15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[JoeNormal]

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair. Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot. Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture. If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.

 

[bripat9643]

It's no more of a lie than any first approximation explanation. If you want something more substantial, check this out. Be sure to post comments when you're done.

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

So the guy who didn't realize the experiment was flawed is acting sanctimonious about his knowledge of science?

You can't buy better comedy!

 

[JoeNormal]

The experiment was a colossal con - a lie, in other words. Apparently a "first approximation" means you got caught lying so now you're going to change your story.

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

So the guy who didn't realize the experiment was flawed is acting sanctimonious about his knowledge of science?

You can't buy better comedy!

No, I just never know how smart my audience is. You've set my expectations pretty low. BTW, did you ever check out that lecture?

 

[bripat9643]

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

So the guy who didn't realize the experiment was flawed is acting sanctimonious about his knowledge of science?

You can't buy better comedy!

No, I just never know how smart my audience is. You've set my expectations pretty low. BTW, did you ever check out that lecture?

I'd say the people in the audience who said that experiment proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas were pretty damn stupid.

Now who would that be?

 

[flacaltenn]

Got any more conspiracy theories you'd like to share? If you actually understand what an exothermic reaction is, maybe you're ready for the next level. See post #350.

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair. Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot. Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture. If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.

Not asking for 3rd Graders to understand a U of Chicago physics lecture.. I'm simply asking for a middle ground.. No charlatans in the classroom... Do what you can to discuss the topic if you must --- but this is not Sesame Street make-believe..

I'm sure that lecture is great. Not sure I'll learn anything, but I still intend to watch it.
Nothing personal here --- except I'd expect a little more outrage at the perversion of science by someone like you who invested in it..

Probably because you're ignoring the NOAA endorsement of that "curriculum".. Don't see how anyone with a science background could excuse that.

 

[JoeNormal]

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair. Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot. Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture. If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.

Not asking for 3rd Graders to understand a U of Chicago physics lecture.. I'm simply asking for a middle ground.. No charlatans in the classroom... Do what you can to discuss the topic if you must --- but this is not Sesame Street make-believe..

I'm sure that lecture is great. Not sure I'll learn anything, but I still intend to watch it.
Nothing personal here --- except I'd expect a little more outrage at the perversion of science by someone like you who invested in it..

Probably because you're ignoring the NOAA endorsement of that "curriculum".. Don't see how anyone with a science background could excuse that.

Hell, I don't care if they endorse it. It's hard enough to get kids to develop an interest in science. Even harder these days with cutbacks to everything except the 3 R's. It's a non-threatening demonstration and they probably thought it at least made the principle understandable to a certain audience.

 

[JoeNormal]

So the guy who didn't realize the experiment was flawed is acting sanctimonious about his knowledge of science?

You can't buy better comedy!

No, I just never know how smart my audience is. You've set my expectations pretty low. BTW, did you ever check out that lecture?

I'd say the people in the audience who said that experiment proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas were pretty damn stupid.

Now who would that be?

Did you check out the lecture or shall we continue to debate the minutiae of the demonstration?

 

[flacaltenn]

Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair. Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot. Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture. If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.

Not asking for 3rd Graders to understand a U of Chicago physics lecture.. I'm simply asking for a middle ground.. No charlatans in the classroom... Do what you can to discuss the topic if you must --- but this is not Sesame Street make-believe..

I'm sure that lecture is great. Not sure I'll learn anything, but I still intend to watch it.
Nothing personal here --- except I'd expect a little more outrage at the perversion of science by someone like you who invested in it..

Probably because you're ignoring the NOAA endorsement of that "curriculum".. Don't see how anyone with a science background could excuse that.

Hell, I don't care if they endorse it. It's hard enough to get kids to develop an interest in science. Even harder these days with cutbacks to everything except the 3 R's. It's a non-threatening demonstration and they probably thought it at least made the principle understandable to a certain audience.

You're an intelligient "normal" guy.. You should know that if the theatre act is BULLSHIT -- then it's NOT LEARNING...





It's then called "PROPAGANDA".. So you think NOAA should be in the propaganda biz???

 

[bripat9643]

No, I just never know how smart my audience is. You've set my expectations pretty low. BTW, did you ever check out that lecture?

I'd say the people in the audience who said that experiment proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas were pretty damn stupid.

Now who would that be?

Did you check out the lecture or shall we continue to debate the minutiae of the demonstration?

The lecture is irrelevant. All you brethren of the church of AGW claim to be experts in science. Yet, you couldn't see the obvious flaws in a simple experiment. You were conned. So why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[JoeNormal]

I'd say the people in the audience who said that experiment proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas were pretty damn stupid.

Now who would that be?

Did you check out the lecture or shall we continue to debate the minutiae of the demonstration?

The lecture is irrelevant. All you brethren of the church of AGW claim to be experts in science. Yet, you couldn't see the obvious flaws in a simple experiment. You were conned. So why should anyone take you seriously?

It's irrelevant to you because you're too fucking stupid to understand it. You'd prefer to endlessly debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Knock yourself out.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

 

[JoeNormal]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah Joe --- I've got one..

Explain to me why the NOAA seal of approval is on this education syllabus. Can you think of a reason why they would endorse bad science in the classroom??

That's my conspiracy theory for the day..
You need to slow down and realize what you just witnessed.. I have NO DOUBTS about your abilities to evaluate this fraud for yourself..

BTW: Dismissing this botched science experiment as just "taking liberties with the details for a low info audience" doesn't fly.
Your 1st intro to science shouldn't be haphazard and sloppy methods and a LEAP to conclusions..

Most peoples 1st intro to science tends to be an 'experiment' just like this in the classroom or at a science fair. Here's a clue for anyone who wants to attach undue importance to this or attribute some nefarious intent on posting it - real science isn't done with empty soda bottles or a $3.00 lamp from Home Depot. Like I say, if you're ready for more than this, check out the University of Chicago lecture. If you're ready for even more than that, take a course for science majors that uses partial differential equations and matrix math.

Not asking for 3rd Graders to understand a U of Chicago physics lecture.. I'm simply asking for a middle ground.. No charlatans in the classroom... Do what you can to discuss the topic if you must --- but this is not Sesame Street make-believe..

I'm sure that lecture is great. Not sure I'll learn anything, but I still intend to watch it.
Nothing personal here --- except I'd expect a little more outrage at the perversion of science by someone like you who invested in it..

Probably because you're ignoring the NOAA endorsement of that "curriculum".. Don't see how anyone with a science background could excuse that.

Are you suggesting that all 'Conservatives' be banned from the classroom?

 

[Old Rocks]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.


Greenhouse Effect
The effective radiating temperature of
the earth, Te, is determined by the need
for infrared emission from the planet to
balance absorbed solar radiation:
'rrR2(1 - A)So = 41TR2cT, (1)
or
Te = [So(1 -A)/4or] " (2)
where R is the radius of the earth, A the
albedo of the earth, S0 the flux of solar
radiation, and a the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant. For A - 0.3 and So = 1367
watts per square meter, this yields
Te - 255 K.
The mean surface temperature is
T-- 288 K. The excess, Ts - Te, is the
greenhouse effect of gases and clouds,
which cause the mean radiating level to
be above the surface.

Some symbols left out. However, this was published in 1981. And the science has much advanced since then. This is real science as done by a scientist. And there are some definate preditions in the summery. Predictions that were pretty much spot on, in spite of all the lies the denialists tell.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

 

[PMZ]

The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.

Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.

So they do and say whatever they could possibly get away with in denial of all of AGW's simple truth.

They have no redeeming qualities that mitigate the damage that they do.

The bottom line of all of that is pretty straightforward. They must be removed from any responsibility at least at the national level of government. That must be separated from all decision rights concerning climate and energy policy.

That's what they've earned.

 

[PMZ]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.

 

[PMZ]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

To me, there was nothing controversial. He explained without embellishment the pure science of GHGs. What they do. Why. The inevitability of AGW.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.

Tank A earth present atmosphere

Tank B earth atmosphere plus 800ppm of CO2

Check for temperature differences assuming steady heat source

 

[flacaltenn]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

Dont need any more math. Ive had more than most climate scientists. In fact, im up to par on EM Radiation and fields and waves. Ive also helped design supercomputers.

Couple of points on ur vid.

1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What wasnt shown is how more quickly the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2.

2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating, about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct.

3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2. Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition.

Thanks for the link. But it really did not change any conclusions for me. Would like to drive his model toy and see what happens under more real conditions..