Two Theories

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.

No, it's only my most recent.

I continue to suspect that English is not your native tongue. One would not conduct an EXPERIMENT to determine the response of the climate to a given change. One would do a calculation using a lot of estimated values and parameters.

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.

And this, of course, is simply further evidence that you don't have a fucking clue.
 
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.

^ Liar

Probably certifiable too because he's never shown the experiment even once
 
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.

Your 'Best estimate" is not science. It's not even in the same Universe as science

The fact that you only have your "Best estimate" and not any experiments makes me certain AGW is a scam
 
You've been shown MULTIPLE laboratory experiments demonstrating warming from amounts of CO2 equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere now and prior to the Industrial Revolution. Your continued claim that you have NOT seen such things is more than a little frustrating. It's a bit disconcerting to have someone so blatantly lie right to your face.

Haven't been shown a single one actually

When you consider what passes for evidence in the minds (?) of these people, it is little wonder that they have been so completely hoaxed.

Tell you what, SID. Since this CO2-absorbing-infrared is a pretty hot topic these days and has been for several years, it's a pretty damn safe assumption that folks HAVE done the experiments that would show us whether or not CO2 warms the atmosphere. You claim that we can show you no experiments that show it does what we (and ALL of mainstream science) says it does. THAT means there must be a truckloads of experiments done out there THAT FAILED.

SHOW US ONE
 
Last edited:
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.

No, it's only my most recent.

I continue to suspect that English is not your native tongue. One would not conduct an EXPERIMENT to determine the response of the climate to a given change. One would do a calculation using a lot of estimated values and parameters.

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.

And this, of course, is simply further evidence that you don't have a fucking clue.

English is my native tongue but your lack of native ability to comprehend is evidence of your fluency in babble.

In any case, since you won't even acknowledge the NUMEROUS well-known problems with the veracity of the IPCC, your own bias is on full display.

IF the "science" part of the climate science AGW shit was not such a complete mystery to you, by the way, pricky, even a dimwit such as you MIGHT have a chance to comprehend that a scientific theory INVOLVES the ability to make "predictions."

Again, I am not asking a loser like you to offer a precise value for "X." That wouldn't even be a fair question to ask an intelligent person.

No. All YOU are being asked to do is to state a RANGE of values for "X" that the alleged AGW "science" would be expected to lead you to derive if one were to take the atmosphere of planet earth and ADD to it's present totals an additional 120 Parts Per Million of CO2.

If AGW "science" were actual science, it WOULD be able to make a prediction.

Since it is not real science, however, we all understand your reluctance and inability to permit yourself to get even slightly pinned down.
 
Haven't been shown a single one actually

When you consider what passes for evidence in the minds (?) of these people, it is little wonder that they have been so completely hoaxed.

Tell you what, SID. Since this CO2-absorbing-infrared is a pretty hot topic these days and has been for several years, it's a pretty damn safe assumption that folks HAVE done the experiments that would show us whether or not CO2 warms the atmosphere. You claim that we can show you no experiments that show it does what we (and ALL of mainstream science) says it does. THAT means there must be a truckloads of experiments done out there THAT FAILED.

SHOW US ONE
The AGWcult collects billions annually for "research" but you can't show us any experiments?

I'm going to the Koch Brothers to fund my AGW lab. We're doing the work liberal scientists refuse to do

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
Haven't been shown a single one actually

When you consider what passes for evidence in the minds (?) of these people, it is little wonder that they have been so completely hoaxed.

Tell you what, SID. Since this CO2-absorbing-infrared is a pretty hot topic these days and has been for several years, it's a pretty damn safe assumption that folks HAVE done the experiments that would show us whether or not CO2 warms the atmosphere. You claim that we can show you no experiments that show it does what we (and ALL of mainstream science) says it does. THAT means there must be a truckloads of experiments done out there THAT FAILED.

SHOW US ONE

There are plenty of experiments performed by climate science that failed to show that an increase in CO2 causes warming. Here is a brief rundown with the experiments named specifically. The failure of these models is ample proof that the work done that led up to them was terribly flawed:

spencer-models-epic-fail2-628x353.jpg
 
Last edited:
1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...
2) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math. Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD. Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.

If this is what you've got, you've got nothing. Which was the point of the rhetorical demand in the first place. Much obliged for the confirmation.

PS: your graphic is a blatant lie and an attempt at the deception of the public by the inestimable Roy Spencer. Check http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html if you'd like to see what he's pulled over the eyes of the deniers here.
 
Last edited:
1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...

In that you are once again wrong. The lower the sensitivity to CO2 the model has, the more closely it matches observation. Perhaps the could hind cast if they also added in the fact that solar activity was the highest it has been in a good long time at the end of the 20th century. The problem with you wackos is that you think CO2 is the end all be all when it hardly even rises to the level of a bit player in the grand scheme.


) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math. Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD. Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.

And yet, your entire position is supported by nothing but computer models.

this is what you've got, you've got nothing.

Well, it is the precise reason you have nothing.
 
1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...
2) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math. Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD. Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.

If this is what you've got, you've got nothing. Which was the point of the rhetorical demand in the first place. Much obliged for the confirmation.

PS: your graphic is a blatant lie and an attempt at the deception of the public by the inestimable Roy Spencer. Check HotWhopper: Roy Spencer's latest deceit and deception if you'd like to see what he's pulled over the eyes of the deniers here.

No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...

So, what you're saying is that you still can't show us any lab experiments.
 
1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...

In that you are once again wrong. The lower the sensitivity to CO2 the model has, the more closely it matches observation. Perhaps the could hind cast if they also added in the fact that solar activity was the highest it has been in a good long time at the end of the 20th century. The problem with you wackos is that you think CO2 is the end all be all when it hardly even rises to the level of a bit player in the grand scheme.

A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW. Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.

) Climate models are computer programs doing a lot of math. Running one can test a bunch of assumptions the programmer has made about the function of the climate, but it MEASURES NOTHING IN THE REAL WORLD. Climate models are not EXPERIMENTS, which is precisely and specifically what I requested of you.

And yet, your entire position is supported by nothing but computer models.

Wrong. The recent thread "The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps" by Dr Gavin Schmidt, clearly explained AGW without making any reference to computer models.

If this is what you've got, you've got nothing.

Well, it is the precise reason you have nothing.

Almost all of mainstream science is in agreement that AGW is a valid and accurate description of the behavior of Earth's climate. Virtually NONE of the world's scientists support whatever whack-job hypothesis you're currently pushing.
 
Last edited:
1) No one has EVER produced a GCM that can reproduce (hindcast) the temperature increases of the last 150 years that DOES NOT assume that CO2 increases temperature. It has been tried and it HAS NEVER WORKED. That models never perfectly match the actual behavior of the Earth's climate might have clued you in to...

In that you are once again wrong. The lower the sensitivity to CO2 the model has, the more closely it matches observation. Perhaps the could hind cast if they also added in the fact that solar activity was the highest it has been in a good long time at the end of the 20th century. The problem with you wackos is that you think CO2 is the end all be all when it hardly even rises to the level of a bit player in the grand scheme.

Show us.






Wrong. The recent thread "The CO2 Problem in 6 Easy Steps" by Dr Gavin Schmidt, clearly explained AGW without making any reference to computer models.


this is what you've got, you've got nothing.

Well, it is the precise reason you have nothing.

Almost all of mainstream science is in agreement that AGW is a valid and accurate description of the behavior of Earth's climate. Virtually NONE of the world's scientists support whatever whack-job hypothesis you're currently pushing.

Why 6 Steps? 1 East Step

Show us the Lab work!
 
A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW. Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.

Still working on flawed assumptions...there is one so called greenhouse gas that actually can cause warming...H2O. CO2 is irrelevant...always has been always will be.

By the way, explain why the warming started 14k years ago? Was it AGW? Explain why most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940? Was it AGW? Show one bit of hard evidence based on observation, backed up by repeatable experiment that validates the AGW hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
A model with low CO2 sensitivity is still one assuming AGW. Show us one that can recreate the climate's behavior of the last 150 years that assumes NO heating from the greenhouse effect.

Still working on flawed assumptions...there is one so called greenhouse gas that actually can cause warming...H2O. CO2 is irrelevant...always has been always will be.

By the way, explain why the warming started 14k years ago? Was it AGW?

As seems to be ALWAYS the case, you haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.

Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png



Explain why most of the 20th century warming happened prior to 1940?

We've been over this before and thus you KNOW that most of the 20th century's warming happened AFTER the 1941-1979 dip you've tried to cherry pick into something significant. That would make this effort one of deception.

Was it AGW?

Primarily, yes.

Show one bit of hard evidence based on observation, backed up by repeatable experiment that validates the AGW hypothesis.

I, Poster SSDD don't know a frigging THING and this link proves it
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top