Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You should ask that question to deniers. I said more than once that there are deep pockets that agree with you why don't they fund the experiment? Did you read the reference in Crick's post #44? Or did you just look at the pictures he posted. I don't fully accept any theory by the warmers nor deniers.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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That is the most childish block-my-ears, shut-my-eyes-tight, and sing-la-la-la post I've seen since SSDD.I missed where you posted the experiment. Can you please repost it?
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
You should ask that question to deniers. I said more than once that there are deep pockets that agree with you why don't they fund the experiment? Did you read the reference in Crick's post #44? Or did you just look at the pictures he posted. I don't fully accept any theory by the warmers nor deniers.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?
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.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?
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.
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.
Exactly. So why doesn't some deep pocket denier agree with you and fund your favorite experimental concept that will prove the warmers wrong? If the AGW scientists are so crooked that they won't run your experiment why hasn't it been done by someone else?So you base your contentions on models which have no predictive powers and fail 100% of the time. We call this a SWAG. Scientific Wild Ass Guess! Very light on the science end of it.
Tell me, If a model for an airplane failed 100% of the time would you climb in and fly in it? That is why the AGW crap is such a farce.. Your going to bet your life and lively hood on a failed model and unprovable conjecture?
Exactly. So why doesn't some deep pocket denier agree with you and fund your favorite experimental concept that will prove the warmers wrong? If the AGW scientists are so crooked that they won't run your experiment why hasn't it been done by someone else?So you base your contentions on models which have no predictive powers and fail 100% of the time. We call this a SWAG. Scientific Wild Ass Guess! Very light on the science end of it.
Tell me, If a model for an airplane failed 100% of the time would you climb in and fly in it? That is why the AGW crap is such a farce.. Your going to bet your life and lively hood on a failed model and unprovable conjecture?
Now yer talkin. Get right to it. Show the world you are right because of science! and showem you are not just whining, pouting, and spouting ridiculous theories.I'm going to ask Koch Brothers to fund the experiment
Exactly. So why doesn't some deep pocket denier agree with you and fund your favorite experimental concept that will prove the warmers wrong? If the AGW scientists are so crooked that they won't run your experiment why hasn't it been done by someone else?So you base your contentions on models which have no predictive powers and fail 100% of the time. We call this a SWAG. Scientific Wild Ass Guess! Very light on the science end of it.
Tell me, If a model for an airplane failed 100% of the time would you climb in and fly in it? That is why the AGW crap is such a farce.. Your going to bet your life and lively hood on a failed model and unprovable conjecture?
Now yer talkin. Get right to it. Show the world you are right because of science! and showem you are not just whining, pouting, and spouting ridiculous theories.I'm going to ask Koch Brothers to fund the experiment
Hell, the Koch Brothers did just that. A lot of the funding for the BEST Project came from the Koch's. A dangerous move, funding a real scientist. For they simply report what they find, not what the donor would like to hear. And the BEST Project found that the scientists reporting on the temperatures were spot on.
The OP topic is why there are no experiments. Not your misery.The climate models prove the warmers wrong....the models are the AGW hypothesis incarnate and the have failed miserably. How much failure must a hypothesis endure before you reject it?...is there enough failure possible to cause you to reject this hypothesis?
