So, CAGW activism isn't political huh...

[Crick]

Do you understand that their conclusion was that 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane would cause warming? How would they have reached that conclusion if their experiment had, as you contend, failed?

 

[Crick]

My transcript:

To make sure it all runs to plan the guys have called in [Indian name], a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. The Earth's CO2 levels stand at around 350 parts per million and methane, a tiny 1800 parts per billion. But amount that small are no problem for this gear. “For methane it's in the parts per billion level, for CO2 it's in the parts per million level.” So now they can up the greenhouse gas levels in minutely accurate increments and once the gases are in, everyone can chill out and watch ice melt. “Let's start melting some Jamie.” At M7 it's the big freeze. The temperatures have been steady in the control greenhouses, while, “the methane and the CO2 have been a degree higher, consistently.” But after 3-1/2 hours withstanding the heat, the Jamie finally cracked. So, we let the experiment run for four hours and from the results we've been getting I think we can come to a conclusion: Both the methane and the CO2 greenhouses remained hotter than the controls, throughout the whole experiment. It looks like the gases do increase the temperature inside the greenhouses.” The CO2 greenhouse stayed steady on 24.8 degrees celsius, the methane on 24.9. And both the controls were consistently a degree cooler. “I think that this is showing that CO2 and methane are major culprits for global warming.

 

[Crick]

Where's Crusader Frank? Westwall? SSDD? All the rest of the idiots who've been claiming this experiment had never been done?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Have you been able to show that the world is NOT actually warming?
Have you been able to find some OTHER cause for the warming than human GHG emissions?
Is there anything else to consider?

No, no and no.

That's not science, Dear.

You made an assertion, it's on you to show us how it "Works"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you understand that their conclusion was that 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane would cause warming? How would they have reached that conclusion if their experiment had, as you contend, failed?

So, you've eliminate all the variables except for a trace of CO2 as the cause of the "Warming" you should be able to demonstrate the same in a lab at those levels.

Get to it

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My transcript:

To make sure it all runs to plan the guys have called in [Indian name], a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. The Earth's CO2 levels stand at around 350 parts per million and methane, a tiny 1800 parts per billion. But amount that small are no problem for this gear. “For methane it's in the parts per billion level, for CO2 it's in the parts per million level.” So now they can up the greenhouse gas levels in minutely accurate increments and once the gases are in, everyone can chill out and watch ice melt. “Let's start melting some Jamie.” At M7 it's the big freeze. The temperatures have been steady in the control greenhouses, while, “the methane and the CO2 have been a degree higher, consistently.” But after 3-1/2 hours withstanding the heat, the Jamie finally cracked. So, we let the experiment run for four hours and from the results we've been getting I think we can come to a conclusion: Both the methane and the CO2 greenhouses remained hotter than the controls, throughout the whole experiment. It looks like the gases do increase the temperature inside the greenhouses.” The CO2 greenhouse stayed steady on 24.8 degrees celsius, the methane on 24.9. And both the controls were consistently a degree cooler. “I think that this is showing that CO2 and methane are major culprits for global warming.

From "Mythbusters"?

I tried to contact the "Indian name" guy to ask how much CO2 he put in the control tank and never got a reply

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You need to listen to it one more time. Gas levels were raised to 350 ppm CO2 and 1800 ppb methane and then left there. The temperatures in the CO2 and methane chambers climbed a degree above the control chambers and remained there.

The stated conclusion at the end of the video was the CO2 and methane did produce a greenhouse effect and caused warming.

But that's not your theory either.

They should have started at 300PPM and increased it to 400.

I'm assuming they did that in a trial and there was no warming, which is why they fell back on the experiment they did

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where's Crusader Frank? Westwall? SSDD? All the rest of the idiots who've been claiming this experiment had never been done?

Their experiment does not fit your theory

 

[Crick]

It fits the greenhouse effect and AGW just fine. What it doesn't fit is your utter nonsense.

 

[flacaltenn]

What a load.. Did they have a source that modeled the IR blackbody of the earth? How much CO2 was in the contol box.. IF ZERO ---- then they modeled the temp incrase for about 8 doublings of CO2. Or was it about 100ppm difference?

 

[westwall]

Have you been able to show that the world is NOT actually warming?
Have you been able to find some OTHER cause for the warming than human GHG emissions?
Is there anything else to consider?

No, no and no.

That's not how science works abe. YOU have made the claim that means YOU have to support what you said.

Put another way...

Have you been able to show that the world is actually warming over the last 17 years? NO

Have you been able to find some OTHER cause for the warming than human GHG emissions? YES More to the point, we can show that NOTHING happening now is remarkable in any way.

 

[mamooth]

Hey Admiral, how are you making out on finding that one lab experiment that shows a temperature increase from an additional wisp of CO2,

While Tyndall and Arrhenius originated the theory, they lacked the technology to quantify it. It was Guy Stewart Callendar in 1938 and then Gilbert Plass in 1956 who did the first spectroscopic experiments quantifying the greenhouse effects of trace amounts of CO2. Do keep up with the basics of the science. You're only about 58 years behind. I'll give you one of Plass's articles to help you out. It's impressive, how close Plass's 1956 estimates of climate sensitivity are to current estimates.

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate » American Scientist

And yes, you're welcome. I know you appreciate my attempts to educate you.

and how much CO2 does it take to lower the pH of Earth's oceans (or just the "surface" (LOL)) from 8.25 to 8.15?

No answer?

Of course not, because I don't know exactly. It's a complicated question, being that it involves a weak acid and a system buffered in multiple ways, and an ocean that isn't homogenous.

But what does that have to do with anything? Not being a narcissistic denier manchild, I have no problems admitting I don't know things. If you think the science is wrong because I don't personally know every detail, you're more of a dumbshit than any of us imagined.

Now, why don't you locate your balls and tell us the specific point of your constant asking of your stupid questions. I mean, as I just pointed out, you'd have to a complete imbecile to declare the science must be wrong because I don't personally know every detail. So is it that you actual are as retarded as you sound here, or is there some other reason?

 

[Crick]

I would ask Frank if he believes there isn't enough CO2 around to do the job.

 

[westwall]

Hey Admiral, how are you making out on finding that one lab experiment that shows a temperature increase from an additional wisp of CO2,

While Tyndall and Arrhenius originated the theory, they lacked the technology to quantify it. It was Guy Stewart Callendar in 1938 and then Gilbert Plass in 1956 who did the first spectroscopic experiments quantifying the greenhouse effects of trace amounts of CO2. Do keep up with the basics of the science. You're only about 58 years behind. I'll give you one of Plass's articles to help you out. It's impressive, how close Plass's 1956 estimates of climate sensitivity are to current estimates.

Carbon Dioxide and the Climate » American Scientist

And yes, you're welcome. I know you appreciate my attempts to educate you.

and how much CO2 does it take to lower the pH of Earth's oceans (or just the "surface" (LOL)) from 8.25 to 8.15?

No answer?

Of course not, because I don't know exactly. It's a complicated question, being that it involves a weak acid and a system buffered in multiple ways, and an ocean that isn't homogenous.

But what does that have to do with anything? Not being a narcissistic denier manchild, I have no problems admitting I don't know things. If you think the science is wrong because I don't personally know every detail, you're more of a dumbshit than any of us imagined.

Now, why don't you locate your balls and tell us the specific point of your constant asking of your stupid questions. I mean, as I just pointed out, you'd have to a complete imbecile to declare the science must be wrong because I don't personally know every detail. So is it that you actual are as retarded as you sound here, or is there some other reason?

And you conveniently ignore the fact that Arrhenius revisited his work and revised his estimate of CO2's effect DOWNWARD. It's amazing how many things were discovered in the 1800's that turned out to be not as impressive once we got better instruments. The same is true of CO2. It has nowhere near the effect you all claim it does and that is demonstrated by the hundreds of years lag in global rise of CO2 AFTER warming has occurred.

 

[Crick]

And you conveniently ignore the fact that Arrhenius revisited his work and revised his estimate of CO2's effect DOWNWARD. It's amazing how many things were discovered in the 1800's that turned out to be not as impressive once we got better instruments. The same is true of CO2. It has nowhere near the effect you all claim it does and that is demonstrated by the hundreds of years lag in global rise of CO2 AFTER warming has occurred.

Were you under the impression that Arrhenius revised warming downward from some proportionality that the IPCC was using?

Greenhouse effect
Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and in 1896 he was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.[8] He was influenced by the work of others, including Joseph Fourier and John Tyndall. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan-Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius' greenhouse law is still used today:[9]

ΔF = α Ln(C/C_0)
Here C is carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration measured in parts per million by volume (ppmv); C_0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant alpha (&#945 has been assigned a value between five and seven.[9]

Arrhenius at the first Solvay conference on chemistry in 1922 in Brussels.
Based on information from his colleague Arvid Högbom (sv), Arrhenius was the first person to predict that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other combustion processes were large enough to cause global warming. In his calculation Arrhenius included the feedback from changes in water vapor as well as latitudinal effects, but he omitted clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. His work is currently seen less as an accurate prediction of global warming than as the first demonstration that it should be taken as a serious possibility.

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)
"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)
"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." (p53)
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)
"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)
"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63)
Arrhenius clearly believed that a warmer world would be a positive change. His ideas remained in circulation, but until about 1960 most scientists doubted that global warming would occur (believing the oceans would absorb CO2 faster than humanity emitted the gas). Most scientists also dismissed the greenhouse effect as implausible for the cause of ice ages, as Milutin Milankovitch had presented a mechanism using orbital changes of the earth (Milankovitch cycles). Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C.[10] In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapor feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2014) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 1.5 and 4.5 °C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century.

 

[IanC]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOX5ehfFF7I]Hollywood celebrities caught on hidden camera accepting money from "Middle Eastern oil interests" - YouTube[/ame]

Too funny, too funny….. this is a serious matter, but funny when leading Greens and Hollywood types get caught on film in a genuine conspiracy to hide Middle Eastern “oil” funding to make an anti-Fracking film for the “movement” ….

its like flac's sig line. liars cannot believe anyone else is telling the truth. the corrupt think every one else is corrupt.

 

[mamooth]

its like flac's sig line. liars cannot believe anyone else is telling the truth. the corrupt think every one else is corrupt.

Since it's only the deniers declaring the whole world is corrupt, you and flac would seem to be stating that the deniers are corrupt liars.

 

[IanC]

its like flac's sig line. liars cannot believe anyone else is telling the truth. the corrupt think every one else is corrupt.

Since it's only the deniers declaring the whole world is corrupt, you and flac would seem to be stating that the deniers are corrupt liars.

you are certainly free to bring up any evidence that 'deniers' are corrupt or lying. I thought it was funny that hollywood wingnuts would sell out for oil money considering how they think they stand on the moral high ground. a wee bit of hypocrisy there, dont you think?

let's not forget about Gleick committing fraud to get Heartland info, and then counterfeiting additional papers because there was nothing of interest in the originals. this was compounded by his peers immediately forgiving him. I cannot remember.....did they give him back his position as head of the Ethics Committee at the AGU?

 

[Crick]

I forget, Ian, where was the proof that Gleick produced counterfeit documents?

And, personally, I find someone going after Heartland to be a paragon of ethical behavior. They are lying scum.

 

[IanC]

I forget, Ian, where was the proof that Gleick produced counterfeit documents?

And, personally, I find someone going after Heartland to be a paragon of ethical behavior. They are lying scum.

there is no proof that he produced the counterfeit documents. it could have been an unnamed co-conspirator. Gleick did release them though, with the fraudulently obtained real Heartland documents. it is kinda scary that you think breaking the law is acceptable for persons in positions of high responsibility.