# Post the Experiment



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

Ok all of you lefty wanna-bee's let's see the experiment that shows adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually increases temperatures.  I have Herr Koch 1901 as my experiment that hasn't seen a challenge yet.  Over one hundred years and still no challenge.  I think that means he wins!!!!

"The arguments do sound good, so good that in fact they helped to suppress research on the greenhouse effect for half a century. In 1900, shortly after Svante Arrhenius published his pathbreaking argument that our use of fossil fuels will eventually warm the planet, another scientist, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant, Herr J. Koch, to do a simple experiment. He sent infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide, containing somewhat less gas in total then would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. That’s not much, since the concentration in air is only a few hundred parts per million. Herr Koch did his experiments in a 30cm long tube, though 250cm would have been closer to the right length to use to represent the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Herr Koch reported that when he cut the amount of gas in the tube by one-third, the amount of radiation that got through scarcely changed."

Anything other than an experiment and it is off topic


----------



## mamooth (Feb 19, 2015)

jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.

That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.
> 
> That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.


And yet no experiment.  I created this thread for one reason, to prove you have not one experiment.  And the lack of an experiment will mean you admit defeat!!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 19, 2015)

The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.


I will look it over tomorrow. thanks, I'm intrigued to read it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 19, 2015)

"Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.* He concluded that among the constituents of the atmosphere, water vapor is the strongest absorber of radiant heat and is therefore the most important gas controlling Earth's surface temperature.* He said, without water vapor, the Earth's surface would be "held fast in the iron grip of frost." *He later speculated on how fluctuations in water vapor and carbon dioxide could be related to climate change.*"

Tyndall's 1885 experiment in no way invalidated Herr Koch's experiment. Tyndall himself stated he was speculating on the potential ramifications as "the activities of specific gases and their interactions with each other can not be determined".   Even Tyndall knew that water vapor was the 800 pound gorilla in the room and yet today's scientists ignore water vapor.

Old Crock is picking and choosing words which seem to validate his stance on Anthropogenic Global Warming while ignoring the points which lay it waste.. Tyndall was measuring the warming of the gas while Herr Koch was measuring the warming of the surfaces below and evaluating the bandpass and reflection. This is akin to comparing  apples and oranges....

Source


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.


Old Rocks, sorry, I've been a busy guy today.  I did some research, but unclear which experiment exactly you were referring to .  I found this one and read this one today JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from this though, seemed he was building up a way to perform the experiment but was still unclear his work was relevant.

let me know if you can or can't get the link.  I'm having an issue with it on my side, but i clicked it and it worked.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 20, 2015)

That is the experiment. What it did was establish that CO2, CH4, NOx, and water vapor are GHGs. They absorb energy from long wave infrared, and that energy heats the atmosphere. The question answered at that time was why the Earth's oceans were not frozen down to the equator. Because of the albedo of the earth, and the amount of radiation  the earth emits, the energy balance worked out in the 1820's by Fourier and other scientists of the time, it should be much colder.

Since then, with much better equipment, the absorption spectrum of the GHGs has been refined.This site from the American Institute of Physics, and gives the history of the research into this subject.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> That is the experiment. What it did was establish that CO2, CH4, NOx, and water vapor are GHGs. They absorb energy from long wave infrared, and that energy heats the atmosphere. The question answered at that time was why the Earth's oceans were not frozen down to the equator. Because of the albedo of the earth, and the amount of radiation  the earth emits, the energy balance worked out in the 1820's by Fourier and other scientists of the time, it should be much colder.
> 
> Since then, with much better equipment, the absorption spectrum of the GHGs has been refined.This site from the American Institute of Physics, and gives the history of the research into this subject.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect



I agree with that assessment, the problem with it is it doesn't go into how much each gas could absorb.  I believe reading it, he was attempting to figure that out but results were confusing him. (my interpretation of his comments).  I believe he expected further generations to build on his efforts.  The closest one I can find is Herr Koch's 1901 experiment, and as of today, still haven't seen another on the internet.  Your new link is the one that actually shows Herr Koch's.  The problem I have with the findings after in that article, is no one ever does another making the supposed corrections complained about.  Therefore, I deduce they couldn't produce any different result.  And that, and only that, gives me confidence there is no rebuttal experiment around. Otherwise, someone would be pasting that all over this forum with as many times that it has been requested.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2015)

Another day and another day without an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 23, 2015)

jc, watching you spam your religious cult's crazy mythology is rather boring. Nobody but you and fellow cult fruitloops Frank and Billy care about it a bit. So what's the point of it?

We get it already. Your strange primitive cult claims the last century of physics is all wrong. Well, good luck with that. You and Frank and Billy should get together, write a paper and claim your Nobel prize. Or, you can just keep howling conspiracy theories on message boards. Either way, you're just comic relief.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, watching you spam your religious cult's crazy mythology is rather boring. Nobody but you and fellow cult fruitloops Frank and Billy care about it a bit. So what's the point of it?
> 
> We get it already. Your strange primitive cult claims the last century of physics is all wrong. Well, good luck with that. You and Frank and Billy should get together, write a paper and claim your Nobel prize. Or, you can just keep howling conspiracy theories on message boards. Either way, you're just comic relief.


The point of it is to prove the lies you present are just that, lies.  Not so much you, you never provide much except for mumbo jumbo. And I just love stating the mumbo jumbo aspect of your posts.  You act like you know all this science stuff and you know nothing.  You know less than me.


----------



## elektra (Feb 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.


Tyndall? Tyndall rode in a carriage drawn by a horse, this is the 21st century old crock. 

Tydall's conclusions were also based on the, "ether". I think it was Einstein who kind of ended the idea of an"ether"


----------



## elektra (Feb 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, watching you spam your religious cult's crazy mythology is rather boring. Nobody but you and fellow cult fruitloops Frank and Billy care about it a bit. So what's the point of it?
> 
> We get it already. Your strange primitive cult claims the last century of physics is all wrong. Well, good luck with that. You and Frank and Billy should get together, write a paper and claim your Nobel prize. Or, you can just keep howling conspiracy theories on message boards. Either way, you're just comic relief.


Primitive as in Tyndall and the Ether.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 24, 2015)

Not quite a week, but still no posted experiment other than Tyndall 1885, which is explained here.  Still waiting.


----------



## IanC (Feb 25, 2015)

It would be a lot easier for the skeptical side to post up the dozens of fake/ or faulty video experiments that serve only as propaganda for CAGW. Eg Mythbusters  or the ludicrously fake Gore/Bye fiasco.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2015)

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

Well, here is the latest modern experiment, and it validates everything the scientists have said.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 25, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Well, here is the latest modern experiment, and it validates everything the scientists have said.



Nope!  this one is a hope and poke by Berkly Earth Sciences...

The paper shows a mere 0.2W/M^2 of solar retention in the DWLWIR spectrum *per decade*. Given the error bars this is clearly within the Margin of Error and statistically insignificant.

It is the equivalent of 2W/M^2 in over 100 years or 0.23 deg C in rise.  A far cry from the original predictions of 3.7 deg C per 100 years that the IPCC first propagandized and far below even the most recent levels of warming expected by all modeling... The Correlation is extremely weak and omits other causes of the rise...

The more I study this paper the more I see it was merely window dressing for the upcoming IPCC conference.  BEST is going to be very unhappy if they are forced to retract this paper as major flaws are apparent.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2015)

Yah sure, Wilson, you study that paper. Like you even have the least ability to understand it.,


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 25, 2015)

So you are predicting a retraction? Going to remind you of that in the coming months.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> It would be a lot easier for the skeptical side to post up the dozens of fake/ or faulty video experiments that serve only as propaganda for CAGW. Eg Mythbusters  or the ludicrously fake Gore/Bye fiasco.


nice idea Ian.  I'll see if I can find them in the other threads and post them.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Well, here is the latest modern experiment, and it validates everything the scientists have said.


thanks old rocks.  There is the other thread for this one.  I will monitor that one for any updates from our side.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2015)

Mythbuster youtube CO2 Experiment.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air - YouTube" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2015)

So, jc, you believe the Mythbusters video is fraudulent?  Given the confirmation the Lawrence Berkely in situ experiments have provided, why would fraud be necessary?


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> So, jc, you believe the Mythbusters video is fraudulent?  Given the confirmation the Lawrence Berkely in situ experiments have provided, why would fraud be necessary?




The fraud (eg. 200 times atmospheric CO2) is necessary to get a visual response. A 120 ppm change would not make a noticeable change.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 1, 2015)

The fraud would be claiming the experiment used 7% CO2.

Deniers, why do you all keep pushing that fraud?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The fraud would be claiming the experiment used 7% CO2.
> 
> Deniers, why do you all keep pushing that fraud?



Why do clueless morons post drivel that they can not support with facts?   The Spectrophotometer clearly showed they were placing 7.23% of total atmosphere into the boxes. That is 200 times current atmospheric levels and would represent 72,300ppm.  Any fool could throw up a light and aim it at those boxes and get warming, and they did.


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2015)

The narrative clearly said they were reproducing atmospheric conditions and never said "this is a shot of the gauge is a measure of the CO2 level in the boxes.  There were other shots that showed a level of zero.  Perhaps that was what was in the boxes.  Your view would be termed "cherry picking.

You clueless moron.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> The narrative clearly said they were reproducing atmospheric conditions and never said "this is a shot of the gauge is a measure of the CO2 level in the boxes.  There were other shots that showed a level of zero.  Perhaps that was what was in the boxes.  Your view would be termed "cherry picking.
> 
> You clueless moron.



LOL.. Even their web site says 7% of atmosphere.... Epic FAIL...


----------



## Crick (Mar 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The narrative clearly said they were reproducing atmospheric conditions and never said "this is a shot of the gauge is a measure of the CO2 level in the boxes.  There were other shots that showed a level of zero.  Perhaps that was what was in the boxes.  Your view would be termed "cherry picking.
> ...



Let's see a link


----------



## IanC (Mar 2, 2015)

someone should ask M Gupta on facebook about the mythbusters experiment.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 2, 2015)

Crick and Mantooth, you're the ones who don't believe the 7%, go ask M. Gupta on Facebook and post back here.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

another week and still no experiment. The new forum tact by the warmers is create new threads with nothing in them except to explain their denials. Sweet.


----------



## Crick (Mar 9, 2015)

The one and only tactic of this particular denier is to simply continue to lie.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 9, 2015)

Crick said:


> The one and only tactic of this particular denier is to simply continue to lie.


yep, prove that you and yours lie.  Like the lack of an experiment.  yessiree bob.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 11, 2015)

Crick said:


> *The one and only tactic of this particular denier* is to simply continue to lie.



WOW...  Self Admission....  You just might start coming around soon.. The first step is to admit you have a problem..  Congrats on taking the first step!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 12, 2015)

And still no experiment


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2015)

And still no experiment.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 13, 2015)

jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.

And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.
> 
> And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.



Mamfool still hasn't posted the experiment and the relevant data and methods...  Where is the experiment? Yet you call other people stupid when it is you that is stupid and a fool...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.
> 
> And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.


Did you post an experiment? I'm the OP you fool. How can I spam my own thread when you haven't even addressed the op? Fool it seems you are the spammer!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2015)

Tuesday and there are still:


----------



## jc456 (Mar 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, stop spamming. That's against the board rules.
> 
> And while lying is not against board rules, you should stop doing that as well, just out of decency.


yo tooth, have you got that experiment yet?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Tuesday and there are still:
> 
> View attachment 38027View attachment 38028


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2015)

Yes, you can spam your own thread.  

God are you stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Yes, you can spam your own thread.
> 
> God are you stupid.



And without knowing exactly how each gas responds in our OPEN atmosphere all these posts are irrelevant ,as they do not explain why any GHG holds or reflects heat nor do they explain why water vapor will null all of CO2's potential warming through the convection cycle.  A bunch of nice pictures but no context. One big heap of garbage devoid of context.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.
> 
> That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.



^ No experiment posted


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2015)

The results of numerous experiments posted.  Apparently not everyone equipped with sufficient intelligence to recognize the facts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> The results of numerous experiments posted.  Apparently not everyone equipped with sufficient intelligence to recognize the facts.



Specific science designed to show what trace gases can do in a closed lab environment, every single one of them..  Still no context or proof to show how the earths complex atmosphere works however...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

Crick said:


> Yes, you can spam your own thread.
> 
> God are you stupid.



and not one chart addresses the OP

Amazing


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> The experiment was done in 1858, by John Tyndall. And has been supported by every similiar experiment since then. That you are a silly liar is self evident.



tyndell tested 120PPM of CO2?

Are you sure???


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm?  The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm.  Why do you insist on that amount?  Could it be because you don't really want an answer?  You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not.  Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?.  Does that mean anything to you?


----------



## depotoo (Mar 28, 2015)

Data results based on faulty models and manipulated data.





mamooth said:


> jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.
> 
> That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm?  The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm.  Why do you insist on that amount?  Could it be because you don't really want an answer?  You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not.  Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?.  Does that mean anything to you?



Equipment today is far more sensitive than in Tyndall's time when they thought phrenology was real science.

Why don't you show us the lab work that tests for temperature increase from 300 to 400PPM CO2?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

We have.  Just as we've shown you work from 120 ppm.  Why don't you answer the question.  Why do you (or jc, or whoever started this thread) want to see 120 ppm?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you think 120 ppm would behave in a qualitatively different manner than would 100 ppm or 200 ppm?  The human-added CO2 only recently reached 120 ppm.  Why do you insist on that amount?  Could it be because you don't really want an answer?  You've already been shown numerous experiments and the results from many more but you and the rest of the deniers here continue to insist you have not.  Did you note that the last absorption spectra I posted yesterday was scaled in W/m^2?.  Does that mean anything to you?



You keep telling us that humans increased CO2 from 280 to 400, or are you denying that as well?


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Read more carefully.  Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.

Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2.  You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed.  You wanted temperature.  This is energy flux - even better.

BTW, if you think about it (and, gosh, I know you do), you'll realize temperature is worthless thing to ask for.  Any temperature change would depend on the amount and spectrum of impinging radiation and the rate of heat transfer out of the 'system' (energy in and energy out).  Neither of these are standardized scenarios.  There is a reason you can't find such data.

And, you'll have to admit, a reason you insisted on it.  You didn't know any better.


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you can spam your own thread.
> ...



God are you STUPID!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> We have.  Just as we've shown you work from 120 ppm.  Why don't you answer the question.  Why do you (or jc, or whoever started this thread) want to see 120 ppm?



Show it again.

None of your charts had a temperature axis with a CO2 axis


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Read more carefully.  Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
> 
> Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2.  You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed.  You wanted temperature.  This is energy flux - even better.
> 
> ...


Too funny, you ask us why we choose 120 ppm and then agree that you arguing 280 to 400. Too too funny! What a boob


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Read more carefully.  Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
> 
> Again, did you note that the last of the spectra I posted above was scaled in W/m^2.  You and jc have both complained that gas spectra were typically scaled in percent absorbed.  You wanted temperature.  This is energy flux - even better.
> 
> ...



Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?

There are only two possible answers: a number between 0 and infinity or you're just a quack Cultist


----------



## SSDD (Mar 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can you answer the following question: Using the chart(s) you provided, what is the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increase from 280 to 400 PPM?



He obviously thinks that absorption and emission equals warming...somehow he made that illogical jump and you just can't remove, by logic an idea that isn't the result of logical thinking.

I asked one of the wackos a while back to explain why, in the face of mankind's CO2 increasing 350% since the beginning of this century, why the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 continues along at 2.1ppm per year just like it has since we started measuring. 

Clearly, our contributions aren't even enough to alter the natural variation from year to year in natural CO2 emission.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 28, 2015)

So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.

First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.

Second, as CO2 levels go up, the CO2 going into the ocean goes up. Basic science of the carbon sinks. And since it's basic science, we can count on SSDD to fail completely at it, and then cite his hilarious failure as proof the science is wrong.

So, why'd you come back, SSDD? Did you, in some sick way, miss all the humiliation that you'd so richly earn every day?

In any case, while you're here, you may as well enjoy the servicing Frank supplies, being that's his only talent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
> 
> First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
> 
> ...



^ No experiment

No answer to the question "How much of a temperature increase is caused by a 120PPM increase in CO2


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
> 
> First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
> 
> ...



Do you consider Stephen Hawking a "Relativity Denier"?

Is General Relativity "Settled Science"?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And Crick shows his total ignorance on the subject..  I am not surprised.
Tell me Crick, Natural variation can be attributed to 100% of all warming for the last 150 years. Not CO2 in any fashion.. IN fact the last 20 years have been net zero in rise while CO2 continued to rise. In your world that should have maintained the same rise in temp but there has been a total divergence/decoupling of any correlation.  

The only stupid one is you, You cant even look objectively at the charts you posted.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So in other words, SSDD sucks hard at this aspect of the science as well.
> 
> First, the atmospheric CO2 increase has not been constant. It's been accelerating.
> 
> ...


So there you are again fool. See following us. Fool!


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Read more carefully.  Yes; 280 to 400 required 120 ppm of human-added CO2.
> ...



God are you STUPID!  And apparently irredeemably so.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

Thinking about it tonight, the warmers simply throw out the logarithmic characteristics of CO2. They believe that 120ppm added CO2 Is twice as dangerous than the existing 280 ppm already approaching saturation. Now I ask who are the deniers?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Crick that includes you.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 28, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yes, just as predicted you're a liar, a moron and a AGW Jihadists

The answer should be a number, not an insult


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 29, 2015)

Crick outed as a liar again

shocking

All those charts and none can tell us how much of a temperature increase is cause by a fixed quantity in a closed container

That's not "science"


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2015)

It would be helpful if you even had some rough idea of how much basic science you do not possess.

As to calling me a liar for posting facts you do not understand, shove your head up your ass and jump.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Thinking about it tonight, the warmers simply throw out the logarithmic characteristics of CO2. They believe that 120ppm added CO2 Is twice as dangerous than the existing 280 ppm already approaching saturation. Now I ask who are the deniers?


288ppm is considered saturation in earths atmosphere by real scientists.  They understand our convection cycle will render all further potential warming mute.  One study being conducted today at Boulder Co is the taking of CO2 samples before and trailing rain storms. Preliminary tests show humidity above 40% drops CO2 concentrations rapidly (10-20% locally) and rain can decrease airborne fraction by 50%. A very small rise in atmospheric water vapor renders CO2 mute, a stark contrast to the CAGW meme and their beliefs that it would cause runnaway green house effects in an open atmosphere. It shows that not only will it not cause a greenhouse effect it has directly the opposite effect by removing CO2 from our atmosphere and reducing its potential effect to near zero.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2015)

Crick said:


> It would be helpful if you even had some rough idea of how much basic science you do not possess.
> 
> As to calling me a liar for posting facts you do not understand, shove your head up your ass and jump.


He is not the one who doesn't understand what it is he is posting.. You are..


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2015)

Billy, we understand you're an open fraud. That's why you never back up your bullshit. Being your kook cult just makes it all up, there's literally nothing backing it up.

It's also why you're always totally wrong about every single thing. Just how many years is it now that you've been predicting a catastrophic cooling?

And Frank, if you think your question can be answered by a number, you're too stupid to be bothering the grownups. Nobody with a 3-digit-IQ thinks your question makes any sense. All the normal people just laugh at it. It's like asking "What color is 5"?

If flat-earthers went crying on a message board about how mean the round-earthers were, they wouldn't look any less stupid. Same with deniers. Crying about how mean the rational people are for laughing at stupid denier claims doesn't make deniers look any less stupid. It does, however, make them look wimpier.


----------



## elektra (Mar 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy, we understand you're an open fraud. That's why you never back up your bullshit. Being your kook cult just makes it all up, there's literally nothing backing it up.
> 
> It's also why you're always totally wrong about every single thing. Just how many years is it now that you've been predicting a catastrophic cooling?
> 
> ...


Another scientific point by maMOOT.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Billy, we understand you're an open fraud. That's why you never back up your bullshit. Being your kook cult just makes it all up, there's literally nothing backing it up.
> 
> It's also why you're always totally wrong about every single thing. Just how many years is it now that you've been predicting a catastrophic cooling?
> 
> ...


So no number, no experiment, no proofs just a big old trust us. Uh, NO!


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2015)

So jc, elektra, Frank, what color do you think "5" is?

Again, your question is senseless.

And you're all to freakin' stupid to understand that.

And that's hilarious.

Now cry some for us. Here we are now, entertain us.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2015)

mamooth said:


> So jc, elektra, Frank, what color do you think "5" is?
> 
> Again, your question is senseless.
> 
> ...


Dude/ dudette, we all know you know absolutely nothing. A discussion by you is useless and we've learned that.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2015)

Hey tooth, how about a summary! LOL


----------



## IanC (Mar 30, 2015)

I think that the fact that we dont have a publicized experiment showing temperature effects from small to large increases in CO2 concentration probably means the results are less than spectacular. I find it hard to believe that no university lab that already has most of the equipment to stage such an experiment hasnt applied for the 500 grand to pull it off.

instead we are stuck with outright fraud from Gore/Nye, or misdirection and exaggeration from Mythbusters.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Well a few more weeks have past and still no experiment.  So skooks, more WINNING my friend!!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 21, 2015)

If the experiment existed, the AGWCult would have posted it.

This leads us to conclude that the lab is  cruel to their stupid "theory"

Is the lab a "denier!!!" (Denier is a cult word, never used by real scientists)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 21, 2015)

Crick said:


> It would be helpful if you even had some rough idea of how much basic science you do not possess.
> 
> As to calling me a liar for posting facts you do not understand, shove your head up your ass and jump.



I call you a liar because that's what you are.

A fraud and a liar, a jihadist member of a sick death worshiping cult.

I've asked you to show the relationship between CO2 and temperature and you show charts with no temperature axis, which tells me you're a liar, for claiming you successfully posted said chart, and a moron


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 21, 2015)

Why do global warming idiots lick Al Gore's ass so much? Do they think there's candy up there, or what?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2015)

Muhammed said:


> Why do global warming idiots lick Al Gore's ass so much? Do they think there's candy up there, or what?


hahhahaahahahahahaahahahhaahahahaaha oh crap that's funny!!!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 21, 2015)

Get back in your room, deniers. Nobody wants to see your circle jerks out in public. It's gross.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 21, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Get back in your room, deniers. Nobody wants to see your circle jerks out in public. It's gross.


You sound like a climategate denier.

Most climategate deniers are weak-minded people whose egos are too fragile for them they to admit that they were fooled into being terrified by global warming scaremongers.


----------



## Crick (Apr 22, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It would be helpful if you even had some rough idea of how much basic science you do not possess.
> ...




With "Agrees" from jc456, BillyBoy and Political Chic.  So we have four people - one of whom claims to be working on a doctorate in meteorology - who demand an experiment showing how CO2 causes heating of the atmosphere.  But when shown the absorption spectra of CO2: spectral radiance vs wavelength, insist they have not been given what they demanded.  Billy Boy, why don't you explain the problem to one of your professors and ask him if he knows how to get the information out of me.


----------



## IanC (Apr 22, 2015)

I added myself to the list. I think you are a liar too.


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

What lie do you believe I have told you Ian?


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> What lie do you believe I have told you Ian?




I believe you know exactly what I am talking about. I dont think you flat out lie so often that you forget them when you do, and then get caught.


----------



## Crick (Apr 23, 2015)

I don't lie Ian, so I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about.  I make mistakes, like all of us.  I admit those mistakes, like very few people here.

If you've accused me of lying without good reason to believe I have done so... well, that would make YOU something less than honest.  If you have some reason to think so, but don't want to spell it out, don't blame us if we don't believe you.  You're call.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Well, I'm not asking for that exactly. I'm referring to surface warming not atmospheric warming.


----------



## IanC (Apr 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




yup. a few years ago it was all about surface warming from the near 50% of CO2 radiation being bounced back. and then 50% of that, and 50%......  1 + 1/2 +1/4 +1/8....= 2  . CO2 had magically doubled the energy and was going to fry us all. you dont hear that too much anymore. where is konrad?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


*Now Ian, you are engaged in lying. No, not going to fry us, going to make things a bit unpleasant.*

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag




Figure 3. Monthly March ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 2.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image




Figure 4. The plot shows Arctic air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level in degrees Celsius for March 2015. Yellows and reds indicate higher than average temperatures; blues and purples indicate lower than average temperatures. 

Credit: NSIDC courtesy NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division
High-resolution image

*This is what is the proof of the experiment that we are at present conducting on this planet. *


----------



## jc456 (Apr 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Hahahaha dude the stupid bugs bit you


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Crick the moron...

Correlation does not mean causation...  Just because a hypothesis can be shown in a lab experiment does not mean it will react in the same way in an OPEN atmosphere and OPEN system. Again please provide more than speculative correlation with proof.  Surely you can do that..


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





graphs are funny things. they can say a lot but they can also imply things that arent really there.






has arctic sea ice extent dropped from the high point in 1979? yes, both the average max and min have declined.. does this graph look like a death spiral? no. it would look even less like one with the extra four years of data added.


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2015)

Do you deny Arctic ice extents are dropping?  Do you deny Arctic ice mass is dropping?  And it is doing so most dramatically during the period you folks keep telling us proves that global warming has ended and that (your buddies say) CO2 has no effect on temperature.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> Do you deny Arctic ice extents are dropping?  Do you deny Arctic ice mass is dropping?  And it is doing so most dramatically during the period you folks keep telling us proves that global warming has ended and that (your buddies say) CO2 has no effect on temperature.





hahahaha, crick is at it again. he implies that I deny arctic ice extent is dropping but he neglects to quote what I said.



> has arctic sea ice extent dropped from the high point in 1979? yes, both the average max and min have declined.. does this graph look like a death spiral? no. it would look even less like one with the extra four years of data added.



he finds it easier to argue with strawmen that only exist in his fevered imagination.


and if we had full satellite coverage from 1974 instead of 1979 then it would show an upturn before the downturn







graph from IPCC FAR


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Well now, Ian, were you to average out that graph, and then do a best fit curve, that curve would not be linear, it would be a curve downward, in other word, a curve with increasing tangental slope down, in effect, a death spiral. 

When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free - Overland - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?
James E. Overland1 and Muyin Wang2
Received 27 December 2012; revised 21 February 2013; accepted 1 March 2013; published 21 May 2013.
[1] The observed rapid loss of thick multiyear sea ice over the last 7 years and the September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49% relative to the 1979–2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice-free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are as follows: (1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, (2) assuming several
more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and (3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice-free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 203010 years, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and
citations support the conclusion that most global climate model results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two. Citation: Overland, J. E., and M. Wang (2013), When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice
free?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2097–2101, doi:10.1002/grl.50316.


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> graph from IPCC FAR



FAR = FIRST Assesment Report, released in 1990, TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO.

AR5 = FIFTH Assessment Report, released in 2013






and


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2015)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you deny Arctic ice extents are dropping?  Do you deny Arctic ice mass is dropping?  And it is doing so most dramatically during the period you folks keep telling us proves that global warming has ended and that (your buddies say) CO2 has no effect on temperature.
> ...


Your anamoly on that graph is about -1.5 for 1992. On this graph it is less than -1. 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

I would have to state that what you have presented in your graph is a severe case of cherry picking. For you did not include the last twenty years, which the graph that I have posted does. And since 2003, even that the graph in the link has a lower zero line, no year has gone into the plus category, and two have dipped below -2.5. 

If you wish credibility, present data that is up to date, when the question concerns decline or increase over time.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2015)

Old Rocks-  






that graph is not a death spiral. it is a repeating cycle with a range larger than the changes in min and max. 

we havent even gone through a full cycle of ocean indexes.


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




dont be shy, show your graph






another graph that is certainly not a death spiral


----------



## IanC (Apr 24, 2015)

actual data? or a reanalysis using a climate model?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2015)

Ice melt is caused by soot from China and India


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Ice melt is caused by soot from China and India



Then your freezer, being thoroughly protected from Chinese and Indian soot,  may be unplugged without anything getting warm and melting.  Right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2015)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Ice melt is caused by soot from China and India
> ...



My models show the freezer remains at 20 F


----------



## Crick (Apr 24, 2015)

You brought up the real world.  I carried on in your wake.  This was one of those real world experiments you've always wanted to see.

The point - the obvious one that you failed to see - is that soot does cause some melting.  So do increased temperatures.  And, for that matter, where does most soot come from?  Most of it comes from people burning coal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2015)

Im still trying to figure out how the CO2 Glacier Eating  Spaghetti Monster managed to unplug my refrigerator


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

He did it by outwitting you.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Your model matchs miy model. How interesting!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> You brought up the real world.  I carried on in your wake.  This was one of those real world experiments you've always wanted to see.
> 
> The point - the obvious one that you failed to see - is that soot does cause some melting.  So do increased temperatures.  And, for that matter, where does most soot come from?  Most of it comes from people burning coal.


You are really hold onto stupid don't you?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> He did it by outwitting you.


Now co2 is a he. Holy crap


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

Frank described 'him' as " the CO2 Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Frank described 'him' as " the CO2 Glacier Eating Spaghetti Monster".


Oh,ok, so it is a spaghetti monster! Hmmmmmm. Btw, sure it isn't a she?


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

I haven't the faintest idea.  You'd have to ask Frank.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest idea.  You'd have to ask Frank.


Nppe, you tagged it.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

While we're here, have you tried asking anyone to explain to you what Watts per Square Meter means?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> While we're here, have you tried asking anyone to explain to you what Watts per Square Meter means?


Relevance?


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

You might be able to stop complaining that graphs scaled in percent radiance don't contain information regarding thermal.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> You might be able to stop complaining that graphs scaled in percent radiance don't contain information regarding thermal.


But they don't. They are only a statistical point. No thermal at all.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

What is a "statistical point"?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> What is a "statistical point"?


Look it up
BTW, You need to provide a reference point.

It then provides a reference to what the point signifies. Called temperature


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

The reference point would be 100% of the incoming solar radiance.


----------



## Crick (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> What is a "statistical point"?





jc456 said:


> Look it up



I checked two encyclopedias and six dictionaries.  There were no listings in any of them for "statistical point".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What is a "statistical point"?
> ...


I knew you were lacking in logic try statistical then see what it says the word is ... An adjective. Heard of that ? The point is a data point on a graph for this use. Put them together and what do you get, a comparison data point. Not thermal at all.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> The reference point would be 100% of the incoming solar radiance.


So it isn't a measure of temperature?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> You might be able to stop complaining that graphs scaled in percent radiance don't contain information regarding thermal.


Because they do not.  Watts/Meter^2 is a term designed to measure energy. Joules is the definition of that energy's ability to perform work and create heat in relation to its mass and composition.

It is really ignorant to point at people and make fun of them when you dont even understand what it is your talking about.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 25, 2015)

Crick said:


> The reference point would be 100% of the incoming solar radiance.



You really dont have a clue about how or where it is measured do you..


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 25, 2015)

Getting back to the OP, all that Herr Koch and Tyndall did was show that the CO2 was very good at blocking some IR. Neither knew that the absorption was due to elastic collisions of photons tuned to the vibration modes of the GHGs.

The Myth Busters experiment was not not realistic, but not for the reason you said. The percentage of CO2 they used was too low. If you consider the CO2 in the atmosphere at 400 ppm there is a bit of mass of it above us. The total weight of air above us is about 14.7 lb per sq in. The molar mass of CO2 is about 1.5 times the molar mass of air. So the CO2 part of it above us would be .0004 x 1.5 x 14.7 lb. = .009 pounds per in^2.

The weight of a cubic foot of air is .0807 lbs. The Myth Busters used a 3 foot box. If you do the arithmetic you will find the weight of a 36x1x1 section of air is .0017 lb. Since the Myth Busters used 7.23% CO2, the mass in that same section would be .0017 x 1.5 x .0723 = .000184 lbs. That is quite a bit lower than the .009 lb per in^2 that is in the atmosphere.

In fact it is easy to calculate that at 7.23% CO2 the Myth Busters used what is equivalent to 544 feet of atmosphere rather than the dozens of miles. Furthermore, to be more accurate the sides of the boxes should have been more insulated and the front of the boxes should have been close to absolute zero temperature. But that would be way too expensive.

The one thing that was under their control that they did not do was to shine the bright light from above and have the dark background at the bottom of the box. The convection part of the experiment was all wrong. What happened in their experiment is that as the black background at the rear of the experiment warmed, the heat would rise *parallel* to the background and allow colder air to replace it from below. On earth thermal convection is *perpendicular* to the earth. My guess is that the eddy currents of thermal convection in the Myth Busters setup would have been much stronger than perpendicular eddy currents like those on earth.

In summary I think the Myth Buster experiment was an understatement of the actual heating compared to conditions found on earth. No, they did not tell us how much effect an additional 120 ppm would have, but it was interesting it what it did show. I don't think it would be possible to design a definitive experiment confined in a lab.


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Getting back to the OP, all that Herr Koch and Tyndall did was show that the CO2 was very good at blocking some IR. Neither knew that the absorption was due to elastic collisions of photons tuned to the vibration modes of the GHGs.
> 
> The Myth Busters experiment was not not realistic, but not for the reason you said. The percentage of CO2 they used was too low. If you consider the CO2 in the atmosphere at 400 ppm there is a bit of mass of it above us. The total weight of air above us is about 14.7 lb per sq in. The molar mass of CO2 is about 1.5 times the molar mass of air. So the CO2 part of it above us would be .0004 x 1.5 x 14.7 lb. = .009 pounds per in^2.
> 
> ...




hahahahaha. one of the more eclectic descriptions of the MythBusters experiment that I have heard. dont forget that the control would also have to have a massively increased CO2 density by your method.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Getting back to the OP, all that Herr Koch and Tyndall did was show that the CO2 was very good at blocking some IR. Neither knew that the absorption was due to elastic collisions of photons tuned to the vibration modes of the GHGs.
> 
> The Myth Busters experiment was not not realistic, but not for the reason you said. The percentage of CO2 they used was too low. If you consider the CO2 in the atmosphere at 400 ppm there is a bit of mass of it above us. The total weight of air above us is about 14.7 lb per sq in. The molar mass of CO2 is about 1.5 times the molar mass of air. So the CO2 part of it above us would be .0004 x 1.5 x 14.7 lb. = .009 pounds per in^2.
> 
> ...



Two major failings in your assessment...

First, The concentration is in total height of the vapor column. you would compress the amount of gas in the total column and place this in the box? They already had 7,000ppm within the box. 10,000 times greater than the current saturation.

Second, The improper heat application and lack of offsetting cold with thermal convection makes the rise they did see roughly 10 times greater than it should have been.  

Both of these situations give an extreemly false (positive) upward bias.  Your assessment that the experiment gave to low a temperature rise is patently false and misleading.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> hahahahaha. one of the more eclectic descriptions of the MythBusters experiment that I have heard.


Thank you.


IanC said:


> dont forget that the control would also have to have a massively increased CO2 density by your method.


I didn't see a clear description of the control. My assumption is that the control had no GHG at all. Basically what they showed is that the GHGs acted as a "blanket". The only physical interpretation that I could see is that the blanket is caused by back radiation, although they did not explicitly say that.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> First, The concentration is in total height of the vapor column. you would compress the amount of gas in the total column and place this in the box? .


Of course not. A better experiment (still not ideal at all) would be to have a much longer box, but vertically oriented. If the concentration were too high inelastic interactions with the IR would confuse the result.


Billy_Bob said:


> They already had 7,000ppm within the box. 10,000 times greater than the current saturation.


??? More like 72,000ppm which is 180 times current estimates of 400ppm.


Billy_Bob said:


> Second, The improper heat application and lack of offsetting cold with thermal convection makes the rise they did see roughly 10 times greater than it should have been.


That doesn't make any sense. Where do you get a factor of 10?  In their experiment the convection current would rise at the back and be replaced by cooler air from the bottom. The cooler air would creep across the floor front to back. The hotter air would fall from the ceiling to the floor near the front of the box. It would be a very efficient circular pattern of convection.
If the light source were at the top and the absorption at the bottom, the rising warm air and falling cool air passing each other would form a more chaotic convection path. I think that would more effectively preserve the heat at the bottom.


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2015)

I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there. the controls were standard air, they added massive amounts of CO2 and methane far beyond what is naturally present.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there.


That's right. I think Billy is doing that. 


IanC said:


> the controls were standard air, they added massive amounts of CO2 and methane far beyond what is naturally present.


Yes the added GHGs were larger in percentage but smaller in total projected cross-section. So the experiment is unrealistic both ways in quantifying atmospheric physics. However I think that it does demonstrate qualitative aspects. Those who don't believe in back-radiation at all will have a hard time explaining the results unless they resort to unsubstantiated bold claims (like SSDD)


----------



## IanC (Apr 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think we can read into the MB experiment what isnt there.
> ...




I have repeatedly called for a realistic experiment using actual natural numbers. The temp increase would be small but present. Unfortunately all we have are experiments like this that compare at 200:1. And most of the others are outright fraud, like Gore/Bye.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


As I said before I don't think a realistic experiment is possible. It would require a very tall box cooled to liquid helium temperatures at the top with the sides of the box having a low specific heat and highly insulated

I don't think using an increased percentage is unnatural if the total cross-section of CO2 matches the atmospheric column.

I have not seen the other experiment.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Even an experiment like you suggest would fail empirical review as it can not replicate the cross winds and the upward convection cycle through differing densities of atmosphere.  We might get an idea of what is possible but without the other natural processes acting (Coriolis effect and convection) we will simply be getting a very rudimentary number.

The Bill Nye experiment done with Al Gore was extremely bad.  they cut the tape and had to redo the experiment many times as it failed each time. They ultimately falsified it to obtain the desired result. Its what i would expect from a person who has no clue about Coriolis rotation and placing a southern hemisphere cyclone in the norther hemisphere on the front of his book.  Fabrication is his modis operandi.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Even an experiment like you suggest would fail empirical review as it can not replicate the cross winds and the upward convection cycle through differing densities of atmosphere. We might get an idea of what is possible but without the other natural processes acting (Coriolis effect and convection) we will simply be getting a very rudimentary number.


Exactly. However when scientists are studying a specific concept, they want to isolate that concept from other influences. The idea of the experiment is to understand the contribution of CO2 to the picture, not to generate and simulate the entire atmosphere. I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations of the type of experiment you would like to see. As I said earlier the type of experiment you describe is virtually impossible. 


Billy_Bob said:


> The Bill Nye experiment done with Al Gore was extremely bad....


Do you have a link to that experiment? I would like to see it for entertainment purposes.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 26, 2015)

Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That 

The commentary and the video are hilarious..


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That
> 
> The commentary and the video are hilarious..


I wouldn't call that Gore's or Nye's experiment. I bet it was done by a video company with lots of props, toy trains, toy factories and misc. file footage, and yes, a fake experiment. Nye furnished the voice over. That was Nye's failure, and he should be soundly condemned for sanctioning that experiment and implying that “you can replicate this experiment yourself.” 

I didn't see any mention of them redoing the experiment many times. Where did you get that.
I didn't see anywhere that Al Gore was involved. Where did that come from?

It is too bad that there are zealots on both sides of the controversy. They confuse the public. Here are some laughable comments from the other side.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that “_CO2 is 3% of the total atmosphere.”... “Human activity contributes 3% of that 3%._ “

John Boehner said in 2009
“_The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide_.” 

Ironically he calls it comical when he is the inadvertent comic. Who said CO2 is a carcinogen? I think he is referring to cow farts when he says, “when they do what they do”. Maybe Boehner's farts are CO2, but a cows is methane.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 26, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here is the story----->> Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment Watts Up With That
> ...



Both Boehner and Backmann are technically correct when taken in full  context.  Funny how you took the misdirection and purposeful misinterpretation of their comments as factual.

Bachmann is absolutely correct with her assessment of the earths atmospherics composition and mans contribution. 






As to Bohner's comments it pays to understand what he was talking about. Cattle like humans do emit CO2. Cattle also emit a large amounts of other gases just like humans do when they eat vegetable matter. You seemed to gloss over these points calling these people pointless and uneducated.  

These are Jr High school and Alyinsky tactics. Just as you failed to read the links to Nye's experiment and the reproduction that Gore fabricated. The article I linked to showed definitive proof that Nye lied and that Gore followed suit as well.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 26, 2015)

The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.

Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Both Boehner and Backmann are technically correct when taken in full context.


I looked at the full context of their speeches. They were both quite off base. 


Billy_Bob said:


> Bachmann is absolutely correct with her assessment of the earths atmospherics composition and mans contribution.


Bachmann clearly said, _"The carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of the total atmosphere thats in the Earth. So if you take a pie chart, and you have all of Earths atmosphere, carbon dioxide is perhaps three percent of that total."_

Do you believe that? Everyone else believes that it is 0.4%. Your picture says something different. It says CO2 is 3.62% of the greenhouse gases, not 3% of the total atmosphere.
Both you and Bachmann are confused about percentages.



Billy_Bob said:


> As to Bohner's comments it pays to understand what he was talking about. Cattle like humans do emit CO2. Cattle also emit a large amounts of other gases just like humans do when they eat vegetable matter.



I understand, but I don't think you or Bohner does. Who ever said CO2 is a carcinogen? He is putting words in the mouths of AGW. A strawman. I think he is referring to cow farts when he says, “when they do what they do” he thinks cows fart CO2, not methane


Billy_Bob said:


> You seemed to gloss over these points calling these people pointless and uneducated.


Where did I ever call them that? They are ignorant of the science, but that does not mean pointless or uneducated.


Billy_Bob said:


> These are Jr High school and Alyinsky tactics. Just as you failed to read the links to Nye's experiment and the reproduction that Gore fabricated. The article I linked to showed definitive proof that Nye lied and that Gore followed suit as well.


If you reread my post you would see that I said Nye _"should be soundly condemned for sanctioning that experiment.._." So why are you criticizing me when I agree with you.
I really don't understand where you are coming from. You misunderstood almost every thing I posted, and criticize me for things that I did not say.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.
> 
> Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.


I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say. There was a chart in the movie that had 7% on it, but there was no verbal mention.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The Mythbusters experiment did not add 7% CO2.
> 
> Anyone who says it did should simply be laughed out of the room, as such Alinsky devotees can't be taken seriously.


even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.


I hope you are not referring to me. In my previous post I said _"I have no idea what percentage they used. They didn't clearly say._" I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > even someone on your side agrees with the 7%, so give it up dude/dudette. you're still losing.
> ...


yep you.  why did you assume 7% then?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Please reread my reply. I said,
"_I only assumed 7% in my analysis to illustrate that CO2 level was still not enough to emulate the actual atmospheric content._"
I was assuming a worse case scenario. If I assumed a lower percentage that would have made the experiment even more convincing.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


but why did you write 7%?  Because it said so on the screen right?


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> but why did you write 7%? Because it said so on the screen right?


It was a fleeting glimpse of a piece of paper, but there was no mention of that being the actual percentage used. I used it because I knew there would be no controversy in assuming that number and no distracting arguments about the actual percentage.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 27, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but why did you write 7%? Because it said so on the screen right?
> ...


however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%.  That's why I asked.  And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make.  It is what is showing.  One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was.  Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.


I'm sure it was measured, and they should have explicitly said what it was. It seems that they probably fed it 7% which is higher than the atmosphere in density, but only equivalent to only about 500 feet in altitude. So it's not all that much for the purposes they were after - a demo.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 27, 2015)

The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.

Obviously, jc is not honest.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 27, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.
> 
> Obviously, jc is not honest.


Thanks, that makes me honest. I only used 7% so the current argument wouldn't happen. It seems that I was right in predicting that.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > however on the screen shot shown in the video you can see 7%. That's why I asked. And it is why those who have viewed the video from the skeptics viewpoint, make the statement they make. It is what is showing. One can summize that they are feeding many times the CO2 than the atmosphere would ever see. But one won't ever know because the CO2 wasn't measured to show what the PPM actually was. Seems sort of simple thing to do, yet avoided.
> ...




The Myth busters brought in measuring devices for some reason. CO2 was being measured somewhere and it was decreasing. Luke what would happen in a non airtight box after it received a bolus of additional CO2. There wasn't any mention of constructing controls with no CO2 therefore I think we can assume the control was at standard CO2 concentration and the CO2 box was increased, apparently in the vicinity of 200 times. 

Using CO2 which has been doubled at least seven times to get 1C increase doesn't leave me impressed actually.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.
> 
> Obviously, jc is not honest.


I did nut job.  reread my post dude/ dudette.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


ding, ding, ding, ding


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The 7% was a screenshot of what was probably a calibration. Anyone who says they know the experment used that value is lying. An honest person would say they're not sure.
> ...


it is truly funny that you missed that and just happened to pick that exact number.  hmmmmmmm


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

It is a shame that Mythbusters didn't explain what they ere doing more thoroughly, and even worse that they refused to answer questions after the airing of the show.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You have no basis for any assumption about leakage. Since the box was heating up and increasing internal pressure, any leakage would be out to the room not into the box. Outward leakage would preserve the percentage of the gases inside the box. 

As I said many times the 7%  CO2 is only equivalent to around 500 feet of atmosphere. To me the experiment was a demonstration that backscatter can have an effect of "blanketing". You are trying to make it more than it was intended.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Why is that funny? That was the number being bandied about.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.


I think we have a disconnect.
I don't know what you mean by start and end point. You mean of the experiment?
What was being doubled? I presume you mean density of CO2, but it still doesn't make sense to me what you are referring to. 
An increase in pressure would not be visible in the video. It will happen because gases expand under heat and cause leakage out of the box. What mechanism would cause the mixture to change?
What makes you think there was a downward trend during the experiment. That glimpse of a piece of paper? Who knows what that was for. Maybe a calibration run? Maybe the director wanted something interesting to show rather than a straight line?  Who knows?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth and criticize them. I simply don't understand your points.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.


I think it was. If you want to skim through this thread and find you are right, I will cede to you.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The relevant measurement is 200x CO2. It does not matter what the start and end points are, only the doublings. The increase in pressure due to thermal expansion was not evident in the video therefore I am reasonably certain that leakage and transfer were taking place as evidenced by the downward trend over time on the measuring equipment.
> ...




Sorry if my start and end point comment was confusing. It is the relative change in CO2 that counts. 10 vs 2000, 100 vs 20,000, or 400 vs 80,000. All involve doubling CO2 7+ times.

The experiment didn't show puffed out plastic sides to indicate air tight.

The CO2 monitor was shown twice. Both instances showed decreases, and there was a larger decrease between the first and second appearance. Whatever it was measuring was constantly decreasing. If it was not the experiment itself, what was it?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't think it was out the first time you posted it.
> ...


doesn't matter, was just the answer to your question. i originally thought you pulled it out of thin air. if not, oh well.  It was funny at the time.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Sorry if my start and end point comment was confusing. It is the relative change in CO2 that counts. 10 vs 2000, 100 vs 20,000, or 400 vs 80,000. All involve doubling CO2 7+ times.



I suppose so, but all I assume is that the one box had 7% CO2 and the control had .04%, which would be indistinguishable from 0% in this experiment. So the control is effectively zero.



IanC said:


> The experiment didn't show puffed out plastic sides to indicate air tight.



Maybe I was being too terse. The increased temperature in the boxes would cause the air to either expand in volume or to increase in pressure or both, because of the ideal gas law,

Pressure x volume = nR x Temperature.

My assumption is that the box was leaky so the gas would expand and leak out of cracks. The sides wouldn't bow. If the air leaks out, the relative ratio of CO2 to air would remain invariant inside the box. The outside air does not leak into the box which is good otherwise the CO2 would be diluted.



IanC said:


> The CO2 monitor was shown twice. Both instances showed decreases, and there was a larger decrease between the first and second appearance. Whatever it was measuring was constantly decreasing. If it was not the experiment itself, what was it?



OK. I had to go back and look at the video. There was a shot of a monitor at 1:31 that looked like a spectrogram, another at 1:34 that was chaotic, and another at 1:36. That showed a clear 7.351% as a number which seemed to be a title of the graph. Why would that be so clearly spelled out if it were an axis of the graph. To me it implied the axes were something else.

The horizontal axis was labeled, 9,950 10,000 10,050 etc. It did not start from zero.

There is no reason to assume that the vertical axis started from zero either. The legend seemed to be truncated because the blurry numbers did not seem to be complete.

In the same shot at 1:36 there is a partial graph that is increasing. At 1:39 we see that it's the same shot of the upper part of the monitor. It is clearly increasing. The title is CH4 = 8.118 ppm.

Because of the ambiguity of the graphs, the zero points, CO2 graph decreasing and the methane graph increasing I do not draw any conclusions from them. I don't see how anyone possibly can even reliably guess.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

I haven't looked at the video in months but I know it showed the CO2 level twice. The first time long enough to see the numbers going down, the second time with a number lower than the first appearance. 

If you are arguing that their experiment is crap, I agree with you. If you are arguing that the instrument measuring CO2 was not showing deceasing values I disagree with you.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> I haven't looked at the video in months but I know it showed the CO2 level twice. The first time long enough to see the numbers going down, the second time with a number lower than the first appearance.
> 
> If you are arguing that their experiment is crap, I agree with you. If you are arguing that the instrument measuring CO2 was not showing deceasing values I disagree with you.


Perhaps it would be wiser to look at the graphs again and keep the graphs open while you read my post. Then your observations would more interesting. My post should have made no sense to you if you didn't have the graphs in front of you rather than a vague vision in your mind. Note that one graph went up and the other went down. Note the graph titles and the ambiguity of the axis grid values. Please tell me what you see as the grid labeled values, both horizontal and vertical.

The experiment was not crap but successfully demonstrated that CO2 and CH4 form a sort of "blanketing" effect. That is they are GHGs. It did not show all the vagaries of atmospheric physics nor was it expected to.


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

Did the CO2 number not drop on the screen the first time it was shown, and was the number not lower still when they cut back to it? That's what I distinctly remember.

If you are saying that using 200x the CO2, 7+ doubling, and possibly more, is indicative of a change of 120 ppm in the range of 400 ppm then I call bullshit. It reminds me of a peer reviewed paper that blamed CO2 for obesity using two data points, 400 ppm and 10,000 ppm, with no intermediate data.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> Did the CO2 number not drop on the screen the first time it was shown, and was the number not lower still when they cut back to it? That's what I distinctly remember.
> 
> If you are saying that using 200x the CO2, 7+ doubling, and possibly more, is indicative of a change of 120 ppm in the range of 400 ppm then I call bullshit. It reminds me of a peer reviewed paper that blamed CO2 for obesity using two data points, 400 ppm and 10,000 ppm, with no intermediate data.


Where did I say that? Let me tell you again. The experiment did not show anything quantitative about atmospheric physics. Let me quote myself:


Wuwei said:


> [the experiment] successfully demonstrated that CO2 and CH4 form a sort of "blanketing" effect. That is they are GHGs. It did not show all the vagaries of atmospheric physics nor was it expected to.


The experiment showed that boxes with the two GHGs got about 1 deg C hotter than the two boxes without. Do you disagree?


----------



## IanC (Apr 28, 2015)

It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase. 

Why didn't they produce an experiment with a 100% increase, one doubling?  I can tell you why. They wouldn't have got a noticeable result.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 28, 2015)

IanC said:


> It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase.
> 
> Why didn't they produce an experiment with a 100% increase, one doubling?  I can tell you why. They wouldn't have got a noticeable result.


Yeah, thats probably right with an experiment so small compared to the hundred miles of atmosphere. At least they showed what GHGs do.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 29, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It is a big stretch to compare a 40% increase to a 20,000% increase.
> ...



Deception is not  a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab.  So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere.  Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.


----------



## Wuwei (Apr 29, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Deception is not a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab. So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere. Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.


That is common knowledge. Your points have been addressed in the previous 18 pages of posts in this thread.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures.  none, nada, zilch!!!


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. none, nada, zilch!!!


Are you still chasing your tail? We went through all that before. That experiment is impossible because  it would have to be miles high with a pressure decreasing to a vacuum at the top of the experiment. Also the top of the experiment must be at liquid helium temperatures, 4 deg above absolute zero.

There is no controversy between legitimate scientists - warmers or deniers - about the physical properties of CO2. Most legitimate denier scientists, including Spencer already believe that CO2 acts as a GHG.

Scientists are not interested in proving that any further. If you and others with little scientific knowledge want to deny that science, you are going to have to find a convincing experiment yourselves to attempt to prove your point. 

So, still no experiment jc? none? nada? zilch? You have got to get moving on this.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > bump, and still today May 5, 2015, still no experiment, 120 PPM of CO2 drives temperatures. none, nada, zilch!!!
> ...


nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment.  Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here.  See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it.  CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2.  Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2015)

jc456 said:


> nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!



The logarithmic aspect has been covered before in post #626 in the thread Science denialism .....

I will repeat it here.
Near the end of an absorber is where the CO2 can overcome the logarithmic saturation effect and escape. That happens at the top of the atmosphere.

If you want to relate an experiment to atmospheric physics you really have to realize that equilibrium requires that the warmth of the earth be radiated largely by what's at the TOA, which is affected by everything on down. Since CO2, CH4, H2O, etc saturate very easily, *the only way the GHGs allow radiation to escape to space is where it becomes thin enough so that the logarithmic relation does not completely block it. That is very high in the atmosphere where it is very cold. The Stefan Boltzman law does not allow much radiation to escape. That cold radiation is what causes the GHGs to become a good blanket.*

If you put more CO2 or other GHGs in the atmosphere the density becomes richer, and pushes the mean TOA radiation point to higher and colder levels. The colder levels along with the Stefan-Boltzman law is what causes less radiation to escape with an increased level of CO2. That in turn causes a warmer earth.

That is why I earlier said you need a very tall experiment with liquid helium temperatures at the top of the column.
The concept is not obvious. It is covered in more detail at
Simple Models of Climate
It is essential to understand that article if you want to argue the science. Simply saying that CO2 saturates does not address what is actually happening.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!
> ...


so where is the hot spot in the upper atmosphere?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 6, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > nah, that's ok, still waiting on that experiment. Just cause you say so isn't good for anyone here. See, no one doubts GHG, it is the impact to the atmosphere at question and since the world believes adding 120 PPM of CO2 since the industrial age began and we're all doomed due to it, can just prove it. CO2 is logarithmic, so, once it's full it's full and adding does nothing to the power of CO2. Now you wish to argue that? Prove it!
> ...


Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence.  Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified.  It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 6, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Deception is not a good thing.. The levels of CO2 used by mythbusters were so high that our earth hasn't had them in over several hundred million years. The thing about the Null Hypothesis is it still shows you are wrong even with a supported hypothesis from a lab. So a lab experiment might show minor warming but the same levels in our atmosphere might show no warming or have the opposite effect as we are seeing with CO2 in our atmosphere. Empirical evidence says our hypothesis is wrong, The Null Hypothesis simply reinforces the failure.
> ...



Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything..  And your circular logic is a fools errand.


----------



## Wuwei (May 6, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.





Billy_Bob said:


> Your hypothesis has failed... CO2 is NOT driving anything.. And your circular logic is a fools errand.


What are you talking about?
1. What I posted is not my theory nor hypothesis.
2. A tropospheric hot spot was never mentioned at all in the article I cited.
3. You are blaming me for something that is totally outside of anything I said nor believe.
4. I don't believe everything in climate models.
My gosh you guys are so edgy and testy. Go snap at somebody else.


----------



## jc456 (May 6, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.
> ...


Nice retreat!


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Nice retreat!


It was no retreat at all. You guys just made an ill-conceived assumption and made a stupid attack. 

As you know, "warmer" scientists are not concerned with proving anything about CO2 in the manner of the experiment you proposed in your OP. They have no reason to do it in their own mind. So, why don't "denier" scientists propose and attempt to do the experiment and demonstrate it's failure if the deniers feel so strongly about negative results?


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice retreat!
> ...


well we'll disagree with you ok?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your models fail. There is no mid tropospheric hot spot.. It does not exist by empirical evidence. Your whole theroy relies on this and it is shown falsified. It is rather amazing you pontificate the SKS crap and fail to recognize that it is you and your theroy which are false and irrelevant in our atmosphere.
> ...



What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice retreat!
> ...



Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!

Here on this board the mythbuster experiment was claimed to be a realistic change of GHGs instead 200 times reality. The show itself brought in a specialist to measure 'minute quantities'. Perhaps it was only misdirection and implication rather than outright lies but it was still dishonest.

The Gore/Nye experiment was an outright lie. Many other 'high school' experiments have been trotted out as proof of CO2's effect while implying they showing change at realistic increases.

Now you come along and say only an Earth sized experiment can produce the results. Why didn't you and your cohorts say that from the beginning instead of making us show your claims were bullshit?


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> well we'll disagree with you ok?


Sure. I won't hold it against you. But remember that the experiment is not possible and to continually bump up this thread is not constructive.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The hotspot was/is a prediction of climate models. It's not there. The Iris Effect in some form is the simplist explanation why it isn't. And that means the energy is gone not 'missing'.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...


You are still a bit testy. It seems that what you are saying is that the radiation at the TOA is* not* important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. That was the major point I recently made, and that point came from the reference I cited. Both warmer and denier scientists believe that point. If you want to despise the IPCC and warmer scientists for other things, so be it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well we'll disagree with you ok?
> ...



Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > What you posted is IPCC Bull Shit which is premised on the work of liars. THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION that has no business in science. They are charlatans and whores to the communist agenda, the green agenda, the centralized one world Government and Obama agenda...
> ...


TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!


Not my retreat. What retreat is that?


IanC said:


> Here on this board the mythbuster experiment was claimed to be a realistic change of GHGs instead 200 times reality. The show itself brought in a specialist to measure 'minute quantities'. Perhaps it was only misdirection and implication rather than outright lies but it was still dishonest.



Of course the mythbuster experiment was a lot of showmanship, with melting ice figures and a scientist brought in to illustrate legitimacy. To me what they showed is that CO2 and CH4 act as GHGs in the sense that they provide a “blanketing” effect. I agree that they didn't show anything that would “prove” what warmers believe in climate change. And yes it could easily lead the more scientifically naive to think that mythbusters did prove the warmer's stance of AGW. In short, what the mythbusters showed was what was already believed by warmer and denier scientists anyway: trivial properties of GHGs.



IanC said:


> The Gore/Nye experiment was an outright lie. Many other 'high school' experiments have been trotted out as proof of CO2's effect while implying they showing change at realistic increases.


I already said in a previous post that I thought the video that Nye narrated was staged. I never defended their experiment.


IanC said:


> Now you come along and say only an Earth sized experiment can produce the results. Why didn't you and your cohorts say that from the beginning instead of making us show your claims were bullshit?


*Now* I come along? I already had stated my above views many posts back. You keep reading things into my posts and criticizing me for them. Try to distinguish me from "my cohorts."


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.


Please explain how you think the experiment could be done in sections.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there is a retreat on the warmers part!
> ...




You remind me of all the so called 'honest' climate scientists that said nothing during the Mann fiasco and the climategate emails that proved the dishonesty. You do little to fix the misperceptions and then claim 'it wasn't me'.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Actually it is... Only an alarmist would not want his lie exposed. The experiment is possible, if done in sections. A simple box filled with CO2 is not.
> ...




Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.


I don't know where you are coming from. I have said nothing about your current concerns. Are you trying to provide a retort to what I posted? Are you still saying that the radiation at the TOA is not important in understanding what GHGs do in the atmosphere. Are you proposing that the experiment in question should include water vapor?


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Water vapour is not a well mixed gas. It takes the energy up to the cloud tops were it is released by precipitation due to the lapse rate.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> You remind me of all the so called 'honest' climate scientists that said nothing during the Mann fiasco and the climategate emails that proved the dishonesty. You do little to fix the misperceptions and then claim 'it wasn't me'.
> 
> The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.


Just how do I remind you of those people?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2015)

Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.


Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.


It is way too difficult to emulate that in a laboratory. As I said many times, heat loss from the earth is at the TOA where it is very cold and at a low pressure. If you have an easy lab experiment in mind that will emulate that, please describe it.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.
> ...




Why????

What will be the result? Zero to a rounding or measurement error. Do you believe that most laymen know that? Is it honest to let them believe that it would make a 'big' difference?


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


If you are talking about a 3 foot box, of course the result will be zero. At 400 ppm the penetration depth of CO2 resonant radiation in the atmosphere is 30 feet before it strikes another CO2 molecule. Good luck with hitting anything in a 3 ft box. Under those circumstances is it honest to pretend that a null result is what happens in the dozens of miles of earth atmosphere?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Their "theory" is that a 120PPM increase in CO2 over a 150 year period in an open system (Earth's atmosphere) is causing Manmade Global Warming Climate Change. We're offering them to show us how an INSTANTANEOUS increase of the same 120PPM in a CLOSED SYSTEM will raise temperature, and they won't show us an experiment.
> ...



So we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds afetr the Big Bang in a lab, but we can't test for a 120PPM difference in CO2 because that's "way too difficult"


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Get your facts straight. The extinction length for CO2 is 10 meters. At one meter more than 90% of the CO2 specific radiation has been absorbed.


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




As I have said before, the experiment has already been done many times. The results are so weak that no one would publicize them.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So we can replicate conditions a few nanoseconds afetr the Big Bang in a lab, but we can't test for a 120PPM difference in CO2 because that's "way too difficult"


If you can conceive an experiment that would reliably test what is happening in the earths atmosphere from bottom to top, then try to get funding I think you would find that way too difficult. Funding will have to come from a grant from an interested party. Oil companies, coal companies or the Koch brothers would be the best bet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > TOA measurements have increased yet CO2 has risen.. how do you explain away this paradox to your theroy? CO2 can not slow the water column and convection until it reaches about 46% of atmosphere. The earth has never seen this in billions of years.
> ...


CO2 is not an impediment to the convection cycle. It is in fact a thinning factor allowing faster convection rates. This is one reason that CO2 can not trap heat in our atmosphere. TOA measurements show that the heat is being released to space DESPITE a rise in CO2.  Showing by empirical evidence that CO2 is not a blanket covering the earth to keep it warm.  The heat is escaping DESPITE the rise in your coveted GHG CO2.  

Its simple Physics... Atmospheric physics..


----------



## IanC (May 7, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




CO2 impedes the free escape of 15 micron IR radiation. Especially at the surface boundary. Get over it because it's true. I won't even ask you to provide links that say otherwise because there is no doubt. This part of CO2 theory really is settled science.

As to your claim that CO2 is a lubricant, I would need a coherent physics explanation which I haven't seen you produce.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



15 microns at SURFACE LEVEL.  As you go higher in height the close proximity of CO2 becomes greater in distance allowing atmospheric water vapor to trap and emit that latent heat at higher altitude, through the convection cycle, effectively stopping the ability of CO2 to act as a thermal layer.  It is the interaction of a negative feedback.

CO2 can most certainly absorb and re-emit at 15 microns, it is the amount of space between molecules and what else is present that determines if it can act positively or negatively.

Near surface we have higher concentration of water vapor. Higher concentrations of CO2 near surface allow turning over of that near surface atmosphere to happen faster (radiative transfer). As CO2 is not well mixed in the height of the column (390ppm at surface, 300ppm at 1,500 feet, 195ppm at 5,000 feet, etc) the saturation of molecules will not allow interaction and trapping of heat. At just 30,000 feet the CO2 level is a mere 25-50 ppm.  As the CO2 levels increase in the air mass, turnover increases near surface and once the heat is past 10,000 feet there is virtually nothing that will stop its release back into space.

One of the major alarmist points about sever weather increasing is this rapid turnover in the lower troposphere. What they fail to understand is that once the heat is above the first cloud layers its gone.  No amount of increased CO2 will stop it. The lack of a mid point heat bubble indicates that the rise is not impeded in any way by CO2.  

The convection cycle is not impeded but it is most certainly enhanced near surface level due to thermal transfer.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well we'll disagree with you ok?
> ...


All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment.  If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim?  That is what I'm trying to highlight.  But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that.  One Thousand Experiments.  You come on here and say it ain't possible.  So somewhere the message is wrong.  You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad.  At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.

I'm personally tired of the use of words like; extreme. extraordinary and alarming rate, when factually speaking they know absolutely nothing other than the amount of CO2 has increased.  And, it was much much higher in history of the planet without any affects as the words indicate.  So, I ask, what is it folks who don't agree with the rant supposed to do?  I'll tell you, shout everywhere the lie.  And if no experiment can be produced or ran, then I call bullshit of epic proportion on all the warmers. oh and they can all kiss my ass.


----------



## Liminal (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.
> ...


As if you conducted an experiment of your own.


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2015)

Liminal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


nope, I never claimed any alarmist post about adding CO2 to the atmosphere.  Why should I, I have no fear of CO2.  It is the warmists on here. And they claimed to have a thousand experiments that prove that CO2 is bad.  I just ask for one.  still haven't seen one fit the bill yet.  So, you got one?


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


OK so it isn't 30 feet, it's 32.8 ft (=10 meters). (Were you making a joke?) Can you find a source for your 90% absorption at 1 meter? I don't seem to get that result.

According to the following graph, even at 10 meters CO2 still transmits about 85% which means it absorbs only 15%. It is only when the length is near 100 meters that the absorption approaches 90%. If that is true, it would not allow for a very realistic experiment in a 3 foot (=0.914 meters) box.


----------



## Wuwei (May 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment. If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim? That is what I'm trying to highlight. But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that. One Thousand Experiments. You come on here and say it ain't possible. So somewhere the message is wrong. You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad. At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.


There may be a lot of experiments that show the properties of CO2 absorption and scattering of certain IR wavelengths, but there there are few experiments such as the mythbusters  that show what CO2 does as far as temperatures changing. Even then their experiment doesn't show what is actually going on in the climate.


jc456 said:


> I'm personally tired of the use of words like; extreme. extraordinary and alarming rate, when factually speaking they know absolutely nothing other than the amount of CO2 has increased. And, it was much much higher in history of the planet without any affects as the words indicate. So, I ask, what is it folks who don't agree with the rant supposed to do? I'll tell you, shout everywhere the lie. And if no experiment can be produced or ran, then I call bullshit of epic proportion on all the warmers. oh and they can all kiss my ass.



I am also personally tired of the catastrophic dire warnings. But I try to keep rants and insults to a minimum. It does no good as far as convincing anyone on the borderline and only causes ranting back from the other side. Doing rants on this forum has the benefit of getting more "thank you" strokes from your friends but that's about it.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment. If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim? That is what I'm trying to highlight. But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that. One Thousand Experiments. You come on here and say it ain't possible. So somewhere the message is wrong. You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad. At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.
> ...


 yep.  Especially using the word denier.  Still not sure what that means.

I deny? I know that I deny nothing, so I never know who it is that reference is for. Perhaps themselves.

as for experimental value, one can show what will happen in an environment with incrementally adding CO2 in a box.  Sorry, I can't believe that isn't possible.  I think, there have been experiments and it doesn't prove the alarmists position at all.  So they sequester them.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2015)

Just to be fair, I use both terms, warmer and denier because both sides can be a bit too extreme. 

As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2015)

Wuwei said:


> Just to be fair, I use both terms, warmer and denier because both sides can be a bit too extreme.
> 
> As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know


well we'll just disagree on that.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)

bump!


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2015)




----------



## jc456 (May 29, 2015)

May 29 and still no experiment!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 7, 2015)

June 7, still no experiment


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 7, 2015)

jc456 said:


> June 7, still no experiment



You may want to post the year stamp  on this one.. 06-07-2015... Because it wont be forthcoming any time soon.. until they can quantify mans contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere with any certainty and the earths response it wont be possible.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2015)

06-15-2015, still no experiment with evidence of any man made gullable warming.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2015)

July 2, 2015, still no experiment and still no evidence of gullable warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2015)

Funny;  They wont post up the experiment or any verifiable/reproducible science facts yet somehow the science is magically settled..


----------



## mamooth (Jul 2, 2015)

Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.

HITRAN

That's been presented to jc before. He says those hundred papers don't count. Because he says so. He doesn't need any other reasons.

We've shown him many other experiments. jc says they all don't count. And never gives a reason. jc, along with Billy, just declare the last century of physics never happened, and they're sticking to that purely out of religious faith.

At this point, jc tends to run for cover by lying about the Koch experiment. Even his own source says he's full of shit, so jc pretends not to have seen that part of his source. This would be what jc always deliberately leaves out.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---

jc, discuss the science. It's not honest to present an argument, and then deliberately leave out the next paragraphs that show the fatal flaws of the argument. That sort of chronic dishonesty is why nobody outside of your cult gives you the time of day, and never will, no matter how often you lie about not being shown the experiments.

Now, if you'd like, we can go over again how you and Billy lied your asses off about the mythbusters experiment. Shameful indeed, your behavior there was. It's a wonder you're still willing to show your faces here.

Also, if you'd like, we could point out the staggering stupidity of asking for a quick lab experiment that instantly predicts the temperature change on earth over many decades. Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have someone understanding how stupid that demand is, so only the most brainless religious fanatics make that demand.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
> 
> HITRAN
> 
> ...


Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should? I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.

And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 3, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should?



Absolutely yes. The spectral absorption properties of CO2 are hard numbers that are well-defined.



> I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.



Which, again, is a stupid thing to ask for. It's like asking "show me the lab experiment that proves the ozone layer got thinner". An experiment in the lab can not exactly quantify what happens across the entire planet over many decades. An average third grader can understand such a simple concept. Since you can't, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your nonsense prattle.



> And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!



I just posted what disqualified it, and you refused to address it. That's what defines you, the way you always run from any data that shows how your science fails.

Here, I'll post it again, so you can run from it again.
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should?
> ...


so I see you still don't understand.  I see it is a comprehension issue. Temperature is everything, since your side states that 1 degree C is dangerous to earth climate.  Explain how it isn't?

And as for Koch, in your link, all they state is that he didn't do something.  There is no follow up experiment was there? Be honest here.

and then the abstract language you post up has one key word 'calculation' that destroys your entire argument.  Here:

"These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a *modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1%* — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false."

a calculation is not an experiment correct? Anyone can say anything, yet proving that point has yet to materialize.

And then there is:

"Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers."

Has this been proven in an experiment? Koch did prove it in his, the change did nothing.  It is the on going hypothesis of the argument and yet to be presented in an actual experiment.  In fact there are none.  zero, because it will disprove the claim and grant money lost.

So dude/dudette, you fail to make your argument yet again.


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2015)

Actually, for a change, the Pooh flinging monkey makes some good points.

I think he usually stays away from the science because he knows that the deeper you get into it the more uncertain the IPCC's case becomes.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> Actually, for a change, the Pooh flinging monkey makes some good points.
> 
> I think he usually stays away from the science because he knows that the deeper you get into it the more uncertain the IPCC's case becomes.


I think we've all conceded the one degree C doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, there is no proof it is catastrophic to have that one degree change or that more warming will occur. I'd like to see the experiment that would validate the point.


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2015)

GHGs fundamentally change atmospheric radiation and convection. They hold heat in at the surface but allow it to more easily escape at higher altitudes. The water cycle causes convection that is the basis of weather but also shuttles huge amounts of heat energy both aloft and towards the poles.

The IPCC has different definitions of TOA (top of atmosphere) depending on what calculations they are doing. I am not saying they are deliberately misdirecting, just that it makes it more difficult to follow their reasoning when the same word mean different things at different times.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> GHGs fundamentally change atmospheric radiation and convection. They hold heat in at the surface but allow it to more easily escape at higher altitudes. The water cycle causes convection that is the basis of weather but also shuttles huge amounts of heat energy both aloft and towards the poles.
> 
> The IPCC has different definitions of TOA (top of atmosphere) depending on what calculations they are doing. I am not saying they are deliberately misdirecting, just that it makes it more difficult to follow their reasoning when the same word mean different things at different times.


But there is no experiment to prove any of the argument on the warmer side. And they won't admit it. Therefore there is no evidence that catastrophe is headed our way


----------



## IanC (Jul 3, 2015)

There is definitely evidence that increased CO2 impedes energy loss at the surface by RADIATION. The big question is whether that energy is used in whole or in part to actually raise surface temps. I believe that at least some of it warms the surface but that much of it is shunted into different pathways. More, or differently timed cloud formation being the simplest effect. The Iris Effect. 

Ocean warming is also probable. It is know that the oceans are the biggest factor in overall temp and weather patterns. What I would like to know is this. The oceans are warming much slower than the atmosphere. If the oceans warm 0.2C but the atmosphere warms 2C or 4C, how long does this imbalance go on for? What is the balance point? Does 0.4C ocean warming equate to 4 or 8C? How about in the opposite direction? Most proxy reconstructions put ocean heat content at very low values right now compared to the rest of the interglacial. What is the relationship between ocean and air temps? What is the fulcrum point where air and ocean differences are equal? What is the 'right' temperature anyways?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2015)

IanC said:


> There is definitely evidence that increased CO2 impedes energy loss at the surface by RADIATION. The big question is whether that energy is used in whole or in part to actually raise surface temps. I believe that at least some of it warms the surface but that much of it is shunted into different pathways. More, or differently timed cloud formation being the simplest effect. The Iris Effect.
> 
> Ocean warming is also probable. It is know that the oceans are the biggest factor in overall temp and weather patterns. What I would like to know is this. The oceans are warming much slower than the atmosphere. If the oceans warm 0.2C but the atmosphere warms 2C or 4C, how long does this imbalance go on for? What is the balance point? Does 0.4C ocean warming equate to 4 or 8C? How about in the opposite direction? Most proxy reconstructions put ocean heat content at very low values right now compared to the rest of the interglacial. What is the relationship between ocean and air temps? What is the fulcrum point where air and ocean differences are equal? What is the 'right' temperature anyways?


And I will disagree there is back radiation.  And I'll wait on evidence on ocean temperatures driving land temperature. It will definitely drive weather patterns but cause increases, no. Just my position. 

I welcome any evidence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 3, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
> 
> HITRAN
> 
> ...



1).   HIGHTRAN models fail all empirical, real world, predictive review. FORTRAN and other two dimensional models can not predict 4 dimensions (some say there are 5) in a complex chaotic system.  Your models can not predict anything with any accuracy.

2)  Precision depends on the tools used.  Angstrom made serious assumptions for which he has no proof. The tools and math he used have error bars of 2% which show his assumptions to be within the margin of error.  Herr Koch was neither proven nor disproven by Angstrom.

3) Science requires that we ask for proof of the causation. I would like to point out the staggering stupidity of mantooth for not providing that which science and true scientists demand.

Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have some understanding how science works and demands it,  Only the most brainless religious fanatics would not make that demand. Only a fool would believe the AGW cult lies..


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
> 
> HITRAN
> 
> ...





Billy_Bob said:


> 1).   HIGHTRAN models fail all empirical, real world, predictive review.



That is utter nonsense.  From Wikipedia "HITRAN [not "HIGHTRAN"] is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum."



Billy_Bob said:


> FORTRAN and other two dimensional models can not predict 4 dimensions (some say there are 5) in a complex chaotic system.  Your models can not predict anything with any accuracy.



FORTRAN is a computer language.  HITRAN is a database.  It makes no predictions.  It specifies the calculations of absorption spectra for 47 different gases.  Your comments here only serve to indicate you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about.



Billy_Bob said:


> 2)  Precision depends on the tools used.  Angstrom made serious assumptions for which he has no proof.



He made assumptions that are not borne out by a fuller understanding of reality.  His assumption on the process of radiative transfer in the atmosphere was grossly oversimplified.



Billy_Bob said:


> The tools and math he used have error bars of 2% which show his assumptions to be within the margin of error.



No, they were not.  Koch could have found that all IR was absorbed in a fraction of an inch and it would have made no difference.  Transfer away from the Earth is controlled at ToA, not at the fucking surface.  Angstrom's whole viewpoint on how the system works WAS WRONG.



Billy_Bob said:


> Herr Koch was neither proven nor disproven by Angstrom.



Koch worked for Angstrom.  Are you thinking of Hurlburt?



Billy_Bob said:


> 3) Science requires that we ask for proof of the causation.



No, it does not.  It asks for testable evidence.  Nowhere does the scientific method require proof.



Billy_Bob said:


> I would like to point out the staggering stupidity of mantooth for not providing that which science and true scientists demand.



I would like to point out the staggering stupidity of Billy Bob and his belief that the scientific method mandates proof.



Billy_Bob said:


> Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have some understanding how science works and demands it



You'd think so, but Billy demonstrates it does not.



Billy_Bob said:


> Only the most brainless religious fanatics would not make that demand. Only a fool would believe the AGW cult lies..



Besides failing at a basic understanding of the scientific method, WHAT is Billy Boy talking about?  The measurements of gaseous absorption spectra, all available in the HITRAN database is a clear determination of the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs from the solar spectrum.  The experiment has been done many, many times.  So, what "prediction" is Billy Boy talking about?  And what causation does he think untested?  Does he think multiple experiments set up expressly to measure CO2's absorption spectra have somehow measured something altogether different?  Enlighten us Billy Boy, please.


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2015)

jc456 said:


> And I will disagree there is back radiation.



So... you believe the temperature of the surface of the Earth is, what, about 50,000K?  Higher?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > And I will disagree there is back radiation.
> ...


Did I write that? Hahahaha, so instead of giving what the temperature Is supposed to be you drag out some number and claim I stated it. You're such a liar.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
> ...


So, why didn't anyone rerun the KOCH's experiment with what they felt was in error?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 4, 2015)

Crick said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.
> ...



You really are a moron..  Please enlighten me as to how your two dimensional models can even half ass predict anything.  IT doesn't matter which model you use or which language it is written in. They all FAIL with 100% certainty.


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2015)

Do you know what a database is?

*HITRAN* - HITRAN (an acronym for *Hi*gh Resolution *Tran*smission) is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The original version was compiled by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960s). It is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA, USA.

HITRAN is the worldwide standard for calculating or simulating atmospheric molecular transmission and radiance from the microwave through ultraviolet region of the spectrum. The current version contains 47 molecular species along with their most significant isotopologues. These data are archived as a multitude of high-resolution line transitions. There are in addition many molecular species collected as cross-section data. These latter include anthropogenic introduced constituents in the atmosphere such as the chlorofluorocarbons.

The HITRAN *database *can be downloaded in its entirety from an FTP site at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. There is no charge for downloading the database, but access must be requested in advance by completing an online form. *An online tool for browsing and plotting the data called HITRAN on the Web is also provided*. This tool was developed by the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the V.E. Zuev Institute of Atmospheric Optics. The HITRAN data can also be accessed and downloaded from hitran.org.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 5, 2015)

That Air Force original research was done because the Air Force was trying to make missiles with IR seeker heads. There's no point in trying to detect IR in a frequency band that gets absorbed by the atmosphere, so the Air Force had to carefully quantify the absorption spectrum of each gas in the atmosphere. And they had to get it exactly right, or the missiles would not lock on to their target.

But according to Billy, all that science never happened. Or it was all faked. Or something. Because the Air Force is just all wrong when they pointed out CO2 absorbs IR.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That Air Force original research was done because the Air Force was trying to make missiles with IR seeker heads. There's no point in trying to detect IR in a frequency band that gets absorbed by the atmosphere, so the Air Force had to carefully quantify the absorption spectrum of each gas in the atmosphere. And they had to get it exactly right, or the missiles would not lock on to their target.
> 
> But according to Billy, all that science never happened. Or it was all faked. Or something. Because the Air Force is just all wrong when they pointed out CO2 absorbs IR.



Moron... CO2 can not do what you state. Empirical evidence shows that we should see just 1 deg C per doubling. The water response is NEGATIVE not a positive one. This is why we have seen just 0.47 deg C rise the last 115 years while we should have risen over 0.9 deg C with CO2 alone. There is no positive feed back loop. It doesn't matter how many times you try to lie about it, it wont change that fact.

Empirical evidence is not your friend. (this is probably why your side is lying about it and manufacturing a rise)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 6, 2015)

mamooth said:


> That Air Force original research was done because the Air Force was trying to make missiles with IR seeker heads. There's no point in trying to detect IR in a frequency band that gets absorbed by the atmosphere, so the Air Force had to carefully quantify the absorption spectrum of each gas in the atmosphere. And they had to get it exactly right, or the missiles would not lock on to their target.
> 
> But according to Billy, all that science never happened. Or it was all faked. Or something. Because the Air Force is just all wrong when they pointed out CO2 absorbs IR.





Crick said:


> Do you know what a database is?
> 
> *HITRAN* - HITRAN (an acronym for *Hi*gh Resolution *Tran*smission) is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The original version was compiled by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (1960s). It is maintained and developed at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge MA, USA.
> 
> ...



WOOOSH..........

Right over your dam head...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 6, 2015)

Billy, do you think melting down like this will make anyone forget that you were stupid enough to think a database was a model?


----------



## Crick (Jul 7, 2015)

I won't.  That was epic stupid.  Absolutely epic.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > That Air Force original research was done because the Air Force was trying to make missiles with IR seeker heads. There's no point in trying to detect IR in a frequency band that gets absorbed by the atmosphere, so the Air Force had to carefully quantify the absorption spectrum of each gas in the atmosphere. And they had to get it exactly right, or the missiles would not lock on to their target.
> ...


Doesn't surprise me it went over his head.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 11, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



A data base and programs which failed to show any proof of their CAGW theory..  Priceless..


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2015)

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.

There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye, exaggerated examples like Mythbusters, but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?

I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.
> 
> There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye, exaggerated examples like Mythbusters, but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?
> 
> I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.


Yes, and all they need to do is just admit it it's a simple statement to make "no there isn't an experiment." However, that would insinuate they have no evidence to support their claim. LOL


----------



## mamooth (Jul 11, 2015)

IanC said:


> It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface.



No, it should be impossible. Those who aren't profoundly stupid understand that. 



> I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'.



Did your voices tell you that as well?

Those who aren't effin' retards will point out that an experiment in a box can tell you nothing about the earth as a whole, being a box can't simulate the whole earth. Even the results of the experiment in a box will vary wildly depending on the box material, shape, heat source, and many other parameters.


----------



## IanC (Jul 11, 2015)

What a fucking troll!

Have we not been endlessly told how CO2 absorbs IR and warms the air, and hence the surface by reradiated IR?

Show us an experiment that quantifies the amount of increase from 280-400 ppm CO2. It doesn't have to illustrate every step of the way, just the first.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2015)

Increased what?  Temperature?  Of the planet?  Why don't you tell us how to set that up in a way you'd find acceptable Ian?


----------



## IanC (Jul 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> Increased what?  Temperature?  Of the planet?  Why don't you tell us how to set that up in a way you'd find acceptable Ian?




Really? You want me to say the same thing over and over again?

For the 10th time....

I want to see an experiment that shows the temperature increase from 280-400 ppm CO2 at standard surface conditions. 

One small piece of the puzzle. Not 100x, 1000x, or 10,000x present CO2 levels like most of the propaganda videos out now. (The ones that aren't outright fraud like Nye/Gore).

I know that CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. What I want the public to know is how small it is.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2015)

You're not reading me.  I want you to tell me how you would do that.  What is this experiment you think should be done that has not?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> You're not reading me.  I want you to tell me how you would do that.  What is this experiment you think should be done that has not?


The one that disproves Herr Koch's. For the hundredth time.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2015)

What of Herr Koch do you want to disprove and how would you set up an experiment to do so?


----------



## mamooth (Jul 12, 2015)

Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.

Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.

Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2015)

Crick said:


> What of Herr Koch do you want to disprove and how would you set up an experiment to do so?


Well, that CO2 is not logarithmic which I now know you have no clue about.

Well at least mantooth admitted it can't be disproved.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.
> 
> Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.
> 
> Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.


Well you at least took one step closer to the truth. I can't believe it.

And relevance is adding more CO2 doesn't increase temperatures. Now it's time for you to show what validates your claim on humans causing something called global warming.


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.
> 
> Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.
> 
> Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.



I am demanding an experiment that shows how little warming accrues from an increase of 280-400 ppm CO2. To offset the experiments that show moderate warming for HUGE increases. When they aren't absolute fakes like the Gore/Nye fiasco.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2015)

IanC said:


> It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.



Then you should have no problem describing it to us



IanC said:


> There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye



Al Gore and Bill Nye made a video demonstrating how to conduct a simple experiment illustrating CO2 absorbing IR.  That it was edited post production to produce a better video is irrelevant.  Do you believe CO2is a greenhouse gas Ian?  If so, what in that demonstration was "fraudulent"?



IanC said:


> exaggerated examples like Mythbusters



To conclude that Mythbusters was an exaggerated example, you would have to conclude that the brief clip of a gauge showing high CO2 levels was accidentally an accurate measure of the CO2 in the chambers while the statements specifically stating what levels were created (280 and 380 ppm) was a lie.  And, again, if you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and we have numerous examples of you stating that you do), what is fraudulent about an experiment which simply demonstrates that fact?



IanC said:


> but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?



It was far more a demonstration than an experiment, but that is almost precisely what the Mythbusters video displays.

[/quote]
I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment?  And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?


----------



## IanC (Jul 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.
> ...


I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment?  And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?[/QUOTE]


I will leave it up to you to search out and bump up any of my previous descriptions of how I think the experiments should be done. I am not going to do it again on your request.

Gore/Nye was blatant fraud.

Mythbusters was at best inconclusive. You say the 7% CO2 reading was measuring something else. I find that implausible. What was it measuring then?

I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.
> ...


I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment?  And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?[/QUOTE]
I think you really have an issue friend it is you claiming that 120 ppm of CO2 Will cause havoc or something to our environment so you know, for old time sake, let's just say you prove your hypothesis!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2015)

so to the crickster, where is it?  Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere?  Dude, you have suddenly been silent!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so to the crickster, where is it?  Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere?  Dude, you have suddenly been silent!



If they knew that they could give actual climate sensitivity to CO2 rather than constantly changing guesses.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> so to the crickster, where is it?  Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere?  Dude, you have suddenly been silent!


so crisckster has remained silent.  Doesn't have an answer.  Doesn't surprise me though.  When you don't have the facts, it's tough to discuss them.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.



Then, again, you should have no problem describing how this experiment would be done in a matter that YOU would find acceptable.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2015)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.
> ...


disprove Herr Koch's experiment.  Get the longer tube mentioned in the write up and repeat his experiment.  demonstrate the evilness of CO2 at 10 PPM.


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2015)

How is it that this could have been discussed as many times as it has been but you still seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the position of mainstream science with regards to Koch and Angstrom.  The only errors Koch made were caused by his relatively crude instrumentation.  The error of the whole thing - the point which mainstream science beginning with Hurlbert have refuted, was ANGSTROM's interpretation of Koch's results.  If atmospheric CO2 behaved as Angstrom thought it did, the surface of the Earth would be close to the temperature of the surface of the sun.  All of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be trapped in the first few meters while more and more solar radiation poured in.  Does that sound like the reality with which you're familiar?

And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> How is it that this could have been discussed as many times as it has been but you still seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the position of mainstream science with regards to Koch and Angstrom.  The only errors Koch made were caused by his relatively crude instrumentation.  The error of the whole thing - the point which mainstream science beginning with Hurlbert have refuted, was ANGSTROM's interpretation of Koch's results.  If atmospheric CO2 behaved as Angstrom thought it did, the surface of the Earth would be close to the temperature of the surface of the sun.  All of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be trapped in the first few meters while more and more solar radiation poured in.  Does that sound like the reality with which you're familiar?
> 
> And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?


the sun.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 23, 2015)

jc, what happened to your claims that all the warming was faked?

You keep forgetting which lies you just told. Can you settle on just kook conspiracy theory?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, what happened to your claims that all the warming was faked?
> 
> You keep forgetting which lies you just told. Can you settle on just kook conspiracy theory?


dude, dudette, me thinks you walk around with climate boots on all day.  You should take them off and let your feet breathe, it's messing with your head.

The first thing about debating is to know what it is you're debating.  I answered a question, for all I know it was a hypothetical question, but the earth has been warming for billions of years, and that is due to the sun.  No time frame was given.

Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me.  TO DATE, you fail.

BTW, any day!!!!!


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me.  TO DATE, you fail.



Here you go jc, not just evidence, PROOF


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me.  TO DATE, you fail.
> ...


Is that an experiment? You got one for 120 PPM CO 2?  The experiment we asked for?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 30, 2015)

ok, so today is July 30th 2015, and still today, no warmer has posted up any rationale to what 120 PPM of CO2 can do.  None, thanks Herr Koch for leading the way in 1901.  The warmers have never been able to debunk your experiment.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 30, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Second, it would behoove you to present evidence that CO2 adds heat after reaching 280 PPM of CO2 if you wish to banter with me.  TO DATE, you fail.
> ...


proof of what?  This does not show thermal lapse rates..  Do you even have a clue what it is your posting? This is a spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum. This doesn't prove what you think it does.


----------



## Crick (Jul 30, 2015)

That is NOT a "spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum."  You're the one who doesn't seem to have a clue what I posted.  It is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide superimposed on the spectrum of incoming solar radiation and that of outgoing IR (the S-B curves for the Earth's temperature)  That is proof that CO2 absorbs portions of the IR spectrum that impinges on it in our atmosphere and that absorption makes its temperature rise.  Proof.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> That is NOT a "spectral breakdown of thermal energy in the light spectrum."  You're the one who doesn't seem to have a clue what I posted.  It is the absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide superimposed on the spectrum of incoming solar radiation and that of outgoing IR (the S-B curves for the Earth's temperature)  That is proof that CO2 absorbs portions of the IR spectrum that impinges on it in our atmosphere and that absorption makes its temperature rise.  Proof.


sure, you go with that.  We, the experts, know better.


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat.  Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left.  It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right.  The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere.  Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates.  There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat.  Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left.  It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right.  The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere.  Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates.  There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.


dude, well there is one easy way to get to a solution, show us.  Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer.  I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such.  So are you lying?

Let's see the language from their web site that states what you wrote. if you can't, you're just a liar.


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

Let's look at the diagram jc.  Read the axes






Each of the four sections of the vertical axis are labeled from 0 to 100.  It's lacking a text label unfortunately, but I'm quite certain we can find one that does.  The vertical labeling only applies to the gas absorption spectra, not to the spectra of incoming SW and outgoing LW (they don't line up in any case).  The horizontal axis is labeled "WAVELENGTH (Microns)" and runs logarithmically, from 0.1 to 100.  If you care to accept that the vertical axis is simply percent absorbed, then the graph displays percent absorbed versus wavelength.

You have once again accused me of lying without presenting a shred of evidence.  Show us the website which you claim says something different or withdraw your accusation or be known, at best, as someone with ethical shortcomings.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> Let's look at the diagram jc.  Read the axes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR.  Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said.  If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar.  I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

How many would you like jc?  There are hundreds of such diagrams on the web.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> How many would you like jc?  There are hundreds of such diagrams on the web.


well then give me the link to the website of the manufacturer that posts this stuff. I'm not looking for what IR is, I'm asking for the proof the meter reads it the way you posted it.

BTW, you are  0 for so far. Makes you a liar.


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR.  Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said.  If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar.  I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.



You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation?  Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit.  Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer.  I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such.  So are you lying?



WHERE did you read these instructions on line?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR.  Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said.  If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar.  I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.
> ...


dude,

you're such a liar.  Never can you ever supply one piece of data to support your statements.  I have asked a really simple question as a result of your post.  That is to prove a spectrometer reads what you said.  And that sir would take a statement from a manufacturer of one to prove your post.  I don't need to prove anything. i merely stated i didn't see a website that backs up your statement.  So I've asked you to lead me to the promised land.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see this miracle of your spectrometer.  I read the instructions on line and it doesn't explain your statement as such.  So are you lying?
> ...


dude,  Look up spectrometer on the internet. you didn't do that?  why that would be a mistake to make such a statement and not actually have used one.  Let's simplify the question further, have you ever used one?


----------



## Crick (Jul 31, 2015)

jc456 said:


> dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR.  Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said.  If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar.  I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.





Crick said:


> You wish for proof that a spectrometer can measure spectral levels of infrared radiation?  Jc, it's become obvious you haven't got jack shit.  Show us the website you're talking about or apologize.





jc456 said:


> dude,
> 
> you're such a liar.



You kiss your mother with that mouth?  Have you no shame?  Do you tell your priest about this in confession?



jc456 said:


> Never can you ever supply one piece of data to support your statements.



I have given you fucking REAMS of data.  You choose to ignore all of it.  You're pulling this Grade A BULLSHIT because I gave you data that you couldn't handle; that just flat out showed you were wrong and stupidly so.



jc456 said:


> I have asked a really simple question as a result of your post.



You have attempted to deflect the discussion away from your embarrassing failures and every single reader here knows it.



jc456 said:


> That is to prove a spectrometer reads what you said.



Where's your proof that thermometers read correctly?  Maybe they're all upside down.  Where's your proof that rulers are able to accurately measure sea level?  Where's your proof that your keyboard actually puts up the messages here that you type?  Maybe it's making up new ones on its own.  Jesus, jc, stop being such a stupid ass!



jc456 said:


> And that sir would take a statement from a manufacturer of one to prove your post.



You can't trust those assholes.  They just want to SELL the things.  They want to make money off of them.  They'd murder mothers and babies to make a sale, everyone knows it.  Right?



jc456 said:


> I don't need to prove anything. i merely stated i didn't see a website that backs up your statement.  So I've asked you to lead me to the promised land.



God, you stupid ass.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 31, 2015)

Crick said:


> I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat.  Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left.  It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right.  The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere.  Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates.  There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.



Crick you need to update this, apparently the water does not reradiate the energy its absorbs


----------



## jc456 (Aug 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude, I asked you to prove the spectrometer measures IR.  Simple, go to the website of a vendor who makes them and that they advertise they do what you said.  If you can't, then sir that makes you a liar.  I don't know another term to describe dishonest behavior.
> ...


For once I'd expect you to back some thing you said. But alas, you're Just one More  nut job

BTW, it still makes you a liar!


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2015)

here we are 8/7/2015, another month gone by and still no experiment that will prove a warmers claim.  How interesting.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2015)

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 9/10/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment.  Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 10, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 9/10/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment.  Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.



They wont because they can not..   Funny how real life and empirical evidence show it a lie..


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2015)

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 10/9/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 9, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 10/9/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.



Yes the months tick by and not a single fact is found to support the CAGW lie. There has been no warming for 18 years 8 months but the potential for about three months to be above normal (due to the current El Nino) will be touted as proof of man made global warming.  But the following La Nina will lay it waste by mid spring and the pause will again lengthen substantially.  But by then the COP power grab will be done and no one will call these liars on their bull shit.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 6, 2015)

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 11/5/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

Where's the experiment controlling for variations in CO2?

Bueller?

Anyone?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 15, 2015)

Ahhhhhh, another month has gone by, 12/15/2015, and still not one leftist warmer has presented evidence to support global warming extremism. The same old mumbo jumbo double talk, but no experiment. Still waiting lefty losers. Still waiting.

Thanks Frank,


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 15, 2015)

Science = settled, just don't ask for the experiments because they don't have any


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 18, 2015)

AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years

AGW, it's just not science


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
> 
> AGW, it's just not science


adjustments are necessary so they say, yet not one piece of evidence to show how that is so.  So the adjustments are adjustments for adjustment sake and to prove a model.  Since they don't wish to support their shit, I'll keep posting how phony they are.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
> 
> AGW, it's just not science




I'm curious Frank. Do you not believe in the Greenhouse Effect, or disbelieve that CO2 plays a part in it, or just doubt that any further change in CO2 will have a measurable effect?


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
> ...




Some adjustments and quality control are always necessary. There are literally thousands of different ways to do it, as well as discretionary decisions as to what weightings to give various aspects. 

My problem is that it appears that all the new methods are designed and chosen to give particular result. Eg. the latest 'pausebuster' method that uses very iffy choices to move quantities around seemingly to just change the appearance of the graph.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


well logically for me, someone needs to explain why the adjustment was made the way it was.  Otherwise, it is merely a practice of altering a reading to make a number appear.

for example if there are 2100 stations, and one station required an adjustment, I highly doubt that adjustment would alter the reading at all.  Hell just removing it wouldn't matter. And knowing this and knowing that the final number is changing, that means many stations are being touched.  Now I'd like a why question answered.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Did you read Karl2015? They explained what they did. Obviously they had reasons for what they did, legitimate or not. 

I think it is a travesty that the temp datasets have been manipulated over the last decade to show support for the 'Consensus'. I don't think impartial statisticians would come up with the same methods. 

I could live with just about any methodology, as long as it didn't change every few months.


BTW, Watts just released a report at the AGU showing the trend at good stations was 2/3s of the bad station trend. An interesting side bar is that there has been less of a difference over the last15 years. Is it because there hasn't been a change to amplify? Or is it the CRN is now a backup system. Or what?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 18, 2015)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


No I haven't read it.

I did find this statement from skeptical science as they talked about the report and they stated this winner:

*We know that temperatures measured by ship sensors are often warmer than temperatures measured by buoys,*

My curiosity goes to this set of questions immediately,

*Are they recording the temperature of the ocean at the same point and time?
*are they both at the same depth?
*Did anyone ever compare the two different devices in order to benchmark the difference readings between the two different devices?

Ian,  Have you ever taken two different thermal devices and read different temperatures from the same source.

for instance, take a glass of water, take a mercury thermometer and take a reading and then take a digital thermometer and take a reading?

I know that in the course of my life, I've had my temperature taken with both and they have always given the same 98.6 when I wasn't ill.

So again, logically, why would one thermometer sensor run warmer than another?  And from there I'm sorry, I don't buy any of it. someone can post on this board till forever and I will have not moved one inch from my position that it is all fixed.


----------



## IanC (Dec 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Good questions. It's hard to keep thermometers calibrated exactly. Each type of thermometer has its own strengths and weaknesses. 

For SSTs the change from buckets to intakes to buoys have caused a lot of problems. One of the criticisms of Karl15 was the choice to adjust the offset and trend of good quality bouy data to the poor intake data. Ocean temps are poorly sampled in both area and time. The numbers can be pushed around a lot depending on how you calculate them. Every few years a new and 'improved' method comes along and the old results are consigned to the trash, making comparisons difficult. 

Stability in method may be more important than having the 'best' method. When changes due to different methods often make larger adjustments than the trend you are trying to measure.....


----------



## jc456 (Jan 12, 2016)

January 12, now 2016, and still no experiment posted.

No answer to questions asked as well.

Thanks Ian for the banter last month.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



CRN has become their undoing.. They can no longer justify their aberrant and multiple upon multiple corrections at a whim. CRN now is right on par with UAH and RSS which labels the HCN and its massive adjustments as unreliable. The HCN and all of their adjusted BS has now become the unreliable outlier by over 2 deg C. The faithful have nowhere to run now. CO2 is now show to NOT be coupled with water vapor and it is not the positive forcing they claimed. In fact CO2 is now shown to be almost a zero factor with water vapor now releasing more energy at TOA balancing the thermal reserve.

The potential of CO2 in the lab is not being seen in our atmosphere. The question we need to answer is why?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Keeping the RAW unchanged/uncorrected data available to all would be the best step. If you want to make changes to the data you explain why and how you do it but you leave the historical data intact without modification.  Both RSS and UAH have the original data unchanged. The agencies who extrapolate the data into temp are the ones responsible for their actions and output. The US CRN also has this type of data policy as it should be.  

The methods used to create other data sets/extrapolations needs to be their own to justify. This goes back to repeatable and reliable science. without this kind of transparency you get what we have today, a cluster fuck that no one trusts and politicians use for their own agendas.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 13, 2016)

The raw data is right here.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/

I've pointed to that data many times before, yet many deniers still choose to lie outright and pretend it's not available. Lying is kind of what they do. It's all they do. For example, jc and frankhere keeps lying about no experiment, despite having experiments shown to him over and over.

Basically, it's not possible to be an honest person and be a hardcore denier. One can be honest and maintain a lukewarmer position, but all of the hardcore deniers here are pathologically dishonest cult pissguzzlers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult still hasn't posted a single repeatable experiment linking a rounding error increase in an atmospheric trace element to an increase in temperature. Not a single experiment, not in years
> ...



I'm curious Ian, is English not your first language?

The "Theory" states that increase CO2 from 280 to 400PPM will raise temperature and have catastrophic effect on our climate. We've been asking for the lab work showing the expected "Warming" from the 120PPM increase.

You'd think that with CO2 being so powerful, they could show us a 4F increase from the instant 120PPM increase, maybe 3F from a 100PPM increase, etc


----------



## IanC (Jan 13, 2016)

Lol, Frank you need to broaden your science history. The 'Theory' started when someone measured how much sunshine hits the Earth. The numbers don't add up. There has to be a reason why the surface is warm enough to radiate 400W even though the Sun is only adding 165W. 

You seem to want to ignore the main question and instead complain about the idiots who have hijacked the 'Theory' to promote catastrophe. Fair enough, carry on.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry jc, but neither you, nor Billy Bob nor Frank seem to know diddly squat.  Solar radiation arrives with the SW spectrum displayed on the lower left.  It is absorbed by land and water and then reradiated with the LW spectrum shown on the lower right.  The other traces show the absorption spectra of various gas combinations including the total atmosphere.  Billy Bob's error was failing to note ABSORPTION and his fantasy nonsense about "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  Spectrum provide relationships between frequencies and spectral levels or frequencies and spectral absorption rates.  There is no distinction made in those diagrams for the "thermal energy in the light spectrum".  From a purely technical standpoint, the term "thermal energy" refers to internal energy of a body and has nothing to do with the transmitted energy which is all we're talking about here.
> ...



Until water re-nucleates at high altitude it does not release its photons (IR) to space. Very little IR is radiated by water vapor during its transport to above cloud top layers.  Something that alarmists refuse to acknowledge becasue it shows that water vapor acts as a negative forcing. This stops a mid-troposphere hot spot from occurring.. AGW = DEAD


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The raw data is right here.
> 
> ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/
> 
> ...



That data is the "produced raw data"  'Produced' meaning they have quality controlled it and made changes.. The only dishonest piece of shit here is you, hairball.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2016)

ah, so here we are 3/3/2016 and still no experiment that demonstrates what 120 PPM of CO2 does to warming.  

Can you say crickets?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

ah, so here we are 4/3/2016 and still no experiment that demonstrates what 120 PPM of CO2 does to warming.5

Can you say crickets?

BTW, they can also now explain with less LWIR coming off the surface how is it that it's getting warmer?  So where is the heat actually at that causes catastrophic conditions?  Please help us,


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Well looky, looky, we are now in July, th 14th day of 2016, and still not one experiment that demonstrates the magical properties of CO2 with regard to temperature.

Nothing that can challenge this experiment:

CO2

Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.

Any day folks, any day.  I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.

Winning


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Well looky, looky, we are now in July, th 14th day of 2016, and still not one experiment that demonstrates the magical properties of CO2 with regard to temperature.
> 
> Nothing that can challenge this experiment:
> 
> ...



The Bottle is a DENIER!!! and the results must be adjusted accordingly


----------



## mamooth (Jul 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.



What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory. 

jc, if you weren't a 'tard, you would have understood that. However, you are a retard, so you fell for it hard.



> Any day folks, any day.  I stand behind my comment that I will shut up once that challenge is accomplished. And yet, here I am still asking months later.



Everyone is certainly very impressed with your obsessive lifelong devotion to pathologically lying, and with your inability to locate your balls, and with your rise to stardom in loser-American community.

Now, not all deniers are dishonest eunuchs. Just most of them.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Where a bottle/ container full of CO2 is actually cooler than a normal air filled container.
> ...


*What a stupid experiment. It wasn't remotely related to the greenhouse theory.*

Well of course not.  It is to show that there isn't one.  Success.  Adding CO2 to air will cool the air.  baddabing.

You should really stop showing your stupid side.

Oh, and I still noticed you haven't provided an experiment that disprove what I posted.  That's called WINNING


----------

