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

[Old Rocks]

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

Congress already voted the money to implement our part of the Treaty. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

I will. It's been a subject since the 1800s. An experiment was done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch and he proved that man isn't causing any warming. the deniers all say his experiment is in error, yet, if you research the internet, you will not find one that can refute it. So?

I don't recall Herr Koch concluding that. Give me a reference, I don't have enough time for that right now.

ask old socks, he has the site. he's only posted twenty or fifty times to date.Climate something. It wasn't on my list of things to do today.

Typical know nothing denier, cannot even look up the sites he thinks state his position. And, no, the AIP site stated that Koch's experiment was highly flawed.

 

[Crick]

Frank, I found a cute experiment that I'm sure you can follow. You could even do this one at home. Make a nice report and present it here for everyone to enjoy and learn.

 

[Crick]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I found a cute experiment that I'm sure you can follow. You could even do this one at home. Make a nice report and present it here for everyone to enjoy and learn.

Yes, it's tests that pressure increases temperature.

Crick & the AGW Company post a failed experiment

It's another in a long string of frauds that passes off increases due to pressure onto CO2. I thought you knew "Science" Crick

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

What you posted was not an experiment controlling for a .01% increase in CO2. Why can't you ever post an experiment that tests your theory?

And, once again, you posted a chart with no temperature axis! Your friend banging the drum is impressed, I'm not

 

[Crick]

Frank, I found a cute experiment that I'm sure you can follow. You could even do this one at home. Make a nice report and present it here for everyone to enjoy and learn.

Yes, it's tests that pressure increases temperature.

Crick & the AGW Company post a failed experiment

Your "Theory" calls for a .01% increase in CO2.

When I saw him put that stopper in before the Alka-Seltzer has stopped fizzing, I knew one of you would claim that pressure had caused the temperature increase. But, please explain something. Why was it still 9F warmer an hour later? What do you think the insulation value of the wall of a soda bottle might be? And Frank is that you in the middle?

 

[Crick]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

What you posted was not an experiment controlling for a .01% increase in CO2. Why can't you ever post an experiment that tests your theory?

And, once again, you posted a chart with no temperature axis! Your friend banging the drum is impressed, I'm not

What I posted, and what as I feared you were incapable of understanding, was a DIRECT MEASUREMENT of the warming of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. We all know that any lab experiment will be called out for having failed to recreate the complex reality of the Earth's climate. But this was measured IN the environment. That IS the warming.

So, Frank, fuck off.

PS, that IS you in the middle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

What you posted was not an experiment controlling for a .01% increase in CO2. Why can't you ever post an experiment that tests your theory?

And, once again, you posted a chart with no temperature axis! Your friend banging the drum is impressed, I'm not

What I posted, and what as I feared you were incapable of understanding, was a DIRECT MEASUREMENT of the warming of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. We all know that any lab experiment will be called out for having failed to recreate the complex reality of the Earth's climate. But this was measured IN the environment. That IS the warming.

So, Frank, fuck off.

PS, that IS you in the middle.

It's not an experiment controlling for a .01% change in chemical composition of the atmosphere.

You can call it whatever you want, it's not a controlled experiment testing your bizarro theory

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Global Warming denier cult is dying a slow death. They'll flail their arms with their tired worn out lying rhetoric but the die is cast. The entire world now, except for the backwards weirdo conservatives in the US, all understand the science and see it for the abhorrent danger it is.

All you have to do is ignore the deniers and keep in mind, it is the world of a few message board angries against the combined lifetime knowledge of 10,000 PH.D's around the world. Who stated 15 years ago the science on this was settled.

The fossil fuel industry is living on borrowed time now. We'll see if they seize the moment and invest in solar and other renewables or if they ride their coal driven ship to the bottom of the ocean.

I would hate to see if you are this ignorant in real life. Oil companies have been doing research and development and invested in green energy at least since the 70s

Big Oil And Renewables: Not So Strange Bedfellows

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, I found a cute experiment that I'm sure you can follow. You could even do this one at home. Make a nice report and present it here for everyone to enjoy and learn.

Yes, it's tests that pressure increases temperature.

Crick & the AGW Company post a failed experiment

Your "Theory" calls for a .01% increase in CO2.

When I saw him put that stopper in before the Alka-Seltzer has stopped fizzing, I knew one of you would claim that pressure had caused the temperature increase. But, please explain something. Why was it still 9F warmer an hour later? What do you think the insulation value of the wall of a soda bottle might be? And Frank is that you in the middle?

How much did the pressure increase? How much CO2 was added? Was it a .01% increase or something several orders of magnitude higher?

 

[Old Rocks]

Frankie Boy, you had just as well zip it up. You are pissing into the wind. The issue has been decided, here and in the rest of the world. And you silly asses have lost. Inevitable, you cannot fight reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy, you had just as well zip it up. You are pissing into the wind. The issue has been decided, here and in the rest of the world. And you silly asses have lost. Inevitable, you cannot fight reality.

I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?

 

[Crick]

Invested in green energy? Is that why they've spent nearly $600 million attempting to convince the world that there's no need to worry about global warming from fossil fuels?

 

[Crick]

Frankie Boy, you had just as well zip it up. You are pissing into the wind. The issue has been decided, here and in the rest of the world. And you silly asses have lost. Inevitable, you cannot fight reality.

I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?

So, as anticipated, an experiment showing MORE than you asked for is simply rejected out of hand. Well Frank, you and your ignorance can have a nice life without me. I'm putting you on ignore with jc and skook. Nighty night.

 

[Wuwei]

I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?

That is the most childish block-my-ears, shut-my-eyes-tight, and sing-la-la-la post I've seen since SSDD.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

man made global warming is faith based

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?

That is the most childish block-my-ears, shut-my-eyes-tight, and sing-la-la-la post I've seen since SSDD.

So why hasn't anyone, ever, not one time, posted an experiment that show the magical effects of a .01% change in the chemical composition of the atmosphere? You accept the theory on faith? You know that's religion, not science, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frankie Boy, you had just as well zip it up. You are pissing into the wind. The issue has been decided, here and in the rest of the world. And you silly asses have lost. Inevitable, you cannot fight reality.

I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?

So, as anticipated, an experiment showing MORE than you asked for is simply rejected out of hand. Well Frank, you and your ignorance can have a nice life without me. I'm putting you on ignore with jc and skook. Nighty night.

You posted a chart without a temperature axis and comments that they say were an "Experiment"

You were asked to provide a lab experiment showing the effects of a .01% change. Your final grade: F

 

[Wyatt earp]

Invested in green energy? Is that why they've spent nearly $600 million attempting to convince the world that there's no need to worry about global warming from fossil fuels?

Link? I produced one, oh wait I forgot the AGW cult only goes on blind faith, fudging numbers, false predictions, manipulation of gullible people.