If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the AGWCult

Settled Science
Science Settled
Consensus
Consensus

CO2 is sooooooooooo powerful that a rounding errors worth (100 parts per million, that's .01% of the composition of Earth's atmosphere) of an addition to this trace element (it's only 400PPM, that's .04%) DRIVE the entire climate of planet earth.

It's staggering that a .01% change can be that powerful! It's the cold fusion of atmospheric chemistry.

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

Who dares to question the Consensus of the settled science?

I'm sure the USMB members of the AGWCult

will be along shortly to: deride the OP, fling pooh, call us DENIERS! and not post an experiment

 

[Wuwei]

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

No, it's because scientists can do rough modeling calculations to see that there is some effect and they are satisfied with what they have. An accurate experiment would involve a huge tall simulation that is prohibitively expensive. The IPCC scientists have no motivation for that kind of expenditure.

Why do you think it's up to the warmers to do the experiment. They don't need to prove anything. I would think that a denier would be more motivated to design an experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

No, it's because scientists can do rough modeling calculations to see that there is some effect and they are satisfied with what they have. An accurate experiment would involve a huge tall simulation that is prohibitively expensive. The IPCC scientists have no motivation for that kind of expenditure.

Why do you think it's up to the warmers to do the experiment. They don't need to prove anything. I would think that a denier would be more motivated to design an experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

 

[SSDD]

Why do you think it's up to the warmers to do the experiment. They don't need to prove anything. I would think that a denier would be more motivated to design an experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

The epic failure of GCMs which are based upon the AGW hypothesis aren't experiment enough for you? They prove the hypothesis wrong and the divergence grows greater every day in spite of climate scientists altering surface data as fast as they can.

 

[Wuwei]

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

It is prohibitively expensive to construct a good experiment, not to alter the atmosphere by .01%.
This is not the first thread asking about an experiment. In a previous thread any experiment in a lab that was cited was rightly criticized for being inadequate to make a direct (non-model) conclusion about the earth atmosphere. At the .04% level you simply need a lot of interaction volume before you can emulate the atmosphere. That volume has to have a tall vertical component to see just how gravity affects the process. As I said there is no motive for warmers to do an experiment; but there is for deniers. Why should warmers feel a need to? Politics is on their side now.

 

[dilloduck]

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

It is prohibitively expensive to construct a good experiment, not to alter the atmosphere by .01%.
This is not the first thread asking about an experiment. In a previous thread any experiment in a lab that was cited was rightly criticized for being inadequate to make a direct (non-model) conclusion about the earth atmosphere. At the .04% level you simply need a lot of interaction volume before you can emulate the atmosphere. That volume has to have a tall vertical component to see just how gravity affects the process. As I said there is no motive for warmers to do an experiment; but there is for deniers. Why should warmers feel a need to? Politics is on their side now.

No motive ? I had thought that saving the entire living population would be a motivator. Aren't we all supposed to be so frightened that we dig deep in our pockets to save ourselves and polar bears and such. Personally I think I'll just take off my catalytic converter. It's a CO2 creating monster.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

It is prohibitively expensive to construct a good experiment, not to alter the atmosphere by .01%.
This is not the first thread asking about an experiment. In a previous thread any experiment in a lab that was cited was rightly criticized for being inadequate to make a direct (non-model) conclusion about the earth atmosphere. At the .04% level you simply need a lot of interaction volume before you can emulate the atmosphere. That volume has to have a tall vertical component to see just how gravity affects the process. As I said there is no motive for warmers to do an experiment; but there is for deniers. Why should warmers feel a need to? Politics is on their side now.

So, if you haven't eliminated all of the variables, how can you say CO2 is causing the warming or change or whatever it's called today?

 

[Wuwei]

No motive ? I had thought that saving the entire living population would be a motivator. Aren't we all supposed to be so frightened that we dig deep in our pockets to save ourselves and polar bears and such. Personally I think I'll just take off my catalytic converter. It's a CO2 creating monster.

You don't understand the point. Warmers already have sold their idea. Why should they do more. If you want to sell your idea then it's up to you to have at it.

 

[westwall]

So, you're saying that a .01% change in CO2 won't raise temperature in a lab setting? Why is it "prohibitively expensive" to alter the atmosphere by .01%?

Also, it's the AGWCult's stupid Theory, they need to do the lab work

It is prohibitively expensive to construct a good experiment, not to alter the atmosphere by .01%.
This is not the first thread asking about an experiment. In a previous thread any experiment in a lab that was cited was rightly criticized for being inadequate to make a direct (non-model) conclusion about the earth atmosphere. At the .04% level you simply need a lot of interaction volume before you can emulate the atmosphere. That volume has to have a tall vertical component to see just how gravity affects the process. As I said there is no motive for warmers to do an experiment; but there is for deniers. Why should warmers feel a need to? Politics is on their side now.

Excuse me? Did I read that correctly? It is easier to raise the GLOBAL atmospheric content by .01% than it is to run a relatively simple experiment? You really think that?

 

[dilloduck]

No motive ? I had thought that saving the entire living population would be a motivator. Aren't we all supposed to be so frightened that we dig deep in our pockets to save ourselves and polar bears and such. Personally I think I'll just take off my catalytic converter. It's a CO2 creating monster.

You don't understand the point. Warmers already have sold their idea. Why should they do more. If you want to sell your idea then it's up to you to have at it.

Only to our idiot president and liberals. Let's see what happens when all the money start flowing out of the country and carbon taxes hit pocketbooks.

 

[westwall]

No motive ? I had thought that saving the entire living population would be a motivator. Aren't we all supposed to be so frightened that we dig deep in our pockets to save ourselves and polar bears and such. Personally I think I'll just take off my catalytic converter. It's a CO2 creating monster.

You don't understand the point. Warmers already have sold their idea. Why should they do more. If you want to sell your idea then it's up to you to have at it.

They haven't "sold" anything. They have committed academic and actual fraud. The only reason why they aren't in prison is because the politicians want the power the legislation will give them, and the ultra rich want to be even more ultra rich. They are the only people who benefit. What is astonishing to me is supposedly thinking people ignore those very real and easy to research facts.

 

[Wuwei]

So, if you haven't eliminated all of the variables, how can you say CO2 is causing the warming or change or whatever it's called today?

That's the problem. How do you design an experiment that is broad enough to eliminate all the variables. Simple experiments and calculations might show that CO2 is causing backradiation, and can act as a sort of barrier to heat loss, but to actually determine exactly how it affects the earth with all the other complexities is the real problem.

 

[Wuwei]

Only to our idiot president and liberals. Let's see what happens when all the money start flowing out of the country and carbon taxes hit pocketbooks.

Aren't you aware of the recent conference where many countries are concerned with the problem too? It isn't just the US administration who is now concerned.

 

[dilloduck]

So, if you haven't eliminated all of the variables, how can you say CO2 is causing the warming or change or whatever it's called today?

That's the problem. How do you design an experiment that is broad enough to eliminate all the variables. Simple experiments and calculations might show that CO2 is causing backradiation, and can act as a sort of barrier to heat loss, but to actually determine exactly how it affects the earth with all the other complexities is the real problem.

So in other words this decision was a political one based on negligible scientific evidence.

 

[Wuwei]

They haven't "sold" anything. They have committed academic and actual fraud. The only reason why they aren't in prison is because the politicians want the power the legislation will give them, and the ultra rich want to be even more ultra rich. They are the only people who benefit. What is astonishing to me is supposedly thinking people ignore those very real and easy to research facts.

Yes, I understand that is the way you and others think here. But the point is that climate scientists are not interested in experiments to show what the administration and other countries have already accepted.

 

[jc456]

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

No, it's because scientists can do rough modeling calculations to see that there is some effect and they are satisfied with what they have. An accurate experiment would involve a huge tall simulation that is prohibitively expensive. The IPCC scientists have no motivation for that kind of expenditure.

Why do you think it's up to the warmers to do the experiment. They don't need to prove anything. I would think that a denier would be more motivated to design an experiment to prove the warmers wrong.

so you know it's wrong, thanks for playing.

 

[dilloduck]

They haven't "sold" anything. They have committed academic and actual fraud. The only reason why they aren't in prison is because the politicians want the power the legislation will give them, and the ultra rich want to be even more ultra rich. They are the only people who benefit. What is astonishing to me is supposedly thinking people ignore those very real and easy to research facts.

Yes, I understand that is the way you and others think here. But the point is that climate scientists are not interested in experiments to show what the administration and other countries have already accepted.

Of course not-----the irrationality of it would be exposed.

 

[jc456]

They haven't "sold" anything. They have committed academic and actual fraud. The only reason why they aren't in prison is because the politicians want the power the legislation will give them, and the ultra rich want to be even more ultra rich. They are the only people who benefit. What is astonishing to me is supposedly thinking people ignore those very real and easy to research facts.

Yes, I understand that is the way you and others think here. But the point is that climate scientists are not interested in experiments to show what the administration and other countries have already accepted.

the new scientific method eh? funny shit, that isn't science but why let that point get in the way.

 

[Wuwei]

So in other words this decision was a political one based on negligible scientific evidence.

I wouldn't say it was negligible. There is an unprecedented rise in atmospheric CO2. Other than the last two decades there was a rise in global temperature. So they made a connection and all scientists seem to agree.

 

[jc456]

They haven't "sold" anything. They have committed academic and actual fraud. The only reason why they aren't in prison is because the politicians want the power the legislation will give them, and the ultra rich want to be even more ultra rich. They are the only people who benefit. What is astonishing to me is supposedly thinking people ignore those very real and easy to research facts.

Yes, I understand that is the way you and others think here. But the point is that climate scientists are not interested in experiments to show what the administration and other countries have already accepted.

Of course not-----the irrationality of it would be exposed.

no more money