Science is falsifiable

[Crick]

Try this one instead

 

[Theowl32]

Then why do NO climate scientists or, for that matter, scientists of any other field, concur with your claim? Why aren't they outraged? Why doesn't someone in the several thousand people working for the IPCC spill the beans? Why haven't they been caught falsifying data?

And if none of this happens, where the FUCK do you get the idea you've got evidence for as perfect and massive a conspiracy as your bullshit contention would require?

My God, you have achieved the impossible. You are getting beat down so badly, and the tenderizing is so thorough, that you have actually made me feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for you. Huh, go figure. I have a heart. Who knew.

 

[SSDD]

You still don't understand that she proved CO2 warms by radiation. It was such a simple experiment too. You don't understand that any compression would come from heat. Heat in the cylinder was not caused by compression. In short heat causes higher pressure.

I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing less

Hilarious that you were fooled...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just remember:

Your cult puts out such interesting propaganda.. Their propaganda ministry is very active. But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.

So, what's your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it?

That is the thread topic, yet every denier is running from it.

It's very clear that all the deniers here know full well that their cult is pushing pseudoscience. They don't care. The cult tells them to push it, so that's what they're going to do.

But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.

Irony is ironic.

 

[toobfreak]

Just remember:

Your cult puts out such interesting propaganda.. Their propaganda ministry is very active. But then, the cultists do need to be kept hysterical. If they're allowed to calm down and think, they'd leave the cult.

So, what's your theory of climate, and what hard data would falsify it?

That is the thread topic, yet every denier is running from it.

It's very clear that all the deniers here know full well that their cult is pushing pseudoscience. They don't care. The cult tells them to push it, so that's what they're going to do.

A). I'm a cult of one. The very fact that you label me without really knowing anything about me simply shows that it is futile arguing facts with you.

B). Myself and others have already presented hard, irrefutable data many times here on other threads that you conveniently missed, dismissed or ignored, including some that we are actually on the precipice of the next ice age that current warming may only temporarily modify or delay. So what is the point of going around again?

C). Every great naysayer climate monger from Al Gore on down has gotten it totally wrong! NONE of their predictions have come true yet and each time you scramble to change your models, making your garbage the true pseudoscience.

D). History is replete with sudden freezes and warmings where huge changes were wrought upon the flora and fauna by no other force than earth herself. Even if we are solely responsible for creating the next global warming, we are just the latest variable in the never ending scene of the Earth. Life shall forge ahead. If Chicxulub and super volcanos, asteroids and Huronian ice ages couldn't extinguish life, neither shall we. In fact, it is more reasonable to think we are actually just part of the master plan.

 

[Wuwei]

I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing less

Hilarious that you were fooled...

Try and think deeper about this. Start with the ideal gas law:

PV=nRT​

As the closed cylinders heated up in Foote's experiment, the constants were Volume V, n and R. Thus,

P= T * nR / V , or
P = T * constant.​

Note that when T increases, P also linearly follows the rise. It's that simple. That is a pressure increase, not a compression.

Look up "heat of compression". That refers to a change of volume causing heat. Look up a diesel engine. The pressure of the piston decreases the volume in the cylinder and causes heat.

That is not the same as heat caused by a rise in temperature. You got things totally wrong. You are confusing "pressure" with "compression". The words have some relation but are not the same.

.

 

[SSDD]

I understand perfectly what she proved...she demonstrated a phenomenon known as the heat of compression and compared common air to a gas that is more dense than air....nothing more...nothing less

Hilarious that you were fooled...

Try and think deeper about this. Start with the ideal gas law:

PV=nRT​

As the closed cylinders heated up in Foote's experiment, the constants were Volume V, n and R. Thus,

P= T * nR / V , or
P = T * constant.​

Note that when T increases, P also linearly follows the rise. It's that simple. That is a pressure increase, not a compression.

Look up "heat of compression". That refers to a change of volume causing heat. Look up a diesel engine. The pressure of the piston decreases the volume in the cylinder and causes heat.

That is not the same as heat caused by a rise in temperature. You got things totally wrong. You are confusing "pressure" with "compression". The words have some relation but are not the same.

.

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

 

[mamooth]

A). I'm a cult of one.

Who just happens to conveniently parrot the OfficialPartyLine, as presented by the PartyApprovedConspiracyBlogs.

B). Myself and others have already presented hard, irrefutable data many times

Flat-earthers also sincerely believe their debunked propaganda is irrefutable. Nobody cares.

C). Every great naysayer climate monger from Al Gore on down has gotten it totally wrong!

First, Gore Rule invoked. The first person to bring up Gore forfeits the thread for their own side. Needless to say, you never see us on the rational side talking about Gore. Those who can talk about science, do. Those who can't, they deflect by demonizing whatever politician is currently on their cult's hate-list.

Second, the model predictions have been excellent. Anyone saying otherwise is woefully ignorant of the facts. We know what the actual facts are, so you won't be able to snow us with your propaganda.

D). History is replete with sudden freezes and warmings where huge changes were wrought upon the flora and fauna by no other force than earth herself.

"Forest fires used to always be natural, so humans can't cause forest fires" fallacy. The fact that past climate changes have been natural in no way prevents humans from changing climate.

 

[mamooth]

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor

Again, dumbass, there is no heat of compression. A pressure increase due to heating the gas is _not_ compression.

you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...

No, you won't. You just made that up. The CO2 jar will still end up much warmer.

 

[SSDD]

Again, dumbass, there is no heat of compression. A pressure increase due to heating the gas is _not_ compression.

Even when the observable, measurable evidence is right in front of you, you don't get it. Try it yourself hairball...vent the lid and no more heat of compression...the two bottles will be the same temperature no matter what the concentration of CO2 is.

 

[mamooth]

Even when the observable, measurable evidence is right in front of you, you don't get it

But we've seen the evidence. The mythbusters experiment was not absolutely airtight, so there was no heat of compression. It did exactly what you asked for. The CO2 chamber got a lot hotter. The real world says you're wrong, as usual.

According to your idiot compression theory, if I heat a basketball even a tiny bit, perhaps by placing it in the sunlight, the air inside will increase pressure, which will create more heat, which will create more pressure, creating more heat, creating more pressure, and on and on until the basketball explodes.

Since that doesn't happen, what does that tell you about your theory?

 

[SSDD]

But we've seen the evidence. The mythbusters experiment was not absolutely airtight, so there was no heat of compression. It did exactly what you asked for. The CO2 chamber got a lot hotter. The real world says you're wrong, as usual.

Sorry...that side show was debunked over and over...no one except the lost children even mention that as a rational experiment any more...

According to your idiot compression theory, if I heat a basketball even a tiny bit, perhaps by placing it in the sunlight, the air inside will increase pressure, which will create more heat, which will create more pressure, creating more heat, creating more pressure, and on and on until the basketball explodes.

Try the experiment...watch your beliefs get crushed....it isn't as if it is expensive...a couple of jars...a couple of windows thermometers from walmart...a bit of CO2 and you are ready to actually learn something that your belief system simply won't let you accept...my bet is that even after you did the experiment and saw a jar full of air, and a jar full of CO2 at the same temperature, you would blame the discrepancy on the thermometer...

Since that doesn't happen, what does that tell you about your theory?

Do the experiment hairball...it works every time...

 

[toobfreak]

A). I'm a cult of one.

Who just happens to conveniently parrot the OfficialPartyLine, as presented by the PartyApprovedConspiracyBlogs.

You're an idiot. My views are my views. Not only do I not visit any blogs, not watch Fox, if I watch any news at all, it is actually PBS. The rest I get off my own random searches for depth and verification. If there are any parallels between my conclusions and the "OfficialPartyLine," then that is a compliment to the OfficialPartyLine!

 

[gtopa1]

The winter weather in the United States this year should show that the climate is changing.

Sorry but one year of bad weather is just that; one year of bad weather. There is a big difference between climate and weather. An example would be that England has a maritime climate while central Australia has an arid climate. Today's weather is warm and sunny with perhaps a chance of a shower.

Greg

 

[westwall]

Some are, Curry for one.

In 2013, Curry's "stadium waves" theory predicted steady or declining temperatures, starting immediately.

That was followed immediate by 3 years of record-breaking warming.

She was as wrong as it was possible to be. She never explained why, or tried to modify her awful science that made that prediction. Instead, she screamed that everyone was persecuting her, and fled science completely. Her new chosen career was taking bribes from fossil-fuel interests in return for giving speeches they liked.

Because her science is crap, she's ignored. Except, that is, by failure-worshipping cultists. All denier "scientists" have that in common, failing at any actual science.

Because AGW science keeps making predictions that come true, it's not ignored. It's accepted by the whole intelligent world.

Fantasy record breaking warming silly kitty. The only way those records happen is through the magic of climate models which take the raw data and somehow magically warm them. In other words, stupid kitty, those "records" are lies. Everyone with a brain knows this.

 

[Crick]

What models are involved in the calculation of last year's global temperature?

 

[Wuwei]

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.

You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.

 

[mamooth]

Fantasy record breaking warming silly kitty.

Your beliefs are entirely unfalsifiable, being that whenever the evidence debunks them (as all the evidence does), you instantly and unthinkingly auto-define that evidence as fraudulent.

Being that your beliefs are entirely unfalsifiable, that puts them solidly in the category of purely religious beliefs.

I hope your religion brings you fulfillment. Just understand that nobody else cares about it.

 

[SSDD]

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.

You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

 

[Billy_Bob]

You can do the experiment yourself...and see...take a couple of sealable jars...put thermometers inside...fill one with common air, fill the other with CO2..any concentration...close them up and either put them in the sun or put them in front of infrared lights...watch the temperatures of the two jars and record them over about a half an hour...

Now vent the CO2 jar, and the common air jar so that the heat of compression is not a factor and repeat the experiment...The CO2 is heavier than air so it isn't going to escape from your vent, but if you are afraid that it is, put a latex glove over the top of the lidded jar so that the pressure due to CO2 being more dense can escape into the glove and not create a significant pressure difference between the two jars...you will see the CO2 jar temperature track right along with the common air jar once the heat of compression is eliminated from the experiment...who knows, you might actually learn something doing some actual science and seeing for yourself...

Putting a vent in the cylinders will provide an experiment of constant P and V, but the n will change in the equation PV = nRT. The factor n changes differently for both cylinders, so that kind of screws up any comparison.

You still don't understand. With a closed system at constant volume there is no compression. Heat of compression does not exist. A mechanical force on a piston can lower the volume and cause heat of compression. But that is not in the experiment. The experiment is at constant volume. You simply don't understand the physics of the experiment. Foote's experiment is valid, but your brand of physics is not.

If you put a vent in both....the one with more CO2 should still be warmer if your wacko hypothesis is true....it won't be...both will be the same temperature if you eliminate the heat of compression...do the experiment...try and learn something..

And the one filled with CO2 will cool faster than the one with standard atmospheric composition. They seem to ignore that little fact...