Poor Al Gore....

[k-fridge]

he's been shot down again. (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html)

[glennac]

he's been shot down again. (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html)

He is going to look like the world's biggest turkey when all the winters keep getting cooler and our heating bills rise and the summers become less hot. The liberals, Democrats, environmentalists, communist and all the wackos will have to find another horse to ride. This one "Global Warming" is going down the tubes and no amount of BS from Gore can change the fact.

[The Doctor]

In other words, CO2 is secretly warming the planet. Or not

That's beautiful. Maybe Algore didn't get the message about Anchorage either http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/387743.html

Guess that's because it's warmer. NOT!

[k-fridge]

He is going to look like the world's biggest turkey when all the winters keep getting cooler and our heating bills rise and the summers become less hot. The liberals, Democrats, environmentalists, communist and all the wackos will have to find another horse to ride. This one "Global Warming" is going down the tubes and no amount of BS from Gore can change the fact.


Going to? I think that's already happened.

[chillerfreak]

he's been shot down again. (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html)

Since when did NASA become the expert on Climate change?

[k-fridge]

Since when did NASA become the expert on Climate change?
Well, that kinda goes with....astronomical stuff, and they know a thing or two about that.:rolleyes:

[scrogdog]

Complex things fail in complex ways. And we aren't even sure of the complexities of our own weather systems much less sun cycles and all.

This whole thing has been much like "Nuclear Winter" where Carl Sagan predicted during the 1st Gulf war that oil well fires would produce the same effect.

Good night, Carl.

Science needs to be what science IS. Tested hypothesis that is reviewed and replicated by peers, not models of the future in which we don't know any of the parameters. Case in point... the Global warming alarmists made a case based on MODELS... which are no substitute for TESTING; and now they look like idiots.

I proposed that they did that from the start. Oh for Mr. Geer to chime in here. :)

[mrs reb77]

Since when did NASA become the expert on Climate change?

Slightly before Al Gore.......

[scrogdog]

Slightly before Al Gore.......

Lol. Yes, just slightly.

[The Doctor]

Recently saw an article indicating that the four major entities that monitor climate change have all noticed a 0.7* drop in the global temps.

Has anyone else seen this? It's been just in the last week or so

[bootlen]

Since when did NASA become the expert on Climate change?

Since when did Algore become an expert on climate change?

[forged alloy]

The phrase "False Prophet" comes to mind.

Ah well, it would make us all ill to know how this has enriched him. He will laugh all the way to the bank, not cower in humility.

[k-fridge]

Since when did Algore become an expert on climate change?
When it became financially lucrative for him to be one....

[everythingair]

Could this condition be referred to as an "Al Gore rythem"? Please take it easy on me, I have never been considered the comedic type.

[glennac]

Could this condition be referred to as an "Al Gore rythem"? Please take it easy on me, I have never been considered the comedic type.

Perhaps you should keep your day time job.:D:D:)

[k-fridge]

Drum roll-symbol crash :p

[Snapperhead]

Dont any of you pay attention to talk radio or Stephen Colbert ? ?

Global warming IS REAL .

Gore made money on his movie , the market has spoken . Fact .

[chillerfreak]

Since when did Algore become an expert on climate change?

Good Point....:D

So Booty...despite your opinion on Al, are you denying that global warming is for real?

[lolson]

snowed yesterday and that sucked

[chillerfreak]

snowed yesterday and that sucked

Since it snowed yesterday that proves that GW is BS?

[glennac]

Good Point....:D

So Booty...despite your opinion on Al, are you denying that global warming is for real?

Speaking for myself I will say "man made" Global Warming is and has always being a complete and total fabrication by the environmentalist socialists to destroy free enterprise and capitalism.

There is now plenty of evidence that indeed we are going into a phase of Global Cooling which I might add will be a lot worse for man kind than Global Warming. Fire up the coal burning plants before it's to late.:D:D:D

[chillerfreak]

Speaking for myself I will say "man made" Global Warming is and has always being a complete and total fabrication by the environmentalist socialists to destroy free enterprise and capitalism.

There is now plenty of evidence that indeed we are going into a phase of Global Cooling which I might add will be a lot worse for man kind than Global Warming. Fire up the coal burning plants before it's to late.:D:D:D

So the decrease in size of the polar ice cap, the disapperaing glaciers around the world and the decreased salinity in the Atlantic are signs of global cooling?

[mrs reb77]

Since when did Algore become an expert on climate change?

I'm fairly sure it was just after he invented the internet. Needed something big to follow up!

[mrs reb77]

So the decrease in size of the polar ice cap, the disapperaing glaciers around the world and the decreased salinity in the Atlantic are signs of global cooling?

Well, unlike Al, we aren't experts in that field.

[chillerfreak]

Well, unlike Al, we aren't experts in that field.

I'm not an expert....but a lot of people here seem to think it's BS...I got the impression they were experts....Just curious if they know something the rest of us don't?

[mrs reb77]

We all know that Al isn't a scientist yet he made a bunch of $$ on a movie to scare people...also that none of this can be actually proven!

[yelram]

So the decrease in size of the polar ice cap, the disapperaing glaciers around the world and the decreased salinity in the Atlantic are signs of global cooling?

Its a sign of the magnetic field of the earth getting ready to swap.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

The magnetic field filters alot of solar radiation. We are also coming to the end of the procession of the equinoxes.
http://www.stone.com/Qouija/Procession_of_the_Equinox.html

Which only happens every 26000 years, but its probable CO2 :rolleyes:

Assuming that because one or two parts of the world are warmer that the whole world is warming is pretty naive. And these are the coldest parts. CO2 has very little to do with climate change. When the climate changes co2 levels change, but not the other way around, its never been proven.

[glennac]

So the decrease in size of the polar ice cap, the disapperaing glaciers around the world and the decreased salinity in the Atlantic are signs of global cooling?

I really don't have the time or patience to rehash all the evidence to the contrary which has been posted on this forum over the last year. Maybe you haven't been reading them? The ice cap on Antarctica is thicker now than ever before in recorded history. The year 2007 was the coldest year we have had since 1998. It is also predicted that 2008 will be even colder. S America had the coldest winter on record in 2007. It snowed for the first time in recorded history in Baghdad, so on and so on, etc. I don't have time to repeat again what all the evidence which shows cooling not warming. Please Google it and not from "move on . org" links either.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140

[chillerfreak]

We all know that Al isn't a scientist yet he made a bunch of $$ on a movie to scare people...also that none of this can be actually proven!

So he's a capatalist, wrote a book, made a movie about a theory that is controversial....so you hate him.....Kind of a leftist way of thinking???

I don't care about what you think about Al Gore....I'm just asking the question if the ARP's are refuting the idea that the planet might actually be warming up....and if not, why?

[chillerfreak]

I really don't have the time or patience to rehash all the evidence to the contrary which has been posted on this forum over the last year. Maybe you haven't been reading them? The ice cap on Antarctica is thicker now than ever before in recorded history. The year 2007 was the coldest year we have had since 1998. It is also predicted that 2008 will be even colder. S America had the coldest winter on record in 2007. It snowed for the first time in recorded history in Baghdad, so on and so on, etc. I don't have time to repeat again what all the evidence which shows cooling not warming. Please Google it and not from "move on . org" links either.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140


Your right Glenn, I haven't been reading the posts since i'm fairly new here.....I now know you are a busy man and don't have much time for those who oppose your opinion...thanks for your thoughtful response......
If I understand you correctly we do agree on the fact that there is a climatic change taking place....we just don't know why?

[yelram]

Your right Glenn, I haven't been reading the posts since i'm fairly new here.....I now know you are a busy man and don't have much time for those who oppose your opinion...thanks for your thoughtful response......
If I understand you correctly we do agree on the fact that there is a climatic change taking place....we just don't know why?

God... CLIMATE CHANGE ALWAYS HAPPENS, ITS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. BEFORE CARS, BEFORE THE I.C.E, BEFORE THERE WERE HUMANS. There is never a time when we have a static climate. Climate change is a stupid buzzword to sucker people into buying this crap.

[chillerfreak]

Its a sign of the magnetic field of the earth getting ready to swap.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm

The magnetic field filters alot of solar radiation. We are also coming to the end of the procession of the equinoxes.
http://www.stone.com/Qouija/Procession_of_the_Equinox.html

Which only happens every 26000 years, but its probable CO2 :rolleyes:

Assuming that because one or two parts of the world are warmer that the whole world is warming is pretty naive. And these are the coldest parts. CO2 has very little to do with climate change. When the climate changes co2 levels change, but not the other way around, its never been proven.

So Global warming is taking place because it's "The dawning of the age of Aquarius"?

[mrs reb77]

So he's a capatalist, wrote a book, made a movie about a theory that is controversial....so you hate him.....Kind of a leftist way of thinking???

I don't care about what you think about Al Gore....I'm just asking the question if the ARP's are refuting the idea that the planet might actually be warming up....and if not, why?

Who said we hate him? We love Al. He's so much fun!
Unfortunately he's made much denero by hyping up something that can't be proven one way or the other and selling carbon credits while he lives in his large mansion...the list goes on and on. :p

[chillerfreak]

God... CLIMATE CHANGE ALWAYS HAPPENS, ITS BEEN HAPPENING FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS. BEFORE CARS, BEFORE THE I.C.E, BEFORE THERE WERE HUMANS. There is never a time when we have a static climate. Climate change is a stupid buzzword to sucker people into buying this crap.

Soooooo....since there has always been climatic change....over a long period of time....and currently there are volcanoes, wildfires and all kinds of natural events that are dumping tons of gasses into the air.....That we as humans don't need to worry about what we dump into the atmosphere....cause in your opinion it makes no difference?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth....just want to understand your position!

[chillerfreak]

Who said we hate him? We love Al. He's so much fun!
Unfortunately he's made much denero by hyping up something that can't be proven one way or the other and selling carbon credits while he lives in his large mansion...the list goes on and on. :p

I thought making much denero was a good thing?

At least I have a choice whether or not I buy his books or watch his movie. Unlike filling my tank up with diesel!

[chillerfreak]

Who said we hate him? We love Al. He's so much fun!
Unfortunately he's made much denero by hyping up something that can't be proven one way or the other and selling carbon credits while he lives in his large mansion...the list goes on and on. :p

Glenn...do you love Al...tell me it isn't so...:D

[k-fridge]

We love Al, what would Saturday Night Live do without him?

[chillerfreak]

We love Al, what would Saturday Night Live do without him?

Just make fun of "W" I guess!

[chillerfreak]

Ok...I gotta go to work....you darn arpie's made me late again....have a good Friday!....:D

[jrbenny]

Ok...I gotta go to work....you darn arpie's made me late again....have a good Friday!....:D
Typical lib. Blaming others for your problems. :rolleyes:


:D

[mrs reb77]

I thought making much denero was a good thing?

At least I have a choice whether or not I buy his books or watch his movie. Unlike filling my tank up with diesel!

Making much denero honestly is a good thing. Making it being a hypocritical boogey man watcher is another.
Wanna buy some carbon credits? :rolleyes:

[mrs reb77]

Ok...I gotta go to work....you darn arpie's made me late again....have a good Friday!....:D

Oh good, he's gone, now we can talk about him...:D

[scrogdog]

Chiller, you make the exact point that *we don't know why*.

That's all the opposition has been saying all along. NOT that warming is not real.

Of course, if NASA temperature records are seemingly forecasting a cooling period, than it's really no surprise. The warmest year on record is still 1998. So we haven't gotten warmer since then. Now it seems we'll go backwards. That would seem to indicate that C02 is not a factor in climate change.

As a matter of fact, Al Gore is so arrogant, that when he made his pitch to the UN, he saw that his chart showed that a rise in C02 *trailed* the rise in temperature by 800 years. This data was from ice core samples in Greenland. He thought that that simply could not be so, so he switched the label on his chart.

Unfortunately for him and all of the other alarmists... it WAS and IS true.

This is also supported by other research... notably on phytoplankton. This organism is an important part of the carbon cycle. When they use photosynthesis to nourish themselves they take c02 from the air and convert it to another form during the process. Unfortunately, warm temperatures, not the presence of c02 itself, drives them deeper down in to the ocean where the conversion is far less efficient. So, as it gets warmer, the cycle is affected, but not directly by c02 itself.

In simpler terms, it appears that high concentrations of C02 are the RESULT, not the cause, of warming.

Maybe you weren't paying attention or something, but don't you remember the petition signed and sent to the UN warning them that thier little council had made conclusions which were not consistent with other properly tested science? There were 400 signatories to that document. There are 89 scientists on the IPCC.

Models using extrapolated numbers are NOT science. Testing is the hallmark of science. Science isn't about estimations - it's about observation and TESTING.

Did warming occur? Sure. Is C02 responsible? Unlikely. And it is getting moreso every day.

I may not be an expert, but I can read a science journal just like everyone else. And there is a concerted effort underway by mainstream scientists to correct some bad perceptions created by the IPCC.

In my mind, the little PR campaign is about done, and the charlatans are being exposed for what they are.

[yelram]

Soooooo....since there has always been climatic change....over a long period of time....and currently there are vocanoes, wildfires and all kinds of natural events that are dumping tons of gasses into the air.....That we as humans don't need to worry about what we dump into the atmosphere....cause in your opinion it makes no difference?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth....just want to understand your position!

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, while we are wasting time worrying about CO2 there are all kinds of other very harmful pollutants that we are being exposed to everyday, but we dump all of our money into worrying about the gas that WE BREATH OUT.

[chillerfreak]

Typical lib. Blaming others for your problems. :rolleyes:


:D

LOL....Problem....usually I don't have a problem being late for work....:D

[jrbenny]

LOL....Problem....usually I don't have a problem being late for work....:D
Good to see a sense of humor in this section. :)

[bb]

Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, while we are wasting time worrying about CO2 there are all kinds of other very harmful pollutants that we are being exposed to everyday, but we dump all of our money into worrying about the gas that WE BREATH OUT.

Your Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 IS a pollutant. Don't you just love the way that heads of government ignorant of the issue can have such a profound effect on businesses, workers and ways of life. The liberal /environmental push is going to run us right off of the proverbial economic cliff.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/03/news/scotus.php

Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon Published: April 3, 2007


WASHINGTON: The new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on carbon dioxide emissions is a strong rebuke to the Bush administration, which has maintained that it does not have the right to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and that even if it did, it would not use the authority.

The ruling does not force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate auto emissions, but the agency would almost certainly face further legal action if it fails to do so.

In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the only way the agency could "avoid taking further action" now is "if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change" or provides a good explanation why it cannot or will not find out whether they do.

Beyond the specific context for this case - so-called "tailpipe emissions" from cars and trucks, which account for about one-fourth of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions - the decision is highly likely to have a broader impact on the debate over government efforts to address global warming.

The ruling has largely shredded the underpinning of other lawsuits trying to block regulation of the emissions and gives new momentum to congressional efforts to control heat-trapping gases linked to climate change.

Environmental groups and states that have adopted controls on carbon dioxide emissions from vehicle tailpipes responded with jubilation, while the auto industry and some of its backers offered statements of resigned disappointment.

"This is fantastic news," said Ian Bowles, the secretary of environmental affairs for Massachusetts, which had petitioned the environmental agency to control emissions from cars and trucks.

Court cases around the country had been placed on hold to await the decision in this case. Among them is a challenge to the agency's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, now pending in the U.S. federal appeals court here.

Individual states, led by California, are also moving aggressively into what they have seen as a regulatory vacuum.

Stevens, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, said that by providing nothing more than a "laundry list of reasons not to regulate," the Environmental Protection Agency had defied the Clean Air Act's "clear statutory command."

He said a refusal to regulate could be based only on science and "reasoned justification," adding that while the statute left the central determination to the "judgment" of the agency's administrator, "the use of the word 'judgment' is not a roving license to ignore the statutory text."

The court decided a second Clean Air Act case on Monday, adopting a broad reading of the agency's authority over factories and power plants that add capacity or make renovations that increase emissions of air pollutants. In doing so, the court reopened a federal enforcement effort against the Duke Energy power company under the act's "new source review" provision. The vote in this case was 9 to 0.

The two decisions left environmental advocates exultant. Many said they still harbored doubts about the federal agency and predicted that the decision would help push the Democratic-controlled Congress to address the issue.

Even in the nine months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first case, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, and accelerating since the elections in November, there has been a growing interest among industry groups in working with environmental organizations on proposals for emissions limits.

Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the main industry trade group, said in response to the decision that the alliance "looks forward to working constructively with both Congress and the administration" in addressing the issue.

If the decision prompted widespread claims of victory, it left behind a prominent loser: Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who argued vigorously in a dissenting opinion that the court never should have reached the merits of the case or addressed the question of the agency's legal obligations.

His dissent, which Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. also signed, focused solely on the issue of legal standing to sue: whether the broad coalition of states, cities and environmental groups that brought the lawsuit against the environmental agency four years ago should have been accepted as plaintiffs in the first place.

[chillerfreak]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13046200/

I don't mean to cause wide spread panic.....but my god...itchier poison ivy???

[bootlen]

Good Point....:D

So Booty...despite your opinion on Al, are you denying that global warming is for real?

Doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks GW is caused by man or can be reversed by man is way out of touch with reality.

[chillerfreak]

Doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks GW is caused by man or can be reversed by man is way out of touch with reality.

So if it doesn't matter we might as well keep on doin what we have always been doin....

[glennac]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13046200/

I don't mean to cause wide spread panic.....but my god...itchier poison ivy???

Yeah but I think you will have to wait at least 10 years for that. With the earth actually cooling now the commie environmentalist now have a bail out. They now say we will actually cool down for about 10 years but then we will go back on track to global warming once this is over so we better still destroy the industrial economies in the capitalist world of course allowing the rest of the world to go right ahead with no restrictions (R12 is still used in the 3rd world, Mexico included). This is perfect, Al Gore will be in his twilight years basking in the glory of the environmentalists commies and we will be freezing to death with no industry in the West and Red China and India and the 3rd world will be on top. Check this out. How sweet for the commie enviromentalists

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide

[bootlen]

So if it doesn't matter we might as well keep on doin what we have always been doin....

That's not a too far off bottom line, chiller. We have to learn to accept the things we cannot change. And if nature has been doing this for
"millions and millions of years", it is not likely to change, wouldn't you say? And if its been doing this for "millions and millions of years", and we're still around, why is it you think we need to do something about it?

Reality, chiller. Reach out and touch some.

[k-fridge]

We need a musical interlude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNrGhekg8GI

[chillerfreak]

That's not a too far off bottom line, chiller. We have to learn to accept the things we cannot change. And if nature has been doing this for
"millions and millions of years", it is not likely to change, wouldn't you say? And if its been doing this for "millions and millions of years", and we're still around, why is it you think we need to do something about it?

Reality, chiller. Reach out and touch some.

Reality...OK...you can crap in your lunch box if you want....I choose not to crap in mine!

[bootlen]

Reality...OK...you can crap in your lunch box if you want....I choose not to crap in mine!

Crap in my lunch box?

Okay, chiller. Whatever.

[chillerfreak]

Crap in my lunch box?

Okay, chiller. Whatever.

I think your point is that any climatic change taking place (if there is a change taking place) is caused by nature and that man cannot do anything about it.....I am assuming that your stance is that no matter how much man pollutes that it makes no difference, at least as far as global warming is concerned. My feeling is that if we can avoid dumping toxins into the atmosphere it might not help....but it sure is not going to hurt. Does that mean overregulation...I don't think so...does it mean looking for a better way of doing things?...I think so. We can't control nature..but we sure as hell can control ourselves....Does that make me out of touch with reality?

[chillerfreak]

We need a musical interlude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNrGhekg8GI

Very good, I think from now on he should only do musicals...Glenn would be the first in line to buy a ticket!....

[yelram]

I think your point is that any climatic change taking place (if there is a change taking place) is caused by nature and that man cannot do anything about it.....I am assuming that your stance is that no matter how much man pollutes that it makes no difference, at least as far as global warming is concerned. My feeling is that if we can avoid dumping toxins into the atmosphere it might not help....but it sure is not going to hurt. Does that mean overregulation...I don't think so...does it mean looking for a better way of doing things?...I think so. We can't control nature..but we sure as hell can control ourselves....Does that make me out of touch with reality?

CO2 is not a toxin.

[chillerfreak]

CO2 is not a toxin.

How do you figure?

[RoBoTeq]

We need a musical interlude

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNrGhekg8GI
:DI like this one.

[RoBoTeq]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelram http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849127#post1849127)
CO2 is not a toxin.



How do you figure?
By all accounts, CO2 is not a toxin;




Toxin


Definition:

A toxicant produced by a living organism.


WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html) - (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html)Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=CO2&ia=wn) - (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html)Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/CO2#sharethis)
co2
nouna heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis [syn: carbon dioxide (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html)]


WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.


Hell, I can't even find anything that puts CO2 and toxin together in a sentence.

Just because people tell you that your breath is killing them does not mean the CO2 you are producing is the culprit.

[bootlen]

...I am assuming...

There's yer problem...right there. Apparently you assume what Algore says is true.

Well, simply stated...it ain't.

[chillerfreak]

There's yer problem...right there. Apparently you assume what Algore says is true.

Well, simply stated...it ain't.

Who said anything about Al Gore....You'd make a great politician....take little snippep of some ones qoute and paste them to fit your needs....Why don't you dance a little side step...pull yer head out booty!

[chillerfreak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelram http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=1849127#post1849127)
CO2 is not a toxin.



By all accounts, CO2 is not a toxin;



Hell, I can't even find anything that puts CO2 and toxin together in a sentence.

Just because people tell you that your breath is killing them does not mean the CO2 you are producing is the culprit.


Hmmm. I wonder why they make sensors to detect CO2??????

Why don't we lock ROBO and Booty in a room and pump in CO2 and see what happens?

[yelram]

Hmmm. I wonder why they make sensors to detect CO2??????

Why don't we lock ROBO and Booty in a room and pump in CO2 and see what happens?

Or any other gas that isnt oxygen. Are you seriously a hvac tech? I think you might be confusing CO, and CO2.

[chillerfreak]

Or any other gas that isnt oxygen. Are you seriously a hvac tech? I think you might be confusing CO, and CO2.

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm#bannertop2

I'm pretty dumb...but I do know the dif.

[chillerfreak]

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm#bannertop2

I'm pretty dumb...but I do know the dif.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide


Are we getting hung up on the difference between what is a "toxin" and what is "toxic"...?

[RoBoTeq]

Or any other gas that isnt oxygen. Are you seriously a hvac tech? I think you might be confusing CO, and CO2.
Let's hope that is what he is doing. Otherwise, I am really beginning to wonder myself about Chiller's capacity for understanding.

[chillerfreak]

Let's hope that is what he is doing. Otherwise, I am really beginning to wonder myself about Chiller's capacity for understanding.

WTF....I just posted the dif's can't you 2 read????.....BTW I consider myself a chiller mechanic not an HVAC tech....what do you call yourself Yelram?

[yelram]

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm#bannertop2

I'm pretty dumb...but I do know the dif.

"The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:
• 250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
• 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
• 1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor
air.
• 2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and
stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart
rate and slight nausea may also be present.
• >5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in
permanent brain damage, coma and even death."

You dont die from its toxicity, you die from oxygen deprivation. OXYGEN is a toxin by that definition. You just dont understand what you are exactly saying. CO2 has a level of toxicity, as does just about every compound, but it is not a "toxin"

"A toxin (Greek: τοξικόν, toxikon, lit. (poison) for use on arrows) is a poisonous substance produced by living cells or organisms that is active at very low concentrations."

5,000 parts per million is hardly a low concentration.

[chillerfreak]

Or any other gas that isnt oxygen. Are you seriously a hvac tech? I think you might be confusing CO, and CO2.

Get in the room.....I'll pump in the gas of your choice.......:D

[RoBoTeq]

http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm#bannertop2

I'm pretty dumb...but I do know the dif.
No, no you don't know the difference. You referred to CO2 as a toxin. That is not the same as CO2 in extreme amounts being "toxic". There is a big difference. Everything has a "toxic" level, not everything is a toxin.



Sci-Tech Encyclopedia: (http://www.answers.com/library/Sci%252DTech%20Encyclopedia-cid-12941) Carbon dioxide

A colorless (http://www.answers.com/topic/colorless), odorless, tasteless (http://www.answers.com/topic/tasteless) gas, formula CO2, about 1.5 times as heavy as air. Under normal conditions, it is stable, inert (http://www.answers.com/topic/inert), and nontoxic (http://www.answers.com/topic/nontoxic-in-medicine). The decay (slow oxidation (http://www.answers.com/topic/oxidation)) of all organic materials produces CO2. Fresh air contains approximately 0.033% CO2 by volume. In the respiratory action (breathing) of all animals and humans, CO2 is exhaled (http://www.answers.com/topic/exhale).

Nontoxic in this definition simply means that CO2 does not cause harm. While CO2 levels can be so intense that the atmosphere becomes "toxic", meaning the air no longer has enough oxygen to support life, the CO2 itself is nontoxic and not a toxin.

[k-fridge]

My wife says methane is toxic.




Especially after I eat broccoli. :D

[RoBoTeq]

Get in the room.....I'll pump in the gas of your choice.......:D
Please; put down the shovel and stop and think about what you are trying to argue here. You are simply mistaken as to what you are reading.

A toxin is a poisonous substance. CO2 cannot possibly be a poisonous substance since literally every animal produces it by simply breathing.

CO2 is not a toxin. It can however become "toxic" by reaching a level that displaces enough oxygen that the atmosphere inundated with CO2 (or any other inert gas that is not a toxin) will not support life.

[chillerfreak]

Please; put down the shovel and stop and think about what you are trying to argue here. You are simply mistaken as to what you are reading.

A toxin is a poisonous substance. CO2 cannot possibly be a poisonous substance since literally every animal produces it by simply breathing.

CO2 is not a toxin. It can however become "toxic" by reaching a level that displaces enough oxygen that the atmosphere inundated with CO2 (or any other inert gas that is not a toxin) will not support life.

I can agree with that.....I guess I didn't understand the dif between Toxin and Toxic....My bad....Can I still lock you in a room and pump in gas?...:D


A sustance can still be poisonous without being a toxin....or am I way confused. If you read the first link I posted it discusses CO2 toxicity at certain levels that do not relate to lack of O2.

[RoBoTeq]

My wife says methane is toxic.




Especially after I eat broccoli. :D
Don't know if it is true or not, but I have read about a very fat, bedridden man who supposedly died from his body gas having reached a toxic level in the small room he was bedridden in. Yes, he was claimed to have died from his own farts.

[RoBoTeq]

I can agree with that.....I guess I didn't understand the dif between Toxin and Toxic....My bad....Can I still lock you in a room and pump in gas?...:D


A sustance can still be poisonous without being a toxin....or am I way confused. If you read the first link a posted it disusses CO2 toxicity at certain levels that do not relate to lack of O2.
NO! You may not lock me in a room just to have me die from lack of oxygen:mad:. Bad chillerdude....bad!

We still need to clear you up on the difference between a poisonous substance and a substance that won't support life. While in various dosages, each can result in death, one actually kills us while the other one just doesn't allow us to live. For example; If you have a poisonous gas sprayed in your face, you will die. If you have CO2 sprayed into your face, you will not die, but if you are in a room that has only CO2 to breath, you will die.

All that has happened here is that we have learned to better understand similar sounding words and their meanings and intent. No harm, no foul, we all walk away smarter.

[chillerfreak]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

From what I read there are certain affects CO2 can have on the body...and not just from lack of O2....I'll agree that the displacemewnt of O2 is the biggest cause of death....But CO2 still is toxic...according to what I read....Sooo with that said it still would not be considered a toxin, right?

[k-fridge]

Don't know if it is true or not, but I have read about a very fat, bedridden man who supposedly died from his body gas having reached a toxic level in the small room he was bedridden in. Yes, he was claimed to have died from his own farts.

I heard that too. Classic! :p

[RoBoTeq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

From what I read there are certain affects CO2 can have on the body...and not just from lack of O2....I'll agree that the displacemewnt of O2 is the biggest cause of death....But CO2 still is toxic...according to what I read....Sooo with that said it still would not be considered a toxin, right?
Justify your ignorance any way you want to chill, I give up.

[chillerfreak]

Justify your ignorance any way you want to chill, I give up.

ROFLMAO...finally...:D

How did this thread start anyway?...something about global cooling?

[k-fridge]

Don't know if it is true or not, but I have read about a very fat, bedridden man who supposedly died from his body gas having reached a toxic level in the small room he was bedridden in. Yes, he was claimed to have died from his own farts.
Apparently not true.

http://www.snopes.com/humor/follies/methane.asp

Dang, sometimes the best tales are false. :p

[mrs reb77]

So, we're slowly being poisoned by the billion Chinese breathing CO2 out? :(

I guess if CO2 is a toxin then, we shouldn't breath on each other at all, no more blowing out candles, standing near other people, all that jazz...

[scrogdog]

Uh... co2 is no more a toxin that water is, folks. Yet, that did not stop that woman in a water drinking contest from basically "OD ing" on water, drinking so much that the electrical impulses in her body could not communicate with each other. Whoops! Dead.

C02 is a trace gas that is essential to life on this planet. As a matter of fact, "the greenhouse effect" is essential to life in this planet. Warming or no warming.

[mrs reb77]

You've heard of dihydrogen monoxide (dhmo) haven't you?

http://www.dhmo.org/
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment.

This is some serious stuff!

[RoBoTeq]

You've heard of dihydrogen monoxide (dhmo) haven't you?

http://www.dhmo.org/
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment.

This is some serious stuff!
My last vestige of living dangerously is my daily exposure to and usage of Dihydrogen Monoxide. I am truly addicted to the stuff and believe that I would die if I stopped using it.

[glennac]

My last vestige of living dangerously is my daily exposure to and usage of Dihydrogen Monoxide. I am truly addicted to the stuff and believe that I would die if I stopped using it.

Why Robo I though you were still carrying on a hedonistic lifestyle of wine, women and song?:)

[bootlen]

You've heard of dihydrogen monoxide (dhmo) haven't you?

http://www.dhmo.org/
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment.

This is some serious stuff!

It really is some mean stuff. It's a pretty decent degreaser. But it appears naturally, usually with some warning but no warning as top the specific location of its appearing. I've been caught by it on many occasions. Seems that what triggers its sudden appearance is my freshly washed vehicle.

[bootlen]

My last vestige of living dangerously is my daily exposure to Dihydrogen Monoxide.

And for this, the world is eternally grateful.:p

[RoBoTeq]

Why Robo I though you were still carrying on a hedonistic lifestyle of wine, women and song?:)
Two of which are mostly comprised of Dihydrogene Monoxide...duh!

[bootlen]

Two of which are mostly comprised of Dihydrogene Monoxide...duh!

You old dhmo imbiber, you!

[mrs reb77]

I'm addicted to dhmo during the day but, in the evening I like to relax with a form that has some barley and hops brewed into it. Get's my veggies that way.

[tunnel_rat]

That's what I always thought. You got pure mountain water, grains, some good stuff, just like breakfast oughta be......;)

[forged alloy]

I thought Al was kind of a silly distraction, till I did my daily shuffle through the drudge report..

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx

He tied the recent cyclone tragedy into his global warming gig. Hard to imagine with up to 50,000 people dead, unburied, and the survivors living in conditions I can't imagine. And all he see's is an opportunity to advance his agenda.

Sweet guy. What a piece of........work.

[mrs reb77]

Global warming probably caused the catastrophic tsunami a few years back also. Couldn't have been an earthquake, I mean, that's just silly...;)

[air311]

Global warming probably caused the catastrophic tsunami a few years back also. Couldn't have been an earthquake, I mean, that's just silly...;)

See..global warming causes the ocean level to rise, so that's why the tsunami was so bad..geez woman, thought you'd know that :p

[scrogdog]

See..global warming causes the ocean level to rise, so that's why the tsunami was so bad..geez woman, thought you'd know that :p

With all due respect, Air, it is no wonder to me why you eat all of this rhetoric up so completely. You are seeming the type to read the paper and believe whatever. I suggest reading SCIENCE sources for such information since what you have stated above is *completely* false.

The problem with rising sea levels has nothing to do with storms. What it would effect is coastal erosion and damage to coastal habitats.

It is heat itself (as in the ocean's surface temperature) that fuels storms. Did you know that the surface temperature must be at least 80 degrees for a storm to even form? The warmer the surface temperature, the greater the intensity of the storm. That's why storms can both gain and lose intensity as they travel - they move over different ocean surface temperatures.

Here's a suggestion for you - get informed! Instead of believing everything the alarmist IPCC would have you believe, try a few science journals and the like. :)

Case in point; hurricane predictions for the past couple of years have been off on the good side. Less hurricanes than expected. So, if we are getting so warm (again, the warmest year is still 1998) what is your explanation of this seeming phenomena in the face of alarmist hooey? :)

[forged alloy]

With all due respect, Air, it is no wonder to me why you eat all of this rhetoric up so completely. You are seeming the type to read the paper and believe whatever. I suggest reading SCIENCE sources for such information since what you have stated above is *completely* false.

The problem with rising sea levels has nothing to do with storms. What it would effect is coastal erosion and damage to coastal habitats.

It is heat itself (as in the ocean's surface temperature) that fuels storms. Did you know that the surface temperature must be at least 80 degrees for a storm to even form? The warmer the surface temperature, the greater the intensity of the storm. That's why storms can both gain and lose intensity as they travel - they move over different ocean surface temperatures.

Here's a suggestion for you - get informed! Instead of believing everything the alarmist IPCC would have you believe, try a few science journals and the like. :)

Case in point; hurricane predictions for the past couple of years have been off on the good side. Less hurricanes than expected. So, if we are getting so warm (again, the warmest year is still 1998) what is your explanation of this seeming phenomena in the face of alarmist hooey? :)

I think my democratic friend Air was just being facetious with his comment :D

[scrogdog]

My bad, anyway. I thought, for some reason, that Mrs. Reb was talking about storms, not tsunamis.

Let me pull an Emily Litella retraction.

Never mind! :)

[mrs reb77]

He ain't a democrat, he's a commie! But yes, facetious he was surely being. He's like that....

[bootlen]

He ain't a democrat, he's a commie!

Ya gotta admit...these days, it's hard to tell the diff.:eek:

[justinhvac]

I don't know a lot about this stuff, but to me it seems that just because the Earth is getting colder doesn't mean there isn't "global warming." I thought the Earth naturally grows through phases of cold and warmth, due to many factors, like the sun's phases. So the Earth would be going through these phases no matter what we do.

However, that wouldn't mean we aren't affecting the cycle in some way, whether it be pollution, deforestation, whatever. We could be shifting the trend to warmer than it should be. So it won't get as cold as it should in the cold phases, and it will get hotter than it should in the warm phases.

I'm not saying there is or isn't global warming, just that it doesn't make sense to me to say a cold period disproves global warming. I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me. :D Personally, I think we are having an effect on the Earth with the way we live, but it's not the big problem environmentalists make it out to be. There are much bigger issues. People kill themselves with food, inactivity, smoking, etc and then they worry about a small shift in the temperature. :confused:

[air311]

With all due respect, Air, it is no wonder to me why you eat all of this rhetoric up so completely. You are seeming the type to read the paper and believe whatever. I suggest reading SCIENCE sources for such information since what you have stated above is *completely* false.

The problem with rising sea levels has nothing to do with storms. What it would effect is coastal erosion and damage to coastal habitats.

It is heat itself (as in the ocean's surface temperature) that fuels storms. Did you know that the surface temperature must be at least 80 degrees for a storm to even form? The warmer the surface temperature, the greater the intensity of the storm. That's why storms can both gain and lose intensity as they travel - they move over different ocean surface temperatures.

Here's a suggestion for you - get informed! Instead of believing everything the alarmist IPCC would have you believe, try a few science journals and the like. :)

Case in point; hurricane predictions for the past couple of years have been off on the good side. Less hurricanes than expected. So, if we are getting so warm (again, the warmest year is still 1998) what is your explanation of this seeming phenomena in the face of alarmist hooey? :)

Um yeah...it's called "sarcasm".