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

[Billy_Bob]

Before this century is out, the oceans will flood the homes and workplaces of hundreds of millions of people due to thermal expansion and meltwater. The ignorant fools like you who'd have us do nothing - THEY'RE the ones doing the hosing. the schlonging, if you like.

Your an ignorant drone fool!

People like you make genocidal maniacs possible throughout history...

The oceans are not rising outside of natural variation...

The earth is not warming or cooling outside of natural variation.

It is imbeciles like you who have no clue, which deprive others of their freedoms and rights to make yourself feel good.. You and your ilk can go fuck yourself Crick!

 

[Billy_Bob]

But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."

You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.

Here. Someone showing that the trace amounts of greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere are warming the planet
*************************************************************************************
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.

If you'd like to show that you're smarter than Billy Bob, the resident atmospheric physicist, just read the whole abstract.

?? the abstract??

Your an ignorant twit. Tell me how they determined the forcing of CO2 and isolated it from all other causes. You cant, becasue they didn't do it.! READ THE DAM PAPER AND QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS YOU CAN NOT PROVE!

Crick throws a bag of shit and it blows back on him..

 

[Crick]

?? the abstract??

Your an ignorant twit. Tell me how they determined the forcing of CO2 and isolated it from all other causes.

Have you still failed to read it or did you read it but still fail to understand it?

From the paper

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991).

You cant, becasue they didn't do it.! READ THE DAM PAPER AND QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS YOU CAN NOT PROVE!

So, again, did you fail to read it or just not understand it? The backradiation was measured and analyzed.

2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized.

Billy Boy, everyone here has that link. Everyone here can read the paper. How well do you think lying about what everyone here is able to check going to work?

 

[Old Rocks]

Before this century is out, the oceans will flood the homes and workplaces of hundreds of millions of people due to thermal expansion and meltwater. The ignorant fools like you who'd have us do nothing - THEY'RE the ones doing the hosing. the schlonging, if you like.

The science changes it's mind all the time, has been caught manipulating data many times, so they can get the funding..........

The people being fucked or scholonged are the people least able to afford it as the rates to keep the lights on grows higher with your agenda.

PSC grants new Kemper rate hike for Mississippi Power

JACKSON, MS (WLOX) -

The Mississippi Public Service Commission voted Thursday to grant Mississippi Power Company an immediate emergency 18 percent increase in rates. Commissioners voted two to one to allow for the increase.

The vote came one week after a public hearing on the power company's request to raise its rates. Power company officials testified last week that unless the rate increase was granted, the company will run out of money to operate its business by the end of this year.


Are you going to pay for this increase Cricket? This is an attempt to deal with Obama's back door EPA REGULATIONS..............

Who the hell is gonna protect the poor from you?

September 14, 2015


PORTLAND, Ore.– Eligible Pacific Power customers in Oregon will see an overall average decrease of 3.1 percent due to adjustments to the Residential Exchange Program.

The average Oregon residential customer using 900 kilowatt hours per month will see monthly bills go down an additional $4.22.

For the average residential customer, the total credit from the Residential Exchange Program will be $9.35 per month, which includes the additional $4.22 as well as the average $5.13 credit that was already in place. Eligible small agricultural customers will see a total credit of 0.768 cents per kilowatt hour.

The new credit levels will take effect Oct. 1 if approved by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission and be effective until the end of 2017.

"Pacific Power is pleased to provide the cost reduction made possible through this credit," said Stefan Bird, president and CEO. "The reduction is due in part to the countless hours of customer advocacy by our team. The Residential Exchange Program, while complex, is at its heart recognition of how the power grid of the Northwest is interconnected and interdependent--all with the goal of providing reliable and affordable electricity to the region."

Created by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act) in 1980, the Residential Exchange Program is a mechanism designed to equitably spread the benefits of the federally owned power system among the region's residential and small-farm customers of investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities.
Electric Bills to Drop for Oregon Customers

Of course almost all of Oregon's power is from hydro and wind.

 

[Old Rocks]

But we are allowed to DISAGREE that you have demonstrated that the small additional amount of trace 'greenhouse' gasses (particularly the CO2) humans put into the atmosphere have any particular ability to contribute significantly to that "change."

You can (and you do) keep repeating it. But you are unable to SHOW it. And it is hubris to even imagine that we could cause it or that we can somehow (at least yet) alter planetary climate changes.

Here. Someone showing that the trace amounts of greenhouse gases we've put into the atmosphere are warming the planet
*************************************************************************************
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.

If you'd like to show that you're smarter than Billy Bob, the resident atmospheric physicist, just read the whole abstract.

?? the abstract??

Your an ignorant twit. Tell me how they determined the forcing of CO2 and isolated it from all other causes. You cant, becasue they didn't do it.! READ THE DAM PAPER AND QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS YOU CAN NOT PROVE!

Crick throws a bag of shit and it blows back on him.. View attachment 57774

LOL. Silly Billy once more making a fool of himself. But we all know he has a Masters in Nuclear Psychics and numerous other such disciplines.

 

[Billy_Bob]

?? the abstract??

Your an ignorant twit. Tell me how they determined the forcing of CO2 and isolated it from all other causes.

Have you still failed to read it or did you read it but still fail to understand it?

From the paper

The measurements have been obtained using commercial Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers. These measurements have been used to quantify the radiative flux associated with a number of greenhouse gases. It is this radiative flux that provides an additional source of warming for the planet’s surface, and ultimately is responsible for any change in climate. We have provided the first direct measurements of the greenhouse effect for a number of trace gases in the atmosphere. These gases include trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), nitric acid (HNO3), and tropospheric ozone (Evans and Puckrin, 1994-1997; Puckrin et al., 1996). Not only do these results prove that an increase in the greenhouse effect is real, and that trace gases in the atmosphere are adding a significant radiative burden to the energy budget of the atmosphere, but they also provide a means of validating the predictions that are made by global warming models (Ellingson et al., 1991).

You cant, becasue they didn't do it.! READ THE DAM PAPER AND QUIT MAKING ASSUMPTIONS YOU CAN NOT PROVE!

So, again, did you fail to read it or just not understand it? The backradiation was measured and analyzed.

2. METHODOLOGY The measurements of the downward atmospheric thermal emission were collected using a Magna 550 FTIR spectrometer or a high resolution Bomem DA8 system; the instruments were capable of resolutions of 0.25 cm-1 and 0.02 cm-1, respectively. Both instruments incorporated a liquid-nitrogencooled, narrow-band, MCT detector with a 1 mm2 element. The downward zenith sky radiation from the clear sky was collected by positioning a gold-coated mirror at the emission port along the optical axis of the instrument. A stored-phase correction was applied to the measured interferogram before conversion was made to the spectral domain in order to account for phase changes that were present at 750 and 2000 cm-1. The thermal emission background of the instrument was characterized by measuring a negligible source of thermal radiation which consisted of a blackened dewar containing liquid nitrogen. The background measurement was taken immediately prior to and after the measurement of the sky radiation to ensure that the spectrometer was thermally stabilized.

Billy Boy, everyone here has that link. Everyone here can read the paper. How well do you think lying about what everyone here is able to check going to work?

You never learn...

Same pile of shit over and over again. They cant and have not determined what CO2 has done or is doing in our atmosphere. You keep touting the spectral bandwidth as if it some how proves your assertion. It does not. Lowering the collection device temp to below 2.7k will allow ANY passing LWIR to be seen. They can not differentiate which gas is EMITTING it. You Moron, read the dam paper. Your making assumptions they do not have empirical evidence to support.

 

[IanC]

That's a rather ignorant analysis Ian. Adjusting data to meet expectation would push uncertain data towards the values dictated by more certain data. That you even suggest that the "expectation" is an enhanced warming signal only shows YOUR bias. Working with short data segments would increase chronological accuracy and perhaps resolution. It would not mask climate signals at all.

ignorant analysis???? how much of BEST's jacknifing and kriging methodology have YOU read? I'm not even sure you read the parts that I actually cut and pasted for you to read.

there is a warming trend over the historical range. warming IS the expected result. the raw data from individual stations is compared to other stations. stations are given reliability weightings from between 2 to 1/13th. stations meeting expectations are given the most weight and influence neighbouring stations the most. once a station has deviated from the expectation by too much, or for too long, an artificial breakpoint is produced and the whole section is offset in the direction of expectations.

as warming is expected, it is less likely that any readings lower than expectations will survive and more likely that warmer ones will. there is also a loss of variability as both high and low readings over a period of time will be offset back to expectations.

here is a BEST page for Lebanon, Kansas. picked because it is dead centre of the USA. About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth

raw data showing slight warming-

chopped up-

put back together-

how much of a change did this make? in this case not that much. only a 40% increase in trend.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.47
After quality control 0.47
After breakpoint alignment 0.67
Regional expectation during same months 0.75 ± 0.10
National average during same months 0.92 ± 0.10
Global land average during same months 1.06 ± 0.04

 

[Crick]

Sorry Ian, I guess you're not the only one that can slip a decimal point.

I agree with your description right up till you say "as warming is expected, it is less likely that any readings lower than expectations will survive". The adjustments are not being made because warming is "expected". The adjustments are being made in whatever direction the difference from regional averages requires. That warming is taking place may certainly make it more likely that an adjustment will produce a warming trend as a final result, but there is no human mechanism here giving preferential treatment to warming.

After "debating" with Frank and JC and Billy Boy and SSDD, it's easy to fail to give you the attention your posts deserve. Mea culpa.

 

[IanC]

Sorry Ian, I guess you're not the only one that can slip a decimal point.

I agree with your description right up till you say "as warming is expected, it is less likely that any readings lower than expectations will survive". The adjustments are not being made because warming is "expected". The adjustments are being made in whatever direction the difference from regional averages requires. That warming is taking place may certainly make it more likely that an adjustment will produce a warming trend as a final result, but there is no human mechanism here giving preferential treatment to warming.

After "debating" with Frank and JC and Billy Boy and SSDD, it's easy to fail to give you the attention your posts deserve. Mea culpa.

I dont think you understand that an algorithm that favours the direction of general trend can actually modify the trend in that direction unless you are very, very careful.

A while back I presented two versions of the CET dataset. while the average temp and trend were not effected at the level of precision stated, it was obvious that many readings, as far back as a few hundred years, were slightly increasing. no one was going back and purposely changing those readings. the program itself was doing it.

BEST is raising temps by slightly favouring warmer temps. GISS homogenization is raising temps by adjusting good sites to poor ones. (Watt's latest paper coming out soon). I wish I was more mathematically skilled to teach you WHY these things are happening. I'm also sorry that I am too lazy to try and find the proofs. I only have the echos of past learned mathematical generalities.

 

[Crick]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

 

[IanC]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

The BEST method would probably also amplify cooling, if the general trend was cooling rather than warming.

 

[rdean]

global warming experiments - Google Search

This is why Republicans are such tards. To start a thread like this when they sit in front of Google. No wonder they get so much spite and ridicule. They deserve it.

 

[Crick]

They have some standard objections to these sorts of experiments and a few very non-standard. The most common objection is that most of these experiments don't directly demonstrate the warming that would be caused by 120 ppm - the sort of concentration that has taken 150 years to raise the Earth's temperature almost 1C. And for those experiments which did use such concentrations, the argument will be that their thermometric equipment lacks the resolution to accurately detect such minute changes or that the laboratory has failed to recreate the complexities of the Earth's atmosphere, ocean and land surface. There will always be such objections from them.

What is missing here is any apparent understanding of the scaling used in experiments of all varieties. When one puts a one-tenth scale model of an aircraft or a car or a ship into a wind tunnel, how can it possibly yield usable results? Scaling and the use of dimensionless variables of course. They believe - or for this one purpose they choose to believe - that a measurement of radiative forcing at 1,000 ppm CO2 shows nothing about what would happen at 100 ppm. A handy belief. It allows them to actually believe their objections have merit.

 

[IanC]

Show us an experiment at 200, 400, 800, 1600 ppm CO2. Not a comparison between 0.04% and 7% or 50%.

 

[Crick]

Tell us more Ian. Tell us how you would conduct this experiment were it your job to do so. The first thing you might want to ask is what hypothesis is being tested. Frank seems to want to see an experiment that will directly show how much warming would be produced by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm. That will be a rather lengthy one. It reminds me exactly of the ID proponents who insisted that lab experiments were required demonstrating the appearance of new species via evolution. When someone finally accomplished that with fruit flies, the new cry was that the lab couldn't posibly recreate the natural environment and, besides, since no one had turned a fruit fly into a spotted grebe or an earth worm into a frilled lizard, evolution hadn't actually taken place.

 

[boedicca]

If CO2 is awful, why do plants feed off of it?

 

[Wuwei]

If CO2 is awful, why do plants feed off of it?

Yes, and hydrohydroxic acid should be kept out of food. Many plants we eat are teeming with the stuff.

 

[boedicca]

If CO2 is awful, why do plants feed off of it?

Yes, and hydrohydroxic acid should be kept out of food. Many plants we eat are teeming with the stuff.

CO2 is a mere nuisance compared go Dihydrogen Monoxide!

Now that stuff should be banned - it'll kill you!

 

[westwall]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

 

[Crick]

You have not established (haven't even given us a hint) that the process favors any particular direction.

Actually there has. EVERY time the data is "corrected" it cools the past and warms the present. Every single time. Only a brainless fool would ignore that fact.

Hello brainless fool

Every single time?