The experiment the AGW fraud is based on...

[daveman]

What exactly is your claim? That AGW rests on an experiment from 1861, in spite of the fact there have been dozens of experiments since 1861 that come to the same basic conclusion as the 1861 expriment?

A little background:

Whenever anyone asked for an experiment showing the greenhouse effect of CO2, Roxy would screech "Tyndall's paper!! Tyndall's paper!! " He never referenced anything else.

So I got curious, and found the link in the OP. Turns out that Tyndall's paper doesn't actually prove what Roxy claimed it does.

But then, Roxy isn't very bright.

OK. why should I give a fuck about Roxy?

Beats me. I don't recall begging you to come into this thread and enlighten us all.

 

[daveman]

No, no, of course not. You merely ridiculed the idea that it would even be possible for me to find such papers. That's in now way a claim that the papers don't exist, I get that now!

No, you don't. You think you've won, when all you did was build a strawman and knock it down.

Chicks dig that. No, really.

I only directly addressed your request to provide links. That's the biggest fucking strawman possible. I'm sorry I did it. I knew I was being kaniving and michievious by directly responding to your request with exactly what you asked for in abundance, it was a straw man from the beginning. a Hockey stick straw man.

Dumbass.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.​

Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:

I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​

In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.

If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.

LOL! That's a funny one! You already know there are plenty of such links available. You're just trying to set me up to make a straw man argument, nice try!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A little background:

Whenever anyone asked for an experiment showing the greenhouse effect of CO2, Roxy would screech "Tyndall's paper!! Tyndall's paper!! " He never referenced anything else.

So I got curious, and found the link in the OP. Turns out that Tyndall's paper doesn't actually prove what Roxy claimed it does.

But then, Roxy isn't very bright.

OK. why should I give a fuck about Roxy?

Beats me. I don't recall begging you to come into this thread and enlighten us all.

It is a public thread.

Does it have a point? I'm failing to see it.
?
Why did you say "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it" ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

...does not prove what the cultists say it proves.

Let's look at Tyndall's paper.

Tyndall (1861)

De Saussure, Fourier, M. Pouillet, and Mr. Hopkins regard this interception of terrestrial rays as exercising the most important influence on climate. Now if, as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air, while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate. It is not, therefore, necessary to assume alterations in the density and height of the atmosphere to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times; a slight change in its variable constituents would suffice for this; Such changes in fact may have produced all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal. However this may be, the facts above cited remain; they constitute true causes, the extent alone of the operation remaining doubtful.​

Carbonic acid refers to CO2.

He says it happens, but he doesn't know how much.

Now let's look at this, from the site's author:

I have included the full text of Tyndall's 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall's "absorption" measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall's part because he uses the terms "opacity" and "absorbing power" interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I've included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see Most Misquoted and Most Misunderstood Science Papers in the Public Domain..​

In short: It doesn't prove what the cultists claim it proves.

If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.

Why do you need a link to it? Do you doubt it exists?


... WELL?

crickets...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.

Why do you need a link to it? Do you doubt it exists?


... WELL?

crickets...

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

 

[daveman]

If I guy with a website says so, it must be so. We can definitely assume the issue of how gaseous CO2 can affect electromagnetic radiation has not been addressed at all since 1861.

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it. Please note that Roxy failed to do so, and you're just as stupid as he is, so good luck with that.

LOL! That's a funny one! You already know there are plenty of such links available. You're just trying to set me up to make a straw man argument, nice try!

Really? How do you know I know there are plenty of such links available?

Oh -- that's one of your strawmen. Good job!

 

[daveman]

OK. why should I give a fuck about Roxy?

Beats me. I don't recall begging you to come into this thread and enlighten us all.

It is a public thread.

Does it have a point? I'm failing to see it.
?
Why did you say "If it has, you'll have no problem linking it" ?

Of course you fail to see it. You're not very smart.

 

[daveman]

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.

Why do you need a link to it? Do you doubt it exists?


... WELL?

crickets...

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thread of the Century.

And there's still not a single experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the things alleged

 

[westwall]

If it has, you'll have no problem linking it.

Why do you need a link to it? Do you doubt it exists?


... WELL?

crickets...

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

Oooooooohhhh, panties in a bunch?

 

[daveman]

Thread of the Century.

And there's still not a single experiment that shows how a 100ppm increase in CO2 does ANY much less ALL of the things alleged

I've been told that we're living in the experiment.

I asked the learned gentlemen to restart it, but he got strangely silent.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why do you need a link to it? Do you doubt it exists?


... WELL?

crickets...

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

Why did you ask for links?

 

[westwall]

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

Why did you ask for links?

Because you made a claim. It is forum policy that if you make a claim you back it up with links to support your perticular delusion...whatever that may be. i think you have lots of them!

 

[daveman]

WELL DAVEMAN?. You fucking PUSSY.

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

Why did you ask for links?

To see if you could provide them. Moron.

Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOLOL.....you anti-science denier cult morons are just too, too funny....


UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
BBC News
Friday, 16 March, 2001
(excerpts)

A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.

The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.

But he [The team leader, Dr John Harries] is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

Why did you ask for links?

Because you made a claim. It is forum policy that if you make a claim you back it up with links to support your perticular delusion...whatever that may be. i think you have lots of them!

Why did you doubt my claim?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Oooh. Big type. Compensating?


You really are emotional, aren't you? Yeah. Leftists usually are.

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to emotionalism and fear-mongering, would you?


By the way, I was right. You had no problem providing links.

Why did you ask for links?

To see if you could provide them. Moron.

Are you really that stupid, Big Font Boi?

Why? Were you not aware of that research? It would seem to me if you were aware of it, you wouldn't need links to it. If you weren't, that means you're talking about something you haven't done your homework on. Which is it?

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOL.....you anti-science denier cult morons are just too, too funny....


UK scientists see greenhouse evidence
BBC News
Friday, 16 March, 2001
(excerpts)

A team of UK-based scientists have published evidence which they say proves unequivocally that global warming is real. Comparing data obtained from two satellites which orbited the Earth 27 years apart, they found that significantly less radiation is now escaping into space than was previously the case. Earlier studies saying that global warming was happening have been based on computer models. The scientists say their new findings are unambiguous, and they are certain that the greenhouse effect is at work.

The team analysed data in the form of spectra of Earth's outgoing longwave radiation, which measures the escape of heat to space and bears the imprint of the gases believed to be causing global warming. Their findings, reported in the journal Nature, show that less radiation was escaping from Earth to space in 1997 than in 1970. It means the gases are being kept in the atmosphere, and are trapping the Sun's heat.

But he [The team leader, Dr John Harries] is in no doubt that global warming is real. He said: "The results presented here provide to our knowledge the first experimental observation of changes in the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation spectrum, and therefore the greenhouse effect. We're absolutely sure, there's no ambiguity. What we are seeing can only be due to the increase in the gases." Dr Harries was president of the UK's Royal Meteorological Society from 1996 to 1997, and is a former director of projects and technology at the British National Space Centre.

Ummm, hate to tell ya but that study was found to not be accurate. Nice try though.

 

[westwall]

Why did you ask for links?

Because you made a claim. It is forum policy that if you make a claim you back it up with links to support your perticular delusion...whatever that may be. i think you have lots of them!

Why did you doubt my claim?

Your argument is with daveman. Address your questions and delusions to him. I was telling you why he wants a link to this particular delusion of yours.