250 Peer Reviewed Papers in 2015 Alone Cast Doubt on AGW Hypothesis

[elektra]

No, you get the full abstract, about 14 paragraphs. It states abstract right at the top. Let us try a screen shot.

Everyone else sees the full paper.

It appears you've gone totally unhinged because your browser isn't working right.

Try fixing it.

Full text, of the abstract, you can see right there, text is highlighted, chosen, and you get full text of the abstract

 

[elektra]

I know maMOOT, it is so hard to be wrong, everyone but you can see the difference between an abstract. Even when it states abstract, right under the tab that chooses the full text of the abstract.

 

[mamooth]

Ian pointed out he saw the full paper as well.

You're just wrong, and everyone sees it, because they can all see the full paper. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[saveliberty]

So much for settled science...

We see the same thing in talc causes cancer studies. Scientific research is becoming a joke.

 

[saveliberty]

The tremendous energy released by the Sun is a more dominant influence on Earth's temperature only makes perfect sense...to scientific minded people.

 

[bripat9643]

Tell me snagletooth, You post up a bunch of horse crap about models and how they must be right, as the military uses them yet you fail to show us how their predictive powers. Come on snagletooth, show us the predictive powers stage of theroy falsification for all of your models.
Every single GCM (Global Climate Model) used today by the military and every other government agency fails inside of 36 hours. This means that they still dont have a clue how the system works and therefore can not quantify the necessary items to make the models work..

That Air Force "model" has been detecting recent missile launches from North Korea.

You claim that's not possible, as all such models are totally wrong.

You're obviously profoundly stupid and delusional, just another cult nutter for everyone to laugh at.

I think radar is what detected those launches, not some computer model.

 

[Searcher44]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

 

[IanC]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

ahhhh, you like science history and verified predictions. are you a committed skeptic yet?

CO2 theory calls for a ~1C calculated increase for doubling CO2 concentration, which is then roughly tripled by feedbacks dominated by water vapour. this mechanism predicts faster warming in the upper layers of the troposphere and is commonly refered to as the tropospheric hotspot. it is not there. boom! the pretty theory has been dashed by an ugly fact.

the coincidental warming in the 80's and 90's cemented the idea that the theory was correct. the inconvenient data since then has had little effect on convincing climate science that a major re-write is necessary. the only things being rewritten are the algorithms that push the data towards favoured results in temperature, sea level rise, etc.

 

[mamooth]

CO2 theory calls for a ~1C calculated increase for doubling CO2 concentration, which is then roughly tripled by feedbacks dominated by water vapour. this mechanism predicts faster warming in the upper layers of the troposphere and is commonly refered to as the tropospheric hotspot. it is not there. boom! the pretty theory has been dashed by an ugly fact.

Except it is there. Making up stories might pass muster with your fellow cultists, but all the scientists know better.

the coincidental warming in the 80's and 90's cemented the idea that the theory was correct. the inconvenient data since then has had little effect on convincing climate science that a major re-write is necessary. the only things being rewritten are the algorithms that push the data towards favoured results in temperature, sea level rise, etc.

The instant you start the baseless conspiracy theories, all the grownups instantly start ignoring you.

 

[mamooth]

I think radar is what detected those launches, not some computer model.

You think wrong, being that the initial launches are spotted by IR detectors on satellites.

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) · Lockheed Martin

Needless to say, those IR detectors wouldn't work if the Air Force had the IR absorption properties of atmospheric gases wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

I think radar is what detected those launches, not some computer model.

You think wrong, being that the initial launches are spotted by IR detectors on satellites.

Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) · Lockheed Martin

Needless to say, those IR detectors wouldn't work if the Air Force had the IR absorption properties of atmospheric gases wrong.

First:: Your link refers to a system that hasn't been built yet.

Second: What does it have to do with computer climate models?

 

[mamooth]

Do I have to research everything for you?

Defense Support Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
DSP satellites, which are operated by the Air Force Space Command, detect missile or spacecraft launches and nuclear explosions using sensors that detect the infrared emissions from these intense sources of heat.
---

And as I just said, in order to get those satellites to work, the Air Force has to know precisely how IR travels through or gets absorbed by the atmosphere. Therefore, they did many, many experiments to determine that very precisely. That same data is used in the climate models.

Now, that doesn't show how the models are right, and I never said it did. The success of the models in their predictions is what shows how the models are right. What it does show is how Frank is proudly lying when he keeps claiming nothing was ever done in the lab to determine the IR-absorbing properties of CO2.

 

[IanC]

CO2 theory calls for a ~1C calculated increase for doubling CO2 concentration, which is then roughly tripled by feedbacks dominated by water vapour. this mechanism predicts faster warming in the upper layers of the troposphere and is commonly refered to as the tropospheric hotspot. it is not there. boom! the pretty theory has been dashed by an ugly fact.

Except it is there. Making up stories might pass muster with your fellow cultists, but all the scientists know better.

the coincidental warming in the 80's and 90's cemented the idea that the theory was correct. the inconvenient data since then has had little effect on convincing climate science that a major re-write is necessary. the only things being rewritten are the algorithms that push the data towards favoured results in temperature, sea level rise, etc.

The instant you start the baseless conspiracy theories, all the grownups instantly start ignoring you.

Now you're saying it's there? Last time we talked about this you said stratospheric cooling was the REAL signature of CO2 warming.

Okay, post up your evidence, we can go through this again.

 

[jc456]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

 

[bripat9643]

Do I have to research everything for you?

Defense Support Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
DSP satellites, which are operated by the Air Force Space Command, detect missile or spacecraft launches and nuclear explosions using sensors that detect the infrared emissions from these intense sources of heat.
---

And as I just said, in order to get those satellites to work, the Air Force has to know precisely how IR travels through or gets absorbed by the atmosphere. Therefore, they did many, many experiments to determine that very precisely. That same data is used in the climate models.

Now, that doesn't show how the models are right, and I never said it did. The success of the models in their predictions is what shows how the models are right. What it does show is how Frank is proudly lying when he keeps claiming nothing was ever done in the lab to determine the IR-absorbing properties of CO2.

The link you used previously referred to a system that hadn't been built yet. Don't blame me if you're too damn lazy to read the stuff you link to.

You're right about one thing, "that doesn't show how the models are right." On the other hand, the models haven't been successful in predicting the climate. They have been abject failures. having valid data about how infrared transmits through the atmosphere isn't the only thing need to make a valid climate model.

 

[Searcher44]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

 

[jc456]

Have any of the Warmers ever actually stated the "AGW Hypothesis"?

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

 

[Searcher44]

Many times. There's a thread you started on that, which you then turned tail and ran from when we stated the hypothesis.

You're plainly just trolling now, lying repeatedly simply to annoy people. Being that trolling is not permitted, you ought to stop.

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

 

[jc456]

"The testable hypothesis is that greenhouse gases emitted by humans will cause the earth to warm."

Credit where due. This is the hypothesis and easy enough to test too. But odd that there are no experiments testing this

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

 

[Searcher44]

In my opinion testing this hypothesis would have to be on a massive, close to Earth-sized scale to be definitive and valid. Just too many variables you have to leave out otherwise. However most ideas in Cosmology fall into an "untestable" category
also. For example testing most of the ideas generated by special + general relativity in lab conditions are impossible. In these cases the whole Universe becomes the laboratory. Einstein himself suggested one of these tests. If you observed the area around the Sun during an eclipse you should see one or more stars that should otherwise be hidden behind the mass of the Sun, because of the "gravitational lens" effect, the "bending" of light by the Sun's gravity, This observation was made by Eddington on May 29th, 1919, thus adding more corroboration of Einstein's theory.
I'm not terribly familiar with climate change arguments but don't real world observations account for the majority of evidence used to support what you are calling "the hypothesis". Empirical observation and modelling, those are the best tools of modern big science. Too bad they can't devise a Cern for climate science, that would simplify things a little.We're each left to make a value judgement as best we can based as much as possible on objective reading of the evidence. leaving out subjectivity over-influenced by ideology. Pretty tough assignment for amateurs.

so you're saying that it is too complicated to run a controlled test in a lab environment and systematically add and remove CO2 from some sort of container? Our scientists can't even do that? If that is indeed the case, then how can anyone predict gloom and doom? Please, I'm a willing reader.

No, I'm saying that's a small piece of the puzzle. Scientists described the "greenhouse" properties of CO2 in the 19th century I think. Very simple experiment. The fact it has those properties doesn't come anywhere near validating the whole hypothesis is what I meant. You would have to include so many of the variables to make an experiment "prove" the complete hypothesis it would "...have to be on a massive scale..."

no it isn't, the argument is CO2 and its power. It's the political egg that is being tossed about. And all I ask as a human being is evidence that CO2 is big and bad as those wish to make it. And I would have expected that someone tested their theory in a lab prior to making any such statement. And two years now crickets. So how warm is 120 PPM of CO2. That's all I want to know. If you push IR into a container with 120 PPM of CO2 in it how much hotter will it get? because we've been told that CO2 is magic, it produces heat like the sun.

Also, release CO2 in a closed room and measure the radiation from it. nope. I don't know, but for me, I have to have evidence. I'm strange that way. It's why I still have money in the bank, I don't fall for scams. I ask for evidence of some deal before I give my money. I know when it is a bridge to nowhere.

I've never heard anyone say CO2 produces heat, I've heard it absorbs and re-emits IR radiation (energy, heat). The site below describes the mechanism concisely.
Okay so I found a few experiments but I have a feeling they're not as deep as you want but I tried.

This experiment ↓ crudely quantifies the heat-trapping properties of CO2.;

Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air?



This experiment ↓ visually demonstrates CO2 absorbing IR (Heat)

Absorption of Infra Red by CO2.



This ↓ is a simple High School level CO2 experiment, quantified but not usefully so I don't think.



If you were looking for a more sophisticated experiment I imagine it's available, I just browsed a few.
This is that site I mentioned that describes the absorb/re-emit mechanism nicely;
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating.
This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO2 an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons".

seen all those, all bullshit. doesn't do what I asked. The mythbuster one they pumped the box with all CO2, holy fk the amount would have suffocated someone. And they show one degree change.

the other ones are all uncontrolled, so invalid. So, again, I'm looking for one from an actual scientist the ones making the gloom doom statements.

Additionally, if CO2 re-emits then it becomes a heat source like the sun. I asked for that evidence.

Oh and thanks for the effort.

Actually in the mythbuster's video they said they introduced CO2 at 350 parts per million and methane at 1800 parts per billion and they said that guy monitoring was
Maniesh Gupta, a gas monitoring expert from Los Gatos Research. And they specifically said that the amounts measured were "no problem for this gear."

And you say "if it re-emits" You don't accept that science or accept the description given by UCAR at the site I quoted?
Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education