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

[Wuwei]

The climate models already showed the skeptics that they are right.

The topic is why there are no experiments, not climate models.

 

[SSDD]

The climate models already showed the skeptics that they are right.

The topic is why there are no experiments, not climate models.

You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?

 

[Wuwei]

You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?

You failed to make a distinction between mathematical models and physical scaled models that are used when the mathematics is too difficult or iffy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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?

Why should I create a model when empirical evidence shows the failure?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?

You failed to make a distinction between mathematical models and physical scaled models that are used when the mathematics is too difficult or iffy.

Both are mathematical constructs and approximations.. Both FAIL EMPIRICAL/REAL WORLD REVIEW... but you go right on ahead and jump on that plane...

 

[Wuwei]

Why should I create a model when empirical evidence shows the failure?

The idea of the OP is an experiment to determine the effect of CO2 on the future environment. You are the one who is continuing to bring up a model. You have to answer your own question, why a model.

Both are mathematical constructs and approximations.. Both FAIL EMPIRICAL/REAL WORLD REVIEW... but you go right on ahead and jump on that plane...

Talk to SSDD about models. He is the one who brought it up in post #81.

 

[SSDD]

Why should I create a model when empirical evidence shows the failure?

The idea of the OP is an experiment to determine the effect of CO2 on the future environment. You are the one who is continuing to bring up a model. You have to answer your own question, why a model.

Both are mathematical constructs and approximations.. Both FAIL EMPIRICAL/REAL WORLD REVIEW... but you go right on ahead and jump on that plane...

Talk to SSDD about models. He is the one who brought it up in post #81.

Since it is you and yours making the claims, the onus is upon you and yours to demonstrate your claims...us skeptics are only pointing out that your models have failed, and there is no empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis...

 

[Crick]

.us skeptics are only pointing out that your models have failed

Again

[/QUOTE]

 

[Crick]

You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?

Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You don't think modeling is an experiment? You design a jet aircraft...build it to 1/2 scale....put it in a wind tunnel and it disintegrates at135mph...would you invest money in building it to full scale and commercial application?

Glad to hear you say so. Models are experiments and their results are valuable data.

Properly constructed models premised on actual scientific facts may lead to valuable data.

Poorly constructed models which fail to take into account innumerable significant contributing factors and / or which are not premised on actual scientific facts are a whole lot less valuable.

Except as fodder for justified ridicule.

 

[IanC]

I'll bite Crick.....why did you post this image?????

it shows a 3.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 1982
it shows a 6.7C rise from 1890-1981 in 2002
it shows a 8.5C rise from 1890-1981 in 2014

an extra 5C added to the trend in a third of a century. that works out to 15C per century if the adjustments continue at the same rate. sorta gives a whole new meaning to 'man-made global warming'.

edit- thanks to Crick for pointing out that I skipped a decimal. it's only 1.5C per century. how much warming is expected, again?

 

[Crick]

Seeing as the full height of the Y-axis is 1.4C, that's an interesting take Ian

 

[IlarMeilyr]

ONE of the tricks employed by the AGW Faith Based Proclaimers is to pretend that any doubt about AGW is blasphemy.

They deliberately conflate the denial of the "anthropogenic" component with the denial of the "climate changing" component.

It is perfectly possible that the climate is changing.

• That does not establish that a slight increase (via human causes) in a damn small trace atmospheric gas is the reason for the climate change.
• It does not establish that humans did cause any climate change.
• It does not establish that humans are even capable of causing such climate change.
• It does not establish that humans have the slightest ability to do a damn thing about climate change (at least not yet).

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why should I create a model when empirical evidence shows the failure?

The idea of the OP is an experiment to determine the effect of CO2 on the future environment. You are the one who is continuing to bring up a model. You have to answer your own question, why a model.

Both are mathematical constructs and approximations.. Both FAIL EMPIRICAL/REAL WORLD REVIEW... but you go right on ahead and jump on that plane...

Talk to SSDD about models. He is the one who brought it up in post #81.

Empirical Evidence shows that the response to CO2 rise by our atmosphere is ZERO. This is why they are frantically altering the temperature records and adjusting them upwards. Fortunately for us, the Satellites have revealed this fraud. Why would I waste money on something that is not affecting the climate and I can show it is not by empirical evidence?

 

[Crick]

Empirical Evidence shows that the response to CO2 rise by our atmosphere is ZERO.

Here's some empirical evidence for you Billy Boy. This is a direct measurement of backradiation from greenhouse gases.

This is from Evans 2006. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

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.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny how Crick posts the exaggerations, falsifications and manipulations of GISS, NOAA and Hansen Et Al.

You posted the rise of 1.46 deg C (almost 3 deg F) change in slope by adjustments made. Funny you would post clear evidence of your deceptions in an effort to prove your deception valid. Circular logic fail.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Empirical Evidence shows that the response to CO2 rise by our atmosphere is ZERO.

Here's some empirical evidence for you Billy Boy. This is a direct measurement of backradiation from greenhouse gases.

This is from Evans 2006. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

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.

Again you cant read a graph. this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit. it does not say how much they emit or what the effects are. Funny how you misrepresent what Dr David Evans (someone you have told me is unreliable and a quack multiple times) work for your agenda. Get back to me when you have done the math. Please show me your work!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seeing as the full height of the Y-axis is 1.4C, that's an interesting take Ian

No, Honey Boo Boo, the Cult, including NOAA and NASA are unabashed about altering past data to fit their failed theory

 

[Crick]

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

Again you cant read a graph.

I can read this graph just fine while you cannot read it or the attached text.

this shows only the spectrum at which certian gases emit.

No, that is NOT what this shows. This is a direct MEASUREMENT of the power spectrum of the backradiation produced by greenhouse gases.

it does not say how much they emit or what the effects are.

Are you blind? What is the Y-axis on this graph numbnuts?

Funny how you misrepresent what Dr David Evans (someone you have told me is unreliable and a quack multiple times) work for your agenda.

Now that IS funny. I quote from Evans' abstract: 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.
and I have never posted one WORD prior to this about David Evans. Prior to finding this article, I had never heard of the man. If you believe different, find the multiple posts in which you claim I've called him an unreliable quack. If not, withdraw your misrepresentation.

Get back to me when you have done the math. Please show me your work!

Why don't you get back to us when you have learned to read English and when you've decided to confess to the LIE that you have a degree in atmospheric physics. And, to be honest, I don't even believe you've got the mail order meteorology certificate you also claim. You just make too many errors to have gotten through any sort of college level science curriculum.

 

[Crick]

Seeing as the full height of the Y-axis is 1.4C, that's an interesting take Ian

No, Honey Boo Boo, the Cult, including NOAA and NASA are unabashed about altering past data to fit their failed theory

Frank, do you think Ian was able to read a span of 8.5C off a graph with a vertical span of 1.4C?

And if NOAA and NASA are "unabashed about altering past data to fit their failed theory" then you must have an admission from them that that is what they are doing. Where is it?