Timeline for Is there any experiment to prove that CO2 with the atmosphere concentration can have greenhouse effect?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 16, 2017 at 22:25 | comment | added | Mark | @CharlieJiang - Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, I suggest that you write up your findings regarding the role of CO2 in global warming and submit the paper for publication. | |
| Sep 16, 2017 at 19:02 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | @ Jan Doggen Your analogy did not make a sense and you don't want me to point it out. You greatly exaggerated the role of CO2. | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 30, 2016 at 22:33 | comment | added | D J Sims | That experiment has nothing to do with the question | |
| Mar 9, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | Luaan | @CharlieJiang So what? Who exactly is arguing that increased CO2 levels are bad for life? Even your question makes no such claim. The main issues people have with global warming is (1) it's a change (which is ridiculous - nature means change, just get over it), (2) there may be significant consequences we didn't predict, (3) a lot of humans will have to move. In any case, the root of your argument doesn't make any sense anyway - the pre-oxygen atmosphere allowed the anaerobic life of the time flourish too, but that doesn't mean we'd want an atmosphere without oxygen, does it? | |
| Feb 17, 2016 at 15:56 | history | edited | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a note on atmospheric column measurements.
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 15:18 | comment | added | Jan Doggen | @CharlieJiang Do you want to understand or do you just want to argue? Attacking an analogy (drinking water; which is there to make the main explanation more understandable) is only 'trying to score a point'. This method of arguing is called a strawman fallacy. | |
| Feb 16, 2016 at 8:20 | history | edited | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo fix
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 8:11 | history | edited | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Expanded significantly and added answers to comments.
|
| Feb 16, 2016 at 5:24 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Charlie Jiang: Certainly I can and do deny it. There is a geological carbon cycle, in which (over millions of years) CO2 is added from e.g. volcanos, and removed as fossil 'fuels' and carbonate rocks. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 13:01 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | You can theorize any way you like, but you can not deny that those co2 was in the atmosphere in earth history and earth animals and plants flourished. | |
| Feb 14, 2016 at 5:16 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Charlie Jiang: if you're going to ignore the proof once it's presented, why even bother to ask? As for your claim re dinosaurs' time, 1) It's wrong - lots of fossil fuel deposits were laid down long before the dinosaurs; and 2) Life forms existing today have had at least 65 million years to evolve away from their ancestors that flourished in that atmosphere. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 20:00 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | If there is a such positive feedback exist without other negative feed backs, the earth will get warmer without co2 contribution. All co2 released from fossil fuel was in the atmosphere during the dinosaurs time. If co2 release from all fossil fuel, it will restore the dinosaurs time atmosphere status. As I said before, they are all theories. I had enough of them. Unless you have prove, save the effort. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 19:42 | comment | added | Charlie Jiang | If a person cut his water intake in half, he will get sick before he can get fatter. | |
| Feb 13, 2016 at 17:26 | history | edited | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added a missing word.
|
| Feb 13, 2016 at 16:41 | history | answered | Pont | CC BY-SA 3.0 |