Post the Experiment

[Liminal]

jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.

That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.

And yet no experiment. I created this thread for one reason, to prove you have not one experiment. And the lack of an experiment will mean you admit defeat!!!!!!

As if you conducted an experiment of your own.

 

[jc456]

jc, see the dozens of times the data has already been given to you, and the many times it's been pointed out that you're lying-by-cherrypicking about Koch.

That is, stop spamming nonsense that's been debunked many times.

And yet no experiment. I created this thread for one reason, to prove you have not one experiment. And the lack of an experiment will mean you admit defeat!!!!!!

As if you conducted an experiment of your own.

nope, I never claimed any alarmist post about adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Why should I, I have no fear of CO2. It is the warmists on here. And they claimed to have a thousand experiments that prove that CO2 is bad. I just ask for one. still haven't seen one fit the bill yet. So, you got one?

 

[Wuwei]

Simple. Do an experiment with 280 ppm compared to 400. Show the resulting infinitesimal change. Be honest and straightforward rather than try to misdirect the 'scientifically naive'.

Why? It will just show the logarithmic effect. That is already well known.

Why????

What will be the result? Zero to a rounding or measurement error. Do you believe that most laymen know that? Is it honest to let them believe that it would make a 'big' difference?

If you are talking about a 3 foot box, of course the result will be zero. At 400 ppm the penetration depth of CO2 resonant radiation in the atmosphere is 30 feet before it strikes another CO2 molecule. Good luck with hitting anything in a 3 ft box. Under those circumstances is it honest to pretend that a null result is what happens in the dozens of miles of earth atmosphere?

Get your facts straight. The extinction length for CO2 is 10 meters. At one meter more than 90% of the CO2 specific radiation has been absorbed.

OK so it isn't 30 feet, it's 32.8 ft (=10 meters). (Were you making a joke?) Can you find a source for your 90% absorption at 1 meter? I don't seem to get that result.

According to the following graph, even at 10 meters CO2 still transmits about 85% which means it absorbs only 15%. It is only when the length is near 100 meters that the absorption approaches 90%. If that is true, it would not allow for a very realistic experiment in a 3 foot (=0.914 meters) box.

 

[Wuwei]

All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment. If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim? That is what I'm trying to highlight. But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that. One Thousand Experiments. You come on here and say it ain't possible. So somewhere the message is wrong. You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad. At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.

There may be a lot of experiments that show the properties of CO2 absorption and scattering of certain IR wavelengths, but there there are few experiments such as the mythbusters that show what CO2 does as far as temperatures changing. Even then their experiment doesn't show what is actually going on in the climate.

I'm personally tired of the use of words like; extreme. extraordinary and alarming rate, when factually speaking they know absolutely nothing other than the amount of CO2 has increased. And, it was much much higher in history of the planet without any affects as the words indicate. So, I ask, what is it folks who don't agree with the rant supposed to do? I'll tell you, shout everywhere the lie. And if no experiment can be produced or ran, then I call bullshit of epic proportion on all the warmers. oh and they can all kiss my ass.

I am also personally tired of the catastrophic dire warnings. But I try to keep rants and insults to a minimum. It does no good as far as convincing anyone on the borderline and only causes ranting back from the other side. Doing rants on this forum has the benefit of getting more "thank you" strokes from your friends but that's about it.

 

[jc456]

All I want all the warmers to claim is, there is no experiment. If that is so, then how does one prove adding 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does all the nasty things the warmers claim? That is what I'm trying to highlight. But I get, there are thousands of experiments that show that. One Thousand Experiments. You come on here and say it ain't possible. So somewhere the message is wrong. You are only one of many on here stating that CO2 is bad. At least that seemed to be the direction you were heading.

There may be a lot of experiments that show the properties of CO2 absorption and scattering of certain IR wavelengths, but there there are few experiments such as the mythbusters that show what CO2 does as far as temperatures changing. Even then their experiment doesn't show what is actually going on in the climate.

I'm personally tired of the use of words like; extreme. extraordinary and alarming rate, when factually speaking they know absolutely nothing other than the amount of CO2 has increased. And, it was much much higher in history of the planet without any affects as the words indicate. So, I ask, what is it folks who don't agree with the rant supposed to do? I'll tell you, shout everywhere the lie. And if no experiment can be produced or ran, then I call bullshit of epic proportion on all the warmers. oh and they can all kiss my ass.

I am also personally tired of the catastrophic dire warnings. But I try to keep rants and insults to a minimum. It does no good as far as convincing anyone on the borderline and only causes ranting back from the other side. Doing rants on this forum has the benefit of getting more "thank you" strokes from your friends but that's about it.

yep. Especially using the word denier. Still not sure what that means.

I deny? I know that I deny nothing, so I never know who it is that reference is for. Perhaps themselves.

as for experimental value, one can show what will happen in an environment with incrementally adding CO2 in a box. Sorry, I can't believe that isn't possible. I think, there have been experiments and it doesn't prove the alarmists position at all. So they sequester them.

 

[Wuwei]

Just to be fair, I use both terms, warmer and denier because both sides can be a bit too extreme.

As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know

 

[jc456]

Just to be fair, I use both terms, warmer and denier because both sides can be a bit too extreme.

As far as sequestering results, that borders on a conspiracy theory. If the experiment is easy, it would be done by many who would shout the positive or negative results to the world. If the experiment is hard, which I maintain, it would be expensive and there would have to be a grant. I don't think it could be kept secret because too many would know

well we'll just disagree on that.

 

[jc456]

bump!

 

[jc456]

 

[jc456]

May 29 and still no experiment!

 

[jc456]

June 7, still no experiment

 

[Billy_Bob]

June 7, still no experiment

You may want to post the year stamp on this one.. 06-07-2015... Because it wont be forthcoming any time soon.. until they can quantify mans contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere with any certainty and the earths response it wont be possible.

 

[jc456]

06-15-2015, still no experiment with evidence of any man made gullable warming.

 

[jc456]

July 2, 2015, still no experiment and still no evidence of gullable warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Funny; They wont post up the experiment or any verifiable/reproducible science facts yet somehow the science is magically settled..

 

[mamooth]

Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.

HITRAN

That's been presented to jc before. He says those hundred papers don't count. Because he says so. He doesn't need any other reasons.

We've shown him many other experiments. jc says they all don't count. And never gives a reason. jc, along with Billy, just declare the last century of physics never happened, and they're sticking to that purely out of religious faith.

At this point, jc tends to run for cover by lying about the Koch experiment. Even his own source says he's full of shit, so jc pretends not to have seen that part of his source. This would be what jc always deliberately leaves out.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---

jc, discuss the science. It's not honest to present an argument, and then deliberately leave out the next paragraphs that show the fatal flaws of the argument. That sort of chronic dishonesty is why nobody outside of your cult gives you the time of day, and never will, no matter how often you lie about not being shown the experiments.

Now, if you'd like, we can go over again how you and Billy lied your asses off about the mythbusters experiment. Shameful indeed, your behavior there was. It's a wonder you're still willing to show your faces here.

Also, if you'd like, we could point out the staggering stupidity of asking for a quick lab experiment that instantly predicts the temperature change on earth over many decades. Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have someone understanding how stupid that demand is, so only the most brainless religious fanatics make that demand.

 

[jc456]

Please review the hundred or so references in the HITRAN spectral database that quantify in detail the absorbtion spectrum of CO2.

HITRAN

That's been presented to jc before. He says those hundred papers don't count. Because he says so. He doesn't need any other reasons.

We've shown him many other experiments. jc says they all don't count. And never gives a reason. jc, along with Billy, just declare the last century of physics never happened, and they're sticking to that purely out of religious faith.

At this point, jc tends to run for cover by lying about the Koch experiment. Even his own source says he's full of shit, so jc pretends not to have seen that part of his source. This would be what jc always deliberately leaves out.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---

jc, discuss the science. It's not honest to present an argument, and then deliberately leave out the next paragraphs that show the fatal flaws of the argument. That sort of chronic dishonesty is why nobody outside of your cult gives you the time of day, and never will, no matter how often you lie about not being shown the experiments.

Now, if you'd like, we can go over again how you and Billy lied your asses off about the mythbusters experiment. Shameful indeed, your behavior there was. It's a wonder you're still willing to show your faces here.

Also, if you'd like, we could point out the staggering stupidity of asking for a quick lab experiment that instantly predicts the temperature change on earth over many decades. Even rudimentary intelligence and common sense would have someone understanding how stupid that demand is, so only the most brainless religious fanatics make that demand.

Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should? I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.

And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!

 

[mamooth]

Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should?

Absolutely yes. The spectral absorption properties of CO2 are hard numbers that are well-defined.

I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.

Which, again, is a stupid thing to ask for. It's like asking "show me the lab experiment that proves the ozone layer got thinner". An experiment in the lab can not exactly quantify what happens across the entire planet over many decades. An average third grader can understand such a simple concept. Since you can't, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your nonsense prattle.

And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!

I just posted what disqualified it, and you refused to address it. That's what defines you, the way you always run from any data that shows how your science fails.

Here, I'll post it again, so you can run from it again.
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---

 

[jc456]

Can you honestly say that you presented an experiment that doesn't have some predictive wording in it like could, might, or should?

Absolutely yes. The spectral absorption properties of CO2 are hard numbers that are well-defined.

I'm looking for temperature readings of what 120 ppm of CO2 does to the temperatures.

Which, again, is a stupid thing to ask for. It's like asking "show me the lab experiment that proves the ozone layer got thinner". An experiment in the lab can not exactly quantify what happens across the entire planet over many decades. An average third grader can understand such a simple concept. Since you can't, you really shouldn't be bothering the grownups with your nonsense prattle.

And by the way, KOCH's 1901 experiment in that link has never been proven wrong. Period. You can blather on here all you want, and call me out, but you have still failed to present the experiment to disqualify Koch's experiment!

I just posted what disqualified it, and you refused to address it. That's what defines you, the way you always run from any data that shows how your science fails.

Here, I'll post it again, so you can run from it again.
---
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.
---

so I see you still don't understand. I see it is a comprehension issue. Temperature is everything, since your side states that 1 degree C is dangerous to earth climate. Explain how it isn't?

And as for Koch, in your link, all they state is that he didn't do something. There is no follow up experiment was there? Be honest here.

and then the abstract language you post up has one key word 'calculation' that destroys your entire argument. Here:

"These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false."

a calculation is not an experiment correct? Anyone can say anything, yet proving that point has yet to materialize.

And then there is:

"Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers."

Has this been proven in an experiment? Koch did prove it in his, the change did nothing. It is the on going hypothesis of the argument and yet to be presented in an actual experiment. In fact there are none. zero, because it will disprove the claim and grant money lost.

So dude/dudette, you fail to make your argument yet again.

 

[IanC]

Actually, for a change, the Pooh flinging monkey makes some good points.

I think he usually stays away from the science because he knows that the deeper you get into it the more uncertain the IPCC's case becomes.