CO2 Sensitivity Experiments

[CrusaderFrank]

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.

I'm trying to understand why its impossible for you to conduct experiments based upon your theory.

I thought you discounted all variables except for a 120ppm increase in CO2

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Crick]

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.

When he says "it can't be both, he's not lying. He's demonstrating his ignorance.

 

[IanC]

I will answer my own question. Estimated Climate Sensitivities fall into two clusters. one cluster is formed by papers based on real world data, the other cluster is based on computer model output. if they gave a figure that matched the models then they would have to explain why the real world papers were ignored. if they gave a figure that lay in between (or heaven forbid, matched) the real world data models, then they would have to explain why they were still projecting out to 2100 temperature increases that only exist within climate models. so instead they increased the range, dropped the best central estimate, and have 'plausible deniability' that just about any figure will be 'consistent with' their findings.

hey Crickham-

are we finished talking climate sensitivities?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.

When he says "it can't be both, he's not lying. He's demonstrating his ignorance.

And you still haven't posted the experiment.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No, I'm not saying that. If I wanted to say it, I would have said it. No need for you to lie.

When he says "it can't be both, he's not lying. He's demonstrating his ignorance.

You can't post the experiment because I'm ignorant...is that your story?

 

[IanC]

 

[jc456]

You're actually dumb enough to think a single experiment in a test tube can reproduce the whole earth?

That's what I mean about the question being obviously stupid.

Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying? I remember being told there are hundreds and then thousands of experiments that proved the hypothesis. Now you're saying there are isn't one? My perception of this post is there is not an experiment that proves what you claim. Yet you kept posting there were. So is there an experiment or not? Come out of the closet and feel good about yourself.

 

[mamooth]

Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?

That DenierBall (a variation of CalvinBall) is pointless.

And given how the world regards your side as a pack o' kooks, I don't have to play. I'll walk away, and you'll still be thought of as kooks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?

That DenierBall (a variation of CalvinBall) is pointless.

And given how the world regards your side as a pack o' kooks, I don't have to play. I'll walk away, and you'll still be thought of as kooks.

So you're not going to post your experiment?

 

[SSDD]

Woo, woo, woo....What are you saying?

That DenierBall (a variation of CalvinBall) is pointless.

And given how the world regards your side as a pack o' kooks, I don't have to play. I'll walk away, and you'll still be thought of as kooks.

So you're not going to post your experiment?

A warmer caught in another lie...how surprising is that?

 

[IanC]

even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?

the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.

it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.

 

[jc456]

even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?

the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.

it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.

IMO, both win. We get our evidence we've been arguing for and the warmers get satisfaction they were right if the results back their claim.

However, since none have been provided, I can only conclude the tests performed did not back the claims in those labatory set ups. I personally believe there is no evidence to support the claim.

 

[IanC]

even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?

the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.

it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.

IMO, both win. We get our evidence we've been arguing for and the warmers get satisfaction they were right if the results back their claim.

However, since none have been provided, I can only conclude the tests performed did not back the claims in those labatory set ups. I personally believe there is no evidence to support the claim.

I am sure that the experiment has been performed many times. it is exactly the type of thing that university science majors do in first year. my son built a cloud chamber in first year (with 50's era picnic chinaware as the radioactive source, hahaha). quartz enclosures and varying amounts of CO2 would not be a problem. the results would not be a smoking gun though. a finding of less than a degree of warming would be disappointing to say the least. and we all know what happens to disappointing findings in climate science, dont we?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

even if an experiment was devised with enough precision and accuracy to produce some portion of the 1-1.2C warming per doubling of CO2, would that be a 'victory' for the skeptics or the warmers?

the skeptical position is not that there is no change from increased CO2, only that the exaggerated claims of 2-6C warming this century are ridiculously improbable. this millenium has crushed all of the warmers wild predictions.

it is time to go back to the drawing board and redesign models with more realistic assumptions rather than continue to hope and pray that some gigantic resurgence of warming will reverse the fortunes of the doomsayers.

IMO, both win. We get our evidence we've been arguing for and the warmers get satisfaction they were right if the results back their claim.

However, since none have been provided, I can only conclude the tests performed did not back the claims in those labatory set ups. I personally believe there is no evidence to support the claim.

I am sure that the experiment has been performed many times. it is exactly the type of thing that university science majors do in first year. my son built a cloud chamber in first year (with 50's era picnic chinaware as the radioactive source, hahaha). quartz enclosures and varying amounts of CO2 would not be a problem. the results would not be a smoking gun though. a finding of less than a degree of warming would be disappointing to say the least. and we all know what happens to disappointing findings in climate science, dont we?

Storage area for experiments failing to validate the AGWCult Theory

 

[mamooth]

Seriously, what are you kooks babbling about? You appear to be speaking in some denier code that normal people can't understand unless they bang their heads against a brick wall.

Given how it seems nobody else has informed you all of how crazy you all sound, it keeps falling to me to do so. You're just cultists chanting mantras to each other. Nobody outside of your cult cares. If you want the world to stop laughing at you, you need to stop babbling and start doing science. But I'm not hopeful. Your cult identity clearly gives you all emotional satisfaction that you value dearly, hence you don't want to change the status quo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seriously, what are you kooks babbling about? You appear to be speaking in some denier code that normal people can't understand unless they bang their heads against a brick wall.

Given how it seems nobody else has informed you all of how crazy you all sound, it keeps falling to me to do so. You're just cultists chanting mantras to each other. Nobody outside of your cult cares. If you want the world to stop laughing at you, you need to stop babbling and start doing science. But I'm not hopeful. Your cult identity clearly gives you all emotional satisfaction that you value dearly, hence you don't want to change the status quo.

^ Projection

 

[jc456]

Seriously, what are you kooks babbling about? You appear to be speaking in some denier code that normal people can't understand unless they bang their heads against a brick wall.

Given how it seems nobody else has informed you all of how crazy you all sound, it keeps falling to me to do so. You're just cultists chanting mantras to each other. Nobody outside of your cult cares. If you want the world to stop laughing at you, you need to stop babbling and start doing science. But I'm not hopeful. Your cult identity clearly gives you all emotional satisfaction that you value dearly, hence you don't want to change the status quo.

Yoo........ just provide the experiment then. It's quite simple. LOL. You can't, see that's what it's about here. you not being able to back up your claim. haahahahahaahahahahaha