A real demonstration of warming from co2

[CrusaderFrank]

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

Do the same experiment with only 100PPM of CO2

Since we are now up to 392 ppm, better make that 112.

(I meant 100PPM additional CO2, not that it matters since CO2 is a rounding error anyway)



Make it 800PPM



800?



Yes, 800.

 

[code1211]

Do you really think that all the scientists from all the nations and various political systems are in some kind of conspriracy?

No rocks, a very few are guilty of deliberate fraud. The remainder of those who actually believe are victims of an error cascade. They simply accept certain data as true and incorporate it into their own studies without actually checking. This isn't the first time it has happened and won't be the last.

But does it seem at all plausible to you that the 50 major scientific bodies in the world would be victims of these error cascades - and that the few opposing scientists the only ones to see through it?

It seems much more likely to me that a handful of scientists would be fooled - and that the overhwelming majority would be well aware of the pitfalls and errors.

I bought a Ford Maverick that was designed by experts, built by experienced professionals and based on the technology developed over 70 or so years. I sp[ent as much fixing that rolling dog turd in 1 year as I spent to buy it in the first place.

So much for experts.

Show me that they are right and then I'll respect their expertise.

You can start by showing me that climate prediction from 30 years ago that accurately predicts what has happened ever since and predicts what the temerature will be today.

 

[code1211]

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

We're so lucky we have you here, because you are probably the only person in the world right now who Really Gets It.

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

The point is that nobody knows. Some people pretend to know. Others follow the pretenders blindly.

 

[code1211]

Wirebender -

This issue to me comes down to trust.

I figure none of us on this site have actually conducted research in glacial melt or rising sea levels, and I assume none of us on this site actually have the scientific skills to do so. I know I don't. If someone here has a PhD in Geophysics or Meterology then probably they do, but I suspect 90% of the posts on this forum (from both sides) are made by people who don't really know.

So who do we trust?

Of course we all have our own personal observations, but I mean apart from that.

I trust the professor of physics I interviewed a few months back, and who is one the world's leading experts in cloud formation, amongst other things. I trust the University of Helsinki, because I know that their funding is in no way linked to politics.

I trust the UK Met Service and the Royal Academy of Sciences because they are not funded by lobbies or companies with a stake in this. Their position has been the same through governments from left and right, and they have access to some of the best scientists in the world.

I really struggle with watching people not only rejecting, the views of people like the American Society of Meterologists, but actually ridiculing them as not undertanding meterology. That makes no sense to me.

Is meteorology the study of weather or of climate?

 

[code1211]

Wirebender -

This issue to me comes down to trust.

I figure none of us on this site have actually conducted research in glacial melt or rising sea levels, and I assume none of us on this site actually have the scientific skills to do so. I know I don't. If someone here has a PhD in Geophysics or Meterology then probably they do, but I suspect 90% of the posts on this forum (from both sides) are made by people who don't really know.

So who do we trust?

Of course we all have our own personal observations, but I mean apart from that.

I trust the professor of physics I interviewed a few months back, and who is one the world's leading experts in cloud formation, amongst other things. I trust the University of Helsinki, because I know that their funding is in no way linked to politics.

I trust the UK Met Service and the Royal Academy of Sciences because they are not funded by lobbies or companies with a stake in this. Their position has been the same through governments from left and right, and they have access to some of the best scientists in the world.

I really struggle with watching people not only rejecting, the views of people like the American Society of Meterologists, but actually ridiculing them as not undertanding meterology. That makes no sense to me.

Do you have photographic evidence of the rising sea levels? Photography has been used world wide for a couple hundred years and there should be ample evidence of the rising sea levels in Houston, Miami, St. Petersburg, London, Naples, Tripoli, Normandy and dozens of other heavily photographed areas.

The rise of the oceans according to experts is 8 vertical inches since 1900.

Where is the photographic proof of your claims?

Questioning something is not the same as rejecting it. I am open to accepting what is being said, but not accepting it on faith. You claim that there are scientists who are very knowledgable on this stuff and yet they cannot provide the most basic proofs.

Provide the proof and you will find people more accepting. Make no attempt to remove doubt and doubt will remain.

 

[code1211]

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

Have these organizations said exactly what the impact of the activity of Man has been on the climate? Have they predicted exactly what the effect of AGW will be on the climate in the next 10 years, the next 20 and the next 30?

Did either or both of these organizations make predictions on what the climate would be today 10 years ago, 20 years ago or 30 years ago?

Were they accurate?

The question here is, "Why do you believe these folks? What have they done to make you trust their expertise?"

 

[bobgnote]

Which proves nothing as I stated. Guess what? If you drink 700 cans of diet soda a day with nutra sweet in it you can possibly get cancer. A useless factoid.

Get back to us when a test is done that actually FITS what is happening and has happened.

As I stated 14 years of rising CO2 and no appreciable rise in temps.

1. Each of the last four decades was the warmest ever;
2. March 2012 was the warmest March, on record. Warming is accelerating, with release of methane, from melted glacial ice, from warming fresh-water lakes and oceans, and from land, formerly covered by permafrost;
3. The CO2 exhanges with carbonic acid, in the oceans, with an affinity for colder water, so the O2-rich cold waters, responsible for plankton blooms are threatened, by accelerating acidification. When the plankton goes, there goes the oceanic food chain;
4. Bluefin tuna are down, cod are down and not recovering, an oyster die-off happened in the Pacific NW, reefs are dying, eggs and little fish are threatened or dead;
5. Bees are dying from pesticide accumulation, but hey, the acid will make that worse!

Your soda contains carbonic acid, which is the same substance, which is building up in the oceans. You may just belch, but when the oceanic food chain goes, lock and load.

What is so hard to understand, about acceleration? Keep your foot off of that.

 

[flacaltenn]

Funny thing about Consensus fans.. They don't have a clue as to how the "voting" is done.

The rules of the game are simple. You stand there with your arms at your side and get attacked for your views. Naked. Open to any and all that ask questions. Could be one wimpy guy in a track suit with a mere BS degree that knocks you off the box. Doesn't MATTER how many folks endorse you.. Doesn't matter if God himself comes down and speaks for your wisdom on CNN. (well that might help)..

I don't CARE who's endorsed the theory. That's what got the Inquisition into trouble with history. I DO CARE who the challengers are and what they are asking and MOST IMPORTANTLY -- if they are getting answered adequately..

SOooooooo -- When's the last time Al Gore held an OPEN forum to recieve (even vetted) technical questions on the topic for which he won the Nobel prize??? ANYBODY??? Should he even be MENTIONED in a Berkeley physics class for wisdom on the topic?

Science perverted.... Right from the very start...

 

[IanC]

Funny thing about Consensus fans.. They don't have a clue as to how the "voting" is done.

The rules of the game are simple. You stand there with your arms at your side and get attacked for your views. Naked. Open to any and all that ask questions. Could be one wimpy guy in a track suit with a mere BS degree that knocks you off the box. Doesn't MATTER how many folks endorse you.. Doesn't matter if God himself comes down and speaks for your wisdom on CNN. (well that might help)..

I don't CARE who's endorsed the theory. That's what got the Inquisition into trouble with history. I DO CARE who the challengers are and what they are asking and MOST IMPORTANTLY -- if they are getting answered adequately..

SOooooooo -- When's the last time Al Gore held an OPEN forum to recieve (even vetted) technical questions on the topic for which he won the Nobel prize??? ANYBODY??? Should he even be MENTIONED in a Berkeley physics class for wisdom on the topic?

Science perverted.... Right from the very start...

yup......

the first thing to do is to sit down and lay down the facts on the two sides of the issue. it is frustrating to see both sides erecting strawmen of the other.

I have no doubt that mankind is affecting the environment but I have grave doubts about the 3x feedbacks and the preposterous predictions of doom.

 

[code1211]

Which proves nothing as I stated. Guess what? If you drink 700 cans of diet soda a day with nutra sweet in it you can possibly get cancer. A useless factoid.

Get back to us when a test is done that actually FITS what is happening and has happened.

As I stated 14 years of rising CO2 and no appreciable rise in temps.

1. Each of the last four decades was the warmest ever;
2. March 2012 was the warmest March, on record. Warming is accelerating, with release of methane, from melted glacial ice, from warming fresh-water lakes and oceans, and from land, formerly covered by permafrost;
3. The CO2 exhanges with carbonic acid, in the oceans, with an affinity for colder water, so the O2-rich cold waters, responsible for plankton blooms are threatened, by accelerating acidification. When the plankton goes, there goes the oceanic food chain;
4. Bluefin tuna are down, cod are down and not recovering, an oyster die-off happened in the Pacific NW, reefs are dying, eggs and little fish are threatened or dead;
5. Bees are dying from pesticide accumulation, but hey, the acid will make that worse!

Your soda contains carbonic acid, which is the same substance, which is building up in the oceans. You may just belch, but when the oceanic food chain goes, lock and load.

What is so hard to understand, about acceleration? Keep your foot off of that.

That's all very impressive, but warming has revesed since 2000. We are cooling from that point forward.

CO2 has continued apace to increase.

If CO2 is the primary driver of warming and CO2 continues to increase but the climate cools, what does your science tell you?

Most of the studies of the acidification of the oceans are done in the areas near to the larger cities where there is a huge problem with the run off of the fertilizers used on lawns. It is this and not CO2 that is causing the readings to change.

The ARGO Array of buoys showed that the Oceans were not warming and so, the data from the ARGO Array of buoys was suppressed. It is currently being revised to rig the data and we should be getting the new and better, revised numbers not based on anything but the goals of the Warmers.

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender -

This issue to me comes down to trust.

So you trust government at all levels and in all things? You trust government agencies, government owned schools, and non government agencies and schools who are funded by government collectively to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars who claim to be providing scientific justification for government to institute taxes and regulation schemes that will literally net TRILLIONS of dollars over the coming decades to be honest even if honesty means watching all that potential money and power vanish in the blink of an eye?

Interesting.

Tell me, did you believe government when they said that the iraq war wasn't over oil? Do you believe government agencies when they say that fracking is harmless?

I figure none of us on this site have actually conducted research in glacial melt or rising sea levels, and I assume none of us on this site actually have the scientific skills to do so.

All one need know about glacial melt, and rising sea levels is that nothing that is happening today even comes close to the boundries of known natural variability.

The issue is whether the science, by which warmists claim that man is in some way responsible is sound and therein lies the fraud. The fact that you can't grasp the science and are therefore relegated to trusing one side or the other is a reflection on you, not me.

I know I don't. If someone here has a PhD in Geophysics or Meterology then probably they do, but I suspect 90% of the posts on this forum (from both sides) are made by people who don't really know.

Again, it isn't whether glaciers are melting, or sea level is rising, it is whether the claims made by warmists are scientifically sound. Do the physics support the claims. For example, to date, not a single solitary warmist has named a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as is claimed by them while anyone who has even had high school physics can name at least 3 physical laws that state that no such greenhouse effect as described by warmists is possible.

So who do we trust?

I trust physics and math and I am able to understand both. Upon what do you base your trust in government?

I trust the professor of physics I interviewed a few months back, and who is one the world's leading experts in cloud formation, amongst other things. I trust the University of Helsinki, because I know that their funding is in no way linked to politics.

And yet, you don't grasp that the cloud guys are proving that the claims of warmsts are grossly overblown and that the physics don't support their hypothesis.

I trust the UK Met Service and the Royal Academy of Sciences because they are not funded by lobbies or companies with a stake in this. Their position has been the same through governments from left and right, and they have access to some of the best scientists in the world.

But they are funded via government which is run by non scientists who have an inherent interest in the power that taxation gives them.

I really struggle with watching people not only rejecting, the views of people like the American Society of Meterologists, but actually ridiculing them as not undertanding meterology. That makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you because you are not educated. It makes no sense to you because you don't grasp the science. I do grasp the science and your faith in government and inability to look at the vast amount of money and power at stake and conceed that when that amount of money and power is in the balance, some people will willingly do or say whatever is necessary to get a piece of the action makes no sense to me.

 

[wirebender]

Defend it against what? your incoherent ramblings about how reality is a lie?

If you believe the experiment that prompted this thread represents reality, then you have demonstrated beyond any doubt that you don't have the first clue as to what reality is. If you were duped into believing that the heat of compression is an example of warming due to CO2, then you are, quite simply, and uneducated rube and exactly the sort who gets victimized by this sort of nonsense.

 

[wirebender]

I didn't see him close the tank...So I think it was open to the atmosphere.

Absolutely not open to the atmosphere matthew. If it were open to the air currents of the atmosphere, how could one be sure that the atmosphere within the subject tank had a higher CO2 content?

Don't be that gullible matthew, I know you are smarter than that.

 

[wirebender]

5) I'd love to see that experiment repeated with a THIRD tank containing a small amount of steam!!!! (or even an inch of water at the bottom) And vary the steam with a constant amount of CO2...

Better yet, fill it with methane. Methane is supposedly 20 times more powerful than CO2 as so called greenhouse gasses go but it is lighter than air. Because the heat of compression will be less than regular air, the temperature will be lower than in the tank with just air and therefore the temperature will decrease.

 

[wirebender]

Stop being a shill for the Warmers.

The Experiment is a fraud, surely you see that

No, only YOU see that - the American Society of Geophysics and the UK Met Office have nowhere near the scientific knowledge you possess.

Read a bit about the phenomenon known as "heat of compression" and then tell me that you can't see that the experiment is a fraud.

 

[skookerasbil]

Wirebender -

This issue to me comes down to trust.

So you trust government at all levels and in all things? You trust government agencies, government owned schools, and non government agencies and schools who are funded by government collectively to the tune of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars who claim to be providing scientific justification for government to institute taxes and regulation schemes that will literally net TRILLIONS of dollars over the coming decades to be honest even if honesty means watching all that potential money and power vanish in the blink of an eye?

Interesting.

Tell me, did you believe government when they said that the iraq war wasn't over oil? Do you believe government agencies when they say that fracking is harmless?

I figure none of us on this site have actually conducted research in glacial melt or rising sea levels, and I assume none of us on this site actually have the scientific skills to do so.

All one need know about glacial melt, and rising sea levels is that nothing that is happening today even comes close to the boundries of known natural variability.

The issue is whether the science, by which warmists claim that man is in some way responsible is sound and therein lies the fraud. The fact that you can't grasp the science and are therefore relegated to trusing one side or the other is a reflection on you, not me.



Again, it isn't whether glaciers are melting, or sea level is rising, it is whether the claims made by warmists are scientifically sound. Do the physics support the claims. For example, to date, not a single solitary warmist has named a single physical law that supports and predicts a greenhouse effect as is claimed by them while anyone who has even had high school physics can name at least 3 physical laws that state that no such greenhouse effect as described by warmists is possible.



I trust physics and math and I am able to understand both. Upon what do you base your trust in government?



And yet, you don't grasp that the cloud guys are proving that the claims of warmsts are grossly overblown and that the physics don't support their hypothesis.

I trust the UK Met Service and the Royal Academy of Sciences because they are not funded by lobbies or companies with a stake in this. Their position has been the same through governments from left and right, and they have access to some of the best scientists in the world.

But they are funded via government which is run by non scientists who have an inherent interest in the power that taxation gives them.

I really struggle with watching people not only rejecting, the views of people like the American Society of Meterologists, but actually ridiculing them as not undertanding meterology. That makes no sense to me.

It makes no sense to you because you are not educated. It makes no sense to you because you don't grasp the science. I do grasp the science and your faith in government and inability to look at the vast amount of money and power at stake and conceed that when that amount of money and power is in the balance, some people will willingly do or say whatever is necessary to get a piece of the action makes no sense to me.

wirebender bro..........thats the most fascinating thing about these k00ks. They think corruption and greed exist only in the private sector. Think about how many meetings these dolts missed somewhere along the way? Hook, line and stinker.............they think the government is serving the people's best interests!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

lol..........once again, wirebender DOMINATES the science discussion.

 

[wirebender]

1. Each of the last four decades was the warmest ever;

Which altered temperature record are you resting that claim on?

 

[daveman]

He didn't keep pressure constant?

Then he proved Boyle's Law, not global warming.

Damn, AGW cultists are stupid.

We're so lucky we have you here, because you are probably the only person in the world right now who Really Gets It.

The 50 major scientific organisations in the world ALL claim humn activity is playing a role in climate change. There is not a single scientific organisation who disagrees.

ONLY YOU KNOW!

So...Professor Dumbass fucked up, and it's MY fault?

 

[daveman]

[
He didn't keep pressure constant?

Of course he didn't. He introduced the CO2 and then closed the tank back up. If he had kept the pressure constant, there would have been no warming.

Then like most climate science, it's bad science.