The Experiment that finally convinced me AGW is for real

[mamooth]

The OP's request for basic scientific data seems rational and even obvious to me. The response has been panic, desperation, and ridicule.

Of course, to rational people, it looked like a really stupid question. It's been explaind why. If you don't understand why, you're as stupid as the person who keeps asking the nonsense question.

That's a commonality of most deniers. They have no sense of logic or common logic. And that makes them easy prey for the denier cult. People who possess common sense simply don't get sucked into the denier cult.

Thus, we pity you. You simply don't have the brains to understand how you're being manipulated. Those outside of your cult see it plainly, but it's nearly impossible to penetrate your cult's anti-reality shields. You weren't reasoned into your position, so you can't be reasoned out of it. That's why I often go with ridicule instead of trying to reason with deniers, since the ridicule is often more effective at penetrating their anti-reality shields.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The OP's request for basic scientific data seems rational and even obvious to me. The response has been panic, desperation, and ridicule.

Of course, to rational people, it looked like a really stupid question. It's been explaind why. If you don't understand why, you're as stupid as the person who keeps asking the nonsense question.

That's a commanility of most deniers. They have no sense of logic or common logic. And that makes them easy prety for the denier cult. People who possess common sense simply don't get sucked into that cult.

Thus, we pity you. You simply don't have the brains to understand how you're being manipulated. Those outside of your cult see it plainly, but it's nearly impossible to penetrate your cult's anti-reality bubble. You weren't reasoned into your position, so you can't be reasoned out of it. That's why I often go with ridicule instead of trying to reason with deniers, since the ridicule is more effective.

What was the explanation?

Where's your lab homework?

 

[jc456]

That's because the hypotheses fail at every level...pick a point and there's a failure. How many failures must a hypothesis have before you consider it failed?

Depends on the hypothesis. But since you still haven't even found one AGW hypothesis that failed, you're just trying to deflect with a red herring.

No, don't bother lying again; your cult's lies are just boring. You can keep screaming your irrationality here on a message board, but it won't change anything. The world, being rational, will continue ignoring you until you clean up your act.

And that won't happen. Your cult now depends on the insanity, conspiracy theories and crazy lies to keep the hysteria of the cultists focused on hating the dirty liberals. If your cult leaders stop feeding the crazy to you, you'll turn on them, so they're stuck riding a tiger. Those of us outside the cult find it amusing to watch, and are stocking up on popcorn.

Again, temperatures from 1940 to 1970 fails your hypothesis? still wrong with the current hiatus. IPCC stated they were wrong in AR5. Failed and continue to fail. You seem to be posting more scared because the end is so near to the lies.

 

[mamooth]

Could you try that again, in English this time? Your hysteria appears to be interfering with your ability to construct sentences.

 

[itfitzme]

Wow. You know nothing about science, do you?

I do and can tell you that he is correctly stating the null hypothesis. The simplest of evidence shows an obvious correletion between CO2 and global mean temperature. The correct study and experiment is to prove that they are NOT causal.

s

So let's see that experiment that everyone claims exists, but no one seems to be able to un-ass the couch long enough to post.

Who claims it exists? You might start by describing this experimental set-up. ,Exactly how would you procede with it?

Just sitting in the peanut gallery saying "I don't get it" proves nothing except you're own ignorance.

 

[itfitzme]

It's just you can't prove a negative.

Of course you can. Proving "There is no elephant in my living room" is trivial.

Seriously. Look it up.

Seriously, logic is just one of the many things you fail at. No wonder you fall so hard for the denier scams. You just don't have any intellectual defenses against them.

If you were a tenth as smart as you believe you are, you could do something good for the world.

As it is, you're just an anonymous internet retard with an overabundance of unmerited arrogance.

Then you must feel right at home?

 

[itfitzme]

No, honey bunny, I know the Climate changes. We all know that.

The AGWCult came up with a weird, but testable theory that a 120PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature and lower ocean pH.

Where's the science?

The problem Is that you lack the education to be scientifically litterate.

Spelling and capitalization errors. You fail to make a compelling case.

A compelling case for what?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

For years now I've been asking for an experiment demonstrating that CO2 acts as the AGWCult theorizes.

Though the number of climactic changes attributable to CO2 has grown almost exponentially through the years, the one experiment that brought it all home was to show how a 120PPM increase in CO2 will simultaneously raise temperature (they say 2-8 degrees, I'm happy with 1) and also lower ocean pH from 8.25 to 8.15.

Huh?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

2. you can of course measure the absorption of certain wavelength bands along with their before determined energy content by CO2. Actually I did this some time ago with an infrared spectrometer I had in the lab for a different purpose.
The most fascinating effect of that was, that it showed reproducable peaks for CO2 and H2O during calibrating and eliminating this "zero peaks" for our actual testes.
Astonishing was, that if you breathed over the measuring head it went through the roof with H2O, which is to be expected, but stayed pretty constant with the value for CO2. If you know that you breath out with a content of approximately 4% CO2, I thought to see at least something compared to the normal CO2 concentration of 0,04%. This is a factor of 100. The raise in air mloisture was with a factor of 2 or 3 at the best.
Now this confirms, admittedly not scientifcally sound and peer reviewed, but as thumb figure that the capacity for CO2 absorption of certain wavelenghts of sunrays is pretty much saturated.

No it doesn't. Exhaled air has a relative humidity of damn near 100%. Co2 and water vapour have similar absorbtion bands.

4. Out of 3, we have 50 times the water in the air compared to CO2, plus minus whatever depending on temperature and weather, which is a substance that absorbes a crazy amount more energy out of radiation as the CO2 does.
If we only take the factor fifty as a thimb figure, the water is responsible for 98% of the temperature raise from the black body to +15%C in the atmosphere.
Means CO2 takes on 30/100*2= 0,6°C. Today, in total.
Again, this is not science and pure physics, this is a view on the matter an engineer takes to get an impression of the orders of magnitude.

Actually total Co2 provides about 40% of the radiative forcing that total water vapour does.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's about the consilience.

That means vastly different and independent lines of evidence all converging to the same result. It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Global warming science has massive consilience.

Denialism has none. There's no coherent theory of denialism. Their attacks and theories are all over the map, each one contradicting the last. That's why it's regarded as sucky science.

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's about the consilience.

That means vastly different and independent lines of evidence all converging to the same result. It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Global warming science has massive consilience.

Denialism has none. There's no coherent theory of denialism. Their attacks and theories are all over the map, each one contradicting the last. That's why it's regarded as sucky science.

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[daveman]

I do and can tell you that he is correctly stating the null hypothesis. The simplest of evidence shows an obvious correletion between CO2 and global mean temperature. The correct study and experiment is to prove that they are NOT causal.

s

So let's see that experiment that everyone claims exists, but no one seems to be able to un-ass the couch long enough to post.

Who claims it exists? You might start by describing this experimental set-up. ,Exactly how would you procede with it?

Just sitting in the peanut gallery saying "I don't get it" proves nothing except you're own ignorance.

Crick said it exists, but he couldn't be bothered to drop the Cheetos and post a link.

Sooo...you got nothin' either. Not at all surprising, really.

 

[daveman]

Of course you can. Proving "There is no elephant in my living room" is trivial.



Seriously, logic is just one of the many things you fail at. No wonder you fall so hard for the denier scams. You just don't have any intellectual defenses against them.

If you were a tenth as smart as you believe you are, you could do something good for the world.

As it is, you're just an anonymous internet retard with an overabundance of unmerited arrogance.

Then you must feel right at home?

I don't laughably try to inflate my own importance on the internet.

Feeling your toes stepped on?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's about the consilience.

That means vastly different and independent lines of evidence all converging to the same result. It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Global warming science has massive consilience.

Denialism has none. There's no coherent theory of denialism. Their attacks and theories are all over the map, each one contradicting the last. That's why it's regarded as sucky science.

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

 

[daveman]

The problem Is that you lack the education to be scientifically litterate.

Spelling and capitalization errors. You fail to make a compelling case.

A compelling case for what?

For Frank's lack of education.

Good grief, don't you even know how to run spell check on your browser?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

 

[daveman]

It's about the consilience.

That means vastly different and independent lines of evidence all converging to the same result. It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Global warming science has massive consilience.

Denialism has none. There's no coherent theory of denialism. Their attacks and theories are all over the map, each one contradicting the last. That's why it's regarded as sucky science.

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Oh, I see your point. You mean like saying "Obama's a good President" over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's regarded as an indicator of good science.

Good science. Makes you wonder why they have to lie and fake the data so much.

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Oh, I see your point. You mean like saying "Obama's a good President" over and over doesn't make it true.

Sure. Whatever brings the most joy to your simple little mind. Go for it.

 

[daveman]

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Of course.
What was I thinking?

Nevermind.

Wow you showed me. A hockey stick. That proves a lot. (like how big of a fucking idiot you are, like the fact your mother dropped you at least a dozen times right on your noggin, etc.)

Your reasoning is sound, and your logic is flawless. By golly, American SUVS and coal ARE warming up the planet!

 

[daveman]

No one's faking data you blubbering idiot. Just because a bunch of idiot bloggers claim data is faked and keep repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true.

Oh, I see your point. You mean like saying "Obama's a good President" over and over doesn't make it true.

Sure.

Whatever you like.

What I like is the truth. There is little to be had in climate "science".