A real demonstration of warming from co2

[Saigon]

How does that establish or even TEND to establish that an infinitesimal addition of CO2 to a planetary sized system has ANY measurable effect on global climate?

Does it establish that adding CO2 to an atmosphere COULD see temperatures rise?

It tells us not one thing we didn't already know. CO2 COULD kill us all -- like if we eliminated all free oxygen and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2.

Of course, replacing O2 with Nitrogen gas could do the same thing.

The question is not "does CO2 have the theoretical potential to change planetary temperature?"

The question is, "is there any scientific evidence that the relatively miniscule additional amount of CO2 added by humankind to the planet's atmosphere has any actual impact on the planet's climate?"

As to THAT question, the OP's video lecture / demonstration offers not even one tiny bit of a hint.

Right - so the experiment has shown that CO2 CAN cause warming under certain circumstances.

Which is all it set out to prove.

The amount of CO2 released by human acitivity isn't minsicule by the way, though it may seem so when expressed as a % of the total. But it really is an enormous amount - check it out here:

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

 

[skookerasbil]

They are not even questioned as if there was zero doubt.

Have you ever heard of peer review?

naive is gay s0n..................


Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science | David Colquhoun | Science | guardian.co.uk



When I was 19 years old, I was a bonafide card carrying member of the college Marx/Engles club. I was way smarter than everybody else..........and I was also young, stupid and naive.

 

[Saigon]

SCIENCE establishes that rising CO2 has a diminishing effect on rising temperatures. It further establishes that CO@ follows rising temps not precedes them.

Right - a point specifically rejected by the Royal Meteorological Society (UK) and world Met Society.

How do you explain that?

 

[Liability]

Does it establish that adding CO2 to an atmosphere COULD see temperatures rise?

It tells us not one thing we didn't already know. CO2 COULD kill us all -- like if we eliminated all free oxygen and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2.

Of course, replacing O2 with Nitrogen gas could do the same thing.

The question is not "does CO2 have the theoretical potential to change planetary temperature?"

The question is, "is there any scientific evidence that the relatively miniscule additional amount of CO2 added by humankind to the planet's atmosphere has any actual impact on the planet's climate?"

As to THAT question, the OP's video lecture / demonstration offers not even one tiny bit of a hint.

Right - so the experiment has shown that CO2 CAN cause warming under certain circumstances.

Which is all it set out to prove.

The amount of CO2 released by human acitivity isn't minsicule by the way, though it may seem so when expressed as a % of the total. But it really is an enormous amount - check it out here:

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

It set out to DEMONSTRATE something to a class. It did not set out to prove that which was already known and well understood.

And it is fucking miniscule compared to the total amount of time it has taken humankind to generate the incredibly small increase and when compared to the massive volume of the atmosphere.

Denying that is just denying reality. And denying reality is an AGW Faither foundational belief.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[Saigon]

Skook -

Please stop spamming the thread.

I've just put you on Ignore, as you obviously have nothing to say.

 

[Saigon]

And it is fucking miniscule compared to the total amount of time it has taken humankind to generate the incredibly small increase and when compared to the massive volume of the atmosphere.

Denying that is just denying reality. And denying reality is an AGW Faither foundational belief.

Um....so you think the fact the humans were on earth for a couple of thousand years before they starting releasing collosal amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow relevent?

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back and temperatures to rise, funnily enough.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skook -

Please stop spamming the thread.

and refrain from posting up epic levels of wIn at the expense of the k00ks??



probably not.............

 

[Liability]

And it is fucking miniscule compared to the total amount of time it has taken humankind to generate the incredibly small increase and when compared to the massive volume of the atmosphere.

Denying that is just denying reality. And denying reality is an AGW Faither foundational belief.

Um....so you think the fact the humans were on earth for a couple of thousand years before they starting releasing collosal amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is somehow relevent?

Massive emmissions have only really been released for the past 50 years...about the same time as glaciers start to slip back and temperatures to rise, funnily enough.

LOL.

You be all funny and shit.

Listen, you are merely repeating the same alarmist tripe we see here all the time.

Uhm ... I think that fact that humankind has added a barely noticeable amount of CO2 into the planetary system over the entire span of human existence is kind of a tell that our release of CO2 into the atmosphere is pretty much UNRELATED to global warming, cooling or climate change. Why? Because we had many instances of major global climate change before humans even existed.

I believe it is rather silly (and ego-maniacal) to assume that WE have much of an impact on a system as large as our planet's eco-system.

Glaciers have advanced and retreated LONG before humans were even around.

I am gonna go out on the limb here, therefore, and speculate that we had not a fucking thing to do with THOSE global climate events -- either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does it establish that adding CO2 to an atmosphere COULD see temperatures rise?

It tells us not one thing we didn't already know. CO2 COULD kill us all -- like if we eliminated all free oxygen and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2.

Of course, replacing O2 with Nitrogen gas could do the same thing.

The question is not "does CO2 have the theoretical potential to change planetary temperature?"

The question is, "is there any scientific evidence that the relatively miniscule additional amount of CO2 added by humankind to the planet's atmosphere has any actual impact on the planet's climate?"

As to THAT question, the OP's video lecture / demonstration offers not even one tiny bit of a hint.

Right - so the experiment has shown that CO2 CAN cause warming under certain circumstances.

Which is all it set out to prove.

The amount of CO2 released by human acitivity isn't minsicule by the way, though it may seem so when expressed as a % of the total. But it really is an enormous amount - check it out here:

Carbon Dioxide - Human-Related Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide | Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions | U.S. EPA

The experiment involved probably at least 50 percent of the "atmosphere" as CO2. It is meaningless in the supposed claim that man is causing a massive rise in temps.

As for 2 groups of scientists saying established scientific fact is wrong, guess what? it is up to them to provide actual evidence they are right. Something they have either done and it does not support their claim so they never published it, or they simply refuse to do.

You remember peer review right? You brought it up. One can not simply deny that an established fact is wrong and then with no evidence to support the claim make new theories that hold any water. First they must discredit the supposed proven facts.

Further they must provide actual evidence their new theories are plausible and possible. Something they refuse to do.

 

[Saigon]

You be all funny and shit.

.

Yeah...that must be why there is not a single scientific body on earth who agree with you.

When you've stopped laughing - perhaps ask yourself why that is.

"No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

You be all funny and shit.

.

Yeah...that must be why there is not a single scientific body on earth who agree with you.

When you've stopped laughing - perhaps ask yourself why that is.

"No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faulty and dishonest "data?"

A political correctness that does not belong in "science" that makes it difficult for many to stand up and be honest?

Lack of interest?

Tell us, why do YOU reject all the scientists who HAVE called bullshit on the "consensus" bullshit?

Do YOU imagine that science is governed by a majority rule?

Why do you hate the scientific method?

 

[Saigon]

Why do you hate the scientific method?

I don't.

I love science.

And we know this, because my position is shared by more than 50 major scientific bodies.

You hate the science.

And we know this, because your position is not shared by a single scientific body.

 

[Liability]

Why do you hate the scientific method?

I don't.

I love science.

And we know this, because my position is shared by more than 50 major scientific bodies.

You hate the science.

And we know this, because your position is not shared by a single scientific body.

If you actually loved science instead of just proclaiming such "love," you wouldn't spend so much time trying to validate your silly contentions with a "consensus" argument.

The ACTUAL studies showing (or even tending to show) that human-kind has any significant impact on global climate change are -- missing.

But you know that.

Why DO you hate science?

 

[Saigon]

Liability -

We're just so lucky that we have you here to point out where the Royal Academy of Sciences got it wrong.

 

[Liability]

Liability -

We're just so lucky that we have you here to point out where the Royal Academy of Sciences got it wrong.

Not as lucky as we are to have you dutifully lapping up the orthodoxies of the Warmist Cult without question.

Was the Royal Academy of Sciences involved in the e-mail scandal to your knowledge, by the way?

 

[Liability]

By the way, Saigon, you just ARGUED about the suggestion that any of you guys have ever claimed that science was settled -- until it got shown to you that you fubars HAVE made that claim.

Yet your argument is consistently that "the science" IS allegedly settled. For example, you point to the Royal Society as though their "conclusion" is the revealed word of God almighty. And THEY do contend that it is beyond question. It IS according to them "settled." They SAY, for example,

* * * *
It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

-- Climate change | Royal Society

So, try to reach a consensus of your own positions, will ya?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll give you a better CO2 experiment. Go out into the Sonoran desert at night from 1945 to 2003 and measure the nighttime low.. No solar flux to contend with. But the drastic temperature reduction from radiative cooling is apparent to anyone who didn't bring a jacket. Be sure to control for the occasional build-up of water vapor. OBVIOUSLY, nighttime lows in the desert should be following the increase in CO2, yet both studies I've seen have found none.. What does that suggest as the more likely cause of the rise in annual mean global surface temperature?

 

[flacaltenn]

By the way, Saigon, you just ARGUED about the suggestion that any of you guys have ever claimed that science was settled -- until it got shown to you that you fubars HAVE made that claim.

Yet your argument is consistently that "the science" IS allegedly settled. For example, you point to the Royal Society as though their "conclusion" is the revealed word of God almighty. And THEY do contend that it is beyond question. It IS according to them "settled." They SAY, for example,

* * * *
It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.

-- Climate change | Royal Society

So, try to reach a consensus of your own positions, will ya?

The "official position" of a lot of those AGW friendly societies was written by a bunch of hacks WITHOUT the knowledge or consent of the researchers or the editors. The kind of statement that Liability repeated above is rarely universally supported by even the researchers contributing to that report and only seems to appear in the "executive summary" sections...

Furthermore -- if you go to the link Liability provided -- you find gems like this...

The initiative will be undertaken this year by the Royal Society, in partnership with the TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Imagine that -- the Royal Society partnering with the lawyers of the EDF to assure a proper outcome.. I'm sure that almost ALL of the "talent" at EDF came from a law school and not atmospheric science experts...

You're imagined "consensus" is not worthy of scientific attention.....

 

[code1211]

Or perhaps you can explain why 14 years of rising CO2 has caused almost no rise in temps?

Um.....you might want to check that...

The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

The decade may have been the warmest on record, but the trend through the decade has been one of cooling.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hadcrut3-1980-2011.png