Two Theories

[bripat9643]

Crick: I can't put the AGW Theory into mere words! It's too, too, settled! We have Consensus, ya know! Not even Einstein had consensus! He had to do experiments! Bleh! Idiots!

Tell us about the experiments Einstein conducted. Please.

Other people did the experiments. Einstein's theories have been validated over and over and over again. In fact, our GPS system depends on relativity being correct. The system wouldn't operate otherwise.

 

[Crick]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

 

[bripat9643]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Who does the experiments is irrelevant. Don't confirm the fact that you're a moron.

 

[Ernie S.]

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

That dude just walked himself right into quicksand! Let's see how fast he can stay afloat, any theories? I say he sinks on his next post!

You both are retards to the n-th degree dude, and I don't say this "lightly."

Here are directions to do the experiment YOURSELF! (imagine that??!?!?!?!) as given to some elitist "college" students.

Is the Earth Warming?

Several problems with the experiment outlined. First, you were asked to show an experiment where CO2 concentrations went from 280 PPM to 400 PPM, this experiment would change from ambient to 700 PPM. Secondly, the questions at the end are biased bullshit from a book with an agenda.
Yes a great deal of fresh water is contained in ice sheets, but as we've seen recently, ice sheets melt and return, Your ice free arctic predictions still are bullshit. All that aside, melting the ice sheets wouldn't cause lower rainfall, but more than likely it would increase rainfall because the oceans would have more surface area from which water vapor could evaporate.
Corn in stead of yielding less, would yield more due to increased rainfall AND increased CO2.

Science has no agenda, no vested interest in the outcome and does not label and demean dissent.
What you and the author of your little exercise in indoctrination have done is akin to a "scientist" hired by a sugar company feeding a lab rat a pound of saccharine a day and determining that there is a health risk to humans that use a gram a day to sweeten their coffee.

 

[Ernie S.]

I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.

Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.

Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.

"Denialism" LO fucking, L. So now the AWG cult is calling anyone not down with group think, heretics.

 

[freedombecki]

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.

Hardly. But by saying so you revealed a lot more about yourself than the brilliant people of mathematics, science and letters whom you attacked.

 

[Dot Com]

I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.

Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.

Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.

^ that

all deniers seem to do is attack the research of 96% of scientists

 

[freedombecki]

Fuck you need a video for? Are you going to contest a facet of the experiment with specifics or.......
Exactly.

This is a science board, not the black board jungle, G.T.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Experiments for gravity lensing were performed after his death. So he never knew the feeling of having consensus or settled science.

So what's your theory of agw

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've done this before. You know, list some things that would falsify AGW theory. Then I follow it up by asking the deniers to tell us what would falsify their theory. Deniers always refuse to answer that question. That's one reason we know denialism is pseudoscience.

Not only do deniers refuse to say what would falsify their theory, they don't even have the guts to state what their theory is. They seem to think that screaming at someone else somehow validates the theory that they refuse to state. Very strange.

Oh, I'll post the list again, provided Frank first posts his list of what data that would falsify denialism. jc, feel free to join in by posting your list.

^ that

all deniers seem to do is attack the research of 96% of scientists

Research you say maybe you can find the experiment that shows a temperature increase from raising CO2 from 280 to 400

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[westwall]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Actually, the only thing that has been shown in a lab, is that CO2 is indeed a GHG. That's all. There has been NO work that shows how effective it is. There has been NO work that demonstrates that a 100ppm increase will have any effect whatsoever.

By all means feel free to trot out one of those innumerable youtube experiments, just realize that what they are demonstrating are actually the Ideal Gas Laws.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Ernie S.]

Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and having no observable warming instantly falsifies the AGWCult Theory.

But there was observable warming, so you just look like a dishonest kook for claiming otherwise.

Now, try to locate your balls and tell us what data would falsify your relig ... I mean, theory.

As it currently stands, your refusal to do so confirms what everyone already knows, that you're spouting cult pseudoscience. Science can be falsified. Denialism is a religion, hence there is literally nothing that can falsify it in the minds of those who believe in that religion.

And then observable cooling after even higher concentrations of CO2.

You people are desperate. Your high priests know they are loosing the battle but yet they march you onward confident that if they can convince enough of you by reconfiguring their data and computer models, to vote against your own self interests they can bring about those "fundamental changes" your Lord and Savior spoke of 5 days before his ascension... err election.

 

[polarbear]

My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation. I think no thread in years has so clearly shown the willful ignorance of the deniers here. Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts on their side and which has discarded honesty and integrity in order to try to hold an absolutely unsupportable position for reasons having NOTHING to do with the science or the facts, need do NOTHING more than read this thread. It could not be illustrated any more clearly. Again, GT, thank you.

How much more retarded can it get?
What kind of experimental proof is an experiment that does not even state a result ?
...but asks how much warmer is it with 700 ppm CO2 after 5 minutes of cooling.
and all the while the CO2 inside that foil covered glass jar is totally irrelevant
because the glass walls absorb way more 15 µm IR than CO2 can and the foil on top reflects it back down into the jar.

Whatever cooling you get now is not by heat radiation, but by heat conduction to the glass and from there to the ambient air.
Retards like you first of all assume that with the extra CO2 it stayed warmer after 5 minutes elapsed because CO2 does indeed absorb IR.
Nobody ever disputed that CO2 absorbs IR !!!

I guess I have to lead you by the hand because you are just way too obtuse to understand what I said in my previous post about this utterly stupid experiment.
This bozo first heats that jar with a heat lamp till the air inside is 15 deg hotter.
That won`t take long, but it would take a lot longer till the mass of the glass is also 15 deg hotterand it won`t be.
Now switches off the heat lamp and notes the temperature after 5 minutes.
Because the glass is still cooler, it will therefore drop faster than the second time around when he adds 1.6 milligrams of Alka Seltzer.
(B.t.w. I`ld like to see him do that...how he says to do that, no Chemist would even try to do it like that
But never mind, after the 5 minute cooling time he adds the Alka Seltzer and turns on the heat lamp again.
It doesn`t dawn on you that the second time around the glass is now way warmer than the first time, does it?
Of course the air inside will be warmer after 5 minutes of cooling because of that and would be even if he did not add any CO2.
So all he demonstrated is that a glass jar full of air stays warmer if the glass was warmer than before he added Alka Seltzer
But you and the idiot who posted that crap never realized that.

Nowhere does he say that he let the glass cool down for x- amount of time till it was at ambient temperature before he turned on his heat lamp again.

No wonder he does not publish any numbers because the results would be ridiculous.
He is telling you to do it, that`s all and never even bothered to state a result.
This does not even qualify as a "thought experiment" and peer review is impossible
Pardon me, there are a few morons here who passed it and approved the results, without even knowing the results:

My thanks to GT for an excellent presentation...
Anyone with the slightest doubt as to which side of this argument has the facts
It could not be illustrated any more clearly. Again, GT, thank you.

You retards clamor to anything, even the dumbest crap you can find on the internet.
It illustrates clearly that you are still the same idiot before when you called yourself "Abraham3" and pretty soon you`ll have to change your name again

 

[SSDD]

Its interesting to me that you think the data comes from thin air and before YOU read the papers you just referenced....you open your fat fuck mouth and bitch and whine that its a conspiracy theory - when any semi sentient person who can read and understand the literature and isnt a completely partisan minded dipsbhit can see that you havent done dick for intellectually honest research. Not a damn bit of shit.

Sad, really.

Your goofy experiment demonstrates a phenomenon known as the heat of compression, not that a small increase in atmospheric CO2 causes warming. There are all sorts of experiments online that claim to show the warming properties of CO2, but they all, without a single exception demonstrate something other than the claim that a small increase of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming.

It is easy to be fooled by experiments if you don't have a limited knowledge base. My worry is whether or not the supposed scientists who are doing these experiments are deliberately deceiving or if they actually believe they are demonstrating the claimed warming property of CO2.

 

[SSDD]

are you contending that increasing green house gases in the atmosphere has an effect on temperature?

cuz it has been reproduced in a lab

and if youre not contesting that, then you concede that co2 (a greenhouse gas) increases temperature

Really? You can show us a lab experiment that goes from 280 to 400 PPM?

Really?

Truly?

Show us!

Easily done. If you put 280 ppm CO2 in a spectrophotometer, it will absorb IR radiation. If you put in 400 ppm, it will absorb more. It's simple logic. You're being disingenuous because you've been told this many times, but pretend to have never heard it before.

Really? The absorption bandwidth changes with the concentration? Are you sure about that? And is the radiation emitted at the same frequency as it was absorbed? Is it emitted in a frequency that can be absorbed by another CO2 molecule?

 

[SSDD]

Crusader Frank
JC456
PolarBear
BriPat9643

My GOD are you people just flabbergastingly stupid.

Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?

 

[Crick]

Seriously, in your own words, without getting to elaborate, can you describe how you believe the greenhouse effect works?

Why waste my time? The problem doesn't lie in the science and it doesn't lie in the explanations. It lies in you and your choices.

 

[Crick]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Einstein theorized the existence of black holes which were only confirmed after his death. So again no consensus and no settled science. We recently created a black hole in a lab how come the AGWCult can't create an atmosphere of 400ppm CO2 in a lab

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

You couldn't get more things wrong if you tried.

 

[Crick]

No Paddie, Frank said Einstein had to do experiments and Frank knows better than any of us about these things.

Who does the experiments is irrelevant. Don't confirm the fact that you're a moron.

I'm not the one spouting unsupportable nonsense, am I.