Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And yet not ONE SINGLE test backs up the theory. None have been done not one. The observed does not conform to the theory and no one has done a test to prove the theory much less duplicate said test to show it is valid.
Oh, Gunny, you missed the big news. The boys at Mythbusters tested it out. It's on You Tube. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]
It appears they tested an atmosphere of pure CO2 and pure Methane against an atmosphere of normal air. That's hardly a valid test. Try comparing an atmosphere lacking C02 with one having 0.04% C02. You won't see any difference in the temperatures.
I could point out all kinds of other errors in their experimental method, but that should be sufficient to cast this one on the scrap heap.
Oh, Gunny, you missed the big news. The boys at Mythbusters tested it out. It's on You Tube. Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube
It appears they tested an atmosphere of pure CO2 and pure Methane against an atmosphere of normal air. That's hardly a valid test. Try comparing an atmosphere lacking C02 with one having 0.04% C02. You won't see any difference in the temperatures.
I could point out all kinds of other errors in their experimental method, but that should be sufficient to cast this one on the scrap heap.
So tell me how they're going to simulate 0.04% CO2 over a distance comparable to the atmosphere (~25 miles)?
As I've already stated multiple times, those experiments have been posted, multiple times. Beside the basic TV and high school level experiments, every plot you've ever seen of CO2 absorption spectra is the product of JUST such an experiment. But you choose to just keep lying.
What an ass you are.
It appears they tested an atmosphere of pure CO2 and pure Methane against an atmosphere of normal air. That's hardly a valid test. Try comparing an atmosphere lacking C02 with one having 0.04% C02. You won't see any difference in the temperatures.
I could point out all kinds of other errors in their experimental method, but that should be sufficient to cast this one on the scrap heap.
So tell me how they're going to simulate 0.04% CO2 over a distance comparable to the atmosphere (~25 miles)?
So none of the testing critics want to field this one?
So tell me how they're going to simulate 0.04% CO2 over a distance comparable to the atmosphere (~25 miles)?
So none of the testing critics want to field this one?
Sure dude, where is the validation of the claim? If you're saying no experiment exists, then why should I believe the science when the observed doesn't follow the models? Sorry epic fail. Besides, I was told once there are a hundred tests, fail. Then I was told there are a thousand tests, fail. So you're confirming/ validating that no one has ever proved the hypothesis that 120 PPM added will drive temperature, and yet here the likes of you wailing about it's true. Hah!
So none of the testing critics want to field this one?
Sure dude, where is the validation of the claim? If you're saying no experiment exists, then why should I believe the science when the observed doesn't follow the models? Sorry epic fail. Besides, I was told once there are a hundred tests, fail. Then I was told there are a thousand tests, fail. So you're confirming/ validating that no one has ever proved the hypothesis that 120 PPM added will drive temperature, and yet here the likes of you wailing about it's true. Hah!
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
Sure dude, where is the validation of the claim? If you're saying no experiment exists, then why should I believe the science when the observed doesn't follow the models? Sorry epic fail. Besides, I was told once there are a hundred tests, fail. Then I was told there are a thousand tests, fail. So you're confirming/ validating that no one has ever proved the hypothesis that 120 PPM added will drive temperature, and yet here the likes of you wailing about it's true. Hah!
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
hahahahahaha, lack of evidence requires insults and insults. You have nothing supporting your claim dude. Why not just admit it? There is no science that validates that CO2 drives temperature. That is a wet dream by someone.
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
hahahahahaha, lack of evidence requires insults and insults. You have nothing supporting your claim dude. Why not just admit it? There is no science that validates that CO2 drives temperature. That is a wet dream by someone.
Do you even understand the mechanism that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas?
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
hahahahahaha, lack of evidence requires insults and insults. You have nothing supporting your claim dude. Why not just admit it? There is no science that validates that CO2 drives temperature. That is a wet dream by someone.
Do you even understand the mechanism that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas?
hahahahahaha, lack of evidence requires insults and insults. You have nothing supporting your claim dude. Why not just admit it? There is no science that validates that CO2 drives temperature. That is a wet dream by someone.
Do you even understand the mechanism that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas?
No? Didn't think so. Who's next?
So none of the testing critics want to field this one?
Sure dude, where is the validation of the claim? If you're saying no experiment exists, then why should I believe the science when the observed doesn't follow the models? Sorry epic fail. Besides, I was told once there are a hundred tests, fail. Then I was told there are a thousand tests, fail. So you're confirming/ validating that no one has ever proved the hypothesis that 120 PPM added will drive temperature, and yet here the likes of you wailing about it's true. Hah!
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
Sure dude, where is the validation of the claim? If you're saying no experiment exists, then why should I believe the science when the observed doesn't follow the models? Sorry epic fail. Besides, I was told once there are a hundred tests, fail. Then I was told there are a thousand tests, fail. So you're confirming/ validating that no one has ever proved the hypothesis that 120 PPM added will drive temperature, and yet here the likes of you wailing about it's true. Hah!
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
Don't think you understand what parts of Global Warming are in dispute.. It's not a matter of identifying GHouse gases.. Or the basics of the Greenhouse Atmos Theory.. The debate is over the Magic Multipliers that have been applied in order to take 1.2DegC/doubling CO2 (a number that appears in every Atmos Physics book) and turn it into a 4 or even 8 degC surface temp anomaly...
YOU must have stopped at 8th grade science if you can't see that ANY lab experiment is not likely to resolve the debate and could never resolve how a complex Climate System like the Earth reacts to thermal forcings.. There IS NO consensus on what the temp will be be 2060. Just a wide range of guesses that have GROSSLY been exaggerated above and beyond the effects of a couple PPM of CO2... When a skeptic asks about a lab experiment, even modeling the Black Body Radiation spectrum of the Earth and the input spectrum of the Sun matters. Experiments with stage lights, and aquarium lamps don't count.. So they have a very valid point about some AWFUL Sesame Street science that's being passed off as "proof"...
Straight out of a bunch of liberal asshole's assholes. If you don't believe me just ask the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.......maybe Santa Claus?
The most appropriate gesture to express my feelings on "global warming" is the kids one finger salute in bripat's avatar.
See, here's what I love about people like you. You probably haven't taken a science class since 8th grade yet you assume that a community of PhD's can't figure out how to simulate this in a laboratory. What a fucking moron.
Don't think you understand what parts of Global Warming are in dispute.. It's not a matter of identifying GHouse gases.. Or the basics of the Greenhouse Atmos Theory.. The debate is over the Magic Multipliers that have been applied in order to take 1.2DegC/doubling CO2 (a number that appears in every Atmos Physics book) and turn it into a 4 or even 8 degC surface temp anomaly...
YOU must have stopped at 8th grade science if you can't see that ANY lab experiment is not likely to resolve the debate and could never resolve how a complex Climate System like the Earth reacts to thermal forcings.. There IS NO consensus on what the temp will be be 2060. Just a wide range of guesses that have GROSSLY been exaggerated above and beyond the effects of a couple PPM of CO2... When a skeptic asks about a lab experiment, even modeling the Black Body Radiation spectrum of the Earth and the input spectrum of the Sun matters. Experiments with stage lights, and aquarium lamps don't count.. So they have a very valid point about some AWFUL Sesame Street science that's being passed off as "proof"...
Now we're getting somewhere. I know that the mechanics of greenhouse gasses are not in dispute but try telling that to most of the skeptical dullards who are 'helping' you cast doubt. What earlier models did show was, if anything, less warming than we got rather than an exaggeration.
I think I saw in one of your posts that you know a thing or two about neural networks. Any comment on the magic numbers that they contain?
Straight out of a bunch of liberal asshole's assholes. If you don't believe me just ask the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.......maybe Santa Claus?
The most appropriate gesture to express my feelings on "global warming" is the kids one finger salute in bripat's avatar.
Ah, yes a fan of Bripat's avatar. I think I know exactly how smart you are now.
Don't think you understand what parts of Global Warming are in dispute.. It's not a matter of identifying GHouse gases.. Or the basics of the Greenhouse Atmos Theory.. The debate is over the Magic Multipliers that have been applied in order to take 1.2DegC/doubling CO2 (a number that appears in every Atmos Physics book) and turn it into a 4 or even 8 degC surface temp anomaly...
YOU must have stopped at 8th grade science if you can't see that ANY lab experiment is not likely to resolve the debate and could never resolve how a complex Climate System like the Earth reacts to thermal forcings.. There IS NO consensus on what the temp will be be 2060. Just a wide range of guesses that have GROSSLY been exaggerated above and beyond the effects of a couple PPM of CO2... When a skeptic asks about a lab experiment, even modeling the Black Body Radiation spectrum of the Earth and the input spectrum of the Sun matters. Experiments with stage lights, and aquarium lamps don't count.. So they have a very valid point about some AWFUL Sesame Street science that's being passed off as "proof"...
Now we're getting somewhere. I know that the mechanics of greenhouse gasses are not in dispute but try telling that to most of the skeptical dullards who are 'helping' you cast doubt. What earlier models did show was, if anything, less warming than we got rather than an exaggeration.
I think I saw in one of your posts that you know a thing or two about neural networks. Any comment on the magic numbers that they contain?
It takes some faith when dealing with Neural Nets because it's largely a process that's hidden from inspection.. Including the judgements on training and depth and selecting MEANINGFUL feature vectors as inputs.. You can either lean back and enjoy the magic if the bugger learns anything important -- or with some effort -- go in and inspect the algebra that the training process produced.. (Good luck with that part)
One project we did was to train NNets to biometrically identify people from their footfall patterns on 2D pressure plates as they crossed a threshhold.. Got up to 85% probability of detection with the right extracted features in time and space.. And a couple papers..
Earlier GW models were NOT conservative and failed miserably to predict even 20 yrs ahead. They were produced at a time when GW science was not seriously discussing the energy STORAGE and DELAY mechanisms inherent in a Complex system with feedbacks. In fact, the feedbacks and storage and delays are critical to the "magic numbers". Which I will now tell you are largely the "climate sensitivity" numbers applied to the W/m2 forcings that basic physics gives you.. The morons STILL TO THIS DAY have a widely ranging CSensitivity bracket that applies to the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET. When in reality, the earth does not consist of a single climate zone with just ONE sensitivity to forcings.
I have been vindicated as a skeptic for pointing out EARLY that any system containing feedbacks, integrals of storage and temporal delays would NEVER be expected to have a thermal output that curve matches the CO2 forcing or ANY OTHER FORCING. In fact, GWarming geniuses are now UNDERSTANDING that in the excuses they've made once their simple-ass models failed on them.. Like --- they've recently discovered the massive ocean heat sink and invented the "Ocean ate my Warming" excuse. Or the admissions from Max Planck Inst. that "time to thermal equilibriums may be on the order of decades or even centuries. Folks of science understand that it is a PROCESS not an election. And that the science is NOWHERE NEAR settled.
Now we're getting somewhere. I know that the mechanics of greenhouse gasses are not in dispute but try telling that to most of the skeptical dullards who are 'helping' you cast doubt. What earlier models did show was, if anything, less warming than we got rather than an exaggeration.
I think I saw in one of your posts that you know a thing or two about neural networks. Any comment on the magic numbers that they contain?
It takes some faith when dealing with Neural Nets because it's largely a process that's hidden from inspection.. Including the judgements on training and depth and selecting MEANINGFUL feature vectors as inputs.. You can either lean back and enjoy the magic if the bugger learns anything important -- or with some effort -- go in and inspect the algebra that the training process produced.. (Good luck with that part)
One project we did was to train NNets to biometrically identify people from their footfall patterns on 2D pressure plates as they crossed a threshhold.. Got up to 85% probability of detection with the right extracted features in time and space.. And a couple papers..
Earlier GW models were NOT conservative and failed miserably to predict even 20 yrs ahead. They were produced at a time when GW science was not seriously discussing the energy STORAGE and DELAY mechanisms inherent in a Complex system with feedbacks. In fact, the feedbacks and storage and delays are critical to the "magic numbers". Which I will now tell you are largely the "climate sensitivity" numbers applied to the W/m2 forcings that basic physics gives you.. The morons STILL TO THIS DAY have a widely ranging CSensitivity bracket that applies to the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET. When in reality, the earth does not consist of a single climate zone with just ONE sensitivity to forcings.
I have been vindicated as a skeptic for pointing out EARLY that any system containing feedbacks, integrals of storage and temporal delays would NEVER be expected to have a thermal output that curve matches the CO2 forcing or ANY OTHER FORCING. In fact, GWarming geniuses are now UNDERSTANDING that in the excuses they've made once their simple-ass models failed on them.. Like --- they've recently discovered the massive ocean heat sink and invented the "Ocean ate my Warming" excuse. Or the admissions from Max Planck Inst. that "time to thermal equilibriums may be on the order of decades or even centuries. Folks of science understand that it is a PROCESS not an election. And that the science is NOWHERE NEAR settled.
Well, it's possible that the sophistication of the modeling in general is less than I imagine but I've seen some of what has been done with the Earth Simulator and it's gnarly.
From a more personal and modest perspective, I model electrical and physical systems for commercial DSP applications. Much of it comes from analysis of the components of the systems but when combining those components, there's a certain amount of magic in getting the whole to behave as the sum of the components should. This is where it seems to me the disparity between various models and reality exists and I think the only way to improve that is through continued refinement of the resolution of the data and the sophistication of the interactions between observable parts of the process.
Bottom line, I don't think there's anything a true skeptic will accept as having been settled.
