How many posters here are smarter than all the world's scientists?

[ReinyDays]

Analysis of this as an experiment

There are three separate issues to clarify in this experiment. First, there is the construction and calibration of the IR sensors. Second, there is the energy balance calculation which searches for, but cannot locate leaks of energy to explain the null result. Third, there are the many explicit and implicit uses of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula which are erroneous, and which cast doubt not on the Greenhouse effect but on the null result here.

The reason the experimenters appear to have no idea what they're doing is they're not climate scientists, so most likely deniers who set out to fail and delightedly did.

Wy do you think the experimenters here "have no idea what they're doing"? ... what mistake do they make? ... this certainly takes away heat capacity as the causitive agent ...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Analysis of this as an experiment

There are three separate issues to clarify in this experiment. First, there is the construction and calibration of the IR sensors. Second, there is the energy balance calculation which searches for, but cannot locate leaks of energy to explain the null result. Third, there are the many explicit and implicit uses of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula which are erroneous, and which cast doubt not on the Greenhouse effect but on the null result here.

The reason the experimenters appear to have no idea what they're doing is they're not climate scientists, so most likely deniers who set out to fail and delightedly did.

Wy do you think the experimenters here "have no idea what they're doing"? ... what mistake do they make? ... this certainly takes away heat capacity as the causitive agent ...

I agree that if anyone could 'perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting' it would be climate scientists. And, given it turned out true that none had otherwise been published so far, that likely means it's something any real climate scientist would know better than to attempt. Applying scientific method here would seem to entail having such a test proposed and approved as potentially useful and fitting by qualified peers. Then, given the results proved somewhat compelling, have it repeated by many others over perhaps many years exactly as specified.

This test has been a published fart in the wind. Proposed and performed by non-climate related scientists. Not "peer reviewed" in any serious sense. Perhaps useful for toilet paper in its printed form. Prolly not.

 

[ding]

My favorite part was when Kevin Kilty shit all over the peer review process. One must wonder how selective he is in that view.

The journal involved, one in the SCIRP family of publications, is peer-reviewed. Yet consider the effort one has to employ to review this article in a technical sense. The reviewer ought to have some expertise in transport calculations, especially radiation transport in enclosures, but also metrology and electronics. It is not reasonable to expect that all reviewers have the time or resources to do a job much beyond making sure a submitted paper meets minimal standards of scholarship. There are now too many papers submitted for the number of people willing to review. The lesson is that even in peer reviewed journals caveat emptor applies.​

 

[ding]

"Yes, I like the results from that paper. The peer review process was fabulous." Kevin Kilty

"No. I don't like the results from that paper. The peer review process was shite." Kevin Kilty

 

[ding]

I am still wondering if people understand how a choke works.

 

[ReinyDays]

Analysis of this as an experiment

There are three separate issues to clarify in this experiment. First, there is the construction and calibration of the IR sensors. Second, there is the energy balance calculation which searches for, but cannot locate leaks of energy to explain the null result. Third, there are the many explicit and implicit uses of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula which are erroneous, and which cast doubt not on the Greenhouse effect but on the null result here.

The reason the experimenters appear to have no idea what they're doing is they're not climate scientists, so most likely deniers who set out to fail and delightedly did.

Wy do you think the experimenters here "have no idea what they're doing"? ... what mistake do they make? ... this certainly takes away heat capacity as the causitive agent ...

I agree that if anyone could 'perform "global warming" experiments in a lab setting' it would be climate scientists. And, given it turned out true that none had otherwise been published so far, that likely means it's something any real climate scientist would know better than to attempt. Applying scientific method here would seem to entail having such a test proposed and approved as potentially useful and fitting by qualified peers. Then, given the results proved somewhat compelling, have it repeated by many others over perhaps many years exactly as specified.

This test has been a published fart in the wind. Proposed and performed by non-climate related scientists. Not "peer reviewed" in any serious sense. Perhaps useful for toilet paper in its printed form. Prolly not.

You didn't answer my question ... what mistake did these researchers make? ...

You didn't provide any counter-argument ... no scientific paper showing the opposite effect ... these experiments are NOT being performed, or they are and the results aren't being offered for publication ... and the suggestion only "climate scientists" are capable of performing experiments shows how little you understand of Atmospheric Science and Meteorology ... which is understandable, that's complicated shit to be sure, welcome to Navier/Stokes-land ...

Anyway, I think there's enough information in the paper so that we ourselves can perform this exact experiment, on our kitchen counters ... special silicon sealants are available at most any pet shop with a decent aquarium section ... and I'd cut the glass out in the garage if I were you, accidents happen and mama will beat our asses if we get glass shards on her clean floor, she's still mad about us trying to siphon 5 gallons of maple syrup on her stove ... be the peer and review the material yourself, easy peasy ...

What I find compelling in this paper is that they did record a temperature increase ... evidence that AGW Theory is valid as far as it goes ... what this research disputes is catastrophic climate change ... "hypercanes and hockey sticks" ... their results are consistent with what we see 10,000 years ago, when temperatures were much higher than they are today ... no hypercanes and no hockey sticks ... (Go Aves) ... the biggest disaster caused by the 4ºC increase back then was the Agricultural Revolution ... ouch ... killed much of our forestlands ... East China Plain, Europe, Eastern North America ... just horrible scars on the landscape even to this day, awful ...

 

[ReinyDays]

I am still wondering if people understand how a choke works.

I think they do ... but it's a felony to try so not many people have experience ...