HOLY-COW-COLD-IN-FL

IH3444 · Dec 20, 2010

I too am starting to understand Ray, and Czech. If it is not snowing, it's caused by global warming, and if it is snowing, it's caused by global warming. This appears to be a simple understanding which had eluded me up to this point. I wish to thank those whom have enlighten me, and also post a reference to a previous year 2000 article written by I'm sure some very smart people, backed up with lots of scientific date.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Loren49 · Dec 20, 2010

Quote: ray66v post #84 - The fact is, there is still a lot we simply do not know, and nothing is ever absolutely proven in science.

Did you mean prove or sort of prove and again what standard do you suggest?

You have made what you expect anything but clear. Any set of data can be questioned.

And actually it doesn't matter - we just disagree and that's ok.

Also the claim "where's the global warming" is thrown out there every time it is extremely cold somewhere. That is how these discussion began.

post #1 this thread "Overnight low of 20 ... but feels like 10 ... Here in FL??????
Hello Al Gore ... Come in Al Gore ... Please turn your jet engines on us if that'll warm us up ... Oh & explain this whole low temp thing while you're here.
Thank you Al Gore "

Can you show one case where proof of GW is claimed in the first post concerning extreme warm???

Loren

ray66v · Dec 20, 2010

Lauren, I did not design the way modern science works, or the rules that all science is normally conducted by. Take your objections up with them, if you don't like their system.

Your system of majority rules is never going to be valid and has never been accepted by my opposition.

Using your rules, I can now officially declare that since virtually everyone who studies God, believes he exists, it is now settled science.

God is real. Since God is proven to exist, Everyone who does not believe in God must now be forced to live by the rules of God.

Anyone who disagrees with this finding, or any of the changes in their lives being forced upon them, must first prove there is no God, before they can be allowed to challenge this ruling.

Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:

gerard · Dec 20, 2010

Larry Caldwell said:
The heat removed in combustion doesn't weigh enough to be measurable. The energy released in a megaton thermonuclear explosion only amounts to a few grams of matter.

Agreed - so are you saying burning 1 lb of coal creates .9 lbs of Co2? It might, I'm not arguing, just asking. I DO know it produces sulfur as a by product which also isn't great in an atmospheric condition. Just not sure if the posters math I inquired about is on the mark or not.

gerard · Dec 20, 2010

97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans
"A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real.......
The survey, conducted among researchers listed in the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments*, "found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role". The biggest doubters were petroleum geologists (47 percent)"

You're on the opposite side of science.

Loren[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm - "97 percent agreeing humans play a role." How ambiguous can you get? I'm sure cows farting also play a role in methane in the atmosphere but how MAJOR a role? I'm SURE humans are playing a role in CO2 production. The question is IF it is changing the climate and IF it is changing it to a significant degree and IF the earth can compensate or not and IF climate variation is an inevitable consequence of living on a huge rotating sphere with a slight wobble that revolves around a heat source 93 million miles away and gets it's seasons from slightly changing it's orientation to the sun over the course of the year. There are a lot of IF's in there that have NOT been scientificaly settled yet. Not looking for 100% proof, then we're moving into philosophy and I have no desire to go there. Just reasonable conclusions made using the scientific method without a political agenda. We're a long way from that thus far.

czechsonofagun · Dec 20, 2010

Loren, get a life.

Loren49 · Dec 21, 2010

Rye63 -change the subject and attack the people if it feels better - I basically have used references - you may attack the references and scientific standards but why make it personal? - argue fair. When you have no good argument attack the people - it seems to work for some.

Czech - why resort to that comment? - I enjoy a rational discussion and no one is forced to read any of this.

Gerard - It was a fact concerning the professional opinions of those earth scientists (the 97% etc) - not my conclusion - no more, no less.

Loren

Loren49 · Dec 21, 2010

A little information on CO2 output from burning coal.

Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Coal

The carbon dioxide emission factors in this article are expressed in terms of the energy content of coal as pounds of carbon dioxide per million Btu. Carbon dioxide (CO2) forms during coal combustion when one atom of carbon (C) unites with two atoms of oxygen (O) from the air. Because the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and that of oxygen is 16, the atomic weight of carbon dioxide is 44. Based on that ratio, and assuming complete combustion, 1 pound of carbon combines with 2.667 pounds of oxygen to produce 3.667 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Complete combustion of 1 short ton (2,000 pounds) of this coal will generate about 5,720 pounds (2.86 short tons) of carbon dioxide.

Loren