw data from ice core samples from the past 500k years. They don't lie. 

It really doesn't matter if we are at 300ppm or 500ppm or even 600ppm, the average temperature is not increasing with larger CO2 concentrations. In fact, it seems to be cooling. 

So your whole entire argument is a failure to start with.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 5, 2015)

You dumb fuck. It is not cooling, and the data you gave me did not go to the current level of GHGs. Not only that, it is a reflection of the Milankovic Cycles, not of the current forcing of the climate by GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere. 

High tech words, fancy symbols, papers to view. Damn. Now I have the correct mental picture of you. The hayseed with the buck teeth sitting in a classroom, stating "Pi aren't sqaure, Pi are round, hiyuck, hiyuck".


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> 97% of the experts in the field of paranormal activity, believe ghosts and spirits are real.
> Hey... MUST BE TRUE, right? The experts ALL agree!



--LOL

according to liblogic that would certainly be true 

--LOL


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jan 5, 2015)

Vigilante said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Vigilante said:
> ...




*World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years*

wouldnt want to confuse the sheeple 

--LOL


----------



## mamooth (Jan 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> *NONSENSE!*



Yes, yes., we get it. If you don't like the data, you simply deny it exists. That's why you're called "deniers".




> You didn't seem to like my previous graph which showed there is no warming happening,



You posted a graph that clearly showed warming, and then denied it showed warming. And you're surprised nobody is impressed?



> maybe you'll appreciate this one more...


Climate varying naturally in the past in no way precludes humans from changing climate now.

You fail at basic logic. Your argument is the same as claiming "Lightning has caused forest fires, so humans can't cause forest fires." Your line of reasoning is senseless.



> Now this chart covers your evil "robber baron" times through the wicked Koch brothers and greedy capitalism.



Rational people here talk about the science and leave politics out of it. That would not include you, being how you constantly rant about politics. Try not to make your loyalty to a kook fringe political cult so obvious, being how it so thoroughly destroys your credibility.



> The black line represents carbon dioxide levels, mind you, the chart makes no determination on where the increase comes from, it's just showing us the raw data of how much there was in the atmosphere. We can clearly see the black line spike upward. Now look at the purple line... that is the average temps... they simply are not rising with the increased CO2 level. In fact, the trend since the most recent natural warming event seems to be cooling.
> 
> *RUH ROH!*



Ruh roh is right. You just got caught fudging data big time. Here's the actual NOAA global temperature graph vs. CO2 chart. It looks nothing like what your denier blog graph claimed. Do you now officially endorse the big lie of your denier blog, or will you condemn them for lying to you like that?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Crick said:


> The laws of physics DO say man is causing warming.


 nope


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *NONSENSE!*
> ...


 dude/dudette, blah, blah blah, from you again.  Hey, you already stated the data is altered.  Busted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> And the whole of the American Institute of Physics says otherwise. Now who to believer, a psychologist with basically little science education, or physicists concerning the laws of physics.


 I don't care, it isn't supporting the data. blowed up sir!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 and yet, you can't present facts that support your claim. tsk, tsk.  Where oh where is that experiment!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Now there are a many more papers confirming the very rapid rise during the PT Extinction Event. Very easy to find, just use Google Scholar, and put in "Evidence for the increase of GHGs during the PT Extinction Event". What a shame that an old millwright has to teach this to a supposedly educated man.


 but where is the experiment that actually proves your point?  You have that yet?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You dumb fuck. It is not cooling, and the data you gave me did not go to the current level of GHGs. Not only that, it is a reflection of the Milankovic Cycles, not of the current forcing of the climate by GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.
> 
> High tech words, fancy symbols, papers to view. Damn. Now I have the correct mental picture of you. The hayseed with the buck teeth sitting in a classroom, stating "Pi aren't sqaure, Pi are round, hiyuck, hiyuck".


 hahahahaha, you're LoSiNg so bad it's hilarious!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *NONSENSE!*
> ...


 yes, yes, you don't have the experiment so you insult.  So predictable!!!


----------



## Boss (Jan 5, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> You dumb fuck. It is not cooling, and the data you gave me did not go to the current level of GHGs. Not only that, it is a reflection of the Milankovic Cycles, not of the current forcing of the climate by GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere.
> 
> High tech words, fancy symbols, papers to view. Damn. Now I have the correct mental picture of you. The hayseed with the buck teeth sitting in a classroom, stating "Pi aren't sqaure, Pi are round, hiyuck, hiyuck".



The graph of average global temps over the past century shows a definite cooling trend in the current decade. It also shows an increase in CO2. So we have increasing CO2 but global cooling is happening. This is why you stopped using the term "global warming" and began to call it "climate change" instead. 

Are you trying to tell us about the Milankovitch cycles? Wow... it's rare to find a Warmer who admits the planet actually warms and cools through natural cycles which have nothing to do with GHGs or mankind. 

And no, Chicken Little, you have certainly not proven that man is changing the climate with CO2 emissions. You have proven that any half-literate moron can find copy-n-paste full of fancy $5 science terms and symbols to camouflage how stupid you are. This is proven true with your further attempts to denigrate your opponents with this tactic. Doesn't work on me. 

Again, for over 500k years, the levels of CO2 have risen and fallen without mankind contributing anything at all because humans weren't here to do so. Average temps have also gone up and down without mankind doing a thing. 

Botanical scientists will tell you that until about 10k years ago the planet was starving for CO2. Ironically, it was probably lack of CO2 which ultimately caused our prehistoric ancestors to come down out of the trees and expand around the globe as their lush jungles turned to savannas with the declining presence of CO2.


----------



## Boss (Jan 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > *NONSENSE!*
> ...



My reply of "NONSENSE!" was not pertaining to data but rather a false statement. 




> > You didn't seem to like my previous graph which showed there is no warming happening,
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a graph that clearly showed warming, and then denied it showed warming. And you're surprised nobody is impressed?



The graph I posted doesn't show warming is happening. In fact, it shows we are in a cooling trend over the past decade or so. We are in the midst of a warm period and we did have to have warming to get here, but this is a normal and predictable cycle of the planet. In 1998 we had a warming event, El Niño. Since then, the temps have stabilized at about 0.2 degrees above what they were before the event. 

I don't expect you to be impressed, I expect you to be pissed off that I have exposed your fraud. 



> > maybe you'll appreciate this one more...





> Climate varying naturally in the past in no way precludes humans from changing climate now.



You've never shown that to be the case. 



> You fail at basic logic. Your argument is the same as claiming "Lightning has caused forest fires, so humans can't cause forest fires." Your line of reasoning is senseless.



Well no, basic logic is, there is no global warming happening so man can't be causing it. We can observe the natural cycle of warming and cooling over 500k years and we see that a very predictable pattern of warming happens about every 100-140k years. We see the same natural cycle for CO2 in the atmosphere, all of it predating mankind by thousands of years. You've not shown me anything to suggest that current increased CO2 is the result of man and not part of a natural cycle which has been happening for 500k years. 



> > Now this chart covers your evil "robber baron" times through the wicked Koch brothers and greedy capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Rational people here talk about the science and leave politics out of it. That would not include you, being how you constantly rant about politics. Try not to make your loyalty to a kook fringe political cult so obvious, being how it so thoroughly destroys your credibility.



LMAO, let's not make this political?  That's really funny since the vast majority of Warmers are socialists with an agenda to bring down capitalism. My graph shows you the industrial age portion of the larger graph, so that we can see where any man-made contribution to GHGs is insignificant with regard to climate change. 



> > The black line represents carbon dioxide levels, mind you, the chart makes no determination on where the increase comes from, it's just showing us the raw data of how much there was in the atmosphere. We can clearly see the black line spike upward. Now look at the purple line... that is the average temps... they simply are not rising with the increased CO2 level. In fact, the trend since the most recent natural warming event seems to be cooling.
> >
> > *RUH ROH!*
> 
> ...



Your chart is a classic example of how data can be manipulated to make virtually any point. Notice, if you look closely at the past decade, from 2005-2015, there is actual COOLING happening, not WARMING. While the CO2 level continues to rise, the temps are not getting warmer in relation. We can also see that between 1880 and 1935, there was a cooling period happening with consistently rising CO2 levels. If the chart went further back, we'd see another warming period with even less CO2 in the atmosphere. But here, someone has juxtaposed a small cross-section of data to make it appear there is a correlation between CO2 and temps. 

And hey... there may be some correlation, I haven't denied that. But our planet's climate and temps, as well as CO2 levels, are all operating in a big cycle which encompasses thousands of years. This happens regardless of human activity and has done so for hundreds of thousands or millions of years.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...


 not to mention 1940 to 1970!!! Don't forget them years there.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 5, 2015)

Boss said:


> LMAO, let's not make this political?  That's really funny since the vast majority of Warmers are socialists with an agenda to bring down capitalism.



You understand how insane that sounds to normal people, right?

Probably not. Crazy people have difficulty comprehending that they're crazy. If nobody has broken the news to you before that you're nuts, consider this to be your intervention.

Sadly, you're not alone. A lot of the deniers have banded together to form an army in the dimension of delusion. Have fun storming the castle of whatever imaginary opponents you've created there.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO, let's not make this political?  That's really funny since the vast majority of Warmers are socialists with an agenda to bring down capitalism.
> ...


well since you ain't normal, you have no idea.


----------



## Boss (Jan 5, 2015)

jc456 said:


> not to mention 1940 to 1970!!! Don't forget them years there.



The point is, this graph is manipulated to show the CO2 concentrations in a scale proportional to the temperature scale. We can see the same phenomenon (several times) in the 500k year graph, but humans couldn't have been causing it. 

You see, we must understand... to a liberal idiot, history began in 1929. Nothing happening before then matters at all. So they run around with this graph showing a natural cooling/warming cycle and natural CO2 cycle, and pretend there is some correlation to man's activities. Now, if we all fell off the same turnip truck in 1929, that may appear to be the case. 

This is all about socialists perverting science to push an agenda to destroy free market capitalism. It needs to be soundly rejected and the culprits need to be exposed for the frauds they are.


----------



## Boss (Jan 5, 2015)

Okay... So I took mamooth's rather misleading graph and isolated the data from the past decade. I could only show through 2009 because that's where his chart ends, but if we included the data from 2010-2015, the trend line would be about the same. As you can see, there is actually a "cooling trend" and not a continued warming with the continued increase of CO2. 

This is YOUR data from YOUR graph, I only added the blue cooling trend line.


----------



## Vigilante (Jan 5, 2015)




----------

