Chevron and Climate change

[Trakar]

But you postulate a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes the change.

What do you think PPM stands for?

200 parts per million, what does it mean in your reality?

and yes, I gave you (more than a month ago) the details of how to run the experiment for delta200ppm yourself. What were your results?

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

Every one of these AGW experiments uses pressure to get an increase in temperature, that is they keep pumping in CO2 to the control bottle (making it 400,000 PPM, not 200), and increasing the pressure

I didn't see what she did in the "experiment" they cut away

And I won't lie like Phil Jones or Michael Mann and tell you I did the experiment and got the following results.

You're the Warmer, you do the lab work.

I ran the experiments before I listed the processes for you to follow (a month and a half ago). You can perform them yourself or you can keep believing what your radical politically inspired fairytales tell you you should believe. The choice is yours.

 

[Trakar]

But you postulate a 200PPM increase in CO2 causes the change.

What do you think PPM stands for?

200 parts per million, what does it mean in your reality?

and yes, I gave you (more than a month ago) the details of how to run the experiment for delta200ppm yourself. What were your results?

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

200ppm = 0.000200

The average adult male weighs about 100kilograms. There is approximately 4 grams of iron in our bodies. that works out to be about 0.00004 or 40ppm. If I remove half the iron in your body (which would only be a change of 20ppm) do you think it would have an effect?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

200 parts per million, what does it mean in your reality?

and yes, I gave you (more than a month ago) the details of how to run the experiment for delta200ppm yourself. What were your results?

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

Every one of these AGW experiments uses pressure to get an increase in temperature, that is they keep pumping in CO2 to the control bottle (making it 400,000 PPM, not 200), and increasing the pressure

I didn't see what she did in the "experiment" they cut away

And I won't lie like Phil Jones or Michael Mann and tell you I did the experiment and got the following results.

You're the Warmer, you do the lab work.

I ran the experiments before I listed the processes for you to follow (a month and a half ago). You can perform them yourself or you can keep believing what your radical politically inspired fairytales tell you you should believe. The choice is yours.

...and you got a 5-7 degree increase from a 200ppm increase in CO2?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

200 parts per million, what does it mean in your reality?

and yes, I gave you (more than a month ago) the details of how to run the experiment for delta200ppm yourself. What were your results?

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

200ppm = 0.000200

The average adult male weighs about 100kilograms. There is approximately 4 grams of iron in our bodies. that works out to be about 0.00004 or 40ppm. If I remove half the iron in your body (which would only be a change of 20ppm) do you think it would have an effect?

The CO2 experiment failed to back up your expected temperature increase, amiright?

 

[Trakar]

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

200ppm = 0.000200

The average adult male weighs about 100kilograms. There is approximately 4 grams of iron in our bodies. that works out to be about 0.00004 or 40ppm. If I remove half the iron in your body (which would only be a change of 20ppm) do you think it would have an effect?

The CO2 experiment failed to back up your expected temperature increase, amiright?

No, the series of experiments (If you are interested in accuracy, you never run an experiment one time), unsurprisingly, supported the basic physics principles and understandings upon which they are based. CO2 is a very well studied GHG with over a century of accumulated experimental and observation evidence supporting its basic characteristics. But please, don't take my word for it, perform the experiments yourself.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

200ppm = 0.000200

The average adult male weighs about 100kilograms. There is approximately 4 grams of iron in our bodies. that works out to be about 0.00004 or 40ppm. If I remove half the iron in your body (which would only be a change of 20ppm) do you think it would have an effect?

The CO2 experiment failed to back up your expected temperature increase, amiright?

No, the series of experiments (If you are interested in accuracy, you never run an experiment one time), unsurprisingly, supported the basic physics principles and understandings upon which they are based. CO2 is a very well studied GHG with over a century of accumulated experimental and observation evidence supporting its basic characteristics. But please, don't take my word for it, perform the experiments yourself.

Are you being intentionally fuzzy?

How much CO2? What increase in temperature?

 

[Trakar]

200PPM is about a rounding error and will not raise temperature in a controlled environment.

Every one of these AGW experiments uses pressure to get an increase in temperature, that is they keep pumping in CO2 to the control bottle (making it 400,000 PPM, not 200), and increasing the pressure

I didn't see what she did in the "experiment" they cut away

And I won't lie like Phil Jones or Michael Mann and tell you I did the experiment and got the following results.

You're the Warmer, you do the lab work.

I ran the experiments before I listed the processes for you to follow (a month and a half ago). You can perform them yourself or you can keep believing what your radical politically inspired fairytales tell you you should believe. The choice is yours.

...and you got a 5-7 degree increase from a 200ppm increase in CO2?

I actually measured a bit shy of 5 degrees F (4.82° F average from 6 trials) increase from 400ppm to 600ppm but I didn't have a source of water vapor or the other trace GHGs to act as a feedback in that set of experiments. Adding water vapor appropriate to the temperature in the test chambers would have made the experiment more closely match typical climate science estimations.

 

[Trakar]

The CO2 experiment failed to back up your expected temperature increase, amiright?

No, the series of experiments (If you are interested in accuracy, you never run an experiment one time), unsurprisingly, supported the basic physics principles and understandings upon which they are based. CO2 is a very well studied GHG with over a century of accumulated experimental and observation evidence supporting its basic characteristics. But please, don't take my word for it, perform the experiments yourself.

Are you being intentionally fuzzy?

How much CO2? What increase in temperature?

Science is "intentionally fuzzy," it is always conditional and qualified, if you want convictions and absolutes you need to find religon, the real world is always relative.

The science doesn't indicate 5-7° per 200ppm for CO2 alone, in fact the science says that we will have a range of temp changes for each additional increment depending upon how much CO2 is in the air. Climate science says that short term climate sensitivity indicates that each doubling of atmospheric CO2 leads to about 3.5° C of temperature doubling in the short term and around 5-6° C after long-term equilibration of the Earth's climate. Short term expresses in several decades, long term expresses in a century or two. Both of these expressions include the variables you wanted excluded from the lab experiment and only focus on direct and immediate CO2 impact which looks, from my experiments to be about 2.68° C when we add half again as much CO2 to an dry atmosphere containing 400ppm of CO2.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I ran the experiments before I listed the processes for you to follow (a month and a half ago). You can perform them yourself or you can keep believing what your radical politically inspired fairytales tell you you should believe. The choice is yours.

...and you got a 5-7 degree increase from a 200ppm increase in CO2?

I actually measured a bit shy of 5 degrees F (4.82° F average from 6 trials) increase from 400ppm to 600ppm but I didn't have a source of water vapor or the other trace GHGs to act as a feedback in that set of experiments. Adding water vapor appropriate to the temperature in the test chambers would have made the experiment more closely match typical climate science estimations.

Wait.

You got a 5 degree temperature increase of .06% CO2? Was that a typo or are you really saying you got a 5 degree increase in temperature from a 600PPM increase in CO2?

 

[Trakar]

...and you got a 5-7 degree increase from a 200ppm increase in CO2?

I actually measured a bit shy of 5 degrees F (4.82° F average from 6 trials) increase from 400ppm to 600ppm but I didn't have a source of water vapor or the other trace GHGs to act as a feedback in that set of experiments. Adding water vapor appropriate to the temperature in the test chambers would have made the experiment more closely match typical climate science estimations.

Wait.

You got a 5 degree temperature increase of .06% CO2? Was that a typo or are you really saying you got a 5 degree increase in temperature from a 600PPM increase in CO2?

Good catch, I wasn't looking at the correct column in my notes, the 4.82° F rise came from the 400ppm to 800ppm trials - the doubling series. The 400ppm to 600ppm series only averaged 2.78° F.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I actually measured a bit shy of 5 degrees F (4.82° F average from 6 trials) increase from 400ppm to 600ppm but I didn't have a source of water vapor or the other trace GHGs to act as a feedback in that set of experiments. Adding water vapor appropriate to the temperature in the test chambers would have made the experiment more closely match typical climate science estimations.

Wait.

You got a 5 degree temperature increase of .06% CO2? Was that a typo or are you really saying you got a 5 degree increase in temperature from a 600PPM increase in CO2?

Good catch, I wasn't looking at the correct column in my notes, the 4.82° F rise came from the 400ppm to 800ppm trials - the doubling series. The 400ppm to 600ppm series only averaged 2.78° F.

If that's true, that's amazing.

I've never seen any other experiment come anywhere near those results and neither has Old Rocks or any other Warmer that ever posted here or on any other board

What you've done is the equivalent of Cold Fusion

 

[bobgnote]

YOU didn't do the CO2 concentration experiments, did you, Crosstard.

YOU won't do the experiments, will you, Crosstard. YOU don't intend to do the experiments Trakar set up, for you, since you don't do science. It's kind of easy, for me to discern.

You are even dumber, than Fecaltoons, who is a dumbshit, who pretends, to be a scientist, and maybe somebody paid him for it, by mistake. You aren't the kind of guy who gets out a lot of studies or reports, and your questions are intended, to deflect.

That you could get Trakar to work is perversely impressive. Let's just get that out, mm-kay?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

YOU didn't do the CO2 concentration experiments, did you, Crosstard.

YOU won't do the experiments, will you, Crosstard. YOU don't intend to do the experiments Trakar set up, for you, since you don't do science. It's kind of easy, for me to discern.

You are even dumber, than Fecaltoons, who is a dumbshit, who pretends, to be a scientist, and maybe somebody paid him for it, by mistake. You aren't the kind of guy who gets out a lot of studies or reports, and your questions are intended, to deflect.

That you could get Trakar to work is perversely impressive. Let's just get that out, mm-kay?

Take your meds before you hurt yourself

 

[bobgnote]

Did anyone do experiments, which simulate progressive increases, in CH4, with radiance increases?

If you don't want to post tables and tables of results, I'll understand that.

 

[bobgnote]

Take your meds before you hurt yourself

You managed to check Trakar's results, correctly. You ARE paying attention. But we both know, you won't try to set up any experiment, to perform it, mm-kay?

All your energy is directed, toward deflection or plain rants. If you do ANY experiment, ever, I will be very surprised.

Simulating real atmospheric and radiance conditions, including expansion and contraction of a 50-mile layer and radiance variations on that layer can be tricky.

If you just find out tendencies of neat CO2 concentrations, in a lab, that is nice.

I'd sure like to know what incremental increases in methane and radiance accomplish.

Take out your false teeth and eat shit, Crosstard. You don't intend to do anything scientific. You are too stupid, to hypothesize anything interesting, and your deflection tendencies show you are against any thorough research, of any kind.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Frank bro.........what the fuck is a "crosstard"? Talk about the residual effects of a life in Bumfook!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Frank bro.........what the fuck is a "crosstard"? Talk about the residual effects of a life in Bumfook!!!

Bil, you know I have a soft spot for the mentally challanged like Bobgnote. Sure, when I was younger we'd call guys like him "fucking retards" and make fun of them, but now that I'm older --and hopefully wiser, Im trying to make amends for being so meany to the, what are they calling themselves these days mentally challenged

 

[bobgnote]

Hi, retards! Sucksassandballs has to ask, duh, whut a "Crosstard?"

A CrosstardPunk is somebody, who takes people off, so his friends suck ass and balls, both!

Any more stupid questions, special traffic specialist?

 

[skookerasbil]

Hi, retards! Sucksassandballs has to ask, duh, whut a "Crosstard?"

A CrosstardPunk is somebody, who takes people off, so his friends suck ass and balls, both!

Any more stupid questions, special traffic specialist?

Well..........remind me never to come visit Scratchmyassville USA s0n!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM&feature=fvwrel]Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals? - YouTube[/ame]