significant global warming is ocurring.

[Duckzilla]

In the northern hemisphere air generally travels eastwardly, so we will be warmed by air that has travelled over the US. Even global warming won't change THAT pattern. If you believe otherwise, you must be on CRACK.

 

[shoegazer]

yes, but you also get a fair deal of warming from the ocean.

 

[Duckzilla]

I'm willing to take a chance.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
I'm willing to take a chance.

Good thing our future isn't in your hands.

 

[Duckzilla]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
I'm willing to take a chance.

Good thing our future isn't in your hands.

Most people that live above 30 or 40 degrees latitude are willing to take a chance on global warming - deal with it.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Duckzilla

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Duckzilla
I'm willing to take a chance.

Good thing our future isn't in your hands.

Most people that live above 30 or 40 degrees latitude are willing to take a chance on global warming - deal with it.

Even assuming that was true I wouldn't put my future in the hands of idiots either.

 

[Forsythe]

Duckzilla has got to be the biggest idiot we've yet seen in AT-P&N.

 

[2cpuminimum]

Some people have expressed a difficulty understanding how we know that human activity affects the climate, and how to quantify it. So here is an experiment you can do in your own home that proves that carbon dioxided can raise temperatures in a quantifiable way.
Materials: two identical aquariums and two identical heat lamps and two identical calibrated thermometers in a room with no drafts or ventilation, of fairly uniform temperature, vinegar and baking soda.
1. put the aquariums next to each other with a thermometer at the bottom of each, and the heatlamp above each (on)
2. Measure baseline temps for each every ten minutes for three hours. More often and longer is better.
3. After recording these baseline temps, add a large quantity of vinegar and water to one acquarium, but not the other. This will create CO2 gas, which is generally heavier than the air in the room so it will tend to stay in the acquarium.
4. Continue recording measurements of the temperature every ten minutes for a few hours.

The heat retention of carbon dioxide is very measurable and quantifiable. You can prove this in your own home. Anyone who claims that carbon dioxide emmissions don't lead to global climate change is either ignorant or deliberately misleading people. The reason it is difficult to predict exactly how much the climate will change is that increasing tempuratures melt ice and otherwise alter the reflective properties of the earth's surface. Melting polar ice-->>increased absorption--->>faster global warming; those are the effects that are difficult to quantify. The thermal retention properties of carbon dioxide, however, are easily calculated.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 2cpuminimum
Some people have expressed a difficulty understanding how we know that human activity affects the climate, and how to quantify it. So here is an experiment you can do in your own home that proves that carbon dioxided can raise temperatures in a quantifiable way.
Materials: two identical aquariums and two identical heat lamps and two identical calibrated thermometers in a room with no drafts or ventilation, of fairly uniform temperature, vinegar and baking soda.
1. put the aquariums next to each other with a thermometer at the bottom of each, and the heatlamp above each (on)
2. Measure baseline temps for each every ten minutes for three hours. More often and longer is better.
3. After recording these baseline temps, add a large quantity of vinegar and water to one acquarium, but not the other. This will create CO2 gas, which is generally heavier than the air in the room so it will tend to stay in the acquarium.
4. Continue recording measurements of the temperature every ten minutes for a few hours.

The heat retention of carbon dioxide is very measurable and quantifiable. You can prove this in your own home. Anyone who claims that carbon dioxide emmissions don't lead to global climate change is either ignorant or deliberately misleading people. The reason it is difficult to predict exactly how much the climate will change is that increasing tempuratures melt ice and otherwise alter the reflective properties of the earth's surface. Melting polar ice-->>increased absorption--->>faster global warming; those are the effects that are difficult to quantify. The thermal retention properties of carbon dioxide, however, are easily calculated.

Yet in that little experiment there are not other potential environmental "correcting" factors involved so it can't and shouldn't be used to extrapolate results onto earth as a whole. I also don't believe that anyone has directly argued against CO2's effects - however to say CO2 is only a result of human activity or even a significant portion of CO2 is opinion at best. Decomposing plants give off CO2 - is that human activity? How about natural fires(coal or otherwise)?
Now IF global warming is to be proven it still doesn't mean that human activity caused it or a change in our behavior can reverse it or slow it.

CsG

 

[BBond]

So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

 

[BBond]

Yep, that's as good an example of "csg"'s logic as you'll ever see.

Ignore the data. Cow farts are the cause of global warming. :roll:

You're a freaking joke without a punch line.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

So, are you denying that greenhouse gases are at their highest level in 420,000 years because of nature and not because of humans? Do you find it odd that the increase in CO2 coincided with the industrialization of the world?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

Originally posted by: BBond
Yep, that's as good an example of "csg"'s logic as you'll ever see.

Ignore the data. Cow farts are the cause of global warming. :roll:

You're a freaking joke without a punch line.

This is what is ruling the Country, either you bow down to them or start voting them out of power, so far the Country is bowing down to them.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

Furthermore, are you concluding that global warming is not influenced by humans, and are you basing those conclusions on scrutinized scientific research?

You have yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the current theory on global warming, and yet you are refuting it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BBond
Yep, that's as good an example of "csg"'s logic as you'll ever see.

Ignore the data. Cow farts are the cause of global warming. :roll:

You're a freaking joke without a punch line.

Again, I am not ignoring the data. Pointing out that the data or conclusions are incomplete is not ignoring data.
But hey, lap up the extremist BS without a second thought if you must...

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

So, are you denying that greenhouse gases are at their highest level in 420,000 years because of nature and not because of humans? Do you find it odd that the increase in CO2 coincided with the industrialization of the world?

huh? I'm not denying anything - I'm just stating that nature has a huge impact on these things and it's my opinion that nature is by far sending more CO2 into the atmosphere than we humans are. There are tons of things that produce CO2 - to say humans are responsible for global warming(which is claimed to be caused by CO2) is merely opinion - not fact.

Do you find it odd that the earth has gone through many climate shifts? Did humans cause those too? :roll:

CsG

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

So, are you denying that greenhouse gases are at their highest level in 420,000 years because of nature and not because of humans? Do you find it odd that the increase in CO2 coincided with the industrialization of the world?

huh? I'm not denying anything - I'm just stating that nature has a huge impact on these things and it's my opinion that nature is by far sending more CO2 into the atmosphere than we humans are. There are tons of things that produce CO2 - to say humans are responsible for global warming(which is claimed to be caused by CO2) is merely opinion - not fact.

Do you find it odd that the earth has gone through many climate shifts? Did humans cause those too? :roll:

CsG

You are continuing to demonstrate a lack of understanding of current global warming theory.

Maybe start by studying ice cores.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: BBond
So you're saying that decomposing plants and naturally occuring fires release more CO2 than say the internal combustion engine? Coal fired power plants? Industry? Burning fossil fuels?

yes, it is my opinion that "naturally" released/produced CO2 is more than human behavior caused CO2. I have not seen anything that proves otherwise. Nature occurs on a much bigger scale than humans.

CsG

Have you studied any of the modern research on global warming? Are you opinions backed up by verified and scrutinized scientific research?

I have read articles about "global warming" - some are even honest enough to point out some of the natural occurances of CO2 - but alot dont.
My opinions are based in logical thinking. Logic dictates that nature is bigger than mankind. Reasearch shows that CO2 is released by many things naturally. I have read nothing that proves that human behavior is anywhere close to what nature is. But hey - if it's out there - i'm willing to read it.

CsG

Furthermore, are you concluding that global warming is not influenced by humans, and are you basing those conclusions on scrutinized scientific research?

You have yet to demonstrate even a basic understanding of the current theory on global warming, and yet you are refuting it.

Again, correlation does not equal causation. Those claiming humans cause global warming are doing nothing more than expressing their opinion as they have not quantified nor qualified the nature of human vs nature regarding CO2 and/or other "greenhouse" gasses. PLUS even if they did/could - would changing human behaviour change it or reverse it? Hmmm - lots to consider if you look past the alarmist rhetoric.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You are continuing to demonstrate a lack of understanding of current global warming theory.

Maybe start by studying ice cores.

:roll: You don't have a clue about what I'm saying if you think I have to study ice cores. Try reading instead of assuming.

CsG

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You are continuing to demonstrate a lack of understanding of current global warming theory.

Maybe start by studying ice cores.

:roll: You don't have a clue about what I'm saying if you think I have to study ice cores. Try reading instead of assuming.

CsG

You have not DEMONSTRATED or COMMUNICATED that you understand current theory in global warming, therefore I was pointing you in a direction that I thought might help you gain some understanding. If you do understand current theory on global warming, please demonstrate your understanding on it or stop trying to refute it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You are continuing to demonstrate a lack of understanding of current global warming theory.

Maybe start by studying ice cores.

:roll: You don't have a clue about what I'm saying if you think I have to study ice cores. Try reading instead of assuming.

CsG

You have not DEMONSTRATED or COMMUNICATED that you understand current theory in global warming, therefore I was pointing you in a direction that I thought might help you gain some understanding. If you do understand current theory on global warming, please demonstrate your understanding on it or stop trying to refute it.

:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
You have not DEMONSTRATED or COMMUNICATED that you understand current theory in global warming, therefore I was pointing you in a direction that I thought might help you gain some understanding. If you do understand current theory on global warming, please demonstrate your understanding on it or stop trying to refute it.

:roll: As if you are the arbitor of "understanding". I understand the theory just fine thank you - and I understand that even if they can show certain things about "global warming" as a theory does not mean that humans can change it or reverse it.

CsG

Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Get well soon.