CO2 is used to keep things COLD

[BULLDOG]

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
  
• Print

Mixing consistency in every batch
Optimum dough temperature is critical to any bakery operation. Our specially designed flour and dough cooling systems provide precise, easy-to-operate methods to achieve your required temperature. Our systems use cryogens, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen, to automatically cool your product.

With direct cryogen injection, you can maintain precise control of the temperature of your flour and dough products, resulting in optimum product quality. Additionally, the use of our fully-automated systems eliminates potential human error involved in the manual addition of ice, thus providing for a reduction in labor costs, as well as consistency of batches regardless of seasonal temperature variations, batch size or production levels. Cost-effectively achieve the product quality you desire every time with Praxair’s flour and dough cooling systems.

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 .

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.

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]

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]

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.

you educate? hahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

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.
---

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]

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
  
• Print

Mixing consistency in every batch
Optimum dough temperature is critical to any bakery operation. Our specially designed flour and dough cooling systems provide precise, easy-to-operate methods to achieve your required temperature. Our systems use cryogens, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen, to automatically cool your product.

With direct cryogen injection, you can maintain precise control of the temperature of your flour and dough products, resulting in optimum product quality. Additionally, the use of our fully-automated systems eliminates potential human error involved in the manual addition of ice, thus providing for a reduction in labor costs, as well as consistency of batches regardless of seasonal temperature variations, batch size or production levels. Cost-effectively achieve the product quality you desire every time with Praxair’s flour and dough cooling systems.

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 .

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

which is the actual science then!!!!

 

[jc456]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

nope!!!

 

[jc456]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[jc456]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[jc456]

Good point!

nope!!!

 

[jc456]

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]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

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]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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
  
• Print

Mixing consistency in every batch
Optimum dough temperature is critical to any bakery operation. Our specially designed flour and dough cooling systems provide precise, easy-to-operate methods to achieve your required temperature. Our systems use cryogens, either carbon dioxide or nitrogen, to automatically cool your product.

With direct cryogen injection, you can maintain precise control of the temperature of your flour and dough products, resulting in optimum product quality. Additionally, the use of our fully-automated systems eliminates potential human error involved in the manual addition of ice, thus providing for a reduction in labor costs, as well as consistency of batches regardless of seasonal temperature variations, batch size or production levels. Cost-effectively achieve the product quality you desire every time with Praxair’s flour and dough cooling systems.

How old are you, 9?

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?

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]

Latest Global Temps Roy Spencer PhD

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?