CO2 Sensitivity Experiments

[Crick]

Does anyone here remember Gore's CO2 experiment from his 24 hour telethon?

Ian, how about giving us honest and non-quibbling answers to a few questions:

1) Do you believe any experiments have ever been conducted which demonstrate a measurable greenhouse effect from CO2 levels in the same range as presently found in our atmosphere?

1. available data from experimental investigation done on CO2 leads to the prediction of 1C warming for every doubling of [CO2]. if all other factors remain the same.

I asked you if you believed experiments had been conducted which demonstrated a measurable greenhouse effect from CO2 levels in contemporary ranges. I am going to assume the answer you provided includes a "yes" response to that.

2) When atmospheric physicists state that the Earth's average temperature would be about 33C cooler were there no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, do you believe them?

2. I am OK with 33C as the greenhouse effect, although I believe there is uncertainty involved. I have previously shown that CO2 doubling works out to a reasonable answer if you assume 25% of the GHE is due to CO2 and theoriginal value is 1ppm.

You are okay with 33C. Good. BTW, the "original value" in the calculation that gets one 33C is zero GHGs. No account is taken of which gas has what effect. It is simply the difference between what is observed today and what the temperature of a black body with Earth's albedo would be.

3) Although it has been the subject of much debate, would you agree that the most commonly held value for the Earth's transient climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is still approximately 3C?

3. why are you asking me to confirm the consensus value? just because they say it, that doesnt make it true.

Because I wanted you to confirming that the consensus value is the consensus value. And just because they say it, doesn't make it true. But it does make it extraordinarily more likely than anything you've got for us. You failed to answer this question.

4) Below are the results of numerous runs of CMIP-5 GCMs, of which sensitivity is an emergent parameter. At least as far as the results here go, would you agree that a value greater than 3 is more likely than a value less than 3?

4. Nic Lewis has done a lot of work on climate sensitivity. you should at least read it. CS estimates derived from reality based data is far less than estimates based on model based data. personally I think the CS will continue to come down because I believe nature always finds a way to 'fix' positive feedback conditions.

This is not an answer to this question either. Hundreds of climate scientists have worked on climate sensitivity. The result of their work is 2-4.5 or so. And estimates of climate sensitivity - no matter what forcing factor is being examined - have always taken positive reinforcements into account. It is the response of the SYSTEM, not the response of some component of the system you've isolated in the lab.

if i answer your questions directly will you start to address mine in the same fashion?

I would if you had, but you did not.

I dont really care if you didnt know about Gore's telethon.

That is obviously false as you asked my opinion of something that took place in the telethon.

Gore has had more media time to proclaim his views than all the climate skeptics put together.

I have not heard or read or seen Al Gore say one word about global warming in several years now. And do keep in mind that while I have enormous respect for the man - I helped elect him to the White House 3 times - he is not a climate scientist. I don't rely on him for science information and don't personally know anyone who does.

His movie was shown in schoolrooms and won an Oscar and general approval worldwide.

Yes. I saw his movie. I was unaware he ran a telethon. I assume a telethon was to raise money. To whom did the money go? Do we have big global warming charities?

I've looked up his telethon. In any one market, the show was only on for one hour.

It was full of exaggerations and fallacies, just like his telethon.

I imagine my opinion of the accuracy of his movie is a great deal higher than yours. I also imagine that given the grief he got from folks like you about the movie, he would have been even more careful to avoid exaggeration and speak as close to the objective truth as he could in this telethon. So, forgive me if I don't take your word for it. You haven't given me any reason to do so.

The CO2 experiment we have been referring to just will not work the way they say it did. Moreover they faked the temperature readings! Actual fraud!! Proven fraud and no one on your side gives a shit.

I do not know which experiment you are referring to. I know of none presented here that contained any fraud. Show us some links.

Do you think that this experiment should have been retracted and an apology issued for fabricating the results?

Since I haven't the faintest idea what experiment you're talking about, I have no thought on it. I think you and the rest of the deniers here owe humanity an apology for the needless suffering you're going to put us through. I think the magnitude of what we're all going to go through because you whack jobs decided it was better that everyone suffer than that any conservative should ever have to admit that Al Gore was right, so far outstrips whatever the fuck you're talking about it ought to make you cry.

 

[daveman]

Still whining about Gore and Nye? I guess if your science all fails, it's a fine deflection. That's right, scientists are supposed to police Al Gore, and it they don't, they're corrupt. You go with that.

Why don't you guys make it official, and collect all the standard denier myths into a denier bible? That would save time. You could just say "Watts 11:5" or "Goddard 3:3", and Westwall, lost in his religious ecstasy, would raise his head to the skies and scream "Amen, brother!".

So, you don't mind that two prominent spokesmen for AGW are liars.

Got it.

 

[daveman]

I have not heard or read or seen Al Gore say one word about global warming in several years now.

Your limited world-view does not define reality.

And do keep in mind that while I have enormous respect for the man - I helped elect him to the White House 3 times...

He was elected only twice. Saying he was elected a third time merely cements your status as delusional.

I think you and the rest of the deniers here owe humanity an apology for the needless suffering you're going to put us through.

Hyperemotional fear-mongering. If the science backed up your claims, you wouldn't need to resort to emotion.

You lose.

 

[mamooth]

So, you don't mind that two prominent spokesmen for AGW are liars.

Got it.

I do mind. It was dumb of them. But since nobody on the rational side gives a shit about them, we don't obsess about it. It's like asking me to condemn the actions of Miley Cyrus. Why should I?

OTOH, you need to explain why you glue your tongue to the rectums of the denier leaders, all of whom are proud, proud liars. The lying is kind of what defines you deniers. Look at you here, each one-upping the others with bigger lies, all vying to win the coveted "biggest lying douche" award.

Good luck, Dave. You have some strong entries, but so does your denier competition. I'll keep track of the competition, and announce the winning douche in a week.

(And by the way, what feature of Al Gore do you mancrush most about? Don't be shy. All deniers mancrush on Al Gore, so go on and share.)

 

[westwall]

So, you don't mind that two prominent spokesmen for AGW are liars.

Got it.

I do mind. It was dumb of them. But since nobody on the rational side gives a shit about them, we don't obsess about it. It's like asking me to condemn the actions of Miley Cyrus. Why should I?

OTOH, you need to explain why you glue your tongue to the rectums of the denier leaders, all of whom are proud, proud liars. The lying is kind of what defines you deniers. Look at you here, each one-upping the others with bigger lies, all vying to win the coveted "biggest lying douche" award.

Good luck, Dave. You have some strong entries, but so does your denier competition. I'll keep track of the competition, and announce the winning douche in a week.

(And by the way, what feature of Al Gore do you mancrush most about? Don't be shy. All deniers mancrush on Al Gore, so go on and share.)

Probably because Miley Cyrus isn't trying to get legislation passed that will enrich the wealthy, destroy the middle class and place energy out of the reach of the masses and into the hands of the elite.

Nice to know you care so much for the super rich. I'm sure they will treat you well.

 

[IanC]

I do not know which experiment you are referring to. I know of none presented here that contained any fraud. Show us some links.

Do you think that this experiment should have been retracted and an apology issued for fabricating the results?

Since I haven't the faintest idea what experiment you're talking about, I have no thought on it. I think you and the rest of the deniers here owe humanity an apology for the needless suffering you're going to put us through. I think the magnitude of what we're all going to go through because you whack jobs decided it was better that everyone suffer than that any conservative should ever have to admit that Al Gore was right, so far outstrips whatever the fuck you're talking about it ought to make you cry.

let's stay on topic. if you really want to debate climate sensitivity we can bump a few old threads which were pretty much ignored by the warmers here.


the video, experiment starts at about 00.50 -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8&feature=kp]CLIMATE 101 with BILL NYE - YouTube[/ame]

there are so many things wrong with it that it is hard to list them all.

first up - glass bottles do not let IR heat lamps radiate through to the inside. the bottles themselves will eventually heat up but it would take more than a couple of minutes to start affecting the air inside.

second - CO2 released from a pressurized container would expand and become cooler.

these two points totally invalidate the premise of the experiment as shown. it could not possibly work. so how did they manage to show the two thermometers rising at different rates, and to different temperatures? this is where blatant fraud is involved. there is no way to film the thermometers inside the jars without having the intervening glass distort the image. not only that but the two thermometers in the split screen are the same thermometer!! there is a flaw next to the number 98 that is exactly the same.

this 'high school physics' experiment is a sham, and Gore doubled down on stupidity by saying- "The deniers claim that it's some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people," he said. "It's not a hoax, it's high school physics."

you may correctly say that neither Gore nor Nye are climate scientists but the climate science community seem to welcome their public pronouncements of incorrect and hysterical 'sciency' claims.

over and over and over again these public experiments are shown to be a lot different than their public impression. I wish someone would just do a legitimate and controlled experiment so we could just get over it. if done precisely, an increase of 120ppm of CO2 should cause a tiny but perceptible rise in temperature.



and here is a final quote.

I should make it clear that I’m not doubting that CO2 has a positive radiative heating effect in our atmosphere, due to LWIR re-radiation, that is well established by science. What I am saying is that Mr. Gore’s Climate Reality Project did a poor job of demonstrating an experiment, so poor in fact that they had to fabricate portions of the presentation, and that the experiment itself (if they actually did it, we can’t tell) would show a completely different physical mechanism than what actually occurs in our atmosphere.

No broader take away (other than the experiment was faked and fails) was intended, expressed or implied – Anthony

can you figure out who said that? does it fit your worldview of how arch-deniers think? skepticism by informed people is reserved for faulty logic and methods, and exaggerated and hysterical conclusions that are not supported by the data.

 

[bripat9643]

Frank, you've proudly lied about everything we posted in the past, hence nobody is going to waste any more time on you. You'd simply lie again, so there's no point.

But congratulations on cementing your reputation as a pathological cult liar. Was that the goal you had set out to achieve?

I read everything Frank posts, so that's obviously not true. Your post gives off the unpleasant oder of defeat.

 

[Crick]

How does you having read it have any bearing at all?

Frank has lied repeatedly about this point. Not particularly surprised you condone it but several of us are tired of putting up with it.

 

[daveman]

So, you don't mind that two prominent spokesmen for AGW are liars.

Got it.

I do mind. It was dumb of them. But since nobody on the rational side gives a shit about them, we don't obsess about it. It's like asking me to condemn the actions of Miley Cyrus. Why should I?

OTOH, you need to explain why you glue your tongue to the rectums of the denier leaders, all of whom are proud, proud liars. The lying is kind of what defines you deniers. Look at you here, each one-upping the others with bigger lies, all vying to win the coveted "biggest lying douche" award.

Good luck, Dave. You have some strong entries, but so does your denier competition. I'll keep track of the competition, and announce the winning douche in a week.

(And by the way, what feature of Al Gore do you mancrush most about? Don't be shy. All deniers mancrush on Al Gore, so go on and share.)

If you want to know what a progressive is doing, see what he accuses conservatives of.

You do nothing but project your own weaknesses on others. Nothing.

 

[daveman]

How does you having read it have any bearing at all?

Frank has lied repeatedly about this point. Not particularly surprised you condone it but several of us are tired of putting up with it.

What are you going to do about it?

Oh, yes -- nothing. You're just going to have to sit there and take it, Cupcake.

And there's no little blue pill that will cure your impotence.

 

[IanC]

4) Below are the results of numerous runs of CMIP-5 GCMs, of which sensitivity is an emergent parameter. At least as far as the results here go, would you agree that a value greater than 3 is more likely than a value less than 3?

I see you are not interested in discussing the faked experiment. that's fine and to be expected.

here is a Curry post from before AR5 and the IPCC deciding not to issue a central estimate for climate sensitivity but reverting to the old 1.5-4.5 range.

What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process | Climate Etc.

this quote is only a minor part of the article but is so funny, and so critical of M Mann that I couldnt resist.-

The third was a response from Foster et al. (with Mann as senior author).[26] They plugged Schwarz’ observational findings into GCM GISS-ER, and reproduced his results! So they argued Schwartz’ data were wrong, because “this model is known to exhibit a true equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7 C under doubled CO2 conditions.” They then did a similar thing for his time scale parameter using a 14 GCM ensemble. They said, “the estimates of time scale produced by this method are generally unrealistically low in comparison to the known behavior of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing.” They in effect said twice in one comment that the GCM models are trustworthy, and evaluation of 125 years of actual climate observations isn’t. Schwartz’ reply says much: “It is questionable whether measurements should be rejected because they do not agree with models.”

and of course we could discuss the AR5 and Nic Lewis' contributions if you'd like.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still whining about Gore and Nye? I guess if your science all fails, it's a fine deflection. That's right, scientists are supposed to police Al Gore, and it they don't, they're corrupt. You go with that.

Why don't you guys make it official, and collect all the standard denier myths into a denier bible? That would save time. You could just say "Watts 11:5" or "Goddard 3:3", and Westwall, lost in his religious ecstasy, would raise his head to the skies and scream "Amen, brother!".

^ the mating call of a climactic fundamentalist

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[mamooth]

can you figure out who said that? does it fit your worldview of how arch-deniers think? skepticism by informed people is reserved for faulty logic and methods, and exaggerated and hysterical conclusions that are not supported by the data.

You're actually quoting _Watts_? Wow. The sheer chutzpah of it.

Given how Watts is one of the slimiest pathological liars on planet earth, you annihilate your own credibility by putting him on a pedestal. If you proudly and loudly smooch the ass of an serial liar like Watts, you simply can't credibly claim to be interested in truth.

Compared to Watts, Gore and Nye are boy scouts. A saying about motes and beams comes to mind. Watts is just the start. All the denier leaders lie big. Watts, Goddard, McIntyre, Monckton, just an endless list of pathological dishonesty. If you refuse to clean up the reeking filth in your own house, or even acknowledge it exists, you have no standing to criticize anyone else's house.

And ... Rud Istvan? Seriously? That's your trusted source? One of the WUWT crowd who like to ramble about "CAGW"? He just dumps out vast quantities of ... something. Nobody can really tell what it is, but all the pretty pictures sure look impressive.

 

[daveman]

can you figure out who said that? does it fit your worldview of how arch-deniers think? skepticism by informed people is reserved for faulty logic and methods, and exaggerated and hysterical conclusions that are not supported by the data.

You're actually quoting _Watts_? Wow. The sheer chutzpah of it.

Given how Watts is one of the slimiest pathological liars on planet earth, you annihilate your own credibility by putting him on a pedestal. If you proudly and loudly smooch the ass of an serial liar like Watts, you simply can't credibly claim to be interested in truth.

Compared to Watts, Gore and Nye are boy scouts. A saying about motes and beams comes to mind. Watts is just the start. All the denier leaders lie big. Watts, Goddard, McIntyre, Monckton, just an endless list of pathological dishonesty. If you refuse to clean up the reeking filth in your own house, or even acknowledge it exists, you have no standing to criticize anyone else's house.

And ... Rud Istvan? Seriously? That's your trusted source? One of the WUWT crowd who like to ramble about "CAGW"? He just dumps out vast quantities of ... something. Nobody can really tell what it is, but all the pretty pictures sure look impressive.

You yap a lot, but all it boils down to is "I can't rationally argue against anything, so I'll be arrogant and pretend I've won."

Loser.

 

[Crick]

4) Below are the results of numerous runs of CMIP-5 GCMs, of which sensitivity is an emergent parameter. At least as far as the results here go, would you agree that a value greater than 3 is more likely than a value less than 3?

I see you are not interested in discussing the faked experiment. that's fine and to be expected.

I told you I'd discuss whatever you wanted if you gave me some honest answer to those questions without quibbling. It seems you couldn't do it. If you've got something you want to discuss, why don't you give another shot at the questions YOU chose not to discuss.

 

[Crick]

Is this the article to which you refer:

In January 2013 widespread publicity was given to work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, which reportedly found lower climate sensitivities than IPCC estimates and the suggestion that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO
2 emissions will increase temperatures by lower values than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC was featured in news outlets including The Economist.[147][148] This premature announcement came from a preliminary news release about a study which had not yet been peer reviewed.[149] The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO) issued a statement that they were involved with the relevant research project, and the news story was based on a report submitted to the research council which included both published and unpublished material. The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a journal before disseminating the results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

Just out of curiosity, how do you read the phrase "independent climate scientist". As I've noted here before for other "independent climate scientists" that occasionally show up on the denier side of the argument, I read it as "unemployed".

 

[Crick]

and

Nic Lewis has taken the lowest range from the research papers used by the IPCC and then taken the lowest range in that- i.e. 1.75°C

The author of the paper selected by Nic Lewis to herald the good news is not optimistic – from the Guardian.

I asked Professor Forster for his views on the GWPF paper. Perhaps Lewis and Crok should have done the same? A baldly honest Professor Forster told me:

Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.

Nic Lewis | the Climate Denier List

 

[daveman]

I see lots of gibber-jabbering posts about sensitivities...but I DON'T see any experiments.

Is anyone going to get around to that?

Face it, guys...the only experiment climate "scientists" conduct is "Let's see if the models give us our predetermined conclusions if we alter the data THIS way!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I see lots of gibber-jabbering posts about sensitivities...but I DON'T see any experiments.

Is anyone going to get around to that?

Face it, guys...the only experiment climate "scientists" conduct is "Let's see if the models give us our predetermined conclusions if we alter the data THIS way!"

Damn it! CO2 is very sensitive, you hurt its feelings!

 

[daveman]

I see lots of gibber-jabbering posts about sensitivities...but I DON'T see any experiments.

Is anyone going to get around to that?

Face it, guys...the only experiment climate "scientists" conduct is "Let's see if the models give us our predetermined conclusions if we alter the data THIS way!"

Damn it! CO2 is very sensitive, you hurt its feelings!

Tough shit. CO2 drank all my beer. Bastard.