Post the Experiment

[jc456]

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.

There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye, exaggerated examples like Mythbusters, but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?

I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.

Yes, and all they need to do is just admit it it's a simple statement to make "no there isn't an experiment." However, that would insinuate they have no evidence to support their claim. LOL

 

[mamooth]

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface.

No, it should be impossible. Those who aren't profoundly stupid understand that.

I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'.

Did your voices tell you that as well?

Those who aren't effin' retards will point out that an experiment in a box can tell you nothing about the earth as a whole, being a box can't simulate the whole earth. Even the results of the experiment in a box will vary wildly depending on the box material, shape, heat source, and many other parameters.

 

[IanC]

What a fucking troll!

Have we not been endlessly told how CO2 absorbs IR and warms the air, and hence the surface by reradiated IR?

Show us an experiment that quantifies the amount of increase from 280-400 ppm CO2. It doesn't have to illustrate every step of the way, just the first.

 

[Crick]

Increased what? Temperature? Of the planet? Why don't you tell us how to set that up in a way you'd find acceptable Ian?

 

[IanC]

Increased what? Temperature? Of the planet? Why don't you tell us how to set that up in a way you'd find acceptable Ian?

Really? You want me to say the same thing over and over again?

For the 10th time....

I want to see an experiment that shows the temperature increase from 280-400 ppm CO2 at standard surface conditions.

One small piece of the puzzle. Not 100x, 1000x, or 10,000x present CO2 levels like most of the propaganda videos out now. (The ones that aren't outright fraud like Nye/Gore).

I know that CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. What I want the public to know is how small it is.

 

[Crick]

You're not reading me. I want you to tell me how you would do that. What is this experiment you think should be done that has not?

 

[jc456]

You're not reading me. I want you to tell me how you would do that. What is this experiment you think should be done that has not?

The one that disproves Herr Koch's. For the hundredth time.

 

[Crick]

What of Herr Koch do you want to disprove and how would you set up an experiment to do so?

 

[mamooth]

Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.

Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.

Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.

 

[jc456]

What of Herr Koch do you want to disprove and how would you set up an experiment to do so?

Well, that CO2 is not logarithmic which I now know you have no clue about.

Well at least mantooth admitted it can't be disproved.

 

[jc456]

Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.

Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.

Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.

Well you at least took one step closer to the truth. I can't believe it.

And relevance is adding more CO2 doesn't increase temperatures. Now it's time for you to show what validates your claim on humans causing something called global warming.

 

[IanC]

Herr Koch isn't disprovable, because it's true. It's just not relevant. Only the most fervently addled cultists think it is, the ones so insane that even the other cultists back away from them.

Ian demands an experiment comparing boxes of 280 ppm and 400 ppm. Even if those experiments have no relation to the atmosphere as a whole. They'd only show more CO2 means more warming, which everyone already knows. And if you showed those exact experiments, he'd simply move on to a different conspiracy theory. Deniers don't want the experiments, as the results are already known. They just want reasons to bitch.

Again, see those 100 papers in the HITRAN database. The CO2 absorption spectrum is well quantified, and only the craziest of cultists try to cast doubt out in. It's like demanding the experiment, on YouTube, showing that the half-life of Caesium-137 is 30 years, or that the molecular weight of Argon-40 is 39.962. "I want every last detail of the last century of science repeated on YouTube, otherwise it's all a fraud!" is dishonest awful logic and science, but it's a denier staple.

I am demanding an experiment that shows how little warming accrues from an increase of 280-400 ppm CO2. To offset the experiments that show moderate warming for HUGE increases. When they aren't absolute fakes like the Gore/Nye fiasco.

 

[Crick]

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.

Then you should have no problem describing it to us

There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye

Al Gore and Bill Nye made a video demonstrating how to conduct a simple experiment illustrating CO2 absorbing IR. That it was edited post production to produce a better video is irrelevant. Do you believe CO2is a greenhouse gas Ian? If so, what in that demonstration was "fraudulent"?

exaggerated examples like Mythbusters

To conclude that Mythbusters was an exaggerated example, you would have to conclude that the brief clip of a gauge showing high CO2 levels was accidentally an accurate measure of the CO2 in the chambers while the statements specifically stating what levels were created (280 and 380 ppm) was a lie. And, again, if you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and we have numerous examples of you stating that you do), what is fraudulent about an experiment which simply demonstrates that fact?

but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?

It was far more a demonstration than an experiment, but that is almost precisely what the Mythbusters video displays.

[/quote]
I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment? And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?

 

[IanC]

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.

Then you should have no problem describing it to us

There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye

Al Gore and Bill Nye made a video demonstrating how to conduct a simple experiment illustrating CO2 absorbing IR. That it was edited post production to produce a better video is irrelevant. Do you believe CO2is a greenhouse gas Ian? If so, what in that demonstration was "fraudulent"?

exaggerated examples like Mythbusters

To conclude that Mythbusters was an exaggerated example, you would have to conclude that the brief clip of a gauge showing high CO2 levels was accidentally an accurate measure of the CO2 in the chambers while the statements specifically stating what levels were created (280 and 380 ppm) was a lie. And, again, if you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and we have numerous examples of you stating that you do), what is fraudulent about an experiment which simply demonstrates that fact?

but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?

It was far more a demonstration than an experiment, but that is almost precisely what the Mythbusters video displays.

I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment? And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?[/QUOTE]


I will leave it up to you to search out and bump up any of my previous descriptions of how I think the experiments should be done. I am not going to do it again on your request.

Gore/Nye was blatant fraud.

Mythbusters was at best inconclusive. You say the 7% CO2 reading was measuring something else. I find that implausible. What was it measuring then?

I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.

 

[jc456]

It should be easy to formulate an experiment that shows how much of a temperature increase happens when you increase CO2 120 ppm at the surface. We are not asking for a full surface-to-space evaluation just the actual immediate increase at the surface.

Then you should have no problem describing it to us

There have been out and out fraudulent examples like Gore/Nye

Al Gore and Bill Nye made a video demonstrating how to conduct a simple experiment illustrating CO2 absorbing IR. That it was edited post production to produce a better video is irrelevant. Do you believe CO2is a greenhouse gas Ian? If so, what in that demonstration was "fraudulent"?

exaggerated examples like Mythbusters

To conclude that Mythbusters was an exaggerated example, you would have to conclude that the brief clip of a gauge showing high CO2 levels was accidentally an accurate measure of the CO2 in the chambers while the statements specifically stating what levels were created (280 and 380 ppm) was a lie. And, again, if you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (and we have numerous examples of you stating that you do), what is fraudulent about an experiment which simply demonstrates that fact?

but none showing the simple change of 120 ppm to 400 ppm. Is it too much to ask?

It was far more a demonstration than an experiment, but that is almost precisely what the Mythbusters video displays.

I already know the general answer and it is so small that it would 'dilute the message'. That is why there are no YouTube videos or links to actual papers.[/QUOTE]

If you know the answer, why do you want to see an experiment? And, just out of curiosity, what IS the answer and HOW do you know it?[/QUOTE]
I think you really have an issue friend it is you claiming that 120 ppm of CO2 Will cause havoc or something to our environment so you know, for old time sake, let's just say you prove your hypothesis!

 

[jc456]

so to the crickster, where is it? Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere? Dude, you have suddenly been silent!

 

[SSDD]

so to the crickster, where is it? Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere? Dude, you have suddenly been silent!

If they knew that they could give actual climate sensitivity to CO2 rather than constantly changing guesses.

 

[jc456]

so to the crickster, where is it? Where are these factual data sets that show you are correct with how CO2 acts in the atmosphere/ troposphere? Dude, you have suddenly been silent!

so crisckster has remained silent. Doesn't have an answer. Doesn't surprise me though. When you don't have the facts, it's tough to discuss them.

 

[Crick]

I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.

Then, again, you should have no problem describing how this experiment would be done in a matter that YOU would find acceptable.

 

[jc456]

I DO believe CO2 is a GHG that causes some surface warming. The public deserves to see a realistic demonstration of how small it is from 280-400 ppm. Or even better a series of say, 200, 400, 800, 1600.

Then, again, you should have no problem describing how this experiment would be done in a matter that YOU would find acceptable.

disprove Herr Koch's experiment. Get the longer tube mentioned in the write up and repeat his experiment. demonstrate the evilness of CO2 at 10 PPM.