15 degrees in Alaska tonight!!! In August!!!

[PMZ]

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.

Tank A earth present atmosphere

Tank B earth atmosphere plus 800ppm of CO2

Check for temperature differences assuming steady heat source

How does the radiation from the sun get in? How does the reflection of the earth get out? How does the thickness and structure of the atmosphere get simulated?

 

[skookerasbil]

The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.

Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.

So they do and say whatever they could possibly get away with in denial of all of AGW's simple truth.

They have no redeeming qualities that mitigate the damage that they do.

The bottom line of all of that is pretty straightforward. They must be removed from any responsibility at least at the national level of government. That must be separated from all decision rights concerning climate and energy policy.

That's what they've earned.

still waiting

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk.....yuk.......


Whose not winning?????



Romantic Germany risks economic decline as green dream spoils - Telegraph





These meatheads live in a world of fantasy.

 

[westwall]

The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.

Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.

So they do and say whatever they could possibly get away with in denial of all of AGW's simple truth.

They have no redeeming qualities that mitigate the damage that they do.

The bottom line of all of that is pretty straightforward. They must be removed from any responsibility at least at the national level of government. That must be separated from all decision rights concerning climate and energy policy.

That's what they've earned.

The bottom line is you are full of horsey poo. Your entire "science" was based on a correlational coincidence when CO2 levels were rising with the global temps. That correlation has ended and you clowns have had to resort to data falsification to support your "theory".

That has been exposed and now your whole religion is collapsing around you. You are going extinct and soon.

 

[westwall]

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.

They've been able to demonstrate TELEPORTATION in a lab. You think your theory is so difficult? Give me a break, it hasn't been done because they know it won't work you ignorant twerp.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Teleportation-Physics-Study-Laboratory-Entanglement/dp/1422025187]Teleportation Physics Study: Air Force Research Laboratory Analysis of Teleportation of Physical Objects, Quantum Entanglement (Ringbound): Department of Defense: 9781422025185: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Teleportation: Behind the Science of Quantum Computing

Instant transport: achieving quantum teleportation in the laboratory. - Free Online Library

 

[PMZ]

There have been many attempts to replace science with what's best for a group who thinks that what's best for them is best for us. Power grabs.

Democracy has an answer for them be they communist or conservative or organized religion. Get lost.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Describe an experiment that would demonstrate AGW in a lab.

Tank A earth present atmosphere

Tank B earth atmosphere plus 800ppm of CO2

Check for temperature differences assuming steady heat source

How does the radiation from the sun get in? How does the reflection of the earth get out? How does the thickness and structure of the atmosphere get simulated?

Um OK

Do the experiments outdoor in the sunlight

The thickness of the atmosphere... wtf. That's not mentioned in the age theory

 

[PMZ]

The bottom line is that deniers have no way to make their case. There is zero science that supports them. There is zero common sense that supports them. The evidence of AGW is overwhelming and undeniable.

Yet, they remain feeling entitled to America. Entitled to impose what they mistakenly think is best for them on all of us.

So they do and say whatever they could possibly get away with in denial of all of AGW's simple truth.

They have no redeeming qualities that mitigate the damage that they do.

The bottom line of all of that is pretty straightforward. They must be removed from any responsibility at least at the national level of government. That must be separated from all decision rights concerning climate and energy policy.

That's what they've earned.

The bottom line is you are full of horsey poo. Your entire "science" was based on a correlational coincidence when CO2 levels were rising with the global temps. That correlation has ended and you clowns have had to resort to data falsification to support your "theory".

That has been exposed and now your whole religion is collapsing around you. You are going extinct and soon.

What you reveal is not only the absence of science education but also even respect for science. There is absolute certainty about AGW no matter what you and the conservative revolutionaries want. Nobody but you is even discussing it anymore. The science problem has moved on to what to do about it. What are our choices and what are the costs and consequences.

You're like the few Japanese soldiers who wandered out of the jungle decades after WWII. "You mean we lost? I've been living like an animal for 10 years for nothing?"

Yes you have.

 

[PMZ]

Tank A earth present atmosphere

Tank B earth atmosphere plus 800ppm of CO2

Check for temperature differences assuming steady heat source

How does the radiation from the sun get in? How does the reflection of the earth get out? How does the thickness and structure of the atmosphere get simulated?

Um OK

Do the experiments outdoor in the sunlight

The thickness of the atmosphere... wtf. That's not mentioned in the age theory

Here's the problem. The effects of higher atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are very well understood by scientists. That's well and clearly explained by Joe Normal's video, thousands of websites and text books, and numerous IPCC and other academic publications.

If you need your own proof, feel free to perform whatever experiment you want to. We don't need more proof. If you choose not to believe science, do your own.

It sounds like you have an experiment design in mind. Just do it. Report back the results.

 

[PMZ]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

Dont need any more math. Ive had more than most climate scientists. In fact, im up to par on EM Radiation and fields and waves. Ive also helped design supercomputers.

Couple of points on ur vid.

1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What wasnt shown is how more quickly the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2.

2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating, about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct.

3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2. Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition.

Thanks for the link. But it really did not change any conclusions for me. Would like to drive his model toy and see what happens under more real conditions..

"1 it doesnt address greenhouse gases. It focuses exclusively on co2 only. What wasnt shown is how more quickly the dip in the curve saturates in the presence of even moderate water vapor. Water vapor dominates and OVERLAPS much of the absorption lines of co2."

CO2 is the GHG under study. It's what's changing. Science knows, even if you don't, that as soon as a CO2 molecule with bending kinetic energy absorbs a photon, it emits it. In all directions statistically. Now it's just like it was. Ready in case another photon comes along. Nothing is saturated.

"2 The analysis looks at the LOSS thru the atmos, rather than the W/m2 increase at the surface. Tho he implies all of the stored energy contributes to the heating, about half is returned to the surface and half EXITS to1 space. Because the gas layer radiates both up and down. Hope his model gets that part correct."

Let's say that the end of this particular lecture was the real end of the process and not just the end of this class with the expectation of having subsequent classes. That CO2 just absorbed and never emitted. The energy just went away to a rest home somewhere. We'd have AGW even then. Because energy balance between in and out was prevented, science is 100% sure that the imbalance would cause the earth to warm until balance was restored.

But we know that the CO2 didn't just swallow the energy. It re-emmitted it nanoseconds later. The half of the energy returned by CO2 emissions cooled the earth when it was emitted by earth trying to maintain energy balance. Now half comes back to re-warm the earth. It's like it never left.

So the net effect is that the more CO2 molecules there are in the atmosphere, the more outgoing long wave is prevented from leaving, the more incoming and outgoing are in a state of imbalance in favor of incoming, the more energy the earth has to absorb, which causes warming until outgoing matches incoming again.

"3 didya notice how fast the co2 saturates on its absorption power? From 1ppm to100ppm there was something like 28W/m2. Then from 100 to 1000ppm you only gotanother 20W/m2 or so. And thats without the huge masking of realistic h2o vapor content. Adding co2 for GW IS NOT A linear proposition."

Water vapor is not changing. CO2 is. Water vapor contributes constantly to the natural global warming that civilization adapted to over the last few millennia.

We are changing only CO2. That's the cause of bringing about a new climate that requires a new adaptation for civilization. That will cost trillions of dollars and is already costing hundreds of lives every year.

 

[PMZ]

Here's the web interactive, U Chicago, radiation modeler.

MODTRAN Radiation Code

Play around with it and see the results.

 

[asterism]

Today the vast majority of the scientific pursuit of truth comes not from laboratories but computers. While the Wright Bros had to build and hope, today's aircraft fly first in virtual space.

People without advanced math skills can't even comprehend what's possible.

Where does a hydrologist learn programming?

I've never been a hydrologist.

Check the bios of the IPCC folks (Phil Jones).

 

[asterism]

It's "simple" and wrong. Alka-Seltzer dissolving in water is an exothermic reaction. That means it gives off heat. The difference in temperature would exist even without pointing a light at both bottles.

FAIL!

That's what happens when clueless boobs pretend they understand science.

Hey dude, I have a degree in a science based discipline. I'm just trying to find something my audience can relate to. BTW, I'm surprised you've even heard the term exothermic.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

If it's so simple, do it.

 

[PMZ]

OK Joe --- I've watched your UCh lecture..

What did YOU get from it? What was missing from the discussion? Is it DEFINITIVE with respect to a realistic atmos. model?

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

You apparently are unaware of the complexity of building the entire earth in a testube. So what has been done is to evaluate math models on computers then verify each individual component with lab work. That's how science is done nowadays.

 

[bripat9643]

Hey dude, I have a degree in a science based discipline. I'm just trying to find something my audience can relate to. BTW, I'm surprised you've even heard the term exothermic.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

If it's so simple, do it.

PMZ and Abraham like to pretend they are the experts on science, but they can't even see the obvious flaws in their abracadbra experiment to demonstrate the theory of greenhouse gases. That appears to be the modus operandi of the global warming cult in general. They are never looking for the flaws in their logic or their evidence because they aren't really interested in whether their theories are true. They want their theories to be true because it's so convenient for their agenda if the global warming hocus-pocus is true.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it lays out the fundamental mechanics of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. As I suggested in another post, if you wanted to go further, you'd need to be in a position to attend and understand these concepts in a class for science majors which would employ partial differential equations and matrix math. Then you'd know more about temperature gradients, atmospheric flow, etc. Going beyond that, you'd need an Earth simulation using supercomputers and increasingly sophisticated modeling.

The Warmers recently theorized that an 800ppm CO2 would raise temperature 3 degrees

That seems readily testable is a lab but I can't find a single experiment

Where are they

You apparently are unaware of the complexity of building the entire earth in a testube.

Obviously neither are you because you think some grad student can write a program that takes all those variables into account.

 

[PMZ]

Hey dude, I have a degree in a science based discipline. I'm just trying to find something my audience can relate to. BTW, I'm surprised you've even heard the term exothermic.

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

If it's so simple, do it.

You have the questions you find the answers. I know what the answer is. They are trivial.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers are completely unable to understand climate science but know that it threatens their ability to impose what's best for them on the rest of us. That’s the shit storm that the IPCC has to and has paddled against. They think that their incessant whining has to be considered but once you learn the basis for it it's pure noise. Ignore it. The experiment demonstrates with adequate precision the very inconvenient to them truth. That CO2 behaves as a GHGs are defined as. IR absorbers.

It would be very simple to isolate and show the other variables to be trivial. And use that fact and these posts to show that the denier case is built on trivia, only trivia.

If it's so simple, do it.

PMZ and Abraham like to pretend they are the experts on science, but they can't even see the obvious flaws in their abracadbra experiment to demonstrate the theory of greenhouse gases. That appears to be the modus operandi of the global warming cult in general. They are never looking for the flaws in their logic or their evidence because they aren't really interested in whether their theories are true. They want their theories to be true because it's so convenient for their agenda if the global warming hocus-pocus is true.

What we are waiting for is the first scientific evidence of some possible result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. There has been absutely none presented by anyone.

 

[PMZ]

Deniers, supply some scientific explanation denying at least one of the following.

The major products of combustion from fossil fuels are water and CO2.

CO2 is a GHG.

The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has steadily increased since mankind has been burning fossil fuels, and at a rate of increase that closely tracks the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

GHGs are defined as gasses that absorb and re-emit long wave emissions from Earth.

The action of atmospheric GHGs prevents half of the radiation that they absorb from leaving our atmosphere.

For all passive heavenly bodies only energy balance between incoming and outgoing radiation is stable. If in is greater than out warming will occur. If in is less than out, cooling will occur.

For AGW to not occur, one of those statements must be proven false.

Have at it.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's so simple, do it.

PMZ and Abraham like to pretend they are the experts on science, but they can't even see the obvious flaws in their abracadbra experiment to demonstrate the theory of greenhouse gases. That appears to be the modus operandi of the global warming cult in general. They are never looking for the flaws in their logic or their evidence because they aren't really interested in whether their theories are true. They want their theories to be true because it's so convenient for their agenda if the global warming hocus-pocus is true.

What we are waiting for is the first scientific evidence of some possible result of increased atmospheric GHG concentrations other than AGW. There has been absutely none presented by anyone.

It's not our job to prove your theories wrong, dipstick. It's your job to prove them right. However, there's plenty of evidence that your theories are wrong, like the fact that temperatures have been flat or declining for the last 15 years.