A simple request of the Man made warming crowd

[HenryBHough]

None of we skeptics are trying to convince you GW religionists of anything. It's you wot are trying to convert the world. So if you think some kind of experiment will further your cause - have at it. But don't expect us to do your work for you.

Definitely do not expect us to pay for it.

 

[Mr. H.]

Time for you folks to get a different tag line. Global Warming went out long ago, replaced with Climate Change. A more descriptive term would be Weather Fluctuation. You need to have an effective catch phrase to more accurately prove your arguments

It's all in the vocabulary.

 

[Abraham3]

None of we skeptics are trying to convince you GW religionists of anything. It's you wot are trying to convert the world. So if you think some kind of experiment will further your cause - have at it. But don't expect us to do your work for you.

Definitely do not expect us to pay for it.

We are not trying to convert the world. We are trying to convince a shrinking but vocal minority (well funded to boot) that AGW is real and a threat. You guys act like we're the nuts. We're the ones pushing MAINSTREAM science. You're the FlatEarthers, Secret Martian Base on the back of the Moon, Kennedy was killed by Johnson, the government blew up the WTC and so forth and so on. If at any point in time or space you've gotten the idea that YOU are the sensible mainstream on this point, disabuse yourself of it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Keep on believing.

Your faith may make you free.

Or not. Likely not as you are enslaved already.

 

[flacaltenn]

There IS actually an experiment that might satisfy the SGT. You go out in the field night after night for the past 10 years with a $50K longwave radiometer. Plot the amount of watts coming down from the atmosphere. MAKE CERTAIN that humidity is low and the sky is cloudless. Grab the CO2 chart and plot your yearly change.. You Might see a linear increase in your values that looks like the CO2 curve.

But probably not. Because your measured values depend more on the temperature of the lower atmos than the CO2 concentration. If you were able to find cloudless nights where the atmos temp profile was the same OR you could CLEANLY compensate for the temp profile, you'd have a CO2 only function of time..

Must be hard or impossible or EMBARRASSING TO AGW. Because ive never seen it done.
Youd need to send up a balloon to stratosphere type levels to find the temp profile and assume it hasnt changed over the coourse of the measurement.

Deal is Gunnysarge, even IF you measured the increase in the GH heat coming down ---- we already know from chemistry and physics that a doubling of CO2 will produce less than 1degC change at the surface. Thats the GH working as it should.. BUT THATS NOT GLOBAL WARMING.. To believe in AGW, you got to accept MUCH MORE than the rather trivial effect of CO2.. You gotz to believe that the 1deg is gonna turn the Earth suicidal and that it will destroy itself with feedbacks and MAGICALLY MULTIPLY the CO2 effect into 4 or 8 degs rise..

NO EXPERIMENT IS GONNA GET YOU FROM THAT 1DEG CO2 EFFECT to the wild ass guesses that have been made about AGW multipliers....

 

[Old Rocks]

You claim that man made CO2 has caused the warming and will continue to do so.

Simple request.

Prove it. Do a repeatable experiment that shows that the amount of CO2 put in the air by man has caused the current rise in temperatures. And that it will continue to cause more rising temperature.

You claim you have science on your side, the scientific method is proven by a repeatable experiment.

And no I don't want a link to something that happened over 100 years ago. Current, repeatable experiment that shows the amount of CO2 added to the earth's atmosphere has caused the current increase.

With this simple experiment you prove the point. And since NO ONE has done it and continues to make excuses for why it isn't needed, I would suggest you are afraid it will not support your claim.

Crap, man, where the hell have you been? Here is the whole shebang from the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And here is a presentation at the American Geophyical Union from 2009, by Dr. Richard Alley, one of the premier glacialogists in the world;

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

Now I can go on and on, presenting scientific papers showing that CO2 is a GHG, and that it does raise the temperature of the earth when there is a large amount of it in the atmosphere. What can you present from a credible scientist that says otherwise?

 

[Old Rocks]

There IS actually an experiment that might satisfy the SGT. You go out in the field night after night for the past 10 years with a $50K longwave radiometer. Plot the amount of watts coming down from the atmosphere. MAKE CERTAIN that humidity is low and the sky is cloudless. Grab the CO2 chart and plot your yearly change.. You Might see a linear increase in your values that looks like the CO2 curve.

But probably not. Because your measured values depend more on the temperature of the lower atmos than the CO2 concentration. If you were able to find cloudless nights where the atmos temp profile was the same OR you could CLEANLY compensate for the temp profile, you'd have a CO2 only function of time..

Must be hard or impossible or EMBARRASSING TO AGW. Because ive never seen it done.
Youd need to send up a balloon to stratosphere type levels to find the temp profile and assume it hasnt changed over the coourse of the measurement.

Deal is Gunnysarge, even IF you measured the increase in the GH heat coming down ---- we already know from chemistry and physics that a doubling of CO2 will produce less than 1degC change at the surface. Thats the GH working as it should.. BUT THATS NOT GLOBAL WARMING.. To believe in AGW, you got to accept MUCH MORE than the rather trivial effect of CO2.. You gotz to believe that the 1deg is gonna turn the Earth suicidal and that it will destroy itself with feedbacks and MAGICALLY MULTIPLY the CO2 effect into 4 or 8 degs rise..

NO EXPERIMENT IS GONNA GET YOU FROM THAT 1DEG CO2 EFFECT to the wild ass guesses that have been made about AGW multipliers....

Really? You know that? Show us. Links to credible scientists that have a hypothesis that can stand a review by a second year student in any scieince. That is how it is done. Not by stupid claims that have zero backing.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

 

[Old Rocks]

Keep on believing.

Your faith may make you free.

Or not. Likely not as you are enslaved already.

Keep on posting idiocy. It shows people what idiots you deniars truly are.

 

[flacaltenn]

You claim that man made CO2 has caused the warming and will continue to do so.

Simple request.

Prove it. Do a repeatable experiment that shows that the amount of CO2 put in the air by man has caused the current rise in temperatures. And that it will continue to cause more rising temperature.

You claim you have science on your side, the scientific method is proven by a repeatable experiment.

And no I don't want a link to something that happened over 100 years ago. Current, repeatable experiment that shows the amount of CO2 added to the earth's atmosphere has caused the current increase.

With this simple experiment you prove the point. And since NO ONE has done it and continues to make excuses for why it isn't needed, I would suggest you are afraid it will not support your claim.

Crap, man, where the hell have you been? Here is the whole shebang from the American Institute of Physics, the single largest scientific society in the world.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

And here is a presentation at the American Geophyical Union from 2009, by Dr. Richard Alley, one of the premier glacialogists in the world;

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

Now I can go on and on, presenting scientific papers showing that CO2 is a GHG, and that it does raise the temperature of the earth when there is a large amount of it in the atmosphere. What can you present from a credible scientist that says otherwise?

He wants a repeatable experiment. Not academic speculation that results in climate sensitivities ranges of 1 to 5 and poor forecasting of temperature on a decadal scale. Or theories that reduce the entire planets climate system to a single stupid global average temperature...

 

[flacaltenn]

There IS actually an experiment that might satisfy the SGT. You go out in the field night after night for the past 10 years with a $50K longwave radiometer. Plot the amount of watts coming down from the atmosphere. MAKE CERTAIN that humidity is low and the sky is cloudless. Grab the CO2 chart and plot your yearly change.. You Might see a linear increase in your values that looks like the CO2 curve.

But probably not. Because your measured values depend more on the temperature of the lower atmos than the CO2 concentration. If you were able to find cloudless nights where the atmos temp profile was the same OR you could CLEANLY compensate for the temp profile, you'd have a CO2 only function of time..

Must be hard or impossible or EMBARRASSING TO AGW. Because ive never seen it done.
Youd need to send up a balloon to stratosphere type levels to find the temp profile and assume it hasnt changed over the coourse of the measurement.

Deal is Gunnysarge, even IF you measured the increase in the GH heat coming down ---- we already know from chemistry and physics that a doubling of CO2 will produce less than 1degC change at the surface. Thats the GH working as it should.. BUT THATS NOT GLOBAL WARMING.. To believe in AGW, you got to accept MUCH MORE than the rather trivial effect of CO2.. You gotz to believe that the 1deg is gonna turn the Earth suicidal and that it will destroy itself with feedbacks and MAGICALLY MULTIPLY the CO2 effect into 4 or 8 degs rise..

NO EXPERIMENT IS GONNA GET YOU FROM THAT 1DEG CO2 EFFECT to the wild ass guesses that have been made about AGW multipliers....

Really? You know that? Show us. Links to credible scientists that have a hypothesis that can stand a review by a second year student in any scieince. That is how it is done. Not by stupid claims that have zero backing.

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

I dont need atheory for something thats NOT gonna happen do I? So far GW has never actually exceeded a climate sensitivity of 1.5 or so.. So cram all that hysteria up your ass.

Anyone proposing that this planet only has ONE averaged Climate sensitivity and that the number doesnt change as the temperature and other variables change is a ******* moron.. Dont care HOW many times theyve made those stupid assertions in journals...

 

[Kosh]

Do you have a spare earth I can use in my experiment?

SO your argument is they can not in anyway recreate conditions on earth to carry out the experiment? Then prey tell why do they keep claiming they have models to predict the future?

I prefer computer models and simulations backed up by small scale scoentific experiments

But I am wise enough to realize that assholes like the OP will not accept any evidence smaller than a full scale earth

The models have been shown to be bunk, so you believe that AGW is bunk now?

 

[Abraham3]

Or theories that reduce the entire planets climate system to a single stupid global average temperature...

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

If you were studying the Earth's accumulation of solar energy, by what parameter would you judge the ongoing process and how would you communicate your results to the public?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or theories that reduce the entire planets climate system to a single stupid global average temperature...

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

If you were studying the Earth's accumulation of solar energy, by what parameter would you judge the ongoing process and how would you communicate your results to the public?

Don't you keep reminding us local weather and climate are unimportant? How exactly does that compute to a supposed world wide average? It is cold and hot all over the world usually at the same time.


Your refusal to support an experiment is all the proof I need that you do not really believe what you parrot here. Experiments are the life blood of science. In an effort to prove or support a theory scientists do experiments, that you refuse to support as important an experiment as that which would prove or disprove that the man made CO2 caused or will continue to cause heat increases is telling indeed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Venus and extrasolar planets like it within the habitual zone Kepler 69....

Nothing works without the green house effect from co2. Water simply freezes out of our atmosphere as it turns to ice.

Venus is not Earth. Entirely different environment.

 

[SwimExpert]

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

Why in the world does anyone think it's anything but stupid? Tell me something, which temperatures should be used to come to the average? Which readings? How many readings? Why not more, why not less? Why not 6 feet to the left, or the right?

 

[flacaltenn]

Or theories that reduce the entire planets climate system to a single stupid global average temperature...

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

If you were studying the Earth's accumulation of solar energy, by what parameter would you judge the ongoing process and how would you communicate your results to the public?

It's stupid because YOU think it's so brilliant.. How's that?

You REALLY need help with this? 5000 journal articles FOCUSED on this ONE NUMBER?

1) Do you think the Earth has JUST ONE climate zone?

2) Is the heating and distribution of that heat the SAME IMPORTANCE in every geo location?

3) Is Climate ONLY TEMPERATURE??

4) What does that single number tells us about HOW the ******* Climate Works?

5) In what months of the year does 0.65degC anomaly MATTER to the Polar climate?

6) Would a "global average" tell you ANYTHING about the EFFECT of temperature on the climate of particular region?

7) Could you miss EXTEMELY IMPORTANT climate changing events and trends in Ocean Currents looking at a Global Average?

8) Does a single number help you to understand the interplay of thermal storages, thermal delays and major pathways?

9) Does a Globally AVERAGED "climate sensitivity" even make sense? ((Definately not))

10) Does a Globally AVERAGED "cloud cover" tell you very much about feedback effects of cloud formation?

11) Does a GLOBALLY AVERAGED convection forcing function tell you much about climate changes to the weather?

12) Does a GLOBALLY AVERAGED "cyclonic energy" tell you anything about forecasting hurricanes?

13) Even a GLOBALLY AVERAGED CO2 content of the atmos doesn't tell you what the SURFACE FORCING function at the North Pole or Equator is.. ((Yes Virginia, CO2 surface heating varies AROUND THE GLOBE))

14) Does ANY KIND OF AVERAGED temperature predict changes in weather patterns?

15) Would a GLOBALLY AVERAGED solar forcing function number help me figure out how heat moves from tropics to poles or to deeper waters?


One freaking number REMOVES all the information content about how the climate works. It is the foundation of modern Climate Science simply BECAUSE it's a public outreach tool. It's not there for any valid scientific reason...

Tell me if you're still fuzzy on the ludicrous obsessions of your climate scientists..
If you still need me to explain what I WOULD prefer -- we could do that. I want to know WHAT DRIVES the climate.. And it's NOT JUST the Mean Annual Surface Temperature.

I want to know WHERE ON THE GLOBE the ocean is recieving the most heat. I want to know HOW LONG IT TAKES for surface heat to make it to 500 meters deep. I want to know WHEN EXACTLY ice will melt in the Arctic Ocean. Ad nauseum..

Is that too much to ask??? To spend LESS TIME globally averaging the temperature of 10,000 years ago? Or TODAY???

 

[Abraham3]

Or theories that reduce the entire planets climate system to a single stupid global average temperature...

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

If you were studying the Earth's accumulation of solar energy, by what parameter would you judge the ongoing process and how would you communicate your results to the public?

Don't you keep reminding us local weather and climate are unimportant?

I (and others) DO keep reminding you to keep weather and climate separate. But that has no bearing on this whatsoever. The fact that local conditions aren't the same all over and that we cannot judge the world solely by the climate in Patagonia or Arizona or the Amazon Rainforest or the Gobi desert is PRECISELY why scientists calculate an average value for the entire planet.

How exactly does that compute to a supposed world wide average? It is cold and hot all over the world usually at the same time.

It's a little trickier than this because temperatures vary smoothly through the oceans and the atmosphere and you have to use differential equations to calculate these products, but basically, you divvy the world up into blocks. For each block you calculate its specific heat capacity and multiply that by its mass and temperature (in Kelvin). That gives you, in effect, a temperature weighted by the ability of that block to contain thermal energy. A block of air from 50,000 feet at a given temperature has a lot less thermal energy than a block the same size composed of water or even just air from the surface.

Your refusal to support an experiment is all the proof I need that you do not really believe what you parrot here.

1) This experiment has been conducted thousands of times. The results are the same every time.
2) I could tell you I did the experiment and tell you what the results were. How would you know I whether or not I was telling you the truth?
3) If YOU want to see what such an experiment shows, why don't you do it YOURSELF?

Experiments are the life blood of science. In an effort to prove or support a theory scientists do experiments, that you refuse to support as important an experiment as that which would prove or disprove that the man made CO2 caused or will continue to cause heat increases is telling indeed.

Asked and answered. You've been told on multiple occasions by multiple people that this experiment has been done. You've been shown the statements of many different scientific agencies and organizations, ALL of whom treat it as the FACT it is. It is not conjecture. It is not speculation. It is a fact. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light. That is the ONLY thing that was ever necessary to demonstrate and it has been demonstrated in school science classrooms across this country for probably close to a century. The first experiments were done close to 200 years ago. Now here's the telling part: despite this being perhaps the seventh or eighth time you've been told this, you will carry on as if you never read it. We all get tired of participating in your pointless self-deception.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why do you think a single average temperature for the Earth's climate is "stupid"?

If you were studying the Earth's accumulation of solar energy, by what parameter would you judge the ongoing process and how would you communicate your results to the public?

Don't you keep reminding us local weather and climate are unimportant?

I (and others) DO keep reminding you to keep weather and climate separate. But that has no bearing on this whatsoever. The fact that local conditions aren't the same all over and that we cannot judge the world solely by the climate in Patagonia or Arizona or the Amazon Rainforest or the Gobi desert is PRECISELY why scientists calculate an average value for the entire planet.



It's a little trickier than this because temperatures vary smoothly through the oceans and the atmosphere and you have to use differential equations to calculate these products, but basically, you divvy the world up into blocks. For each block you calculate its specific heat capacity and multiply that by its mass and temperature (in Kelvin). That gives you, in effect, a temperature weighted by the ability of that block to contain thermal energy. A block of air from 50,000 feet at a given temperature has a lot less thermal energy than a block the same size composed of water or even just air from the surface.

Your refusal to support an experiment is all the proof I need that you do not really believe what you parrot here.

1) This experiment has been conducted thousands of times. The results are the same every time.
2) I could tell you I did the experiment and tell you what the results were. How would you know I whether or not I was telling you the truth?
3) If YOU want to see what such an experiment shows, why don't you do it YOURSELF?

Experiments are the life blood of science. In an effort to prove or support a theory scientists do experiments, that you refuse to support as important an experiment as that which would prove or disprove that the man made CO2 caused or will continue to cause heat increases is telling indeed.

Asked and answered. You've been told on multiple occasions by multiple people that this experiment has been done. You've been shown the statements of many different scientific agencies and organizations, ALL of whom treat it as the FACT it is. It is not conjecture. It is not speculation. It is a fact. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light. That is the ONLY thing that was ever necessary to demonstrate and it has been demonstrated in school science classrooms across this country for probably close to a century. The first experiments were done close to 200 years ago. Now here's the telling part: despite this being perhaps the seventh or eighth time you've been told this, you will carry on as if you never read it. We all get tired of participating in your pointless self-deception.

Keep lying it suits you.

 

[Abraham3]

Exactly as predicted.

 

[HenryBHough]

Articles of faith should not be confused with intelligent conclusions.

Now these days you can't be burned at the stake for refuting popular articles of faith but there is an entire federation of Churches Of Global Warming dedicated to censorship of heresy like that and, once they have that, they can move on to the burnings. First of books; then of "deniers".