Two Theories

[KissMy]

Mythbusters confirmed the CO2 traps heat theory with their experiment.

[youtube]pPRd5GT0v0I[/youtube]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Mythbusters confirmed the CO2 traps heat theory with their experiment.

[youtube]pPRd5GT0v0I[/youtube]

Yeah, the thing is, that's NOT the AGWCult Theory

They never actually say how much CO2 is in the tanks do they? We assume one is 0 and the other 380, but it's odd they didn't test for the difference a 120PPM Increase would cause

Oh maybe it isn't so odd

 

[Crick]

You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels. First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit. You are worthless.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels. First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit. You are worthless.

What are the levels in the tanks?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels. First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit. You are worthless.

Also, the 120ppm is only bullshit because it's your failed theory

 

[Crick]

you can't keep the same line running for five minutes.

 

[SSDD]

Mamooth is correct. 44 * 3.36e-8 = 1.4784e-6

SSDD is just showing off his cult loyalty. If he supports a fellow cultist, he gets cult brownie points, regardless of whether such support makes him look amazingly stupid.

It's also an arrogance thing. Some deniers are too full of themselves to even consider the possibility that they could make an error, so they refuse to double-check their work. It's a symptom of their Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in the way they vastly overestimate their own competence.

^ manboob congratulating himself on his prowess with a calculator. And he's thrilled to display his faux depth of knowledge again by repeating "Dunning-Kruger."

Let's all give manboob a hand.

S/he once caught a punctuation error as well.

 

[Crick]

You made an ass of yourself. None of this is helping. Personally, if I'd been stupid enough to do something like that - and I'm sure I have at some point or other - I'd just drop it and move on.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did the APS perform the experiment? No. Did NASA or NOAA or East Anglia Data Fudging university? No no no!

All we have is mythbusters and some vague notion regarding what they tested

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

You've been shown videos of two different experiments, both of which stated they were recreating atmospheric CO2 levels. First you spend two weeks LYING to us that you haven't seen them, then you go back on this 120 ppm bullshit. You are worthless.

And the videos aren't controlled. Where was the meter to read the CO2 in the box? So we are told they added 380PPM in one. How do we know there wasn't more? Where is the control...............................As I've stated in the past and have remained consistent in my message, give us an experiment that is controlled. All results are captured, Idle and as the test progresses. Then, capture all of the data. How about that? Why is that so difficult for you tikes to grasp? And as Frank pointed out, where are the experiments from the groups that wrote the theory? where are those. I would gather to bet that those would be controlled. So since there have been none produced, there must not be any. Why not just make that statement and we can move on. For me, today, you have no evidence to support your claim. Fail!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So where are all the experiments that show CO2 sensitivity from 80 to 140 PPM in increments of 5PPMs

Hmmmm?

What's the temperature and ocean pH at 130PPM?

Hmmmm?

Odd that there are NO EXPERIMENTS to Guide us

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How large a temperature increase and Drop in pH is caused each 10PPM incremental increase in CO2?

How about 5PPM, that Mythbuster equipment could handle 1800PPB of CH4, so can we get an analysis of each addition 1PPM of CO2?

Hmmmm?

"You've been shown that billion of times already, Denier! " -- Crick, OR, Dot, et. al.

 

[Crick]

How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?

by how much?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[jc456]

How about you cease and desist with this bullshit and simply accept the FACT that CO2 at its current atmospheric levels can cause global temperatures to increase?

Why? Because you can't find any proof. now that's fnn funny. what a whiner

 

[Crick]

Because, as you and everyone else here knows, you've already been shown the experiments. It's been proven a thousand times for over a century and you're a complete IDIOT to insist otherwise.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If the CO2 in the atmosphere increases by 120 parts per million, then we can expect the average global temperature to increase by ___X___.

All the experiments posted innumerable times here at USMB by crick/abe and others have conclusively established that FACT!

Therefore, it really should be no problem at all for crick/abey and his cohorts to tell us what the number for X can be expected to be.

And it should be the simplest of simple things for them to cite the work of the recognized authorities on AGW to show us the experiments that prove it and the data derived from those experiments.

Indeed, one must wonder why there is any hesitation on the part of crick/abey and the others in simply copying and pasting any of the innumerable posts which cited those papers, reports experiments and data.

 

[Crick]

I find it interesting that the lot of you who choose to deny having seen what we all know you've seen, pose questions based on premises you could only know had you seen the experiments you deny having seen.
Your question is asinine. The Earth and its climate is far too complex for any experiment to provide such values in a deterministic fashion. You can make very educated estimates, but that is all they will be. My best estimate would be that increasing CO2 by 120 ppm over 150 years will increase temperatures by 0.9C. In another 50-100 years, with NO further increase in CO2, temperatures will rise another 0.5.

You can find such information in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

[Crick]

And the videos aren't controlled. Where was the meter to read the CO2 in the box? So we are told they added 380PPM in one. How do we know there wasn't more?

Do us all a favor and stick your head up your ass and jump.

Nighty-night

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I find it interesting that the lot of you who choose to deny having seen what we all know you've seen, pose questions based on premises you could only know had you seen the experiments you deny having seen.
Your question is asinine. The Earth and its climate is far too complex for any experiment to provide such values in a deterministic fashion. You can make very educated estimates, but that is all they will be. My best estimate would be that increasing CO2 by 120 ppm over 150 years will increase temperatures by 0.9C. In another 50-100 years, with NO further increase in CO2, temperatures will rise another 0.5.

You can find such information in the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If that is a concession that there are no experiments by which we could calculate the RANGE of likely global temperature increase based on the stated premise, that's your first display of honesty, abey.

But referring folks to the Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents back-sliding by you. The incredible BIASES of the IPCC have become well established. Fuck. Even a dishonest hack like you OUGHT to know that much, Abey.